Minecraft: Java Edition

The benchmark data for this configuration pairs an Intel Core Ultra X7 368H processor with an AMD Radeon 760M integrated GPU, targeting Minecraft: Java Edition. The central finding is unambiguous: the dataset contains no measured frame-time results for this game, and the verdict fields are empty. This combo is ranked first out of 1,727 tested combinations in the database, but that rank is derived from aggregate hardware scores, not from actual Minecraft benchmarks. The analysis below therefore interprets what the available synthetic benchmarks imply, while clearly separating hardware capability from unverified in-game performance.

Measured FPS Breakdown

The FACT PACK shows `"measuredFps": []` for Minecraft: Java Edition, meaning there are zero recorded FPS values for any resolution, preset, or setting combination. There are no average, minimum, or maximum frame rates to report. The `"verdictByResolution": {}` field is likewise empty, confirming that no resolution-specific playability classification has been established for this pairing.

Without measured data, the hardware's synthetic benchmark scores serve as the only quantitative guide. The AMD Radeon 760M produces a PassMark G3D score of 5,310 and a PassMark DirectX 11 score of 52. Its DirectX 12 score is 25, DirectX 9 is 65, and DirectX 10 is 19. These figures are available, but they do not translate into FPS numbers for Minecraft. The GPU's Geekbench Vulkan score of 30,336 and OpenCL score of 20,255 offer additional compute-oriented context, yet neither corresponds to a frame rate.

The Intel Core Ultra X7 368H delivers a PassMark single-thread score of 4,005 and a multi-thread score of 32,956. Its Cinebench R23 single-core result is 3,984, and multi-core is 28,221. These processor scores indicate strong raw capability, but they are not FPS measurements. The absence of measured FPS data means every statement about actual gameplay performance is necessarily inferential. The page cannot list a single frame rate for any resolution because no such number exists in the FACT PACK.

Best Settings per Resolution

Because `"measuredFps"` is empty and `"verdictByResolution"` holds no entries, there is no empirical basis to declare a best settings preset at any resolution. The playable threshold is defined as 60 FPS in the FACT PACK, but without measured averages, no preset can be confirmed to meet or exceed that threshold.

The hardware profile suggests some possibilities. The Radeon 760M has 512 shading units, 32 texture mapping units, and 16 render output units, with a boost clock of 2,599 MHz and a pixel rate of 41.58 GPixel/s. Its texture rate is 83.17 GTexel/s, and FP32 compute is 5.323 TFLOPS. These specifications imply it can handle light workloads, but Minecraft's Java Edition rendering demands scale with render distance and shader usage. The CPU's PassMark single-thread score of 4,005 and Cinebench R23 single-core score of 3,984 indicate strong per-core performance, which matters for Java Edition's primarily single-threaded game logic.

The data, however, does not permit a definitive answer. The most demanding preset that stays at or above 60 FPS cannot be identified because no FPS values were measured. Any claim would be speculation, which violates the requirement to use only FACT PACK facts. The honest conclusion is that the database lacks the necessary information to recommend settings for 1080p, 1440p, or any other resolution.

CPU and GPU Roles

The relative importance of the CPU versus GPU can be inferred from their benchmark profiles and the nature of the game, but only qualitatively. Minecraft: Java Edition is known for CPU-bound simulation, though that knowledge is not in the FACT PACK. What the data does show is that the Intel Core Ultra X7 368H ranks in the 87th percentile among all CPUs, while the AMD Radeon 760M ranks in the 35th percentile among all GPUs. This wide gap suggests the processor is the stronger component in this pairing.

The CPU's Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 28,221 and PassMark multi-thread score of 32,956 indicate substantial parallel throughput. The single-core scores — 3,984 in R23 and 4,005 in PassMark — are comparatively high, which matters for games that rely on one or few threads. The GPU's PassMark G3D score of 5,310 places it far below the CPU's percentile standing, implying the graphics subsystem is the more likely bottleneck for frame rate.

The scaling between resolutions would normally clarify this dynamic. At lower resolutions, a CPU bottleneck becomes more visible; at higher resolutions, the GPU typically dominates. Since there are no measured FPS values across resolutions, this scaling cannot be quantified. The FACT PACK contains no resolution-by-resolution data, so the analysis cannot state which component matters more at 1080p versus 1440p. The only defensible statement is that the CPU's benchmark standing is markedly stronger than the GPU's, which suggests the GPU would limit performance in graphics-intensive scenarios.

Similar Performance Alternatives

The nearestRivals data for both components provides context for what other hardware would behave similarly. For the Intel Core Ultra X7 368H, the closest matches by average benchmark score are the Intel Core 7 253PE (average score 40,557, delta -0.1%), the Intel Core 5 223PE (40,585, delta -0.2%), the AMD Ryzen 9 7940H (40,431, delta 0.2%), and the Intel Xeon 6507P (40,426, delta 0.2%). The CPU's own average benchmark score is 40,518. These deltas are all within 0.2 percentage points, meaning any of these processors would deliver nearly identical compute performance in synthetic tests.

For the AMD Radeon 760M, the nearest rivals by average score are the AMD Radeon RX 6400 (average score 6,001, delta 0.3%), the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 770M (6,000, delta 0.3%), the NVIDIA RTX PRO 6000 Blackwell Server (5,996, delta 0.4%), and the NVIDIA Quadro P2000 (6,049, delta -0.5%). The GPU's own average benchmark score is 6,019. These deltas range from -0.5% to 0.4%, indicating very close synthetic performance. A system using any of these GPUs with a similarly strong CPU would likely produce comparable frame rates in games, though this statement applies to general GPU behavior, not to specific Minecraft measurements.

The practical implication is that swapping the Core Ultra X7 368H for a Ryzen 9 7940H would change CPU-bound performance by less than a quarter of a percent. Similarly, replacing the Radeon 760M with a Quadro P2000 would shift GPU-bound results by roughly half a percent. These are negligible differences in synthetic terms, suggesting users with such alternative hardware would see effectively the same experience.

FAQ

Q: Does the benchmark database show any measured FPS for Minecraft: Java Edition with this CPU and GPU?

A: No. The `"measuredFps"` array is empty, and `"verdictByResolution"` contains no entries. There are zero recorded frame rates for any setting or resolution.

Q: What is the combo's rank among all tested hardware combinations?

A: The combo is ranked first out of 1,727 total combinations in the database, per `"comboRankInGame"`.

Q: How does the CPU compare to its nearest rivals in synthetic benchmarks?

A: The Core Ultra X7 368H has an average benchmark score of 40,518, which is within 0.2% of the Intel Core 7 253PE (40,557), Intel Core 5 223PE (40,585), AMD Ryzen 9 7940H (40,431), and Intel Xeon 6507P (40,426).

Q: How does the GPU compare to its nearest rivals?

A: The Radeon 760M has an average benchmark score of 6,019, which is within 0.5% of the AMD Radeon RX 6400 (6,001), NVIDIA GeForce GTX 770M (6,000), NVIDIA RTX PRO 6000 Blackwell Server (5,996), and NVIDIA Quadro P2000 (6,049).

Q: Can this PC run Minecraft: Java Edition at 60 FPS?

A: The data cannot answer this. The playable threshold is defined as 60 FPS, but without measured FPS values, no resolution or preset can be confirmed to reach it. The verdict fields are empty.

Q: Which component is stronger in this pairing?

A: The CPU ranks in the 87th percentile among all CPUs, while the GPU ranks in the 35th percentile among all GPUs. The CPU's PassMark multi-thread score is 32,956, and its single-thread score is 4,005, while the GPU's PassMark G3D score is 5,310, indicating the processor is the more capable component.

How This Combo Ranks

The combo holds the top position in the database, ranked 1 out of 1,727 tested combinations. This rank, however, reflects aggregate hardware benchmark scores rather than Minecraft-specific performance. The CPU's percentile of 87 and the GPU's percentile of 35 contribute to this overall standing, but the rank does not incorporate any game-level FPS data.

The significance of the rank is therefore limited. Being first among 1,727 combos suggests that, by synthetic metrics, this pairing outperforms nearly all others in the database. The CPU's strong multi-thread and single-thread scores (Cinebench R23 multi-core 28,221, single-core 3,984) and the GPU's moderate scores (PassMark G3D 5,310) combine to produce an average benchmark score that edges out the nearest rivals by fractions of a percent. Yet this rank says nothing about how the hardware runs Minecraft specifically, because no Minecraft benchmarks exist for it.

When interpreting the rank, the absence of measured data must be weighed against the synthetic strengths. A first-place ranking might suggest excellent overall capability, but for a game like Minecraft, the integrated GPU's 35th percentile standing could be the limiting factor. The rank is a summary of hardware potential, not a guarantee of game performance.

The Verdict

The question of whether this PC can run Minecraft: Java Edition at 60 FPS cannot be answered from the available data. The `"verdictByResolution"` field is empty, and `"measuredFps"` contains no values. There is no evidence that any resolution or preset clears the 60 FPS threshold.

The synthetic benchmarks offer indirect clues. The CPU's single-thread performance is strong, with a PassMark single-thread score of 4,005 and a Cinebench R23 single-core score of 3,984, both of which rank in the 87th percentile for CPUs. The GPU's PassMark G3D score of 5,310, however, sits in the 35th percentile for GPUs, indicating a comparatively weaker graphics component. For a game that typically responds to both CPU and GPU performance, this imbalance could go either way — the CPU might carry lighter graphical loads, but the GPU might struggle with higher render distances or advanced graphics settings.

The data does not support a definitive verdict. The playable threshold of 60 FPS exists as a reference point, but without measured averages, the analysis cannot confirm whether this combo meets it at 1080p, 1440p, or any other resolution. The honest answer is that the database has not yet measured this game on this hardware, so the verdict remains undetermined. The rank of 1 out of 1,727 combos suggests strong overall hardware, but that rank is not a substitute for actual frame rate data.