Minimum

The Intel Core Ultra 9 290K Plus paired with the AMD Radeon RX 7700 XT delivers a performance curve in Minimum that is heavily dictated by resolution, with the CPU's strength becoming increasingly apparent as pixel count drops. At 4K, the combination is clearly GPU-bound, while at 1080p, the processor's high core count and boost clock allow the graphics card to stretch its legs fully.

Resolution Scaling

The measured FPS data reveals a classic scaling pattern where the gap between settings narrows as resolution increases, indicating a shift in bottleneck. At 3840x2160, the average frame rate ranges from 40 FPS at Ultra to 81 FPS at Low, a spread of 41 FPS between the extreme presets. This tight range suggests the GPU is the primary limiting factor, as even dropping to Low settings cannot fully relieve the rendering pressure at this high pixel count. The jump from Medium (62 FPS) to Low (81 FPS) at 4K is a 30.6% improvement, showing that reducing graphical load does yield returns, but the absolute ceiling remains constrained by the Radeon RX 7700 XT's 12 GB frame buffer and 432.0 GB/s bandwidth.

Moving down to 2560x1440, the scaling becomes more pronounced. The average FPS at Ultra sits at 74, while High reaches 97, Medium hits 116, and Low peaks at 151. The delta between Ultra and Low here is 77 FPS, nearly double the 4K spread. This widening gap indicates that the system is beginning to transition from a GPU-bound state to a more balanced workload, where the CPU's 24 cores and 24 threads can start feeding frames faster. The 1440p Medium result of 116 FPS, with a minimum of 98 FPS, suggests that this resolution is the sweet spot for maintaining high refresh rates without pushing the GPU to its absolute limit.

At 1920x1080, the scaling curve flattens dramatically at the top end, revealing the CPU's full potential. Low settings produce an average of 234 FPS, while High delivers 151 FPS and Ultra drops to 115 FPS. The gap between Low and High at 1080p is 83 FPS, but the interesting detail is the Medium preset, which hits 179 FPS with a minimum of 153 FPS. This 1080p data shows that the Intel Core Ultra 9 290K Plus, with its 5.80 GHz boost clock, is capable of pushing frame rates well beyond what the GPU can sustain at higher settings, making the processor the clear limiting component at this resolution when graphical load is light.

GPU Role

The AMD Radeon RX 7700 XT, based on the RDNA 3.0 architecture and Navi 32 chip, plays a critical role in determining the playability ceiling at higher resolutions. Its 12 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 192-bit bus provides 432.0 GB/s of bandwidth, which is sufficient for 4K textures but shows strain at Ultra presets. The measured 4K Ultra score of 40 FPS is the lowest of the entire dataset, and the lack of minimum and maximum values for this entry suggests the frame pacing may be inconsistent, though the average tells the story of a GPU at its limit.

The GPU's boost clock of 2544 MHz and game clock of 2171 MHz are the key drivers of performance in Minimum, a title that responds well to raw shader throughput. With 3456 shading units and 96 ROPs, the card can handle the geometry and pixel work required by the game's third-person action sequences. The 4K Medium result of 62 FPS, with a minimum of 53 FPS and maximum of 72 FPS, shows that the GPU can maintain a playable frame rate when settings are moderated, but the 19 FPS drop from Medium to Ultra at this resolution highlights how quickly the card's resources are exhausted by higher-quality textures and effects.

Comparing the RX 7700 XT to its nearest rivals in the synthetic benchmark suite, it scores 22,547 in Passmark G3D, placing it 0.5% ahead of the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5060 Mobile and 1.7% ahead of the AMD Radeon RX 5700. However, it trails the RTX 2080 by 1.5% and the RTX 4060 Mobile by 0.8%. This positioning in the 67th percentile of all GPUs suggests that the card is a mid-range performer, and the Minimum data reflects this: it can handle 1080p and 1440p with ease, but 4K requires significant settings compromises to stay above 60 FPS.

CPU Role

The Intel Core Ultra 9 290K Plus is the dominant component in this pairing, and its influence is most visible at lower resolutions. With 24 cores and 24 threads, a base clock of 3.70 GHz, and a boost clock of 5.80 GHz, this Arrow Lake Refresh processor provides ample headroom for the GPU to operate without stalling. The 36 MB of shared L3 cache and 3 MB per-core L2 cache help keep data fed to the cores, which is critical for a game like Minimum that relies on consistent frame delivery.

The CPU's synthetic benchmark scores reinforce its capability. In Cinebench R23, it scores 51,731 in multi-core and 7,303 in single-core, while its Passmark single-thread score is 4,823. These numbers put the CPU in the 96th percentile of all processors, and its average benchmark score of 84,003 places it 0.2% ahead of the Intel Core Ultra 9 285K and 1.1% ahead of the AMD EPYC 4584PX. The 1080p Low result of 234 FPS is the clearest evidence of the CPU's headroom, as this frame rate is typically beyond what most mid-range GPUs can achieve, indicating that the RX 7700 XT is being fed with a near-constant stream of draw calls.

At 1440p High, the CPU's role becomes less prominent but still supportive. The 97 FPS average is a 36.1% drop from the 1080p High result of 151 FPS, which is a larger proportional decline than the 4K High to 1440p High transition (52 to 97 FPS, a 46.4% improvement). This suggests that the CPU can easily keep up at 1440p, and the bottleneck shifts to the GPU's pixel throughput. The 4K Ultra score of 40 FPS, however, shows that even with a top-tier CPU, the GPU cannot maintain high frame rates at maximum settings, confirming that the RX 7700 XT is the weak link in this particular configuration for high-resolution gaming.

How This Combo Ranks

In the database of tested combinations, this specific pairing of the Intel Core Ultra 9 290K Plus and AMD Radeon RX 7700 XT achieves a rank of 1052 out of 2939 combos for Minimum. This places it in the upper-middle tier of all configurations, which is consistent with the GPU's 67th percentile standing. The CPU is clearly overqualified for the GPU, as evidenced by the rank being lower than what the processor alone would suggest, but the combination still outperforms the majority of systems tested.

The rank of 1052 out of 2939 puts this combo ahead of roughly 64% of all tested pairings. This is a respectable position, but it highlights the imbalance: the CPU is in the top 4% of all processors, while the GPU is only in the top 33%. The gap between these percentiles means that the system is leaving performance on the table at lower resolutions, where the CPU's capabilities are not fully utilized. At 4K, however, the rank is more justified, as the GPU becomes the limiting factor and the CPU's extra headroom provides no tangible benefit.

The data shows that this combo is best suited for 1440p gaming, where the balanced workload yields the most consistent results. The 1440p Medium score of 116 FPS is above the 100 FPS threshold that many gamers consider ideal, and the 1440p High score of 97 FPS is still very playable. The 4K results, while not ideal, are manageable with settings adjustments, making this a versatile system despite the GPU being the primary constraint.

Settings Recommendations

Based on the measured FPS rows, the optimal settings for this combo depend heavily on the target resolution. At 1920x1080, the Medium preset offers the best balance of visual fidelity and performance, delivering 179 FPS with a minimum of 153 FPS. The High preset at 151 FPS is also excellent, but the 28 FPS difference between High and Medium is more significant than any visual upgrade would justify, especially for a competitive third-person shooter where frame rate consistency matters. The Ultra preset at 115 FPS is playable but sacrifices 64 FPS compared to Medium, which is a steep price for marginal graphical improvements.

For 2560x1440, the High preset is the clear recommendation, achieving 97 FPS with no reported minimum or maximum, indicating stable frame delivery. The Medium preset at 116 FPS is also viable for players who prioritize smoothness over detail, but High provides a better visual experience without dropping below the 90 FPS threshold. The Ultra preset at 74 FPS is below the 75 FPS mark that some players consider the minimum for smooth gameplay, so it should be avoided unless visual quality is paramount.

At 3840x2160, the Medium preset is the only viable option for a playable experience, scoring 62 FPS with a minimum of 53 FPS. The High preset at 52 FPS is borderline, and the Ultra preset at 40 FPS is not recommended for any serious gaming session. The Low preset at 81 FPS is playable but eliminates most of the visual enhancements that make the game engaging. For 4K, players should accept Medium as the ceiling, and even then, they may experience occasional dips below 60 FPS in intense scenes.

Measured FPS Breakdown

The full dataset for this combo reveals a consistent pattern across all resolutions and settings. At 1920x1080, the Low preset achieves an average of 234 FPS, the High preset reaches 151 FPS, the Medium preset hits 179 FPS with a minimum of 153 FPS and a maximum of 206 FPS, and the Ultra preset delivers 115 FPS. The 1080p Medium entry is the only one in the entire dataset with reported minimum and maximum values, suggesting it was tested more thoroughly or exhibited more variable frame pacing.

At 2560x1440, the Low preset produces 151 FPS, the High preset reaches 97 FPS, the Medium preset scores 116 FPS with a minimum of 98 FPS and a maximum of 133 FPS, and the Ultra preset delivers 74 FPS. The 1440p Medium minimum of 98 FPS indicates that even in the most demanding scenes, the system stays well above 60 FPS, making this a very comfortable resolution for this hardware.

At 3840x2160, the Low preset achieves 81 FPS, the High preset reaches 52 FPS, the Medium preset scores 62 FPS with a minimum of 53 FPS and a maximum of 72 FPS, and the Ultra preset delivers 40 FPS. The 4K Medium minimum of 53 FPS is the lowest reported minimum in the entire dataset, highlighting the GPU's struggle at this resolution. The progression from Low to Ultra at 4K shows a 41 FPS drop, while the same progression at 1080p shows a 119 FPS drop, underscoring how the CPU's dominance at lower resolutions gives way to GPU limitations as pixel count rises.