Minimum

The Intel Core Ultra 9 290K Plus is a 24-core, 24-thread desktop processor built on the Arrow Lake Refresh architecture, with a base clock of 3.70 GHz and a boost clock of 5.80 GHz. It sits in the 96th percentile of all CPUs, with an average benchmark score of 84,003. In the context of Minimum, a 2014 third-person shooter, the CPU is unlikely to be the primary bottleneck. The game’s age means modern multi-core processors rarely break a sweat, and the 290K Plus’s 24 threads are overkill for the game’s threading model. Benchmark results confirm this: at 1080p Low, the configuration hits 165 FPS, while at 1080p Ultra, it drops to 81 FPS, a gap that is almost entirely dictated by GPU load, not CPU capability. The data shows the CPU’s role is to provide a stable ceiling, which it does with ease, given its 5.80 GHz boost clock and 36 MB of shared L3 cache.

The processor’s nearest rivals in the aggregate benchmark database include the Intel Core Ultra 9 285K (deltaPct 0.2) and the AMD EPYC 4584PX (deltaPct 1.1), with the EPYC 7F72 slightly ahead at -1.3 deltaPct. These margins are trivial, indicating the 290K Plus is at the top of the desktop heap. For Minimum, the CPU’s single-core performance, as evidenced by its Cinebench R23 single-core score of 7,303, is more relevant than its multi-core might. The game’s logic and physics threads will rely on that single-thread speed, and a 5.80 GHz boost clock ensures headroom. PassMark data supports this: the single-thread score of 4,823 is robust, while the multithread score of 60,860 shows immense parallel capability that Minimum will rarely exploit. The CPU’s memory bandwidth of 115.2 GB/s and DDR5 support also prevent any memory-bound stalls, keeping frame times consistent across the measured scenarios.

CPU Role

The Core Ultra 9 290K Plus is a 24-core, 24-thread processor with a base clock of 3.70 GHz and a boost clock of 5.80 GHz. This configuration is a brute-force design for heavy workloads, but Minimum is not a heavy workload. The game’s 2014 release date means its engine was designed for quad-core or six-core processors at most. The 290K Plus’s 24 threads are effectively idle in many scenarios, which is why the CPU’s single-core performance matters more. The boost clock of 5.80 GHz is the key metric here, as it directly influences how fast the primary game thread can execute. In the measured FPS data, the difference between 1080p Low (165 FPS) and 1080p Ultra (81 FPS) is 84 FPS, a 51% drop. If the CPU were a limiting factor, this drop would be smaller, as the GPU would still be underutilized. Instead, the drop is large, indicating the GPU is the bottleneck at higher settings.

The CPU’s benchmark percentile of 96 places it among the top 4% of all processors, and its average score of 84,003 is nearly identical to the Intel Core Ultra 9 285K (83,807, deltaPct 0.2). This means the 290K Plus offers no meaningful performance advantage over its direct predecessor in synthetic tests, but that is irrelevant for Minimum. The game’s frame rates are capped by the GPU, not the CPU. The PassMark physics score of 3,315 and integer math score of 166,194 are far beyond what the game needs. The data suggests that even at 4K Ultra (28 FPS), the CPU is not struggling; it is waiting on the GPU to render frames. The 36 MB of shared L3 cache and 115.2 GB/s memory bandwidth ensure that any data the game requests is delivered swiftly, preventing micro-stutters.

In practical terms, the CPU’s role in Minimum is to stay out of the way. The measured FPS at 1440p High (68 FPS) and 4K High (37 FPS) both show a smooth scaling curve that aligns with GPU workload increases. If the CPU were a bottleneck, we would see a plateau at lower resolutions, where the GPU has spare capacity. Instead, 1080p Low achieves 165 FPS, which is near the refresh rate of many monitors but not a CPU-imposed wall. The 290K Plus’s 24 threads are a future-proofing measure, but for this title, they are largely dormant. The benchmark data confirms that the processor’s single-core score of 7,303 in Cinebench R23 is the most relevant figure, and it is more than sufficient to drive the game’s logic without introducing frame time variance.

GPU Role

The Intel Arc B580 is the GPU in this configuration, and it is the primary determinant of Minimum’s performance. The card features 12 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 192-bit bus, with a bandwidth of 456.0 GB/s. Its base and boost clocks are both 2670 MHz, which is a modest clock speed for a modern GPU, but the architecture (Xe2-HPG, Battlemage) compensates with 2,560 shading units and 80 ROPs. The GPU’s FP32 performance is 13.67 TFLOPS, which is respectable for a mid-range card. In the aggregate benchmark database, the Arc B580 sits in the 68th percentile of all GPUs, with an average score of 23,021. Its nearest rivals include the AMD Radeon RX 580 2048SP (deltaPct -0.2) and the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2080 (deltaPct 0.6), which puts it in a strange performance tier—older high-end cards and newer mid-range cards.

For Minimum, the GPU’s 12 GB VRAM is more than sufficient; the game is from 2014 and will not exceed even 4 GB at 4K Ultra. The memory bandwidth of 456.0 GB/s is also ample, as the game’s textures are simple compared to modern titles. The measured FPS data shows a clear GPU-bound scenario. At 1080p Low, the card delivers 165 FPS, but at 4K Ultra, it drops to 28 FPS. This 83% reduction in frame rate is a classic GPU scaling pattern, where the render resolution increases the pixel count and the GPU’s shading units become the limiting factor. The 2,560 shading units are capable, but at 4K, the fill rate (213.6 GPixel/s) and texture rate (427.2 GTexel/s) are stretched thin. The data shows the Arc B580 is a 1080p-to-1440p card for this title, with 4K being a stretch.

The GPU’s benchmark scores further illuminate its behavior. The 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 score of 3,068 is a synthetic metric, but it aligns with the card’s real-world performance. In Minimum, the DirectX 9 and DirectX 11 paths are likely used, given the game’s age, and the PassMark DirectX 9 score of 183 and DirectX 11 score of 128 indicate relative strength in older APIs. This is important because Minimum may not fully utilize the GPU’s modern features like DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), which the card supports. The GPU’s RT cores (20) are irrelevant for this title, as Minimum has no ray tracing. The card’s power draw of 190 W is a consideration, but the performance is what matters here. The data indicates that at 1440p High (68 FPS) and 1080p Ultra (81 FPS), the GPU is delivering playable frame rates, but at 4K, only Low settings (57 FPS) are remotely playable.

FAQ

Q: Why does the frame rate drop so dramatically from 1080p to 4K?

A: The Intel Arc B580 is the bottleneck. At 1080p Low, the GPU delivers 165 FPS, but at 4K Ultra, it drops to 28 FPS. This is a 83% reduction, which is typical of a GPU-bound scenario where the pixel count increases by 400% from 1080p to 4K.

Q: Is the Intel Core Ultra 9 290K Plus holding back the Arc B580 in this game?

A: No. The CPU’s single-core score of 7,303 in Cinebench R23 and boost clock of 5.80 GHz are more than enough for Minimum. The FPS difference between settings and resolutions aligns with GPU load, not CPU limits.

Q: What is the best resolution for a smooth experience with this hardware?

A: 1080p is the sweet spot. The data shows 1080p High at 106 FPS and 1080p Ultra at 81 FPS, both comfortably above 60 FPS. 1440p High is also acceptable at 68 FPS, but 4K requires lowering settings to Low (57 FPS) for playability.

Q: How does the Arc B580 compare to its nearest rivals in aggregate performance?

A: The Arc B580 has an average score of 23,021, which is nearly identical to the AMD Radeon RX 580 2048SP (23,061, deltaPct -0.2) and the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2080 (22,895, deltaPct 0.6). This means it performs in the same tier as those older cards.

*Q: Does the CPU’s 24-core count matter for Minimum?*

A: Not really. Minimum is a 2014 title that likely uses a handful of threads. The 24 threads of the 290K Plus are mostly idle, and the game’s performance is dictated by the GPU. The CPU’s high single-thread speed is what matters.

Q: What is the minimum FPS at 1440p Medium?

A: The measured data shows a minimum of 69 FPS at 1440p Medium, with an average of 81 FPS and a maximum of 93 FPS. This indicates the hardware maintains a stable frame rate without severe dips.

Measured FPS Breakdown

The measured FPS data for Minimum spans three resolutions (1920x1080, 2560x1440, 3840x2160) and four settings presets (Low, Medium, High, Ultra). At 1080p, the configuration shows a wide range of performance. The Low preset delivers 165 FPS, which is the highest recorded frame rate in the entire dataset. Medium settings drop to 126 FPS, with a minimum of 107 FPS and a maximum of 145 FPS, indicating a stable frame pacing. High settings yield 106 FPS, which is still excellent for a smooth experience. Ultra settings produce 81 FPS, which is the lowest at 1080p but remains playable. The scaling from Low to Ultra at 1080p is a 51% reduction, highlighting the GPU’s sensitivity to settings changes.

At 1440p, the frame rates decrease noticeably but remain respectable. The Low preset achieves 106 FPS, which matches the 1080p High preset exactly. Medium settings drop to 81 FPS, with a minimum of 69 FPS and a maximum of 93 FPS. This is a playable experience, though the minimum FPS suggests occasional dips. High settings produce 68 FPS, which is borderline for a 60 Hz monitor but acceptable for many players. Ultra settings fall to 52 FPS, which is below the 60 FPS threshold and may be less desirable for fast-paced gameplay. The drop from 1080p to 1440p at each setting is consistent: Low falls by 36%, Medium by 36%, High by 36%, and Ultra by 36%. This uniform scaling indicates that the GPU is the limiting factor, as the relative resolution increase is the same.

At 4K, the performance takes a significant hit. The Low preset produces 57 FPS, which is the only playable option at this resolution. Medium settings drop to 44 FPS, with a minimum of 37 FPS and a maximum of 50 FPS, which will cause noticeable stutter in a fast-paced shooter. High settings produce 37 FPS, which is marginal at best. Ultra settings yield 28 FPS, which is unplayable for a third-person shooter requiring quick reactions. The scaling from 1080p to 4K is severe: Low drops by 65%, Medium by 65%, High by 65%, and Ultra by 65%. This consistent percentage drop across all settings confirms that the GPU’s pixel throughput is the primary constraint, and the CPU is not a factor at 4K.

Resolution Scaling

The FPS drop from 1080p to 4K is a textbook example of GPU-bound scaling. At 1080p Low, the configuration hits 165 FPS. Moving to 1440p Low, the frame rate falls to 106 FPS, a 36% reduction. At 4K Low, it drops further to 57 FPS, a 65% reduction from 1080p. This scaling is expected because 4K has 4.3 times more pixels than 1080p, but the GPU’s shading units and ROPs cannot scale linearly with that demand. The data shows the Arc B580’s fill rate of 213.6 GPixel/s is the limiting factor. At 1080p, the card has spare capacity, allowing high frame rates. At 4K, the pixel count overwhelms the ROPs, causing the frame rate to plummet.

The scaling pattern is identical across all settings, which is telling. At Medium settings, the drop from 1080p (126 FPS) to 1440p (81 FPS) is 36%, and to 4K (44 FPS) is 65%. At High settings, 1080p (106 FPS) to 1440p (68 FPS) is 36%, and to 4K (37 FPS) is 65%. At Ultra settings, 1080p (81 FPS) to 1440p (52 FPS) is 36%, and to 4K (28 FPS) is 65%. This consistency proves that the resolution is the dominant variable, not the settings. The GPU’s memory bandwidth of 456.0 GB/s is also a factor, but the linear scaling suggests that pixel fill rate is the bottleneck. The CPU’s role is negligible here, as its performance does not change with resolution, and the frame rate drops are purely a function of GPU workload.

The data indicates that 1080p is the optimal resolution for this configuration, as it allows the GPU to stretch its legs. 1440p is a viable alternative for those with a 1440p monitor, but the frame rates are lower. 4K is only playable at Low settings, and even then, 57 FPS is below the ideal 60 FPS target. The scaling from 1080p to 4K at Low settings is a 65% drop, which is steep but not unexpected for a mid-range GPU. The Arc B580 is not designed for 4K gaming, and this dataset confirms that. For Minimum, a 2014 title, the GPU’s limitations are more pronounced because the game is not graphically demanding, so the resolution scaling dominates the performance profile.

Settings Recommendations

Based on the measured FPS data, the optimal settings preset for this configuration depends on the target resolution and frame rate. For 1080p, the High preset delivers 106 FPS, which is an excellent balance of visual quality and performance. The Ultra preset drops to 81 FPS, which is still playable, but the 24% reduction in frame rate may not justify the slight visual improvement in a game from 2014. The Medium preset offers 126 FPS, which is smoother but sacrifices visual fidelity. The data suggests that High is the sweet spot for 1080p, as it provides a high frame rate while maintaining decent graphics. The Low preset’s 165 FPS is overkill for most monitors and should only be used for competitive play where maximum frame rate is desired.

For 1440p, the High preset produces 68 FPS, which is slightly above 60 FPS and acceptable for most players. However, the Medium preset at 81 FPS is a better choice, as it offers a 19% higher frame rate with a modest visual downgrade. The Ultra preset’s 52 FPS is below the 60 FPS threshold and may cause noticeable stuttering. The Low preset at 106 FPS is the best for high refresh rate 1440p monitors, but it sacrifices too much visual quality for a game that can look decent at Medium. The data recommends Medium as the best balance for 1440p, as it maintains a minimum of 69 FPS, ensuring smooth gameplay even in intense firefights.

For 4K, the options are limited. The Low preset at 57 FPS is the only playable choice, and even that is below the ideal 60 FPS target. The Medium preset at 44 FPS is playable but will have noticeable frame dips, as evidenced by the minimum of 37 FPS. The High and Ultra presets are not recommended, as they produce 37 FPS and 28 FPS, respectively, which are too low for a third-person shooter. The data indicates that 4K gaming is not viable with this GPU for Minimum at higher settings. Players with a 4K monitor should either lower the resolution to 1440p or stick to Low settings. The configuration’s rank of 2,185 out of 2,939 combos suggests that this is a mid-tier setup, and the settings recommendations reflect that. For the best experience, 1080p High is the clear winner, offering 106 FPS with solid visuals.