Evolve

The AMD Radeon 880M integrated graphics paired with the Intel Core Ultra 9 185H produces a highly constrained gaming experience in Evolve, with the combination ranking 2805th out of 2872 tested configurations. The data reveals a system where the GPU is the overwhelming bottleneck, as frame rates collapse under resolution and settings pressure, while the CPU’s substantial multi-core resources remain largely untapped by this 2015 FPS title. The measured results show a playable baseline only at 1080p with Low settings, making this combo suitable for esports-style tweaks rather than high-fidelity gaming.

FAQ

*Q: What is the best average frame rate achieved by this combo in Evolve?*

A: The highest recorded average FPS is 75, achieved at 1920x1080 with Low settings. This is the only measured configuration that surpasses the 60 FPS threshold, indicating that the combo must be pushed to its lowest graphical demands for smooth gameplay.

Q: How does the combo rank among all tested systems for this game?

A: The combo ranks 2805th out of 2872 tested combinations, placing it in the bottom 2.3% of all configurations. This bottom-tier ranking suggests that the integrated GPU severely limits performance relative to the broader benchmark pool.

Q: What is the difference in performance between 1080p Low and 4K Ultra?

A: The average FPS drops from 75 at 1080p Low to just 12 at 3840x2160 Ultra, a decline of 63 FPS. This represents an 84% reduction in frame rate, demonstrating how quickly the GPU becomes overwhelmed as resolution and settings increase.

Q: Is the CPU or GPU the primary limiting factor in this game?

A: The data indicates the GPU is the primary bottleneck. The CPU’s average benchmark score of 35670 places it in the 85th percentile of all processors, while the GPU’s average score of 8436 places it in only the 43rd percentile. The massive frame rate drops with resolution scaling point to GPU limits, not CPU capability.

Q: What is the minimum FPS recorded for this combo?

A: The only measured minimum FPS values are 19 at 4K Medium and 33 at 1440p Medium. All other configurations lack min FPS data, but the 4K Medium figure of 19 FPS shows that even mid-range settings at high resolution can dip below acceptable playability.

Q: How does the Radeon 880M compare to its nearest rival in benchmark scores?

A: The Radeon 880M has an average benchmark score of 8436, which is 0.1% higher than the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 675MX (8427). This places the integrated GPU in the same performance class as a decade-old discrete mobile GPU, highlighting its modest gaming capabilities.

Resolution Scaling

The measured FPS data reveals a steep and predictable decline as resolution increases, with the integrated GPU struggling to maintain playable frame rates beyond 1080p. At Low settings, the average FPS drops from 75 at 1920x1080 to 50 at 2560x1440, a 33% reduction, and then to 29 at 3840x2160, a further 42% reduction from 1440p. This pattern of roughly one-third performance losses per resolution step indicates that the GPU’s pixel processing throughput is the limiting factor, not CPU-bound game logic.

At Medium settings, the scaling shows a similar trajectory: 58 FPS at 1080p, 39 FPS at 1440p, and 22 FPS at 4K. The proportional drops are consistent, with 1440p delivering 67% of the 1080p frame rate and 4K delivering 56% of the 1440p frame rate. This linear degradation suggests the Radeon 880M’s 768 shading units and 16 ROPs are simply overwhelmed by the increasing pixel counts, with no evidence of CPU-side bottlenecks that would cause non-linear scaling.

The High settings curve mirrors this behavior but at lower absolute values: 45 FPS at 1080p, 30 FPS at 1440p, and 17 FPS at 4K. The Ultra settings produce the most dramatic collapse, going from 32 FPS at 1080p to 21 FPS at 1440p and finally 12 FPS at 4K. At 4K Ultra, the combo achieves only 16% of its 1080p Low performance, confirming that the GPU is the sole limiting component. If the CPU were the bottleneck, we would expect frame rates to remain more stable across resolutions, as the processor’s workload does not scale with pixel count.

The data implies that for this game, the Radeon 880M’s system-shared memory architecture and 4.454 TFLOPS of FP32 compute are insufficient for high-resolution rendering. Even at the relatively modest demands of a 2015 FPS title, the integrated GPU cannot maintain 30 FPS at 4K on any setting, and only barely reaches 30 FPS at 1440p High. Users targeting 1080p will find the most consistent experience, but even there, only the Low preset delivers a smooth 75 FPS average.

CPU Role

The Intel Core Ultra 9 185H brings substantial processing power to this combo, with 16 cores and 22 threads based on the Meteor Lake architecture. Its benchmark results show a Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 17984.5 and a single-core score of 1810.5, while Geekbench scores reach 11657 multi-core and 1794 single-core. These figures place the CPU in the 85th percentile of all tested processors, with an average benchmark score of 35670 that is statistically tied with its nearest rivals, including the AMD Ryzen AI 7 PRO 350 (35719, -0.1% delta) and Intel Core 7 250H (35728, -0.2% delta).

The CPU’s clock speeds are notable: a base clock of 3.90 GHz and a boost clock of 5.10 GHz. For a game like Evolve, which was released in 2015 and likely relies on fewer threads, the single-core performance is more relevant than the multi-core capabilities. The PassMark single-thread score of 3697 indicates strong per-core performance, which should be more than adequate for the game’s physics and AI calculations. However, the measured FPS data shows no evidence of CPU limitation—frame rates scale linearly with resolution, which is the signature of GPU-bound performance.

The CPU’s 24 MB of shared L3 cache and 89.6 GB/s memory bandwidth provide ample headroom for feeding the integrated GPU, but the Radeon 880M’s system-shared memory is a bottleneck in itself. The CPU’s 45 W TDP and mobile segment positioning suggest it is designed for sustained workloads, but in this gaming scenario, the processor sits largely idle while the GPU struggles. The PassMark physics score of 1956 further confirms the CPU’s capability, yet the game’s performance is entirely dictated by the graphics subsystem.

Benchmark results indicate that this CPU could easily drive a much more powerful discrete GPU without becoming a bottleneck. The fact that it is paired with an integrated GPU in this combo means the CPU’s potential is wasted in gaming scenarios, as the Radeon 880M cannot translate the processor’s computational strength into higher frame rates. For CPU-intensive tasks outside gaming, this combo would perform admirably, but for Evolve, the CPU role is minimal.

How This Combo Ranks

The combo’s rank of 2805 out of 2872 tested combinations places it in the bottom 2.3% of all systems benchmarked for Evolve. This is a remarkably low position, reflecting the integrated GPU’s limitations rather than any CPU deficiency. To contextualize this rank, the combo sits just 67 positions from the very bottom of the list, meaning that only 67 tested configurations performed worse in this game. The bottom-tier ranking is consistent with the GPU’s 43rd percentile standing among all graphics cards, which places it below the median for discrete GPUs.

The CPU’s 85th percentile ranking versus the GPU’s 43rd percentile creates a stark imbalance. This combo’s rank in Evolve is dragged down almost entirely by the GPU, as the CPU would rank in the top 15% of processors if tested alone. The delta between the CPU’s high percentile and the GPU’s mid-range percentile explains why the combo lands so low—the integrated graphics cannot leverage the CPU’s power for gaming. The nearest GPU rivals, such as the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 675MX (8427, +0.1% delta) and NVIDIA GeForce MX330 (8458, -0.3% delta), are all older discrete solutions with similar or worse performance, reinforcing that the 880M is entry-level.

For Evolve, this rank means users should expect significant compromises. The combination is positioned among systems with decade-old discrete GPUs or older integrated solutions, and the measured FPS confirms this classification. The 2805th rank out of 2872 is a clear warning that high-refresh-rate or high-resolution gaming is out of reach. However, the fact that the data is measured (not estimated) adds credibility to this ranking, as it reflects actual gameplay performance rather than theoretical computations.

The implication is that this combo is suitable for low-demand esports titles or older games at reduced settings, but Evolve at 1080p Low is the realistic ceiling. The rank also suggests that any upgrade to a discrete GPU, even a modest one, would dramatically improve the standing, as the CPU has ample headroom to support a stronger graphics card.

GPU Role

The AMD Radeon 880M is the decisive component in this combo’s gaming performance, and its specifications reveal why it struggles with Evolve. Based on the RDNA 3.5 architecture and built on TSMC’s 4 nm process, the GPU features 768 shading units, 48 texture mapping units, and only 16 ROPs. The 16 ROPs are particularly limiting for resolution scaling, as they handle pixel output—at 4K, the GPU must process over 8 million pixels per frame with just 16 ROPs, explaining the catastrophic frame rate drops.

The GPU’s clock speeds show a boost clock of 2900 MHz, which is high for an integrated part, but the 15 W TDP limits sustained performance. The FP32 compute of 4.454 TFLOPS is modest by modern standards, and the system-shared memory architecture means the GPU must compete with the CPU for bandwidth. The memory bandwidth is listed as "System Dependent," which in practice means the Radeon 880M is constrained by the CPU’s dual-channel DDR5 configuration, a far cry from the dedicated VRAM of discrete GPUs.

Benchmark results place the 880M at an average score of 8436, which is in the 43rd percentile of all GPUs. Its nearest rival, the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 675MX, scores 8427, showing a 0.1% delta in favor of the 880M. This comparison to a 2012-era mobile GPU is telling—the integrated solution matches but does not exceed a discrete GPU from over a decade ago. The PassMark DirectX 11 score of 73 and DirectX 12 score of 32 indicate that the GPU handles older APIs better, which is relevant since Evolve uses DirectX 11.

The GPU’s 12 ray tracing cores and support for DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2) are forward-looking features, but they have no bearing on Evolve, which was released before these technologies were mainstream. The 4.454 TFLOPS of FP32 performance, while respectable for an iGPU, is insufficient for 4K gaming, as the measured FPS confirms. The GPU’s memory being "System Shared" means there is no dedicated VRAM pool, and the effective bandwidth is dependent on the CPU’s memory controller, which is a significant handicap for texture-heavy scenes.

The data shows that the GPU is the bottleneck at every resolution and settings level. Even at 1080p Low, where the CPU could theoretically push higher frame rates, the GPU delivers 75 FPS, suggesting it is near its maximum output. The GPU’s 43rd percentile ranking and its performance parity with the GTX 675MX indicate that users should treat this as an entry-level gaming solution, not a mid-range or high-end one.

Measured FPS Breakdown

At 1920x1080, the combo delivers its best results, with average FPS across settings as follows: Low 75, Medium 58, High 45, and Ultra 32. The Medium setting has measured min/max values of 49 to 67 FPS, showing some frame time variance, but the average of 58 FPS is still playable. The step from Low to Medium costs 17 FPS (23% reduction), while High to Ultra costs 13 FPS (29% reduction), indicating that the Ultra preset is particularly demanding on the GPU.

At 2560x1440, performance drops noticeably: Low 50, Medium 39, High 30, and Ultra 21 FPS. The Medium setting shows min/max of 33 to 45 FPS, meaning even the minimum is below the 60 FPS target. The 1440p results show that only Low settings maintain an average above 50 FPS, while Ultra falls below 30 FPS, making it nearly unplayable for fast-paced FPS action.

At 3840x2160, the results are consistently poor: Low 29, Medium 22, High 17, and Ultra 12 FPS. The Medium setting has the only min/max data for 4K (19 to 25 FPS), and even the maximum is below 30 FPS. The 4K Low average of 29 FPS is just under the playability threshold, while Ultra at 12 FPS is a slideshow. The scaling from 1080p Low to 4K Low shows a 61% performance loss, while 1080p Ultra to 4K Ultra shows a 63% loss, demonstrating consistent GPU-bound behavior.

The data reveals that the combo can achieve 60+ FPS only at 1080p Low, with 1080p Medium at 58 FPS being borderline. For a 60 Hz display, 1440p is not viable on any setting, as even Low averages 50 FPS. The lack of min FPS data for most configurations means we cannot assess frame pacing, but the available min values (49 at 1080p Medium, 33 at 1440p Medium, 19 at 4K Medium) show that dips below the average are significant, particularly at higher resolutions.

Settings Recommendations

Based on the measured FPS, the only setting that provides a consistently smooth experience is 1920x1080 with Low settings, which achieves 75 FPS average. This is the clear recommendation for anyone prioritizing frame rate over visual fidelity. The 1080p Medium preset, at 58 FPS, is also viable for 60 Hz displays, though the 49 FPS minimum suggests occasional dips that could be noticeable during intense action sequences.

For users with 1440p monitors, the Low preset at 50 FPS is the only playable option, but the 33 FPS minimum at Medium makes that preset risky. The 1440p High and Ultra settings (30 and 21 FPS) are not recommended for FPS gameplay, as they fall below the 30 FPS playability threshold. At 4K, no setting is playable—even Low averages 29 FPS, which is insufficient for a fast-paced shooter like Evolve.

The Ultra preset offers no practical benefit at any resolution, as the visual gains are not worth the performance cost. At 1080p, Ultra delivers 32 FPS versus 75 FPS on Low, a 57% performance penalty. The High preset at 1080p (45 FPS) could be considered for users who prioritize visuals but can tolerate lower frame rates, but the Medium preset provides a better balance at 58 FPS.

The data suggests a settings hierarchy for this combo: 1080p Low for maximum smoothness, 1080p Medium for a balanced experience, and 1440p Low for users who must use a higher resolution display. The 4K resolution should be avoided entirely, as the GPU lacks the pixel throughput for even minimum settings. For competitive play, 1080p Low is the only configuration that ensures frame rates stay above the 60 FPS threshold, giving players a consistent advantage in reaction-based scenarios.