Minecraft

Minecraft, as a sandbox title, presents a unique benchmarking scenario where the CPU and GPU roles are distinctly defined by the game's engine. The data for the Intel Core Ultra 5 245 and NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1660 SUPER combination reveals a system that is heavily CPU-bound at lower resolutions, with the GPU becoming the primary constraint as resolution increases. The measured frames per second (FPS) across various settings and resolutions show a clear performance hierarchy that is critical for understanding this specific hardware pairing.

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

The Intel Core Ultra 5 245 is a 14-core, 14-thread processor based on the Arrow Lake architecture, manufactured on a 3 nm process by TSMC. Its base clock of 3.50 GHz can boost up to 5.10 GHz, which is a substantial clock speed for single-threaded workloads. In the context of Minecraft, which is known for its reliance on single-core performance for world generation and game logic, this boost clock is a primary driver of the high frame rates observed. The CPU's L3 cache is 24 MB shared, and its memory support is dual-channel DDR5 with a bandwidth of 102.4 GB/s, which helps feed the GPU and handle the game's block-based world data.

The benchmark results for this CPU place it in the 90th percentile of all CPUs tested, with an average benchmark score of 48995. Its nearest rivals in the database show how tightly packed the performance is at this tier. The AMD Ryzen 7 PRO 5755G has an average score of 49196, which is only 0.4% higher, while the AMD Ryzen 9 7900 scores 49228, a 0.5% difference. Conversely, the Intel Xeon Gold 5318H and Intel Core i5-14600K score 48698 and 48618, respectively, putting them 0.6% and 0.8% behind the Ultra 5 245. This data indicates that the Core Ultra 5 245 is positioned in a highly competitive performance band where the relative differences are minuscule in synthetic benchmarks.

In the game's measured results, the CPU's influence is most apparent at 1080p. At the Low setting, the system achieves an average of 300 FPS, which is the highest value recorded in the entire dataset. This high frame rate is likely a direct result of the CPU's strong single-threaded performance, as the GPU is not being taxed heavily at this resolution and setting. The difference between the Low and Medium settings at 1080p is a drop to 238 FPS, and the High setting yields 189 FPS. This scaling shows that as settings increase, the CPU is still capable of pushing very high frame rates, but the gap between settings is significant, suggesting that the game's draw distance and entity processing are still CPU-intensive. The Ultra setting at 1080p drops to 118 FPS, further reinforcing that even with a powerful CPU, the most demanding settings can halve the frame rate.

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

The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1660 SUPER is a Turing-architecture GPU with 6 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 192-bit bus, providing a bandwidth of 336.0 GB/s. Its base clock is 1530 MHz with a boost clock of 1785 MHz. The GPU's memory is a critical factor in Minecraft, as the game's textures and chunk data can consume significant VRAM, especially at higher resolutions and settings. The 6 GB capacity is adequate for 1080p and 1440p gaming, but the data suggests it becomes a limiting factor at 4K.

The GTX 1660 SUPER's average benchmark score is 12986, placing it in the 53rd percentile of all GPUs. Its nearest rivals in the database show a close grouping as well. The NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3050 Ti Mobile scores 12940, a 0.4% difference, and the AMD Radeon RX 580 scores 12928, also a 0.4% difference. The NVIDIA Tesla M2090 is 0.7% ahead with a score of 13075, while the AMD Radeon 740M is 0.9% behind with 12870. This puts the GTX 1660 SUPER in a solid mid-range position, but its performance ceiling is clearly visible in the game's measurement data.

The GPU's role becomes more pronounced at higher resolutions. At 1440p, the High setting yields 119 FPS, which is a significant drop from the 189 FPS at 1080p High. This 37% decrease in frame rate as resolution increases by 78% (from 2.1 million pixels to 3.7 million) indicates that the GPU is starting to become a bottleneck. The trend continues at 4K, where the High setting produces only 62 FPS. The GPU's 6 GB VRAM is likely being saturated at 4K, especially with the game's textures, which would cause the frame rate to plummet. The data for the Low settings shows a similar pattern: 300 FPS at 1080p, 189 FPS at 1440p, and 99 FPS at 4K, confirming that the GPU's pixel-pushing capability is the limiting factor at these higher resolutions.

Resolution Scaling — how FPS drops from 1080p to 4K and what it says about the limiting component

The measured FPS data provides a clear picture of how the system scales across resolutions. At the Low setting, the average FPS drops from 300 at 1080p to 189 at 1440p (a 37% reduction) and then to 99 at 4K (a 48% reduction from 1440p). This scaling is not linear, which indicates that the GPU is being increasingly taxed as the pixel count grows. The CPU is likely still capable of delivering more frames, but the GPU cannot keep up with the rendering demands.

For the Medium setting, the drop is from 238 FPS at 1080p to 150 FPS at 1440p, a 37% reduction, and then to 78 FPS at 4K, a 48% reduction. The consistency of these percentage drops across Low and Medium settings is telling. It suggests that the GPU's fill rate and memory bandwidth are the primary constraints, as the relative performance hit is the same regardless of the CPU load. The High settings show a slightly different pattern: 189 FPS at 1080p, 119 FPS at 1440p (a 37% drop), and 62 FPS at 4K (a 48% drop). Again, the percentage reduction is consistent, reinforcing the GPU-bound nature of the system at these resolutions.

The Ultra setting is where the system struggles the most. The average FPS is 118 at 1080p, 74 at 1440p (a 37% drop), and 39 at 4K (a 47% drop). These numbers are notably lower than the other settings, and the fact that the 4K Ultra result is below 40 FPS indicates that the combination of high resolution and maximum settings is too demanding for the GTX 1660 SUPER. The CPU, with its 14 cores and high boost clock, is not the bottleneck here; the GPU's 5.027 TFLOPS of FP32 performance and 6 GB VRAM are simply insufficient for this load. The data shows that the system is firmly CPU-bound at 1080p Low, with a 300 FPS cap that is likely limited by the game's engine or the CPU's single-thread speed, but becomes increasingly GPU-bound as resolution and settings increase.

How This Combo Ranks — use comboRankInGame vs other tested combos

The combination of the Intel Core Ultra 5 245 and the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1660 SUPER ranks 949th out of 1176 tested combos in Minecraft. This places it in the bottom 20% of all combinations in the database. This rank is somewhat surprising given the individual component benchmarks, but it reflects the specific bottleneck in this game. The CPU is a high-performer in the 90th percentile, and the GPU is in the 53rd percentile, but the pairing results in a lower-than-expected ranking because the GPU is not powerful enough to fully utilize the CPU's capabilities at higher settings.

The rank of 949 suggests that the GTX 1660 SUPER is the limiting factor in this pairing for Minecraft. Many other combos in the database likely feature more powerful GPUs that can better complement the Core Ultra 5 245's strong single-threaded performance. The data indicates that while the CPU can push over 300 FPS at 1080p Low, the GPU cannot maintain that level of performance at higher settings, dragging the overall combo ranking down. This is a classic case of a CPU-GPU imbalance, where the CPU is overqualified for the GPU's capabilities, particularly in a game that can be either CPU- or GPU-bound depending on the settings. The combo rank of 949/1176 means that 227 other combinations performed worse, but the vast majority of the 949 combos ahead of it likely have a more balanced or GPU-heavier configuration.

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

Based on the measured FPS rows, the optimal settings for this combination depend on the target resolution. For a 1080p experience, the Medium setting is the sweet spot, offering an average of 238 FPS. This is well above the 144 Hz refresh rate of most gaming monitors, and the measured minimum of 202 FPS ensures that there are no significant dips. The High setting at 1080p still provides a very playable 189 FPS, but the 49 FPS drop from Medium to High is substantial, and the visual fidelity gain may not justify it for competitive play. The Low setting at 1080p provides 300 FPS, which is useful for e-sports or for users who prioritize maximum frame rates over visual quality, but the Medium setting offers a better balance.

At 1440p, the Medium setting again proves to be the best choice, with an average of 150 FPS and a minimum of 127 FPS. This is a very smooth experience for a high-resolution display. The High setting at 1440p drops to 119 FPS, which is still playable but noticeably less fluid. The Ultra setting at 1440p yields 74 FPS, which is acceptable for slower-paced games but not ideal for fast reaction times. For 4K, the data shows that the system cannot handle the Ultra setting, with only 39 FPS. The Medium setting at 4K produces 78 FPS, which is borderline playable, but the High setting at 62 FPS is more stable. However, the Low setting at 4K provides 99 FPS, which is the best choice for a 60 Hz 4K display. In summary, Medium settings are recommended for 1080p and 1440p, while Low settings are recommended for 4K to maintain a fluid experience.

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

The measured FPS data provides a comprehensive view of this combination's performance. At 1920x1080, the system achieves an average of 300 FPS at Low settings. The Medium setting sees a drop to 238 FPS, with a minimum of 202 FPS and a maximum of 273 FPS. High settings produce 189 FPS, and Ultra settings yield 118 FPS. This shows a steep decline as settings increase, with the Ultra setting delivering less than half the frame rate of the Low setting.

At 2560x1440, the Low setting averages 189 FPS. The Medium setting averages 150 FPS, with a minimum of 127 FPS and a maximum of 172 FPS. High settings drop to 119 FPS, and Ultra settings are significantly lower at 74 FPS. The pattern is consistent, with a 37% reduction from Low to Medium, and a 37% reduction from Medium to High.

At 3840x2160, the Low setting averages 99 FPS. The Medium setting averages 78 FPS, with a minimum of 67 FPS and a maximum of 90 FPS. High settings produce 62 FPS, and the Ultra setting is the least playable, with an average of 39 FPS. The data indicates that the GTX 1660 SUPER is severely challenged at 4K, and the Ultra setting is only suitable for static scenes or screenshots.

FAQ

Q: What is the highest average FPS this combination can achieve in Minecraft?

A: The highest average FPS recorded is 300, achieved at 1920x1080 resolution with Low settings.

Q: Is this system capable of 4K gaming in Minecraft?

A: Yes, but with limitations. The system achieves 99 FPS at 4K Low, which is playable, but drops to 39 FPS at 4K Ultra, which is not smooth.

Q: Which component is the primary bottleneck at 1080p Low settings?

A: The data suggests the CPU is the primary bottleneck, as the 300 FPS result likely approaches the game's engine or CPU single-thread limit, while the GPU is underutilized.

Q: How does the GTX 1660 SUPER compare to its nearest rival, the RTX 3050 Ti Mobile?

A: The GTX 1660 SUPER has an average benchmark score of 12986, which is 0.4% higher than the RTX 3050 Ti Mobile's score of 12940.

Q: What is the frame rate difference between Medium and High settings at 1440p?

A: The Medium setting at 2560x1440 averages 150 FPS, while High averages 119 FPS, a difference of 31 FPS.

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

A: This specific combo ranks 949th out of 1176 tested combinations for Minecraft.