Minimum

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

The Intel Core Ultra 9 290K Plus is the desktop flagship of the Core Ultra Series 2, built on the Arrow Lake Refresh architecture and manufactured on a 3 nm process by TSMC. It wields 24 cores and 24 threads, with a base clock of 3.70 GHz and a boost clock of 5.80 GHz. This is a high-core-count, high-frequency design that sits in the 96th percentile of all CPUs tracked in the database, with an average benchmark score of 84,003. That score places it within a hair of the Intel Core Ultra 9 285K, which averages 83,807 and trails by just 0.2%, and ahead of the AMD EPYC 4584PX (83,090, 1.1% behind) and the AMD EPYC 9135 (82,980, 1.2% behind). The only rival ahead is the AMD EPYC 7F72, which posts 85,072 and leads by 1.3%. These deltas are tiny, meaning the 290K Plus is effectively at parity with the fastest desktop silicon in the database.

For a game like Minimum, a third-person shooter from 2014, the CPU's job is largely about feeding the GPU with draw calls and maintaining frame pacing. The 24 threads are plentiful for a title this old, and the single-core performance is strong: Cinebench R23 single-core scores 7,303, while PassMark single-thread hits 4,823. The multi-core muscle is equally impressive — Cinebench R23 multi-core lands at 51,731, and PassMark multithread reaches 60,860. The cache layout includes 192 KB of L1 per core, 3 MB of L2 per core, and 36 MB of shared L3, which gives the game ample room to store frequently accessed assets. The processor supports dual-channel DDR5 memory with a bandwidth of 115.2 GB/s, and it also carries an integrated Arc Xe-LPG Graphics 64EU unit, though the discrete GPU handles all rendering here.

In the measured FPS data, the CPU's contribution is most visible at 1080p, where frame rates climb as high as 403 FPS on Low settings. That is a number that only becomes attainable when the CPU can process game logic and issue draw calls faster than the GPU can rasterize frames. The 290K Plus, with its 5.80 GHz boost clock and 24 threads, clearly clears that bar. The PassMark physics score of 3,315 and the data compression score of 698,346 further indicate that the chip handles the kind of bursty, latency-sensitive workloads that game engines throw at it. The data shows that this CPU is not a bottleneck in Minimum at any resolution tested, even at the lowest settings where the GPU has the least work to do.

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

The NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5090 is the current flagship of the GeForce 50-series, based on the GB202 chip and Blackwell 2.0 architecture, fabricated on a 5 nm process at TSMC. It packs 21,760 shading units, 680 texture mapping units, and 176 ROPs, alongside 170 ray tracing cores and 680 tensor cores. The boost clock runs at 2407 MHz, with a base clock of 2017 MHz, and memory operates at 1750 MHz, effectively 28 Gbps. The frame buffer is 32 GB of GDDR7 on a 512-bit bus, yielding a bandwidth of 1.79 TB/s. That is an enormous amount of VRAM for a 2014 shooter, but the card's raw compute is what matters here: FP32 performance is 104.8 TFLOPS, and the pixel rate is 423.6 GPixel/s. The GPU sits in the 92nd percentile of all GPUs, with an average benchmark score of 79,842. Its nearest rivals in the database are the NVIDIA Tesla P100 PCIe 16 GB (79,605, 0.3% behind), the Tesla P100 PCIe 12 GB (79,396, 0.6% behind), and the AMD Radeon RX 6850M XT (78,940, 1.1% behind). The AMD Radeon Pro Vega 64X leads by 1.4% with a score of 80,959, but the RTX 5090's delta to these rivals is again negligible — it is at the top of the GPU pile.

For Minimum, the RTX 5090 is massively overprovisioned. The game's visual complexity is modest by modern standards, so the GPU has headroom to push frame rates to triple digits at every resolution. The 32 GB VRAM is far beyond what the game can utilize, and the 1.79 TB/s bandwidth means texture streaming and memory transfers are never a constraint. At 4K Ultra, the card still delivers 69 FPS average, which is playable, but the more telling numbers come at lower settings. The GPU's compute capabilities — 104.8 TFLOPS FP32 and 1,636.8 GTexel/s texture rate — allow it to brute-force through the game's rendering pipeline. The directX 12 benchmark score of 185 in PassMark and the 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 score of 18,355 confirm that the card excels in modern APIs, and Minimum leverages DX11-era rendering that this GPU handles with ease.

The data suggests that the RTX 5090 is the primary driver of performance in this combo, but only at higher resolutions and settings. At 1080p Low, the GPU is so fast that the CPU becomes the limiter, which is why the frame rate caps at 403 FPS rather than climbing higher. At 4K Ultra, the GPU is fully engaged, and the 69 FPS average reflects the rendering load. The card's boost clock of 2407 MHz and its 176 ROPs are the key specs for this game's fill-rate demands, and they deliver consistently across the measured rows.

How This Combo Ranks

The combination of the Intel Core Ultra 9 290K Plus and the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5090 ranks 72nd out of 2,939 tested combos in Minimum. That places it in the top 2.5% of all configurations in the database, which is a strong showing for a game that is over a decade old. The rank reflects the raw power of both components, but it is not the absolute top — there are 71 combos that score higher, likely featuring even more optimized pairings or higher-clocked variants. The percentile data for the individual parts (96th for the CPU, 92nd for the GPU) suggests that either component could be swapped for a slightly faster sibling without a dramatic change in rank, given the narrow deltas to their nearest rivals.

The rank of 72 is notable because Minimum is not a demanding title. The game's engine does not scale infinitely with hardware, so the combo's placement is more a function of the CPU's single-threaded speed and the GPU's raw fill rate than of any exotic feature. The nearest CPU rival, the Core Ultra 9 285K, is within 0.2% in average score, and the nearest GPU rival, the Tesla P100, is within 0.3% — yet the combo rank of 72 indicates that the 290K Plus and RTX 5090 together land in a specific performance tier. That tier is well above the median, and for a third-person shooter, the measured frame rates show that this combo can run the game at refresh rates that exceed almost any monitor's capabilities at 1080p and 1440p.

The data does not include a direct comparison of combo ranks to specific rivals, but the individual component benchmarks show that the 290K Plus and RTX 5090 are both near the top of their respective categories. The CPU's 96th percentile and the GPU's 92nd percentile combine to produce a system that is consistently fast across resolutions. The rank of 72 out of 2,939 means that 98% of tested combos are slower in Minimum, but it also means that a small number of configurations — likely those with the fastest possible memory or overclocked parts — edge it out. For a database that tracks thousands of combinations, this is a top-tier result.

Measured FPS Breakdown

The measured FPS data covers three resolutions — 1920x1080, 2560x1440, and 3840x2160 — each at four settings: Low, Medium, High, and Ultra. At 1080p, the combo delivers exceptional numbers. Low settings produce an average of 403 FPS, which is the highest score in the entire dataset. Medium settings drop to 309 FPS average, with a minimum of 262 FPS and a maximum of 355 FPS. High settings average 259 FPS, and Ultra settings average 197 FPS. These numbers show a clear scaling pattern: as settings increase, the frame rate drops, but even the lowest figure at Ultra is well above 144 Hz refresh rates.

At 1440p, the frame rates remain high but start to reflect the increased pixel load. Low settings average 260 FPS, Medium averages 199 FPS (with a minimum of 169 FPS and a maximum of 229 FPS), High averages 167 FPS, and Ultra averages 127 FPS. The drop from 1080p to 1440p is roughly 35-40% across settings, which is expected given the 78% increase in pixel count. The minimum FPS figures at Medium settings — 169 FPS at 1440p versus 262 FPS at 1080p — show that frame pacing remains stable even as the GPU works harder.

At 4K, the numbers become more modest but still playable. Low settings average 140 FPS, Medium averages 107 FPS (with a minimum of 91 FPS and a maximum of 123 FPS), High averages 90 FPS, and Ultra averages 69 FPS. The 4K Ultra figure of 69 FPS is the lowest average in the dataset, but it is still above 60 FPS, making it suitable for standard displays. The Medium setting at 4K shows a minimum of 91 FPS, which indicates that even in the most demanding moments, the combo avoids sub-60 FPS dips. The data shows a consistent pattern: this combo is capable of running Minimum at high frame rates at any resolution, with the only caveat being that 4K Ultra pushes the GPU to its limits.

Resolution Scaling

Resolution scaling reveals the balance between CPU and GPU load. From 1080p to 1440p, the average FPS drops by roughly 35-40% at every setting. For example, High settings fall from 259 FPS at 1080p to 167 FPS at 1440p, a reduction of about 35%. Low settings fall from 403 FPS to 260 FPS, a 35% drop. This consistent percentage suggests that the GPU is becoming the limiting factor as resolution increases, but the CPU still has enough headroom to keep up. The 1440p to 4K transition is steeper in absolute terms but similar in percentage: High settings drop from 167 FPS to 90 FPS, a 46% reduction, while Low settings drop from 260 FPS to 140 FPS, a 46% reduction. The larger percentage drop at 4K indicates that the GPU is now the primary bottleneck, as the pixel fill rate demand outpaces the CPU's ability to feed it.

The limiting component analysis is clear: at 1080p, the CPU is the constraint, as evidenced by the 403 FPS ceiling on Low settings — a number that would be higher if the GPU were the bottleneck. At 4K, the GPU is the constraint, with the 69 FPS Ultra average reflecting the raw pixel throughput required. The Medium settings at each resolution provide the most balanced view. At 1080p Medium, the 309 FPS average with a minimum of 262 FPS shows that neither component is fully saturated. At 1440p Medium, the 199 FPS average with a minimum of 169 FPS similarly indicates a balanced load. At 4K Medium, the 107 FPS average with a minimum of 91 FPS shows the GPU working harder but still maintaining playable frame times.

The data suggests that the CPU's 24 threads and 5.80 GHz boost clock are sufficient to avoid bottlenecking the GPU at all but the lowest settings and resolutions. The GPU's 32 GB VRAM and 1.79 TB/s bandwidth ensure that texture loading and memory bandwidth are never issues, even at 4K Ultra. The scaling curve is smooth and predictable, which is typical for a well-optimized engine running on high-end hardware. The frame rate drops are proportional to pixel count, with no sudden cliffs or anomalies, indicating that the combo is well-matched for this game's demands.

Settings Recommendations

The measured rows provide a clear picture of which settings deliver the best experience. At 1080p, the Ultra preset averages 197 FPS, which is more than enough for any high-refresh-rate monitor, and the Low preset's 403 FPS is overkill for all but the most extreme displays (e.g., 360 Hz panels). The Medium preset at 1080p offers 309 FPS average with a minimum of 262 FPS, which is a good balance if you want visual quality without sacrificing frame rate. For most players, the High preset at 259 FPS is the sweet spot — it provides near-ultra visuals while still maintaining a frame rate that exceeds any consumer display's refresh rate.

At 1440p, the Ultra preset averages 127 FPS, which is still above 120 Hz, making it viable for high-refresh 1440p monitors. The High preset at 167 FPS is even better, offering a comfortable margin above 144 Hz. The Medium preset at 199 FPS is ideal for those with 200 Hz or higher panels, and the Low preset at 260 FPS is for competitive play where every frame matters. The data indicates that the High preset at 1440p is the best overall choice: it delivers 167 FPS average, which is 33% faster than Ultra and only 19% slower than Medium, while providing noticeably better visual fidelity.

At 4K, the situation changes. The Ultra preset averages 69 FPS, which is playable but close to the 60 FPS threshold. The High preset at 90 FPS is a much better experience, providing a 30% improvement over Ultra with minimal visual difference. The Medium preset at 107 FPS is the best option for 4K, as it delivers a frame rate that is 55% higher than Ultra and still looks good on a large display. The Low preset at 140 FPS is for those who prioritize frame rate above all else. The data strongly recommends the Medium preset at 4K, as it offers the best balance of visual quality and performance, with a minimum FPS of 91 that ensures no significant dips.

Across all resolutions, the Medium preset consistently provides the most balanced experience. At 1080p, it yields 309 FPS average; at 1440p, 199 FPS; and at 4K, 107 FPS. The High preset is a close second, offering better visuals at the cost of 15-20% performance. The Ultra preset is only recommended for 1080p and 1440p players who demand maximum visual quality and have monitors that cap at 144 Hz or lower. For 4K, the Ultra preset's 69 FPS average is borderline, and the Medium preset's 107 FPS is the clear winner in the measured data.