Minimum

The Intel Core Ultra 9 290K Plus paired with the AMD Radeon RX 570 in Minimum presents a stark illustration of a massive CPU capability paired with a GPU that is clearly the performance ceiling. The measured data indicates a combination that is entirely GPU-limited across all tested scenarios, with the processor’s formidable specifications providing no relief at higher resolutions. This analysis breaks down the measured FPS results, the role of each component, and what the data suggests for gameplay.

Resolution Scaling

The measured FPS data reveals a classic and severe case of resolution-dependent performance degradation, characteristic of a system bound by its graphics processor. At 1080p, the combination achieves playable frame rates, but the transition to higher resolutions causes a precipitous drop in performance. The data shows that at 1080p with Low settings, the combo averages 82 FPS. This falls to 53 FPS at 1440p, a reduction of 29 FPS, and further plummets to 28 FPS at 4K, representing a 54 FPS drop from the 1080p baseline. This scaling pattern indicates that the rendering workload at higher resolutions quickly overwhelms the GPU.

The trend is consistent across all settings. Moving from 1080p to 1440p at Medium settings sees the average FPS drop from 63 to 40, and at High settings from 53 to 34. The 4K results are uniformly low, with the average FPS for High, Medium, and Low settings at 18, 22, and 28 respectively. The Ultra preset, which is the most demanding, yields an average of just 14 FPS at 4K. The incremental gains from lowering settings at 4K are minimal (a 14 FPS difference between Ultra and Low), which strongly suggests that the GPU’s raw throughput and memory bandwidth are the limiting factors, rather than any specific setting. The performance cliff between 1440p and 4K is steep, indicating that the RX 570’s 4 GB memory buffer and 224.0 GB/s bandwidth are insufficient for the data throughput required at 3840x2160.

This data points to a system where the CPU is never the bottleneck. The frame rate is dictated almost entirely by the GPU’s ability to process frames. At 1080p, the GPU can keep up with the CPU’s demands, but as the pixel count increases, the GPU's workload expands exponentially, and the frame rate collapses. The benchmark results indicate that for a smoother experience, users must either remain at 1080p or substantially lower graphical settings at 1440p, as the 4K resolution is simply beyond the capabilities of this graphics card in this title.

CPU Role

The Intel Core Ultra 9 290K Plus is a 24-core, 24-thread processor based on the Arrow Lake Refresh architecture, built on a 3 nm process. It features a base clock of 3.70 GHz and a boost clock of 5.80 GHz. In synthetic benchmarks, this CPU is exceptionally strong, achieving a Cinebench R23 multicore score of 51731 and a single-core score of 7303. It also posts a Passmark multithread score of 60860 and a single-thread score of 4823. Its average benchmark score of 84003 places it in the 96th percentile of all CPUs, with its nearest rival, the Intel Core Ultra 9 285K, scoring a nearly identical 83807 (a delta of only 0.2%).

However, these impressive compute metrics are largely irrelevant for this specific game at the tested settings. The measured FPS data shows that the combination ranks 2814 out of 2939 combos in Minimum, which highlights that the system's overall performance is held back by another component. Given the CPU's top-tier standing (96th percentile), the bottleneck is unequivocally the GPU. The CPU’s role here is to feed the GPU with data, and with 24 cores and a 5.80 GHz boost clock, it is more than capable of handling the game's logic and draw calls. The data shows no signs of CPU limitation, as frame rates scale predictably with resolution and settings, which is a hallmark of a GPU-bound scenario.

The processor’s 36 MB of shared L3 cache and support for DDR5 memory with 115.2 GB/s of bandwidth ensure that data can be delivered to the GPU without stalling. In this context, the CPU is over-provisioned for the task, sitting idle relative to its maximum potential while the GPU struggles. The benchmark results indicate that the CPU’s massive compute headroom is simply not a factor in this pairing's final performance. A less powerful processor would likely produce identical frame rates, as the RX 570 is the sole arbiter of performance in Minimum.

GPU Role

The AMD Radeon RX 570, based on the Polaris 20 chip and GCN 4.0 architecture, is the definitive performance limiter in this configuration. It is a 14 nm part with 2048 shading units, 128 TMUs, and 32 ROPs. Its clocks are set at a base of 1168 MHz and a boost of 1244 MHz, with memory running at 1750 MHz (7 Gbps effective) across a 256-bit bus. This configuration yields a memory bandwidth of 224.0 GB/s and a texture fill rate of 159.2 GTexel/s. The GPU has 4 GB of GDDR5 memory, which is a critical constraint at higher resolutions.

The GPU’s synthetic benchmark scores, while respectable for its class, are modest compared to the CPU. It achieves a 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 score of 880 and Geekbench scores of 42752 (Vulkan) and 32084 (OpenCL). Its average benchmark score of 28766 places it in the 74th percentile of all GPUs, with its nearest rival being the AMD Radeon RX 6800M at a similar score of 28874 (a delta of -0.4%). This places it in the mid-range tier, a stark contrast to the CPU's top-tier positioning.

The reality of this imbalance is clear in the game’s frame rates. The 4 GB VRAM buffer is likely a primary culprit for the poor 4K performance. At 3840x2160, the data shows average FPS figures between 14 and 28, which are unplayable. The GPU’s 224.0 GB/s of bandwidth is also insufficient for the high-resolution textures and geometry, creating a severe throughput bottleneck. Even at 1440p, the performance is marginal, with the best average FPS being 53 on Low settings. The GPU's compute power, rated at 5.095 TFLOPS FP32, is simply not enough to drive a modern title at high resolutions. The data shows that the RX 570 can only deliver a consistently smooth experience at 1080p, where its 4 GB memory and bandwidth are less of a constraint.

FAQ

Q: What is the average FPS at 1080p with Medium settings?

A: The measured average FPS at 1920x1080 with Medium settings is 63, with a minimum of 53 and a maximum of 72 FPS.

Q: Is the 4K resolution playable with this combo?

A: No. The data indicates that all 4K presets yield average FPS below 30. The highest average at 3840x2160 is 28 FPS on Low settings, and the Ultra preset averages just 14 FPS. These frame rates are not suitable for smooth gameplay.

Q: How does this system's performance rank compared to other tested combos?

A: The combination ranks 2814 out of 2939 tested combos for Minimum, placing it in the bottom 5% of all systems tested.

Q: Which component is the bottleneck for this game?

A: The benchmark results strongly indicate the AMD Radeon RX 570 is the limiting factor. The Intel Core Ultra 9 290K Plus is in the 96th percentile of CPUs, while the GPU is in the 74th percentile, and the frame rates are consistently low, especially at higher resolutions.

Q: What is the best resolution for a playable experience?

A: According to the data, 1920x1080 is the only resolution where the system achieves consistently playable frame rates. At 1080p, even the Ultra preset averages 40 FPS, while the Low preset averages 82 FPS.

Q: How much faster is the 1080p Low preset compared to the 4K Ultra preset?

A: The 1080p Low preset averages 82 FPS, which is 68 FPS higher than the 4K Ultra preset's average of 14 FPS. This represents a substantial 5.8x performance difference.

How This Combo Ranks

The measured data places this specific combination at a rank of 2814 out of 2939 tested combos in Minimum. This is a very poor ranking, placing the system in the bottom percentile of all configurations tested. This ranking is a direct consequence of the massive performance disparity between the two components. The CPU is a top-tier part, ranking in the 96th percentile of all CPUs in synthetic tests, while the GPU is a mid-range part from an older generation, ranking in the 74th percentile of all GPUs.

This rank is not a reflection of the CPU's capabilities but rather a demonstration of how a low-performing GPU can cripple a system's gaming potential. The system is effectively a high-end CPU paired with a budget-tier GPU, and the composite result is a gaming experience that is far below what the CPU alone could support. The data shows that this pairing is severely unbalanced for Minimum, and the resulting frame rates are a signal of the GPU's inability to keep pace with the demands of the game at higher settings. The rank of 2814 serves as a clear warning that the GPU must be upgraded to unlock the potential of the CPU in this title.

Measured FPS Breakdown

The following table details the exact average FPS measured at each resolution and settings preset:

| Resolution | Settings | Average FPS | Min FPS | Max FPS |

|:--------- |:------- |:---------- |:------ |:------ |

| 3840x2160 | High | 18 | - | - |

| 3840x2160 | Low | 28 | - | - |

| 3840x2160 | Medium | 22 | 19 | 25 |

| 3840x2160 | Ultra | 14 | - | - |

| 2560x1440 | High | 34 | - | - |

| 2560x1440 | Low | 53 | - | - |

| 2560x1440 | Medium | 40 | 34 | 46 |

| 2560x1440 | Ultra | 26 | - | - |

| 1920x1080 | High | 53 | - | - |

| 1920x1080 | Low | 82 | - | - |

| 1920x1080 | Medium | 63 | 53 | 72 |

| 1920x1080 | Ultra | 40 | - | - |

The data shows a clear and consistent pattern. Performance degrades significantly as resolution increases, and the impact of settings is most pronounced at 1080p. At 4K, the difference between Low and High settings is only 10 FPS, indicating that the GPU is saturated and settings have diminishing returns. At 1080p, the difference between Low and Ultra is 42 FPS, showing that the GPU has more headroom at this resolution.

Settings Recommendations

Based on the measured FPS data, the optimal experience for this hardware combination is found at 1920x1080 resolution. At this resolution, the system provides a range of playable options. For the most fluid gameplay, the Low preset, averaging 82 FPS, is the best choice, offering a significant performance advantage. However, for a better visual experience without sacrificing too much performance, the Medium preset, with an average of 63 FPS and a minimum of 53 FPS, is the recommended balance. This preset ensures the frame rate rarely dips below 60 FPS, which is a good target for a smooth experience in a third-person shooter.

The High preset at 1080p averages 53 FPS, which is playable but may feel less consistent. The Ultra preset at 1080p, averaging 40 FPS, is not recommended for a game that benefits from responsive controls, as the lower frame rate can impact gameplay smoothness. At 2560x1440, the data suggests that only the Low preset, with an average of 53 FPS, provides an acceptable frame rate, but it comes with a significant visual quality reduction. The Medium, High, and Ultra presets at 1440p all fall below 40 FPS average, which is not recommended. The 3840x2160 resolution is not viable for this game with these components, as all presets fail to reach 30 FPS average. Therefore, the data clearly indicates that 1080p Medium is the sweet spot, offering a balance of visual fidelity and performance, while 1080p Low is the best option for maximizing frame rate.