Minimum

The benchmark data for Minimum with the Intel Core Ultra 9 290K Plus and NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1660 Ti shows a pairing that is heavily constrained by the graphics card at higher resolutions, while the processor’s substantial headroom allows for very high frame rates at 1080p. The GTX 1660 Ti is the definitive bottleneck at 4K, where even Low settings only manage an average of 45 FPS, whereas at 1080p the CPU’s power is finally able to express itself, pushing frame rates past 130 FPS. This combination is best treated as a 1080p-focused setup for this title, as the data shows a sharp performance cliff as resolution climbs.

CPU Role — cores, clocks, and how they relate to this game's results

The Intel Core Ultra 9 290K Plus is a desktop processor with 24 cores and 24 threads, built on a 3 nm process. Its base clock is 3.70 GHz, and it boosts up to 5.80 GHz. This is a high-end part, evidenced by its 96th percentile ranking against all CPUs in the benchmark database. In synthetic testing, its multi-threaded performance is dominant, scoring 21,727 in Cinebench R20 multi-core and 51,731 in Cinebench R23 multi-core, while its single-thread score of 7,303 in Cinebench R23 indicates excellent per-core strength that benefits lightly-threaded game logic.

For Minimum, a Third-Person Shooter, the CPU’s role is to feed the GPU with draw calls and manage game physics and AI. The data shows that at 1920x1080 with Low settings, the system achieves an average of 131 FPS. This high frame rate is a direct result of the CPU’s capability; it is not the limiting factor here. The processor’s PassMark single-thread score of 4,823 and multi-thread score of 60,860 provide a vast reservoir of computational power. Compared to its closest rivals, the Ultra 9 290K Plus is essentially tied with the Intel Core Ultra 9 285K, scoring just 0.2% higher on average, and it is 1.2% ahead of the AMD EPYC 9135. This indicates that within this performance tier, the 290K Plus is at the top of its class.

The CPU’s large L3 cache of 36 MB (shared) helps keep frequently accessed game data close at hand, reducing latency. In this specific game, the bottleneck is clearly not the processor. At 4K Ultra, the average FPS drops to 22, which is a 70% reduction from the 1080p Low figure. If the CPU were the constraint, this drop would be far less severe, as resolution scaling typically increases GPU load without proportionally increasing CPU load. The fact that performance scales so poorly with resolution points directly to the GPU as the primary limiting component. The CPU’s benchmark scores, such as a PassMark integer math score of 166,194 and floating-point math score of 214,760, suggest it can handle any computational demand Minimum throws at it, leaving the graphics card as the sole determinant of playability at higher resolutions.

FAQ — 4-6 Q&A pairs answerable from FACT PACK data

Q: What is the best average frame rate this CPU-GPU combo achieves in Minimum?

A: The highest average frame rate recorded is 131 FPS, which occurs at 1920x1080 resolution with Low settings. This is the only setting combination that breaks the 130 FPS mark in the measured data.

Q: How does the CPU compare to its nearest rival, the Intel Core Ultra 9 285K?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 9 290K Plus scores an average benchmark of 84,003, which is 0.2% higher than the Intel Core Ultra 9 285K’s average of 83,807. This makes the two processors effectively equivalent in overall performance.

Q: Is the GTX 1660 Ti sufficient for 4K gaming in Minimum?

A: No. At 3840x2160, the best average FPS is 45 (Low settings), and it drops to 22 FPS at Ultra settings. These figures are below the standard 60 FPS target for smooth gameplay, indicating the GPU is the limiting factor at this resolution.

Q: What is the frame time variance like at 1440p Medium settings?

A: At 2560x1440 with Medium settings, the average FPS is 65, with a minimum of 55 and a maximum of 74. This 19 FPS spread between minimum and maximum shows moderate frame pacing, which is acceptable for a third-person shooter but not perfectly smooth.

Q: How does the GPU’s performance percentile compare to the CPU’s?

A: The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1660 Ti sits in the 41st percentile of all GPUs, while the Intel Core Ultra 9 290K Plus is in the 96th percentile of all CPUs. This massive gap quantifies the imbalance in this pairing, where the GPU is significantly weaker relative to its own market.

Q: What is the frame rate drop from 1080p Low to 4K Low?

A: The average frame rate falls from 131 FPS at 1080p Low to 45 FPS at 4K Low. This represents a 66% reduction in performance, underscoring how severely the GTX 1660 Ti is overwhelmed as resolution increases.

Resolution Scaling — how FPS drops from 1080p to 4K and what it says about the limiting component

The measured FPS data reveals a steep and consistent decline as resolution increases, a classic sign of a GPU-bound scenario. At 1920x1080 with Low settings, the system averages 131 FPS. Moving to 2560x1440 Low drops the average to 84 FPS, a 36% reduction. Finally, at 3840x2160 Low, the average plummets to 45 FPS, another 46% reduction from the 1440p figure. This pattern is repeated across all settings presets, with the gap widening at higher quality levels.

For High settings, the progression is 84 FPS at 1080p, 54 FPS at 1440p, and 29 FPS at 4K. At Ultra settings, the numbers are 64 FPS at 1080p, 41 FPS at 1440p, and 22 FPS at 4K. The most telling comparison is the delta between 1080p and 4K: a 66% drop at Low, a 65% drop at High, and a 66% drop at Ultra. This consistent proportional decrease is the signature of a pixel-throughput bottleneck. The GTX 1660 Ti, with its 6 GB of GDDR6 memory and 288.0 GB/s bandwidth, is simply unable to keep up with the pixel count at 4K.

This scaling behavior definitively identifies the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1660 Ti as the limiting component. The Intel Core Ultra 9 290K Plus, which scores in the 96th percentile, is not being taxed by these resolutions. If the CPU were the bottleneck, we would expect frame rates to remain relatively flat across resolutions, as the CPU’s workload (game logic, physics) does not scale with resolution. Instead, the data shows a near-linear degradation in performance with pixel count, indicating that the GPU’s shading units, texture units, and ROPs are saturated. The GPU’s PassMark G3D score of 12,871 and its 41st percentile ranking further confirm that it is a mid-range part struggling with high-resolution workloads, whereas the CPU’s 96th percentile ranking shows it has ample headroom.

Measured FPS Breakdown — resolution by resolution, settings by settings, exact numbers

The complete dataset provides a granular view of performance across all combinations. At 1920x1080, the system is capable of high refresh rates: Low settings produce an average of 131 FPS, Medium produces 100 FPS (with a minimum of 85 and maximum of 115), High produces 84 FPS, and Ultra produces 64 FPS. This resolution is clearly the sweet spot for this combo, with even Ultra settings delivering a playable frame rate.

At 2560x1440, performance drops significantly. Low averages 84 FPS, Medium averages 65 FPS (min 55, max 74), High averages 54 FPS, and Ultra averages 41 FPS. The 1440p Medium result is the only one in this resolution with reported min/max values, showing a 55-74 FPS range. This suggests that while 1440p is playable on lower presets, the frame rate is becoming less stable, and Ultra settings fall below the 60 FPS threshold.

At 3840x2160, the GPU is severely overmatched. Low averages 45 FPS, Medium averages 35 FPS (min 30, max 40), High averages 29 FPS, and Ultra averages 22 FPS. No setting at 4K achieves a 60 FPS average, and even Low settings produce a frame rate that is borderline for a fast-paced third-person shooter. The Medium preset’s min FPS of 30 highlights the frame pacing issues at this resolution, where the GPU is consistently struggling to maintain smooth output.

The data shows a clear hierarchy: 1080p is the only resolution where all presets exceed 60 FPS on average. At 1440p, only Low and Medium exceed 60 FPS. At 4K, no preset exceeds 45 FPS. This breakdown confirms that the GTX 1660 Ti’s 6 GB VRAM and 192-bit memory bus are insufficient for 4K rendering in this title, and even 1440p requires reduced settings for a smooth experience.

GPU Role — VRAM, clocks, and how they relate to this game's results

The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1660 Ti is built on the Turing architecture, fabricated on a 12 nm process. It features 6 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 192-bit bus, delivering 288.0 GB/s of bandwidth. Its core clocks are 1500 MHz base and 1770 MHz boost, with memory running at 1500 MHz (12 Gbps effective). The GPU has 1,536 shading units, 96 TMUs, and 48 ROPs, yielding a pixel rate of 84.96 GPixel/s and a texture rate of 169.9 GTexel/s. Its FP32 performance is 5.437 TFLOPS.

These specifications directly explain the measured FPS results. The 48 ROPs are responsible for pixel output, and at 4K, the demand for pixel fill is enormous. The 84.96 GPixel/s pixel rate is simply too low to maintain high frame rates at 3840x2160, which has over 8 million pixels. The 6 GB VRAM capacity is also a concern; while Minimum is a 2014 title, the data shows that at 4K Ultra, the system drops to 22 FPS, suggesting that the memory bandwidth or capacity is being saturated. The 288.0 GB/s bandwidth is a mid-range figure, and while it is adequate for 1080p, it becomes a bottleneck at higher resolutions where texture fetch and frame buffer operations increase.

The GPU’s benchmark scores corroborate this analysis. Its PassMark G3D score is 12,871, placing it in the 41st percentile. Its DirectX 11 score of 103 and DirectX 12 score of 51 are relatively low, indicating that the card is not optimized for modern APIs, though Minimum’s age means it likely relies on older DirectX paths. Compared to its nearest rivals, the GTX 1660 Ti is 0.7% ahead of the AMD Radeon 540 and 1.9% ahead of the AMD Radeon Pro WX 3100. This places it in a low-midrange tier, which is consistent with its 4K struggles. The GPU’s 120 W TDP and PCIe 3.0 x16 interface are standard for this class, but they do not compensate for the fundamental lack of compute and memory throughput needed for high-resolution gaming.

Settings Recommendations — which preset gives the best experience per the measured rows

Based on the measured FPS data, the optimal experience depends entirely on the target resolution. For 1920x1080, the Ultra preset at 64 FPS is the best choice for visual fidelity, as it remains above the 60 FPS threshold. If a higher refresh rate is desired, the High preset at 84 FPS offers a substantial improvement in smoothness with only a modest reduction in visual quality. The Low preset at 131 FPS is best for competitive play, but sacrifices too much visual detail for most users.

For 2560x1440, the Medium preset at 65 FPS is the recommended balance, as it is the only setting above 60 FPS that also provides decent visual quality. The High preset at 54 FPS is playable but may feel less responsive, while the Low preset at 84 FPS is the only way to maintain a high frame rate at this resolution. Ultra at 41 FPS is not recommended, as it falls below the smoothness threshold. The Medium preset’s min FPS of 55 shows that it can dip, but it remains above 50 FPS.

For 3840x2160, no preset delivers a fully smooth experience. The Low preset at 45 FPS is the most playable, but it will still exhibit noticeable stutter. The Medium preset at 35 FPS (min 30, max 40) is borderline unplayable for a shooter, and High and Ultra at 29 FPS and 22 FPS respectively are not viable. The data suggests that 4K should be avoided entirely with this GPU for Minimum, and users should instead target 1080p or 1440p. The overall recommendation is to play at 1080p Ultra for the best visual experience, or 1440p Medium if a higher resolution is preferred, as these are the only settings that consistently maintain frame rates above 60 FPS or near it.