Minimum

The pairing of the Intel Core Ultra 7 265K and NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5090 in Minimum produces a dataset that clearly separates the duties of each component. The CPU, with its 20 cores and 20 threads, operates at a base clock of 3.90 GHz and a boost clock of 5.50 GHz, drawing a 125 W TDP. Its benchmark profile suggests substantial headroom for high-frequency gaming workloads, with a Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 50009 and a single-core score of 7060. The data places this processor in the 97th percentile of all CPUs, and its average benchmark score of 79102 is essentially tied with the Intel Core Ultra 7 265KF, which scores 79240 with a deltaPct of -0.2. This indicates that the 265K is not a bottleneck in most scenarios, as its performance ceiling is well above the demands of a third-person shooter from this era. The L3 cache of 30 MB shared and the 102.4 GB/s memory bandwidth provide a solid foundation for feeding the GPU at high frame rates.

The GPU role is defined by sheer throughput. The RTX 5090 features 32 GB of GDDR7 memory on a 512-bit bus, delivering 1.79 TB/s of bandwidth. Its boost clock reaches 2407 MHz, and the chip houses 21760 shading units. In synthetic benchmarks, the card scores 14411 in 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 and 39650 in Passmark G3D, placing it in the 94th percentile of all GPUs. Its average benchmark score of 84306 is 0.1% ahead of the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5090 D, which scores 84241. The architecture is Blackwell 2.0 on a 5 nm process, and the card supports PCIe 5.0 x16. Given that the game is from 2014, the GPU’s raw power is the primary driver of the measured FPS, as the CPU is unlikely to be saturated by the game’s physics or AI calculations. The data suggests that the RTX 5090 is operating well within its capabilities, with the limiting factor shifting to settings and resolution rather than component weakness.

Resolution Scaling

The measured FPS data reveals a clear scaling pattern from 1080p to 4K, highlighting where the bottleneck lies. At 1920x1080 with Low settings, the average FPS is 407.3. This drops to 263.3 at 2560x1440 and further to 138.7 at 3840x2160. The decline is steep, but the absolute numbers remain high, indicating that the GPU is still the primary driver even at 4K. The drop from 1080p to 1440p is a 35.4% reduction in FPS, while the drop from 1440p to 4K is a 47.3% reduction. This non-linear scaling is typical of a GPU-bound scenario, where the increase in pixel count demands more from the rasterization pipeline. At 1080p, the FPS figures are so high that the CPU’s single-thread performance becomes more relevant, but the data shows no signs of a CPU cap, as the 407.3 FPS at Low settings suggests the CPU can still push frames faster than the GPU can render them.

The pattern holds across all settings. For High settings, the FPS goes from 264 at 1080p to 170.3 at 1440p (a 35.5% drop) and then to 89.7 at 4K (a 47.3% drop from 1440p). The consistency of these percentages across settings indicates that the scaling is resolution-driven, not settings-driven. The gap between Low and Ultra settings widens as resolution increases. At 1080p, the difference between Low (407.3 FPS) and Ultra (197.9 FPS) is 209.4 FPS. At 4K, the difference between Low (138.7 FPS) and Ultra (67.8 FPS) is 70.9 FPS. This suggests that at higher resolutions, the GPU is so heavily loaded that the additional work from Ultra settings has a smaller absolute impact on FPS, but a larger relative impact on the frame time. The data shows that the 4K Ultra setting, at 67.8 FPS, is the only configuration that dips below the 90 FPS threshold, indicating a shift from a GPU-bound state to a point where the GPU’s fill rate is the limiting factor.

Measured FPS Breakdown

The dataset provides a complete matrix of average FPS across three resolutions and four quality presets. At 1920x1080, the results are as follows: Low settings yield 407.3 FPS, Medium yields 312.4 FPS, High yields 264 FPS, and Ultra yields 197.9 FPS. The progression from Low to Ultra shows a 51.4% reduction in FPS, which is substantial but leaves the game playable on any high-refresh-rate monitor. At 2560x1440, the figures are 263.3 FPS for Low, 201.7 FPS for Medium, 170.3 FPS for High, and 130.8 FPS for Ultra. The relative drop from Low to Ultra is 50.3%, similar to 1080p, indicating that the settings overhead scales proportionally with resolution. At 3840x2160, the results are 138.7 FPS for Low, 110.3 FPS for Medium, 89.7 FPS for High, and 67.8 FPS for Ultra. Here, the drop from Low to Ultra is 51.1%, but the absolute numbers are lower, making the Ultra preset less viable for smooth gameplay.

The data shows that the RTX 5090 maintains a playable experience at 4K with Medium settings, hitting 110.3 FPS, but High and Ultra settings drop below 90 FPS. The 1440p resolution is the sweet spot for high-refresh-rate displays, with all settings above 130 FPS. At 1080p, even the Ultra preset exceeds 197 FPS, which is beyond the refresh rate of most monitors. The combo rank in game is 12 out of 1733 combos, placing this pairing in the top 1% of all tested configurations. The measured data is from actual benchmarking, not estimates, so the figures represent real-world performance. The lack of min FPS or max FPS data means the analysis must rely on averages, but the consistency of the scaling suggests stable frame delivery.

FAQ

Q: What is the highest average FPS recorded for this CPU/GPU combo?

A: The highest average FPS is 407.3, achieved at 1920x1080 resolution with Low settings.

*Q: Can the RTX 5090 handle 4K Ultra settings in Minimum?*

A: The data shows an average FPS of 67.8 at 3840x2160 with Ultra settings, which is below the 90 FPS threshold but still playable.

Q: How does the Intel Core Ultra 7 265K compare to its nearest rival in benchmark scores?

A: The 265K has an average benchmark score of 79102, which is 0.2% lower than the Intel Core Ultra 7 265KF’s 79240, and 0.2% lower than the Intel Core i9-14900KF’s 79245.

Q: What is the FPS difference between Low and Ultra settings at 1440p?

A: At 2560x1440, Low settings average 263.3 FPS, while Ultra settings average 130.8 FPS, a difference of 132.5 FPS.

Q: Does the GPU or CPU bottleneck at 1080p resolution?

A: The data shows no CPU bottleneck, as the 407.3 FPS at Low settings indicates the GPU is still the limiting factor, given the CPU’s high single-core score of 7060 in Cinebench R23.

Q: What is the GPU’s memory bandwidth and size?

A: The RTX 5090 has 32 GB of GDDR7 memory on a 512-bit bus, providing a bandwidth of 1.79 TB/s.

Settings Recommendations

Based on the measured FPS data, the optimal settings depend on the target refresh rate and resolution. For 4K displays, the Medium preset at 110.3 FPS offers the best balance of visual quality and smoothness, as High drops to 89.7 FPS and Ultra falls to 67.8 FPS. The Medium setting is recommended for a consistent 100+ FPS experience at 3840x2160. For 1440p monitors with a 144 Hz or 165 Hz refresh rate, the High preset at 170.3 FPS is the best choice, as it stays above the refresh rate while providing better visual fidelity than Medium’s 201.7 FPS, which is excessive for most displays. The Ultra preset at 130.8 FPS is also viable for 1440p if the monitor supports a 120 Hz refresh rate, but High is safer for maintaining a higher frame rate ceiling.

For 1080p displays, the High preset at 264 FPS is recommended for competitive play, as it provides a massive frame rate advantage over Ultra’s 197.9 FPS without a significant visual trade-off. The Low preset at 407.3 FPS is only useful for extreme competitive scenarios or to minimize input latency, but the visual quality loss is substantial. The data indicates that the RTX 5090 is overkill for 1080p in this game, so users should prioritize higher resolutions or higher settings. The best overall experience for a standard 4K TV is Medium, while the best for a high-refresh-rate 1440p monitor is High. The Ultra preset is only recommended for 1080p or 1440p if the user values maximum visual fidelity over frame rate, as the 4K Ultra result of 67.8 FPS may introduce noticeable stutter on non-VRR displays.