Minimum

# Minimum — Intel Core Ultra 9 290K Plus + NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4090

The Intel Core Ultra 9 290K Plus paired with the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4090 delivers a performance profile in Minimum that is overwhelmingly GPU-bound at higher resolutions but transitions to a CPU-limited scenario at 1080p. The measured frame rates across four presets and three resolutions show a clear scaling pattern: the RTX 4090’s raw rasterization headroom is the dominant factor at 4K and 1440p, while the 24-core processor’s single-threaded strength becomes the ceiling at 1080p Low. This combination ranks 107th out of 2,939 tested combos in this game, placing it in the top 4% of all configurations, with the data indicating a well-balanced system that favors high-refresh-rate 1440p play over maximum 4K fidelity.

Resolution Scaling

The frame rate drop from 1080p to 4K is steep and consistent across all settings, revealing where the bottleneck shifts. At Low settings, the average FPS falls from 394 at 1920x1080 to 254 at 2560x1440, a 35.5% reduction, and then to 137 at 3840x2160, a further 46.1% drop from 1440p. This pattern — a near-halving of performance at each resolution step — is the signature of a GPU-limited workload, where the RTX 4090’s shading units and memory bandwidth are being saturated. The Ultra preset shows the same trend: 193 FPS at 1080p, 124 FPS at 1440p, and 67 FPS at 4K, with the 4K-to-1080p ratio being 2.88x, which aligns with the pixel count difference of 4x but indicates some inefficiency at higher resolutions.

The Medium preset’s min/max FPS data provides additional insight into scaling behavior. At 1920x1080 Medium, the range is 256 to 347 FPS, while at 2560x1440 Medium it narrows to 165 to 223 FPS, and at 3840x2160 Medium it tightens further to 89 to 120 FPS. The relative spread (max/min) shrinks from 1.36x at 1080p to 1.35x at 1440p and 1.35x at 4K, suggesting that frame pacing remains consistent even as the average drops. The limiting component at 1080p Low — where 394 FPS is achieved — is clearly the CPU, as the RTX 4090 could theoretically push higher if the processor could feed it faster. At 4K Ultra, the 67 FPS average is purely a GPU constraint, with the 24-core CPU having ample headroom.

The data indicates that the transition from 1440p to 4K is where the most dramatic performance loss occurs. For instance, High settings drop from 163 FPS at 1440p to 88 FPS at 4K, a 46.0% reduction. This is a larger relative drop than the 1080p-to-1440p transition (253 to 163 FPS, a 35.6% reduction), which is consistent with the RTX 4090’s memory bandwidth of 1.01 TB/s becoming a limiting factor at 4K pixel counts. The 24 GB of GDDR6X memory never appears to be a constraint in these measurements, as even the largest frame buffer requirements at 4K Ultra fit comfortably within that capacity.

How This Combo Ranks

The comboRankInGame field places this specific pairing at rank 107 out of 2,939 tested combinations, which corresponds to the 96.4th percentile. This means that only 106 other CPU-GPU pairings produce higher average FPS in Minimum. The ranking is notable given that the RTX 4090 is listed as end-of-life, yet it still outperforms the vast majority of current configurations in this 2014 title. The CPU’s percentileVsAllCpus of 96 and the GPU’s percentileVsAllGpus of 88 provide context: the processor is near the top of all CPUs, while the GPU is slightly lower relative to its peers, yet the combination still lands in the top 4% of all combos.

The nearestRivals data for the CPU shows that the Intel Core Ultra 9 285K scores an average of 83,807, just 0.2% lower than the 290K Plus’s 84,003. This indicates that in synthetic benchmarks, the two Intel parts are nearly identical, but the 290K Plus’s slight edge could contribute to its better ranking in Minimum. The AMD EPYC 9135, with a score of 82,980, trails by 1.2%, suggesting that workstation-oriented CPUs with similar core counts do not translate directly to gaming performance. The EPYC 7F72 actually scores higher (85,072) but shows a -1.3% delta, implying that raw synthetic scores do not always predict in-game results.

For the GPU, the nearestRivals are far less impressive: the Intel Arc Pro A60 matches the RTX 4090’s average score (60,326 vs. 60,347) with a 0% delta, and the AMD Radeon Pro W6600M is 2.5% higher. However, these are professional workstation GPUs with vastly different driver optimizations; the RTX 4090’s 88th percentile ranking among all GPUs reflects its gaming-specific architecture. The gap between the RTX 4090 and its nearest rivals in synthetic benchmarks is negligible, but in Minimum the measured FPS shows the 4090 pulling far ahead of any integrated or mid-range option, which is why the combo rank is so high.

GPU Role

The NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4090 brings 24 GB of GDDR6X memory on a 384-bit bus, delivering 1.01 TB/s of bandwidth. In Minimum, a title from 2014, this memory subsystem is overkill, but it ensures that even at 4K Ultra with high-resolution textures, there is no VRAM spillover. The GPU’s 16,384 shading units and 512 TMUs provide massive fill rate capabilities — 443.5 GPixel/s and 1,290.2 GTexel/s respectively — which directly translate to the high frame rates observed. The Ada Lovelace architecture’s 128 RT cores and 512 tensor cores are largely irrelevant for this game, as it does not utilize ray tracing or DLSS, but the raw FP32 throughput of 82.58 TFLOPS is what drives the 4K performance.

The clock behavior is telling: the base clock of 2235 MHz and boost of 2520 MHz are relatively high for a GPU with this die size (609 mm²), and the 450 W TDP reflects the power required to sustain these clocks under load. In the measured FPS data, the RTX 4090 maintains 88 FPS at 4K High and 67 FPS at 4K Ultra, which suggests that the boost clock is sustained throughout the benchmark. The memory clock of 1313 MHz, translating to 21 Gbps effective, provides the bandwidth needed for the 3840x2160 resolution’s pixel throughput. The GPU’s 176 ROPs are sufficient to handle the pixel fill rate at 4K, as evidenced by the smooth scaling from 1440p to 4K.

The fact that the GPU’s percentileVsAllGpus is 88, lower than the CPU’s 96, suggests that the RTX 4090 is not the absolute fastest GPU ever benchmarked, but it is still in the top 12% of all GPUs. In Minimum, the RTX 4090’s performance is constrained at 1080p by the CPU, but at 4K it operates at full capacity. The 24 GB VRAM is never a limiting factor; even at Ultra settings, the game’s texture requirements from 2014 are modest, so the GPU’s compute and memory bandwidth are the primary contributors to the measured FPS.

Measured FPS Breakdown

At 1920x1080, the RTX 4090 delivers extraordinary frame rates across all presets. Low settings produce an average of 394 FPS, the highest recorded in this dataset. Medium drops to 301 FPS, with a min of 256 and max of 347, indicating some frame time variance. High settings yield 253 FPS, and Ultra falls to 193 FPS. The progression from Low to Ultra represents a 51.0% performance penalty (394 to 193 FPS), which is substantial but expected given the graphical fidelity increase. At 1080p, the CPU becomes the bottleneck at Low settings, as 394 FPS exceeds what the 24-core processor can sustain in terms of draw call processing.

At 2560x1440, the frame rates remain high but show the GPU taking over as the limiting factor. Low settings average 254 FPS, Medium 194 FPS (min 165, max 223), High 163 FPS, and Ultra 124 FPS. The Low-to-Ultra drop is 51.2% (254 to 124 FPS), nearly identical to the 1080p scaling, which indicates that the GPU is now the primary constraint. The Medium preset’s min/max spread (165 to 223) is narrower in absolute terms than at 1080p, suggesting more consistent frame pacing at this resolution. The 1440p results are particularly strong for high-refresh-rate monitors, with even Ultra settings exceeding 120 FPS.

At 3840x2160, the RTX 4090’s limits become apparent. Low settings average 137 FPS, Medium 105 FPS (min 89, max 120), High 88 FPS, and Ultra 67 FPS. The Low-to-Ultra penalty is 51.1% (137 to 67 FPS), consistent with the other resolutions, confirming that the performance scaling is resolution-independent in relative terms. The Medium preset at 4K shows a min of 89 FPS, which is still playable for most users, but Ultra at 67 FPS is borderline for 60 Hz displays. The data shows that 4K Ultra is the only combination that drops below 60 FPS, and even then, the 67 FPS average is close to the 60 FPS threshold.

Settings Recommendations

Based on the measured FPS rows, the Medium preset offers the best balance of visual quality and performance at all three resolutions. At 1920x1080, Medium produces 301 FPS with a min of 256 FPS, ensuring no drops below 240 Hz refresh rates. At 2560x1440, Medium delivers 194 FPS with a min of 165 FPS, which is ideal for 165 Hz monitors. At 3840x2160, Medium averages 105 FPS with a min of 89 FPS, keeping all frames above 60 FPS. The High preset is also viable, with 253 FPS at 1080p, 163 FPS at 1440p, and 88 FPS at 4K, but it offers diminishing returns over Medium.

For users with 4K displays, the Ultra preset at 67 FPS is playable but leaves no headroom for dips. The Medium preset at 4K is the recommended choice, as it provides a 56.7% FPS increase over Ultra (105 vs. 67) while the visual differences in a 2014 title are likely minimal. At 1440p, Ultra at 124 FPS is acceptable for 120 Hz displays, but Medium at 194 FPS offers a more comfortable margin. The Low preset, while achieving 394 FPS at 1080p, is unnecessary for most users and should only be considered for competitive play where maximum frame rate is paramount.

The data suggests that the Medium preset is the sweet spot because it maintains over 100 FPS at 4K, over 190 FPS at 1440p, and over 300 FPS at 1080p. The min FPS values for Medium (256 at 1080p, 165 at 1440p, 89 at 4K) indicate that even worst-case scenarios remain playable. High settings provide a small visual upgrade but cost 16-20% performance (from 301 to 253 FPS at 1080p, 194 to 163 FPS at 1440p, 105 to 88 FPS at 4K). Given the game’s age, the visual uplift from High to Medium is likely imperceptible in most scenes, making Medium the data-driven recommendation.

CPU Role

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 TSMC process. Its base clock of 3.70 GHz and boost clock of 5.80 GHz are critical for gaming performance, as Minimum is not heavily multithreaded. The CPU’s Cinebench R23 single-core score of 7,303 and multi-core score of 51,731 indicate strong single-threaded capability, which is what matters most for this game’s engine. The PassMark single-thread score of 4,823 and multithread score of 60,860 further confirm that this CPU excels in both metrics, but the game’s reliance on single-threaded performance means the boost clock is the primary driver.

At 1080p Low, the 394 FPS average is likely CPU-limited, as the GPU could theoretically render more frames but the processor cannot issue draw calls fast enough. The CPU’s 24 threads are underutilized in Minimum, as the game’s 2014 engine likely uses 4-8 threads at most. However, the high boost clock of 5.80 GHz ensures that the active threads are processed with minimal latency. The L3 cache of 36 MB shared and L2 cache of 3 MB per core provide ample caching for game data, reducing memory stalls. The dual-channel DDR5 memory at 115.2 GB/s bandwidth is more than sufficient for this title.

The CPU’s nearestRivals show that the 290K Plus is only 0.2% faster than the 285K in average benchmark score, yet the combo rank of 107 out of 2,939 suggests that this margin, while small, contributes to the overall ranking. The EPYC processors, which have similar core counts, score comparably in synthetic tests (83,090 for the 4584PX, 82,980 for the 9135) but are designed for server workloads with different memory architectures. In Minimum, the consumer-oriented 290K Plus with its high boost clock and lower memory latency likely outperforms these server chips, which is why the combo rank is high. The 36 MB L3 cache and 192 KB L1 per core provide the low-latency access that this game’s frame rendering requires.

FAQ

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

A: The data shows 2560x1440 Medium as the optimal balance, delivering 194 FPS average with a min of 165 FPS. At 4K, Medium still achieves 105 FPS, but the 1440p result offers over 80% higher frame rate with only a minor resolution penalty.

Q: Does this combo exceed 60 FPS at 4K Ultra?

A: Yes, the measured average at 3840x2160 Ultra is 67 FPS, which is above the 60 FPS threshold. However, the margin is slim, and the Medium preset at 105 FPS provides a more comfortable buffer for frame time spikes.

Q: How does the RTX 4090 compare to its nearest rival GPUs in synthetic benchmarks?

A: The RTX 4090’s average benchmark score is 60,347, which is essentially tied with the Intel Arc Pro A60 (60,326, 0% delta) and within 2.5% of the AMD Radeon Pro W6600M (61,896). Despite this, the 4090’s gaming-oriented drivers yield higher in-game performance.

Q: Is the CPU or GPU the limiting factor at 1080p Low?

A: The 394 FPS average at 1920x1080 Low indicates CPU limitation, as the RTX 4090’s rendering capacity exceeds what the 24-core processor can feed. The 5.80 GHz boost clock and 24 threads are still sufficient to reach near-400 FPS, but the GPU is not fully utilized.

Q: What is the frame time consistency like at Medium settings?

A: The Medium preset shows a min/max spread of 256-347 FPS at 1080p, 165-223 FPS at 1440p, and 89-120 FPS at 4K. The relative spread is consistent (~1.35x) across resolutions, indicating stable frame pacing regardless of rendering load.

*Q: How does this combo’s rank in Minimum compare to its synthetic CPU benchmarks?*

A: The combo ranks 107th out of 2,939 (top 4%), while the CPU’s percentileVsAllCpus is 96. The CPU’s nearest rival, the 285K, is within 0.2% in synthetic scores, but the 290K Plus’s higher boost clock likely provides an edge in this game’s single-threaded workload.