Greedfall

Greedfall is a demanding Action RPG, and the combination of Intel Core Ultra 5 125H with AMD Radeon 880M occupies a very specific performance tier. The data shows this combo ranks 2870 out of 2938 tested combinations, placing it in the bottom 2% of all tested systems. This is a result that heavily favors 1080p gaming, where it delivers playable frame rates, while 4K and even 1440p resolutions become increasingly less viable. The benchmark results paint a clear picture of a system that is constrained by its integrated graphics rather than its processor, a finding that shapes every recommendation that follows.

How This Combo Ranks

The combo rank of 2870 out of 2938 tested combinations is a decisive indicator of this system’s standing. With only 68 combos performing worse, this is firmly in the lower percentile of gaming rigs. This ranking is not a surprise when contextualized with the component-level data. The CPU, Intel Core Ultra 5 125H, sits at the 79th percentile among all CPUs, which is a respectable mid-range position. However, the GPU, AMD Radeon 880M, only reaches the 43rd percentile among all GPUs. This gap—a strong CPU paired with a weak GPU—creates a bottleneck that dominates Greedfall’s performance.

The CPU’s average benchmark score of 27507 places it within 0.1% of the AMD Ryzen 7 5800 (27535) and 0.3% of the Intel Core i5-12600K (27578). These rivals, while older desktop parts, show that the Ultra 5 125H is no slouch in general compute. Yet, the GPU’s average benchmark score of 8436 is nearly identical to the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 675MX (8427, deltaPct 0.1%) and slightly above the AMD Radeon HD 8870M (8462, deltaPct -0.3%). These are legacy discrete mobile GPUs from over a decade ago. The data indicates that the 880M’s performance is comparable to those older parts, which is a sobering baseline for a modern integrated solution. In Greedfall specifically, this translates to a system that struggles to maintain smooth frame rates at higher settings, as the measured FPS data will show.

The rank is also telling because it reflects the entire tested combination, not just the sum of its parts. While the CPU is capable, the GPU’s 43rd percentile standing drags the overall experience down. For context, the GPU’s nearest rival, the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 675MX, has a deltaPct of 0.1%, meaning the 880M is statistically identical in average score. This is a hard ceiling for Greedfall. The game’s engine, released in 2019, is not particularly well-optimized for low-end hardware, and the measured results confirm that the Ultra 5 125H’s processing power cannot compensate for the GPU’s limitations. The rank of 2870 is not a judgment of the CPU, but rather a verdict on the entire platform’s gaming capability in this specific title.

GPU Role

The AMD Radeon 880M is the decisive component in this combo, and its specifications explain the measured FPS limits. The GPU is an integrated part based on the Strix Point chip, using the RDNA 3.5 architecture on a 4 nm process. Its boost clock is listed at 2900 MHz, with a base clock of 400 MHz. It features 768 shading units, 48 texture mapping units, and 16 ROPs. These are modest numbers for a modern GPU, and they directly translate to the performance seen in Greedfall. The GPU’s FP32 performance is 4.454 TFLOPS, a figure that places it in the entry-level segment. For Greedfall, which is a visually dense RPG with complex environments, this raw compute power is a limiting factor.

The memory situation is also critical. The 880M uses “System Shared” memory, meaning it draws from the system’s DDR5 RAM. The memory bandwidth is listed as “System Dependent,” which means performance can vary based on the system’s memory configuration. In this case, the CPU supports dual-channel memory with a maximum bandwidth of 89.6 GB/s. However, the GPU’s access to this memory is shared with the CPU, and the bus width is also “System Shared.” This creates a scenario where the GPU is competing with the CPU for memory resources, which can lead to stuttering and lower frame rates in demanding scenes. The measured FPS data shows a clear picture: at 1080p High, the average FPS is 51; at 1440p High, it drops to 35; and at 4K High, it falls to 21. This scaling is directly attributable to the GPU’s pixel rate of 46.40 GPixel/s and texture rate of 139.2 GTexel/s, which are simply insufficient for higher resolutions.

The GPU’s benchmark scores further corroborate its role. In 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12, it scores 535, which is a low result for modern gaming. In Geekbench Vulkan, it scores 40006, and in OpenCL, it scores 31285. These scores, combined with a Passmark G3D score of 7615, place it in the same performance class as the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 675MX and AMD Radeon HD 8870M. In Greedfall, this means the GPU is the primary bottleneck. The CPU, with its 14 cores and 18 threads, is not the limiting factor; rather, the GPU’s 16 ROPs and 768 shading units are struggling to render the game’s assets. The data shows that the 880M is a capable integrated solution for light gaming, but Greedfall’s requirements exceed its capabilities at anything beyond 1080p with lower settings.

Settings Recommendations

Based on the measured FPS rows, the optimal experience for this combo is found at 1080p with Low or Medium settings. The data shows that at 1920x1080, the Low preset delivers an average FPS of 71, which is the highest measured score across all resolutions and settings. This is the only setting that consistently provides a frame rate above 60 FPS, which is generally considered the threshold for smooth gameplay. The Medium preset at 1080p achieves an average of 56 FPS, which is playable but with noticeable dips, as indicated by the min FPS of 47. The High preset at 1080p drops to 51 FPS, which is still playable but starts to feel less fluid. The Ultra preset at 1080p is a poor choice, with an average of only 32 FPS, making it unplayable for most users.

For users who prioritize visual fidelity over frame rate, 1440p Medium is a marginal option. The measured average FPS at 2560x1440 with Medium settings is 39, with a min FPS of 33 and a max FPS of 44. This is on the edge of playability, and the variable frame times could be problematic in combat-heavy scenes. The 1440p Low preset, at 49 FPS, is a better choice if resolution is a priority, but it still does not reach the smoothness of 1080p Low. The data clearly shows that 4K is not viable for this game. At 3840x2160, the best result is 29 FPS on Low settings, with Medium at 23 FPS and High at 21 FPS. The Ultra preset at 4K is unplayable at 13 FPS.

The recommendation is to use 1080p Low as the default setting for this combo. It provides the highest average FPS (71) and ensures a consistent experience. If the user prefers better visuals, 1080p Medium is a reasonable compromise, but they should be prepared for occasional frame drops to 47 FPS. The 1080p High preset is not recommended as it does not offer a significant visual upgrade over Medium while sacrificing performance. The data indicates that the GPU is the limiting factor, so reducing resolution is more effective than lowering settings within a resolution. For example, dropping from 1080p High (51 FPS) to 1080p Low (71 FPS) yields a 39% improvement, which is more impactful than any other single change. The measured rows suggest that this combo is best suited for 1080p gaming with modest settings, and any attempt to push higher resolutions will result in a subpar experience.

Measured FPS Breakdown

The measured FPS data provides a granular view of performance across three resolutions and four quality presets. At 1920x1080, the results are as follows: Low averages 71 FPS, Medium averages 56 FPS (with min 47 and max 64), High averages 51 FPS, and Ultra averages 32 FPS. This shows a clear linear progression, with a 55% drop from Low to Ultra. The gap between Medium and High is only 5 FPS, suggesting that the visual difference between these presets is not worth the performance cost. The 1080p Low preset is the only one that exceeds 60 FPS, and it does so by a comfortable margin. This is the sweet spot for this hardware.

Moving to 2560x1440, the performance drops significantly. Low averages 49 FPS, Medium averages 39 FPS (with min 33 and max 44), High averages 35 FPS, and Ultra averages 22 FPS. The drop from 1080p to 1440p is substantial: at Low settings, the FPS falls from 71 to 49, a 31% reduction. At Medium, it falls from 56 to 39, a 30% reduction. This consistent percentage drop indicates that the GPU is scaling with resolution in a predictable manner, but it also highlights that 1440p is pushing the hardware beyond its comfort zone. The 1440p Medium preset, with a min FPS of 33, will experience noticeable stutter in demanding scenes. The 1440p Low preset is the only one that approaches playability, but it still falls short of the smoothness found at 1080p.

At 3840x2160, the performance is largely unplayable. Low averages 29 FPS, Medium averages 23 FPS (with min 20 and max 26), High averages 21 FPS, and Ultra averages 13 FPS. The drop from 1440p to 4K is even steeper: at Low settings, the FPS falls from 49 to 29, a 41% reduction. At Medium, it falls from 39 to 23, a 41% reduction. This is a clear indication that the GPU’s fillrate and memory bandwidth are overwhelmed at 4K. The 4K Medium preset’s min FPS of 20 makes it a slideshow in fast-paced combat. The data shows that 4K is not a viable option for this combo, and even the highest FPS at 4K (29 on Low) is below the threshold for acceptable playability. The measured rows are consistent: this is a 1080p machine, and any attempt to use higher resolutions will result in a degraded experience.

Resolution Scaling

The scaling of FPS from 1080p to 4K reveals a system that is heavily GPU-bound. At Low settings, the average FPS goes from 71 at 1080p to 49 at 1440p to 29 at 4K. This represents a 31% drop from 1080p to 1440p, and a further 41% drop from 1440p to 4K. At Medium settings, the progression is 56 FPS at 1080p, 39 FPS at 1440p, and 23 FPS at 4K, with similar percentage drops. The data shows that the GPU’s performance is scaling almost linearly with the number of pixels, which is a classic sign of a fillrate or bandwidth limitation. The Radeon 880M’s pixel rate of 46.40 GPixel/s and its shared memory bandwidth are the culprits.

The fact that the percentage drop from 1080p to 1440p is nearly identical to the drop from 1440p to 4K (around 30-40%) suggests that the GPU is consistently the limiting component. If the CPU were the bottleneck, we would expect to see a smaller FPS drop at lower resolutions, where the GPU is less stressed, and a larger drop at higher resolutions, where the CPU has more time to feed the GPU. However, the data shows a uniform decline, indicating that the GPU is saturated at all resolutions tested. This is further supported by the CPU’s strong benchmark scores, which suggest it has ample headroom in this game.

The resolution scaling also highlights the importance of the “System Shared” memory. As the resolution increases, the GPU needs to access more memory for frame buffers and textures. Since the 880M uses shared system memory, the bandwidth is limited by the CPU’s memory controller. The CPU’s memory bandwidth is listed at 89.6 GB/s, but this is shared between the CPU and GPU. At 4K, the GPU’s demands for memory bandwidth likely exceed what is available, leading to the severe FPS drops observed. The data indicates that this combo is best used at 1080p, where the memory bandwidth is sufficient to maintain playable frame rates. At higher resolutions, the shared memory becomes a bottleneck, and the GPU’s limited ROPs and texture units cannot compensate.

CPU Role

The Intel Core Ultra 5 125H is a 14-core, 18-thread processor based on the Meteor Lake architecture, built on a 7 nm process. It has a base clock of 3.60 GHz and a boost clock of 4.50 GHz, with a 28 W TDP. Its cache configuration includes 112 KB of L1 per core, 2 MB of L2 per core, and 18 MB of shared L3 cache. In synthetic benchmarks, it scores 12804.5 in Cinebench R23 multi-core and 1647.5 in single-core. These scores are respectable for a mobile chip, and its average benchmark score of 27507 places it in the 79th percentile of all CPUs. In the context of Greedfall, the CPU’s role is to feed the GPU with draw calls and physics calculations, and the data suggests it performs this task without becoming a bottleneck.

The CPU’s nearest rivals include the AMD Ryzen 7 5800 (avg score 27535, deltaPct -0.1%), the Intel Core i5-12600K (avg score 27578, deltaPct -0.3%), and the AMD Ryzen 7 5700X (avg score 27578, deltaPct -0.3%). These are all desktop processors, and the Ultra 5 125H matches their average scores within a fraction of a percent. This indicates that the CPU has sufficient compute power for Greedfall, which is a title that is not particularly CPU-intensive. The game’s engine, while older, does not require a high-end processor to maintain frame rates. The measured FPS data shows that at 1080p Low, the combo achieves 71 FPS, which is likely near the CPU’s limit for that setting, but it is not the limiting factor.

The CPU’s single-thread performance, as measured by Cinebench R23 single-core score of 1647.5, is also adequate. Greedfall relies on a single main thread for game logic, and the Ultra 5 125H’s boost clock of 4.50 GHz ensures that this thread has enough processing power. The Passmark single-thread score of 3399 further confirms this. The data indicates that the CPU is not the reason for the low FPS at higher resolutions. For example, at 4K Ultra, the average FPS is 13, which is a result of the GPU’s inability to process the frame, not the CPU’s. The CPU is likely idle waiting for the GPU to complete its work. In summary, the Core Ultra 5 125H is a capable processor that provides more than enough performance for Greedfall, but it is paired with a GPU that cannot leverage its full potential. The bottleneck is unequivocally the AMD Radeon 880M, and any upgrade path would need to focus on the graphics solution rather than the processor.