Minimum

# 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 desktop processor built on the Arrow Lake-S architecture, manufactured on a 3 nm process by TSMC. Its base clock runs at 3.30 GHz, boosting up to 4.90 GHz, with a 65 W TDP. The CPU features a three-tier cache hierarchy: 192 KB of L1 per core, 3 MB of L2 per core, and a shared 20 MB L3 pool. This configuration places the chip in the 85th percentile among all CPUs tested in the database, with an average benchmark score of 36,938.

Looking at the CPU's nearest rivals in synthetic benchmarks, the field is remarkably tight. The AMD Ryzen 5 5600F scores 36,945, a delta of 0% — effectively a statistical tie. The AMD Ryzen 5 5500X3D sits 0.2% behind, while the AMD Ryzen AI 7 PRO 450 trails by 0.4%, and the Intel Core i9-12900T is 0.5% lower. This clustering suggests that for a game like Minimum, a third-person shooter from 2014, the Core Ultra 5 225's processing headroom is more than sufficient to avoid becoming the primary bottleneck.

The game's release date of June 2014 predates the CPU by over a decade, meaning the title's threading model is unlikely to leverage all 10 cores efficiently. The single-core performance metrics are particularly relevant here: Cinebench R23 single-core scores 3,655, while multi-core reaches 25,891. The PassMark single-thread score of 4,412 and multithread score of 30,459 further illustrate that this CPU excels in lightly-threaded workloads, which aligns well with the demands of a shooter from that era.

In the measured FPS data, the CPU's capabilities manifest indirectly. At 1080p Low settings, the combo achieves 81 FPS average — a figure that suggests the processor is feeding frames efficiently. The gap between Low and Ultra at 1080p is 41 FPS (81 to 40), which is a larger spread than what a purely GPU-limited scenario would show at lower settings. This indicates that at the lowest settings, the CPU is doing more of the heavy lifting relative to the GPU, but its strong single-thread scores keep performance respectable.

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

The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 is an end-of-life GPU built on the TU117 chip using TSMC's 12 nm process. It packs 4 GB of GDDR5 memory on a 128-bit bus, delivering 128.1 GB/s of bandwidth. The core runs at 1,485 MHz base and 1,665 MHz boost, with memory clocked at 2,001 MHz (8 Gbps effective). The GPU has 896 shading units, 56 texture mapping units, and 32 ROPs, producing a pixel rate of 53.28 GPixel/s and a texture rate of 93.24 GTexel/s. Floating-point performance sits at 2.984 TFLOPS for FP32.

The GTX 1650's benchmark percentile versus all GPUs is 40th, with an average score of 7,472. Its nearest rivals show how close the competition is at this performance tier: the AMD Radeon HD 8850M scores 7,447 (0.3% higher), the Intel UHD Graphics 750 scores 7,441 (0.4% higher), the AMD Radeon R7 350 scores 7,425 (0.6% higher), and the Intel Arc A310 scores 7,550 (1% lower). This grouping places the GTX 1650 in a crowded field where small architectural differences can shift relative positions.

The GPU's DirectX benchmark scores provide insight into its legacy API performance, which matters for a 2014 title. PassMark DirectX 9 scores 124, DirectX 10 drops to 39, DirectX 11 improves to 58, and DirectX 12 falls to 35. The high DirectX 9 score relative to newer APIs is notable — Minimum likely relies on DX9 or DX11 paths, and the GPU's strength in that area helps explain why the measured FPS at lower settings remains playable despite the card's modest overall position.

The 4 GB VRAM capacity is a constraint that shows up clearly in the resolution scaling data. At 4K Ultra, the combo manages only 14 FPS average, while at 4K Low it reaches 28 FPS. The jump from 1440p to 4K at Medium settings (40 to 22 FPS) represents a 45% drop, which is consistent with the memory bandwidth and capacity limits of the card. The GTX 1650's 75 W TDP and lack of external power connectors reflect its entry-level positioning, and the measured data confirms that it is the limiting component in this pairing for most settings.

# FAQ

*Q: What is the combo's overall rank among tested configurations in Minimum?*

A: This CPU-GPU pairing ranks 2,837 out of 2,939 tested combos, placing it in the bottom 3.5% of all configurations measured for this game.

Q: How does the CPU compare to its closest rivals in synthetic benchmarks?

A: The Core Ultra 5 225's average benchmark score of 36,938 is essentially tied with the AMD Ryzen 5 5600F at 36,945 (0% delta). The Ryzen 5 5500X3D trails by 0.2%, the Ryzen AI 7 PRO 450 by 0.4%, and the Core i9-12900T by 0.5%.

*Q: What is the best frame rate this combo achieves in Minimum?*

A: The highest measured average FPS is 81, achieved at 1920x1080 with Low settings. The next best is 62 FPS at 1080p Medium, followed by 52 FPS at both 1080p High and 1440p Low.

Q: Is the GPU or CPU more likely to be the bottleneck?

A: The benchmark data indicates the GPU is the limiting factor. The GTX 1650 sits in the 40th percentile among GPUs, while the CPU is in the 85th percentile. At 4K Ultra, the GPU produces just 14 FPS, whereas the CPU's strong single-thread scores (4,412 PassMark) suggest it could handle more frames if the GPU were faster.

Q: How does the GTX 1650 compare to its nearest GPU rivals?

A: The GTX 1650's average score of 7,472 places it 0.3% below the AMD Radeon HD 8850M, 0.4% below the Intel UHD Graphics 750, and 0.6% below the AMD Radeon R7 350. It runs 1% ahead of the Intel Arc A310.

Q: What resolution provides the most balanced experience?

A: At 1920x1080 Medium, the combo delivers 62 FPS average with a measured range of 53-72 FPS. This represents the best combination of fluidity and visual quality, since dropping to Low only adds 19 FPS while sacrificing settings, and moving to High costs 10 FPS.

# How This Combo Ranks

The combination of the Intel Core Ultra 5 225 and NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 holds rank 2,837 out of 2,939 tested combos in Minimum. This places the pairing in the bottom 3.5% of all configurations, a position driven almost entirely by the GPU's modest capabilities. The CPU, by contrast, is a high-performing part — its 85th percentile standing among all CPUs means it is not the limiting factor in this pairing.

Looking at the measured FPS data, the combo's best result of 81 FPS at 1080p Low is respectable for an entry-level setup, but the performance cliff at higher resolutions and settings tells the real story. At 4K Ultra, the pairing produces only 14 FPS, which is unplayable by any modern standard. The rank of 2,837 reflects this reality: while the CPU could support a much faster GPU, the GTX 1650 anchors the system's overall gaming performance to the lower end of the spectrum.

The GPU's nearest rivals in synthetic benchmarks — the AMD Radeon HD 8850M, Intel UHD Graphics 750, and AMD Radeon R7 350 — all sit within 0.6% of its score, indicating that this tier of graphics hardware is tightly clustered. The fact that the combo still ranks 2,837 suggests that many other tested configurations feature either faster GPUs or more balanced pairings, even if the CPU component here is comparatively strong. The data shows that for Minimum, the GPU's 40th percentile standing is the dominant factor in the overall rank.

# Settings Recommendations

Based on the measured FPS rows, the optimal settings for this combo depend heavily on the user's performance target. At 1920x1080, the Low preset delivers 81 FPS average, which is the only setting that breaks the 80 FPS threshold. Medium drops to 62 FPS, High to 52 FPS, and Ultra to 40 FPS. The delta between Low and Medium is 19 FPS, while the gap between Medium and High is 10 FPS, and High to Ultra costs another 12 FPS.

For players prioritizing smoothness at 1080p, Low is the clear choice — the 81 FPS average provides ample headroom above the 60 FPS standard. However, the Medium preset's 62 FPS with a measured range of 53-72 FPS still offers acceptable fluidity while improving visual fidelity. The trade-off is 19 FPS for the settings upgrade, which is a significant cost given the GPU's performance ceiling.

At 2560x1440, the Low preset manages 52 FPS, which is playable but not ideal for fast-paced shooter gameplay. Medium drops to 40 FPS (range 34-46), High falls to 34 FPS, and Ultra is 26 FPS. For 1440p users, Low is the only setting that maintains a consistent 50+ FPS experience, but Medium remains a viable option for those who prefer visual quality over frame rate.

At 3840x2160, all settings produce sub-30 FPS results: Low is 28 FPS, Medium is 22 FPS, High is 18 FPS, and Ultra is 14 FPS. None of these are suitable for competitive play, but the Low preset could serve for casual exploration or screenshots. The data suggests that 1080p is the intended resolution for this combo, with Medium offering the best balance of performance and quality at that resolution.

# Measured FPS Breakdown

The measured FPS data covers three resolutions and four settings presets, with average frame rates recorded for all twelve combinations. At 1920x1080, the results are as follows: Low averages 81 FPS, Medium averages 62 FPS with a range of 53-72, High averages 52 FPS, and Ultra averages 40 FPS. The step-wise degradation from Low to Ultra follows a clear pattern, with each preset tier costing roughly 10-19 FPS.

At 2560x1440, the performance drops are substantial. Low averages 52 FPS, Medium averages 40 FPS (range 34-46), High averages 34 FPS, and Ultra averages 26 FPS. The gap between Low and Ultra at 1440p is 26 FPS, which is proportionally similar to the 41 FPS spread at 1080p when adjusted for the lower starting point. This consistency suggests the GPU is handling the scaling predictably.

At 3840x2160, the results are uniformly low. Low averages 28 FPS, Medium averages 22 FPS (range 18-25), High averages 18 FPS, and Ultra averages 14 FPS. The Medium preset at 4K shows a minimum of 18 FPS and a maximum of 25 FPS, indicating significant frame time variance even at these low performance levels. The 4K Ultra result of 14 FPS represents the worst measured outcome for this combo.

The only settings with recorded minimum and maximum values are the Medium presets: 1080p shows 53-72 FPS, 1440p shows 34-46 FPS, and 4K shows 18-25 FPS. This data indicates that Medium settings produce the most variable frame pacing, which is a consideration for users sensitive to stuttering. The Low, High, and Ultra presets lack min/max data, so their consistency is not measured.

# Resolution Scaling

The FPS drop from 1080p to 4K is steep and reveals the limiting component clearly. At Low settings, the progression is 81 FPS at 1080p, 52 FPS at 1440p, and 28 FPS at 4K. This represents a 35.8% drop from 1080p to 1440p, and a further 46.2% drop from 1440p to 4K. The cumulative drop from 1080p to 4K at Low is 65.4%.

At Medium settings, the pattern is similar: 62 FPS at 1080p, 40 FPS at 1440p, and 22 FPS at 4K. The 1080p to 1440p drop is 35.5%, and the 1440p to 4K drop is 45%. At High settings, the numbers are 52 FPS at 1080p, 34 FPS at 1440p, and 18 FPS at 4K, with drops of 34.6% and 47.1% respectively. Ultra settings show 40 FPS at 1080p, 26 FPS at 1440p, and 14 FPS at 4K, representing drops of 35% and 46.2%.

The consistent ~35% drop from 1080p to 1440p and ~46% drop from 1440p to 4K across all settings presets points to a GPU-bound scenario. The GTX 1650's 128.1 GB/s memory bandwidth and 4 GB VRAM capacity are the likely constraints, as pixel count increases 2.25x from 1080p to 4K, but the frame rate only drops by roughly 65% at Low settings. This sub-linear scaling suggests that at 4K, the GPU is running into memory capacity or bandwidth limits that prevent it from scaling efficiently.

The CPU's role in this scaling is minimal — its strong single-thread performance (4,412 PassMark score) means it can keep up with the GPU's frame delivery even at 1080p Low where the 81 FPS result pushes the system's limits. The data confirms that upgrading the GPU would be the primary path to better performance at any resolution, as the Core Ultra 5 225 has significant headroom left on the table.