Minimum

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 from the Core 14th Gen series, built on Intel's Raptor Lake architecture and manufactured on a 10 nm process. Its base clock is 3.20 GHz, with a boost clock of 6.00 GHz, and it carries 36 MB of shared L3 cache plus 2 MB of L2 cache per core. In synthetic benchmarks, the chip posts a Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 49872 and a single-core score of 7040, while Geekbench returns 20370 multi-core and 3064 single-core results. The PassMark multithread score is 58674, and the single-thread score is 4697.

For a 2014 third-person shooter like Minimum, the CPU's raw multi-threaded muscle is largely irrelevant. The game's engine rarely scales across 32 threads, and the measured FPS data shows that even at 1080p Low, where the CPU load is proportionally highest, the combination still produces 132.7 FPS. The i9-14900K's single-core performance, reflected in its 709 Cinebench R15 single-core score and 4697 PassMark single-thread score, is what matters here. Those numbers place the CPU in the 97th percentile of all tested processors, meaning it sits near the top of the distribution for the workloads that a game like Minimum actually uses.

The CPU's 125 W TDP and LGA 1700 socket are platform details, but the benchmark data confirms that processor-side bottlenecks are not a limiting factor. At 1080p High, the combo delivers 86.3 FPS, and at 1080p Low it reaches 132.7 FPS. The gap between those two settings suggests the GPU is doing most of the heavy lifting even at lower resolutions, which is expected given the CPU's position in the 97th percentile. The i9-14900K's nearest rivals in average benchmark score include the AMD EPYC 7413 at a -0.3% delta, the Intel Core i9-14900KF at +0.7%, and the Intel Core Ultra 7 265K at +0.9%. None of those competitors represent a meaningful performance gap, so the CPU is effectively at parity with the fastest desktop silicon available.

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

The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1660 Ti is a Turing-architecture GPU built on TSMC's 12 nm process, with 6 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 192-bit bus delivering 288.0 GB/s of bandwidth. The chip runs at a base clock of 1500 MHz and a boost clock of 1770 MHz, with memory clocked at 1500 MHz (12 Gbps effective). It has 1536 shading units, 96 texture mapping units, and 48 ROPs, producing a pixel rate of 84.96 GPixel/s and a texture rate of 169.9 GTexel/s. Floating-point performance is rated at 5.437 TFLOPS for FP32 and 10.87 TFLOPS for FP16.

The GPU's 55th percentile ranking among all tested GPUs tells a clear story: this is a mid-pack card, and it is the primary constraint in this pairing. The PassMark G3D score of 12871 and the 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 score of 1061 confirm that the GTX 1660 Ti is a capable but not exceptional performer. Its nearest rivals in average benchmark score — the AMD Radeon RX 570X at +0.4%, the NVIDIA RTX A2000 Mobile at +0.8%, and the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 680 at +0.8% — are all within a single percentage point, indicating that the card sits in a tightly clustered performance band.

The 6 GB VRAM buffer is the critical detail for Minimum's measured results. At 4K Ultra, the combo drops to 21 FPS, which is a 50.8% reduction from the 4K Low result of 43.8 FPS. The VRAM capacity and memory bandwidth are likely being saturated at the higher settings and resolutions, and the GPU's 48 ROPs are insufficient to maintain frame rates as pixel count climbs. The 12 Gbps effective memory speed helps at lower resolutions — the 1080p Medium result of 104 FPS shows the card has headroom when pixel fill requirements are modest — but the 4K High result of 32.6 FPS versus the 1440p High result of 57.4 FPS demonstrates a steep scaling penalty.

How This Combo Ranks — use comboRankInGame vs other tested combos

This specific pairing of the Intel Core i9-14900K with the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1660 Ti ranks 1489 out of 1733 tested combinations for Minimum. That places it in the bottom 14% of all combos, which is a striking result given the CPU's top-tier status. The data indicates that the GPU is the overwhelming bottleneck: the i9-14900K is in the 97th percentile of CPUs, while the GTX 1660 Ti is in the 55th percentile of GPUs. The enormous gap between those two percentiles means the CPU's potential is largely wasted in this configuration.

The rank of 1489 out of 1733 suggests that most other tested combos — even those with slower CPUs — outperform this one because they pair more balanced components. The measured FPS data reinforces this: at 1080p Ultra, the combo produces 62.9 FPS, and at 1080p Low it produces 132.7 FPS. Those numbers are respectable for a 2014 title, but the rank shows that the combination is not competitive with more balanced pairings. The CPU's contribution is essentially capped by the GPU's output, and the result is a system that underperforms relative to what the processor alone would suggest.

The deltaPct values from the CPU's nearest rivals (all within ±0.9%) and the GPU's nearest rivals (all within ±0.8%) indicate that swapping either component for a direct competitor would produce nearly identical results. The bottleneck is structural, not a matter of slight component differences.

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

At 1920x1080, the combo delivers its strongest results. Low settings produce 132.7 FPS, Medium produces 104 FPS, High produces 86.3 FPS, and Ultra produces 62.9 FPS. The difference between Low and Ultra is 69.8 FPS, or a 52.6% drop. This is a playable range across all settings, with even the Ultra preset maintaining above 60 FPS.

At 2560x1440, the frame rates decline but remain serviceable. Low settings yield 86.2 FPS, Medium yields 65.1 FPS, High yields 57.4 FPS, and Ultra yields 44.7 FPS. The drop from 1080p to 1440p at each setting is consistent: Low falls from 132.7 to 86.2 (a 35.1% reduction), Medium falls from 104 to 65.1 (a 37.4% reduction), High falls from 86.3 to 57.4 (a 33.5% reduction), and Ultra falls from 62.9 to 44.7 (a 28.9% reduction). The Ultra setting crosses below the 60 FPS threshold at 1440p.

At 3840x2160, the GPU is clearly overextended. Low settings produce 43.8 FPS, Medium produces 33.3 FPS, High produces 32.6 FPS, and Ultra produces 21 FPS. The scaling from 1440p to 4K is severe: Low drops from 86.2 to 43.8 (a 49.2% reduction), Medium drops from 65.1 to 33.3 (a 48.8% reduction), High drops from 57.4 to 32.6 (a 43.2% reduction), and Ultra drops from 44.7 to 21 (a 53% reduction). At 4K, only the Low preset approaches a playable frame rate, and even that falls below 45 FPS.

FAQ

Q: What is the best resolution for this combo to maintain 60+ FPS?

A: At 1080p, all four settings presets — Low (132.7 FPS), Medium (104 FPS), High (86.3 FPS), and Ultra (62.9 FPS) — exceed 60 FPS. At 1440p, only Low (86.2 FPS) and Medium (65.1 FPS) stay above 60 FPS, while High (57.4 FPS) and Ultra (44.7 FPS) fall short. At 4K, no preset reaches 60 FPS.

Q: How does the Ultra preset compare to Low at 4K?

A: The Ultra preset at 3840x2160 produces 21 FPS, which is a 52.1% reduction from the Low preset's 43.8 FPS at the same resolution. The gap between Low and Medium at 4K is smaller, at 33.3 FPS versus 43.8 FPS.

Q: Which component is the limiting factor in this pairing?

A: The GPU is the limiting factor. The CPU ranks in the 97th percentile of all tested processors, while the GPU ranks in the 55th percentile. The measured FPS data shows a steep decline as resolution increases, which is characteristic of a GPU-bound scenario.

Q: Does the CPU's high benchmark score translate to better frame rates at 1080p?

A: The CPU's single-thread score of 4697 on PassMark and 7040 on Cinebench R23 places it at the top of the distribution, but the frame rates at 1080p are still capped by the GPU. The difference between 1080p Low (132.7 FPS) and 1440p Low (86.2 FPS) suggests the GPU is the constraining factor even at lower resolutions.

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

A: The GTX 1660 Ti has an average benchmark score of 13925. Its nearest rival, the AMD Radeon RX 570X, scores 13871 for a deltaPct of +0.4%, while the NVIDIA RTX A2000 Mobile scores 13821 for a deltaPct of +0.8%. All rivals are within 0.8% of the GTX 1660 Ti's score.

Q: What is the frame rate difference between High and Ultra at 1440p?

A: At 2560x1440, the High preset produces 57.4 FPS, while the Ultra preset produces 44.7 FPS. That is a 12.7 FPS difference, or a 22.1% drop when moving from High to Ultra.

Settings Recommendations

The measured FPS data points to 1080p Medium as the best balance of visual quality and performance. At 1080p Medium, the combo produces 104 FPS, which is 61.3% higher than the 1080p High result of 86.3 FPS and only 28.7 FPS below the 1080p Low result of 132.7 FPS. The Medium preset offers a substantial frame rate headroom over High while still delivering a meaningful visual upgrade over Low.

For players who prioritize frame rate above all else, 1080p Low at 132.7 FPS is the clear choice. This setting leaves enough performance margin to handle scene complexity without dropping below 60 FPS. At 1440p, Medium at 65.1 FPS is the only preset that comfortably exceeds 60 FPS, making it the recommended target for higher-resolution displays. The 1440p High result of 57.4 FPS is close to the 60 FPS threshold but does not reliably cross it.

At 4K, no setting is ideal. The Low preset at 43.8 FPS is the only option that approaches playability, but even that falls below 45 FPS. The Ultra preset at 21 FPS is effectively unplayable for a third-person shooter. The data suggests that 4K should be avoided entirely with this combo unless the player accepts significant compromises in visual fidelity and frame rate.

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

The FPS scaling from 1080p to 4K reveals a GPU-bound configuration. At Low settings, the frame rate drops from 132.7 FPS at 1080p to 86.2 FPS at 1440p, then to 43.8 FPS at 4K. That is a 67% reduction from 1080p to 4K. At Medium settings, the drop is from 104 FPS to 65.1 FPS to 33.3 FPS, a 68% reduction. At High settings, the drop is from 86.3 FPS to 57.4 FPS to 32.6 FPS, a 62.2% reduction. At Ultra settings, the drop is from 62.9 FPS to 44.7 FPS to 21 FPS, a 66.6% reduction.

The consistency of these percentage drops across all settings is a hallmark of a GPU-limited scenario. If the CPU were the bottleneck, the frame rate would remain relatively flat as resolution increased, because the CPU workload would not change. Instead, the frame rate scales inversely with pixel count, which indicates that the GTX 1660 Ti's fill rate and memory bandwidth are the limiting factors. The GPU's 288.0 GB/s of bandwidth and 48 ROPs are simply insufficient for 4K rendering, particularly at higher settings where texture and shading demands increase.

The 4K Ultra result of 21 FPS is particularly telling. This represents a 52.1% drop from the 4K Low result of 43.8 FPS, and a 66.6% drop from the 1080p Ultra result of 62.9 FPS. The GPU's 6 GB VRAM buffer is likely exhausted at 4K Ultra, causing additional performance degradation beyond the raw pixel count increase. The data strongly suggests that this combo is best suited for 1080p gaming, with 1440p viable only at lower settings, and 4K reserved for the most undemanding titles.