Minimum

The Intel Core Ultra 5 235 pairs with the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 in a combination that is clearly GPU-limited in Minimum, a Third-Person Shooter released on 2014-06-25. This pairing places the GTX 1650 as the primary bottleneck across all tested resolutions, with the CPU’s substantial multi-core and single-thread capabilities largely going unused in this title. The measured frame rates show a steep decline as resolution increases, and the GPU’s 4 GB VRAM and modest compute resources dictate performance from 1080p to 4K. Below is a detailed breakdown of how this combo behaves, how it ranks against other tested pairings, and what each component contributes to the final FPS numbers.

Resolution Scaling

The FPS drop from 1920x1080 to 3840x2160 is dramatic and consistent, revealing a system that is heavily constrained by the graphics card at every step. At 1920x1080 with Low settings, the combo averages 81 FPS, which is the highest result in the entire dataset. Moving to 2560x1440 at Low settings, the average falls to 52 FPS, a reduction of 29 FPS (approximately 36%). At 3840x2160 Low, the average drops further to 28 FPS, which is barely a third of the 1080p Low figure. This scaling pattern is not linear; the gap between 1080p and 1440p is 29 FPS, while the gap between 1440p and 4K is 24 FPS, indicating that the GPU’s pixel throughput limitations become more pronounced as the resolution increases.

For Medium settings, the same trend holds. At 1920x1080, the average is 62 FPS with a minimum of 53 FPS and a maximum of 72 FPS. At 2560x1440, the average drops to 40 FPS (min 34, max 46), and at 3840x2160, it falls to 22 FPS (min 18, max 25). The percentage drop from 1080p to 1440p is about 35%, and from 1440p to 4K is another 45%. High settings show a similar pattern: 52 FPS at 1080p, 34 FPS at 1440p, and 18 FPS at 4K. Ultra settings are the most demanding, yielding 40 FPS at 1080p, 26 FPS at 1440p, and just 14 FPS at 4K.

The data clearly shows that the limiting component is the GPU. The GTX 1650’s 128-bit memory bus and 128.1 GB/s bandwidth, combined with its 2.984 TFLOPS FP32 performance, are insufficient to sustain playable frame rates at higher resolutions. The CPU, with 14 cores and 14 threads, does not appear to be a bottleneck; if it were, the FPS would not scale so predictably with resolution. The fact that 1080p Low reaches 81 FPS while 4K Ultra falls to 14 FPS indicates a pure pixel-fill and shading limitation. For a game from 2014, this GPU-combo is only viable at 1080p, where even Ultra settings produce an average of 40 FPS, which is borderline playable. At 1440p and above, the frame rates dip below 60 FPS even on Low settings (52 FPS at 1440p Low), making those resolutions impractical for smooth gameplay.

How This Combo Ranks

In the benchmark database, this specific combination of Intel Core Ultra 5 235 and NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 ranks 2837 out of 2939 tested combos in Minimum. This places it in the bottom 3.5% of all pairings, which is a poor showing for a system with a modern CPU. The rank of 2837 out of 2939 means that only 102 combos perform worse, and the vast majority of tested systems deliver higher average FPS in this game. The low rank is almost entirely attributable to the GTX 1650, which sits in the 40th percentile among all GPUs, while the CPU is in the 89th percentile among all CPUs. This mismatch is the core issue: a high-end CPU is being held back by an entry-level GPU.

The combo’s performance is best understood by comparing the GPU’s standing relative to its nearest rivals. The GTX 1650’s average benchmark score is 7472, which is 0.3% higher than the AMD Radeon HD 8850M (score 7447), 0.4% higher than the Intel UHD Graphics 750 (score 7441), and 0.6% higher than the AMD Radeon R7 350 (score 7425). However, it is 1% slower than the Intel Arc A310 (score 7550). This means the GTX 1650 is essentially at the same performance tier as those older or integrated graphics solutions, which explains why the combo ranks so low. In a game like Minimum, any of those rival GPUs would likely produce similar FPS results, and the CPU’s power would remain untapped.

On the CPU side, the Intel Core Ultra 5 235 has an average benchmark score of 46062, which is 0.1% higher than the AMD Ryzen AI 9 HX 375 (46030), 0.1% lower than the Intel Core i9-13900HX (46098), and 0.2% higher than both the AMD EPYC 4364P (45970) and AMD EPYC 7303 (45960). In isolation, this CPU is competitive with top-tier mobile and server chips, but in this combo, its contribution to gaming FPS is minimal. The benchmark results indicate that the CPU is not the limiting factor; instead, the GPU’s 40th percentile ranking drags the entire system down. For context, if the GTX 1650 were replaced with a GPU in the 80th or 90th percentile, the combo rank would improve dramatically, as the CPU has ample headroom to feed a faster graphics card.

GPU Role

The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 is the decisive component in this pairing. It uses the TU117 chip on a 12 nm process with 4,700 million transistors and a die size of 200 mm². Its memory configuration is 4 GB of GDDR5 on a 128-bit bus, providing 128.1 GB/s of bandwidth. The memory clock is 2001 MHz, which translates to 8 Gbps effective. The GPU’s base clock is 1485 MHz, with a boost clock of 1665 MHz. These specifications are modest by modern standards, and the benchmark scores confirm this: the GPU’s PassMark G3D score is 7880, and its 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 score is just 305. The Geekbench OpenCL score is 29629, and Vulkan is 33042, but these do not translate into high gaming frame rates.

The 4 GB VRAM is a significant limitation for higher resolutions and settings. While Minimum is an older title (2014), the data shows that at 3840x2160, even Low settings only yield 28 FPS. This suggests that the GPU’s shading units (896), TMUs (56), and ROPs (32) are insufficient for the pixel count at 4K. The pixel rate is 53.28 GPixel/s and the texture rate is 93.24 GTexel/s, which are far below what is needed to maintain 60 FPS at 1440p or 4K. At 1080p, the GPU manages to provide 81 FPS on Low, which indicates that the fill rate is adequate for that resolution, but the frame rate drops off steeply as resolution increases.

The GTX 1650’s FP32 performance of 2.984 TFLOPS is a key metric. For a 2019 GPU (released 2019-04-22), this was entry-level, and it remains so. The dual-slot card has no power connectors, drawing 75 W TDP, and the suggested PSU is 250 W. The bus interface is PCIe 3.0 x16, which is not a bottleneck in this game, but the GPU’s overall compute capability is. In comparison to its nearest rivals, the GTX 1650 is only slightly faster than integrated graphics like the Intel UHD Graphics 750 (0.4% slower in average score) and the AMD Radeon R7 350 (0.6% slower). This places the GPU in a performance class that is simply not suited for high-resolution gaming. The data shows that at 1080p Ultra, the combo averages 40 FPS, which is playable but not smooth. At 1440p Ultra, it drops to 26 FPS, and at 4K Ultra, it falls to 14 FPS. These results are consistent with a GPU that has 4 GB VRAM and a 128-bit bus; the memory bandwidth of 128.1 GB/s is likely the primary constraint at higher resolutions, as it struggles to feed the shaders and ROPs with texture data.

FAQ

Q: What is the best resolution and settings for this combo to achieve 60 FPS?

A: The only configuration that reaches 60 FPS or above is 1920x1080 with Low settings, which averages 81 FPS. At 1080p Medium, the average drops to 62 FPS, which is still above 60. For 60 FPS, you must stay at 1080p; 2560x1440 Low yields only 52 FPS, and 3840x2160 Low yields 28 FPS.

Q: Is the CPU or GPU the bottleneck in this game?

A: The GPU is the clear bottleneck. The Intel Core Ultra 5 235 has 14 cores and 14 threads with a boost clock of 5.00 GHz, and its benchmark scores (e.g., Cinebench R23 multi-core 14769, single-core 2085) place it in the 89th percentile among all CPUs. The GTX 1650, however, is in the 40th percentile among GPUs. The FPS scaling with resolution (81 FPS at 1080p Low vs 28 FPS at 4K Low) demonstrates that the GPU’s rendering capacity is the limiting factor.

Q: How does the GTX 1650 compare to its nearest rivals in raw benchmark scores?

A: The GTX 1650 has an average benchmark score of 7472. It is 0.3% faster than the AMD Radeon HD 8850M (7447), 0.4% faster than the Intel UHD Graphics 750 (7441), and 0.6% faster than the AMD Radeon R7 350 (7425). It is 1% slower than the Intel Arc A310 (7550). These are all very close scores, indicating that the GTX 1650 performs similarly to those older or integrated parts.

*Q: Can this combo handle 4K gaming in Minimum?*

A: No. At 3840x2160, the highest average FPS is 28 on Low settings. Medium settings yield 22 FPS (min 18, max 25), High yields 18 FPS, and Ultra yields 14 FPS. None of these are playable for a smooth experience, as they are all well below 60 FPS and mostly below 30 FPS.

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

A: This combo ranks 2837 out of 2939 tested combinations, placing it in the bottom 3.5% of all systems tested for Minimum. This low rank is due to the GPU’s weak performance, not the CPU.

Q: Does the CPU’s 14-core configuration help in this game?

A: No. The game does not appear to scale with the CPU’s multi-threading, as the FPS is entirely limited by the GPU. The CPU’s Cinebench R20 multi-core score of 6202 and single-core score of 875 are high, but they do not translate to higher FPS because the GPU cannot keep up. The data shows that even at 1080p Low, where the CPU would have the least work, the FPS is only 81, which is likely GPU-bound.

Measured FPS Breakdown

The measured FPS data for this combo provides a complete picture of its capabilities across three resolutions and four settings levels. At 1920x1080, the results are as follows: Low settings produce an average of 81 FPS, Medium settings produce 62 FPS (with a minimum of 53 and maximum of 72), High settings produce 52 FPS, and Ultra settings produce 40 FPS. This shows a smooth progression where each settings tier reduces the average by roughly 10-20 FPS. The minimum FPS at 1080p Medium is 53, which means even in demanding scenes, the frame rate stays above 50 FPS, making this the most playable resolution.

At 2560x1440, the performance drops significantly. Low settings average 52 FPS, Medium settings average 40 FPS (min 34, max 46), High settings average 34 FPS, and Ultra settings average 26 FPS. The minimum FPS at 1440p Medium is 34, which is below the 60 FPS threshold and only marginally above 30 FPS. This resolution is only suitable for Low settings if you want a playable frame rate, and even then, 52 FPS is not smooth. The drop from 1080p to 1440p is approximately 36% for Low settings, which is a substantial penalty.

At 3840x2160, the results are largely unplayable. Low settings average 28 FPS, Medium settings average 22 FPS (min 18, max 25), High settings average 18 FPS, and Ultra settings average 14 FPS. The minimum FPS at 4K Medium is 18, which is a stuttery experience. The difference between Low and Ultra at 4K is only 14 FPS, suggesting that the GPU is so overwhelmed that settings changes have diminishing returns. The data shows that this combo is not viable for 4K, as even the lowest settings cannot maintain 30 FPS consistently.

The full dataset reveals that the GTX 1650’s performance is capped by its memory bandwidth and compute units. At 1080p, the GPU can push enough pixels to reach playable frame rates, but at higher resolutions, the pixel fill rate (53.28 GPixel/s) and texture rate (93.24 GTexel/s) are insufficient. For a game from 2014, this is a surprising limitation, but the data is clear: the combo only delivers smooth performance (above 60 FPS) at 1080p Low and Medium. For anyone considering this setup, the practical recommendation is to stay at 1080p and adjust settings to Medium or High, depending on your preference for visual quality versus frame rate.

CPU Role

The Intel Core Ultra 5 235 is a modern desktop processor based on the Arrow Lake architecture, released on 2025-01-06 with a launch MSRP of $257. It has 14 cores and 14 threads, with a base clock of 3.40 GHz and a boost clock of 5.00 GHz. The TDP is 65 W, and it uses the Intel Socket 1851 with a 3 nm process from TSMC, containing 17,800 million transistors on a 243 mm² die. Its cache configuration includes 192 KB L1 per core, 3 MB L2 per core, and 24 MB shared L3. Memory support is DDR5 dual-channel with a bandwidth of 102.4 GB/s. The CPU’s benchmark scores are strong: Cinebench R23 multi-core is 14769, single-core is 2085, and PassMark multi-thread is 37816 with a single-thread score of 4516. These numbers place the CPU in the 89th percentile among all CPUs, with an average benchmark score of 46062.

In the context of Minimum, the CPU’s role is minimal. The game’s FPS is dictated by the GPU, as shown by the resolution scaling. The CPU’s nearest rivals in benchmark scores include the AMD Ryzen AI 9 HX 375 (46030, 0.1% slower), Intel Core i9-13900HX (46098, 0.1% faster), AMD EPYC 4364P (45970, 0.2% slower), and AMD EPYC 7303 (45960, 0.2% slower). All of these CPUs have similar average scores, but none of them would perform differently in this game because the GTX 1650 is the bottleneck. The CPU’s 14 cores and 14 threads are not utilized fully by a 2014 third-person shooter, which likely relies on only a few threads. The single-core performance (Cinebench R23 single-core 2085) is more relevant, but even that is sufficient to avoid bottlenecking the GTX 1650 at 1080p.

The benchmark data indicates that the CPU is not the limiting factor. At 1080p Low, the combo achieves 81 FPS, which is likely the maximum the GPU can deliver, not the CPU. If the CPU were slower, the FPS might drop at 1080p Low, but the fact that the FPS scales so heavily with resolution suggests the GPU is saturated. The CPU’s high memory bandwidth (102.4 GB/s) and PCIe Gen 5 support (20 lanes) ensure that data can be fed to the GPU quickly, but the GPU’s own bandwidth (128.1 GB/s) is the constraint. In summary, the Intel Core Ultra 5 235 is a high-end processor that is wasted in this pairing; the GTX 1650 holds the system back, and the CPU’s performance headroom is never fully exercised. For a game like Minimum, upgrading the GPU would yield massive FPS gains, while upgrading the CPU would yield none.