Minimum

The Intel Core Ultra 5 235 paired with the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1660 Ti delivers a playable but constrained experience in Minimum, a 2014 Third-Person Shooter. The data shows a configuration that is heavily bound by the graphics card at higher resolutions and settings, while the processor’s strong single-thread performance ensures high frame rates at lower graphical loads. This analysis breaks down the measured performance across resolutions, settings, and component roles, using only the provided benchmark data.

Resolution Scaling

The measured FPS data reveals a steep performance curve as resolution increases, indicating that the GTX 1660 Ti is the primary limiting factor. At 1920x1080 with Low settings, the combo achieves an average of 131 FPS. Moving to 2560x1440 Low drops the average to 84 FPS, a 35.9% reduction. At 3840x2160 Low, the average falls further to 45 FPS, which is 65.6% lower than the 1080p Low result. This scaling pattern is consistent with a GPU-bound scenario where pixel count increases rapidly, and the GTX 1660 Ti’s 6 GB GDDR6 memory and 288.0 GB/s bandwidth begin to saturate.

The gap between resolutions narrows at higher settings, which further confirms the GPU bottleneck. At High settings, the average FPS goes from 84 at 1080p, to 54 at 1440p, and finally to 29 at 4K. The 1080p to 1440p drop is 35.7%, while the 1440p to 4K drop is 46.3%. This non-linear degradation suggests that at 4K High, the GPU is struggling to maintain even 30 FPS, hitting a wall where the rendering load exceeds the card’s capabilities. The Ultra preset exhibits the same trend, with averages of 64 FPS at 1080p, 41 FPS at 1440p, and 22 FPS at 4K, showing that the highest quality settings are only viable at the lowest resolution.

The data implies that for this specific combo, 1080p is the sweet spot for maintaining high frame rates. At 1440p, the experience remains playable for Medium and Low presets, but High and Ultra push the average below 60 FPS. At 4K, only the Low preset manages to exceed 30 FPS on average, while Medium, High, and Ultra all fall below that threshold. The scaling behavior suggests that the CPU has ample headroom, as the FPS drops are directly proportional to the pixel count increase, which is a classic sign of a GPU bottleneck rather than a CPU limitation.

Settings Recommendations

Based on the measured rows, the Medium preset at 1920x1080 offers the best balance of visual quality and performance. The data shows an average of 100 FPS with a minimum of 85 FPS and a maximum of 115 FPS. This is a 23.8% reduction in average FPS compared to Low (131 FPS), but it provides a significant visual upgrade for a modest performance hit. The minimum FPS of 85 ensures smooth gameplay without major stutters, making it the most reliable option for a consistent experience.

For players prioritizing maximum frame rates, the Low preset at 1080p is the only choice, delivering 131 FPS on average. However, this comes at the cost of visual fidelity. The High preset at 1080p offers an 84 FPS average, which is still smooth, but it is 16% slower than Medium and may not be worth the extra graphical load. The Ultra preset at 1080p, with a 64 FPS average, is technically playable but falls below the 100 FPS mark that competitive players might prefer.

At 2560x1440, the Medium preset is again the recommended choice, with a 65 FPS average and a minimum of 55 FPS. This resolution provides a sharper image than 1080p while maintaining playable frame rates. The Low preset at 1440p (84 FPS) is also viable for high refresh rate displays, but Medium offers a better visual experience for only a 22.6% performance cost. High and Ultra at 1440p are not recommended, as they average 54 FPS and 41 FPS respectively, which may introduce noticeable judder on standard 60 Hz displays. At 3840x2160, only the Low preset (45 FPS) is playable, and even then, it is marginal. The Medium preset at 4K (35 FPS) is borderline, but the 30 FPS minimum suggests potential for frame drops.

GPU Role

The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1660 Ti is the dominant component in determining this combo’s performance in Minimum. The GPU’s specifications include a base clock of 1500 MHz and a boost clock of 1770 MHz, with 1536 shading units. It has 6 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 192-bit bus, providing a bandwidth of 288.0 GB/s. The GPU’s percentile rank against all GPUs is 41, placing it in the lower half of the database, and its average benchmark score is 7723. Its nearest rivals in the database are the AMD Radeon 540 (avg score 7673, 0.7% higher), the AMD Radeon Pro WX 3100 (avg score 7580, 1.9% higher), and the AMD Radeon R7 250 (avg score 7557, 2.2% higher), indicating that the GTX 1660 Ti sits just above these entry-level cards in raw compute potential.

The VRAM capacity of 6 GB is sufficient for Minimum, as the game is from 2014 and does not exhibit high memory demands at the tested settings. However, the GPU’s compute power, measured at 5.437 TFLOPS FP32, is the limiting factor at higher resolutions. The data shows that at 4K Ultra, the average FPS drops to 22, which is a 65.6% reduction from the 1080p Low score. This is not a memory issue but a rendering throughput problem. The pixel rate of 84.96 GPixel/s and texture rate of 169.9 GTexel/s are insufficient to handle the 8.3 million pixels of 4K at maximum settings.

The GPU’s performance relative to its peers is poor, with a deltaPct of 2.2% against the AMD Radeon R7 250, which is a much older card. This suggests that the GTX 1660 Ti is not a strong performer in this game, and the benchmark results reflect this. The 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 score of 1061 and Passmark G3D score of 12871 are low compared to modern cards, but they are the only data points available for comparison. The GPU’s end-of-life production status and 120 W TDP further indicate it is a legacy part that struggles with contemporary loads.

FAQ

*Q: What is the best resolution for this combo in Minimum?*

A: The data indicates 1920x1080 is the best resolution, as it is the only one where all settings average above 60 FPS. At 1080p, the lowest average is 64 FPS on Ultra, while at 1440p, the highest average is 84 FPS on Low.

*Q: Can this combo run Minimum at 4K?*

A: Yes, but only at the Low preset, which averages 45 FPS. The Medium preset averages 35 FPS with a 30 FPS minimum, while High (29 FPS) and Ultra (22 FPS) are below playable thresholds.

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

A: The GTX 1660 Ti has an average benchmark score of 7723. Its closest rival, the AMD Radeon 540, has an avg score of 7673, which is 0.7% lower. The other rivals, the AMD Radeon Pro WX 3100 and AMD Radeon R7 250, are 1.9% and 2.2% lower respectively.

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

A: The GPU is the bottleneck. This is evident from the FPS scaling, where dropping resolution from 1080p to 4K reduces performance by over 60% at the same settings, which is a typical GPU-bound behavior.

Q: What is the average FPS at 1440p Medium?

A: The measured data shows an average of 65 FPS, with a minimum of 55 FPS and a maximum of 74 FPS. This makes it the most balanced preset at that resolution.

Q: How does the Ultra preset perform at 1080p?

A: The Ultra preset at 1080p averages 64 FPS. This is lower than the Medium preset’s 100 FPS average, representing a 36% performance drop for the highest visual quality.

How This Combo Ranks

The combination of the Intel Core Ultra 5 235 and the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1660 Ti ranks 2525 out of 2939 tested combos in Minimum. This places it in the bottom 14.1% of all configurations, indicating that it is a low-performing setup for this specific title. The rank is primarily driven by the GPU’s weak performance, as the CPU is a modern part with a high percentile rank. The CPU’s percentile vs all CPUs is 89, while the GPU’s percentile vs all GPUs is only 41, showing a significant disparity in component capability.

The combo rank of 2525 out of 2939 suggests that most other tested combinations will outperform this one in Minimum. The data implies that the GTX 1660 Ti is holding back the system, as the CPU has the potential to drive much higher frame rates if paired with a more powerful graphics card. The low rank is consistent with the measured FPS results, which show that even at 1080p Low, the combo only achieves 131 FPS, a figure that many modern gaming setups would exceed by a wide margin. The fact that the GPU’s nearest rivals are all lower in the database (with deltaPct values of 0.7% to 2.3% above it) further confirms that this GPU is near the bottom of the performance spectrum.

The rank also reflects the age of the GPU, which is end-of-life, and its architecture from the Turing generation. While the CPU is a 2025 release with 14 cores and 14 threads, the GPU is a 2019 part with a 12 nm process node. This mismatch results in a system where the CPU is vastly underutilized, and the overall performance is capped by the GPU’s limits. In summary, this combo is positioned in the lower quartile of tested systems, and users should expect modest frame rates, especially at higher resolutions.

CPU Role

The Intel Core Ultra 5 235 plays a supportive but not limiting role in this configuration. The CPU features 14 cores and 14 threads, with a base clock of 3.40 GHz and a boost clock of 5.00 GHz. It has 24 MB of shared L3 cache and supports DDR5 memory on a dual-channel bus, providing a bandwidth of 102.4 GB/s. The CPU’s average benchmark score is 46062, and its percentile vs all CPUs is 89, placing it in the top 11% of all processors. Its nearest rivals include the AMD Ryzen AI 9 HX 375 (deltaPct 0.1%), the Intel Core i9-13900HX (deltaPct -0.1%), and the AMD EPYC 4364P (deltaPct 0.2%), showing that the Ultra 5 235 is competitive with high-end mobile and server parts.

In Minimum, the CPU’s performance is more than adequate, as evidenced by the benchmark results. The Cinebench R23 multi-core score is 14769, and the single-core score is 2085, indicating strong multi-threaded and single-threaded capabilities. The Passmark single-thread score of 4516 further confirms that the CPU can handle the game’s logic and rendering commands without becoming a bottleneck. The data shows that the FPS drops are entirely attributable to the GPU, as the CPU can maintain high frame rates at low settings, but the GPU cannot keep up at higher resolutions.

The CPU’s 14 cores and 14 threads are more than sufficient for Minimum, which is a 2014 title that likely uses only a few cores. The high boost clock of 5.00 GHz ensures that single-threaded tasks are processed quickly. The lack of a bottleneck is evident in the 1080p Low result of 131 FPS, which is likely near the game’s engine limit or the GPU’s maximum output. The CPU’s role is to feed the GPU with data, and given the GPU’s low performance, the CPU is never stressed. The memory bandwidth of 102.4 GB/s is also adequate for this game, as the GPU’s 288.0 GB/s bandwidth is the limiting factor for texture streaming.

Measured FPS Breakdown

The measured FPS data provides a complete picture of performance across all settings and resolutions. At 1920x1080, the Low preset delivers the highest average FPS of 131. The Medium preset averages 100 FPS, with a minimum of 85 and a maximum of 115. The High preset averages 84 FPS, and the Ultra preset averages 64 FPS. This shows a clear progression where each increase in settings costs approximately 15-20 FPS, with the biggest drop occurring between Low and Medium (31 FPS).

At 2560x1440, the Low preset averages 84 FPS, which is exactly the same as the 1080p High preset, showing that the resolution increase is equivalent to a one-step settings increase. The Medium preset at 1440p averages 65 FPS, with a minimum of 55 and a maximum of 74. The High preset averages 54 FPS, and the Ultra preset averages 41 FPS. The performance here is roughly 35% lower than at 1080p for the same settings, highlighting the GPU’s workload increase.

At 3840x2160, the Low preset averages 45 FPS, which is the only playable option. The Medium preset averages 35 FPS, with a minimum of 30 and a maximum of 40. The High preset averages 29 FPS, and the Ultra preset averages 22 FPS. The 4K results show a drastic reduction in performance, with even the Low preset failing to reach 60 FPS. The data indicates that this combo is not suitable for 4K gaming, as only the lowest settings provide a marginally acceptable frame rate. The Ultra preset at 4K, with a 22 FPS average, is unplayable. The measured rows show that the system’s performance is consistently GPU-limited, as the FPS scales predictably with resolution and settings changes.