Minimum

The combination of an Intel Core i5-14400F and an NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1660 Ti delivers a thoroughly playable entry in Minimum at 1080p and 1440p, but it collapses at 4K, where only the Low preset stays near 45 FPS. The data shows a system that is strongly GPU‑limited at higher pixel counts, while the CPU remains well ahead of the game’s needs. This is a combo that can serve as a competent 1080p/1440p daily driver, but it will not tolerate high settings at 4K, and even at 1080p the Ultra preset pushes the frame rate to a borderline 64 FPS average.

Resolution Scaling

From 1080p to 1440p to 4K, the average frame rate at High settings falls from 84 to 54 to 29 FPS — a drop of 36% and 46% respectively across each resolution step. The pattern is even more pronounced on Mid‑range settings: Medium goes from 100 FPS at 1080p to 65 at 1440p, then to 35 at 4K. Scaling from 1080p to 1440p cuts about 35 FPS; 1440p to 4K cuts another 30 FPS. This near‑linear drop with pixel count (1920×1080 ≈ 2.07 million pixels, 2560×1440 ≈ 3.69M, 3840×2160 ≈ 8.29M) is typical of a scenario where the GPU is the limiting component. The GTX 1660 Ti simply doesn’t have enough shading, texture, or bandwidth resources to sustain high frame rates as the resolution multiplies.

The Low preset shows the same scaling: 131 → 84 → 45 FPS, a 55% drop from 1080p to 4K. At Ultra, the numbers are 64 → 41 → 22. The worst‑case 4K Ultra average of 22 FPS, with a fractional mean, is effectively unplayable for a third‑person shooter. The only 4K setting that stays above 30 FPS is Low, and even then the average is 45, still below the common 60 FPS target. For 1440p, only Low and Medium keep an average above 60; High sits at 54, Ultra at 41. At 1080p, all four presets exceed 60, with Low reaching 131 and Medium 100. Therefore, the limiting factor is clearly the GPU when the resolution climbs. The CPU is never in the picture, as evidenced by the fact that frame rate changes between presets are in step with what the GPU can compute, not what the processor can feed.

CPU Role

The Intel Core i5‑14400F is a Raptor Lake die with 10 cores and 16 threads, running at a base clock of 2.50 GHz and boosting to 4.70 GHz. It has a 20 MB shared L3 cache and a 65 W TDP. On the passmark multi‑thread benchmark it scores 25,470, and in Cinebench R23 multi‑core it hits 21,645 – both indicate a processor that is more than adequate for a game released in 2014 that runs on a modern GPU. The game’s real‑time demands rarely stress the CPU, and the numbers prove it: at 1080p with the Low preset the system produces 131 FPS average, a figure that would be far lower if the CPU were the limiting factor. Even at Ultra 1080p, the average 64 FPS is still far above the CPU’s minimum frame contribution, given that the minimum (from the Medium preset) is 85 FPS at 1080p. The data shows no CPU‑related bottlenecks – there are no outlier per‑core peasants that would indicate the game is threading‑limited. The core count and clock speed are overkill for this title; the game does not appear to use more than a few threads, and those are easily satisfied.

This processor stands at the 83rd percentile of all CPUs in the database. Its nearest rivals by average score include the AMD Ryzen 7 PRO 8840U (delta 0.1%), Intel Core i9‑11900 (delta 0.2%), and the AMD Ryzen 7 6800HS (delta −0.2%). These single‑digit percentage differences confirm that the i5‑14400F is a solid mid‑generation performer. At the same time, the CPU’s passmark integer math score of 81,524 and floating‑point 61,319 give it the kind of arithmetic muscle that keeps heavy game logic, AI, and physics systems running without hiccups. For a third‑person shooter from 2014, the CPU has more than enough headroom, and the measured FPS is never capped by anything other than the graphics card.

Settings Recommendations

Based on the measured rows, the best experience for a consistent 60 FPS target is the Medium preset at 1080p. The measured averages are: 100 FPS average, with a minimum of 85 and a maximum of 115 – a solid 85–115 band that leaves no stutter. At 1440p, Medium produces an average of 65 FPS, with a min of 55 and a max of 74. That means the pivotal frame spikes can drop to 55, which is just below the magical 60, but in practice the average is above the threshold. If you want a rock‑solid lock, Low at 1440p runs 84 FPS and never dips, but the visual quality difference between Low and Medium is noticeably. For the most balanced visual at 1440p, Medium is the sweet spot, but you’ll trade a few rare dips for better detail.

At 4K, no preset can reach 60. The best is Low at 45 FPS, which is still below the ideal. Medium averages 35, High 29, and Ultra 22. Because the game is a shooter, a stable 30‑40 FPS can be playable on a weaker GPU, but the data shows the combination is not suited for 4K gaming. The only preset that would deliver a consistent 30 FPS lock is Medium, but it’s still 10 FPS below that. The best recommendation for a 4K setup would be to lower the resolution to 1440p, or to trade down to Medium. Given that the CPU is not a restriction, the settings chosen have a direct impact on GPU load. At 1080p, High (84 FPS) is also a viable choice for those who prefer better detail over raw speed; it is still above 60. Ultra at 1080p gives 64 FPS, but with a near minimal margin – it average is 64, so occasional dips below 60 are likely, though no min is recorded. The safest bet for consistent 120 Hz monitors is Low, which yields 131 FPS, but at the cost of visuals. In summary: Medium 1080p offers the best of both, with Ultra close behind; Medium 1440p is the best there; and 4K is only viable at Low.

How This Combo Ranks

In the global ranking of all tested CPU‑GPU combinations featured on the database for Minimum, this pairing results in rank 3198 out of a total 3712 combos. That places it in the 86th percentile – me. That is, 3197 combos performed better in the total frame‑rate scores across resolutions, and only 315 performed worse. This is a result that matches the GPU’s age and tier. The Intel Core i5‑14400F is a modern, top‑tier CPU, but the GTX 1660 Ti steers the score into the lower end of the table. The database’s GPU benchmark rank for the GTX 1660 Ti is only the 41st percentile among all GPUs, so its performance is below average, but its pairing with a strong CPU doesn’t boost it because the game is GPU‑limited. The high‑end positions in the combo rank are likely occupied by combinations that have high‑end GPUs and CPUs offering four times the FPS at 4K quality. This combination, while adequate for 1080p, is nowhere near the performance tier that the game can provide on top‑tier hardware. The data shows that this slot is a budget though not – the CPU’s performance is among the top, but the GPU pulls everything into the lower third of the test pool.

GPU Role

The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1660 Ti is based on the Turing architecture with 1,536 shading units, 96 texture mapping units, and 48 ROPs. It runs at a base clock of 1,500 MHz with a boost of 1,770 MHz, and has a 6 GB GDDR6 memory buffer on a 192‑bit bus with 288.0 GB/s of bandwidth. The GPU’s volatile memory capacity is often a limiting factor on modern games, but for a 2014 shooter it is doesn’t appear to be the bottleneck at 1080p or 1440p, since the GPU’s frame rate scales more with resolution than with memory. However, at 4K, the average drops to 29 FPS on High and 22 on Ultra, which points to the GPU’s lack of raw shading power and bandwidth rather than memory. The pixel rate of 84.96 GPixel/s and texture rate of 169.9 GTexel/s are clearly insufficient to feed the 3500×2160 (resolution) 8.3 million pixels at high detail. The DirectX 12 benchmark scores from Passmark (DX12 score of 51) and 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 score of 1,061 both reflect the GPU’s mid‑tier standing. On the benchmark percentile table, the GTX 1660 Ti sits with a percentileVsAllGpus of 41, meaning 59% of GPUs are faster. Its nearest rivals include the AMD Radeon 540 (delta 0.7%), Radeon Pro WX 3100 (delta 1.9%), and Radeon R7 250 (delta 2.2%), plus the Intel Arc A310 (delta 2.3%) – all cluster within a small band of performance. This illustrates the 1660 Ti is essentially at the boundary of acceptable entry‑level performance, unable to push the title above a lightweight load. The crown of the GPU’s capabilities are literally the 45 FPS that the Low preset attains at 4K, and no setting there breaks 50. On the reverse, at 1080p the GPU easily handles the title’s engine, reaching 131 FPS on Low and 84 on High without a sweat. The conclusion is that the GPU is far more important than the CPU in this game, and the GTX 1660 Ti is the primary bottleneck.

Measured FPS Breakdown

The following is the complete set of data that was measured for this combination.

1920×1080 (1080p)

• Low: 131 FPS average
• Medium: 100 FPS average, minimum 85, maximum 115
• High: 84 FPS average
• Ultra: 64 FPS average

At 1080p, the GPU is able to feed more than enough frames for any refresh. The Low preset is clearly far above the playable threshold, while the Medium already delivers close to a full hybrid smoothness. High is just at the threshold of 60, and Ultra is still acceptable for a responsive session. The minimal are not specified for these rows, but the Medium preset has a floor of 85, which indicates good stability.

2560×1440 (1440p)

• Low: 84 FPS average
• Medium: 65 FPS average, minimum 55, maximum 74
• High: 54 FPS average
• Ultra: 41 FPS average

Here, the computational load increases by 1.2×. The Low setting holds a comfortable 84 average, enough for 1440p. Medium gets a solid 65 with a floor that occasionally lands at 55, which is a slight drop below 60 but not a glitch. High and Ultra drop to 54 and 41, which may introduce perceptible dips in fast shooter action. The Medium preset is recommended for a consistent 60‑ish experience.

3840×2160 (4K)

• Low: 45 FPS average
• Medium: 35 FPS average, minimum 30, maximum 40
• High: 29 FPS average
• Ultra: 22 FPS average

At 4K the game becomes unplayable on all but the lowest quality. Even Low average is only 45, which is borderline. The Medium’s minimum of 30 makes it – but the average of 35 means it feels as if you are pumping water. High and Ultra dip to the low‑20s, which is unacceptable for a competitive third‑person shooter. The data strongly indicates that the GTX 1660 Ti simply does not have the fill rate to drive a contemporary display at 4K with this CPU. If you need 4K, you need a significantly higher‑end GPU.

These numbers are the entire measured set, and they show a clear pattern: the GPU’s capacity dictates the experience at every resolution. The CPU never enters the equation, making this setup a GPU‑limited platform. For a user with a 1080p monitor, the combo is a solid 1080p60 machine with headroom to spare; at 1440p, Medium is the best compromise; at 4K, the system fails to hit playable frame rates on any preset. The data leads to a unified conclusion: only the CPU side is strong. For this game, the responsible upgrade path would be a much more powerful GPU, not a new processor.