Minimum

# Minimum — Intel Core i9-14900K + NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1050 Ti

This pairing is a study in extremes: a 24-core, 32-thread flagship CPU from 2023 harnessed to a 4 GB Pascal-era GPU from 2016. The benchmark data for Minimum reveals a system where the graphics card is unequivocally the limiting factor, yet the CPU's headroom creates some surprising scaling behavior as resolution and settings change. The measured FPS across 12 configurations tells a clear story of GPU-bound performance, with the combo ranking 1731 out of 1733 tested combinations — placing it in the bottom 0.1% of all pairings tested for this title.

Resolution Scaling

The FPS drop from 1080p to 4K is dramatic and reveals the GTX 1050 Ti's fundamental capacity limits. At 1920x1080 with Low settings, the combo averages 64.4 FPS — the only configuration to exceed 60 FPS. Moving to 2560x1440 at Low, the average falls to 39.9 FPS, a 38% reduction. At 3840x2160 Low, the average plummets to 23 FPS, a further 42% drop from 1440p. This scaling pattern is consistent with a GPU that is completely saturated by pixel throughput demands.

The High settings preset tells a similar story: 43.8 FPS at 1080p, 28.8 FPS at 1440p, and 13 FPS at 4K. The gap between Low and High widens as resolution increases — at 1080p the difference is 20.6 FPS (43.8 vs 64.4), but at 4K it narrows to 10 FPS (13 vs 23). This suggests that at higher resolutions, the GPU's pixel fill rate becomes so constrained that even reducing settings to Low cannot compensate for the sheer number of pixels being rendered.

The data implies that 1080p is the only viable resolution for this combo, and even then, only Low settings approach playable frame rates. The 4K results — 10.7 FPS at Ultra, 13 FPS at High, 15.1 FPS at Medium, 23 FPS at Low — are all well below any reasonable playability threshold. The scaling curve indicates a GPU that hits its memory bandwidth ceiling (112.1 GB/s across a 128-bit bus) long before the CPU's 36 MB of shared L3 cache or 32 threads can make any meaningful contribution.

How This Combo Ranks

With a combo rank of 1731 out of 1733 tested combinations, this pairing sits at the very bottom of the database for Minimum. Only two other combos perform worse. This ranking is primarily attributable to the GPU: the GTX 1050 Ti sits at the 30th percentile among all GPUs, with an average benchmark score of 5316. Its nearest rivals include the NVIDIA GeForce 930A (5317, 0% delta), the NVIDIA GeForce 940M (5297, 0.4% delta), and the AMD Radeon R7 240 (5280, 0.7% delta) — all mobile or entry-level parts.

The CPU, by contrast, ranks at the 97th percentile among all CPUs, with an average benchmark score of 79824. This places it just 0.3% behind the AMD EPYC 7413 (80041) and 0.7% ahead of both the Intel Core i9-14900KF (79245) and Intel Core Ultra 7 265KF (79240). The enormous disparity between CPU and GPU capability — a top-3% processor paired with a bottom-30% graphics card — explains why the combo rank is so poor despite the processor's strength.

The data suggests that the combo rank is almost entirely a function of the GPU's limitations. If the CPU were the bottleneck, we would expect to see better performance at lower resolutions where the GPU has less work to do. Instead, even at 1080p Low, the system only manages 64.4 FPS — a figure that any modern GPU paired with this CPU would vastly exceed. The rank reflects a fundamental mismatch between the two components' capabilities.

GPU Role

The GTX 1050 Ti's specifications explain its performance ceiling in Minimum. With 4 GB of GDDR5 memory on a 128-bit bus, the card delivers 112.1 GB/s of bandwidth — a figure that becomes critical at higher resolutions where texture and geometry data demands scale. The 768 shading units, 48 TMUs, and 32 ROPs operate at a base clock of 1291 MHz and a boost clock of 1392 MHz, producing 2.138 TFLOPS of FP32 performance.

The measured FPS data shows the GPU's memory subsystem becoming the primary constraint at 1440p and 4K. The 4 GB VRAM capacity is likely insufficient for High and Ultra settings at these resolutions, forcing the card to swap data to system memory. This would explain the disproportionate FPS drops: at 4K, Ultra averages 10.7 FPS versus 23 FPS at Low — a 53% improvement from reducing settings, but still far below playable.

The GPU's 14 nm Pascal architecture, manufactured by Samsung with 3,300 million transistors on a 132 mm² die, is fundamentally a product of its era. Its DirectX 12 support (12_1) and Vulkan 1.4 capability are technically adequate for Minimum, but the raw compute throughput — 2.138 TFLOPS FP32 — is simply too low for modern rendering workloads at 4K. The card's 30th percentile ranking among all GPUs, alongside peers like the GeForce 930A and 940M, underscores its position in the entry-level segment.

Measured FPS Breakdown

At 1920x1080, the combo delivers its best results. Low settings produce an average of 64.4 FPS, which is the only configuration to reach playable territory. Medium settings drop to 49 FPS, High to 43.8 FPS, and Ultra to 31.3 FPS. The scaling from Low to Ultra represents a 51% performance penalty — a significant hit, but one that might be acceptable for users who prioritize visual quality over frame rate.

Moving to 2560x1440, the averages fall to 39.9 FPS at Low, 29.7 FPS at Medium, 28.8 FPS at High, and 19.9 FPS at Ultra. The gap between Low and Medium narrows considerably (39.9 vs 29.7, a 25% difference) compared to 1080p, suggesting that the GPU's compute resources — not just memory bandwidth — are becoming strained. At 1440p, even Low settings fail to maintain 40 FPS.

At 3840x2160, the results are uniformly poor: 23 FPS at Low, 15.1 FPS at Medium, 13 FPS at High, and 10.7 FPS at Ultra. The progression from Low to Ultra at 4K shows a 53% performance drop (23 to 10.7 FPS), the largest relative penalty across all resolutions. This indicates that at 4K, every additional graphics feature — shadows, textures, post-processing — exacts a heavy toll on a GPU already operating at its absolute limits.

The data reveals that the GTX 1050 Ti cannot deliver a consistent 60 FPS experience at any resolution in Minimum. The best-case scenario — 1080p Low at 64.4 FPS — barely crosses the threshold, and even that is likely to fluctuate in busy scenes. For users targeting 30 FPS as a minimum, 1080p Medium (49 FPS) and 1080p High (43.8 FPS) are the only viable options, with 1440p Low (39.9 FPS) as a borderline alternative.

CPU Role

The Intel Core i9-14900K brings enormous compute resources to this pairing: 24 cores, 32 threads, a base clock of 3.20 GHz, and a boost clock of 6.00 GHz. Its Raptor Lake architecture, built on Intel's 10 nm process, includes 80 KB of L1 cache per core, 2 MB of L2 cache per core, and 36 MB of shared L3 cache. The CPU's benchmark scores are impressive — a Cinebench R23 multicore score of 49872 and a single-core score of 7040, with Geekbench scores of 20370 multicore and 3064 single-core.

However, the measured FPS data indicates that the CPU's role in Minimum is almost entirely passive. The game's frame rates are dictated by the GPU's rendering capability, not the CPU's processing throughput. Evidence for this includes the relatively small FPS differences between Low and Medium settings at any given resolution — if the CPU were a bottleneck, we would expect to see larger gaps when geometry and physics workloads increase.

The CPU's 97th percentile ranking and its position alongside the AMD EPYC 7413, Intel Core i9-14900KF, and Intel Core Ultra 7 265KF (all within 0.9% of its average score) demonstrate its class-leading performance. Yet in this pairing, that performance is entirely untapped. The GPU's 2.138 TFLOPS of FP32 throughput is the ceiling, and the CPU's 32 threads are left largely idle waiting for the graphics card to finish each frame.

The data suggests that the i9-14900K could comfortably drive a far more powerful GPU in Minimum without becoming the limiting factor. Its 6.00 GHz boost clock and 36 MB of L3 cache provide ample headroom for even the most demanding CPU-bound scenarios, but the GTX 1050 Ti's 75 W TDP and 4 GB memory capacity ensure that such scenarios never arise.

Settings Recommendations

Based on the measured FPS data, the optimal settings depend on the user's resolution and performance targets. At 1920x1080, Low settings deliver 64.4 FPS, which is the only configuration that exceeds 60 FPS. Medium settings at 49 FPS offer a reasonable compromise for users who want improved visuals while maintaining playable frame rates. High settings at 43.8 FPS are borderline, while Ultra at 31.3 FPS is only suitable for users who prioritize image quality over smoothness.

At 2560x1440, Low settings at 39.9 FPS are the only option that approaches playability. Medium (29.7 FPS) and High (28.8 FPS) are nearly identical, suggesting that the GPU's compute resources are the limiting factor rather than memory bandwidth. Ultra at 19.9 FPS is not recommended for any gameplay scenario.

At 3840x2160, all settings produce unplayable frame rates: 23 FPS at Low, 15.1 FPS at Medium, 13 FPS at High, and 10.7 FPS at Ultra. Users with 4K displays should either reduce the resolution to 1440p or 1080p, or accept that Minimum is not playable at this resolution with this GPU.

For the best overall experience, the data supports 1920x1080 with Medium settings (49 FPS) as the sweet spot. This configuration balances visual fidelity with performance, and the 49 FPS average is close enough to 60 FPS that most users would find it acceptable. Users who prioritize frame rate above all else should choose 1080p Low (64.4 FPS), while those who value visuals and can tolerate 30-40 FPS might consider 1080p High (43.8 FPS).

FAQ

*Q: Can this combo run Minimum at 4K with any settings?*

A: No. The measured FPS at 3840x2160 ranges from 10.7 FPS (Ultra) to 23 FPS (Low), all far below playable thresholds. The GPU's 4 GB memory and 112.1 GB/s bandwidth are insufficient for 4K rendering.

Q: What is the best resolution for this pairing?

A: 1920x1080 is the only resolution that produces playable frame rates. At 1080p, Low settings yield 64.4 FPS, Medium yields 49 FPS, and High yields 43.8 FPS. At 1440p, the maximum is 39.9 FPS on Low.

Q: How does the GTX 1050 Ti compare to its nearest rivals?

A: The GPU has an average benchmark score of 5316, placing it at the 30th percentile. Its nearest rivals are the NVIDIA GeForce 930A (5317, 0% delta), NVIDIA GeForce 940M (5297, 0.4% delta), and AMD Radeon R7 240 (5280, 0.7% delta). All are within 0.8% of each other.

Q: Is the Intel Core i9-14900K the bottleneck in this system?

A: No. The CPU ranks at the 97th percentile with an average benchmark score of 79824, while the GPU ranks at the 30th percentile. The FPS data shows GPU-limited scaling — frame rates drop dramatically with resolution, indicating the graphics card is the constraint.

Q: What settings should I use for the best frame rate at 1080p?

A: Low settings produce the highest average FPS at 64.4. Medium settings follow at 49 FPS, then High at 43.8 FPS, and Ultra at 31.3 FPS. For the best balance of visuals and performance, Medium is recommended.

Q: How does this combo rank compared to all tested configurations?

A: It ranks 1731 out of 1733 tested combos in Minimum, placing it in the bottom 0.1% of all pairings. This is consistent with the GPU's 30th percentile ranking and the CPU's 97th percentile ranking, reflecting the extreme mismatch between the two components.