Minimum

The Intel Core Ultra 7 265K paired with the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5090 is an exceptionally high-end combination, and the measured data for Minimum confirms that this system is in the top tier of tested configurations. With a combo rank of 68 out of 3,712 tested combos, this pairing sits in the 98th percentile of all systems benchmarked for this title. The data shows that this is a system designed to obliterate frame rate targets, not merely meet them. The following analysis breaks down the measured performance across resolutions and presets, interprets the ranking, and provides a clear picture of what this hardware achieves in this specific title.

Measured FPS Breakdown

The measured FPS data provides a complete picture of performance across three resolutions and four quality presets. All figures represent average FPS, as the data does not include separate min or max frame rate values. The playable threshold for this analysis is defined at 60 FPS, which this system exceeds in every single configuration tested.

At 1920x1080, the combination delivers extraordinary headroom. With the Low preset, the average frame rate reaches 407.3 FPS. Moving to Medium drops performance to 312.4 FPS, a 23.3% reduction from Low. The High preset yields 264 FPS, which is 15.5% below the Medium result. The most demanding preset, Ultra, still produces an average of 197.9 FPS. This means that even at the highest graphical fidelity available in the game, the system is operating at over three times the 60 FPS threshold. The scaling from Low to Ultra at this resolution shows a total performance drop of 51.4%, indicating that the GPU is the primary scaling factor as settings increase, though the CPU's strong single-thread performance keeps the frame rate remarkably high even at Low settings.

At 2560x1440, the pattern continues but with slightly reduced absolute numbers. Low preset averages 263.3 FPS, which is 35.4% lower than the 1080p result, demonstrating the increased resolution load. Medium produces 201.7 FPS, a 23.4% drop from Low. High settings yield 170.3 FPS, representing a 15.6% decrease from Medium. Ultra at this resolution averages 130.8 FPS, which is 35.3% lower than the High setting. The resolution scaling from 1080p to 1440p at Ultra costs 33.9% of the frame rate, while at Low it costs 35.4%. This consistent scaling indicates that the RTX 5090's memory bandwidth and compute resources are being utilized effectively, with the 32 GB GDDR7 memory and 1.79 TB/s bandwidth preventing any memory capacity or bandwidth bottlenecks at this resolution.

At 3840x2160, 4K resolution, the system remains firmly in playable territory across all presets. Low settings average 138.7 FPS, which is 47.3% lower than the 1080p Low result, showing the expected resolution penalty. Medium averages 110.3 FPS, a 20.5% drop from Low. High settings produce 89.7 FPS, an 18.7% decrease from Medium. Ultra at 4K averages 67.8 FPS, which is 24.4% below the High setting and only 7.8 FPS above the 60 FPS playable threshold. The scaling from 1440p to 4K at Ultra costs 48.2% of performance, while at Low it costs 47.3%. This uniform scaling across presets indicates that the GPU is the sole performance limiter at 4K, with the CPU's 20 cores and 20 threads providing ample headroom for the game's processing demands.

FAQ

Q: What is the highest average frame rate achieved by this combination?

A: The highest measured average FPS is 407.3, achieved at 1920x1080 with the Low preset. This is the only configuration in the data set that exceeds 400 FPS, and it represents the absolute peak performance ceiling for this pairing.

Q: Can this system maintain 60 FPS at 4K with the highest settings?

A: Yes. At 3840x2160 with the Ultra preset, the measured average FPS is 67.8, which is 7.8 FPS above the 60 FPS playable threshold. This is the closest any measured configuration comes to the threshold, but it still clears it comfortably.

Q: How does the 1440p Ultra performance compare to the 1080p Ultra performance?

A: At 2560x1440 Ultra, the average FPS is 130.8, while at 1920x1080 Ultra, the average FPS is 197.9. This represents a 33.9% performance reduction when moving from 1080p to 1440p at the same preset, showing the significant resolution scaling of the GPU workload.

Q: What is the performance difference between Low and Ultra presets at 4K?

A: At 3840x2160, the Low preset averages 138.7 FPS, while the Ultra preset averages 67.8 FPS. This represents a 51.1% performance reduction from Low to Ultra, which is the largest preset-based scaling in the data set.

Q: Is the system ever below the 60 FPS playable threshold?

A: No. The lowest measured average FPS across all resolutions and presets is 67.8, which occurs at 3840x2160 with the Ultra preset. Every other configuration produces an average FPS of 89.7 or higher.

Q: How many tested combinations does this system outperform?

A: This combination ranks 68th out of 3,712 tested combos, meaning it outperforms 3,644 other configurations. This places it in the top 1.8% of all systems tested for Minimum.

How This Combo Ranks

The combo rank of 68 out of 3,712 tested configurations places this system in an elite tier. This rank is based on measured performance across the game's benchmark suite, and the data indicates that only 67 other combinations produce higher average frame rates. The CPU alone holds a 94th percentile ranking against all tested CPUs, while the GPU holds a 92nd percentile ranking against all tested GPUs. This near-top-tier positioning for both components results in a system that is optimized for high-refresh-rate gaming at any resolution.

The ranking is particularly notable given the game's release date. Minimum launched in 2014, and this modern hardware combination is clearly overqualified for the title's demands. The data shows that the system's performance is not limited by the game's engine or CPU-bound sections, as the frame rates scale consistently with resolution and preset changes. The rank of 68 suggests that there are a handful of combinations with even more extreme hardware, but for practical purposes, this system is indistinguishable from the very best in terms of actual gameplay smoothness at 60 FPS or even 144 FPS targets.

The delta from the top-ranked combos is not provided, but the percentile data for both CPU and GPU indicate that this system is within striking distance of the absolute best. The CPU's average benchmark score of 70,879 and the GPU's average benchmark score of 79,842 both fall in the upper echelon of their respective categories. This combined strength is what drives the 68th overall rank, as neither component is a weak link in the chain.

Similar Performance Alternatives

The nearestRivals data provides context for what other hardware would deliver similar performance to this specific CPU and GPU combination. For the Intel Core Ultra 7 265K, the closest rivals in terms of average benchmark score are the Intel Xeon 6511P, which scores 71,051 and is 0.2% below the 265K, and the Intel Xeon Platinum 8270, which scores 71,370 and is 0.7% below. The Intel Core i7-14700KF scores 70,163, which is 1% above the 265K, and the AMD Ryzen 7 9700F scores 69,996, which is 1.3% above. These deltas are minimal, meaning that any of these CPUs would produce nearly identical performance in Minimum, provided they are paired with a GPU of equivalent capability.

For the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5090, the nearest rivals are the NVIDIA Tesla P100 PCIe 16 GB, which scores 79,605 and is 0.3% above the 5090, and the NVIDIA Tesla P100 PCIe 12 GB, which scores 79,396 and is 0.6% above. The AMD Radeon RX 6850M XT scores 78,940, which is 1.1% above, and the AMD Radeon Pro Vega 64X scores 80,959, which is 1.4% below. These GPU rivals are all within a narrow performance band, suggesting that a system built with any of these GPUs would produce frame rates very close to those measured for the RTX 5090 in Minimum.

When considering a full alternative combination, the data suggests that swapping the CPU for a Core i7-14700KF or Ryzen 7 9700F, while keeping the RTX 5090, would result in a performance delta of roughly 1% or less. Similarly, keeping the 265K and swapping the GPU for a Tesla P100 or RX 6850M XT would produce a delta of about 1%. These are the closest full-system alternatives based on the data, and all would deliver effectively identical gameplay experience in this title.

CPU and GPU Roles

The performance scaling across resolutions and presets reveals which component is the primary driver of frame rates in Minimum. At 1920x1080, the difference between Low and Ultra presets is 51.4%, indicating that the GPU is heavily utilized even at lower settings. However, the fact that Low settings produce 407.3 FPS suggests that the CPU is not a bottleneck, as such high frame rates would expose any CPU limitation.

At 2560x1440, the scaling from Low to Ultra is 50.3%, which is nearly identical to the 1080p scaling. This consistent preset scaling across resolutions indicates that the GPU is the primary performance limiter, as the CPU's load does not change significantly with resolution. The resolution scaling from 1080p to 1440p at Low settings is 35.4%, and at Ultra it is 33.9%. This relatively small difference between presets shows that the GPU's workload scales predictably with pixel count, and the CPU is not introducing any variable overhead.

At 3840x2160, the resolution scaling from 1440p is 47.3% at Low and 48.2% at Ultra. The larger resolution penalty at 4K compared to the 1440p to 1080p jump indicates that the GPU is approaching its limits, but the CPU still has headroom. The fact that Ultra settings at 4K produce 67.8 FPS, while Low produces 138.7 FPS, shows that the GPU is the sole component determining frame rate at this resolution. If the CPU were a bottleneck, the Low preset would not show such a significant improvement over Ultra, as the CPU load would cap performance regardless of GPU settings.

The data supports a clear conclusion: the GPU is the dominant component for Minimum at all tested resolutions. The CPU's role is to ensure that the GPU can operate at its full potential, and the 265K's strong single-thread and multi-thread performance, as evidenced by its Cinebench R23 scores of 2,020 single-core and 35,850 multi-core, ensures that no CPU-bound frame rate limits are encountered. The GPU's 104.8 TFLOPS of FP32 compute and 1.79 TB/s of memory bandwidth are the key specifications driving the observed frame rates.

The Verdict

This system can absolutely run Minimum, and the verdictByResolution data confirms that every resolution and preset combination is playable. At 3840x2160, the playable settings include High, Low, Medium, and Ultra, with the best settings being Ultra at an average of 67.8 FPS. This means the system clears the 60 FPS threshold even at the highest possible settings at 4K resolution.

At 2560x1440, all four presets are playable, with Ultra being the best at 130.8 FPS. This is more than double the playable threshold, providing a significant margin for smooth gameplay even during intense action sequences. The 1440p Ultra performance of 130.8 FPS also makes this resolution viable for high-refresh-rate monitors, as it comfortably exceeds 120 FPS.

At 1920x1080, the system delivers exceptional performance across all presets. Ultra settings produce 197.9 FPS, which is over three times the playable threshold. This makes 1080p Ultra suitable for 144Hz or even 165Hz displays, while the Low preset at 407.3 FPS is sufficient for 360Hz competitive gaming monitors. The verdict is unambiguous: this combination does not merely run Minimum; it dominates it at every resolution and setting.

Best Settings per Resolution

The most demanding preset that remains at or above 60 FPS is the Ultra preset at all three tested resolutions, based on the verdictByResolution data. The specific frame rates at these settings are as follows:

At 3840x2160, the Ultra preset produces an average of 67.8 FPS. This is the recommended setting for 4K displays, as it provides the highest visual quality while maintaining a 7.8 FPS margin above the playable threshold. For users who prioritize higher frame rates, the High preset at 89.7 FPS offers a 32.3% improvement in average FPS while sacrificing some visual fidelity.

At 2560x1440, the Ultra preset averages 130.8 FPS. This is the optimal choice for 1440p displays, as it provides the highest settings while maintaining a 70.8 FPS margin above the threshold. The High preset at 170.3 FPS offers an additional 30.2% frame rate improvement for those with 165Hz or 240Hz monitors.

At 1920x1080, the Ultra preset averages 197.9 FPS. This is the recommended setting for 1080p displays, as it provides maximum visual quality while maintaining a 137.9 FPS margin above the threshold. The High preset at 264 FPS provides a 33.4% improvement for 240Hz displays, while the Low preset at 407.3 FPS is the only configuration that can fully saturate a 360Hz monitor. For most users, Ultra at 1080p is the best balance of visual quality and performance.