Minimum

# Minimum: Intel Core Ultra 9 290K Plus + NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650

This combination of Intel's flagship 24-core Arrow Lake Refresh processor and NVIDIA's entry-level Turing-based GTX 1650 produces a profoundly CPU-heavy system profile in Minimum, a 2014 third-person shooter. The benchmark data reveals a stark imbalance: the CPU operates in the 96th percentile among all processors, while the GPU sits at just the 40th percentile. This pairing ranks 2837th out of 2939 tested combos in this game, placing it in the bottom 3.5% of all configurations—a result that speaks almost entirely to the graphics card's limitations rather than any deficiency in processing power.

How This Combo Ranks

The combo rank of 2837 out of 2939 tested combinations places this system in the lowest percentile tier of all configurations benchmarked for Minimum. With only 102 combinations ranking below it, this pairing is essentially at the floor of playable performance in this title. The data suggests that the GTX 1650 is the overwhelming bottleneck, as the Core Ultra 9 290K Plus is among the most capable CPUs ever tested, sitting in the 96th percentile against all processors.

What makes this ranking particularly striking is the contrast between component classes. The CPU's average benchmark score of 84003 places it just 0.2% ahead of the Intel Core Ultra 9 285K and 1.1% ahead of the AMD EPYC 4584PX, while trailing the AMD EPYC 7F72 by 1.3%. Meanwhile, the GPU's average benchmark score of 7472 puts it a mere 0.3% ahead of the AMD Radeon HD 8850M and 0.4% ahead of the Intel UHD Graphics 750, while lagging the Intel Arc A310 by 1%. This GPU performance tier is simply not designed for modern gaming workloads, even in a title from 2014.

The measured FPS data confirms this assessment. At 1080p Low, the combo achieves 81 FPS average, which is respectable, but at 4K Ultra, it collapses to just 14 FPS. The ranking reflects this reality: a system that cannot maintain 30 FPS at 1440p Medium (40 FPS average, with a minimum of 34) is fundamentally constrained by its graphics subsystem. The CPU's immense headroom—evidenced by its 51731 Cinebench R23 multi-core score and 7303 single-core score—is effectively wasted in this configuration.

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 TSMC's 3nm process. It operates with a base clock of 3.70 GHz and boosts up to 5.80 GHz, with a 125W TDP. The cache hierarchy includes 192 KB of L1 per core, 3 MB of L2 per core, and 36 MB of shared L3. This is a desktop-class CPU with an unlocked multiplier, supporting DDR5 memory over a dual-channel bus with 115.2 GB/s bandwidth, and featuring 20 PCIe Gen 5 lanes.

In Minimum, the CPU's role is almost entirely about maintaining frame pacing and physics calculations, but the data shows it is never the limiting factor. At 1080p Low, where the GPU is least stressed, the system reaches 81 FPS average. This is the highest measured result across all resolutions and settings, suggesting that even here, the GPU is still the primary constraint. The CPU's single-thread performance—a 4823 Passmark single-thread score and 736 Cinebench R15 single-core score—is more than adequate for a 2014 title.

The CPU's 24 cores and 24 threads provide substantial multi-threaded capability, as evidenced by its 60860 Passmark multithread score and 698346 Passmark data compression score. However, Minimum is not a heavily threaded game, and the benchmark results show that the CPU's massive compute resources do not translate into higher frame rates when paired with a GTX 1650. The Passmark physics score of 3315 indicates strong physics processing capability, yet the GPU's rendering limits dominate the final output.

The CPU's memory bandwidth of 115.2 GB/s and DDR5 support ensure no data starvation, but these advantages are moot when the GPU can only output 52 FPS at 1080p High. The 96th percentile CPU ranking suggests this processor outperforms 96% of all CPUs tested, yet the combo ranking of 2837/2939 shows how little that matters when the graphics card is in the 40th percentile.

GPU Role

The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 is a Turing-architecture GPU with 896 shading units, 56 TMUs, and 32 ROPs. It operates at a base clock of 1485 MHz and boosts to 1665 MHz, with 4 GB of GDDR5 memory on a 128-bit bus providing 128.1 GB/s of bandwidth. The card delivers 2.984 TFLOPS of FP32 performance and 5.967 TFLOPS of FP16 (2:1 ratio). Its pixel rate is 53.28 GPixel/s and texture rate is 93.24 GTexel/s. The GPU supports DirectX 12 (12_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4.

In Minimum, the GTX 1650 is demonstrably the bottleneck at every resolution and settings combination. The 4 GB VRAM capacity, while sufficient for a 2014 title, is paired with memory bandwidth that limits high-resolution performance. At 4K, the card struggles severely: 18 FPS at High, 22 FPS at Medium, 28 FPS at Low, and just 14 FPS at Ultra. These numbers indicate the GPU is overwhelmed by the pixel fill rate demands of 3840x2160 resolution.

The GPU's benchmark scores reinforce its entry-level positioning. Its Passmark G3D score of 7880 places it in the 40th percentile of all GPUs, with nearest rivals including the AMD Radeon HD 8850M (0.3% slower), Intel UHD Graphics 750 (0.4% slower), and AMD Radeon R7 350 (0.6% slower). The Intel Arc A310 is only 1% faster. The GPU's DirectX 11 score of 58 and DirectX 12 score of 35 in Passmark tests indicate modest API performance, which aligns with its age and tier.

At 1440p, the GTX 1650 manages 52 FPS at Low settings but drops to 26 FPS at Ultra. The 1080p results are more playable: 81 FPS at Low, 62 FPS at Medium (with a minimum of 53 and maximum of 72), 52 FPS at High, and 40 FPS at Ultra. The GPU's 75W TDP and lack of power connectors reflect its intended market segment, but these power characteristics do not compensate for its computational limitations in this title.

Measured FPS Breakdown

The measured FPS data provides a complete picture across three resolutions and four settings presets. At 1920x1080, the system achieves its best results: Low settings produce an average of 81 FPS, Medium averages 62 FPS with observed minimum and maximum of 53 and 72 respectively, High averages 52 FPS, and Ultra averages 40 FPS. These numbers indicate that 1080p is the only resolution where the combination approaches playable performance across all settings.

At 2560x1440, performance drops significantly. Low settings average 52 FPS, Medium averages 40 FPS with a minimum of 34 and maximum of 46, High averages 34 FPS, and Ultra averages 26 FPS. The 1440p results show that only Low settings maintain a comfortable frame rate, while Medium approaches playability but with noticeable dips.

The 3840x2160 results are uniformly poor. Low settings average 28 FPS, Medium averages 22 FPS with a minimum of 18 and maximum of 25, High averages 18 FPS, and Ultra averages 14 FPS. None of these results approach the 60 FPS threshold, and even the best 4K result (28 FPS at Low) is below the minimum for smooth gameplay.

The scaling pattern between resolutions reveals the GPU's limitations clearly. From 1080p Low (81 FPS) to 1440p Low (52 FPS), performance drops by 35.8%. From 1440p Low to 4K Low (28 FPS), the drop is 46.2%. These reductions are consistent with a GPU that cannot maintain fill rate at higher resolutions, regardless of the CPU's capability.

FAQ

Q: Why does this combination rank so poorly (2837/2939) despite having a top-tier CPU?

A: The combo rank is determined by actual measured FPS in Minimum, and the GTX 1650's 40th percentile GPU performance creates a hard bottleneck. The CPU's 96th percentile ranking cannot compensate for the GPU's inability to render frames at competitive rates, particularly at higher resolutions.

Q: What is the best playable setting for this system?

A: At 1080p Low, the system achieves 81 FPS average, which is the highest measured result. For better visual quality, 1080p Medium at 62 FPS average (with a 53 FPS minimum) offers a good balance, while 1080p High at 52 FPS remains acceptable. At 1440p, only Low settings (52 FPS) approach playability.

Q: How does the GTX 1650 compare to its nearest rivals in raw performance?

A: The GTX 1650's average benchmark score of 7472 is 0.3% higher than the AMD Radeon HD 8850M, 0.4% higher than the Intel UHD Graphics 750, and 0.6% higher than the AMD Radeon R7 350. It trails the Intel Arc A310 by 1%. These margins show the GPU is clustered with other entry-level solutions.

Q: Is the CPU ever the limiting factor in this game?

A: The data indicates no. The CPU's strong single-thread performance (4823 Passmark single-thread, 7303 Cinebench R23 single-core) and multi-thread scores (60860 Passmark multithread, 51731 Cinebench R23 multi-core) far exceed what Minimum requires. The FPS drops correlate directly with resolution increases, which is a GPU-bound pattern.

Q: What happens to frame rates when moving from 1080p to 1440p to 4K?

A: At Low settings, FPS drops from 81 at 1080p to 52 at 1440p (a 35.8% reduction) and then to 28 at 4K (a 46.2% reduction from 1440p). At Medium settings, the progression is 62 to 40 to 22. At High, it's 52 to 34 to 18. At Ultra, it's 40 to 26 to 14. The consistent degradation pattern confirms GPU-bound scaling.

Q: Can this system achieve 60 FPS at any resolution and settings combination?

A: Yes, but only at 1080p Low, where it averages 81 FPS. At 1080p Medium, the average is 62 FPS, which exceeds 60 but with a minimum of 53 FPS that may cause occasional dips. No other resolution or settings combination reaches 60 FPS average.

Settings Recommendations

Based on the measured FPS data, the optimal settings for this combination depend heavily on the target display resolution. At 1080p, Medium settings provide the best overall experience: 62 FPS average with a 53 FPS minimum and 72 FPS maximum. This is the only settings preset that achieves both an average above 60 FPS and maintains a minimum above 50 FPS. High settings at 1080p (52 FPS average) are also viable for users prioritizing visual quality, while Ultra (40 FPS) dips below the smoothness threshold.

At 1440p, Low settings are the only option that approaches playable performance, delivering 52 FPS average. Medium settings at 1440p drop to 40 FPS average with a 34 FPS minimum, which is borderline playable but will show stutter in fast-paced action. High and Ultra at 1440p (34 and 26 FPS respectively) are not recommended for gameplay.

At 4K, no settings preset achieves acceptable performance. The highest result is 28 FPS at Low, followed by 22 FPS at Medium, 18 FPS at High, and 14 FPS at Ultra. These frame rates are below the minimum for smooth gameplay and should be avoided unless the user accepts significant visual compromises and motion judder.

The data suggests that 1080p Medium is the sweet spot for this combination, offering the best balance between visual fidelity and performance. For competitive play, 1080p Low (81 FPS) provides the highest frame rate headroom. Users with 1440p displays should consider running at Low settings or reducing resolution to 1080p for a better experience.

Resolution Scaling

The FPS progression from 1080p to 4K reveals a textbook GPU-bound scaling pattern. At Low settings, the system delivers 81 FPS at 1080p, 52 FPS at 1440p, and 28 FPS at 4K. The resolution scaling factors are 0.64 from 1080p to 1440p and 0.54 from 1440p to 4K. These ratios are consistent with a GPU that is limited by pixel throughput and memory bandwidth rather than compute capacity.

The GTX 1650's 128.1 GB/s memory bandwidth and 53.28 GPixel/s pixel rate are the likely constraints at higher resolutions. At 4K, the GPU must process approximately 8.3 million pixels per frame, and the measured 14-28 FPS range indicates the card can sustain roughly 116-232 million pixels per second—well below its theoretical pixel rate. This suggests additional bottlenecks in the rendering pipeline, likely related to memory bandwidth.

The CPU's role in this scaling is minimal, as evidenced by the consistent performance degradation across all settings presets. At 1080p Low, the CPU could theoretically push higher frame rates, but the GPU's 81 FPS ceiling at this setting represents the card's maximum output. The Core Ultra 9 290K Plus's 5.80 GHz boost clock and strong single-thread performance are never challenged by this workload.

The scaling pattern also highlights the GPU's VRAM limitations. The 4 GB GDDR5 buffer is sufficient for 1080p but may cause texture thrashing at 1440p and 4K, particularly at High and Ultra settings where texture memory requirements increase. The 40%+ performance drops between resolution tiers at every settings level confirm that the GTX 1650 is the definitive bottleneck, and upgrading this component would yield substantial frame rate improvements across all tested configurations.