Minimum

Minimum is a 2014 third-person shooter, and this database captures how the Intel Core Ultra 9 290K Plus and NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4080 combination handles that title in 2025. Measured frame rates at three resolutions and four presets show a platform capable of 356 fps at 1080p Low and still delivering 61 fps at 4K Ultra, with the CPU and GPU each carrying specific responsibilities. The data is measured, not extrapolated, and it places this combination at rank 246 out of 3,712 tested combos, comfortably in the top 6.6 percentile.

FAQ

Q: What average FPS does the Core Ultra 9 290K + RTX 4080 achieve at 1080p Medium in Minimum?

A: The measured average is 273 fps, with a minimum of 232 fps and a maximum of 313 fps, from the dataset.

Q: How does the RTX 4080 compare against its nearest rivals in overall GPU benchmark score?

A: The RTX 4080 averages 54,247 points. It sits just 0.1% above the RTX 4080 SUPER (54,209), while the AMD Radeon Pro W5700X scores 54,828 (+1.1% relative to 4080), the RX 6750 GRE 12 GB hits 55,698 (+2.6%), and the Radeon 8060S reaches 55,757 (+2.7%). The 4080 is faster than the SUPER but slightly behind the trio of AMD parts.

Q: Is the Core Ultra 9 290K a better performer than the other CPUs in the dataset?

A: Its average benchmark score of 84,003 is 0.2% higher than the Core Ultra 9 285K (83,807) and 1.1% higher than the AMD EPYC 4584PX (83,090), but it trails the EPYC 7F72 which scores 85,072 (a 1.3% disadvantage for the 290K). The 290K's percentile vs. all CPUs is 96.

Q: What is the difference between the CPU socket and platform generation?

A: The 290K uses Intel Socket 1851 and belongs to the Core Ultra Series 2 generation. It is based on the Arrow Lake Refresh architecture and is fabricated on a 3 nm TSMC process.

Q: How much VRAM does the RTX 4080 have, and what is its memory bandwidth?

A: It has 16 GB of GDDR6X memory on a 256-bit bus, yielding 716.8 GB/s of bandwidth. The memory clock runs at 1400 MHz, translating to 22.4 Gbps effective.

Q: Does the CPU have integrated graphics?

A: Yes, the Intel Core Ultra 9 290K includes Arc Xe-LPG Graphics 64EU, though game testing here uses the discrete RTX 4080.

Settings Recommendations

The measured FPS rows tell a straightforward story about which preset to choose, according to the frame display refresh rate you target. At 3840×2160, the Ultra preset delivers an average of 61 fps, High averages 79 fps, Medium 95 fps, and Low 124 fps. For a 60 Hz 4K display, Ultra is fine, but any player with a 144 Hz highly expects more elevated frame rates. At this resolution a more balanced choice is Medium: at 95 fps it's above 90, while only Low goes beyond 120. If you want 120+ fps at 4K, you have to drop to Low, which achieves 124 fps. The Medium preset also reported a minimum of 80 fps and a maximum of 109 fps, implying a stable run.

At 2560x1440, the jump is stark – all presets clear the 120 fps threshold except Ultra, which yields 112 fps. High averages 148, Medium 176, and Low 230. The Medium data includes a minimum of 149 and a maximum of 202, making it a reliable target for 144 Hz monitors because the average is well above the refresh, and the observed minimum stays above 144. Ultra is the only meaningful step beyond 112 fps, so for 144 Hz screens, High or Medium is the correct tier depending on headroom; both should hold near 150–176 fps, which handles a 144 Hz display with ample headroom.

At 1920x1080, every preset pushes beyond 174 fps. Low hits 356, Medium 273, High 229, and Ultra 174. For 240 Hz monitors, High or Medium are the two clearest effective options – Low would give extra headroom on 360 Hz hardware, but its 95 fps advantage over Medium is modest. Medium, with an average of 273 and a minimum of 232, sustains above the 240 threshold; High at 229 average (the minimum is not recorded) is below that. Therefore, the optimal setting for a 240 Hz 1080p player is Medium, which ensures the 1% low north of 232 while averaging 273. If a 144 Hz monitor is used, even Ultra at 174 offers headroom, and for 360 Hz, Low's 356 is the only preset that meets that.

The recommendable strategy is: match the preset to the display refresh rate, using Medium at 4K and 1440p, and Medium at 1080p for very high refresh. Ultra yields playable results but lands below 75 fps at 4K, which may not feel fluid for a third-person shooter. Low delivers the highest frame rates but sacrifices visual quality; given the vast headroom over Medium at each resolution, Low is rarely required. The only case for Low is if you require 4K 240 Hz (not achievable anyway) or 1080p 360 Hz.

CPU Role

The Intel Core Ultra 9 290K is a 24-core, 24-thread desktop part with a base clock of 3.70 GHz and a boost clock of 5.80 GHz. It supports 3 MB L3 cache per core, plus a 36 MB shared L3, and runs on dual-channel DDR5 with 115.2 GB/s bandwidth. This chip is aimed at high-load scenarios; its core count and clock output likely help sustain high frame times in Minimum, but the game itself is not clearly a CPU-bound affair at 4K. At lower resolutions where the GPU has more slack, the CPU can lift the minimal FPS.

Measured system analysis: the 290K averages 84,003 on all CPU benchmark scores, with a 96th percent rank among all CPUs. In Cinebench tests, it yields 5,214 in R15 multi-core, 736 R15 single, 21,727 R20 multi, 3,067 R20 single, 51,731 R23 multi, and 7,303 R23 single. On PassMark single-thread, it scores 4,823, and on multithread 60,860. For a game like Minimum, single-core performance is usually the primary constraint, but this CPU’s huge multi-core headroom suggests that even the highest preset at 1080p is unlikely to be hampered.

Rival comparison within the database: the 290K is 0.2% above the 285K in average score, and 1.1% above the EPYC 4584PX. It trails the EPYC 7F72 by 1.3%. The gap that matters is the top-500 rank; the 96th percentile ensures that the CPU is not a bottleneck for Minimum under any measured resolution. Note that the 290K has no E‑cores, but 24 entire cores and 24 threads, which is unnecessary for a third-person shooter; the system will be fully occupied by GPU workload, unless 1080p Low is used to push FPS to extremes.

Additional CPU numbers include a 125 W TDP, 3 nm process from TSMC, 17,800 million transistors on a 243 mm² die, and 192 KB L1 per core plus 3 MB L2. It supports PCIe Gen 5 (20 lanes CPU) and ECC memory. The boost clock of 5.80 GHz is decisive for latency-sensitive cases; the high frequency explains why the single-core results are strong (R23 single 7,303, PassMark single 4,823). In Minimum, which runs on older engine that demands high clock speed per physics, the 290K’s cache and clock should yield consistent frame times.

How This Combo Ranks

The database lists 3,712 tested combinations of CPUs and GPUs for this game. The Core Ultra 9 290K Plus + RTX 4080 ranks 246th, meaning it is in the upper 6.6% of all tested rigs. That places it above the vast majority, though not at the absolute top, which would involve more recent hardware (e.g., a 4090, possibly). The fact that it is not lower can be attributed to the RTX 4080, which is already in the top percentile for GPUs: the 4080’s percentileVsAllGpus is 86. The CPU is at 96 percentile. Combined with a good CPU, the configuration is strong. The score of 246/3,712 is actually solid competition. For reference, the top 100 combos would likely use a 4000-series TI or a dual card set, but this setup is within the upper attention of realistic desktop builds. The results indicate that players wanting high refresh at 1080p or 1440p can expect reliable performance at this rank.

The nearest GPU rivals list shows that the RTX 4080 is only 0.1% better than the SUPER variant in avg score. If we consider a different GPU, the rank might shift, but the measured data place the 246 out of 3,712 spot as average-index for this pair. The absence of a combo benchmark for the game does not imply failure; the measurement is raw FPS.

GPU Role

The NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4080 features 16 GB GDDR6X on a 256-bit bus, delivering a measured memory bandwidth of 716.8 GB/s. Base clock 2205 MHz, boost clock 2505 MHz, memory clock 1400 MHz (22.4 Gbps effective). Compute power is 48.74 TFLOPS (FP32) and equally for FP16. It packs 9,728 shading units, 304 TMUs, 112 ROPs, 76 RT cores, and 304 tensor cores. The GPU is on NVIDIA’s Ada Lovelace architecture built on TSMC 5 nm, with 45,900 million transistors on a 379 mm² die.

In this game, the GPU is the dominant factor at all since the workload is mostly graphics. The measured FPS at 4K Confirm: Ultra 61 fps, High 79, Medium 95, Low 124. At 1440p, the Ultra preset yields 112, High 148, Medium 176, Low 230. At 1080p, ultra 174, high 229, medium 273, low 356. These numbers drop smoothly with resolution and settings, indicating the GPU is not hitting a CPU bottleneck. The 16 GB VRAM is more than enough for a 2014 title; texture detail won’t hit it. The 256-bit bus at 716.8 GB/s is far beyond the game’s needs; the only foreseeable limiter is the GPU's processing power at 4K Ultra.

Benchmarks: the RTX 4080’s overall average is 54,247, ranking an 86 percentile among all GPUs. In 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 it scores 6,567. In Geekbench, 214,739 OpenCL and 263,779 Vulkan. PassMark marks: DX10 204, DX11 314, DX12 132, DX9 370, G2D 1239, G3D 34,457, GPU Compute 20,671. These numbers show that the GPU is strong, but that 4K Ultra is pushing it to its limits. The GPU's nearest rival, the RTX 4080 SUPER, is 0.1% lower in avg score (insignificant), while AMD parts are 1-3% higher.

None of these are directly FPS, but the partnership works fine: With this CPU, the GPU is given full rein.

Measured FPS Breakdown

Below the full set of measured frame rates across three resolutions and four quality presets. No cells are missing for average FPS; min/max values are only available for the Medium preset at each resolution.

| Resolution | Settings | Avg FPS | Min FPS | Max FPS |

|---|---|---|---|---|

| 3840x2160 | Ultra | 61 | – | – |

| 3840x2160 | High | 79 | – | – |

| 3840x2160 | Medium | 95 | 80 | 109 |

| 3840x2160 | Low | 124 | – | – |

| 2560x1440 | Ultra | 112 | – | – |

| 2560x1440 | High | 148 | – | – |

| 2560x1440 | Medium | 176 | 149 | 202 |

| 2560x1440 | Low | 230 | – | – |

| 1920x1080 | Ultra | 174 | – | – |

| 1920x1080 | High | 229 | – | – |

| 1920x1080 | Medium | 273 | 232 | 313 |

| 1920x1080 | Low | 356 | – | – |

Note: the listed mins/maxs are only recorded for the Medium setting. These values show a consistent trend: average FPS declines with higher resolution and more demanding settings. The 4K Ultra target clearly is at the edge of playability at 61 avg, while 1080p Low is extremely fast. The combo is best suited for high-refresh 1080p and 1440p gaming.

The data also shows that 2560x1440 Medium yields 176 avg with a minimum of 149 and a maximum of 313? Actually max 202, so it's 149-202, that's a single deviation set. At 1080p Medium, min 232, max 313, so the frame pacing is consistently above the input.

For a smooth 144 Hz experience at 1440p, Medium or High (148 avg) are fine. For 4K 120+ you have to use Low (124), meaning you sacrifice visual settings to get that. The CPU and GPU are both top-tier; no bottleneck except GPU at 4K Ultra.