Minimum

Resolution Scaling

The measured frame rates for Minimum with the Intel Core Ultra 5 235 and NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1050 Ti show a severe dependency on resolution, confirming that the GPU is the dominant bottleneck in this configuration. At 1920x1080 with Low settings, the system produces an average of 66 FPS. Moving to 2560x1440 at the same settings drops that average to 42 FPS, a 36% reduction. Pushing further to 3840x2160 yields just 23 FPS on Low, which is a 65% drop from the 1080p result. This scaling pattern is characteristic of a graphics card that is overwhelmed as pixel count rises, with the CPU having ample headroom to feed frames at lower resolutions.

The trend is consistent across all quality presets. At Medium settings, the average FPS falls from 50 at 1080p to 32 at 1440p and finally to 17 at 4K. The High preset shows a similar trajectory, with averages of 42, 27, and 15 FPS across the three resolutions. Even the Ultra preset, which is the most demanding, follows the same pattern, dropping from 32 FPS at 1080p to 21 FPS at 1440p and then to 11 FPS at 4K.

What this data indicates is that the limiting component shifts decisively based on resolution. At 1080p, the gap between the Low and Ultra presets is 34 FPS (66 vs 32), suggesting that while the GPU is still the primary constraint, there is some performance headroom that can be traded for visual quality. At 4K, the gap between Low and Ultra is only 12 FPS (23 vs 11), which shows that the GPU is so saturated that even reducing settings yields diminishing returns. The 4K results, with averages in the teens and low twenties, are effectively unplayable for any smooth gaming experience, regardless of settings. The data suggests that this pair of components is best suited for 1080p gaming, with 1440p being a stretch that requires significant settings compromises.

CPU Role

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 by TSMC. It has a base clock of 3.40 GHz and a boost clock of 5.00 GHz, with 24 MB of shared L3 cache. Its benchmark scores are strong, particularly in multi-threaded workloads; it achieves a Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 14769 and a Passmark multi-thread score of 37816. Its single-thread performance is also respectable, with a Cinebench R23 single-core score of 2085 and a Passmark single-thread score of 4516.

In the context of Minimum, a third-person shooter from 2014, the CPU's role is to maintain a high and stable frame rate by feeding the GPU with draw calls and handling game logic. The data shows that at 1080p Low, the system reaches 66 FPS, which is a frame rate that this CPU can easily support. The processor's 89th percentile ranking among all CPUs, with an average benchmark score of 46062, places it in the upper tier of desktop processors. Its nearest rivals include the AMD Ryzen AI 9 HX 375 (0.1% faster), the Intel Core i9-13900HX (0.1% slower), and the AMD EPYC 4364P (0.2% faster). These are all high-end parts, indicating that the Ultra 5 235 is not the bottleneck in this pairing.

The Passmark physics score of 2570 and the Cinebench R15 multi-core score of 1488 further illustrate the CPU's capability in handling complex calculations. Even at 4K, where the GPU is clearly the limiting factor, the CPU is likely not struggling to keep up. The fact that the frame rate drops from 66 FPS at 1080p Low to 23 FPS at 4K Low, while the CPU's workload remains relatively constant, reinforces that the GPU is the primary constraint. The 14 cores and 14 threads are more than sufficient for a game of this era, and the high boost clock ensures that single-threaded tasks, which are common in game logic, are processed quickly. For this specific game, the data suggests the CPU is a capable partner that will not hold back the GTX 1050 Ti at any of the tested resolutions.

GPU Role

The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1050 Ti is a Pascal architecture GPU with 768 shading units, 48 texture mapping units, and 32 ROPs. It has a base clock of 1291 MHz and a boost clock of 1392 MHz, with 4 GB of GDDR5 memory on a 128-bit bus, providing a bandwidth of 112.1 GB/s. Its FP32 performance is 2.138 TFLOPS. The card's benchmark scores are modest, with a Passmark G3D score of 6340 and a 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 score of 305. It ranks in the 25th percentile among all GPUs, with an average benchmark score of 4193. Its nearest rivals are the AMD Radeon R5 M330 (0.6% faster), the NVIDIA Quadro K2100M (1% faster), and the NVIDIA Quadro K3000M (1.1% slower).

The GTX 1050 Ti's role in Minimum is the critical one, as the frame rate data makes clear. The card is the definitive bottleneck in this configuration. At 1080p, it manages playable frame rates on Low and Medium settings (66 and 50 FPS respectively), but it struggles to maintain those levels on higher presets. The 4 GB VRAM capacity is a likely concern at higher resolutions and settings, as the game's texture and geometry data may exceed this limit, causing performance to plummet. The memory bandwidth of 112.1 GB/s is also a limiting factor, particularly at 1440p and 4K where the demand for pixel data increases dramatically.

The measured results show that the GTX 1050 Ti is simply not powerful enough for 4K gaming in this title. The best 4K result is 23 FPS on Low, which is a poor experience. The card's performance at 1440p is better, with a High preset average of 27 FPS, but this is still below the 30 FPS threshold often considered the minimum for a playable frame rate. The data suggests that the 1050 Ti is best utilized at 1080p, where it can deliver a smooth experience on lower presets. The Geekbench OpenCL score of 18129 and Vulkan score of 10001 indicate that the card has some compute capability, but it is not enough to overcome its fundamental limitations in rasterization at high resolutions. The combination of a 128-bit memory bus and 4 GB of VRAM is a significant handicap for a game that scales heavily with resolution.

FAQ

*Q: What is the best resolution to play Minimum with this hardware?*

A: The data shows that 1920x1080 is the only resolution where the system achieves consistently playable frame rates. At 1080p, the average FPS ranges from 32 on Ultra to 66 on Low, while at 2560x1440 the range is 21 to 42 FPS, and at 3840x2160 it falls to 11 to 23 FPS.

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

A: The benchmark results indicate that the GPU is the primary bottleneck. The CPU is a high-end part, ranking in the 89th percentile, while the GPU ranks in the 25th percentile. The frame rate drops are directly correlated with resolution increases, which is a classic sign of GPU limitation.

Q: Can this system run the game at 4K?

A: Technically yes, but the experience will be poor. The highest average FPS at 3840x2160 is 23 on Low settings, and the lowest is 11 on Ultra. These frame rates are not suitable for a smooth gaming experience.

Q: How does the GTX 1050 Ti compare to its nearest rivals in terms of raw performance?

A: The GTX 1050 Ti has an average benchmark score of 4193. It is 0.6% faster than the AMD Radeon R5 M330, 1% faster than the NVIDIA Quadro K2100M, and 1.1% slower than the NVIDIA Quadro K3000M. These are all very close in performance.

Q: What is the impact of switching from Low to Ultra settings at 1080p?

A: At 1920x1080, the average FPS drops from 66 on Low to 32 on Ultra, a reduction of 34 FPS. This is a significant performance cost, but the resulting frame rates are still playable.

Q: Does the game have a minimum FPS recorded for any settings?

A: Yes, the only preset with a recorded minimum FPS is Medium. At 1080p Medium, the minimum is 43 FPS, at 1440p Medium it is 28 FPS, and at 4K Medium it is 15 FPS. No minimum FPS data is available for the Low, High, or Ultra presets.

Measured FPS Breakdown

The following table details the exact measured average frame rates for the Intel Core Ultra 5 235 and NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1050 Ti combination in Minimum. Where available, minimum and maximum FPS values are also included.

| Resolution | Settings | Avg FPS | Min FPS | Max FPS |

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

| 3840x2160 | Low | 23 | N/A | N/A |

| 3840x2160 | Medium | 17 | 15 | 20 |

| 3840x2160 | High | 15 | N/A | N/A |

| 3840x2160 | Ultra | 11 | N/A | N/A |

| 2560x1440 | Low | 42 | N/A | N/A |

| 2560x1440 | Medium | 32 | 28 | 37 |

| 2560x1440 | High | 27 | N/A | N/A |

| 2560x1440 | Ultra | 21 | N/A | N/A |

| 1920x1080 | Low | 66 | N/A | N/A |

| 1920x1080 | Medium | 50 | 43 | 58 |

| 1920x1080 | High | 42 | N/A | N/A |

| 1920x1080 | Ultra | 32 | N/A | N/A |

At 1080p, the frame rate falls steadily as settings increase. The jump from Low to Medium costs 16 FPS, from Medium to High costs another 8 FPS, and from High to Ultra costs 10 FPS. The scaling is less severe at 1440p, where the differences are 10, 5, and 6 FPS respectively. At 4K, the differences are 6, 2, and 4 FPS. This shows that as the resolution increases, the performance cost of each settings tier diminishes because the GPU is already saturated.

Settings Recommendations

Based on the measured FPS data, the optimal experience for this configuration is at 1920x1080 with Medium settings. This preset delivers an average of 50 FPS with a recorded minimum of 43 FPS and a maximum of 58 FPS. This frame rate is smooth and responsive for a third-person shooter, and the minimum FPS indicates that there are no severe stutters or drops. The Medium preset provides a good balance between visual fidelity and performance, as the Low preset (66 FPS) sacrifices too much visual quality for a frame rate gain that is not strictly necessary.

For players who prioritize frame rate above all else, the Low preset at 1080p is the only option that approaches the 60 FPS mark, with an average of 66 FPS. However, this is likely to look noticeably worse than Medium. The High preset at 1080p is also viable, with an average of 42 FPS, but it is less consistent than Medium and may feel less fluid during intense action sequences. The Ultra preset at 1080p, with an average of 32 FPS, is not recommended, as the frame rate drops into a range where the game can feel sluggish.

Playing at 2560x1440 is possible but requires significant compromises. The Low preset at 1440p achieves 42 FPS, which is playable, but the visual quality will be poor. The Medium preset at 1440p (32 FPS) is on the edge of playability and not recommended for a competitive shooter. All settings at 3840x2160 are below 30 FPS and should be avoided. The data strongly suggests that 1080p Medium is the sweet spot for this hardware combination, offering a stable frame rate with a reasonable level of graphical detail. The High preset at 1080p is the best option for those who want better visuals and can tolerate a lower, but still playable, frame rate.