Minimum

Minimum is a 2014 third-person shooter that, despite its age, still presents a meaningful scaling challenge across modern hardware. The measured data for the Intel Core Ultra 9 290K Plus paired with the AMD Radeon RX 7800 XT reveals a configuration that is heavily influenced by graphics settings and resolution, with the GPU acting as the primary bottleneck in most scenarios. This analysis breaks down the optimal settings, performance ranking, and component roles based strictly on the provided benchmark results.

Settings Recommendations

The measured FPS data across three resolutions and four quality presets provides a clear picture of the performance envelope for this combo. At 1920x1080, the Low preset delivers an average of 252 FPS, which is the highest measured value for this configuration. The High preset at the same resolution still achieves a robust 162 FPS average, indicating that even at higher visual fidelity, the system is well above the 60 FPS threshold. The Medium preset offers a balanced 193 FPS average, with a minimum of 164 FPS and a maximum of 222 FPS, showing excellent frame pacing.

For the best overall experience, the Medium preset at 1920x1080 appears to be the sweet spot. It provides a substantial visual upgrade over Low while maintaining an average FPS of 193, which is more than sufficient for smooth gameplay in a shooter. The frame time data for Medium (min 164, max 222) suggests consistent performance without major stutters. While the High preset is also viable at 162 FPS, the Medium setting offers a larger margin of safety for demanding scenes, ensuring the frame rate rarely dips below the refresh rate of most high-end monitors.

Moving to 2560x1440, the High preset yields an average of 104 FPS, which is still highly playable. However, the Medium preset at 124 FPS (min 106, max 143) provides a better balance between visual quality and performance headroom. At 3840x2160, the situation changes dramatically. The Medium preset is the only viable option for a consistently smooth experience, producing an average of 67 FPS with a minimum of 57 FPS. The High preset at 4K drops to 56 FPS average, which is borderline, while Ultra falls to 43 FPS, making it unsuitable for fast-paced action. Therefore, the recommendation is to use Medium settings for a locked 60 FPS experience at 4K, or High at 1440p and 1080p if visual fidelity is prioritized over raw frame rate.

How This Combo Ranks

The Intel Core Ultra 9 290K Plus and AMD Radeon RX 7800 XT combination holds a comboRankInGame of 930 out of 2939 tested combinations. This places it in the top third of all configurations tested for Minimum, indicating a strong overall performance level. The rank reflects the balance between the high-end CPU and the mid-to-high-range GPU, which together handle the game’s engine demands effectively at most settings.

The CPU itself is a top-tier performer, with a percentileVsAllCpus of 96, meaning it outperforms 96% of all tested processors. Its average benchmark score of 84003 is nearly identical to its nearest rival, the Intel Core Ultra 9 285K, with a deltaPct of only 0.2%. This suggests the 290K Plus offers negligible performance gains over its predecessor in synthetic tests, but its raw compute capability is substantial. The GPU, however, has a percentileVsAllGpus of 51, placing it almost exactly in the middle of all tested graphics cards. This contrast is critical: the CPU is a top-5% component, while the GPU is an average performer. Consequently, the combo’s overall rank of 930 is likely constrained by the GPU, not the CPU.

The nearest rivals for the CPU, such as the AMD EPYC 4584PX and EPYC 9135, show deltaPct values of 1.1% and 1.2% respectively, confirming that the 290K Plus is in a tight cluster of high-performance processors. The GPU’s nearest rivals, including the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1660 and AMD Radeon RX 6500 XT, show minimal score differences (deltaPct of -0.5% and -1.8%), which is surprising given the architectural gap, but the data clearly indicates that the RX 7800 XT’s raw benchmark average (11627) is comparable to much older or lower-tier cards in this specific dataset. This makes the 930 rank particularly impressive, as it demonstrates the game’s optimization for the CPU’s strengths.

GPU Role

The AMD Radeon RX 7800 XT is built on the RDNA 3.0 architecture with a Navi 32 chip, manufactured on a 5 nm process by TSMC. It features 16 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 256-bit bus, providing a bandwidth of 624.1 GB/s. The GPU has a base clock of 1295 MHz, a boost clock of 2430 MHz, and a game clock of 2124 MHz. These specifications position it as a capable 1440p card, but the measured FPS data in Minimum shows that its performance degrades significantly at higher resolutions.

The GPU’s memory capacity of 16 GB is more than sufficient for Minimum, which is a 2014 title with modest VRAM requirements. The 3840x2160 results illustrate the GPU’s limits: at High settings, the average FPS drops to 56, while at Ultra, it falls to 43. This indicates that the GPU’s compute throughput, not its VRAM, is the limiting factor at 4K. The data shows a clear pattern where the GPU’s fill rate and shading units (3840) are overwhelmed by the pixel count at 4K, particularly with higher-quality textures and effects. The GPU’s FP32 performance of 37.32 TFLOPS is substantial, but it is not enough to maintain high frame rates at 4K Ultra in this game, likely due to the engine’s draw calls and shader complexity.

The GPU’s average benchmark score of 11627 and its percentile rank of 51 confirm that it is a mid-pack performer. Its nearest rival, the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1660, has a nearly identical average score (11680), which is a stark reminder that raw benchmark scores do not always translate to real-world gaming performance, especially in a title like Minimum that may favor certain architectures. The RX 7800 XT’s 16 GB VRAM and high bandwidth (624.1 GB/s) are future-proofing features, but for this specific game, they do not compensate for the core compute limitations at 4K.

Measured FPS Breakdown

The measured FPS data provides a comprehensive view of performance across all settings and resolutions.

1920x1080:

• Low: 252 FPS average.
• Medium: 193 FPS average (min 164, max 222).
• High: 162 FPS average.
• Ultra: 123 FPS average.

At 1080p, the CPU and GPU combination excels, with even the Ultra preset delivering over 120 FPS. The progression from Low to Ultra shows a predictable drop: 252 → 193 → 162 → 123 FPS. The Medium preset’s minimum of 164 FPS is higher than the High preset’s average, indicating that Medium offers exceptional frame consistency.

2560x1440:

• Low: 162 FPS average.
• Medium: 124 FPS average (min 106, max 143).
• High: 104 FPS average.
• Ultra: 79 FPS average.

At 1440p, the performance scales down significantly. The Low preset matches the 1080p High preset at 162 FPS. The Medium preset’s minimum of 106 FPS is still well above 60 FPS, making it a solid choice for competitive play. The Ultra preset at 79 FPS is the first sign of strain, but it remains playable.

3840x2160:

• Low: 87 FPS average.
• Medium: 67 FPS average (min 57, max 77).
• High: 56 FPS average.
• Ultra: 43 FPS average.

At 4K, the GPU becomes the clear bottleneck. The Low preset manages 87 FPS, but Medium drops to 67 FPS, and its minimum of 57 FPS is close to the 60 FPS target. High and Ultra presets fall below 60 FPS, with Ultra at 43 FPS being nearly unplayable for a fast-paced shooter. The data shows that the 4K High and Ultra settings are only viable for slower-paced games or screenshots.

FAQ

Q: What is the best resolution and settings combination for a competitive edge in Minimum?

A: The 1920x1080 resolution with the Low preset provides the highest average FPS at 252, ensuring the lowest input latency. However, the Medium preset at 1080p (193 FPS average) offers a better balance of visual clarity and performance for competitive play.

Q: Can this combo handle 4K gaming in Minimum?

A: Yes, but only at lower settings. The Medium preset at 3840x2160 achieves a 67 FPS average with a minimum of 57 FPS, which is near the 60 FPS target. The High and Ultra presets drop to 56 and 43 FPS respectively, making them less suitable for smooth gameplay.

Q: How does the CPU compare to its closest rival in synthetic benchmarks?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 9 290K Plus has an average benchmark score of 84003, which is only 0.2% higher than the Intel Core Ultra 9 285K (83807). This indicates a marginal performance difference between the two processors.

Q: Is the GPU’s 16 GB VRAM sufficient for Minimum?

A: Yes, the 16 GB of GDDR6 memory is more than adequate for Minimum, a 2014 title. The measured FPS drops at 4K are due to the GPU’s compute limitations (shader throughput), not VRAM capacity.

Q: What is the GPU’s overall ranking compared to other graphics cards?

A: The AMD Radeon RX 7800 XT has a percentile rank of 51, placing it in the middle of all tested GPUs. Its average benchmark score of 11627 is nearly identical to the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1660, which scores 11680.

Q: Does the combo rank high among all tested configurations for this game?

A: The combo holds a rank of 930 out of 2939 tested combinations, placing it in the top 32% of all configurations. This indicates strong overall performance, primarily driven by the high-end CPU.

CPU Role

The Intel Core Ultra 9 290K Plus is a 24-core, 24-thread processor based on the Arrow Lake Refresh architecture, manufactured on a 3 nm process by TSMC. It has a base clock of 3.70 GHz and a boost clock of 5.80 GHz, with a TDP of 125 W. The CPU features 36 MB of shared L3 cache and supports DDR5 memory with a dual-channel bus, providing a bandwidth of 115.2 GB/s. These specifications make it a powerhouse for multi-threaded workloads, as evidenced by its Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 51731.

In Minimum, the CPU’s role is less critical than the GPU’s, as the game’s frame rate is primarily GPU-bound at higher resolutions. However, at 1920x1080 with the Low preset (252 FPS), the CPU’s high single-thread performance (Cinebench R23 single-core score of 7303) ensures that the game’s logic and draw calls are processed without bottlenecking the GPU. The CPU’s PassMark multi-thread score of 60860 and single-thread score of 4823 further confirm its ability to handle high frame rate scenarios. The 24 cores and 24 threads are overkill for this game, but they provide ample headroom for background tasks and streaming.

The CPU’s percentile rank of 96 and its avgBenchmarkScore of 84003 place it among the fastest processors available. Its nearest rival, the Intel Core Ultra 9 285K, is nearly identical in performance (deltaPct 0.2%), indicating that the 290K Plus is a marginal refresh. The data suggests that the CPU is never the limiting factor in this combo; even at 1080p Low, the FPS is capped by the GPU’s ability to render frames, not the CPU’s ability to issue commands.

Resolution Scaling

The FPS scaling from 1080p to 4K reveals the nature of the bottleneck. At 1080p Medium, the average FPS is 193. At 1440p Medium, it drops to 124 FPS, a 36% reduction. At 4K Medium, it falls to 67 FPS, a 65% reduction from 1080p. This steep decline indicates that the GPU is the primary limiting component, as the CPU’s performance is unaffected by resolution changes.

The difference between 1080p and 1440p is more moderate (193 → 124 FPS), while the jump from 1440p to 4K is more severe (124 → 67 FPS). This is typical of a GPU-bound scenario, where the pixel count quadruples from 1080p to 4K, overwhelming the GPU’s fill rate. The Low preset shows a similar pattern: 252 FPS at 1080p, 162 FPS at 1440p, and 87 FPS at 4K. The consistent ~35-40% drop between each resolution step confirms that the GPU’s rendering pipeline is saturated.

The data also shows that the CPU’s high performance does not mitigate the GPU bottleneck. At 4K Ultra, the FPS drops to 43, which is a 65% reduction from the 1080p Ultra score of 123 FPS. This proves that no amount of CPU headroom can compensate for the GPU’s inability to process the increased pixel load. For users seeking higher 4K performance, the data suggests that reducing settings to Medium is the only viable option, as the Low preset (87 FPS) sacrifices too much visual quality for a marginal FPS gain over Medium (67 FPS).