Minimum

Minimum is a third-person shooter from 2014, and the question is whether an Intel Core Ultra 7 155H paired with an AMD Radeon 890M can run it. The benchmark data shows this is a borderline case: the combo ranks 3491 out of 3712 tested combinations, putting it in the bottom 6% of systems. That low ranking is a warning sign, but the measured frame rates reveal a more nuanced picture—this integrated graphics solution can deliver playable performance, but only under specific conditions.

How This Combo Ranks

The Core Ultra 7 155H and Radeon 890M combination sits at rank 3491 out of 3712 tested combos for Minimum. This places it in the 6th percentile of all systems tested, meaning roughly 94% of configurations deliver higher average frame rates. The ranking reflects the GPU's position in the overall hierarchy: the Radeon 890M holds the 45th percentile among all GPUs, which is decidedly mid-pack for integrated graphics. The CPU, meanwhile, ranks much higher at the 83rd percentile among all processors, indicating the processor is not the limiting factor here.

The disparity between CPU and GPU performance is stark. The Core Ultra 7 155H scores 32697 in average benchmark score, placing it near the AMD Ryzen 7 PRO 6850H, which scores 32812 (a 0.4% difference), and the Intel Core i5-14600T at 32707 (0% delta). The Radeon 890M, by contrast, scores 9210 on average, sitting just 0.1% below the AMD Radeon Vega 8 (9221) and 0.7% below the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 960 (9273). This means the GPU is performing at a level comparable to entry-level discrete graphics from several generations ago, while the CPU is competitive with modern mid-range desktop parts.

For a 2014 shooter like Minimum, the low combo rank is less alarming than it would be for a modern AAA title. The game's age means its rendering demands are modest, and the data confirms this: at 1080p Low, the combo achieves 84 FPS average, which is well above the 60 FPS playability threshold. The ranking should be interpreted as a measure of overall capability across all games, not specifically this one.

Best Settings per Resolution

At 1920x1080, the most demanding preset that stays at or above 60 FPS is Medium, which delivers an average of 64 FPS. This is the sweet spot for this combination: Low runs at 84 FPS average, but Medium offers a meaningful visual upgrade while still clearing the 60 FPS bar with 4 FPS of headroom. High drops to 54 FPS average, below the threshold, and Ultra falls further to 41 FPS.

At 2560x1440, no preset reaches 60 FPS. Low comes closest at 54 FPS average, followed by Medium at 41 FPS, High at 35 FPS, and Ultra at 27 FPS. The 1440p resolution is simply too demanding for the Radeon 890M in this title, regardless of settings.

At 3840x2160, the situation is worse. Low averages 29 FPS, Medium 22 FPS, High 19 FPS, and Ultra 14 FPS. None of these approach playability, and even the lowest preset delivers less than half the frame rate needed for smooth gameplay.

The verdict data confirms this pattern: playable settings exist only at 1920x1080, with Low and Medium both qualifying, and Medium being the best playable option at 64 FPS average. For 1440p and 4K, there are no playable settings—the system cannot maintain 60 FPS at any preset.

CPU and GPU Roles

The performance scaling across resolutions and presets makes it clear that the GPU is the dominant constraint in this pairing. Consider the CPU's capabilities: the Core Ultra 7 155H has 16 cores and 22 threads, with a boost clock of 4.80 GHz, and it scores 15028 in Cinebench R23 multi-core. This is a capable mobile processor that ranks at the 83rd percentile. The Radeon 890M, by contrast, is a 15-watt integrated GPU with 1024 shading units and a boost clock of 2900 MHz, scoring 8076 in Passmark G3D—a 45th percentile result.

The frame rate drops tell the story. Moving from 1080p to 1440p, every preset loses roughly 35-37% of its average FPS: Low drops from 84 to 54 (a 36% reduction), Medium from 64 to 41 (36%), High from 54 to 35 (35%), and Ultra from 41 to 27 (34%). Moving from 1440p to 4K, the losses are even steeper: Low falls from 54 to 29 (46%), Medium from 41 to 22 (46%), High from 35 to 19 (46%), and Ultra from 27 to 14 (48%). These consistent percentage drops across all settings indicate a pure resolution scaling effect—the GPU is being asked to render more pixels, and its fill rate and shading capacity are the limiting factors.

If the CPU were the bottleneck, we would expect to see frame rates plateau at higher resolutions or settings, since the processor's workload would stay constant while the GPU's changed. Instead, the linear scaling pattern points entirely to the GPU. The CPU has plenty of headroom: even at 1080p Ultra (41 FPS), the processor is likely nowhere near its limits, given its multi-threaded benchmark scores. For a 2014 game like Minimum, the Core Ultra 7 155H is overkill; the Radeon 890M is the component that determines whether the game is playable.

Similar Performance Alternatives

If you're considering this system for Minimum, the nearest rivals for the Radeon 890M give you a sense of what else would behave similarly. The AMD Radeon Vega 8 scores 9221 (0.1% higher), the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 960 scores 9273 (0.7% higher), and the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 465 scores 9294 (0.9% higher). These are all within 1% of the 890M's average benchmark score, so in practice, any of these GPUs would produce nearly identical frame rates in Minimum. The GTX 960, being a discrete card from 2015, is a particularly useful comparison—it shows that the 890M's integrated performance is roughly equivalent to a mid-range desktop GPU from that era.

On the CPU side, the Core Ultra 7 155H's nearest rivals include the Intel Core i5-14600T (32707, 0% delta), the AMD Ryzen AI 7 PRO 360 (32662, 0.1% higher), and the AMD Ryzen 5 7400F (32750, 0.2% higher). These processors all perform within a fraction of a percent of the 155H, meaning any of them paired with a Radeon 890M-class GPU would deliver the same results in Minimum. The takeaway: if you're looking at a laptop with a different CPU but the same or similar integrated GPU, expect identical frame rates.

Measured FPS Breakdown

The measured frame rates show a clear hierarchy across resolutions and settings. At 1920x1080, Low averages 84 FPS, Medium 64 FPS with a minimum of 55 and maximum of 74, High 54 FPS, and Ultra 41 FPS. The Medium preset's frame time variance is worth noting: the 55 FPS minimum is close to the 60 FPS threshold, so there may be occasional dips below playability during intense scenes, even though the average clears it.

At 2560x1440, Low averages 54 FPS, Medium 41 FPS with a minimum of 35 and maximum of 48, High 35 FPS, and Ultra 27 FPS. The Medium preset's 35 FPS minimum represents a 15% drop from the average, which is consistent with the 1080p Medium pattern (55 minimum vs 64 average, also a 15% drop). This suggests the frame time consistency is stable across resolutions, but the absolute performance is too low for playability at 1440p.

At 3840x2160, Low averages 29 FPS, Medium 22 FPS with a minimum of 19 and maximum of 26, High 19 FPS, and Ultra 14 FPS. The 4K numbers are uniformly poor, with no preset reaching even half the 60 FPS threshold. The Medium preset's 19 FPS minimum is particularly telling—even the most forgiving interpretation of "playable" would struggle with frame rates in the teens.

The Verdict

This PC can run Minimum, but only at 1920x1080 with Medium settings or lower. The verdict data is unambiguous: at 1080p, Low and Medium are playable, with Medium being the best option at 64 FPS average. At 1440p and 4K, there are no playable settings—the system cannot sustain 60 FPS at any preset, with the best 1440p result being 54 FPS on Low and the best 4K result being 29 FPS on Low.

For practical purposes, this means the Core Ultra 7 155H and Radeon 890M combination is suitable for Minimum at 1080p, which is likely the target resolution for a system with integrated graphics. The Medium preset at 64 FPS average provides a good balance of visual quality and performance, though the 55 FPS minimum means you might notice brief stutters in heavy scenes. If you want a rock-solid 60 FPS with no dips, Low at 84 FPS average is the safer choice, but you sacrifice some visual fidelity.

At 1440p, the system falls short of the 60 FPS bar across the board. Even at Low settings, the 54 FPS average is below the threshold, and the frame rate will likely feel inconsistent. At 4K, the system is not viable for this game—the best case is 29 FPS on Low, which is a slideshow by any standard.

Ultimately: this combo is a 1080p machine for Minimum. It handles the game at Medium settings with acceptable frame rates, but you should not expect to push higher resolutions. The GPU is the limiting factor, and its performance level is roughly equivalent to a GTX 960, which was a mid-range card when Minimum launched. If you're building or buying a system with these components, plan to play at 1080p and you'll get a playable experience.