Evolve

The pairing of the Intel Core Ultra 9 290K Plus with the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1660 Ti in Evolve presents a stark illustration of GPU-bound performance. The processor, a 24-core Arrow Lake Refresh part with a 5.80 GHz boost clock, is operating far below its potential in this 2015 FPS title, as the GeForce 16-series card becomes the definitive limiting factor across all tested resolutions and settings. The measured frame rates indicate that the GTX 1660 Ti, a Turing-architecture card with 6 GB of GDDR6 memory, is the bottleneck, while the CPU's substantial headroom remains unutilized.

Resolution Scaling

The measured FPS data reveals a classic GPU-bound scaling pattern, where increasing pixel count from 1080p to 4K dramatically reduces performance. At the High preset, the average frame rate drops from 75 FPS at 1920x1080 to 50 FPS at 2560x1440, a 33% decrease. Moving to 3840x2160, the average falls further to 29 FPS, representing a 61% reduction from the 1080p baseline. This steep decline is characteristic of a GPU operating at its limits, as the fill-rate and memory bandwidth demands of higher resolutions overwhelm the GTX 1660 Ti's 288.0 GB/s bandwidth and 84.96 GPixel/s pixel rate.

The scaling behavior under the Medium preset follows the same trajectory but with slightly more headroom. The average FPS at 1080p Medium is 95, which drops to 64 at 1440p and 36 at 4K. The 4K result includes a minimum FPS of 31 and a maximum of 42, indicating that even the frame pacing becomes less stable as the GPU struggles with the 8.3 million pixel workload. The variance between the 4K Low (47 FPS) and 4K High (29 FPS) settings further underscores that the GPU's compute resources, specifically its 1536 shading units and 5.437 TFLOPS FP32 throughput, are the primary constraint.

The data suggests that the Core Ultra 9 290K Plus is not contributing to these bottlenecks. With a PassMark multithread score of 60860 and a Cinebench R23 multicore score of 51731, the CPU has ample processing power to maintain frame delivery. The game's engine, released in 2015, cannot leverage the processor's advanced capabilities, resulting in a scenario where the GPU's specifications—such as its 1500 MHz base and 1770 MHz boost clocks—dictate the scaling curve. The conclusion is unambiguous: for this specific combo, resolution scaling is purely a function of graphics card performance.

Settings Recommendations

Based on the measured rows, the Medium preset offers the most balanced experience for this combination. At 1920x1080, Medium delivers an average of 95 FPS with a minimum of 81 and maximum of 110, providing a smooth and responsive gameplay experience without the sharp performance hit seen at Ultra. The High preset at 1080p yields 75 FPS, which is playable, but the 26% performance advantage of Medium over High makes the lower preset the more sensible choice for maintaining consistent frame delivery in fast-paced FPS encounters.

At 2560x1440, Medium remains the recommended setting, achieving an average of 64 FPS with a minimum of 54. This is the only 1440p preset that maintains an average above the 60 FPS threshold, making it the sole viable option for players prioritizing smoothness over visual fidelity. The High preset at 1440p drops to 50 FPS, which introduces noticeable stutter potential, while Low at 83 FPS sacrifices too much visual quality for a marginal gain over Medium.

For 4K resolution, the data indicates that this GPU is not suited for demanding presets. The Low preset produces 47 FPS, which is the only playable option at 3840x2160, yet it still falls below the ideal 60 FPS target. The Medium preset's 36 FPS average, with a minimum of 31, is too inconsistent for competitive play. The Ultra preset, which yields only 20 FPS at 4K, should be avoided entirely. The recommendation is clear: users should select Medium at 1080p or 1440p, and only consider Low at 4K if the resolution is non-negotiable.

GPU Role

The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1660 Ti is the definitive performance limiter in this configuration. Its 6 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 192-bit bus provides 288.0 GB/s of bandwidth, which is adequate for 1080p but becomes a constraint at higher resolutions. The card's 12 GB effective memory speed and 1500 MHz base clock, boosting to 1770 MHz, are mid-range specifications that place it in the 41st percentile of all GPUs, according to the benchmark data. This percentile ranking is consistent with the measured FPS, which reflect a card that can handle 1080p gaming well but struggles with 4K.

The GPU's PassMark G3D score of 12871 and 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 score of 1061 further quantify its mid-range standing. The 1536 shading units and 96 TMUs allow for decent texture throughput, but the 48 ROPs limit pixel fill rates, explaining the significant FPS drops at 4K Ultra where the pixel workload is immense. The card's FP32 performance of 5.437 TFLOPS is the ceiling for its compute capability, and Evolve's rendering demands push this to its limit.

The GPU's memory capacity of 6 GB is a notable factor. At 4K Ultra, the game likely approaches or exceeds this limit, causing texture swapping and the observed 20 FPS average. The 12_1 DirectX support and 4.6 OpenGL compatibility are sufficient for the game's engine, but the lack of RT or Tensor cores means no advanced rendering features are available. The data shows that the GTX 1660 Ti, with its 120 W TDP and 1x 8-pin power connector, is a capable 1080p card from its 2019 release, but it is outpaced by modern demands in Evolve at higher settings.

Measured FPS Breakdown

At 1920x1080, the GTX 1660 Ti delivers its best results. The Low preset achieves an average of 123 FPS, providing maximum responsiveness for competitive play. Medium follows with 95 FPS average, and the minimum of 81 FPS ensures that even demanding scenes remain fluid. High drops to 75 FPS, a 21% reduction from Medium, while Ultra falls to 52 FPS, which is the only setting at this resolution that approaches the lower bounds of playability. The data shows a clear 71 FPS spread between Low and Ultra, indicating that the GPU has the headroom to handle all presets at 1080p, but with diminishing returns on visual quality.

At 2560x1440, the scaling becomes more pronounced. Low produces 83 FPS, a 33% drop from its 1080p counterpart. Medium maintains 64 FPS, which is still above the 60 FPS target, but the minimum of 54 FPS reveals occasional dips below that threshold. High settles at 50 FPS, a 33% reduction from 1080p High, while Ultra drops to 35 FPS. The 1440p data indicates that Medium is the ceiling for a consistently smooth experience, with Low providing a 30% performance boost over Medium for users who prioritize frame rate.

At 3840x2160, the GPU's limitations are starkly evident. Low yields 47 FPS, which is technically playable but not ideal. Medium falls to 36 FPS, with a minimum of 31 and maximum of 42, showing that the frame rate is volatile and prone to stuttering. High produces 29 FPS, and Ultra bottoms out at 20 FPS, making all settings above Low impractical for actual gameplay. The 4K results illustrate that the GTX 1660 Ti's 6 GB memory and 288.0 GB/s bandwidth are insufficient for this resolution, as the 27 FPS difference between Low and Ultra is the largest of any resolution tested.

How This Combo Ranks

The combination of the Intel Core Ultra 9 290K Plus and NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1660 Ti ranks 3185th out of 3700 tested combos in Evolve. This places it in the bottom 14% of all configurations, which is a poor result given the CPU's high-end specifications. The ranking reflects the severe imbalance between the processor and graphics card, where the GPU's 41st percentile performance drags down the overall system capability. The Core Ultra 9 290K Plus, which sits in the 96th percentile of all CPUs, is effectively wasted in this pairing for this particular game.

The ranking is a direct consequence of the GPU's mid-range heritage. The GTX 1660 Ti's nearest rivals include the AMD Radeon 540 (0.7% higher average score), AMD Radeon Pro WX 3100 (1.9% higher), and AMD Radeon R7 250 (2.2% higher), all of which are similarly positioned in the lower half of GPU performance. This indicates that the graphics card is not a high-tier component, and its pairing with a top-tier CPU does not boost the combo's standing in Evolve. The 3185th rank suggests that most other tested combinations, even those with lower-end CPUs but more balanced GPUs, achieve better in-game performance.

The data implies that for Evolve, the combo's rank is almost entirely dictated by the GPU, as the CPU's 24 cores and 36 MB of L3 cache provide no tangible benefit in this title. The combination's position in the rankings is a cautionary tale about component pairing, where a high-performance CPU cannot compensate for a graphics card that is not suited for the game's demands. Users seeking better rankings would need to prioritize a more powerful GPU over the CPU.

CPU Role

The Intel Core Ultra 9 290K Plus is vastly overqualified for this task, as evidenced by the benchmark results. With 24 cores and 24 threads, a base clock of 3.70 GHz and a boost clock of 5.80 GHz, the processor offers immense computational power. Its Cinebench R23 multicore score of 51731 and single-core score of 7303 place it in the 96th percentile of all CPUs, and its average benchmark score of 84003 is 0.2% higher than the Intel Core Ultra 9 285K, 1.1% higher than the AMD EPYC 4584PX, and 1.2% higher than the AMD EPYC 9135. These scores indicate that the CPU is not a bottleneck in any scenario.

In Evolve, the CPU's role is minimal because the game's engine does not utilize the processor's multi-threading capabilities to a significant extent. The PassMark physics score of 3315 and data compression score of 698346 suggest that the CPU excels at complex calculations, but these are not heavily taxed by the game's FPS workload. The 3 nm process node and 17,800 million transistors provide ample headroom, yet the game's 2015 release date means it cannot leverage the architecture's advanced features.

The processor's 36 MB of shared L3 cache and 115.2 GB/s memory bandwidth are more than sufficient for feeding the GTX 1660 Ti, but the GPU's slower processing speed means the CPU spends most of its time idle, waiting for frames to be rendered. The data shows that the CPU's performance is entirely untapped, as the FPS at any given resolution is consistently below what the processor could support. The Core Ultra 9 290K Plus's boost clock of 5.80 GHz is particularly irrelevant in this context, as the GPU's 1770 MHz boost clock is the limiting factor. For users considering this combo, the CPU is a future-proofing investment, but it provides no immediate advantage in Evolve.

FAQ

*Q: What is the best resolution and settings combo for this system in Evolve?*

A: The optimal configuration is 1920x1080 with Medium settings, which yields an average of 95 FPS with a minimum of 81 FPS. At 2560x1440, Medium is the only preset to stay above 60 FPS, averaging 64 FPS. For 4K, only Low is playable, averaging 47 FPS.

Q: Why does the Ultra preset perform so poorly at 4K?

A: At 3840x2160 Ultra, the average FPS drops to 20. This is due to the GTX 1660 Ti's 6 GB of GDDR6 memory and 192-bit bus, which cannot handle the texture and pixel workload at that resolution and quality level, resulting in severe performance degradation.

Q: How does the GTX 1660 Ti compare to its nearest rivals?

A: The GTX 1660 Ti's average benchmark score is 7723, which is 0.7% higher than the AMD Radeon 540, 1.9% higher than the AMD Radeon Pro WX 3100, and 2.3% higher than the Intel Arc A310. It is in the 41st percentile of all GPUs.

Q: Is the Intel Core Ultra 9 290K Plus the reason for the low FPS?

A: No. The CPU is in the 96th percentile with an average score of 84003, and its nearest rival, the Intel Core Ultra 9 285K, is only 0.2% lower. Benchmark results indicate the CPU has more than enough power, and the GPU is the limiting factor.

*Q: What is the combo's rank among all tested combinations in Evolve?*

A: This combo ranks 3185th out of 3700 tested combos, placing it in the bottom 14%. This low rank is attributable to the GPU's mid-range performance, which cannot leverage the CPU's high-end capabilities.

Q: Can this system achieve a stable 60 FPS at 1440p?

A: The data shows that at 2560x1440 Medium, the average FPS is 64, but the minimum is 54 FPS. This indicates that while the average is above 60, there are dips below that threshold, so a consistently stable 60 FPS is not guaranteed at 1440p.