Minimum

How This Combo Ranks

The Intel Core Ultra 9 290K Plus paired with the AMD Radeon RX 7600 lands at rank 2008 out of 2939 tested combos for Minimum. That places this configuration in the lower third of the database, a position that reflects the significant mismatch between the CPU's top-tier compute potential and the GPU's mid-range rasterization throughput. The rank is not a condemnation of either part individually; rather, benchmark results indicate that this pairing leaves substantial processor headroom untapped at the resolutions and settings where this GPU operates most comfortably.

Context from the individual component standings reinforces this interpretation. The Core Ultra 9 290K Plus sits in the 96th percentile among all CPUs, with an average benchmark score of 84003. Its nearest rivals show just how tightly contested the top end is: the Intel Core Ultra 9 285K scores 83807 (a 0.2% delta), the AMD EPYC 4584PX scores 83090 (1.1% ahead of this chip), and the AMD EPYC 9135 scores 82980 (1.2% behind). Even the AMD EPYC 7F72, which beats the 290K Plus by 1.3% with a score of 85072, is within striking distance. This is a processor that trades blows with the absolute fastest silicon available, and its 24 cores and 24 threads give it massive parallel throughput for any game engine that can scale.

On the GPU side, the RX 7600 ranks in the 57th percentile among all graphics cards, with an average benchmark score of 15171. Its nearest rivals are a mixed bag that reveals the competitive landscape: the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3050 OEM scores 15199 (just 0.2% higher), the AMD Radeon 680M scores 15270 (0.7% higher), while the AMD Radeon Pro 560X scores 15082 (0.6% lower) and the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 660 Ti scores 15063 (0.7% lower). The RX 7600 is effectively in a dead heat with these products, meaning the GPU is the clear bottleneck in this combo. When a 96th-percentile CPU is paired with a 57th-percentile GPU, the frame rate ceiling is set by the graphics card, and the data confirms that pattern across every measured resolution.

GPU Role

The AMD Radeon RX 7600 is built on the RDNA 3.0 architecture with the Navi 33 chip, fabricated on a 6 nm process at TSMC. The GPU packs 2048 shading units, 128 texture mapping units, and 64 raster operation units, along with 32 ray tracing cores. Clock speeds are a key strength: the base clock runs at 1720 MHz, the game clock at 2250 MHz, and the boost clock reaches 2655 MHz. This aggressive boost behavior allows the card to punch above its silicon size in lighter workloads, but Minimum is a third-person shooter that stresses sustained throughput, not just peak clocks.

Memory configuration is where the RX 7600 shows its limits. The card carries 8 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 128-bit bus, yielding 288.0 GB/s of bandwidth. For a 2014-era title, 8 GB is generally sufficient at 1080p and 1440p, but the narrow bus and bandwidth figure become increasingly relevant as resolution climbs. The measured FPS data shows a sharp drop-off at 4K, which aligns with bandwidth constraints rather than raw shading power. The GPU's pixel rate is listed at 169.9 GPixel/s and its texture rate at 339.8 GTexel/s, with FP32 performance at 21.75 TFLOPS. These figures are respectable for the class, but they cannot compensate for the memory subsystem when the render target expands.

The card's PCIe 4.0 x8 interface is another consideration. While this does not materially impact a game like Minimum at typical settings, it does mean the GPU relies on a narrower link than the CPU's Gen 5 lanes can provide. The RX 7600 supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4, which covers the API requirements of this title comfortably. Power delivery is rated at 165 W TDP with a suggested 450 W PSU, and the card uses a single 8-pin connector. The launch MSRP for this GPU is 269 USD, a figure that contextualizes its position as a mainstream performer rather than a high-end one.

FAQ

Q: Why does this combo rank so low (2008 out of 2939) despite having a top-tier CPU?

A: The combo rank reflects the combined system performance, and the RX 7600 sits in the 57th percentile among GPUs, while the Core Ultra 9 290K Plus sits in the 96th percentile among CPUs. The GPU becomes the limiting factor in most gaming scenarios, dragging the overall combo rank down despite the processor's strength.

Q: Is the Intel Core Ultra 9 290K Plus significantly faster than its nearest rival?

A: No. The data shows the 290K Plus scores 84003 on average, which is only 0.2% higher than the Intel Core Ultra 9 285K at 83807, and 1.1% higher than the AMD EPYC 4584PX at 83090. It actually trails the AMD EPYC 7F72, which scores 85072, by 1.3%.

Q: How does the RX 7600 compare to its closest GPU competitors?

A: The RX 7600 scores 15171 on average, putting it within a narrow band of its rivals. The NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3050 OEM is 0.2% faster at 15199, the AMD Radeon 680M is 0.7% faster at 15270, while the AMD Radeon Pro 560X is 0.6% slower at 15082 and the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 660 Ti is 0.7% slower at 15063.

*Q: Can this system handle 4K gaming in Minimum?*

A: Barely. At 3840x2160 with Low settings, the combo achieves 59 FPS on average, which is playable. However, Medium settings drop to 45 FPS, High drops to 38 FPS, and Ultra falls to 29 FPS. The 4K experience is only viable at the lowest preset.

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

A: The data shows 1920x1080 as the sweet spot, where even Ultra settings hit 84 FPS average. At 2560x1440, Ultra drops to 54 FPS, which is still playable but less comfortable. The 1080p resolution allows the RX 7600 to stretch its legs while the CPU remains mostly idle.

Q: Does the CPU's 24-core configuration help in this game?

A: The Core Ultra 9 290K Plus has 24 cores and 24 threads, which provides immense multithreaded capability. However, Minimum is a third-person shooter from 2014, and its engine does not scale to consume that many threads. The measured FPS data shows the GPU is the bottleneck across all resolutions, so the CPU's core count provides no tangible benefit in this specific title.

Measured FPS Breakdown

The measured frame rates for this combo in Minimum reveal a consistent pattern: the RX 7600 is the constraining factor, and the CPU's power only becomes evident at lower resolutions where the GPU can keep up. At 1920x1080, the lowest setting tested, the combo delivers 171 FPS on average. This is the only configuration that approaches the high-refresh territory where the 290K Plus's single-thread performance (a Cinebench R23 single-core score of 7303) might matter. Medium settings at 1080p yield 131 FPS with a minimum of 111 FPS and a maximum of 150 FPS, while High settings produce 110 FPS. Ultra at 1080p drops to 84 FPS, which is still smooth but shows the GPU starting to struggle with the highest preset.

Moving to 2560x1440, the frame rates scale down predictably. Low settings deliver 110 FPS, Medium drops to 84 FPS (with a range of 72 to 97 FPS), High yields 71 FPS, and Ultra falls to 54 FPS. The 1440p results are entirely playable at Medium and below, and even High at 71 FPS is respectable for a mainstream GPU. The gap between Low and Ultra at this resolution is 56 FPS, demonstrating that the preset selection has a dramatic impact on performance.

At 3840x2160, the RX 7600's memory bandwidth limitation becomes pronounced. Low settings achieve 59 FPS, which is barely playable, but Medium drops to 45 FPS (with a range of 39 to 52 FPS), High falls to 38 FPS, and Ultra bottoms out at 29 FPS. The 4K results are a clear warning: this GPU cannot sustain 60 FPS at this resolution in Minimum under any preset. The delta between Low and Ultra at 4K is 30 FPS, and even the best case (Low at 59 FPS) is below the 60 FPS threshold that most players consider the baseline for smooth gameplay.

The Medium settings at each resolution are the only rows that include minimum and maximum FPS data, which provides insight into frame time consistency. At 1080p Medium, the range is 111 to 150 FPS, a spread of 39 FPS. At 1440p Medium, the range narrows to 72 to 97 FPS, a 25 FPS spread. At 4K Medium, the range is 39 to 52 FPS, a 13 FPS spread. This tightening of the range as resolution increases suggests that the GPU is becoming more consistently saturated, reducing the variance that comes from CPU-bound or driver-level fluctuations.

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 codename and built on a 3 nm process at TSMC. It operates at a base clock of 3.70 GHz and boosts up to 5.80 GHz, with a TDP of 125 W. The cache hierarchy is substantial: 192 KB of L1 per core, 3 MB of L2 per core, and 36 MB of shared L3 cache. Memory support includes DDR5 with dual-channel bandwidth rated at 115.2 GB/s, and the chip supports ECC memory. It uses the Intel Socket 1851 and offers PCIe Gen 5 with 20 lanes from the CPU.

Benchmark results for this CPU are exceptional. The Cinebench R23 multicore score is 51731, while the single-core score is 7303. The PassMark multithread score is 60860, and the single-thread score is 4823. Other notable PassMark results include floating point math at 214760, integer math at 166194, and data compression at 698346. The CPU's 96th percentile ranking among all processors is well earned, and its average benchmark score of 84003 places it among the fastest chips in the database.

However, in Minimum, the CPU's role is largely passive. The game is from 2014, and its engine does not require the kind of multithreaded throughput that this processor offers in abundance. The measured FPS data shows no scenario where the CPU becomes the bottleneck; even at 1080p Low, where the GPU produces 171 FPS, the 290K Plus has ample headroom. The single-core performance, which is critical for older game engines, is strong enough that it would not constrain frame rates in this title. The CPU's 24 threads are effectively idle in most frames, but that is not a flaw in the processor — it is a reflection of the game's modest requirements.

Settings Recommendations

The measured data provides a clear hierarchy of settings for this combo in Minimum. At 1920x1080, every preset is playable, but the recommendation depends on the player's preference for smoothness versus visual fidelity. Low settings deliver 171 FPS, which is ideal for high-refresh monitors, but Medium at 131 FPS offers a better visual experience with a minimum of 111 FPS that ensures no stutter. High at 110 FPS is also viable, while Ultra at 84 FPS is the best-looking option but sacrifices the headroom that competitive shooters often require.

At 2560x1440, the recommendation shifts toward Medium as the best balance. Medium yields 84 FPS with a minimum of 72 FPS, which is a comfortable margin above the 60 FPS threshold. Low at 110 FPS is smoother but visually inferior, and High at 71 FPS is acceptable if the player prioritizes image quality over frame rate consistency. Ultra at 54 FPS dips below the 60 FPS line, making it less desirable for fast-paced gameplay.

At 3840x2160, the options are limited. Low at 59 FPS is the only preset that approaches playability, but it still falls short of 60 FPS. Medium at 45 FPS, High at 38 FPS, and Ultra at 29 FPS are all below the threshold for smooth gameplay. For 4K, the data indicates that this combo should be run at Low settings if the player insists on this resolution, but the better choice is to drop to 1440p where the experience is dramatically improved.

The overall recommendation for this combo is to play Minimum at 1920x1080 with Medium or High settings, depending on whether the player prioritizes frame rate or visual quality. The 131 FPS at Medium provides a strong balance, while High at 110 FPS still offers excellent smoothness. For players with 1440p monitors, Medium at 84 FPS is the sweet spot, delivering a reliable experience without the frame rate drops that plague Ultra at this resolution. The data does not support 4K as a viable option for this GPU, and players seeking that resolution would need to accept Low settings and a sub-60 FPS average.