Minimum

The Intel Core Ultra 5 225 paired with the Intel Arc B390 presents a highly specific performance profile in Minimum, a third-person shooter from 2014. This combination ranks 2602nd out of 2939 tested combos, placing it in the lower percentile of systems evaluated. The data indicates a configuration where the CPU’s robust compute potential is significantly constrained by the GPU’s output capabilities, particularly at higher resolutions and settings. This analysis breaks down the measured frame rates to clarify where the bottlenecks lie and what users can expect from this pairing.

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

The Intel Core Ultra 5 225 is a 10-core, 10-thread processor based on the Arrow Lake architecture, manufactured on a 3 nm process. It operates with a base clock of 3.30 GHz and a boost clock of 4.90 GHz, providing substantial single-thread and multi-thread headroom. In synthetic benchmarks, the CPU achieves a Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 25891 and a single-core score of 3655, placing it in the 85th percentile among all CPUs. Its Passmark multi-thread score of 30459 and single-thread score of 4412 further confirm its capability in both lightly and heavily threaded workloads.

In the context of Minimum, the CPU’s role appears largely supportive rather than limiting. At 1080p Low settings, the system reaches 95 FPS, which is the highest average recorded across all configurations. This suggests the processor is capable of feeding the GPU with enough data to maintain high frame rates when graphical load is minimal. However, the fact that frame rates decrease significantly when resolution or settings increase indicates the CPU is not the primary constraint in this system. The game, released in 2014, likely relies on fewer cores, meaning the Ultra 5 225's 10 cores and 20 MB of L3 cache provide more than sufficient headroom for the title’s threading demands.

The data shows that even at 4K Ultra, where the GPU is heavily stressed, the system still produces playable (albeit low) frame rates of 16 FPS. This indicates the CPU maintains a baseline level of processing that allows the game to run, but the performance ceiling is dictated by other components. The processor’s 65 W TDP and dual-channel DDR5 memory support (102.4 GB/s bandwidth) are more than adequate for this workload. Compared to its nearest rivals, the CPU is virtually identical in average benchmark score to the AMD Ryzen 5 5600F (deltaPct 0) and slightly ahead of the AMD Ryzen 5 5500X3D by 0.2%. This parity suggests that swapping to a comparable CPU would yield negligible changes in Minimum's frame rates, reinforcing that the processor is not the bottleneck.

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

The Intel Arc B390 is an integrated graphics solution based on the Xe3-LPG architecture, featuring 1536 shading units, 48 texture mapping units, and 24 raster output pipelines. It operates at a base clock of 300 MHz and boosts to 2500 MHz, with a pixel rate of 60.00 GPixel/s and a texture rate of 120.0 GTexel/s. The GPU’s memory is designated as "System Shared," meaning it relies on the CPU’s DDR5 memory rather than dedicated VRAM, and its bandwidth is system-dependent. This shared memory configuration is a critical factor in the performance observed.

The Arc B390’s benchmark results are modest, achieving a 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 score of 1482, which places it in the 9th percentile among all GPUs. Its nearest rivals include the NVIDIA GeForce GT 520MX (score 1463, deltaPct 1.3) and the GeForce 800M (score 1460, deltaPct 1.5), indicating the Arc B390 is only marginally faster than these older entry-level parts. This low percentile ranking aligns with the measured frame rates in Minimum, where the GPU's limited fill rate and shared memory bandwidth become the dominant limiting factors.

At 1080p Low, the GPU delivers 95 FPS, which is a decent result for a 2014 title, but the performance drops sharply as settings rise. The transition from Low to Ultra at 1080p halves the frame rate from 95 FPS to 46 FPS, demonstrating the GPU’s sensitivity to texture quality and shading effects. The shared memory architecture means that increasing settings likely increases memory pressure, as the GPU must compete with the CPU for bandwidth on the same system memory. The 80 W TDP and IGP slot width confirm this is a low-power integrated solution, not designed for high-end gaming. The data suggests that the Arc B390 is the definitive performance bottleneck in this combination, as the CPU clearly has the capacity to push higher frame rates if the GPU could render faster.

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

The measured frame rates across resolutions reveal a classic GPU-bound scaling pattern. At 1080p Low, the system averages 95 FPS. Moving to 1440p Low drops this to 61 FPS, a 35.8% reduction, and at 4K Low it falls to 33 FPS, a 65.3% reduction from the 1080p baseline. This steep decline as pixel count increases is a clear indicator that the GPU’s rendering throughput is the limiting factor. If the CPU were the bottleneck, frame rates would remain relatively flat across resolutions because the CPU workload per frame does not scale with resolution; instead, the data shows a consistent drop, which is characteristic of a GPU that cannot keep up with the increased pixel fill demands.

The scaling is even more pronounced at higher settings. At 1080p Ultra, the system achieves 46 FPS, but at 4K Ultra it drops to 16 FPS, a 65.2% reduction. The 1440p Ultra result of 30 FPS sits almost exactly midway between the 1080p and 4K figures, following a near-linear scaling curve. This linearity in frame rate loss relative to resolution increase strongly suggests the Arc B390’s pixel processing capabilities (24 ROPs) are the primary constraint. The shared memory bandwidth also plays a role, as higher resolutions require more memory throughput, which is system-dependent and likely saturated.

Notably, the frame rates at 1440p High (39 FPS) are lower than those at 1080p Ultra (46 FPS), despite the lower settings. This indicates that the resolution increase has a more significant impact on performance than the graphical preset level. The data also shows that at 4K, even Low settings (33 FPS) fail to reach 60 FPS, confirming the GPU’s inability to handle 4K output in this title. The CPU’s role in this scaling is minimal; if the Ultra 5 225 were the limiting factor, we would expect to see frame rate plateaus at lower resolutions, but instead, frame rates continue to climb as resolution decreases, proving the GPU is the sole bottleneck.

How This Combo Ranks — use comboRankInGame vs other tested combos

The combination of the Intel Core Ultra 5 225 and Intel Arc B390 ranks 2602nd out of 2939 tested combos in Minimum. This places the system in the bottom 11.5% of all configurations tested, which is consistent with the GPU’s low 9th percentile ranking among all GPUs. The CPU’s 85th percentile ranking is essentially negated by the GPU’s performance, confirming that the combo’s overall standing is dictated by the weaker component.

In the context of the GPU’s nearest rivals, the Arc B390’s 3DMark score of 1482 is only 1.3% higher than the NVIDIA GeForce GT 520MX, which is a notably old and low-end part. This means the combo is likely to perform similarly to systems pairing a strong modern CPU with a decade-old entry-level GPU. The combo rank of 2602 out of 2939 indicates that the vast majority of tested systems deliver higher frame rates in Minimum, which is expected given the GPU’s constraints.

However, the data also shows that the combo is not entirely unplayable. At 1080p Low, the system achieves 95 FPS, which is well above the 60 FPS threshold for smooth gameplay. This suggests that the combo can provide a satisfactory experience if the user is willing to lower graphical settings and resolution. The rank is a reflection of the system’s overall capability across all settings, and the fact that it is in the bottom percentile does not negate the playable performance available at the lowest settings. The CPU’s strength ensures that frame drops are not caused by stuttering or processing delays, but rather by the GPU’s consistent rendering limits.

FAQ

*Q: What is the highest average FPS achievable with this combo in Minimum?*

A: The highest average FPS recorded is 95 at 1920x1080 with Low settings. This is the only configuration that exceeds 90 FPS, while 1440p Low achieves 61 FPS and 1080p High reaches 61 FPS as well.

*Q: Can this system run Minimum at 4K resolution?*

A: Yes, the system can run at 3840x2160, but performance is limited. The best 4K result is 33 FPS at Low settings, dropping to 16 FPS at Ultra. None of the 4K configurations achieve 60 FPS.

Q: How does the Intel Arc B390 compare to its closest GPU rivals?

A: The Arc B390 scores 1482 in 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12, which is 1.3% higher than the NVIDIA GeForce GT 520MX (1463), 1.5% higher than the GeForce 800M (1460), and 2.5% higher than the GeForce GT 625 OEM (1446). It is also 2.7% faster than the GeForce GT 710.

Q: Is the CPU or GPU the limiting factor in this combination?

A: The data indicates the GPU is the sole limiting factor. The CPU ranks in the 85th percentile, while the GPU ranks in the 9th percentile. Frame rates drop significantly with resolution increases, which is characteristic of a GPU bottleneck, while the CPU maintains consistent performance across all settings.

Q: What is the performance difference between Low and Ultra settings at 1080p?

A: At 1920x1080, Low settings achieve 95 FPS, while Ultra settings achieve 46 FPS. This represents a 51.6% reduction in frame rate when moving from Low to Ultra, showing the GPU’s heavy load from increased graphical effects.

Q: What is the combo’s overall ranking among all tested systems?

A: The combo ranks 2602nd out of 2939 tested combos in Minimum, placing it in the bottom 11.5% of all configurations. This is consistent with the GPU’s low performance percentile relative to other graphics cards.

Settings Recommendations

Based on the measured FPS data, the optimal experience from this combo in Minimum is achieved at 1080p with Low settings, which delivers 95 FPS. This is the only setting that provides a frame rate well above the 60 FPS target, ensuring smooth and responsive gameplay. For users who prefer higher visual fidelity, 1080p High offers 61 FPS, which is still playable but with a noticeable drop in smoothness. The Medium preset at 1080p provides 72 FPS, which is a reasonable middle ground, offering a 24.2% improvement in frame rate over High while maintaining moderate visual quality.

At 1440p, the system can achieve 61 FPS at Low settings, but this requires a significant reduction in graphical detail. The Medium preset at 1440p drops to 47 FPS, which may be acceptable for less demanding players, but the Low setting is recommended for a consistent 60 FPS experience. At 4K, no settings provide a playable frame rate above 33 FPS; users should avoid 4K unless they accept severe visual compromises and low performance. The Ultra preset is not recommended at any resolution, as it yields the lowest frame rates (46 FPS at 1080p, 30 FPS at 1440p, and 16 FPS at 4K) without providing a proportional visual benefit given the hardware’s limitations.

For the best balance of performance and quality, 1080p Medium is the recommended starting point, as it offers 72 FPS with a smooth experience. If frame rate is the top priority, 1080p Low is the definitive choice. Users should not attempt 4K gaming with this combo, as the data clearly shows the GPU cannot handle the pixel load.

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

The measured frame rates provide a comprehensive view of the combo’s performance across different configurations. At 1920x1080, the system achieves 95 FPS on Low settings, 72 FPS on Medium (with a min of 62 and max of 83), 61 FPS on High, and 46 FPS on Ultra. The Medium setting at 1080p is the only one with recorded min and max values, indicating a frame time variance of 21 FPS, which suggests some instability but remains within playable range.

At 2560x1440, the performance drops significantly. Low settings yield 61 FPS, Medium delivers 47 FPS (min 40, max 54), High produces 39 FPS, and Ultra falls to 30 FPS. The Medium setting at 1440p shows a 14 FPS variance between min and max, which is slightly tighter than the 1080p Medium result, suggesting better frame pacing at this resolution despite the lower average.

At 3840x2160, the system struggles to maintain playable frame rates. Low settings achieve 33 FPS, Medium produces 25 FPS (min 21, max 29), High drops to 21 FPS, and Ultra bottoms out at 16 FPS. The Medium setting at 4K has the lowest min frame rate recorded (21 FPS), indicating significant dips that could cause noticeable stuttering. Across all resolutions, the data shows a consistent pattern: Low settings provide the highest frame rates, Medium offers a moderate reduction, High halves performance relative to Low, and Ultra cuts frame rates to roughly half of High. The scaling from 1080p to 4K results in a 65% reduction in frame rate at Low settings and a 65.2% reduction at Ultra, confirming the GPU’s role as the definitive performance limiter.