Minimum

FAQ

Q: How does the Intel Core Ultra 9 290K Plus compare to its closest rival in synthetic benchmarks?

A: The Ultra 9 290K Plus posts an average benchmark score of 84003, which places it 0.2% ahead of the Intel Core Ultra 9 285K (avg score 83807). It is also 1.1% faster than the AMD EPYC 4584PX and 1.2% faster than the AMD EPYC 9135, while trailing the AMD EPYC 7F72 by 1.3%.

Q: What is the performance percentile ranking for this CPU and GPU pairing?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 9 290K Plus sits in the 96th percentile among all CPUs, indicating top-tier processing capability. The AMD Radeon RX 5700 XT, however, sits in the 59th percentile among all GPUs, showing a significant gap between the processor's headroom and the graphics card's mid-range standing.

Q: Which resolution delivers the highest average FPS in Minimum?

A: At 1920x1080 with Low settings, the combo achieves 166 FPS average, which is the highest measured FPS across all tested configurations. The same resolution at High settings drops to 107 FPS, while 2560x1440 Low yields 107 FPS, matching the 1080p High result.

Q: What frame rates can players expect at 4K Ultra settings?

A: At 3840x2160 with Ultra settings, the system produces only 28 FPS average. This is the lowest measured result in the entire dataset, and it falls well below playable thresholds for a third-person shooter, indicating that 4K Ultra is not viable for this hardware combination.

Q: How much performance headroom does the CPU have relative to the GPU in this game?

A: The CPU's multi-threaded Cinebench R23 score is 51731, while the GPU's Passmark G3D score is 16277. The CPU sits at the 96th percentile while the GPU sits at the 59th, and the measured FPS scaling from 1080p to 4K suggests the GPU becomes the limiting factor at higher resolutions.

Q: Is the RX 5700 XT close to any rival GPUs in synthetic performance?

A: The RX 5700 XT's average benchmark score is 16361, which is 0.1% higher than the AMD Radeon Pro 5600M (16351). It trails the NVIDIA RTX PRO 6000 Blackwell by 0.3%, the AMD Radeon PRO W7500 by 0.3%, and the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5090 D V2 by 0.9%.

Settings Recommendations

The measured FPS data across all resolutions and settings presets clearly indicates that the Low preset provides the most balanced experience for this hardware pairing. At 1920x1080, Low yields 166 FPS average, which is 39 FPS higher than Medium (127 FPS) and 59 FPS higher than High (107 FPS). The jump from Low to Medium costs 39 FPS, while the jump from Medium to High costs another 20 FPS, demonstrating diminishing returns as settings increase.

For players prioritizing smoothness in this third-person shooter, Low at 1080p is the only preset that clears the 144Hz threshold comfortably. At 2560x1440, Low still delivers 107 FPS, matching the 1080p High result, which makes 1440p Low a viable alternative for those wanting higher resolution without sacrificing too much fluidity. The Medium preset at 1440p yields 82 FPS, which is acceptable for 60Hz displays but insufficient for high-refresh monitors.

At 3840x2160, even Low settings only produce 58 FPS average, which is below the 60 FPS target for most displays. The Medium preset at 4K drops to 44 FPS, and High falls to 37 FPS, making 4K gaming largely impractical with this GPU regardless of settings. The data shows that the optimal experience is 1080p Low for competitive play, or 1440p Low for a balance of visual fidelity and performance. Ultra settings are not recommended at any resolution, as they produce 82 FPS at 1080p, 53 FPS at 1440p, and 28 FPS at 4K.

Resolution Scaling

The FPS scaling from 1080p to 4K reveals a steep performance cliff that points directly at the GPU as the primary bottleneck. At Low settings, the transition from 1920x1080 (166 FPS) to 2560x1440 (107 FPS) represents a 35.5% drop, and further scaling to 3840x2160 (58 FPS) yields another 45.8% drop from the 1440p figure. This progressive degradation is characteristic of a GPU that is being overwhelmed by pixel count.

At High settings, the scaling is similarly aggressive: 107 FPS at 1080p falls to 69 FPS at 1440p (35.5% drop) and then to 37 FPS at 4K (46.4% drop from 1440p). The consistency of these percentage drops across settings presets indicates that resolution scaling is governed by the GPU's fill rate and memory bandwidth rather than CPU limitations. The RX 5700 XT's 448.0 GB/s memory bandwidth and 121.9 GPixel/s pixel rate are simply insufficient for 4K workloads in this game.

The CPU's role in this scaling pattern is minimal. The Intel Core Ultra 9 290K Plus has 24 cores and 24 threads with a boost clock of 5.80 GHz, and its 96th percentile ranking suggests it is not the limiting factor at any resolution. If the CPU were the bottleneck, we would expect FPS to remain relatively flat across resolutions, as the processor's workload does not scale with pixel count. Instead, the sharp FPS drops with each resolution increase confirm that the RX 5700 XT is the constraining component, particularly at 4K where even Low settings cannot reach 60 FPS.

Measured FPS Breakdown

At 1920x1080, the system delivers its strongest performance across all settings. Low produces 166 FPS average, Medium produces 127 FPS with a minimum of 108 FPS and maximum of 147 FPS, High produces 107 FPS, and Ultra produces 82 FPS. The 1080p results show a clear hierarchy where each settings tier costs roughly 20-40 FPS, with the gap between Low and Medium (39 FPS) being the largest single-step drop.

At 2560x1440, the performance envelope tightens considerably. Low yields 107 FPS, Medium yields 82 FPS with a minimum of 70 FPS and maximum of 94 FPS, High yields 69 FPS, and Ultra drops to 53 FPS. The Medium preset's minimum of 70 FPS suggests some frame-time variance at this resolution, but the overall averages remain playable for most users. The step from Low to Medium costs 25 FPS, and from Medium to High costs 13 FPS, showing a more compressed scaling curve than at 1080p.

At 3840x2160, the system struggles to maintain playable frame rates. Low produces 58 FPS, Medium produces 44 FPS with a minimum of 38 FPS and maximum of 51 FPS, High produces 37 FPS, and Ultra drops to 28 FPS. Only the Low preset approaches 60 FPS, and even that falls short by 2 FPS. The Medium preset's minimum of 38 FPS indicates significant frame drops during intense scenes, which would be noticeable in a third-person shooter with fast camera movements. The 4K results are consistently below the 60 FPS threshold across all settings, making this resolution impractical for this hardware combination.

GPU Role

The AMD Radeon RX 5700 XT is built on the RDNA 1.0 architecture with the Navi 10 chip, fabricated on a 7 nm process at TSMC. It contains 10,300 million transistors across a 251 mm² die, with 2560 shading units, 160 texture mapping units, and 64 render output units. The GPU operates at a base clock of 1605 MHz, a game clock of 1755 MHz, and a boost clock of 1905 MHz, with 8 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 256-bit bus providing 448.0 GB/s of bandwidth.

In Minimum, the GPU's role is decisive at higher resolutions. The measured FPS data shows that 4K performance collapses to 28-58 FPS depending on settings, while 1080p performance ranges from 82-166 FPS. This scaling pattern is consistent with a GPU that has sufficient raw compute for lower resolutions but lacks the memory bandwidth and pixel throughput for 4K workloads. The 448.0 GB/s bandwidth and 121.9 GPixel/s pixel rate are mid-range figures that align with the GPU's 59th percentile ranking among all GPUs.

The GPU's synthetic benchmark results reinforce its position as the limiting factor in this pairing. Its Passmark G3D score of 16277 places it in the 59th percentile, with nearest rivals including the AMD Radeon Pro 5600M (0.1% higher), NVIDIA RTX PRO 6000 Blackwell (0.3% higher), and AMD Radeon PRO W7500 (0.3% higher). The GPU's DirectX 12 Passmark score of 64 is notably low, which may explain some of the performance characteristics observed in this game. The RX 5700 XT's launch MSRP was 399 USD, and it is now marked as end-of-life production with a dual-slot design and 225 W TDP.

CPU Role

The Intel Core Ultra 9 290K Plus is a 24-core, 24-thread processor from the Core Ultra Series 2, based on the Arrow Lake Refresh architecture and fabricated on TSMC's 3 nm process. It features a base clock of 3.70 GHz and a boost clock of 5.80 GHz, with 192 KB of L1 cache per core, 3 MB of L2 cache per core, and 36 MB of shared L3 cache. The CPU supports DDR5 memory in a dual-channel configuration with 115.2 GB/s bandwidth and includes integrated Arc Xe-LPG Graphics with 64 execution units.

In Minimum, the CPU's role is primarily to feed the GPU with enough data to maintain frame rates at lower resolutions. The measured FPS at 1080p Low (166 FPS) suggests that the CPU has ample headroom to drive high frame rates, as its 96th percentile ranking among all CPUs indicates top-tier processing capability. The Cinebench R23 multicore score of 51731 and single-core score of 7303 demonstrate exceptional computational throughput, while the Passmark single-thread score of 4823 confirms strong per-core performance.

The CPU's nearest rivals in synthetic benchmarks include the Intel Core Ultra 9 285K (0.2% slower), AMD EPYC 4584PX (1.1% slower), and AMD EPYC 9135 (1.2% slower), while the AMD EPYC 7F72 leads by 1.3%. These margins are small in synthetic tests, and in real-world gaming, the CPU's 5.80 GHz boost clock and 36 MB L3 cache provide more than enough performance for this title. The data suggests that the Ultra 9 290K Plus is never the bottleneck in Minimum, as evidenced by the significant FPS drops at higher resolutions that are entirely attributable to the GPU. Even at 1080p Ultra (82 FPS), the CPU maintains frame rates well above what the RX 5700 XT can deliver at 4K, confirming that the processor's role is supportive rather than limiting.