Minimum

The Intel Core Ultra 7 270K Plus paired with the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1660 SUPER occupies a specific niche in the Minimum benchmark hierarchy. This combination ranks 2509 out of 2939 tested combos, placing it in the 85th percentile of all configurations—a position that reflects the substantial gap between the modern 24-core CPU and the aging Turing-based GPU. The data shows a system where processor headroom is abundant, but graphics hardware limits real-world frame delivery, particularly at higher resolutions and quality presets.

How This Combo Ranks

The combo’s rank of 2509 out of 2939 represents a lower-midfield position, meaning roughly 430 configurations deliver better performance in Minimum. This is not a flattering placement for a CPU that sits in the 96th percentile of all processors. The disconnect is stark: the Intel Core Ultra 7 270K Plus is a top-tier desktop part, while the GTX 1660 SUPER languishes in the 53rd percentile of all GPUs. Benchmark results indicate the weakest link dictates the overall ranking, and here the GPU is unequivocally that bottleneck.

Looking at the CPU’s synthetic averages reinforces this imbalance. The Core Ultra 7 270K Plus scores 93,785 on average across all benchmark suites, placing it within 0.1% of the Intel Xeon 6520P (93,786) and 1.5% ahead of the AMD EPYC 4564P (95,183, delta -1.5%). These rivals are server-class parts, yet the desktop Ultra 7 trades blows with them in raw compute. In contrast, the GTX 1660 SUPER’s average benchmark score of 12,986 sits nearly identically to the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3050 Ti Mobile (12,940, delta 0.4%) and the AMD Radeon RX 580 (12,928, delta 0.4%). The GPU is competitive with entry-level laptop and older desktop parts, but that is a far cry from the CPU’s peer group.

In Minimum specifically, the measured FPS data shows the combo’s ceiling. At 1080p Low, the system achieves 131 FPS average, which is playable for a third-person shooter. However, the combo rank suggests that many other pairings—likely those with mid-range GPUs from 2020 onward—deliver higher frame rates. The 2509th position out of 2939 implies that roughly 85% of tested combinations outperform this pairing in this title. That is a sobering statistic for a CPU that alone outperforms 96% of all processors.

GPU Role

The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1660 SUPER is the primary performance limiter in this configuration. Its TU116 chip, built on TSMC’s 12 nm process, contains 6,600 million transistors across a 284 mm² die. The GPU operates at a base clock of 1530 MHz and boosts to 1785 MHz, with memory running at 1750 MHz (14 Gbps effective) across a 192-bit bus. This yields 336.0 GB/s of bandwidth—adequate for 6 GB of GDDR6, but modest by modern standards.

In Minimum, the GPU’s limitations manifest clearly in the scaling between settings. At 1080p, dropping from Ultra to Low improves average FPS from 64 to 131—a 104.7% increase. That massive uplift indicates the GPU is heavily stressed by higher-quality presets, even at the lowest resolution. The VRAM capacity of 6 GB is also a concern; while the game’s release date of 2014 predates modern VRAM demands, the measured FPS shows that Ultra settings at 2160p drop to 22 FPS average, suggesting texture and shading loads overwhelm the memory subsystem.

The GTX 1660 SUPER’s compute capabilities are fixed: 1408 shading units, 88 TMUs, and 48 ROPs. Pixel rate is 85.68 GPixel/s, texture rate is 157.1 GTexel/s, and FP32 performance stands at 5.027 TFLOPS. These figures place it in the same performance tier as the AMD Radeon RX 580 and the RTX 3050 Ti Mobile, per the nearestRivals data. In Minimum, this translates to playable but not smooth performance at high refresh rates—the 1080p High average of 84 FPS is acceptable, but the 2160p High average of 29 FPS is not.

The GPU’s end-of-life production status and its 2019 release date mean it lacks modern features like ray tracing or DLSS, which are absent from the FACT PACK entirely. The benchmark data shows no RT or tensor core metrics, so the GTX 1660 SUPER relies purely on rasterization. In a 2014 title like Minimum, that is sufficient for medium-quality 1440p (65 FPS average), but the combo rank confirms that the GPU holds back the CPU in almost every scenario.

Resolution Scaling

The measured FPS data reveals a clear resolution hierarchy that underscores the GPU bottleneck. At 1920x1080 Low, the combo delivers 131 FPS average. Moving to 2560x1440 Low, that drops to 85 FPS—a 35.1% reduction. At 3840x2160 Low, the average falls to 46 FPS, which is 64.9% lower than the 1080p result. This scaling pattern is typical of a GPU-bound system: as pixel count increases, the graphics card becomes the limiting factor, and frame rates drop proportionally.

The same trend appears across all settings. At High, 1080p yields 84 FPS, 1440p yields 54 FPS (35.7% drop), and 2160p yields 29 FPS (65.5% drop). Medium shows 100 FPS at 1080p, 65 FPS at 1440p, and 35 FPS at 2160p. Ultra is the most punishing: 64 FPS at 1080p, 41 FPS at 1440p, and 22 FPS at 2160p. The consistency of these drops—roughly 35% from 1080p to 1440p and another 45-50% from 1440p to 2160p—indicates that the GTX 1660 SUPER’s fill rate and memory bandwidth are the constraining resources.

If the CPU were the bottleneck, we would expect diminishing FPS drops at higher resolutions, since the CPU’s workload remains constant while the GPU’s increases. Instead, the data shows linear scaling with pixel count, which is the signature of a GPU-limited configuration. The Intel Core Ultra 7 270K Plus, with its 24 cores and 24 threads, is not breaking a sweat in Minimum; the 3.70 GHz base and 5.50 GHz boost clocks provide more than enough single-thread performance for a 2014 title. The 125 W TDP part is simply waiting for the GPU to catch up, which it never does above 1080p Medium.

Measured FPS Breakdown

At 1920x1080, the combo delivers its best results. Low settings produce an average of 131 FPS, which is smooth for competitive play. Medium drops to 100 FPS average, with minimums of 85 FPS and maximums of 115 FPS, indicating consistent frame pacing. High settings yield 84 FPS average—still playable but showing strain. Ultra falls to 64 FPS average, which is borderline for a shooter; the lack of min/max data for Ultra suggests the variance was not captured, but the average is below the 85 FPS minimum seen at Medium.

At 2560x1440, the picture worsens. Low settings average 85 FPS, which is acceptable but no longer high-refresh territory. Medium averages 65 FPS, with minimums of 55 FPS and maximums of 74 FPS. High drops to 54 FPS average, and Ultra falls to 41 FPS average. These numbers indicate that 1440p is only viable at Low or Medium settings for a smooth experience. The GTX 1660 SUPER’s 6 GB VRAM and 192-bit bus struggle to maintain frame rates as resolution increases, even in a game from 2014.

At 3840x2160, the combo is largely unplayable for a third-person shooter. Low settings average 46 FPS, which is marginal. Medium averages 35 FPS, with minimums of 30 FPS and maximums of 40 FPS—the only resolution where min/max data was recorded, suggesting the variance was significant enough to capture. High averages 29 FPS, and Ultra averages 22 FPS. These figures are below the 30 FPS threshold typically considered the minimum for playable frame rates. The data shows that 4K is not a viable option for this pairing, regardless of settings.

The delta between 1080p Low (131 FPS) and 1080p Ultra (64 FPS) is 67 FPS, or a 51.1% reduction. At 1440p, the same settings gap narrows to 44 FPS (85 to 41), and at 2160p, it narrows to 24 FPS (46 to 22). This narrowing gap at higher resolutions confirms that the GPU is saturated even at Low settings in 4K, leaving little headroom for quality improvements.

FAQ

Q: What is the best resolution and settings for this combo in Minimum?

A: The data shows 1920x1080 Medium is the sweet spot, with an average of 100 FPS and minimums of 85 FPS. Low settings at 1080p reach 131 FPS average, but Medium offers a better balance of quality and performance. At 1440p, Low (85 FPS) is the only setting that clears 60 FPS average. 2160p is not recommended, as even Low averages only 46 FPS.

Q: How does the GTX 1660 SUPER compare to its closest rivals?

A: The GPU’s average benchmark score of 12,986 places it within 0.4% of the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3050 Ti Mobile (12,940) and 0.4% of the AMD Radeon RX 580 (12,928). It trails the NVIDIA Tesla M2090 (13,075) by 0.7%. These deltas are negligible, indicating near-identical performance in synthetic tests.

Q: Is the CPU or GPU the limiting factor in this combo?

A: The benchmark results clearly indicate the GPU is the bottleneck. The Intel Core Ultra 7 270K Plus ranks in the 96th percentile of all CPUs with an average benchmark score of 93,785, while the GTX 1660 SUPER sits in the 53rd percentile with an average score of 12,986. The FPS scaling from 1080p to 4K follows a GPU-limited pattern, with linear drops as resolution increases.

Q: What is the combo’s rank relative to all tested configurations?

A: The combo ranks 2509 out of 2939 tested combos in Minimum. This places it in the lower 15th percentile of all pairings, meaning only about 430 configurations perform worse. The high CPU percentile (96th) does not compensate for the GPU’s mid-range position (53rd percentile).

Q: How does the CPU’s performance compare to server-class rivals?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 7 270K Plus scores 93,785 on average, essentially tied with the Intel Xeon 6520P (93,786, delta 0%). It trails the AMD EPYC 4564P (95,183, delta -1.5%), AMD EPYC 9175F (95,615, delta -1.9%), and AMD EPYC 4565P (95,764, delta -2.1%). These differences are within 2.1%, showing the desktop CPU competes directly with enterprise parts.

Q: What are the differences in FPS between Low and Ultra settings at each resolution?

A: At 1080p, Low averages 131 FPS while Ultra averages 64 FPS—a 67 FPS difference. At 1440p, Low averages 85 FPS and Ultra averages 41 FPS—a 44 FPS difference. At 2160p, Low averages 46 FPS and Ultra averages 22 FPS—a 24 FPS difference. The shrinking delta at higher resolutions confirms the GPU becomes the limiting factor even at Low settings.

CPU Role

The Intel Core Ultra 7 270K Plus is a 24-core, 24-thread desktop processor built on TSMC’s 3 nm process, containing 17,800 million transistors on a 243 mm² die. Its base clock of 3.70 GHz and boost clock of 5.50 GHz provide exceptional single-thread performance, as reflected in synthetic benchmarks: Cinebench R23 single-core scores 2439, and PassMark single-thread scores 5068. Multi-threaded performance is equally strong, with Cinebench R23 multi-core scoring 44,253 and PassMark multi-thread scoring 68,574.

In Minimum, however, the CPU’s role is largely passive. The game’s 2014 release date means it was designed for far less capable hardware—the Core Ultra 7 270K Plus has more than enough computational headroom to feed the GTX 1660 SUPER at any resolution. The measured FPS data shows that frame rates are determined almost entirely by GPU settings and resolution, not CPU throughput. At 1080p Low, the 131 FPS average is likely close to the game engine’s maximum, but the GPU still dictates the ceiling.

The CPU’s memory support includes DDR5 with dual-channel configuration and 115.2 GB/s bandwidth, plus 36 MB of shared L3 cache. These specifications are overkill for a 2014 title, which likely uses far less memory bandwidth. The 125 W TDP and Intel Socket 1851 platform are modern, but the game does not leverage the processor’s advanced features. The 3 nm process node and Arrow Lake Refresh codename are irrelevant to Minimum’s performance, as the game’s engine is too old to utilize them.

The CPU’s nearest rivals in benchmark scores—the Intel Xeon 6520P (93,786), AMD EPYC 4564P (95,183), AMD EPYC 9175F (95,615), and AMD EPYC 4565P (95,764)—are all server processors with far higher core counts and memory channels. Yet the Ultra 7 270K Plus holds its own, trailing the best EPYC by only 2.1%. This demonstrates that for gaming workloads, the desktop part’s higher clocks and lower latency are more valuable than raw core counts. However, in Minimum, that advantage is wasted because the GPU cannot translate it into higher FPS.

The CPU’s PassMark extended instructions score of 63,506 and data compression score of 804,322 indicate strong general-purpose performance, but these do not influence Minimum’s frame rates. Similarly, the FP32 score of 5.027 TFLOPS on the GPU is what matters for rasterization, not the CPU’s integer math (175,986) or floating-point operations (229,491). The data shows a clear division: the CPU provides the framework, but the GPU paints the picture, and in this case, the painter is working with a limited palette.

For users considering this combo, the practical takeaway is that the CPU is future-proof for many years, but the GPU will need an upgrade to unlock Minimum’s higher refresh rates or resolutions. The 1080p Medium result of 100 FPS average is the practical limit for smooth gameplay, and even that requires accepting the GPU’s mid-range capabilities. The CPU’s 96th percentile ranking means it will not be the reason for upgrading anytime soon—but the GTX 1660 SUPER’s 53rd percentile ranking suggests it will be the first component replaced.