Minimum

This analysis examines the Intel Core i9-14900K and NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1660 SUPER combination in the third-person shooter Minimum. The data set provides measured average FPS across three resolutions and four quality presets, offering a clear picture of how this pairing performs. The results show a significant bottleneck, with the GPU limiting performance in most scenarios while the CPU remains largely underutilized.

CPU Role — cores, clocks, and how they relate to this game's results

The Intel Core i9-14900K is a 24-core, 32-thread processor based on the Raptor Lake architecture, built on a 10 nm process. Its base clock is 3.20 GHz, boosting up to 6.00 GHz, and it carries 36 MB of shared L3 cache. In synthetic benchmarks, this CPU scores 49,872 in Cinebench R23 multi-core and 7,040 in single-core, placing it in the 97th percentile of all CPUs tested. Its average benchmark score of 79,824 puts it nearly identical to the AMD EPYC 7413, which scores 80,041, a delta of only -0.3%. It is also within 0.7% of the Intel Core i9-14900KF and Intel Core Ultra 7 265KF, and 0.9% ahead of the Intel Core Ultra 7 265K.

For Minimum, a game released in 2014, this CPU is vastly overprovisioned. The game's engine is unlikely to stress more than a few cores, meaning the i9-14900K's massive thread count and high boost clock are not the limiting factors. At 1080p with Low settings, the combo reaches 133.8 FPS, but this is almost certainly constrained by the GPU, not the CPU. The data shows that even at the highest resolution (4K) with Ultra settings, the frame rate drops to 24.8 FPS, which is a GPU-bound scenario. The CPU's role here is to avoid becoming a bottleneck; with a 6.00 GHz boost clock and 24 cores, it succeeds entirely. In every measured row, the CPU is waiting on the GTX 1660 SUPER, meaning its performance headroom is never fully exercised. The PassMark multi-thread score of 58,674 and single-thread score of 4,697 reinforce that this processor can handle far more demanding workloads than this title presents.

GPU Role — VRAM, clocks, and how they relate to this game's results

The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1660 SUPER is a Turing-architecture card built on a 12 nm process at TSMC. It features 6 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 192-bit bus, delivering 336.0 GB/s of bandwidth. Its base clock is 1530 MHz with a boost clock of 1785 MHz, and it offers 1,408 shading units. The card's FP32 performance is 5.027 TFLOPS. In the benchmark database, it sits at the 55th percentile of all GPUs, with an average score of 14,286. Its nearest rival is the AMD Radeon RX Vega 11, which scores 14,314, a delta of -0.2%; the Intel Iris Xe MAX Graphics and AMD Radeon Vega 11 are also within 0.5% of its score.

This GPU is the clear performance ceiling for this combo in Minimum. The 6 GB VRAM is sufficient for a 2014 title, but the raw compute power limits frame rates. At 1080p Ultra, the card produces 63.2 FPS, which drops to 24.8 FPS at 4K Ultra. The scaling from Low to Ultra at the same resolution shows the GPU struggling with increased shading and texture work. For instance, at 1440p, moving from Low (81.8 FPS) to Ultra (39.2 FPS) cuts performance by more than half. The GTX 1660 SUPER's boost clock of 1785 MHz is modest by modern standards, and the 6 GB frame buffer, while adequate, does not compensate for the lack of compute units. The PassMark G3D score of 12,699 and DirectX 12 score of 50 indicate that this is a mid-range card from its era, and the measured FPS in Minimum reflects that positioning.

Resolution Scaling — how FPS drops from 1080p to 4K and what it says about the limiting component

The measured FPS data clearly indicates a GPU-limited system. At High settings, the combo achieves 83.2 FPS at 1080p, 56 FPS at 1440p, and 28.9 FPS at 4K. This represents a 33% drop from 1080p to 1440p, and a further 48% drop from 1440p to 4K. The pattern is consistent across all settings. At Low, the drop is from 133.8 FPS (1080p) to 81.8 FPS (1440p) to 43.8 FPS (4K). At Medium, it goes from 98.7 to 66.1 to 38.2. At Ultra, it goes from 63.2 to 39.2 to 24.8.

These scaling ratios are the signature of a GPU bottleneck. If the CPU were the limiter, the frame rate would remain relatively flat as resolution increases, because the CPU's workload (draw calls, physics) is resolution-independent. Instead, we see a near-linear decline with pixel count, which is exactly what happens when the GPU's fill rate and shading units are saturated. The 4K Ultra result of 24.8 FPS is effectively unplayable, while 1080p Low at 133.8 FPS is smooth. The transition from 1440p to 4K at Ultra is particularly steep, dropping from 39.2 to 24.8 FPS, a 37% reduction. This suggests that the GTX 1660 SUPER's 48 ROPs and 336.0 GB/s memory bandwidth are overwhelmed by 4K pixel throughput. In contrast, the CPU's 36 MB L3 cache and high clock speeds are never stressed, further confirming that upgrading the GPU would yield the largest FPS gains in this title.

How This Combo Ranks — use comboRankInGame vs other tested combos

This specific combination of the Intel Core i9-14900K and NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1660 SUPER ranks 1532 out of 1733 tested combos in Minimum. That places it in the bottom 12% of all systems tested. This low rank is entirely due to the GPU; the i9-14900K is a top-tier processor (97th percentile), but it is paired with a GPU that sits at the 55th percentile. The data shows that the combo's performance is dictated by the weaker component, and the rank reflects that reality.

For context, the CPU's nearest rivals (Intel Core i9-14900KF, Intel Core Ultra 7 265KF, Intel Core Ultra 7 265K) all have nearly identical CPU scores, within 0.9% of the i9-14900K. However, swapping the GPU would change this combo's rank dramatically. A stronger GPU would push the combo far higher in the rankings, as the CPU would not bottleneck. Conversely, the GTX 1660 SUPER's nearest rivals (AMD Radeon RX Vega 11, Intel Iris Xe MAX Graphics, AMD Radeon RX 5500 XT) have GPU scores within 0.7% of it, meaning the combo's rank is stable for this GPU class. The rank of 1532/1733 indicates that most other tested systems have more balanced or superior GPU performance relative to their CPUs. This is a lopsided pairing, where the CPU is wasted on a title that the GPU cannot push past medium-level frame rates at 1080p.

Settings Recommendations — which preset gives the best experience per the measured rows

Given the measured data, the best experience at 1080p is achieved with Medium settings, delivering 98.7 FPS. This is well above the 60 FPS threshold and offers a significant visual improvement over Low (133.8 FPS). High settings at 1080p produce 83.2 FPS, which is still playable, but Medium provides a smoother experience with a 19% FPS advantage over High. Ultra at 1080p drops to 63.2 FPS, which is borderline for fast-paced shooter gameplay, and the visual gains are minimal for a 2014 title.

At 1440p, Medium is the only viable preset above 60 FPS, hitting 66.1 FPS. High at 1440p drops to 56 FPS, which is playable but not ideal for competitive play. Low at 1440p runs at 81.8 FPS, but the visual quality hit is substantial. Ultra at 1440p (39.2 FPS) should be avoided entirely. At 4K, no preset reaches 60 FPS. Low is the only option above 40 FPS (43.8 FPS), and Medium drops to 38.2 FPS. High (28.9 FPS) and Ultra (24.8 FPS) are not recommended for gameplay.

The data suggests that Medium is the sweet spot for this combo. At 1080p, it offers 98.7 FPS, which is nearly double the Ultra frame rate. At 1440p, it is the only preset that clears 60 FPS. The jump from Medium to High costs 15.5 FPS at 1080p and 10.1 FPS at 1440p, which is a substantial penalty for modest visual improvements. For a third-person shooter where reaction time matters, prioritizing frame rate over graphical fidelity is the practical choice.

Measured FPS Breakdown — resolution by resolution, settings by settings, exact numbers

The complete measured FPS data for this combo is as follows.

At 1920x1080:

• Low: 133.8 FPS
• Medium: 98.7 FPS
• High: 83.2 FPS
• Ultra: 63.2 FPS

At 2560x1440:

• Low: 81.8 FPS
• Medium: 66.1 FPS
• High: 56 FPS
• Ultra: 39.2 FPS

At 3840x2160:

• Low: 43.8 FPS
• Medium: 38.2 FPS
• High: 28.9 FPS
• Ultra: 24.8 FPS

These numbers show a clear progression. At 1080p, the combo can handle all presets, with even Ultra clearing 60 FPS. At 1440p, the GPU starts to struggle, with only Low and Medium exceeding 60 FPS. At 4K, the card is overwhelmed, with all presets failing to reach 60 FPS. The gap between Low and Ultra at 1080p is 70.6 FPS, while at 4K it narrows to 19 FPS, indicating that the GPU is saturated at higher resolutions regardless of settings. The data also shows that the step from Medium to High is consistently the largest FPS drop across all resolutions, suggesting that High settings introduce a significant computational load on the GTX 1660 SUPER. For example, at 1440p, Medium is 66.1 FPS and High is 56 FPS, a 10.1 FPS drop, while the drop from Low to Medium is 15.7 FPS. This makes Medium the most efficient preset in terms of FPS per visual quality.