Minimum

The Intel Core Ultra 7 270K Plus paired with the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4080 SUPER delivers a commanding performance profile in Minimum, a third-person shooter from 2014. The data shows this combination handles the game with exceptional ease, particularly at lower resolutions where it achieves refresh-rate-shattering frame rates. However, the results also reveal a clear progression of performance scaling that places the GPU firmly as the primary driver of frame rate at higher resolutions, while the CPU ensures the high-end frame rates at 1080p remain fluid and consistent.

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

The Intel Core Ultra 7 270K Plus is a desktop processor from the Core Ultra Series 2, built on a 3 nm process node. It features 24 cores and 24 threads, a configuration that provides substantial parallel processing capability. Its base clock is 3.70 GHz, which can boost up to 5.50 GHz, and it carries a 125 W TDP. The processor includes a cache hierarchy of 192 KB L1 per core, 3 MB L2 per core, and a shared 36 MB L3 cache. This hardware foundation is reflected in its strong synthetic benchmark scores, including a Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 44253 and a single-core score of 2439, placing it in the 96th percentile among all CPUs.

In the context of Minimum, the CPU’s role is to feed the GPU with enough data to maintain high frame rates. The benchmark results show that at 1920x1080 with Low settings, the combo hits an average of 354 FPS. This extreme frame rate is a direct indicator of the CPU’s capability to process game logic and draw calls at a very high speed. The single-thread performance, evidenced by a PassMark single-thread score of 5068, is crucial for this, as many game engines rely heavily on a primary thread for frame pacing. The data suggests that the CPU is not a bottleneck at 1080p, as the frame rate scales dramatically with settings, reaching 354 FPS on Low and 173 FPS on Ultra, a difference that is primarily driven by the GPU’s workload.

When compared to its nearest rivals in the CPU benchmark database, the Core Ultra 7 270K Plus holds its ground. Its average benchmark score of 93785 is essentially identical to the Intel Xeon 6520P, which scores 93786 (a delta of 0%). It trails slightly behind the AMD EPYC 4564P, which scores 95183 (a -1.5% delta) and the AMD EPYC 9175F at 95615 (a -1.9% delta). These are server-class processors, yet the Core Ultra 7 270K Plus matches their average scores, which underscores its strength in both multi-threaded and single-threaded tasks. For Minimum, this level of CPU performance is more than sufficient, ensuring that even in the most demanding scenes, the processor can deliver the frames needed to keep the GPU fully utilized.

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

The NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4080 SUPER is the clear performance driver in this configuration, especially as resolution increases. This GPU is based on the Ada Lovelace architecture, featuring the AD103 chip on a 5 nm process. It has a base clock of 2295 MHz and a boost clock of 2550 MHz. The memory subsystem is significant: 16 GB of GDDR6X memory on a 256-bit bus, providing a bandwidth of 736.3 GB/s. This ample VRAM and bandwidth are critical for handling high-resolution textures and complex shaders without stuttering or frame drops.

The GPU’s compute capabilities are substantial, with 10240 shading units, 320 TMUs, and 112 ROPs. It also includes 80 RT cores and 320 Tensor cores, though these are less relevant for a title like Minimum unless ray tracing is enabled. The raw throughput is rated at 52.22 TFLOPS for FP32 operations, which explains its ability to push massive frame rates. In the GPU benchmark database, the RTX 4080 SUPER has a PassMark G3D score of 34245 and a Geekbench Vulkan score of 260075, placing it in the 86th percentile among all GPUs. Its average benchmark score of 54209 is nearly identical to the standard RTX 4080, which scores 54247 (a -0.1% delta).

The measured FPS data shows the GPU’s scaling. At 3840x2160 (4K), the RTX 4080 SUPER produces 60 FPS on Ultra, 79 FPS on High, 94 FPS on Medium, and 123 FPS on Low. This demonstrates a 63 FPS swing between Low and Ultra settings at 4K, indicating that the GPU is the primary bottleneck at this resolution. The data shows a clear relationship: as settings increase, the frame rate drops proportionally, a classic sign of GPU-bound rendering. Even at its lowest point (60 FPS on 4K Ultra), the experience remains playable, but the data suggests that to achieve higher refresh rates at 4K, users must lower settings to High or Medium.

FAQ

*Q: What is the highest average frame rate achieved by this combo in Minimum?*

A: The highest average frame rate recorded is 354 FPS, achieved at 1920x1080 resolution with Low settings.

Q: Can this system maintain a 60 FPS experience at 4K Ultra settings?

A: Yes, the data shows an average of 60 FPS at 3840x2160 resolution with Ultra settings, which is exactly at the threshold for a standard 60 Hz display.

Q: How much of a performance difference is there between 1080p and 4K at High settings?

A: At High settings, the average frame rate drops from 228 FPS at 1920x1080 to 79 FPS at 3840x2160, a reduction of 149 FPS, highlighting the significant load increase on the GPU at higher resolutions.

Q: Which component is more responsible for the frame rate differences between setting presets?

A: The data indicates the GPU is the primary driver. At 2560x1440, the frame rate varies from 228 FPS on Low to 112 FPS on Ultra, a 116 FPS difference, which is a typical pattern of GPU-bound performance scaling.

Q: Is the CPU powerful enough to support high refresh rate gaming at 1080p?

A: Yes, the CPU’s strong single-thread performance ensures it is not a limiting factor, as evidenced by the 354 FPS average at 1080p Low, which is an extremely high frame rate that requires rapid CPU processing.

Q: How does this GPU compare to its direct predecessor in terms of average benchmark score?

A: The RTX 4080 SUPER has an average benchmark score of 54209, while the standard RTX 4080 scores 54247, making the SUPER slightly slower by -0.1% in this aggregate metric.

Measured FPS Breakdown

The measured FPS data provides a detailed look at how this combo performs across resolutions and settings. At 1920x1080, the performance is exceptional across the board. With Low settings, the average FPS is 354. Switching to Medium reduces the average to 271 FPS, with a minimum of 230 and a maximum of 312 FPS. High settings yield an average of 228 FPS. At Ultra, the average is 173 FPS. This scaling shows that even at the highest settings, the system easily exceeds the refresh rate of most high-end monitors.

Moving to 2560x1440, the performance remains very high but begins to show the GPU’s workload. Low settings produce an average of 228 FPS. Medium settings average 175 FPS, with a min/max of 149/201 FPS. High settings deliver an average of 147 FPS. Ultra settings bring the average down to 112 FPS. The data shows a smooth and predictable decline in frame rate as settings increase, with no anomalous dips, indicating a stable performance curve.

At 3840x2160, the GPU is clearly the limiting factor. Low settings still manage a strong 123 FPS average, but Medium drops to 94 FPS (min 80, max 108). High settings produce an average of 79 FPS, and Ultra averages 60 FPS. This resolution demonstrates the most significant impact of settings on performance. The difference between Low and Ultra at 4K is 63 FPS, compared to a 181 FPS difference at 1080p. This data shows that while the RTX 4080 SUPER is powerful, 4K Ultra is a demanding scenario that caps the system at a 60 FPS average.

How This Combo Ranks

In the database of tested combos for Minimum, this configuration of the Intel Core Ultra 7 270K Plus and NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4080 SUPER ranks 211th out of 2939 tested combinations. This places it in the top 7.2% of all systems tested, which is a strong result. The high ranking confirms the balance between the CPU and GPU. While the CPU is in the 96th percentile and the GPU is in the 86th percentile individually, their combined performance in Minimum is even more impressive due to the game’s ability to leverage the CPU’s high clock speeds and the GPU’s raw throughput.

The ranking suggests that this combo outperforms a vast majority of other systems, likely including those with older or less powerful components. The data implies that only 210 other combos in the database deliver higher frame rates or better consistency in this specific game. Given the game’s age, this ranking is expected, as modern high-end hardware handles it with ease. The performance headroom is significant; the system is not struggling to maintain playable frame rates but rather pushing the upper limits of what the game engine can render.

Settings Recommendations

Based on the measured FPS data, the optimal settings depend on the user’s display and performance goals. For users with a 1080p or 1440p monitor with a high refresh rate (144 Hz or higher), the Ultra preset is the best choice. At 1080p Ultra, the system produces 173 FPS, and at 1440p Ultra, it produces 112 FPS. Both are well above 100 FPS, ensuring a smooth and responsive experience with maximum visual fidelity. The data shows no reason to sacrifice visual quality at these resolutions, as the frame rates remain high.

For 4K users, the recommendation is more nuanced. The Ultra preset averages exactly 60 FPS, which is suitable for a standard 60 Hz monitor but leaves no headroom for demanding scenes. The data shows that the High preset at 4K averages 79 FPS, providing a 19 FPS buffer over Ultra. This makes High the "best experience" preset for 4K, as it offers a significant improvement in smoothness (79 vs 60 FPS) with a relatively minor visual downgrade from Ultra to High. For users with high-refresh-rate 4K displays (120 Hz+), dropping to Medium (94 FPS) is necessary to get closer to that target, but High offers the best balance of quality and performance for most 4K scenarios. The Low preset is not recommended for this hardware, as it leaves too much performance on the table and degrades visual quality unnecessarily.