Evolve

CPU Role — cores, clocks, and how they relate to this game's results

The Intel Core Ultra 7 265 is a 20-core, 20-thread processor based on the Arrow Lake architecture, with a base clock of 2.40 GHz and a boost clock of 5.30 GHz. This is a desktop-class CPU with a 65 W TDP, and it sits in the 93rd percentile of all CPUs tested, indicating strong overall processing capability. However, in the context of Evolve, the data shows that this CPU's raw compute power is not the limiting factor — the measured frame rates are consistently low across all settings, which points to the GPU as the primary constraint.

Benchmark results for the CPU itself are impressive: a Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 42,216 and a single-core score of 5,960. The PassMark multi-thread score of 49,682 and single-thread score of 4,689 further confirm that this processor can handle demanding workloads. In Evolve, a game from 2015, the CPU's 20 cores and high boost clock are more than sufficient to feed frames to the graphics card. The game's engine is not known for being heavily multi-threaded, but even so, the Core Ultra 7 265's single-core performance is strong enough to avoid bottlenecks in typical gameplay scenarios.

The nearest rivals for this CPU, based on average benchmark scores, include the AMD EPYC 4464P (0.3% lower score), Intel Core Ultra 7 265F (0.3% higher), AMD EPYC 7343 (0.7% higher), and AMD EPYC 9124 (0.7% lower). These deltas are all within 1%, meaning the Core Ultra 7 265 performs essentially identically to its closest competitors in synthetic benchmarks. In Evolve specifically, this level of CPU performance is far beyond what the game requires; the frame rate differences between settings are driven almost entirely by the GPU's capabilities.

The CPU's memory bandwidth of 102.4 GB/s with dual-channel DDR5 support is ample for this game. The 30 MB of shared L3 cache, along with 3 MB L2 per core, provides fast access to frequently used data. For a title like Evolve, which relies on physics calculations and AI for the monster and hunters, the CPU's PassMark physics score of 2,923 indicates competent handling of these workloads. Yet, the measured FPS at 1080p Low is 62 FPS — the highest recorded in the dataset — which suggests that even at the lowest settings, the system is barely achieving smooth gameplay, underscoring that the CPU is not the bottleneck.

In summary, the Core Ultra 7 265 is overqualified for Evolve's CPU demands. Its 20 cores and high clocks ensure that it will not hold back the GPU in this title. The data confirms that performance scales with settings and resolution in a pattern typical of GPU-limited scenarios: lower resolutions and settings yield higher frame rates, but the absolute numbers remain low due to the graphics card.

Settings Recommendations — which preset gives the best experience per the measured rows

The measured FPS data for this combo reveals a clear hierarchy across presets. At 1920x1080, the Low preset delivers 62 FPS average, which is the only setting that approaches a smooth experience. Medium drops to 48 FPS, High falls to 38 FPS, and Ultra bottoms out at 26 FPS. At 2560x1440, the numbers are 42 FPS (Low), 32 FPS (Medium), 25 FPS (High), and 17 FPS (Ultra). At 3840x2160, the situation becomes untenable: 24 FPS (Low), 18 FPS (Medium), 14 FPS (High), and 10 FPS (Ultra).

Given these figures, the best experience is achieved at 1920x1080 with the Low preset. This is the only configuration that exceeds 60 FPS, which is generally considered the threshold for smooth gameplay in a fast-paced FPS like Evolve. The Medium preset at 1080p offers 48 FPS, which is playable but not ideal, and it provides a visual upgrade over Low. However, the jump from Low to Medium costs 14 FPS (from 62 to 48), a 22.6% reduction in frame rate for what is likely a modest visual improvement.

For users with 2560x1440 monitors, the Low preset at 42 FPS is the most viable option, though it falls short of 60 FPS. The Medium preset at 32 FPS is borderline, and the High and Ultra presets are not recommended due to sub-30 FPS averages. At 3840x2160, no preset is truly playable; even Low only manages 24 FPS, which is below the threshold for comfortable gameplay.

The data suggests that this combo should be configured for 1080p Low to maximize frame rate. If visual fidelity is a priority and the user can tolerate lower frame rates, 1080p Medium at 48 FPS is the next best choice. The measured min/max values for Medium at 1080p (41-55 FPS) indicate acceptable frame pacing, with no severe dips. For 1440p, Low is the only reasonable choice, and 4K should be avoided entirely for this title.

FAQ — 4-6 Q&A pairs answerable from FACT PACK data

Q: What is the highest average frame rate achievable with this CPU-GPU combo in Evolve?

A: The highest measured average frame rate is 62 FPS, achieved at 1920x1080 with the Low settings preset. No other configuration in the dataset exceeds this value.

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

A: The Intel Core Ultra 7 265 has an average benchmark score of 64,640, which is 0.3% lower than the AMD EPYC 4464P (64,823), 0.3% higher than the Intel Core Ultra 7 265F (64,438), 0.7% higher than the AMD EPYC 7343 (64,202), and 0.7% lower than the AMD EPYC 9124 (65,104). These differences are negligible in practice.

Q: Is the GPU the bottleneck in this configuration for Evolve?

A: Yes. The data shows that the CPU is in the 93rd percentile of all CPUs, while the GPU is in the 25th percentile. The frame rates scale with resolution and settings in a pattern consistent with GPU limitation — for example, dropping from 1080p Ultra (26 FPS) to 1080p Low (62 FPS) more than doubles performance, which would not occur if the CPU were the constraint.

Q: What is the frame rate at 1440p with Medium settings?

A: At 2560x1440 with Medium settings, the measured average frame rate is 32 FPS, with a minimum of 27 FPS and a maximum of 37 FPS. This is below the 60 FPS target for smooth gameplay.

Q: How does the GPU's DirectX 11 performance compare to its DirectX 12 performance?

A: The PassMark DirectX 11 score is 45, while the DirectX 12 score is 26. This indicates that the GTX 1050 Ti performs significantly better under DirectX 11, which is relevant for Evolve since the game launched in 2015 and primarily targets DirectX 11.

Q: What is the combo's rank among all tested combinations for Evolve?

A: This combo ranks 2,833 out of 2,872 tested combinations, placing it in the bottom 1.4% of all combos. This reflects the GPU's low performance relative to other graphics cards in the database.

How This Combo Ranks — use comboRankInGame vs other tested combos

In the database of tested CPU-GPU combinations for Evolve, this pairing of Intel Core Ultra 7 265 and NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1050 Ti ranks 2,833 out of 2,872 combos. This places it in the 1.4th percentile of all tested configurations, meaning only 39 combos perform worse. This is a remarkably low ranking, driven almost entirely by the GPU's limited capabilities.

The GTX 1050 Ti has an average benchmark score of 4,193, which puts it in the 25th percentile of all GPUs. Its nearest rivals include the AMD Radeon R5 M330 (0.6% higher score), NVIDIA Quadro K2100M (1% higher), NVIDIA Quadro K3000M (1.1% lower), and AMD Radeon Vega 3 (1.8% lower). These deltas are small, indicating that the GTX 1050 Ti sits in a cluster of low-end graphics solutions.

The CPU, by contrast, is a high-end processor. Its 93rd percentile ranking and average score of 64,640 are far above the GPU's performance tier. This mismatch creates a significant bottleneck: the CPU is capable of delivering far more frames than the GPU can render. The measured FPS data confirms this, as even the lowest settings at 1080p yield only 62 FPS, which is far below what the CPU could support with a more capable graphics card.

Given this rank, the combo is unsuitable for Evolve at any playable quality level. The 2,833rd position out of 2,872 indicates that nearly every other tested combination — including those with much older CPUs — outperforms this setup, solely because the GPU cannot keep up. For context, the CPU's nearest rivals in synthetic benchmarks are all server-class EPYC processors, but in gaming, the GPU's 25th percentile ranking dominates the outcome.

The takeaway is clear: this combo's rank is a direct reflection of the GPU's age and low performance. The CPU is not the issue; it ranks in the top 7% of all processors. Any improvement to the graphics card would dramatically boost the combo's standing in Evolve, as the CPU has ample headroom to support higher frame rates.

GPU Role — VRAM, clocks, and how they relate to this game's results

The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1050 Ti is a Pascal-architecture GPU with 4 GB of GDDR5 memory on a 128-bit bus, providing 112.1 GB/s of memory bandwidth. Its base clock is 1,291 MHz with a boost clock of 1,392 MHz, and it has 768 shading units, 48 TMUs, and 32 ROPs. The GPU's pixel rate is 44.54 GPixel/s and texture rate is 66.82 GTexel/s, with FP32 performance of 2.138 TFLOPS.

In Evolve, the GPU's performance is the primary determinant of frame rates. The 4 GB VRAM capacity is sufficient for the game's textures at 1080p, but the memory bandwidth of 112.1 GB/s becomes a limiting factor at higher resolutions. The measured FPS data shows a clear trend: as resolution increases, frame rates drop proportionally, indicating that the GPU's memory subsystem and compute resources are overwhelmed.

At 1080p, the GPU manages 62 FPS on Low settings, which is respectable for a card in the 25th percentile. However, the drop to 26 FPS at Ultra settings (a 58% reduction) highlights the GPU's inability to handle higher graphical loads. The 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 score of 305 and PassMark G3D score of 6,340 contextualize this performance: the card is entry-level by modern standards.

The GTX 1050 Ti's DirectX 11 score of 45 versus DirectX 12 score of 26 is particularly relevant for Evolve, which was released before DirectX 12 became widespread. The game likely runs on DirectX 11, where the GPU performs relatively better. The Vulkan score of 10,001 is higher than both, but Evolve does not use Vulkan. The OpenCL score of 18,129 indicates compute capability, but this is not utilized in gaming.

The GPU's 75 W TDP and lack of power connectors make it a low-power solution, but this does not compensate for its age. The 14 nm process node and 3,300 million transistors are dated, and the 2.138 TFLOPS FP32 performance is insufficient for modern gaming. In Evolve, the GPU's 4 GB VRAM is adequate, but the memory bandwidth and compute throughput are the bottlenecks, as evidenced by the significant FPS drops at higher settings.

The GPU's nearest rivals — AMD Radeon R5 M330, NVIDIA Quadro K2100M, NVIDIA Quadro K3000M, and AMD Radeon Vega 3 — all have similar average scores within 1.8% of the GTX 1050 Ti. This indicates that the GPU is at the very bottom of the performance spectrum, and its 25th percentile ranking reflects this reality.

Measured FPS Breakdown — resolution by resolution, settings by settings, exact numbers

At 3840x2160 (4K), the measured frame rates are uniformly low across all settings. The Low preset yields an average of 24 FPS, which is the best result at this resolution. Medium produces 18 FPS average, with a minimum of 16 FPS and maximum of 21 FPS. High drops to 14 FPS average, and Ultra falls to 10 FPS. None of these values are playable for an FPS game, and the data clearly shows that 4K is not a viable option for this combo.

At 2560x1440 (1440p), the performance improves but remains below acceptable thresholds. Low settings deliver 42 FPS average, which is the only preset that approaches playability. Medium averages 32 FPS (min 27, max 37), High averages 25 FPS, and Ultra averages 17 FPS. The 1440p Low result of 42 FPS is 75% higher than the 4K Low result of 24 FPS, demonstrating the significant impact of resolution on this GPU.

At 1920x1080 (1080p), the combo achieves its best results. Low settings produce 62 FPS average, which is above the 60 FPS target for smooth gameplay. Medium averages 48 FPS (min 41, max 55), High averages 38 FPS, and Ultra averages 26 FPS. The progression from Low to Ultra shows a consistent decline: 62 → 48 → 38 → 26 FPS. This represents a 58% reduction from Low to Ultra, highlighting the GPU's limited headroom for higher graphical settings.

The data also reveals the scaling behavior between presets. At 1080p, moving from Low to Medium costs 14 FPS (22.6% reduction), from Medium to High costs 10 FPS (20.8% reduction), and from High to Ultra costs 12 FPS (31.6% reduction). At 1440p, the corresponding drops are 10 FPS (23.8%), 7 FPS (21.9%), and 8 FPS (32%). At 4K, the drops are 6 FPS (25%), 4 FPS (22.2%), and 4 FPS (28.6%). This consistent pattern indicates that each settings tier imposes a similar relative penalty on the GPU's performance.

For the Medium preset, where min/max values are available, the frame pacing is relatively stable. At 1080p Medium, the range is 41-55 FPS, a 14 FPS spread. At 1440p Medium, the range is 27-37 FPS, a 10 FPS spread. At 4K Medium, the range is 16-21 FPS, a 5 FPS spread. This suggests that the GPU maintains consistent frame delivery without severe stuttering, but the absolute values are too low for enjoyable gameplay except at 1080p Low.

The summary of the measured FPS data is unambiguous: this combo is only suitable for 1080p gaming at Low settings, where it achieves 62 FPS. Every other configuration falls below 60 FPS, with 4K and Ultra settings producing unplayable results. The GPU's 25th percentile ranking and the combo's 2,833rd rank out of 2,872 combinations confirm that this is a low-performance setup for Evolve.