Minimum

The Intel Core Ultra 5 245 paired with the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5080 is a formidable combination for Minimum, a third-person shooter released in June 2014. Benchmark data shows this pairing achieves high frame rates across all tested resolutions and settings, landing at rank 209 out of 3712 tested combinations. This places the combo in the top percentile of tested systems, indicating exceptional headroom for this title’s requirements.

How This Combo Ranks

The combination of the Intel Core Ultra 5 245 and NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5080 achieves a rank of 209 out of 3712 tested combos in Minimum. This places the pairing in the top 6% of all tested configurations, a position that reflects a substantial performance buffer over the 60 FPS playability threshold. The data indicates this system is positioned to handle the game’s most demanding scenarios without compromise, given the game’s age and the modern hardware involved.

The Intel Core Ultra 5 245 alone holds a 90th percentile ranking among all CPUs, with an average benchmark score of 48,995. Its nearest rivals, such as the AMD Ryzen 7 PRO 5755G (avg score 49,196) and the AMD Ryzen 9 7900 (avg score 49,228), show delta percentages of -0.4% and -0.5%, respectively. This indicates the Core Ultra 5 245 performs within a narrow margin of those chips, essentially at parity in synthetic workloads. The GPU, the RTX 5080, sits at the 87th percentile among all GPUs with an average benchmark score of 56,083. Its nearest rival, the AMD Radeon RX 9070 GRE, scores 57,367, which is 2.2% higher, while the AMD Radeon 8060S scores 55,757, a 0.6% difference. This suggests the RTX 5080 is slightly below the top-tier GPU but still within a tight competitive band.

The combined rank of 209 reflects the synergy of this high-percentile CPU and GPU. For a title like Minimum, which does not appear to be exceptionally demanding by modern standards, this combo delivers performance that is likely far beyond what the game’s engine can fully utilize, especially at lower resolutions and settings. The data shows that even at 4K Ultra, the average FPS of 63 is just above the 60 FPS threshold, while at 1080p, the system delivers over three times that figure.

Similar Performance Alternatives

Examining the nearest rivals for both components provides context for hardware that would behave similarly in Minimum. For the CPU, the Intel Core Ultra 5 245’s closest competitors are the AMD Ryzen 7 PRO 5755G and the AMD Ryzen 9 7900, both of which have average scores within 0.5% of the Core Ultra 5 245. The Intel Xeon Gold 5318H and Intel Core i5-14600K are also nearby, with delta percentages of 0.6% and 0.8%, respectively. In practice, systems built with any of these CPUs would likely produce nearly identical frame rates in Minimum, as the game’s CPU demands are likely easily satisfied by any of these processors.

On the GPU side, the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5080’s nearest rivals include the AMD Radeon RX 9070 GRE, which is 2.2% faster on average, and the AMD Radeon 8060S, which is 0.6% slower. The AMD Radeon RX 6750 GRE 12 GB and the AMD Radeon Pro W5700X are also close, with delta percentages of 0.7% and 2.3%, respectively. For Minimum, swapping the RTX 5080 for the RX 9070 GRE would likely result in a negligible FPS change, given the already high frame rates observed. The differences in synthetic scores are small enough that real-world gaming performance would be nearly indistinguishable, particularly at 1080p and 1440p where the system is far above the playability threshold.

If a user were to build a system with any combination of these rival CPUs and GPUs, the expected performance in Minimum would be very similar to the measured results for the Core Ultra 5 245 and RTX 5080. The bottleneck in this game is unlikely to be either component at most settings; rather, the engine’s frame rate limits or other system factors may come into play. The data suggests that this class of hardware is overqualified for the title, and the observed FPS is more a reflection of the game’s optimization than the hardware’s absolute limits.

CPU and GPU Roles

The benchmark results for Minimum show distinct scaling patterns across resolutions and settings that reveal the respective roles of the CPU and GPU. At 1920x1080, the system delivers an average of 369 FPS on Low settings, which drops to 237 FPS on High and 181 FPS on Ultra. This represents a 51% reduction from Low to Ultra at the same resolution. The scaling from Low to Medium at 1080p shows a decline from 369 to 283 FPS, a 23% drop, while Medium to High reduces performance from 283 to 237 FPS, a further 16% decrease. The pattern indicates that the GPU is the primary driver of performance changes as settings increase, with the CPU having ample headroom to feed the graphics card.

At 2560x1440, the average FPS ranges from 238 on Low to 117 on Ultra. The drop from Low to Medium is 23% (238 to 182 FPS), and from Medium to High it is 16% (182 to 153 FPS). These scaling percentages are nearly identical to those observed at 1080p, suggesting that the GPU workload scales consistently with resolution and settings. However, when moving from 1080p Low (369 FPS) to 1440p Low (238 FPS), the performance drops by 35%, which is a larger relative decrease than the setting changes within a resolution. This highlights the GPU’s growing burden as pixel count increases.

The trend continues at 3840x2160, where the average FPS on Low is 128, dropping to 98 on Medium and 82 on High. The scaling from 1440p Low to 4K Low is a 46% reduction (238 to 128 FPS), demonstrating that resolution scaling has a more pronounced effect on performance than preset changes. The CPU’s role becomes less significant at higher resolutions, as the GPU becomes the clear bottleneck. At 4K Ultra, the system averages 63 FPS, which is just above the 60 FPS threshold, indicating that the GPU is heavily taxed at this setting. The CPU’s single-thread and multi-thread scores, which are in the 90th percentile, are sufficient to avoid limiting the GPU at any tested resolution or preset.

The Verdict

The data clearly indicates that this PC can run Minimum with playable frame rates at all tested resolutions and settings. The verdict by resolution confirms that all four settings—Low, Medium, High, and Ultra—are playable at 1920x1080, 2560x1440, and 3840x2160. The best settings for each resolution are Ultra, with average FPS figures of 181, 117, and 63, respectively. Since the playability threshold is 60 FPS, the system clears this requirement even at the most demanding combination of 4K Ultra.

At 1080p, the system’s performance is exceptionally high, with no setting dropping below 181 FPS on average. This suggests that the game will run with a massive margin above the threshold, making it ideal for high-refresh-rate displays. At 1440p, the average FPS on Ultra is 117, which is still nearly double the threshold, providing a smooth experience on standard 144Hz monitors. At 4K, the Ultra preset averages 63 FPS, which just clears the 60 FPS line, meaning users can enjoy maximum visual fidelity at the highest resolution, though with less headroom for frame time spikes.

The minimum FPS data for Medium settings shows values of 240, 155, and 83 at 1080p, 1440p, and 4K, respectively. These minimums are all above the 60 FPS threshold, indicating that even the lowest recorded frame rates are playable. The maximum FPS values for Medium are 325, 210, and 113, showing that the hardware can push well beyond the average in less demanding scenes. Overall, the system is fully capable of running Minimum at its highest settings across all resolutions, with the only caveat being that 4K Ultra has relatively less performance headroom.

Measured FPS Breakdown

The measured FPS data provides a detailed view of performance across each resolution and preset. At 1920x1080, the average frame rates are 369 on Low, 283 on Medium, 237 on High, and 181 on Ultra. The Medium preset includes additional data, with a minimum FPS of 240 and a maximum of 325. This wide range indicates that the game’s frame times are variable, but the minimum is still comfortably above the 60 FPS threshold. The difference between Low and Ultra at 1080p is 188 FPS, which is a significant margin, but both extremes are well within playable territory.

Moving to 2560x1440, the average FPS figures are 238 on Low, 182 on Medium, 153 on High, and 117 on Ultra. The Medium preset shows a minimum of 155 FPS and a maximum of 210 FPS. The scaling from Low to Ultra at this resolution is a 51% reduction in average FPS, which is consistent with the pattern observed at 1080p. The drop from 1080p to 1440p at the same preset averages around 35-36%, as seen with Low (369 to 238) and High (237 to 153).

At 3840x2160, the averages are 128 on Low, 98 on Medium, 82 on High, and 63 on Ultra. The Medium preset has a minimum of 83 FPS and a maximum of 113 FPS. This is the only resolution where the Ultra preset’s average FPS (63) is close to the 60 FPS threshold. The scaling from 1440p to 4K is more severe, with a 46% drop on Low (238 to 128) and a 46% drop on High (153 to 82). The data shows a consistent pattern: resolution has a greater impact on performance than settings, and the system maintains playable frame rates in all configurations.

FAQ

*Q: Can this system run Minimum at 4K Ultra settings?*

A: Yes, the measured average FPS at 3840x2160 Ultra is 63, which is above the 60 FPS playability threshold. The verdict by resolution confirms Ultra is playable at this resolution.

Q: What is the best settings preset for 1440p?

A: The Ultra preset is the best settings option at 2560x1440, delivering an average of 117 FPS. This is well above the 60 FPS threshold and provides the highest visual quality.

Q: How much faster is the system at 1080p compared to 4K on Low settings?

A: At 1920x1080 Low, the average FPS is 369, while at 3840x2160 Low, it is 128. This represents a 65% reduction in average frame rate when moving from 1080p to 4K at the same settings.

Q: What are the minimum recorded frame rates for Medium settings?

A: The minimum FPS values for Medium settings are 240 at 1080p, 155 at 1440p, and 83 at 4K. All of these figures are above the 60 FPS threshold.

Q: Which component is the bottleneck at 4K Ultra?

A: The data shows that the GPU is the primary bottleneck at 4K, as the average FPS drops to 63 on Ultra, close to the 60 FPS threshold. The CPU’s high percentile ranking suggests it is not limiting performance at this resolution.

Q: How does the system’s rank compare to other tested combos?

A: The combo ranks 209 out of 3712 tested combinations, placing it in the top 6% of all systems tested for Minimum. This indicates superior performance relative to the vast majority of configurations.

Best Settings per Resolution

For 1920x1080, the most demanding preset that maintains at least 60 FPS is Ultra, with an average of 181 FPS. Since the system clears the threshold by a wide margin, users can enable maximum settings without concern. The minimum FPS for Medium at this resolution is 240, which is far above the threshold, suggesting that even Ultra will have minimums well over 60 FPS.

At 2560x1440, the Ultra preset is also the best option, with an average of 117 FPS. This provides a comfortable margin above the 60 FPS threshold, making it suitable for high-refresh-rate displays. The data shows that no tested preset drops below 117 FPS on average at this resolution, so users have full freedom to choose any settings.

For 3840x2160, the Ultra preset is the most demanding playable option, averaging 63 FPS. This is just 3 FPS above the threshold, so while it is playable, there is less headroom for frame rate fluctuations. The Medium preset at 4K averages 98 FPS, providing more stability, but Ultra remains a viable choice for those prioritizing visual fidelity. The best settings per resolution are therefore Ultra at all three resolutions, with the understanding that 4K Ultra offers the least margin above the 60 FPS minimum.