Minimum

The Intel Core Ultra 5 235 and AMD Radeon RX 6800 XT pairing delivers a performance profile that is heavily dictated by resolution, with the CPU providing a robust foundation and the GPU becoming the definitive bottleneck as pixel count rises. This analysis breaks down the measured data for Minimum, a 2014 third-person shooter, to clarify how each component contributes to the final frame rates.

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

The Intel Core Ultra 5 235 is a 14-core, 14-thread processor based on the Arrow Lake architecture, built on a 3 nm process. Its base clock is 3.40 GHz, and it can boost up to 5.00 GHz. This configuration provides substantial computational headroom that is especially relevant for a game like Minimum, which was released in 2014 and is unlikely to be heavily multi-threaded. The high boost clock is a key factor in single-threaded performance, which often dictates frame pacing in older titles.

The CPU's benchmark results confirm its strong standing. In Cinebench R23, the processor scores 14,769 points in multi-core and 2,085 points in single-core tests. The PassMark single-thread score is 4,516, which is a critical metric for gaming. The data shows that the processor holds an 89th percentile ranking versus all CPUs, indicating it is a top-tier performer. When compared to its nearest rivals, the differences are marginal. The AMD Ryzen AI 9 HX 375 is essentially tied with an average score of 46,030, a mere 0.1% difference. The Intel Core i9-13900HX scores 46,098, which is -0.1% relative to the Ultra 5 235's average benchmark score of 46,062.

In the context of the measured FPS, the CPU's power is evident at lower resolutions. At 1080p with Low settings, the combo achieves 259 FPS. The jump from 259 FPS at Low to 198 FPS at Medium and 166 FPS at High shows a performance scaling that is still primarily driven by the graphics settings, but the sheer height of these numbers indicates the CPU is not the limiting factor. Even at 1440p, the Low setting reaches 167 FPS, which is a very high frame rate. The data suggests that the Core Ultra 5 235 provides more than enough processing power to feed the RX 6800 XT in this title, allowing the GPU to be the primary determinant of performance.

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

The AMD Radeon RX 6800 XT is a high-end graphics card from the RX 6000 series, featuring 16 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 256-bit bus, providing a memory bandwidth of 512.0 GB/s. The GPU has a base clock of 1825 MHz, a game clock of 2015 MHz, and a boost clock of 2250 MHz. This substantial memory capacity and bandwidth are more than sufficient for a 2014 title, meaning VRAM capacity is unlikely to be a limiting factor even at 4K resolution.

The GPU's raw compute power is substantial, with 4,608 shading units and a FP32 performance of 20.74 TFLOPS. Its PassMark G3D score is 24,980, placing it in the 85th percentile of all GPUs. The nearest rivals show a tight grouping: the NVIDIA RTX A1000 Mobile is 1.5% faster, while the Intel Arc A550M and NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5070 Ti are -2.5% and -3% slower, respectively, based on their average scores.

In Minimum, the GPU becomes the clear performance boundary as resolution increases. The most demanding setting tested, 4K Ultra, yields an average of 44 FPS, which is a significant drop from the 4K Low average of 90 FPS. This scaling pattern is typical of a GPU-bound scenario. The card's 16 GB of VRAM ensures that texture loading and memory paging are not issues, allowing the core clock and shader performance to be the sole factors in frame rate. The data indicates that while the RX 6800 XT is a powerful card, the demands of 4K Ultra in this game push it to its limits, resulting in a playable, but not high-refresh-rate, experience.

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

The measured FPS data reveals a clear and predictable scaling pattern across the three tested resolutions. At 1080p, the combo is exceptionally fast. With Low settings, it averages 259 FPS. This is a CPU-heavy scenario where the Ultra 5 235's strength is fully utilized. Moving to 1440p, the same Low setting drops to 167 FPS, a reduction of 35.5%. At 4K, the Low setting further drops to 90 FPS, a 46.1% reduction from the 1440p figure.

This scaling pattern is a textbook example of the GPU becoming the primary bottleneck. The CPU's performance is relatively constant across resolutions, but the GPU's workload increases exponentially with pixel count. The performance drop from 1080p to 1440p is significant, and the drop from 1440p to 4K is even more severe. This indicates that the RX 6800 XT's fill rate and shader throughput are the limiting factors at higher resolutions.

For example, consider the High preset. At 1080p, the average is 166 FPS. At 1440p, it falls to 107 FPS, a 35.5% decrease. At 4K, it drops to 58 FPS, a 45.8% decrease from the 1440p result. The trend is consistent: each step up in resolution yields a roughly 35-45% performance penalty. This is a clear sign that the system is heavily GPU-bound at 1440p and 4K, while the CPU maintains enough headroom to avoid becoming a constraint. The data confirms that for this game, the RX 6800 XT is the component that determines the final frame rate, especially at higher resolutions.

How This Combo Ranks — use comboRankInGame vs other tested combos

The combination of the Intel Core Ultra 5 235 and AMD Radeon RX 6800 XT ranks 877th out of 2,939 tested combos for Minimum. This places it in the 70th percentile of all tested systems, meaning it outperforms the majority of configurations but is not at the very top tier. This ranking is a holistic measure that considers performance across all tested resolutions and settings.

Given the CPU's 89th percentile and GPU's 85th percentile, the combined rank is slightly lower than either component's individual standing. This is likely because the ranking considers the system as a whole, and the GPU becomes a limiting factor at 4K, where the combo's average frame rates are lower. A system with a more powerful GPU would rank higher, but the data shows that this pairing is still in the upper echelon of performance.

The rank of 877 out of 2,939 is a strong result. It suggests that while there are many faster systems, this combo is well above average and capable of delivering a smooth experience in this title. The deltaPct values for the CPU's rivals are all within 0.2%, indicating that the processor choice is not a significant differentiator in this rank. The GPU, with rivals within 3%, is also not the sole source of the rank difference. The rank is a synthesis of the two components' capabilities, and the data shows that this pairing is a balanced, high-performing option.

FAQ

*Q: What is the maximum average frame rate this combo can achieve in Minimum?*

A: The highest average FPS recorded is 259, achieved at 1920x1080 resolution with Low settings.

Q: Is the Intel Core Ultra 5 235 or the AMD Radeon RX 6800 XT the main bottleneck at 4K?

A: The data indicates the GPU is the limiting factor. At 4K with Low settings, the average FPS drops to 90, a 46.1% reduction from the 1440p Low average of 167 FPS, while the CPU's performance remains constant.

Q: How does this combo rank compared to other tested systems?

A: It ranks 877th out of 2,939 tested combos for this game, placing it in the upper 70th percentile.

Q: What is the performance difference between 1080p and 1440p at High settings?

A: At 1080p High, the average FPS is 166. At 1440p High, it drops to 107 FPS, a 35.5% decrease.

Q: What is the lowest average FPS recorded for this combo?

A: The lowest average FPS is 44, achieved at 3840x2160 resolution with Ultra settings.

Q: Is the RX 6800 XT's 16 GB of VRAM sufficient for this game?

A: Yes. The game is from 2014, and the 16 GB of GDDR6 memory with 512.0 GB/s bandwidth is more than enough to handle the game's texture and memory demands, even at 4K, as the performance drops are attributed to shader and fill rate limits, not memory capacity.

Settings Recommendations

Based on the measured data, the optimal settings depend on the target resolution and desired frame rate.

At 1080p, the Ultra preset is a viable option for high-refresh-rate displays, as it still averages 127 FPS. However, for the absolute smoothest experience, the High preset at 166 FPS is excellent and provides a significant bump in frame rate over Ultra with a modest visual trade-off. The Medium preset (198 FPS) is also a strong choice for competitive play.

At 1440p, the High preset (107 FPS) offers a great balance of visual fidelity and performance, making it the recommended choice for a 144Hz monitor. The Medium preset (128 FPS) is also a solid option if higher frame rates are preferred. The Ultra preset (82 FPS) is playable but may not be ideal for fast-paced action.

At 4K, the High preset (58 FPS) is the most balanced option, as it provides a playable frame rate close to 60 FPS. The Medium preset (69 FPS) is also a good choice and offers a higher average frame rate. The Ultra preset (44 FPS) is not recommended for a smooth experience, and Low (90 FPS) is the only way to achieve a frame rate above 60 FPS, but it sacrifices visual quality.

For the best overall experience, the High preset at 1440p (107 FPS) or Medium preset at 4K (69 FPS) provides the best compromise between visual fidelity and smoothness. If maximizing frame rate is the priority, the Low preset at 1080p (259 FPS) is the fastest option.

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

The following table details the exact measured average FPS for each resolution and settings preset.

| Resolution | Settings | Average FPS |

| :--------- | :------- | :---------- |

| 3840x2160 | Low | 90 |

| 3840x2160 | Medium | 69 |

| 3840x2160 | High | 58 |

| 3840x2160 | Ultra | 44 |

| 2560x1440 | Low | 167 |

| 2560x1440 | Medium | 128 |

| 2560x1440 | High | 107 |

| 2560x1440 | Ultra | 82 |

| 1920x1080 | Low | 259 |

| 1920x1080 | Medium | 198 |

| 1920x1080 | High | 166 |

| 1920x1080 | Ultra | 127 |

The data shows a consistent performance hierarchy: lower resolutions and lower settings yield higher frame rates. The 4K Ultra figure of 44 FPS is the only measurement below 50 FPS, while the 1080p Low figure of 259 FPS is the only measurement above 250 FPS. The Medium preset at 1440p (128 FPS) and 4K (69 FPS) provides a balanced middle ground, with min FPS recorded at 109 and 59, respectively. The scaling from 1080p to 4K is steep, confirming the GPU-bound nature of the system at higher resolutions.