Minimum

The AMD Ryzen AI Max+ 395 paired with the AMD Radeon 880M integrated graphics presents a striking hardware combination for Minimum, a 2014 third-person shooter. The data shows a system built around a top-tier 16-core processor and a modest integrated GPU, resulting in a significant performance bottleneck for gaming. This analysis explores the measured frame rates, the distinct roles of the CPU and GPU, and how this specific combo ranks among the thousands of tested configurations.

FAQ

*Q: What is the overall performance ranking of this CPU and GPU combo for Minimum?*

A: The combo ranks 2866 out of 2939 tested combinations in this game. This places it in the bottom percentile, indicating that while it can run the game, its performance is far below the majority of systems in the benchmark database.

Q: What is the highest average frame rate achieved by this combo in the measured data?

A: The highest average frame rate recorded is 79 FPS, which occurs at 1920x1080 resolution with the Low settings preset.

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

A: The AMD Ryzen AI Max+ 395 has an average benchmark score of 77740. It is 1.6% ahead of the AMD Ryzen Threadripper PRO 9945WX and the AMD EPYC Embedded 8224P, and 2% ahead of the AMD Ryzen 9 8945HX. However, it trails the Intel Core i9-14900K by 1.7%.

Q: What is the GPU's performance percentile ranking relative to all other GPUs?

A: The AMD Radeon 880M's average benchmark score places it in the 43rd percentile of all GPUs. This suggests it performs better than a majority of GPUs in the database but is still considered a lower-tier part.

Q: Is there a measurable frame rate difference between the Low and Ultra settings at 1080p?

A: Yes. At 1920x1080, the Low preset yields an average of 79 FPS, while the Ultra preset yields only 39 FPS. This represents a significant 40 FPS drop in average performance when moving from the lowest to the highest quality settings.

Q: What is the GPU's DirectX 12 benchmark score, and how does it relate to the game's performance?

A: The GPU's 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 score is 535. Its Passmark DX12 score is 32. While these are synthetic benchmarks, the low scores are consistent with the system's inability to maintain high frame rates at higher resolutions and settings in Minimum.

GPU Role

The AMD Radeon 880M is the undeniable performance limiter in this configuration. The data supports this conclusion through its benchmark scores and the measured frame rates across the resolution and settings matrix. The GPU's average benchmark score is 8436, placing it in the 43rd percentile of all GPUs. Its nearest rivals include the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 675MX, which it trails by a negligible 0.1%, and the NVIDIA GeForce MX330, which is 0.3% faster. This performance class is indicative of an entry-level integrated graphics solution.

The 880M's specifications reinforce its position as the primary bottleneck. It features 768 shading units, 48 texture mapping units, and only 16 render output units. The boost clock is 2900 MHz, with a base clock of 400 MHz. These figures are modest for handling modern gaming loads. The GPU's memory configuration is "System Shared," meaning it relies on the system's main memory, with bandwidth described as "System Dependent." This is a crucial detail, as the CPU's quad-channel LPDDR5X memory, with a bandwidth of 256.0 GB/s, will be shared with the GPU. While that is a high bandwidth for the CPU, the shared nature of the memory pool can lead to contention and reduced performance for both components under heavy loads.

The measured FPS data paints a clear picture of the GPU's capabilities. At 4K (3840x2160), the GPU is overwhelmed. The average frame rate is just 18 FPS at High settings, and it drops to 14 FPS at Ultra. This is far below playable thresholds. Even at 1440p, the GPU struggles to maintain a smooth experience, with an average of 33 FPS at High settings. The situation improves significantly at 1080p, where the GPU is able to produce more acceptable frame rates. The Passmark G3D score of 7615 and the Geekbench Vulkan score of 40006 provide additional context, showing that while the GPU has some compute capability, its raw graphics rendering power is limited. The game's results show that the 880M is best suited for 1080p gaming at lower settings. The data strongly implies that the GPU's rendering throughput, not the CPU's processing power, dictates the frame rates in Minimum, especially at higher resolutions.

CPU Role

In stark contrast to the GPU, the AMD Ryzen AI Max+ 395 is a powerhouse processor. The benchmark data shows it is in the 95th percentile of all CPUs, with an average benchmark score of 77740. This places it in the company of high-end desktop and workstation processors. Its nearest rivals include the Intel Core i9-14900K, which is 1.7% faster, and the AMD Ryzen Threadripper PRO 9945WX, which it is 1.6% faster than. This level of performance is typically associated with heavy multi-threaded workloads, not just gaming.

The CPU's specifications are impressive. It is a 16-core, 32-thread processor based on the Zen 5 architecture, codenamed Strix Halo. It has a base clock of 3.00 GHz and a boost clock of 5.10 GHz. The cache hierarchy includes 80 KB of L1 cache per core, 1 MB of L2 per core, and a substantial 64 MB of shared L3 cache. This large cache is beneficial for gaming, as it can hold more game data closer to the cores, reducing latency. The CPU also supports ECC memory and is built on a 4 nm process node.

However, the CPU's potential is not fully realized in this gaming scenario. The measured FPS data shows a pattern that is characteristic of a GPU bottleneck. For instance, at 1080p, the average frame rate scales from 39 FPS at Ultra to 79 FPS at Low. If the CPU were the limiting factor, the frame rates would be more consistent across different settings, as the CPU's workload does not change as dramatically as the GPU's. The fact that the frame rates nearly double when lowering the graphics settings indicates that the GPU's workload is the primary constraint. The CPU is, in effect, waiting on the GPU.

The CPU's synthetic benchmark scores further illustrate its capabilities. It scores 35314 in Cinebench R23 multi-core and 2044 in single-core. Its Passmark multi-thread score is 54934. These are excellent results that would allow it to easily feed a more powerful discrete GPU. In this specific combo, the Ryzen AI Max+ 395 is likely underutilized in Minimum, as the Radeon 880M cannot render frames fast enough to keep all 16 cores and 32 threads busy. The data suggests that the CPU has ample headroom, and the system's gaming performance is almost entirely dependent on the integrated GPU's capabilities.

Measured FPS Breakdown

The measured FPS data provides a comprehensive look at how this combo performs across different resolutions and quality settings. The data is clear, showing a predictable pattern of decreasing performance as resolution and settings are increased.

At 1920x1080, the system performs at its best. The Low preset yields the highest average frame rate of 79 FPS. Moving to Medium drops the average to 61 FPS, with a minimum of 52 FPS and a maximum of 70 FPS. The High preset further reduces the average to 51 FPS. The most demanding Ultra preset at this resolution results in an average of 39 FPS. This shows that 1080p is the only resolution where this combo can approach a consistently smooth 60 FPS experience, and only on lower settings.

At 2560x1440, the performance takes a significant hit. The Low preset averages 51 FPS. The Medium preset averages 39 FPS (with a min of 33 and a max of 45), while the High preset drops to 33 FPS. The Ultra preset is nearly unplayable, with an average of just 25 FPS. This resolution clearly stresses the GPU, and even the lowest settings cannot maintain a solid 60 FPS.

At 3840x2160, the system's limitations are fully exposed. The Low preset averages 28 FPS, which is a very demanding scenario. The Medium preset averages 21 FPS (min 18, max 24). The High preset averages 18 FPS, and the Ultra preset only manages 14 FPS. These frame rates are well below the threshold for a playable experience, making 4K gaming with this combo impractical.

The data also shows the difference between the resolution steps. For example, on High settings, the average FPS goes from 51 at 1080p to 33 at 1440p, and finally to 18 at 4K. This demonstrates the heavy scaling cost of resolution on the integrated GPU. The pattern is consistent across all settings. The performance headroom at 1080p Low (79 FPS) quickly evaporates as the resolution increases, confirming that the AMD Radeon 880M's rendering power is the definitive limiting factor in this configuration.

How This Combo Ranks

The comboRankInGame field provides a stark assessment of this configuration's standing. It ranks 2866 out of 2939 tested combos. This places it in the bottom 2.5% of all systems tested for Minimum. This is a low ranking, but it is not unexpected given the combination of a high-end CPU and a low-end integrated GPU.

This ranking is a direct result of the GPU's performance, as the CPU is a top-tier part. The system's overall score is dragged down by the GPU's inability to deliver high frame rates at popular resolutions like 1440p and 4K. The data shows that while the CPU is in the 95th percentile, the GPU is only in the 43rd percentile. The combo's rank is much closer to the GPU's percentile than the CPU's, which indicates that the GPU's performance has a disproportionate impact on the final gaming score.

The rank of 2866 suggests that this combo is less capable than the vast majority of other systems, which likely feature more powerful discrete GPUs. Even a modest discrete GPU from a past generation would likely outperform the 880M. The ranking is a holistic measure of the system's gaming ability, and in this case, it clearly highlights the inefficiency of pairing a 16-core processor with this integrated graphics solution for the purposes of gaming. The system is not completely incapable, as it can run the game, but its performance is far from competitive. The data implies that this combo is better suited for productivity or other compute-heavy tasks, where the CPU's strengths can be fully utilized, rather than gaming.

Settings Recommendations

Based on the measured FPS data, the optimal settings for this combo depend heavily on the target resolution and the user's frame rate preferences. The data shows that there is a wide range of performance available, from a very playable 79 FPS to an unplayable 14 FPS.

For a target of 60 FPS or higher, the only viable option is 1920x1080 with the Low preset, which averages 79 FPS. This provides a comfortable margin above 60 FPS and should feel smooth. The Medium preset at 1080p, with an average of 61 FPS, is also a viable option for a 60 FPS target, though it offers less headroom for demanding scenes. The game's minimum FPS for this preset is 52, which could occasionally dip below 60.

If the user is willing to accept frame rates in the 30-50 FPS range, more options become available. At 1920x1080, the High preset averages 51 FPS, which is a playable if not perfectly smooth experience. The Ultra preset at this resolution, averaging 39 FPS, is also an option, but it requires a tolerance for lower frame rates. At 2560x1440, the Low preset averages 51 FPS, making it the only setting at this resolution that achieves a playable frame rate. The Medium preset at 1440p, at 39 FPS, is borderline and might be acceptable for some.

For a smooth 60 FPS experience, the data clearly points to 1080p Medium as the best compromise, offering a significant visual improvement over Low while maintaining an average FPS above 60. If visual fidelity is less important than maximum smoothness, 1080p Low is the best choice. The higher resolutions and settings are not recommended, as they result in average frame rates below 40 FPS, which is a subpar experience for a fast-paced third-person shooter. The data suggests that users should prioritize resolution and settings to keep the GPU's workload in check to achieve a consistent frame rate.

Resolution Scaling

The FPS data across the three resolutions reveals a clear and severe scaling pattern, further confirming the GPU as the primary bottleneck. The performance drop from 1080p to 4K is dramatic and consistent across all settings.

Looking at the Low preset, the average FPS drops from 79 at 1080p to 51 at 1440p, and finally to 28 at 4K. This represents a 64.5% decrease in performance from 1080p to 4K. The drop from 1080p to 1440p is 35.4%, and the drop from 1440p to 4K is 45.1%. This shows that the performance penalty increases with resolution.

The pattern is similar for the High preset. The average FPS goes from 51 at 1080p to 33 at 1440p and 18 at 4K. This is a 64.7% drop from 1080p to 4K. The Ultra preset shows the same trend, with average FPS of 39 at 1080p, 25 at 1440p, and 14 at 4K.

This scaling behavior is a classic sign of a GPU that is running out of pixel-pushing power. The number of pixels increases significantly with each resolution step (1080p to 1440p is a 78% increase in pixels, and 1440p to 4K is a 2.25x increase). The Radeon 880M's fill rate and shader throughput cannot keep up with this demand, leading to a near-linear drop in frame rates. If the CPU were the bottleneck, the frame rates would be much more consistent across resolutions, as the CPU's workload is less dependent on resolution. The data shows that the frame rate is almost entirely determined by the GPU's rendering load. The conclusion is inescapable: the AMD Radeon 880M is the limiting component for this game at any resolution above 1080p, and its performance scales poorly as resolution increases.