Minimum

The Intel Core Ultra 5 225 and NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1660 SUPER combination delivers a playable but constrained experience in Minimum, a 2014 third-person shooter. The pairing shows a clear performance hierarchy where the aging GPU becomes the primary bottleneck at higher resolutions, while the modern CPU provides ample headroom at lower settings. Benchmark results indicate that this combo ranks in the lower percentile of tested configurations, making it a baseline entry point for the game rather than a high-performance outlier.

Resolution Scaling

The measured FPS data reveals a steep performance cliff as resolution increases from 1080p to 4K, clearly identifying the GTX 1660 SUPER as the limiting component in this pairing. At 1080p with Low settings, the system achieves 131 FPS, which drops to 85 FPS at 1440p (a 35% reduction) and further to 46 FPS at 4K (a 65% reduction from the 1080p baseline). This pattern is consistent across all settings presets, with the gap between 1080p and 4K widening as graphical load increases.

The scaling behavior indicates that at 1080p, the CPU still has meaningful influence, but the GPU quickly saturates as pixel count rises. For instance, at High settings, the jump from 1080p (84 FPS) to 1440p (54 FPS) represents a 36% loss, while the 1440p to 4K transition (54 to 29 FPS) shows a 46% loss. This nonlinear degradation is typical of a GPU hitting its memory bandwidth and shading limits — the GTX 1660 SUPER's 6 GB GDDR6 on a 192-bit bus with 336.0 GB/s bandwidth simply cannot sustain 4K workloads.

Ultra settings amplify this bottleneck dramatically. The 4K Ultra result of 22 FPS is barely interactive, while 1440p Ultra manages 41 FPS and 1080p Ultra reaches 64 FPS. The delta between Low and Ultra at each resolution is substantial: at 1080p, the spread is 67 FPS (131 vs 64), at 1440p it is 44 FPS (85 vs 41), and at 4K it narrows to 24 FPS (46 vs 22). The narrowing spread at higher resolutions confirms that the GPU is fully saturated regardless of settings, whereas at 1080p, reducing settings allows the CPU to push more frames.

The data suggests that 1080p is the sweet spot for this combo, where the Core Ultra 5 225's 10 cores and 4.90 GHz boost clock can keep feeding the GPU. At 1440p, the system remains playable but requires settings compromises, and 4K is only viable for static scenes or screenshots. The 3 nm Arrow Lake processor is clearly not the constraint here — its 20 MB shared L3 cache and DDR5 support provide far more headroom than the 12 nm Turing GPU can exploit.

Settings Recommendations

Based on the measured rows, the optimal experience for this combo is 1080p with Medium settings, which delivers 100 FPS average with a minimum of 85 FPS and maximum of 115 FPS. This preset offers the best balance between visual fidelity and smoothness, maintaining frame rates well above the 60 FPS threshold while providing more detail than Low settings. The 100 FPS average is 24% higher than High settings at the same resolution (84 FPS) and only 31 FPS below the Low preset's 131 FPS.

For players prioritizing maximum fluidity, 1080p Low at 131 FPS is the clear choice, particularly for competitive play in this third-person shooter. However, the jump from Low to Medium costs only 31 FPS (from 131 to 100), which is a reasonable trade for improved visuals. High settings at 1080p (84 FPS) remain fully playable, but the additional load on the GTX 1660 SUPER yields diminishing returns over Medium.

At 1440p, Medium settings (65 FPS average, 55 min, 74 max) are the recommended ceiling. High settings at 1440p (54 FPS) dip below the 60 FPS comfort zone, and Ultra (41 FPS) introduces noticeable stutter. The 1440p Medium result is 58% faster than 4K Medium (35 FPS), making it the highest resolution where this combo can maintain smooth gameplay without major compromises.

4K should be avoided for active play. Even Low settings at 4K (46 FPS) fall short of smooth motion, and Medium (35 FPS) or High (29 FPS) are borderline unplayable. Ultra at 4K (22 FPS) is a slideshow. The 6 GB VRAM capacity and 5.027 TFLOPS FP32 throughput of the GTX 1660 SUPER are simply insufficient for 4K in this title, regardless of the CPU's capabilities.

How This Combo Ranks

The Intel Core Ultra 5 225 with GTX 1660 SUPER ranks 2509 out of 2939 tested combos in Minimum, placing it in the bottom 15% of all configurations. This low ranking is almost entirely attributable to the GPU's age — the GTX 1660 SUPER sits at the 53rd percentile among all GPUs, while the Core Ultra 5 225 achieves the 85th percentile among CPUs. The mismatch is stark: a top-tier modern processor paired with a mid-range GPU from 2019.

Looking at the GPU's nearest rivals clarifies its position. The GTX 1660 SUPER scores an average benchmark of 12986, with the RTX 3050 Ti Mobile (12940, +0.4% delta) and RX 580 (12928, +0.4%) being essentially identical in performance. The Tesla M2090 (13075, -0.7%) and Radeon 740M (12870, +0.9%) bracket it closely. None of these rivals would meaningfully change the combo's ranking in this game, suggesting that the GPU tier — not the specific model — is the limiting factor.

The CPU comparison tells a different story. The Core Ultra 5 225 averages 36938 across benchmarks, nearly matching the Ryzen 5 5600F (36945, 0% delta) and edging out the Ryzen 5 5500X3D (37018, -0.2%) by a negligible margin. The i9-12900T (37112, -0.5%) and Ryzen AI 7 PRO 450 (37093, -0.4%) are also within 0.5% of the Core Ultra 5 225's score. This indicates that the processor is performing exactly as expected for its class, and any ranking deficiency stems from the GPU bottleneck.

In practical terms, this combo will deliver frame rates comparable to any system using a GTX 1660 SUPER or its immediate peers (RX 580, RTX 3050 Ti Mobile). Upgrading the CPU alone would yield no measurable improvement in Minimum at resolutions above 1080p, as the data shows the GPU saturates well before CPU limits are reached.

Measured FPS Breakdown

The complete measured FPS table for this combo is as follows:

1080p:

• Low: 131 FPS average
• Medium: 100 FPS average (85 min, 115 max)
• High: 84 FPS average
• Ultra: 64 FPS average

1440p:

• Low: 85 FPS average
• Medium: 65 FPS average (55 min, 74 max)
• High: 54 FPS average
• Ultra: 41 FPS average

4K (3840x2160):

• Low: 46 FPS average
• Medium: 35 FPS average (30 min, 40 max)
• High: 29 FPS average
• Ultra: 22 FPS average

The 1080p results show a clear linear progression: each settings tier costs roughly 15-20 FPS from the previous one. Low to Medium costs 31 FPS, Medium to High costs 16 FPS, and High to Ultra costs 20 FPS. This consistency suggests the GPU has headroom at 1080p to absorb increasing load without hitting hard walls.

At 1440p, the pattern changes. Low to Medium costs 20 FPS, Medium to High costs 11 FPS, and High to Ultra costs 13 FPS. The diminishing returns indicate the GPU is approaching its limits, with each settings increase yielding smaller absolute gains as the pixel shader load grows.

The 4K results show extreme compression: Low to Medium costs 11 FPS, Medium to High costs 6 FPS, and High to Ultra costs 7 FPS. The entire range from Low (46 FPS) to Ultra (22 FPS) spans only 24 FPS, versus 67 FPS at 1080p. This is the signature of a GPU that is completely bottlenecked by pixel throughput and memory bandwidth, with settings having minimal impact on overall performance.

FAQ

*Q: Can this combination run Minimum at 60 FPS?*

A: Yes, at 1080p with all settings (Low 131 FPS, Medium 100 FPS, High 84 FPS, Ultra 64 FPS) and at 1440p with Low (85 FPS) or Medium (65 FPS) settings. At 1440p High, the average drops to 54 FPS, and 4K is not viable for 60 FPS at any settings.

Q: What is the best resolution for this CPU-GPU pairing?

A: 1080p is optimal, with Medium settings providing 100 FPS average (85 min, 115 max). This resolution allows the Core Ultra 5 225 to feed the GTX 1660 SUPER without the GPU becoming the dominant bottleneck. 1440p is playable at Medium settings (65 FPS), but 4K should be avoided for active gameplay.

Q: How does the GTX 1660 SUPER compare to its closest rivals in this game?

A: The GPU's average benchmark score is 12986, with the RTX 3050 Ti Mobile (12940, +0.4%) and RX 580 (12928, +0.4%) performing nearly identically. The Tesla M2090 (13075) is 0.7% slower, and the Radeon 740M (12870) is 0.9% faster. Expect these cards to deliver within a few FPS of each other in Minimum.

Q: Is the Intel Core Ultra 5 225 bottlenecking the GTX 1660 SUPER?

A: No. The CPU scores 25891 in Cinebench R23 multi-core and sits at the 85th percentile among all CPUs, far exceeding the GPU's 53rd percentile. The measured FPS scaling (67 FPS spread at 1080p versus 24 FPS at 4K) confirms the GPU is the limiting factor, not the processor.

Q: What frame rates can be expected at 4K with this combo?

A: Low settings yield 46 FPS, Medium 35 FPS (30 min, 40 max), High 29 FPS, and Ultra 22 FPS. None of these are smooth enough for consistent play, making 4K practical only for screenshots or cinematic viewing. The 6 GB VRAM and 336.0 GB/s bandwidth are insufficient for this resolution.

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

A: It ranks 2509 out of 2939 combos, placing it in the bottom 15% of configurations tested. This low ranking is driven by the GPU's mid-range position (53rd percentile), not the CPU, which performs in the top 15% of processors.

CPU Role

The Intel Core Ultra 5 225 brings 10 cores and 10 threads running at a 3.30 GHz base clock with a 4.90 GHz boost, built on TSMC's 3 nm process with 17,800 million transistors. This Arrow Lake-S architecture processor features 20 MB of shared L3 cache and 3 MB L2 per core, with dual-channel DDR5 memory support delivering 102.4 GB/s bandwidth. These specifications place it firmly in the upper tier of desktop CPUs, as evidenced by its 85th percentile ranking and average benchmark score of 36938.

In Minimum, the CPU's role is to feed frames to the GPU without becoming a bottleneck. The benchmark results show it succeeds admirably: at 1080p Low, the system reaches 131 FPS, which is well above what the GTX 1660 SUPER can sustain at higher resolutions. The 4.90 GHz boost clock and 10 cores provide ample single-thread and multi-thread performance for this 2014 title, which likely uses only a few threads for its core simulation.

The Cinebench scores reinforce this assessment. A multi-core score of 25891 in R23 and single-core of 3655 indicate strong headroom for any game workload. The PassMark single-thread score of 4412 further confirms that the CPU's per-core performance is more than sufficient. Compared to its nearest rivals — the Ryzen 5 5600F (36945, 0% delta), Ryzen 5 5500X3D (37018, -0.2%), and Ryzen AI 7 PRO 450 (37093, -0.4%) — the Core Ultra 5 225 is essentially tied, meaning any of these CPUs would perform identically in this game.

The practical implication is that the CPU is not a factor in this combo's performance ceiling. Whether at 1080p Medium (100 FPS) or 4K Low (46 FPS), the frame rate is dictated by the GPU's 5.027 TFLOPS FP32 throughput and 85.68 GPixel/s pixel rate. The 65 W TDP of the CPU versus the 125 W TDP of the GPU further illustrates that the graphics card is doing the heavy lifting. For players considering upgrades, replacing the GPU would yield dramatic improvements, while swapping the CPU would produce no measurable change in Minimum.