Minimum

FAQ

Q: Can this laptop configuration run Minimum at 60 FPS or higher?

A: Yes, at 1920x1080 and 2560x1440. The data shows playable settings at both resolutions. At 1920x1080, all four presets (Low, Medium, High, Ultra) clear 60 FPS. At 2560x1440, Low, Medium, and High are playable. At 3840x2160, no preset reaches 60 FPS.

Q: What is the best preset at 1920x1080?

A: Ultra is the most demanding preset that stays above the 60 FPS threshold. It delivers an average of 73 FPS, with no minimum or maximum values recorded in the dataset.

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

A: The AMD Ryzen 9 8945HX sits at the 95th percentile among all CPUs. Its average benchmark score of 76212 is nearly identical to the Intel Core Ultra 9 285HX (76155, deltaPct 0.1), and it is slightly ahead of the AMD EPYC Embedded 8224P (76492, deltaPct -0.4) and AMD Ryzen Threadripper PRO 9945WX (76513, deltaPct -0.4). It trails the AMD Ryzen 9 9950X3D by 0.6 percent.

Q: What is the GPU's performance position relative to other graphics cards?

A: The NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5050 Mobile ranks in the 83rd percentile among all GPUs. Its average benchmark score of 43268 is effectively tied with the NVIDIA Quadro M6000 24 GB (43262, deltaPct 0) and the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4070 SUPER (43223, deltaPct 0.1). The NVIDIA Quadro M6000 is 0.1 percent ahead, while the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4090 Mobile leads by 0.9 percent.

Q: Is 3840x2160 playable at any setting?

A: No. The highest average FPS at 4K is 52 on Low settings, which falls below the 60 FPS playable threshold. Medium averages 39 FPS, High averages 33 FPS, and Ultra averages 25 FPS.

Q: What is the FPS spread between Low and Ultra at 2560x1440?

A: Low averages 96 FPS, Medium averages 73 FPS, High averages 61 FPS, and Ultra drops to 47 FPS. The gap between Low and Ultra is 49 FPS, indicating a steep performance cost for higher visual fidelity at this resolution.

Similar Performance Alternatives

The AMD Ryzen 9 8945HX and NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5050 Mobile combination produces benchmark scores that place it near several specific alternatives, based on the nearestRivals data.

On the CPU side, the Ryzen 9 8945HX's average score of 76212 is virtually indistinguishable from the Intel Core Ultra 9 285HX, which scores 76155 with a deltaPct of 0.1. A user moving between these two processors would see essentially identical CPU-bound behavior. The AMD EPYC Embedded 8224P and AMD Ryzen Threadripper PRO 9945WX both score slightly higher (76492 and 76513 respectively, both at -0.4 percent deltaPct), meaning they are marginally faster but within noise. The AMD Ryzen 9 9950X3D is the closest competitor on the lower side, scoring 75779 with a 0.6 percent deltaPct, indicating the 8945HX holds a small but measurable advantage. In practical terms, any of these four CPUs would deliver comparable frame pacing in Minimum, with differences likely imperceptible in real gameplay.

For the GPU, the RTX 5050 Mobile's average score of 43268 places it in a tight cluster. The NVIDIA Quadro M6000 24 GB matches it exactly (43262, deltaPct 0), and the NVIDIA Quadro M6000 is a hair ahead (43301, deltaPct -0.1). The NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4070 SUPER is essentially tied as well (43223, deltaPct 0.1). The NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4090 Mobile is the outlier, scoring 43667 with a deltaPct of -0.9, meaning it is about one percent faster. For Minimum specifically, these rivals would produce nearly identical FPS at every resolution and preset. The RTX 5050 Mobile's 8 GB of GDDR7 memory and 384.0 GB/s bandwidth are the same class as what these comparable cards offer, so texture-heavy scenes would behave similarly.

The overall system rank in this game is 2973 out of 3712 combinations, which places this configuration in the lower third of tested hardware. That rank reflects the game's age — Minimum launched in 2014 — and the fact that modern mid-range mobile hardware far exceeds what the title was designed around. The measured FPS data confirms this: even the weakest resolution setting (3840x2160 Ultra at 25 FPS) is a playability question only because of the 4K resolution, not because the hardware is weak.

CPU and GPU Roles

The data shows a clear pattern: the GPU is the primary bottleneck at higher resolutions, while the CPU becomes less relevant as resolution drops. This is evident from the FPS scaling across the three tested resolutions.

At 1920x1080, the RTX 5050 Mobile delivers 148 FPS on Low, 114 on Medium, 95 on High, and 73 on Ultra. The step from Low to Ultra costs 75 FPS, a 50 percent reduction. This wide spread indicates the GPU is doing most of the work — a CPU-limited scenario would show much smaller gaps between presets. The Ryzen 9 8945HX with its 16 cores and 32 threads is more than sufficient here; its Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 42713 and single-core score of 6030 put it far beyond what a 2014 title requires.

At 2560x1440, the pattern intensifies. Low averages 96 FPS, Medium 73, High 61, and Ultra 47. The drop from Low to Ultra is 49 FPS, and the gap between Medium and High is 12 FPS, while High to Ultra costs 14 FPS. This suggests the GPU is now the dominant constraint, as the additional pixel count stresses the RTX 5050 Mobile's 2560 shading units and 32 ROPs. The 384.0 GB/s memory bandwidth becomes a factor here, as higher resolution demands more data throughput.

At 3840x2160, the GPU is almost entirely responsible for the performance ceiling. Low averages 52 FPS, Medium 39, High 33, and Ultra 25. Even the lowest preset cannot reach 60 FPS. The pixel rate of 48.00 GPixel/s and texture rate of 120.0 GTexel/s cap the card's ability to fill 4K frames. The CPU's role is negligible at this resolution — even a significantly slower processor paired with the same GPU would show nearly identical numbers, because the GPU is saturated.

Cross-resolution scaling confirms this interpretation. At High settings, FPS goes from 95 at 1080p to 61 at 1440p to 33 at 4K — halving roughly with each resolution step, which is typical of GPU-bound workloads. At Low settings, the numbers are 148, 96, and 52, a similar proportional decline. The CPU's PassMark multi-thread score of 51405 and single-thread score of 3907 indicate it is not the limiting factor in any configuration; the game simply does not demand that much processing power.

The Verdict

This PC can run Minimum at two of the three tested resolutions, and the third is a clear miss.

At 1920x1080, the system clears the 60 FPS threshold at every preset. Low averages 148 FPS, Medium 114, High 95, and Ultra 73. The best playable setting is Ultra, with an average of 73 FPS. This is a comfortable margin above the 60 FPS playable threshold, leaving headroom for frame drops in busy scenes.

At 2560x1440, the system remains playable on three presets. Low averages 96 FPS, Medium 73, and High 61. The best playable setting is High, which averages 61 FPS — just barely above the threshold. Medium offers a safer margin at 73 FPS, with a recorded minimum of 62 FPS and maximum of 84 FPS. Ultra drops to 47 FPS, which is not playable.

At 3840x2160, no preset reaches 60 FPS. Low averages 52 FPS, Medium 39, High 33, and Ultra 25. The verdict data confirms an empty playable settings list for 4K. Users wanting 4K would need to accept sub-60 frame rates or lower the resolution.

The system's overall rank of 2973 out of 3712 combinations reflects the hardware's position relative to all tested setups — it is not a top-tier configuration, but for a 2014 game, it is more than adequate at mainstream resolutions.

Measured FPS Breakdown

3840x2160:

• Low: average 52 FPS, no min/max recorded
• Medium: average 39 FPS, minimum 34 FPS, maximum 45 FPS
• High: average 33 FPS, no min/max recorded
• Ultra: average 25 FPS, no min/max recorded

2560x1440:

• Low: average 96 FPS, no min/max recorded
• Medium: average 73 FPS, minimum 62 FPS, maximum 84 FPS
• High: average 61 FPS, no min/max recorded
• Ultra: average 47 FPS, no min/max recorded

1920x1080:

• Low: average 148 FPS, no min/max recorded
• Medium: average 114 FPS, minimum 97 FPS, maximum 131 FPS
• High: average 95 FPS, no min/max recorded
• Ultra: average 73 FPS, no min/max recorded

The only preset with complete min/max data is Medium at all three resolutions. At 1920x1080 Medium, the 97 FPS minimum still sits well above the 60 FPS threshold, so even worst-case frame drops remain playable. At 2560x1440 Medium, the 62 FPS minimum is barely above the threshold, indicating occasional dips into near-critical territory. At 3840x2160 Medium, the 34 FPS minimum and 45 FPS maximum bracket a 39 FPS average, confirming an unplayable experience regardless of frame timing.

Best Settings per Resolution

1920x1080: Ultra is the best setting, averaging 73 FPS. This is the highest preset available and it clears the 60 FPS threshold by 13 FPS. The gap between Ultra and the next preset down (High at 95 FPS) is 22 FPS, but Ultra's margin is sufficient for stable gameplay.

2560x1440: High is the best setting, averaging 61 FPS. This is exactly 1 FPS above the playable threshold, which is a thin margin. Medium at 73 FPS offers a more comfortable buffer, with a recorded minimum of 62 FPS, making it the safer choice for consistent frame times. However, the verdict data lists High as the best playable setting, so that is the official recommendation.

3840x2160: No setting is playable. The highest average FPS is 52 on Low, which falls 8 FPS short of the 60 FPS threshold. The data shows an empty playable settings list, and the best settings field is null. Users targeting 4K would need to drop to a lower resolution or accept a sub-60 experience.