Minimum

Minimum is a third-person shooter released in 2014, and the recorded data for the Intel Core Ultra 7 265 paired with the Intel Arc B390 shows a system that is highly dependent on resolution and graphics settings. The CPU is a 20-core, 20-thread Arrow Lake part with a 5.30 GHz boost clock, while the GPU is an integrated graphics solution with 1536 shading units and a 2500 MHz boost clock. Across the measured resolutions, the combination shows a clear ceiling at 1080p, with 1440p requiring the lowest settings to reach the 60 FPS threshold, and 4K falling short at every preset.

FAQ

Q: Can this system run Minimum at 60 FPS on a 1920x1080 display?

A: Yes, at 1080p the combination reaches 61 FPS average on High settings, 72 FPS on Medium, and 95 FPS on Low. The Ultra preset drops to 46 FPS average, so it does not clear the 60 FPS threshold.

Q: What is the highest playable setting at 2560x1440?

A: The only playable preset at 1440p is Low, which delivers 61 FPS average. Medium drops to 47 FPS, High to 39 FPS, and Ultra to 30 FPS, all below the 60 FPS playable threshold.

Q: Is 3840x2160 playable at any settings?

A: No. The data shows no playable settings at 4K. The best result is Low at 33 FPS average, followed by Medium at 25 FPS, High at 21 FPS, and Ultra at 16 FPS, all far below 60 FPS.

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

A: The Intel Core Ultra 7 265 has an average benchmark score of 64640, which is 0.3% lower than the AMD EPYC 4464P (64823), 0.3% higher than the Intel Core Ultra 7 265F (64438), 0.7% higher than the AMD EPYC 7343 (64202), and 0.7% lower than the AMD EPYC 9124 (65104). It sits in the 93rd percentile among all CPUs.

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

A: The Intel Arc B390 has an average benchmark score of 1482, which is 1.3% higher than the NVIDIA GeForce GT 520MX (1463), 1.5% higher than the NVIDIA GeForce 800M (1460), 2.5% higher than the NVIDIA GeForce GT 625 OEM (1446), and 2.7% higher than the NVIDIA GeForce GT 710 (1443). It sits in the 9th percentile among all GPUs.

Q: What is the average FPS difference between Low and Ultra at 1080p?

A: The difference is 49 FPS. Low averages 95 FPS while Ultra averages 46 FPS, meaning the Ultra preset delivers roughly half the frame rate of Low.

Similar Performance Alternatives

Based on the recorded data, the Intel Core Ultra 7 265's closest CPU rivals are the AMD EPYC 4464P, which scores 0.3% higher, and the Intel Core Ultra 7 265F, which scores 0.3% lower. The AMD EPYC 7343 and AMD EPYC 9124 are also nearby, with the former 0.7% lower and the latter 0.7% higher in average benchmark score. For this game, any of these CPUs would likely produce nearly identical frame pacing and CPU-bound behavior, as the differences are within a single percentage point.

For the GPU side, the Intel Arc B390 is closely matched by the NVIDIA GeForce GT 520MX, which scores 1.3% lower, and the NVIDIA GeForce 800M, which scores 1.5% lower. The NVIDIA GeForce GT 625 OEM and NVIDIA GeForce GT 710 are 2.5% and 2.7% lower, respectively. Given that the Arc B390 is an integrated part with system-shared memory, these rival GPUs represent a similar performance tier. In practice, swapping to any of these GPUs would change the measured FPS by only a few frames, meaning the same general resolution and settings guidance applies: 1080p is playable up to High, 1440p only at Low, and 4K is not playable.

Measured FPS Breakdown

At 1920x1080, the system records its strongest results. Low settings produce an average of 95 FPS. Medium yields 72 FPS, with a minimum of 62 FPS and a maximum of 83 FPS. High settings average 61 FPS. Ultra drops to 46 FPS, with no separate min or max recorded. The step from Medium to High costs 11 FPS, while the step from High to Ultra costs 15 FPS, showing that the Ultra preset imposes a significant additional load.

At 2560x1440, the averages decline sharply. Low settings produce 61 FPS, exactly at the playable threshold. Medium averages 47 FPS, with a minimum of 40 FPS and a maximum of 54 FPS. High settings average 39 FPS. Ultra averages 30 FPS. The transition from Low to Medium removes 14 FPS, and from Medium to High removes another 8 FPS. The gap between Low and Ultra is 31 FPS, which indicates that the GPU is the limiting factor at this resolution.

At 3840x2160, all presets fall below playable levels. Low averages 33 FPS. Medium averages 25 FPS, with a minimum of 21 FPS and a maximum of 29 FPS. High averages 21 FPS. Ultra averages 16 FPS. The difference between Low and Ultra is 17 FPS, and even the best case, Low, is less than 55% of the 60 FPS target. The data shows a consistent pattern: every resolution increase costs roughly 40% of the frame rate at a given setting, and every preset increase costs a similar amount at a given resolution.

The Verdict

Can this PC run Minimum? The answer depends entirely on the target resolution. At 1920x1080, the system is clearly playable on High, Medium, and Low settings, with the best playable preset being High at 61 FPS average. The Ultra preset at 1080p is not playable, as it falls to 46 FPS. At 2560x1440, the system barely clears the threshold, with only Low settings producing 61 FPS average. Medium, High, and Ultra at 1440p are all below 60 FPS, with 47, 39, and 30 FPS respectively. At 3840x2160, there are no playable settings. The best result is Low at 33 FPS, which is less than 60% of the target. The recorded data shows that this combination is a 1080p-oriented setup for this game, with a narrow path to playability at 1440p if the user accepts the lowest visual quality. For anyone wanting 4K or higher presets, this hardware will not deliver a smooth experience.

CPU and GPU Roles

The data reveals how the balance shifts between the CPU and GPU as resolution changes. At 1080p, the system achieves 95 FPS on Low and 61 FPS on High, a drop of 34 FPS. At 1440p, the same settings produce 61 FPS and 39 FPS, a drop of 22 FPS. At 4K, Low gives 33 FPS and High gives 21 FPS, a drop of 12 FPS. This shrinking delta as resolution increases indicates that the GPU becomes more dominant at higher resolutions, while the CPU has more headroom at lower resolutions. The CPU, with its high single-thread performance (5960 in Cinebench R23 single-core), is not the bottleneck at 1080p Low, where the frame rate reaches 95 FPS. Instead, the integrated GPU's limited throughput (7.680 TFLOPS FP32) is the primary constraint.

The scaling from 1080p to 1440p at Low settings is a reduction from 95 FPS to 61 FPS, a 36% loss. From 1440p to 4K at Low, the drop is from 61 FPS to 33 FPS, a 46% loss. This steeper decline at higher resolutions confirms that pixel throughput is the limiting factor. Similarly, at Medium settings, moving from 1080p (72 FPS) to 1440p (47 FPS) loses 35% of the frame rate, and to 4K (25 FPS) loses another 47%. The pattern is consistent: the GPU is the dominant constraint, and the CPU's contributions are largely irrelevant once the resolution climbs past 1080p. For presets, the Ultra setting at 1080p (46 FPS) is lower than the Low setting at 1440p (61 FPS), which suggests that the GPU's memory bandwidth, being system-shared and dependent on the platform, is also a factor. The CPU, despite its strong benchmark scores, does not compensate for the GPU's limitations in this title.

How This Combo Ranks

Within the database of tested combinations, this specific pairing of the Intel Core Ultra 7 265 and Intel Arc B390 ranks 3299 out of 3712 total combos for Minimum. That places it in the lower 11% of all tested systems. This low rank is almost entirely attributable to the GPU, which sits in the 9th percentile among all GPUs. The CPU, by contrast, is in the 93rd percentile, meaning the processor is a high-end part paired with a very low-end graphics solution. The result is a system that is severely GPU-limited in every measured scenario. For comparison, the nearest GPU rivals, such as the NVIDIA GeForce GT 520MX and GeForce 800M, would produce similar rankings, as their benchmark scores are within 1.5% of the Arc B390. The high rank of the CPU does not boost the overall combo because the game's frame rate is determined by the graphics pipeline. The data shows that this combination is far more representative of an entry-level graphics experience than a balanced gaming system, despite the presence of a top-tier CPU.

Best Settings per Resolution

For 1920x1080, the most demanding preset that stays at or above 60 FPS is High, which produces an average of 61 FPS. Medium is also playable at 72 FPS, and Low at 95 FPS, but High offers the highest visual quality while still meeting the threshold. Ultra at 1080p is not viable, as it averages 46 FPS.

For 2560x1440, the only preset that reaches 60 FPS is Low, with an average of 61 FPS. Medium, High, and Ultra all fall below the threshold, with 47, 39, and 30 FPS respectively. Users at this resolution must accept the lowest settings to maintain smooth gameplay.

For 3840x2160, no preset achieves 60 FPS. The best possible result is Low at 33 FPS, which is not playable by the 60 FPS standard. There is no recommended setting for 4K, as all options fail the playability criterion. The recorded data indicates that this system should be used at 1080p for a satisfying experience, with 1440p reserved for users who prioritize frame rate over visual fidelity.