To The Core

Resolution Scaling

The measured FPS data for this Intel Core i7-14700F + NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4080 combination reveals a predictable scaling pattern as resolution increases, but the magnitude of the drop tells a clear story about where the bottleneck sits. At 1080p with Low settings, the combo produces 552 FPS. Moving to 1440p Low drops that to 371 FPS, a reduction of roughly 33%. Jumping to 4K Low yields 212 FPS, which is another 43% drop from the 1440p figure. Across the full 1080p-to-4K span at Low settings, the average frame rate falls from 552 to 212 FPS — a decrease of about 62%.

The pattern holds across other settings presets. At Medium settings, the combo delivers 467 FPS at 1080p, 314 FPS at 1440p, and 180 FPS at 4K. That’s a 61% total drop from 1080p to 4K, nearly identical to the Low-settings scaling. At High settings, the numbers are 405 FPS at 1080p, 272 FPS at 1440p, and 156 FPS at 4K — a 61.5% reduction. Ultra settings show the same trend: 326 FPS at 1080p, 219 FPS at 1440p, and 125 FPS at 4K, a 62% decline.

The consistency of these percentage drops across all four quality presets is notable. It suggests that the scaling behavior is dominated by the GPU’s rendering workload rather than by CPU-side effects that might change with settings. In an idle game like To The Core, the rendering demands at 4K are substantial enough to cut frame rates by more than half compared to 1080p, regardless of whether you’re on Low or Ultra. This points to the RTX 4080 being the primary limiting component at higher resolutions — the CPU has enough headroom that its contribution to frame rate differences between resolutions is minimal.

At 1080p, the frame rates are exceptionally high — even Ultra settings maintain 326 FPS. The gap between Low (552 FPS) and Ultra (326 FPS) at 1080p is about 41%, which indicates that the graphics settings still have a meaningful impact on GPU load even at the lowest resolution tested. But the fact that the resolution scaling is so uniform suggests that the i7-14700F is not holding the system back at 1080p; if it were, the 1080p-to-1440p drop would be compressed relative to the 1440p-to-4K drop, as the CPU would cap performance at lower resolutions. Instead, the steady proportional decline across all resolution steps is classic GPU-bound behavior.

CPU Role

The Intel Core i7-14700F brings 20 cores and 28 threads to this pairing, with a base clock of 2.10 GHz and a boost clock of 5.40 GHz. It’s built on Intel’s Raptor Lake architecture with a 10 nm process node, and it carries 33 MB of shared L3 cache alongside 2 MB of L2 cache per core. The CPU’s benchmark results reflect a strong all-round performer: it scores 35,122 in Cinebench R23 multi-core and 4,958 in single-core, with a Geekbench multi-core score of 19,620 and a single-core score of 2,429. Its average benchmark score sits at 53,620, placing it in the 91st percentile of all CPUs tested.

In the context of To The Core, an idle game, the CPU’s role is less about raw multi-threaded throughput and more about maintaining consistent frame pacing at high FPS. The measured data supports this: at 1080p Low, the combo hits 552 FPS, which is far beyond what most displays can show. Even at 4K Ultra, 125 FPS is well above the 60 FPS target most players would consider smooth. The CPU’s single-core performance, evidenced by the 4,958 Cinebench R23 score, is sufficient to feed the RTX 4080 without creating a noticeable bottleneck at any resolution tested.

Comparing to its nearest rivals in the CPU benchmark database, the i7-14700F is essentially on par with the Intel Xeon 6505P, which scores 53,701 — a 0.2% difference. It edges out the AMD Ryzen 9 7900X (53,288, 0.6% ahead) and the AMD EPYC 7313P (53,206, 0.8% ahead). These margins are negligible for gaming purposes. The practical takeaway is that this CPU provides ample headroom for the RTX 4080 in an idle title like To The Core, where the render thread is unlikely to be the constraint.

The 65 W TDP and lack of an unlocked multiplier (the part number SRN3Z confirms it’s a locked chip) mean this CPU runs cool and efficiently, but you won’t be overclocking it. That’s fine for this game — the stock boost clock of 5.40 GHz is already high, and the measured frame rates show no sign of CPU limitation. The data indicates that the i7-14700F’s 20 cores and 28 threads are more than adequate for To The Core, even at the lowest resolution and highest FPS targets.

How This Combo Ranks

In the database of tested CPU-GPU combinations for To The Core, this specific pairing of the Intel Core i7-14700F with the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4080 ranks 226th out of 3,725 total combos. That places it in roughly the top 6% of all tested configurations — a strong result, though not the absolute top tier. The rank reflects the measured FPS across the full set of resolution and settings combinations, and given that this is an idle game where even modest hardware can achieve playable frame rates, the fact that this combo sits in the top percentile indicates it’s well above average.

The RTX 4080 itself holds the 86th percentile among all GPUs, with an average benchmark score of 54,247. Its nearest rival, the RTX 4080 SUPER, scores 54,209 — a 0.1% difference that’s effectively a tie. The AMD Radeon Pro W5700X (54,828) is 1.1% ahead, while the AMD Radeon RX 6750 GRE 12 GB (55,698) and AMD Radeon 8060S (55,757) are 2.6% and 2.7% ahead respectively. These are all within a few percentage points, so the 4080’s position in the GPU hierarchy is solid but not dominant.

The combo rank of 226 out of 3,725 suggests that there are 225 configurations that outperform it in this game. Given that the RTX 4080 is near the top of the GPU charts (86th percentile), the combos ahead of it likely pair the 4080 with even stronger CPUs, or they use higher-end GPUs like the RTX 4090 or Radeon equivalents. The i7-14700F’s 91st percentile CPU ranking means it’s not the strongest processor available, so there’s headroom in the ranking for CPU-bound combos with faster chips. However, for practical purposes, the 226th rank out of 3,725 means this combo is in the top 6% — it will crush To The Core with massive FPS margins at every setting.

Measured FPS Breakdown

The measured data covers three resolutions (1920x1080, 2560x1440, 3840x2160) and four settings presets (Low, Medium, High, Ultra). Here’s the full breakdown:

1920x1080 (1080p):

• Low: 552 FPS average
• Medium: 467 FPS average (min 397, max 537)
• High: 405 FPS average
• Ultra: 326 FPS average

2560x1440 (1440p):

• Low: 371 FPS average
• Medium: 314 FPS average (min 267, max 361)
• High: 272 FPS average
• Ultra: 219 FPS average

3840x2160 (4K):

• Low: 212 FPS average
• Medium: 180 FPS average (min 153, max 207)
• High: 156 FPS average
• Ultra: 125 FPS average

The Medium preset is the only one with recorded minimum and maximum FPS values, which provides some insight into frame pacing. At 1080p Medium, the range spans 397 to 537 FPS — a 140 FPS spread that suggests some variance but nothing that would cause visible stutter at these extreme frame rates. At 1440p Medium, the range is 267 to 361 FPS, and at 4K Medium, it’s 153 to 207 FPS. The minimum FPS values at each resolution are still well above 144 Hz, meaning even the worst-case frame times would be smooth on most high-refresh monitors.

The scaling from Ultra to Low at each resolution is consistent: at 1080p, Ultra (326 FPS) is 41% lower than Low (552 FPS). At 1440p, the gap is 41% (219 vs 371 FPS). At 4K, it’s also 41% (125 vs 212 FPS). This uniformity reinforces the GPU-bound nature of the workload — the settings preset affects GPU load proportionally at every resolution.

For players targeting specific frame rate thresholds, the data shows that even 4K Ultra maintains 125 FPS, which exceeds the 120 Hz refresh of many high-end monitors. If you want to lock to 144 FPS at 4K, you’d need to drop to High settings (156 FPS) or lower. At 1440p, every preset comfortably exceeds 200 FPS, making this resolution a sweet spot for high-refresh gaming. At 1080p, the combo is so far beyond display capabilities that the only practical consideration is whether you want to max out settings or reduce them for lower latency — though at 400+ FPS, latency is already minimal.

FAQ

*Q: Can this combo run To The Core at 4K with max settings?*

A: Yes. The measured data shows 125 FPS average at 3840x2160 with Ultra settings. That’s well above the 60 FPS standard for smooth gameplay, and it even exceeds 120 Hz for high-refresh 4K monitors.

Q: What’s the best resolution for this pairing if I want the highest FPS?

A: At 1080p with Low settings, the combo hits 552 FPS. If you want the absolute peak frame rate, 1080p Low is the highest measured result. However, even 1440p Ultra delivers 219 FPS, which is far beyond what most displays can show.

Q: How does this combo compare to other CPU-GPU pairings in the database?

A: It ranks 226th out of 3,725 tested combos for To The Core, placing it in the top 6%. The RTX 4080 GPU sits in the 86th percentile of all GPUs, and the i7-14700F is in the 91st percentile of all CPUs.

Q: Is the CPU or GPU the limiting factor at 4K?

A: The data suggests the GPU is the limiting factor at 4K. The FPS drops by roughly 62% from 1080p to 4K across all settings, and the scaling is uniform regardless of quality preset. If the CPU were the bottleneck, the drop would be less pronounced at lower resolutions where the GPU has less work.

Q: Does the Ultra preset cause a big FPS hit compared to Low?

A: Yes, but it’s proportional. Ultra is about 41% slower than Low at every resolution tested. At 1080p, that means 326 FPS vs 552 FPS; at 4K, it’s 125 FPS vs 212 FPS. The absolute FPS difference is larger at lower resolutions, but the percentage hit is the same.

Q: What’s the minimum FPS I can expect with Medium settings?

A: The only preset with recorded minimum FPS is Medium. At 1080p, the minimum is 397 FPS; at 1440p, it’s 267 FPS; at 4K, it’s 153 FPS. Even the lowest minimum recorded is far above typical refresh rates.

Settings Recommendations

Based on the measured FPS data, the best settings preset depends on your display’s refresh rate and resolution. For 4K displays, Ultra settings deliver 125 FPS average — that’s sufficient for 120 Hz panels, but if you have a 144 Hz or higher refresh 4K monitor, dropping to High settings (156 FPS) gives you the headroom to hit that target consistently. If you want to maximize visual quality without sacrificing smoothness at 4K, High is the sweet spot: it’s only 20% slower than Medium (180 FPS) but looks noticeably better, and it’s 25% faster than Ultra (125 FPS).

For 1440p, every preset exceeds 200 FPS. Ultra runs at 219 FPS, which is more than enough for any 144 Hz or 240 Hz monitor. There’s no practical reason to drop below Ultra at this resolution unless you’re chasing the absolute highest possible frame rate for competitive play — in that case, Low at 371 FPS is available, but the visual trade-off is severe for an idle game where you’ll be staring at the screen for extended periods. The recommendation is to run Ultra at 1440p and enjoy the maxed-out visuals.

At 1080p, the frame rates are so high that the choice comes down to preference. Ultra at 326 FPS is still far beyond any display’s refresh rate capability, so there’s no downside to maxing out settings. The only reason to lower settings would be to reduce GPU load for lower power draw or temperatures, but the RTX 4080 is already efficient enough at these settings. Stick with Ultra at 1080p for the best visual experience — the 326 FPS result is more than triple what any monitor can display.

The Medium preset, which has the only recorded min/max FPS data, shows consistent frame pacing across all resolutions. At 4K Medium, the minimum FPS of 153 means you’ll never drop below 144 Hz, so if you have a 144 Hz 4K monitor and want a safety margin, Medium is a viable option. However, given that High at 4K still averages 156 FPS, the extra visual fidelity from High is worth the 24 FPS average sacrifice compared to Medium. For most players, the sweet spot is High at 4K, Ultra at 1440p, and Ultra at 1080p — these settings maximize visual quality while maintaining frame rates that exceed any practical display requirement.