Evolve

The Intel Core Ultra 9 275HX paired with the AMD Radeon 890M is a mobile configuration that struggles to deliver a fluid experience in Evolve, a 2015 FPS title. With the processor ranking in the 94th percentile among all CPUs and the integrated GPU sitting in the 45th percentile, the data clearly shows a system where the graphics component is the primary bottleneck across all tested resolutions. The measured frame rates indicate that this combo is only viable at the lowest settings and resolution, with any attempt to raise visual fidelity resulting in sub-30 FPS performance.

Settings Recommendations

The benchmark data offers a clear hierarchy of playability across the four tested presets: Low, Medium, High, and Ultra. At 1920x1080, the Low preset delivers an average of 79 FPS, which is the only configuration in the entire dataset that approaches the 60 FPS threshold required for smooth, competitive gameplay. This is a 29.5% improvement over the Medium preset’s 61 FPS average, making it the definitive choice for any player prioritizing frame rate over visual polish.

The Medium preset at 1080p produces a 61 FPS average with a minimum of 52 FPS and a maximum of 70 FPS, indicating that it is technically playable but with noticeable frame pacing dips during intense combat sequences. The High preset drops to 48 FPS, which is a 21.3% reduction from Medium and begins to feel stuttery in a fast-paced FPS. The Ultra preset at 1080p is essentially unplayable, with an average of only 33 FPS, representing a 46% decrease from the Medium setting.

For players willing to accept lower internal resolutions, the 2560x1440 Low preset offers a 53 FPS average, which is playable but not ideal for competitive play. However, the frame rate drops to 41 FPS on Medium and 32 FPS on High, making these presets unsuitable for a title where reaction time is critical. At 3840x2160, even the Low preset only manages a 30 FPS average, which is below the playability threshold for most users.

The data strongly suggests that the optimal experience is achieved exclusively at 1080p with the Low preset. This configuration provides the highest average frame rate and the most consistent performance, allowing the game’s mechanics to shine despite the graphical compromises. The Ultra preset should be avoided entirely, as it yields an average of 33 FPS at 1080p, 22 FPS at 1440p, and a meager 13 FPS at 4K, making it a purely diagnostic setting rather than a playable option.

GPU Role

The AMD Radeon 890M is an integrated graphics processor based on the RDNA 3.5 architecture, built on a 4 nm process. It features 1024 shading units, 64 texture mapping units, and 32 render output units, with a boost clock of 2900 MHz. The GPU’s memory configuration is entirely system-dependent, with the frame buffer drawing from shared system memory, which is a critical factor in its performance ceiling.

The GPU’s raw compute capabilities are modest, with a FP32 performance of 5.939 TFLOPS. Its benchmark scores reflect its position in the market; it scores 8076 in Passmark G3D and 4157 in Passmark GPU Compute. These numbers place it in the 45th percentile of all GPUs, with its nearest rivals being the AMD Radeon Vega 8 (0.1% faster), NVIDIA GeForce GTX 960 (0.7% faster), and NVIDIA GeForce GTX 465 (0.9% faster). This indicates that while it is not a bottom-tier part, it is significantly outclassed by dedicated gaming GPUs.

In the context of Evolve, the GPU’s limited memory bandwidth and fill rate become the defining constraints. The measured frame rates show a steep drop-off as resolution increases, which is a classic symptom of an integrated GPU struggling with memory bandwidth. The pixel rate of 92.80 GPixel/s and texture rate of 185.6 GTexel/s are simply insufficient for the demands of 1440p and 4K rendering in this title.

The GPU’s DirectX 12 Ultimate support is irrelevant at the performance levels observed, as the card cannot leverage advanced features without sacrificing already-scarce frame rates. The data indicates that the 890M is the sole limiting component in this pairing; the Intel Core Ultra 9 275HX, with its 24 cores and 5.40 GHz boost clock, is never the bottleneck. The processor’s Passmark Single Thread score of 4713 and Multithread score of 55759 vastly exceed the requirements for a game from 2015, leaving the GPU to struggle in isolation.

FAQ

*Q: What is the best frame rate achievable with this combo in Evolve?*

A: The highest measured average frame rate is 79 FPS, achieved at 1920x1080 with the Low preset. This is the only setting that provides a comfortable margin above 60 FPS.

Q: Is the Ultra preset playable at any resolution?

A: No. The Ultra preset yields an average of 33 FPS at 1920x1080, 22 FPS at 2560x1440, and 13 FPS at 3840x2160. All of these values are below the threshold for smooth gameplay.

Q: How does the Radeon 890M compare to its nearest rival, the GTX 960?

A: The Radeon 890M’s average benchmark score is 9210, which is 0.7% lower than the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 960’s score of 9273. This makes them statistically equivalent in performance.

Q: Does increasing resolution from 1080p to 1440p have a significant impact on performance?

A: Yes. At the Low preset, the average frame rate drops from 79 FPS at 1080p to 53 FPS at 1440p, a 32.9% reduction. This indicates that the GPU is heavily taxed by the increased pixel count.

Q: What is the CPU’s performance percentile compared to other processors?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 9 275HX is in the 94th percentile of all CPUs, with an average benchmark score of 67469. This places it just 0.3% below the Intel Xeon w5-3525.

Q: Is there a frame rate range provided for any settings?

A: Yes, only the Medium preset has recorded minimum and maximum FPS values. At 1080p, it ranges from 52 to 70 FPS, while at 1440p it ranges from 35 to 47 FPS, and at 4K from 20 to 27 FPS.

How This Combo Ranks

The combination of the Intel Core Ultra 9 275HX and AMD Radeon 890M ranks 2711 out of 2872 tested combinations for Evolve. This places it in the bottom 5.6% of all configurations, a position that reflects the severe imbalance between the high-end processor and the entry-level integrated graphics solution.

The ranking is driven entirely by the GPU’s performance ceiling. The Radeon 890M’s 45th percentile standing among all GPUs is a clear indicator that it is not suited for gaming workloads beyond the most basic settings. The CPU, conversely, ranks in the 94th percentile, with an average benchmark score of 67469 that puts it in the same league as the AMD EPYC 4484PX (0.5% slower) and AMD Ryzen Threadripper PRO 5955WX (0.6% slower).

This rank of 2711 is not a reflection of the CPU’s capability but rather a statement about the futility of pairing such a powerful processor with an integrated GPU for a demanding FPS title. In practical terms, the system behaves like a low-end laptop despite having a desktop-class processor. The data shows that even the weakest dedicated GPU from a decade ago would likely outperform this setup, as evidenced by the 890M’s near-parity with the GTX 960 and GTX 465.

For a player using this combo, the 2711 rank serves as a warning. The hardware is capable of running Evolve, but only under the most constrained conditions. Any expectation of high-fidelity gaming or high refresh rate performance is not supported by the measured data, which consistently shows the GPU struggling to maintain playable frame rates at higher settings.

Resolution Scaling

The frame rate degradation from 1080p to 4K is dramatic and reveals the exact nature of the bottleneck. At the Low preset, the average FPS drops from 79 at 1920x1080 to 53 at 2560x1440, a 32.9% decrease. Moving further to 3840x2160, the average falls to 30 FPS, which is a 62% reduction from the 1080p baseline.

This scaling pattern is characteristic of a GPU-bound system. The Intel Core Ultra 9 275HX has ample headroom at all resolutions, as evidenced by its 24 threads and high single-core performance. The integrated GPU, however, has a fixed amount of shading units and texture mapping units that must process an exponentially larger number of pixels as resolution increases. The 4K resolution contains four times the pixels of 1080p, and the performance drop from 79 to 30 FPS (a 62% reduction) is consistent with a component that is overwhelmed by the fill rate demands.

The Medium preset shows a similar trend: 61 FPS at 1080p, 41 FPS at 1440p (a 32.8% drop), and 23 FPS at 4K (a 62.3% drop from 1080p). The consistency of these percentage drops across settings confirms that the GPU’s pixel processing capacity is the limiting factor, not the CPU or memory system. The CPU’s 102.4 GB/s memory bandwidth is more than sufficient for the game’s data streaming, but the GPU’s system-shared memory access cannot keep up with the rendering demands.

The data indicates that 1080p is the only feasible resolution for this combo. At 1440p, the frame rates are borderline playable only on Low, and at 4K, the performance is uniformly below 30 FPS across all settings. The scaling behavior suggests that users would need to reduce the resolution scaling or accept significant graphical compromises to achieve playable frame rates at higher resolutions.

Measured FPS Breakdown

The dataset provides a comprehensive view of performance across all resolution and settings combinations. The following breakdown details the exact measured values.

1920x1080:

• Low: Average 79 FPS.
• Medium: Average 61 FPS, with a minimum of 52 FPS and a maximum of 70 FPS.
• High: Average 48 FPS.
• Ultra: Average 33 FPS.

2560x1440:

• Low: Average 53 FPS.
• Medium: Average 41 FPS, with a minimum of 35 FPS and a maximum of 47 FPS.
• High: Average 32 FPS.
• Ultra: Average 22 FPS.

3840x2160:

• Low: Average 30 FPS.
• Medium: Average 23 FPS, with a minimum of 20 FPS and a maximum of 27 FPS.
• High: Average 18 FPS.
• Ultra: Average 13 FPS.

The data shows a clear and consistent hierarchy: at every resolution, the Low setting provides the highest average frame rate, followed by Medium, High, and finally Ultra. The gap between Low and Ultra widens as resolution increases. At 1080p, the difference is 46 FPS (79 vs. 33), while at 4K, the difference is only 17 FPS (30 vs. 13). This narrowing gap at 4K indicates that the GPU is so heavily saturated that even reducing settings cannot fully compensate for the pixel count.

The Medium preset is the only one with complete frame time data. At 1080p, the 52-70 FPS range shows a relatively stable experience, but at 1440p, the 35-47 FPS range dips below the 40 FPS threshold, making it unsuitable for action games. At 4K, the 20-27 FPS range is uniformly unplayable.

The High and Ultra presets lack minimum and maximum values, but their averages tell a stark story. High at 1440p (32 FPS) is barely above the 30 FPS baseline, while Ultra at any resolution above 1080p fails to reach 25 FPS. The Ultra preset at 4K, with an average of 13 FPS, represents a slideshow rather than a game.

In summary, the measured FPS breakdown confirms that this combo’s only usable configuration is 1080p Low, with 1080p Medium as a marginal alternative for users who prioritize visual quality over frame rate stability. All other combinations produce frame rates that are either below the playability threshold or too inconsistent for a competitive FPS.