Minimum

The Intel Core Ultra 9 290K Plus paired with the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4070 Ti delivers a formidable 1080p and 1440p experience in Minimum, a 2014 Third-Person Shooter. Benchmark data shows the combo ranks in the 88th percentile of all tested configurations, with frame rates that remain fluid even at 4K Ultra, though the scaling curve reveals a clear shift in bottleneck behavior as resolution increases. This analysis breaks down the CPU and GPU contributions, resolution scaling, measured FPS, and optimal settings based strictly on the provided data.

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

The Intel Core Ultra 9 290K Plus is a 24-core, 24-thread processor based on the Arrow Lake Refresh architecture, built on a 3 nm process by TSMC. It operates with a base clock of 3.70 GHz and a boost clock of 5.80 GHz, backed by a 125 W TDP and a 36 MB shared L3 cache. Its memory bandwidth is rated at 115.2 GB/s over dual-channel DDR5, and it supports PCIe Gen 5 with 20 CPU lanes. These specifications place it firmly in the high-end desktop segment, with a percentile ranking of 96 among all CPUs tested on the database.

In the context of Minimum, the CPU’s role is primarily to feed the GPU with draw calls and game logic. The game is from 2014, so its threading model is unlikely to utilize all 24 cores, but the Ultra 9’s high single-thread performance is crucial. The Cinebench R23 single-core score of 7303 and multi-core score of 51731 demonstrate exceptional capability. PassMark single-thread score of 4823 further underscores its strength in lightly-threaded workloads, which are typical for a shooter of this era. The data shows that the CPU is not the limiting factor at any tested resolution, as evidenced by the fact that frame rates scale consistently with GPU load rather than collapsing due to CPU bottlenecks.

The processor’s average benchmark score of 84003 places it just 0.2% ahead of the Intel Core Ultra 9 285K, which scores 83807. It also edges out the AMD EPYC 4584PX (83090, 1.1% slower) and the AMD EPYC 9135 (82980, 1.2% slower), while trailing the AMD EPYC 7F72 (85072, 1.3% faster). This indicates that the Ultra 9 290K Plus is at the top of the consumer desktop performance tier, with negligible differences to its closest rivals. For Minimum, this means the CPU delivers more than enough headroom to avoid frame dips, even when the GPU is saturated at 4K.

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

*Q: What is the combo's overall rank among all tested configurations for Minimum?*

A: The Intel Core Ultra 9 290K Plus and NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4070 Ti combination ranks 343rd out of 2939 tested combos, placing it in the top 12% of all configurations.

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

A: The Ultra 9 290K Plus has an average benchmark score of 84003, which is 0.2% higher than the Ultra 9 285K’s score of 83807. This is a marginal difference, indicating near-identical synthetic performance.

Q: What is the GPU's percentile ranking among all GPUs?

A: The NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4070 Ti holds an 84th percentile ranking among all GPUs, with an average benchmark score of 44795.

Q: What is the maximum average FPS recorded for this combo?

A: The highest average frame rate is 326 FPS, achieved at 1920x1080 resolution with Low settings.

Q: What is the lowest average FPS recorded for this combo?

A: The lowest average frame rate is 56 FPS, recorded at 3840x2160 resolution with Ultra settings.

Q: What is the GPU's memory configuration?

A: The GPU features 12 GB of GDDR6X memory on a 192-bit bus, providing a bandwidth of 504.2 GB/s. Its boost clock is 2610 MHz.

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

Examining the measured FPS across resolutions reveals a predictable scaling pattern that highlights the GPU as the primary bottleneck at higher resolutions. Starting at 1920x1080 with High settings, the combo produces 210 FPS. Moving to 2560x1440, this drops to 135 FPS, a 35.7% reduction. At 3840x2160, the frame rate falls to 73 FPS, representing a 65.2% drop from 1080p. This steep decline is characteristic of a GPU-bound scenario, where the RTX 4070 Ti's rendering workload increases quadratically with pixel count.

The trend is consistent across all settings. With Low settings, the frame rate goes from 326 FPS at 1080p to 211 FPS at 1440p (a 35.3% drop) and then to 113 FPS at 4K (a 65.3% drop). This proportional scaling strongly suggests that the CPU is not a limiting factor. If the CPU were the bottleneck, the frame rate would remain relatively flat when lowering resolution, or the percentage drop would diminish. Instead, the consistent ~35% drop from 1080p to 1440p and ~65% drop from 1080p to 4K across all settings indicates that the GPU's pixel throughput is the constraining resource.

Further evidence is seen when comparing Medium settings. At 1080p, the average is 250 FPS; at 1440p it is 161 FPS; and at 4K it is 87 FPS. The drop from 1440p to 4K is 46%, which is slightly less severe than the 1080p to 1440p drop of 35.6%... wait, the 1440p to 4K drop is (161-87)/161 = 46%, which is larger than the 1080p to 1440p drop of 35.6%. This indicates that the GPU is being even more heavily taxed at 4K, confirming that the RTX 4070 Ti is the limiting component. The CPU, with its high single-thread scores, easily keeps up with the game's logic at all resolutions.

How This Combo Ranks — use comboRankInGame vs other tested combos

The combo rank of 343 out of 2939 tested configurations places this system in the top 11.7% of all results recorded for Minimum. This is a strong showing, driven primarily by the GPU’s high frame rates at 1440p and 1080p. The ranking is not higher because the RTX 4070 Ti, while powerful, is not the absolute fastest GPU available; it holds an 84th percentile position among all GPUs, meaning 16% of GPUs tested are faster.

The CPU’s 96th percentile ranking is effectively a non-issue for this game, as the bottleneck is clearly the GPU. The data suggests that pairing a slightly more powerful GPU with this CPU would yield a higher combo rank, as the CPU has ample headroom. Conversely, the 1.2% slower AMD EPYC 9135 or the 1.3% slower AMD EPYC 7F72 would likely produce nearly identical frame rates in Minimum, since the game does not stress the CPU to its limits. The 343rd rank is a reflection of the GPU’s performance tier; it is a high-end card, but not a flagship, and the measured FPS numbers confirm that it is capable of high refresh rate gaming at 1440p but is not quite a 4K Ultra monster.

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

The NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4070 Ti is built on the Ada Lovelace architecture with the AD104 chip, fabricated on a 5 nm process by TSMC. It features 12 GB of GDDR6X memory on a 192-bit bus, yielding a bandwidth of 504.2 GB/s. The GPU’s base clock is 2310 MHz, with a boost clock of 2610 MHz. It has 7680 shading units, 240 TMUs, and 80 ROPs, along with 60 RT cores and 240 tensor cores. The pixel rate is 208.8 GPixel/s, and the texture rate is 626.4 GTexel/s, resulting in an FP32 performance of 40.09 TFLOPS.

In Minimum, the GPU’s role is dominant. The VRAM capacity of 12 GB is more than sufficient for a 2014 title, even at 4K Ultra, so memory bandwidth and capacity are not limiting factors. The raw compute power, however, dictates the frame rates. The data shows that at 1080p, the GPU is fully capable of exceeding 300 FPS on Low settings (326 FPS), but at 4K Ultra, it drops to 56 FPS. This demonstrates that the GPU’s pixel fill rate and shader throughput are the primary determinants of performance. The boost clock of 2610 MHz allows for strong sustained performance, as evidenced by the 73 FPS average at 4K High, which is respectable for a demanding resolution.

Compared to its nearest rivals, the RTX 4070 Ti’s average benchmark score of 44795 is 0.8% lower than the RTX 5090 Mobile (45152) and 1.6% higher than the RTX A6000 (44075). It also outperforms the AMD Radeon Pro 5500 XT (45384) by 1.3%... wait, the pack says the Radeon Pro 5500 XT has a higher score, so the RTX 4070 Ti is 1.3% slower. And it is 1.7% faster than the Intel Arc A730M (45592)... no, the Arc A730M has a higher score, so the RTX 4070 Ti is 1.7% slower. These small deltas indicate that the RTX 4070 Ti sits in a tightly contested performance bracket. For Minimum, this means the GPU is well-matched to the CPU, providing a balanced system that is GPU-bound at all resolutions.

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

The measured FPS data provides a complete picture of performance across three resolutions and four settings presets. All numbers below are taken directly from the FACT PACK, representing average FPS (with min/max where available).

1920x1080:

• Low: 326 FPS average.
• Medium: 250 FPS average, with a minimum of 212 FPS and a maximum of 287 FPS.
• High: 210 FPS average.
• Ultra: 160 FPS average.

2560x1440:

• Low: 211 FPS average.
• Medium: 161 FPS average, with a minimum of 137 FPS and a maximum of 185 FPS.
• High: 135 FPS average.
• Ultra: 103 FPS average.

3840x2160:

• Low: 113 FPS average.
• Medium: 87 FPS average, with a minimum of 74 FPS and a maximum of 100 FPS.
• High: 73 FPS average.
• Ultra: 56 FPS average.

The data reveals that at 1080p, even Ultra settings produce 160 FPS, which is above the 144 Hz refresh rate threshold for most monitors. At 1440p, Ultra drops to 103 FPS, still playable but not ideal for high refresh rate displays. At 4K, only Low settings (113 FPS) and Medium settings (87 FPS) provide comfortable frame rates above 60 FPS; High and Ultra dip to 73 FPS and 56 FPS, respectively. The min FPS values for Medium settings at each resolution (212 at 1080p, 137 at 1440p, 74 at 4K) indicate that frame pacing is stable, with no severe stutters, even when the GPU is under heavy load.

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

Based on the measured FPS rows, the optimal settings preset depends on the target resolution and refresh rate. For 1080p, the data shows that High settings (210 FPS) offer a substantial improvement over Ultra (160 FPS) with a 31.3% increase in frame rate, while the visual difference between High and Ultra in a 2014 shooter is often negligible. For 1440p, High settings (135 FPS) provide a smooth experience on 120 Hz to 144 Hz monitors, while Ultra (103 FPS) is still above 100 FPS and suitable for 100 Hz panels. Medium (161 FPS) is a viable option for competitive play, offering a 19.3% boost over High.

For 4K, the recommendation is clear: High settings (73 FPS) are the best balance for a 60 Hz display, providing a stable 73 FPS average. Ultra (56 FPS) dips below the 60 FPS threshold, which can result in noticeable judder. Medium (87 FPS) is also excellent for 4K 60 Hz, and it offers a 19.2% improvement over High, making it the preferred choice if visual fidelity at Medium is acceptable. Low settings (113 FPS) are unnecessary at 4K unless targeting 120 Hz displays, which is rare for 4K panels.

The best overall experience for most users would be to prioritize High settings at 1440p, as it delivers 135 FPS with a strong balance of image quality and performance. For those with 4K displays, Medium settings (87 FPS) are recommended to maintain a high frame rate while preserving acceptable visual quality. Ultra settings are only advisable at 1080p, where 160 FPS remains highly responsive. The data does not support using Ultra at 1440p or 4K, as the frame rate drops to levels that may compromise smoothness on high refresh rate monitors.