A Valve classic that depends heavily on single-thread clock speed. It runs well on older hardware but benefits from a fast CPU.
Actual FPS may vary based on RAM speed, background processes, and other system factors
Performance Report
At 1080p, all quality settings exceed 450 FPS, suitable for 144Hz+ monitors. At 1440p, all settings exceed 450 FPS. At 4K, all settings exceed 384 FPS.
The GeForce RTX 4090 is 13367% above the recommended GPU (GeForce 8600 GT) for Team Fortress 2. The EPYC 9174F is 2285% above the recommended CPU (Core 2 Duo).
The EPYC 9174F sets the FPS ceiling at 1440p low, all 4k settings, while the GeForce RTX 4090 still has headroom. The FPS ceiling is closely matched at all 1080p settings, 1440p (medium/high/ultra).
Approximated average price on current market:
Combo price: $1679. At 1080p Ultra, this combo delivers 450 FPS, equivalent to 0.27 FPS per dollar.
| Resolution | Low | Medium | High | Ultra |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1080p | 0.400 fps/$ | 0.353 fps/$ | 0.298 fps/$ | 0.268 fps/$ |
| 1440p | 0.394 fps/$ | 0.353 fps/$ | 0.298 fps/$ | 0.268 fps/$ |
| 4k | 0.328 fps/$ | 0.295 fps/$ | 0.273 fps/$ | 0.229 fps/$ |
* Table values represent FPS per Dollar (higher is better)
This section is based on estimated CPU/GPU FPS ceilings, not utilization percentages.
At 4k low, the EPYC 9174F sets the ceiling at about 535 FPS, while the GeForce RTX 4090 could reach 700 FPS. In this scenario, the CPU limits the GPU potential by 24% (FPS gap: 165 FPS). Overall distribution: CPU limits 5/12 cells, GPU limits 0/12, balanced 7/12.
The EPYC 9174F and GeForce RTX 4090 stay close in effective frame-generation ceiling across most presets, so neither side consistently suppresses the other by a large margin.
| Resolution | Low | Medium | High | Ultra |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1080p (Full HD) | Balanced | Balanced | Balanced | Balanced |
| 1440p (2K QHD) | CPU Limits GPU 8% | Balanced | Balanced | Balanced |
| 4K (Ultra HD) | CPU Limits GPU 24% | CPU Limits GPU 20% | CPU Limits GPU 11% | CPU Limits GPU 13% |
We estimate the maximum FPS the processor can sustain and the maximum FPS the graphics card can sustain in each setting, then compare those limits directly.
Limit Factor formula: (stronger - weaker) / stronger. Example: if CPU ceiling is 200 FPS and GPU ceiling is 140 FPS, then GPU limits CPU by 30%.
CPU Limits GPU means the processor ceiling is lower. GPU Limits CPU means the graphics ceiling is lower. Balanced means the FPS ceilings are close enough that the gap is negligible.
A component can still be the FPS limiter without reaching 100% utilization. The displayed percentages are derived from FPS ceilings, not generic utilization heuristics.
| Resolution | Low | Medium | High | Ultra |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1080p (Full HD) | CPU3% - 8% <> GPU5% - 15% <> | CPU1% - 12% <> GPU1% - 15% <> | CPU3% - 16% <> GPU4% - 19% <> | CPU6% - 14% <> GPU8% - 24% <> |
| 1440p (2K QHD) | CPU3% - 14% <> GPU14% - 25% <> | CPU1% - 17% <> GPU12% - 26% <> | CPU2% - 21% <> GPU12% - 25% <> | CPU5% - 20% <> GPU15% - 30% <> |
| 4K (Ultra HD) | CPU3% - 14% <> GPU17% - 34% <> | CPU0% - 17% <> GPU19% - 38% <> | CPU1% - 20% <> GPU18% - 38% <> | CPU3% - 19% <> GPU21% - 41% <> |
The EPYC 9174F + GeForce RTX 4090 pairing runs this title with CPU utilization between 0% and 21% and GPU utilization between 1% and 41%. EPYC 9174F keeps significant headroom across presets, while GeForce RTX 4090 is utilized efficiently without persistent saturation. As resolution scales, average GPU load rises from 12% at 1080p to 28% at 4K, while CPU averages move from 8% to 9%.
Neither component is close to saturation: CPU tops out at 21% and GPU at 41%. This pattern suggests possible engine-side limits, an FPS cap, or workload constraints unrelated to raw hardware throughput. It also shows why low utilization does not automatically mean there is no FPS limiter.
At 1080p, averages sit around CPU 8% and GPU 12%. At 1440p, that shifts to CPU 10% and GPU 20%, and at 4K it reaches CPU 9% and GPU 28%. This shows that GPU demand scales sharply with resolution while CPU load remains comparatively stable.
4K (Ultra HD) Ultra is the most balanced preset based on this dataset. It runs around CPU 11% (3-19%) and GPU 31% (21-41%), which keeps GeForce RTX 4090 well utilized without constant max-out behavior while EPYC 9174F remains stable for consistent frame delivery.
Current utilization does not show an urgent upgrade requirement for either component; the EPYC 9174F and GeForce RTX 4090 remain reasonably matched for this title.
Understanding Hardware Utilization: These percentages represent how much of your component's maximum processing power is actively being used during gameplay. They describe hardware load, but they do not directly tell you which component sets the FPS ceiling.
Important: a CPU or GPU can still be the FPS limiter without reaching 100% utilization. Two processors can both show 40% usage and still deliver very different frame rates, depending on per-core speed, cache, engine threading, driver overhead, and frame preparation efficiency.
Data generated by our Machine Learning engine trained on real-world benchmarks. Shows the approximate average utilization at each setting.
See how your processor and graphics card compare against the game official minimum and recommended system specs. The placement of your hardware is calculated using relative synthetic performance scores to help you gauge overall playability.
Your CPU is 2285% above and your GPU is 13367% above the recommended specs. Ultra settings at 1080p, or High at 1440p/4K.
+2285%vsrecommended
+13367%vsrecommended
+1642%vsminimum
+2422%vsminimum
Yes, the EPYC 9174F paired with the GeForce RTX 4090 can run Team Fortress 2 smoothly up to 4k achieving around 384 FPS at Ultra quality. Your GPU is 13367% above the recommended specs, and your CPU is 2285% above the recommended requirements.
This CPU + GPU combo costs approximately $1679 ($30 CPU (Rank #15 Value) + $1649 GPU (Rank #77 Value)). Your EPYC 9174F provides phenomenal top-tier performance but at a premium enthusiast price. Since you are essentially at the ceiling of current hardware capabilities, there are no meaningful performance upgrades available. However, if you wanted a more cost-effective build that still delivers a great experience, you could theoretically step down to a high-end processor with a significantly better value rating. For example, the EPYC 4585PX is a great upgrade option for around $699 (Rank #66 for value).
Your EPYC 9174F is already an incredibly powerful processor. While it's technically the first component to hit its limit (which is completely normal in state-of-the-art builds), there is no meaningful upgrade path that would drastically improve your Team Fortress 2 performance right now. CPU fully utilized at: 1440p low, 4k low, 4k medium, 4k high, 4k ultra.
Team Fortress 2 does not currently support Frame Generation technologies like DLSS 3 or FSR 3. Your performance is based entirely on native rendering. If the game adds support in a future update, newer GPUs will benefit the most.
Team Fortress 2 requires at minimum a Pentium 4 (3.0 GHz) (CPU) and GeForce 6 series (GPU) with 1 GB RAM and 15 GB storage. For the recommended experience, you need a Core 2 Duo and GeForce 8600 GT with 2 GB RAM. Your EPYC 9174F and GeForce RTX 4090 both exceed the recommended specs, so you're well-positioned for a great experience.
These Team Fortress 2 FPS results are not arbitrary numbers. They come from calculations informed by thousands of real gaming benchmarks, and the typical accuracy range is around 10% to 15%. That makes them far more useful than generic FPS calculators that simply invent values without a benchmark foundation. Actual in-game performance can still vary with drivers, updates, RAM configuration, cooling, and the exact scene being rendered.
Performance estimates are based on synthetic benchmarks and hardware capabilities.
Results may vary based on drivers, OS, and background processes.
