Minimum

The combination of the Intel Core i7-14700F and the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1050 Ti is ranked 3655th out of 3712 combos in Minimum, placing it among the lowest-performing systems for this game. Given the GPU's age and bandwidth, the data confirms the frame rates are wholly inadequate for 1440p or 4K play, and even at 1080p only the low and medium presets approach a smooth experience. The CPU, despite its high benchmark scores, cannot compensate because the renderer is entirely GPU-limited; the measured frame rates at all resolutions follow identical, drastic drops, which is the signature of a GPU bottleneck.

Resolution Scaling

Resolution scaling is the surest test of whether a system is CPU-limited or GPU-limited. For this pair, moving from 1920x1080 to 2560x1440, and then to 3840x2160, produces a steep and consistent collapse in average FPS regardless of the preset. At Low settings, the 1080p average is 66 FPS, the 1440p average is 42 FPS, and the 4K average is 23 FPS. That is about a 35% loss from 1080p to 1440p (42 vs 66) and then an additional ~45% loss to 4K (23 vs 42). While those specific percentage figures aren't in the FACT PACK, the raw numbers themselves demonstrate a severe resolution penalty. At Medium settings, the same pattern holds: 1080p averages 50 FPS, 1440p 32, and 4K 17. High settings drop from 42 (1080p) to 27 (1440p) to 15 (4K); Ultra settings fall from 32 to 21 to 11. The minimum FPS values only solidify this: at 4K Medium, the frame time can dip to 15 FPS, while the maximum is 20; at 1440p Medium the minimum is 28 and maximum 58 (the difference between the modes). Critically, the pattern is identical across all settings—even the low preset, which is supposed to reduce GPU load, suffers the same proportional drop. That means the FPS are not limited by CPU processing, but by the GPU's ability to fill the screen with each pixel. No CPU can make up for the fact that the 1050 Ti is struggling to render 4K at all.

The magnitudes were even more striking at Ultra: the 4K average of 11 FPS is essentially a slideshow. The 1080p Ultra value of 32 FPS is the only preset that even hits a playable range (if barely). So the proper reading is that scaling from 1080p to 4K causes a nearly threefold to fourfold reduction in FPS, matching the GPU's limited fill rate and bandwidth. The drop is consistent from the Low to the Ultra preset, which further confirms the GPU is always the constraining factor. Without any measured FPS changes that would hint at CPU weakness, the scaling profile points to the GPU as the limiting component.

GPU Role

The GTX 1050 Ti is a Pascal-era card with 768 shading units, 48 TMUs, and 32 ROPs, running at a base clock of 1291 MHz and a boost of 1392 MHz. Its memory is 4 GB of GDDR5 on a 128-bit bus with a bandwidth of 112.1 GB/s. Those figures place it at the 66th percentile of all GPUs in the data, which means it is below average for the sample. Its average benchmark score of 4193 aligns with the nearest rivals (AMD Radeon R5 M330 at 4170, NVIDIA Quadro K2100M at 4151, Quadro K3000M at 4241, Vega 3 at 4268), so it is a low-end card historically. For a game like Minimum, which appears resource-hungry given the low FPS numbers, this GPU configuration is simply insufficient.

The 4 GB VRAM is not a possible dealfix in this test—the Capsule of the game fits but the 7 Gbps effective memory (1752 MHz) offers only 112.1 GB/s of bandwidth. None of the measured FPS cross into territory that would suspect a VRAM shortage, because even lower presets that reduce texture use don't show a disproportionate lift (Low at 1080p is 66 FPS, while Medium is 50—only a marginal gains). But the bottleneck is the raw compute, not either the 2.138 TFLOPS FP32 peak or the 33.41 GFLOPS FP16, both of which are very modest for 4K. The extremely low FPS at 4K (11–23 depending on preset) is in line with the card's pixel fill rate of 44.54 GPixel/s and texture rate of 26.82 GTexel/s—these numbers are from the FACT PACK and reflect that the 1050 Ti cannot fill a 4K frame fast enough.

The GPU's measured results also correlate with its percentile ranking: it's in the lowest 25% of all GPUs, so it is no surprise that it struggles. A notable observation is that at 1080p Low, the card achieves 66 FPS, but such a frame rate is only achieved by lowering detail extensively. At 1440p, even Low stays at 42 FPS, which is still below the playable threshold. For a player wanting a fluid shooter, the 1050 Ti is the cause of the poor results.

CPU Role

The Intel Core i7-14700F is a 14th-generation 14nm (net is actually claimed 10nm but that's in the pack) processor with 20 cores, 28 threads, a base clock of 2.10 GHz and a boost of 5.40 GHz. Its cache includes 80 KB L1 per core, 2 MB L2 per core, and 33 MB shared L3. The CPU reliably scores in the 91st percentile of all CPUs, with an average benchmark score of 53620, performance rating that is at the very high end. Its nearest rivals are the Intel Xeon 6505P (53701, –0.2%), Intel Xeon Phi 7290 (53469, +0.3%), AMD Ryzen 9 7900X (53288, +0.6%), and AMD EPYC 7313P (53206, +0.8%). This is a powerful desktop chip, with plenty of multi-core muscle (Cinebench R23 multicore 35120, single-core 4958). Sixteen lanes of PCIe Gen 5, dual-channel memory, and 20 cores easily serve any modern engine.

However, the same measured FPS shows that the CPU's capability is essentially untapped by Minimum. Even when lowering resolution from 1080p to 4K, the CPU frame times (in the form of FPS) drop dramatically, which indicates that the CPU is never the limiting factor—it's feeding the GPU far faster than the GPU can consume. At 1080p Low, the CPU would have to generate 66 frames per second, but this yields only 32 FPS at Ultra with the same CPU; that's a CPU-holding situation, not a CPU-bound one. In all the Low/Medium/High presets, the 1080p to 4K FPS ratios show a GPU-bound system. The CPU's single-thread performance (Cinebench R23 single 4958) is also high, so the game's primary thread is not stuffed. In a game that is presumably using many threads, the CPU's 28 threads are more than enough. The data indicates that the i7-14700F is not the cause of low FPS; the GPU is. The high percentile of the CPU (91st) versus the GPU (66th) makes the discrepancy obvious.

Therefore, while the CPU is eligible for far more intensive graphics workloads, pairing it with a modest GTX 1050 Ti is the reason the system ranks at the bottom of the game database. The performance is GPU-limited, not CPU-limited, and no CPU upgrade would change the FPS numbers seen here.

FAQ

Q: What is the average FPS for the 1920x1080 Ultra preset?

A: The measured average FPS is 32.

Q: Is the CPU or the GPU the bottleneck in this game?

A: The measurements indicate the GPU is the limiting factor. At 1080p, reaching 66 (Low) only drops to 32 (Ultra), and the resolution change from 1080p to 4K shows a steep Gaussian decline (66→23 at Low), which is the classic signature of a GPU-bound workload.

Q: How does the GPU compare to the nearest rivals?

A: The GTX 1050 Ti has an average benchmark score of 4193. Its nearest rivals are the AMD Radeon R5 M330 (4170, +0.6%), NVIDIA Quadro K2100M (4151, +1%), NVIDIA Quadro K3000M (4241, –1.1%), and CTD Vega 3 (4268, –1.8%). All are within a few points, so the 1050 Ti sits in a cluster of low-end cards.

Q: What is the CPU's percentile the above the pack?

A: The Intel Core i7-14700F has a percentile rank of 91st among all CPUs in the database, with an average benchmark score of 53620. Its nearest rivals (Intel Xeon 6505P, Xeon Phi 7290, Ryzen 9 7900X, and EPYC 7310P) have very similar scores, with deltaPct between –0.2% and +0.8%.

Q: Is the CPU the one that makes the 4K LG Ultra 30 FPS impossible?

A: No. The CPU's benchmarks show it is far beyond what the game needs; all four presets at 4K avg below 24 FPS, which is the playable threshold, and the bottleneck is the GPU's fill rate (44.54 GPixel/s) and bandwidth (112.1 GB/s). The CPU cannot compensate.

Q: Which preset is the only one that breaks 60 FPS?

A: Only the 1080p Low preset reaches above 60, with an average of 66 FPS. The 1080p Medium comes next at 50, and High at 46, and Ultra at 32.

Settings Recommendations

Based solely on the measured FPS in the FACT PACK, the 1080p Low preset is the only configuration that delivers a smooth experience, achieving 66 FPS. It is also the safest for any frame-paced action, as the game's twitch nature would benefit. If a slightly richer visual is wanted, 1080p Medium at 50 FPS is still comfortable, but 50 FPS can be noticeable for shooter players. The 1080p High and Ultra presets fall to 42 and 32, respectively, which is borderline playable but not good for fluid motion. For 1440p, Low at 42 FPS is acceptable if the player tolerance, but Medium drops to 32 and High to 27—the High is borderline and Ultra is clearly below 30. For 4K, none of the presets deliver playable performance; the best is Low at 23 FPS, which is far below the minimum for a third-person shooter.

Because the game asks the user to balance quality and speed, the clear recommendation is: run at 1080p with the Medium preset (50 FPS). It retains the highest visually fidelity while keeping the average above the 40 fps threshold, and the minimum FPS only dips to 43 (given for Medium at 1080p). The 1080p Low preset is the fallback if a higher refresh rate monitor is used, and the 1080p High preset might be acceptable for a 30 fps console experience, but the Ultra preset (32) is not an improvement, as its gain is minimal exception but harsh on visual clarity. No 4K resolution should be used, as all FPS are beneath any playable standard.

Measured FPS Breakdown

Below is the complete set of installed FPS readings from the FACT PACK for this combination. All values are measured (dataIsMeasured=true).

| Resolution | Settings | Avg FPS | Min FPS | Max FPS |

|------------|----------|---------|---------|---------|

| 1920x1080 | Low | 66 | – | – |

| 1920x1080 | Medium | 50 | 43 | 58 |

| 1920x1080 | High | 42 | – | – |

| 1920x1080 | Ultra | 32 | – | – |

| 2560x1440 | Low | 42 | – | – |

| 2560x1440 | Medium | 32 | 28 | 37 |

| 2560x1440 | High | 27 | – | – |

| 2560x1440 | Ultra | 21 | – | – |

| 3840x2160 | Low | 23 | – | – |

| 3840x2160 | Medium | 17 | 15 | 20 |

| 3840x2160 | High | 15 | – | – |

| 3840x2160 | Ultra | 11 | – | – |

These numbers confirm the GPU bottleneck: from 1080p Low (66) to 4K Low (23) is more than a >50% reduction, and from 1080p Ultra (32) to 4K Ultra (11) is largely proportional. The only preset with a min/max spread is Medium, which shows a 58–43–20–15 range at the different resolutions, respectively. The CPU has enough resources to feed a faster GPU; but with the 1050 Ti, this is the final ceiling.