Minimum

# Minimum — Intel Core Ultra 9 290K Plus + NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4060

The Intel Core Ultra 9 290K Plus paired with the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4060 delivers a solid 1080p and 1440p experience in Minimum, a 2014 third-person shooter. At 4K Ultra the combination drops below playable thresholds, but the data shows a clear scaling pattern where the GPU becomes the dominant bottleneck as resolution climbs. This analysis covers measured frame rates across three resolutions and four settings presets, the roles of the CPU and GPU, and which settings offer the best balance of performance and visual quality.

FAQ

*Q: What is the best resolution for this combo in Minimum?*

A: The 2560x1440 Medium preset delivers 100 FPS average with a minimum of 85 FPS, making it the sweet spot for high-refresh monitors. At 1920x1080, all settings exceed 99 FPS average, with Low reaching 202 FPS.

Q: How does the RTX 4060 compare to its closest rivals?

A: The RTX 4060 has an average benchmark score of 17,639, which is effectively tied with the AMD Radeon HD 7790 (17,666, -0.2% delta) and slightly ahead of the AMD Radeon 780M (17,588, +0.3% delta) and AMD Radeon Pro 560 (17,551, +0.5% delta).

Q: Is the Core Ultra 9 290K Plus a strong CPU for gaming?

A: Yes, it sits in the 96th percentile of all CPUs with an average benchmark score of 84,003. It outperforms the Intel Core Ultra 9 285K by 0.2% and the AMD EPYC 4584PX by 1.1% in average scores.

Q: What frame rates can I expect at 1080p Ultra?

A: The measured average is 99 FPS at 1920x1080 Ultra. That is sufficient for most displays, though the 130 FPS High preset offers a more comfortable margin above 60 FPS.

Q: Does the CPU limit performance in this game?

A: At 1080p Low, the combo hits 202 FPS average, which suggests the CPU is capable of feeding the GPU at high frame rates. The RTX 4060’s 8 GB VRAM and 272.0 GB/s bandwidth are more likely constraints at higher resolutions.

Q: What happens at 4K?

A: At 3840x2160, the Ultra preset averages 34 FPS, while High averages 45 FPS. Only Low (70 FPS) and Medium (54 FPS) approach playable levels, indicating the GPU is the primary limiting factor at 4K.

GPU Role

The NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4060 is the star of this pairing for raw rendering. Built on the Ada Lovelace architecture with a 5 nm process from TSMC, the GPU packs 18,900 million transistors on a 159 mm² die. It operates at a base clock of 1830 MHz and boosts to 2460 MHz, with 3072 shading units, 96 TMUs, and 48 ROPs. The 8 GB of GDDR6 memory runs at 2125 MHz (17 Gbps effective) across a 128-bit bus, yielding 272.0 GB/s of bandwidth — a modest amount by modern standards but sufficient for a 2014 title like Minimum.

The GPU’s compute capabilities are defined by 15.11 TFLOPS of FP32 throughput and an equal 15.11 TFLOPS FP16 (1:1 ratio). It also includes 24 RT cores and 96 tensor cores, though these features are unlikely to matter much in a game from 2014. The pixel rate of 118.1 GPixel/s and texture rate of 236.2 GTexel/s are respectable for the 40-series entry point. The card’s 115 W TDP and dual-slot design with a single 12-pin connector make it power-efficient, and the suggested 300 W PSU is modest.

In the context of Minimum, the RTX 4060’s benchmark results show it is a mid-pack performer. Its PassMark G3D score of 19,545 places it at the 61st percentile of all GPUs, with an average benchmark score of 17,639. The nearest rivals are all AMD parts — the Radeon HD 7790 (17,666, -0.2%), Radeon 780M (17,588, +0.3%), Radeon Pro 560 (17,551, +0.5%), and Radeon Pro 460 (17,509, +0.7%) — indicating that the RTX 4060 sits in a very tight performance cluster. In Minimum, this translates to 202 FPS at 1080p Low, but only 34 FPS at 4K Ultra, showing that the GPU’s 8 GB VRAM and 128-bit bus are the key constraints at higher resolutions.

The data suggests the GPU is fully utilized at 4K, where even Low settings (70 FPS) drop well below the 1080p Low result (202 FPS). The gap between 1080p Low and 4K Low is a 65% reduction, which points to fill-rate and bandwidth limits rather than CPU bottlenecks.

Resolution Scaling

The measured FPS across resolutions tells a clear story about where the bottleneck lies. At 1920x1080, the RTX 4060 is capable of very high frame rates: Low averages 202 FPS, Medium 155 FPS, High 130 FPS, and Ultra 99 FPS. Moving to 2560x1440, the averages drop to 130 FPS (Low), 100 FPS (Medium), 84 FPS (High), and 64 FPS (Ultra). At 3840x2160, the numbers fall further to 70 FPS (Low), 54 FPS (Medium), 45 FPS (High), and 34 FPS (Ultra).

The scaling from 1080p to 1440p to 4K is not linear but shows increasing GPU pressure. From 1080p Low to 1440p Low, the drop is 72 FPS (35.6%); from 1440p Low to 4K Low, the drop is 60 FPS (46.2%). The larger percentage drop at 4K indicates that the GPU is becoming the limiting factor, as pixel count increases four-fold from 1080p to 4K while the CPU workload remains relatively constant.

This pattern is typical for a GPU-bound scenario at higher resolutions. The Core Ultra 9 290K Plus, with its 24 cores and 24 threads, is unlikely to be a bottleneck at any resolution in a 2014 title. The 3.70 GHz base clock and 5.80 GHz boost clock provide ample single-thread performance, as evidenced by a Cinebench R23 single-core score of 7,303. At 1080p Low, the 202 FPS average suggests the CPU can drive frame rates well above 200 FPS, meaning the GPU is the constraining factor even at the lowest resolution.

The data also shows that the gap between settings presets widens at higher resolutions. At 1080p, the difference between Low and Ultra is 103 FPS (202 vs. 99). At 1440p, that gap narrows to 66 FPS (130 vs. 64). At 4K, it shrinks to 36 FPS (70 vs. 34). This compression indicates that at 4K, the GPU is so saturated that even dropping to Low settings cannot fully compensate for the pixel load.

Measured FPS Breakdown

At 1920x1080, the RTX 4060 delivers its best results. The Low preset averages 202 FPS, which is more than enough for any high-refresh display. Medium averages 155 FPS with a minimum of 131 FPS and a maximum of 178 FPS, providing a smooth experience with moderate visual uplift. High averages 130 FPS, maintaining a comfortable margin above 120 FPS for fast-paced third-person shooting. Ultra averages 99 FPS, dipping just below the 100 FPS threshold but still well above 60 FPS for standard monitors.

At 2560x1440, the performance remains strong but shows the GPU working harder. Low averages 130 FPS, which is still excellent for 1440p. Medium averages 100 FPS with a minimum of 85 FPS and a maximum of 115 FPS, making it the most balanced preset at this resolution. High averages 84 FPS, which is playable but not ideal for 144 Hz panels. Ultra averages 64 FPS, just above the 60 FPS baseline for consoles but with headroom for VRR displays.

At 3840x2160, the picture changes dramatically. Low averages 70 FPS, which is playable but requires significant visual compromises. Medium averages 54 FPS with a minimum of 46 FPS and a maximum of 62 FPS, meaning framerates can dip below 50 FPS during intense scenes. High averages 45 FPS, which is borderline for a third-person shooter. Ultra averages 34 FPS, which is below the 60 FPS target and likely to feel sluggish.

The data reveals that the Medium preset is the only one at 4K that provides a minimum FPS above 45, while at 1080p and 1440p, all presets maintain minimums above 85 FPS (for Medium) or better. The lack of min/max data for most presets means we can only infer consistency from the Medium rows, which show a narrow band: 131-178 FPS at 1080p, 85-115 FPS at 1440p, and 46-62 FPS at 4K.

CPU Role

The Intel Core Ultra 9 290K Plus is a 24-core, 24-thread processor from the Core Ultra Series 2, based on the Arrow Lake Refresh codename and built on a 3 nm process from TSMC. It features 17,800 million transistors on a 243 mm² die, with a base clock of 3.70 GHz and a boost clock of 5.80 GHz. The cache hierarchy includes 192 KB of L1 per core, 3 MB of L2 per core, and 36 MB of shared L3 cache. Memory support is DDR5 via a dual-channel interface with 115.2 GB/s of bandwidth, and ECC memory is supported.

In terms of synthetic benchmarks, the CPU is a powerhouse. It scores 51,731 in Cinebench R23 multi-core and 7,303 in single-core, along with 21,727 in Cinebench R20 multi-core and 3,067 in single-core. PassMark results show 60,860 for multithread, 4,823 for single-thread, 214,760 for floating-point math, and 166,194 for integer math. The average benchmark score is 84,003, placing it at the 96th percentile of all CPUs.

The nearest rivals are all server or high-end desktop parts. The Intel Core Ultra 9 285K scores 83,807 (0.2% slower), the AMD EPYC 4584PX scores 83,090 (1.1% slower), and the AMD EPYC 9135 scores 82,980 (1.2% slower). The AMD EPYC 7F72 is the only rival that beats it, with a score of 85,072 (1.3% faster). This places the 290K Plus at the top of the consumer desktop heap, with only the fastest EPYC parts edging it out.

For Minimum, the CPU’s role is to feed the GPU with geometry and game logic data. With 24 cores and 24 threads, the processor has ample parallel throughput for a 2014 title that was designed for much older hardware. The high boost clock of 5.80 GHz ensures strong single-thread performance, which is crucial for games that rely on a primary rendering thread. The 36 MB of L3 cache reduces memory latency, and the 115.2 GB/s memory bandwidth is more than sufficient for a game of this era.

The data indicates that the CPU is not a bottleneck at any resolution. At 1080p Low, the combo achieves 202 FPS, which is a realistic ceiling for the RTX 4060’s rendering capabilities rather than a CPU limit. The 70 FPS at 4K Low is clearly GPU-bound, as the CPU’s workload does not increase with resolution. The 96th percentile ranking confirms that this processor is overkill for Minimum, but it provides headroom for future titles or heavily threaded workloads.

Settings Recommendations

Based on the measured FPS data, the optimal settings depend on the target resolution and refresh rate.

For 1920x1080, the High preset at 130 FPS average is the best choice for most users. It provides a significant visual upgrade over Medium (155 FPS) while still maintaining frame rates above 120 FPS, which is ideal for 144 Hz monitors. If a 240 Hz display is in use, the Low preset at 202 FPS is the only way to hit those refresh rates, but the visual compromise is substantial. Ultra at 99 FPS is acceptable for 60 Hz or 100 Hz displays but offers diminishing returns over High.

For 2560x1440, the Medium preset at 100 FPS average with a minimum of 85 FPS is the clear winner. It balances visual fidelity with smooth gameplay, staying above 60 FPS even in demanding scenes. High at 84 FPS is playable but leaves little headroom for drops, while Low at 130 FPS is too visually degraded for a game that can look good at Medium. Ultra at 64 FPS is the choice for those prioritizing image quality over frame rate, but the 85 FPS minimum of Medium makes it the safer recommendation.

For 3840x2160, the situation is more constrained. Low at 70 FPS is the only preset that consistently stays above 60 FPS, but it sacrifices many visual features. Medium at 54 FPS average with a 46 FPS minimum is a compromise, offering better visuals while risking dips below 50 FPS. High at 45 FPS and Ultra at 34 FPS are not recommended for a third-person shooter where responsiveness matters. The data suggests that 4K gaming with this combo requires either Low settings or a willingness to accept sub-60 FPS performance.

Overall, the best experience per the measured rows is 1440p Medium, which delivers 100 FPS average with a reasonable visual quality uplift over Low. For users with 1080p displays, 1080p High offers the best balance of performance and fidelity. At 4K, 4K Low is the only playable option for smooth frame rates, though users with VRR displays may tolerate 4K Medium.