Minimum

# Minimum: Intel Core Ultra 5 125H + NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5050 — Benchmark Analysis

The Intel Core Ultra 5 125H paired with the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5050 produces a distinctive performance profile in Minimum, a 2014 third-person shooter. Measured data across three resolutions and four quality presets reveals a system that scales predictably with resolution, but the relationship between CPU and GPU workload shifts dramatically as pixel count rises. This analysis walks through the measured frames per second, contextualizes the combo's rank among 2,939 tested combinations, and provides concrete settings guidance based solely on the observed data.

Resolution Scaling

The FPS drop from 1080p to 4K is steep and consistent across all settings, indicating that the RTX 5050 becomes the primary limiting factor at higher resolutions. At Low settings, average FPS falls from 148 at 1920x1080 to 96 at 2560x1440 — a 35% reduction — and then further to 52 at 3840x2160, representing a 65% drop from the 1080p baseline. This pattern suggests that at Low presets, the GPU is already saturated at 1440p, while the CPU has ample headroom to feed frames at 1080p.

Moving to High settings, the scaling curve is similar but with lower absolute values: 95 FPS at 1080p, 61 FPS at 1440p (a 36% drop), and 33 FPS at 4K (a 65% drop from 1080p). The near-identical percentage drops across Low and High presets point to a resolution-bound bottleneck rather than a settings-bound one; doubling pixel count roughly halves performance regardless of graphical complexity.

Medium settings show the same trend: 114 FPS at 1080p, 73 FPS at 1440p, and 39 FPS at 4K. The 4K-to-1080p ratio here is 0.34, meaning 4K delivers only about a third of the 1080p frame rate. Ultra settings compress the curve further: 73 FPS at 1080p, 47 FPS at 1440p, and 25 FPS at 4K. The Ultra 4K result of 25 FPS is the lowest measured value in the entire dataset, confirming that this combination cannot sustain playable frame rates at maximum quality in 4K.

The data indicates that at 1080p, the CPU (Intel Core Ultra 5 125H) still contributes meaningfully to frame delivery, as evidenced by the wide spread between Low (148 FPS) and Ultra (73 FPS). However, at 4K, the spread narrows to a 27-FPS range (25 to 52), strongly suggesting the RTX 5050's pixel throughput becomes the hard ceiling. Users targeting 4K should expect roughly half the frame rate of 1440p and about a third of 1080p, regardless of quality preset.

How This Combo Ranks

Among 2,939 tested CPU-GPU combinations in Minimum, this pairing ranks 2,325th, placing it in the lower 21st percentile of all combos. This rank reflects the RTX 5050's modest absolute performance in this title, as the GPU's overall percentile versus all GPUs is 66, while the CPU's percentile is 79. The combination underperforms what the individual component percentiles might suggest, indicating that Minimum's engine does not scale efficiently with this particular CPU-GPU pairing.

The combo's rank of 2,325 out of 2,939 means roughly 79% of tested configurations deliver higher average frame rates. This is not surprising given that the RTX 5050 sits in the 66th percentile of all GPUs, and the Core Ultra 5 125H in the 79th percentile of all CPUs. In a game released in 2014, the engine's threading model and draw-call handling likely favor older, higher-clock CPUs, and the mobile-oriented Core Ultra 5 125H may not extract its full potential despite having 14 cores and 18 threads.

Comparing to the GPU's nearest rivals, the RTX 5050's average benchmark score of 21,035 is within 1.6% of the AMD Radeon RX 5600 XT (20,713) and 0.6% below the AMD Radeon RX Vega M GL (21,153). These deltas are small, but in Minimum's measured results, the RTX 5050's rank suggests it lands near the lower end of that peer group. The CPU's nearest rival, the AMD Ryzen 7 5800, scores 27,535 versus the Core Ultra 5 125H's 27,507, a negligible 0.1% difference, so the CPU is not the primary drag on this combo's rank.

For context, the combo rank of 2,325 means that users with higher-tier GPUs (such as those in the 80th or 90th GPU percentile) will see substantially better Minimum performance. However, within the RTX 5050's class, the measured FPS values are internally consistent, and the ranking reflects the GPU's placement in the broader ecosystem rather than any pairing-specific inefficiency.

GPU Role

The NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5050 is built on the Blackwell 2.0 architecture with a GB207 chip fabricated on a 5 nm process at TSMC. It contains 16,900 million transistors on a 149 mm² die, with a transistor density of 113.4 million per square millimeter. The GPU operates at a base clock of 2317 MHz and a boost clock of 2572 MHz, with memory clocked at 2500 MHz (20 Gbps effective). These clocks are moderate for the GeForce 50-series, and the 8 GB GDDR6 memory on a 128-bit bus delivers 320.0 GB/s of bandwidth.

In Minimum, the GPU's 8 GB VRAM is sufficient across all tested settings and resolutions, as the game's 2014-era assets do not appear to exceed this capacity. The 2560 shading units, 80 texture mapping units, and 32 render output units produce a pixel rate of 82.30 GPixel/s and a texture rate of 205.8 GTexel/s. These raw throughput figures explain the resolution scaling observed: at 4K (8.3 million pixels), the pixel rate caps frame generation, while at 1080p (2.1 million pixels), texture and shading throughput become more relevant.

The RTX 5050's FP32 performance of 13.17 TFLOPS and FP16 of 13.17 TFLOPS (1:1 ratio) indicate a compute capability that is adequate for Minimum's DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2) path, which the GPU fully supports along with OpenGL 4.6 and Vulkan 1.4. The measured 4K Ultra result of 25 FPS aligns with the GPU's 66th percentile standing — it can render the game at maximum settings but not at high frame rates. The 4K Low result of 52 FPS shows that reducing settings can nearly double performance, but the GPU remains the bottleneck at this resolution.

The GPU's average benchmark score of 21,035 (with a Passmark G3D score of 17,326) places it just below the AMD Radeon RX Vega M GL (21,153) and above the AMD Radeon RX 5600 XT (20,713). In Minimum, the measured FPS values are consistent with this mid-pack positioning: playable at 1080p and 1440p, but not competitive at 4K beyond Low settings.

Measured FPS Breakdown

The dataset includes 12 measured FPS rows spanning four resolutions and four quality presets, with average FPS for all, and min/max FPS for Medium settings only.

At 1920x1080, the results are:

• Low: 148 average FPS
• Medium: 114 average FPS, with a minimum of 97 and maximum of 131
• High: 95 average FPS
• Ultra: 73 average FPS

The 1080p Low result of 148 FPS is the highest in the entire dataset, indicating that the CPU can push frames well beyond 144 Hz at reduced quality. The Medium min of 97 FPS ensures that even dips stay above 90 FPS, making 1080p Medium a solid high-refresh option. The spread from Low to Ultra (75 FPS) shows that settings have a strong impact at this resolution, confirming CPU headroom.

At 2560x1440, the results are:

• Low: 96 average FPS
• Medium: 73 average FPS, with a minimum of 62 and maximum of 84
• High: 61 average FPS
• Ultra: 47 average FPS

The 1440p Low result of 96 FPS is still smooth, but the Medium minimum of 62 FPS suggests occasional stutter in busy scenes. The Ultra result of 47 FPS is borderline for fast-paced third-person shooting, where 60 FPS is generally considered the comfort threshold. The gap between Low and Ultra narrows to 49 FPS at this resolution, reflecting the GPU's growing influence.

At 3840x2160, the results are:

• Low: 52 average FPS
• Medium: 39 average FPS, with a minimum of 34 and maximum of 45
• High: 33 average FPS
• Ultra: 25 average FPS

The 4K results are uniformly below 60 FPS, with only Low achieving a playable 52 FPS average. The Medium minimum of 34 FPS indicates that even moderate settings can produce noticeable drops. The Ultra result of 25 FPS is effectively unplayable for a shooter. The 4K Low-to-Ultra spread is just 27 FPS, underscoring that resolution, not settings, is the dominant constraint.

Comparing presets across resolutions, the data shows that stepping from Low to Ultra costs roughly 50% of FPS at 1080p (148 to 73), 51% at 1440p (96 to 47), and 52% at 4K (52 to 25). This consistent percentage indicates that the GPU's settings scaling is linear, and the CPU does not introduce additional bottlenecks at lower resolutions.

Settings Recommendations

Based on the measured rows, the optimal experience depends heavily on the target resolution and refresh rate. For 1080p displays, Medium settings at 114 average FPS (with a 97 FPS minimum) provide the best balance of visual quality and smoothness, easily exceeding 60 FPS and approaching 120 Hz. High at 95 FPS is also viable for users prioritizing image quality, while Ultra at 73 FPS remains playable but with less headroom for demanding scenes.

For 1440p, Medium at 73 average FPS (62 minimum) is the recommended preset, as it maintains a 60+ FPS average with acceptable dips. Low at 96 FPS offers a higher frame rate but sacrifices visual fidelity, while High at 61 FPS is borderline, with the 47 FPS Ultra being too inconsistent for competitive play. Users with 144 Hz 1440p monitors should accept Medium or Low, as no preset reaches 144 FPS average.

For 4K, the only playable option is Low at 52 average FPS, which stays above 30 FPS but cannot guarantee 60 FPS. Medium at 39 FPS and High at 33 FPS are marginal, and Ultra at 25 FPS should be avoided. Given that the minimum FPS for 4K Medium is 34, even that preset risks noticeable hitches. In summary, the data supports using 1080p Medium as the primary recommendation, with 1440p Low as a high-refresh alternative and 4K Low only for users who prioritize resolution over frame rate.

FAQ

*Q: What is the best resolution for this combo in Minimum?*

A: Based on the measured data, 1920x1080 delivers the highest frame rates, with Low achieving 148 FPS and Medium 114 FPS. At 2560x1440, Medium drops to 73 FPS, and at 3840x2160, even Low only reaches 52 FPS. For smooth gameplay, 1080p is the most reliable choice.

*Q: Can this system run Minimum at 60 FPS in 4K?*

A: No. The highest 4K result is Low at 52 average FPS, which is below 60 FPS. Medium (39 FPS), High (33 FPS), and Ultra (25 FPS) are all further from the 60 FPS target.

Q: How does the RTX 5050 compare to its nearest rivals in this game?

A: The RTX 5050's average benchmark score is 21,035, which is 0.6% below the AMD Radeon RX Vega M GL (21,153) and 1.6% above the AMD Radeon RX 5600 XT (20,713). In Minimum, the measured FPS values align with this mid-range positioning, delivering playable 1080p and 1440p results but not 4K.

Q: Is the CPU or GPU the bottleneck at 1080p?

A: At 1080p, the wide FPS spread between Low (148) and Ultra (73) indicates that settings, and therefore GPU load, significantly affect performance. The CPU (Intel Core Ultra 5 125H) has sufficient headroom to feed frames at Low settings, but the GPU becomes more limiting as quality increases.

Q: What is the lowest FPS recorded in the dataset?

A: The lowest average FPS is 25 at 3840x2160 with Ultra settings. The lowest minimum FPS is 34 at 3840x2160 with Medium settings, indicating that even moderate presets can dip below 35 FPS at 4K.

Q: How does this combo rank among all tested configurations?

A: This combo ranks 2,325th out of 2,939 tested CPU-GPU combinations in Minimum, placing it below the majority of tested setups. This is consistent with the GPU's 66th percentile and the CPU's 79th percentile, though the combo rank suggests the pairing is less effective than the individual components' percentiles imply.

CPU Role

The Intel Core Ultra 5 125H is a 14-core, 18-thread mobile processor from the Meteor Lake architecture, built on a 7 nm process at Intel. It features a base clock of 3.60 GHz and a boost clock of 4.50 GHz, with a TDP of 28 W. The CPU includes 112 KB of L1 cache per core, 2 MB of L2 cache per core, and 18 MB of shared L3 cache, with dual-channel DDR5 memory support delivering 89.6 GB/s of bandwidth. Its integrated Arc Xe-LPG 96EU graphics are present but not used in this discrete GPU configuration.

In Minimum, the CPU's benchmark results provide context for its role. The Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 12,804.5 and single-core score of 1,647.5 indicate solid multi-threaded performance but modest single-thread capability compared to desktop parts. The Passmark single-thread score of 3,399 (which appears twice in the data) and multi-thread score of 21,100 further confirm this profile. The CPU's percentile of 79 versus all CPUs, with an average benchmark score of 27,507, places it just 0.1% below the AMD Ryzen 7 5800 (27,535) and 0.3% below the Intel Core i5-12600K (27,578).

For Minimum, a 2014 title, the CPU's 14 cores and 18 threads are more than sufficient for the game's threading model, which was designed for quad-core and six-core processors of that era. The measured 1080p Low result of 148 FPS demonstrates that the CPU can sustain high frame delivery, but the 4K results show that the GPU becomes the limiting factor. The CPU's boost clock of 4.50 GHz helps in single-threaded scenarios, while the 18 MB L3 cache reduces memory latency for game assets.

The CPU's nearest rival, the AMD Ryzen 7 5800, scores nearly identically (27,535 vs 27,507), so performance differences in Minimum are minimal. However, the combo's rank of 2,325 out of 2,939 suggests that in this specific game, the CPU's contribution is overshadowed by the GPU's limitations at higher resolutions. At 1080p Low, the CPU is clearly not a bottleneck, as evidenced by the 148 FPS result, but at 4K, even the strongest CPU would not overcome the RTX 5050's pixel throughput constraints.

The CPU's TDP of 28 W indicates a power-efficient design, which is typical for mobile processors, but this does not translate to a performance advantage in Minimum's benchmark data. The measured FPS values align with what the GPU can deliver, and the CPU's role is primarily to avoid bottlenecking at lower resolutions — which it does successfully, as the 1080p Low and Medium results show. For users seeking higher frame rates at 4K, a stronger GPU would be necessary, as the CPU already provides adequate headroom.