Minimum

The Intel Core Ultra 5 235HX and AMD Radeon 880M combination delivers a playable experience only at the lowest settings and resolution, with benchmark results showing a hard ceiling imposed by the integrated graphics. In "Minimum," a 2014 third-person shooter, the pairing produces a 1080p Low average of 79 FPS, but that figure collapses to 14 FPS at 4K Ultra, indicating a system where the CPU has ample headroom but the GPU is the definitive bottleneck.

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

The Intel Core Ultra 5 235HX is a 14-core, 14-thread mobile processor built on the Arrow Lake-HX architecture using a 3 nm process from TSMC. It operates with a base clock of 2.90 GHz and a boost clock of 5.10 GHz, with a TDP of 55 W. The cache hierarchy includes 192 KB of L1 per core, 3 MB of L2 per core, and 24 MB of shared L3 cache. This is a high-end mobile part, evidenced by its 91st percentile ranking among all CPUs in the database. Its average benchmark score of 52073 places it in close competition with the AMD Ryzen 9 5950X, which scores 51947 (a 0.2% delta), and just behind the Intel Core i7-14700 at 52301 (-0.4%). The CPU also outperforms the Intel Core i9-13900F, which scores 51730 (0.7% delta).

In multi-core workloads, the 235HX demonstrates significant capability. Its Cinebench R23 multicore score is 34731, while the single-core score reaches 4903. The Passmark multithread score is 40849, and the single-thread score is 4683. Data compression and encryption scores are 426417 and 32697, respectively. These numbers indicate a processor that can handle heavy computational tasks with ease. For a game like "Minimum," which launched in 2014, the CPU's 14 cores and 5.10 GHz boost clock are far beyond what the title requires, meaning CPU-bound scenarios are unlikely to occur. The processor's memory bandwidth is rated at 102.4 GB/s with dual-channel DDR5 support, which is critical for feeding the integrated GPU, but the sheer volume of available compute power suggests the CPU is never the limiting factor in this pairing.

The 235HX's nearest rivals in the database — the EPYC 8124P and Ryzen 9 5950X — are desktop or server parts with similar average scores, underscoring that this mobile chip punches well above its class in raw processing. However, in "Minimum," the CPU's role is purely supportive. At 1080p Low, the system achieves 79 FPS, but at 1080p Ultra, it drops to 39 FPS. This scaling pattern is characteristic of a GPU-limited scenario, where the CPU can produce frames as fast as the graphics pipeline allows, but the graphics pipeline itself cannot keep up at higher settings. The data shows that the 235HX is not the constraint; even at 4K High, where the average FPS is 18, the CPU has more than enough headroom to push higher frame rates if the GPU could render them.

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

The AMD Radeon 880M is an integrated graphics processor based on the RDNA 3.5 architecture, built on a 4 nm process. It features 768 shading units, 48 texture mapping units, and 16 raster output pipelines, along with 12 ray tracing cores. The GPU runs at a base clock of 400 MHz and a boost clock of 2900 MHz, with a TDP of just 15 W. Its memory is system shared, meaning it uses the host CPU's DDR5 memory, with bandwidth and bus width listed as system dependent. The 880M supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4, ensuring feature compatibility with modern APIs.

The 880M's synthetic benchmark scores reveal a modest part. Its 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 score is 535, and its Passmark G3D score is 7615. The GPU compute score is 3719. In the database, the 880M ranks in the 43rd percentile among all GPUs, with an average benchmark score of 8436. Its nearest rivals are the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 675MX (score 8427, 0.1% delta), the NVIDIA GeForce MX330 (8458, -0.3% delta), and the AMD Radeon R9 M375X (8325, 1.3% delta). These are all older discrete mobile GPUs from roughly a decade ago, and the 880M trades blows with them, confirming its position as an entry-level graphics solution.

In "Minimum," the 880M's performance is the primary factor determining the experience. At 1080p Low, the 79 FPS average indicates that the GPU can handle the game's light load at lower settings. However, the performance drops rapidly as resolution and settings increase. The 880M's boost clock of 2900 MHz is high for an integrated part, but the 15 W TDP and shared memory architecture limit its sustained throughput. The pixel rate of 46.40 GPixel/s and texture rate of 139.2 GTexel/s provide a theoretical ceiling, but the FP32 compute of 4.454 TFLOPS is the more telling figure. This places the 880M in a performance tier where 1080p gaming at low-to-medium settings is feasible, but 4K is out of reach. The data confirms this: at 4K Ultra, the average FPS is 14, which is unplayable by any standard.

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

The measured FPS data shows a clear and consistent pattern of degradation as resolution increases, which is the hallmark of a GPU-bound system. At Low settings, the average FPS drops from 79 at 1080p to 51 at 1440p, then to 28 at 4K. This represents a 35% reduction when moving from 1080p to 1440p, and a 45% reduction from 1440p to 4K. The scaling is not linear — the drop from 1440p to 4K is steeper, reflecting the exponential increase in pixel count. At 4K, the GPU is rendering 8.3 million pixels per frame, and the 880M simply does not have the fill rate to handle it.

At Medium settings, the pattern is similar, with averages of 61 FPS at 1080p, 39 FPS at 1440p, and 21 FPS at 4K. The 4K figure includes a minimum of 18 FPS and a maximum of 24 FPS, indicating that even the best-case scenario is below playable thresholds. At High settings, the averages are 51 FPS at 1080p, 33 FPS at 1440p, and 18 FPS at 4K. The Ultra settings show the most severe drop: 39 FPS at 1080p, 25 FPS at 1440p, and 14 FPS at 4K.

This scaling behavior tells a clear story about the limiting component. The CPU, with its 5.10 GHz boost clock and 14 cores, is not the bottleneck. If the CPU were the limiting factor, we would expect to see similar FPS across resolutions at the same settings, since the CPU's workload does not change with resolution. Instead, the FPS drops by roughly half from 1080p to 4K at every settings level, which is directly proportional to the pixel count increase. This is definitive evidence that the AMD Radeon 880M is the sole constraint. The 1080p Low result of 79 FPS is the only configuration that approaches a smooth experience, while 1080p Medium at 61 FPS is playable but with noticeable dips to 52 FPS. Any resolution above 1080p, or settings above Low at 1440p, results in averages below 40 FPS, which is not suitable for a fast-paced third-person shooter.

FAQ

Q: What is the best settings configuration for this CPU-GPU combo in "Minimum"?

A: The data shows that 1080p Low produces the highest average FPS at 79, followed by 1080p Medium at 61 FPS. For a stable experience, 1080p Low is the only setting that provides a comfortable margin above 60 FPS, while 1080p Medium dips to 52 FPS at minimum. Higher settings or resolutions result in averages below 51 FPS.

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

A: No. At 4K, the average FPS ranges from 28 at Low settings to 14 at Ultra. Even the best 4K result, 28 FPS at Low, is far below playable standards for a third-person shooter, and the Ultra setting at 14 FPS is effectively a slideshow.

Q: How does the Radeon 880M compare to its nearest rivals in the database?

A: The 880M has an average benchmark score of 8436, placing it essentially level with the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 675MX (8427, 0.1% delta) and the NVIDIA GeForce MX330 (8458, -0.3% delta). It is slightly ahead of the AMD Radeon R9 M375X (8325, 1.3% delta). This puts it in the 43rd percentile of all GPUs.

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

A: The GPU is the definitive bottleneck. The CPU has a 91st percentile ranking and scores high in every benchmark, while the GPU's performance drops by roughly half when moving from 1080p to 4K at the same settings. This resolution-dependent scaling is a classic sign of GPU limitation.

Q: What is the playable threshold for "Minimum" with this setup?

A: Based on the data, anything above 1080p Medium is not playable. The 1080p Medium average of 61 FPS is acceptable, with a minimum of 52 FPS. The 1440p Low average of 51 FPS is borderline, while all 4K configurations are too slow.

Q: How does the Core Ultra 5 235HX's CPU performance compare to its rivals?

A: The 235HX has an average benchmark score of 52073, which is within 1% of the AMD EPYC 8124P (52121, -0.1% delta) and the AMD Ryzen 9 5950X (51947, 0.2% delta). It also sits close to the Intel Core i7-14700 (52301, -0.4%) and the Intel Core i9-13900F (51730, 0.7%).

How This Combo Ranks

In the database of tested CPU-GPU combinations for "Minimum," this pairing of the Intel Core Ultra 5 235HX and AMD Radeon 880M ranks 2866 out of 2939 total combos. This places it in the bottom 2.5% of all tested configurations, which is a poor result for a system featuring a top-tier mobile CPU. The ranking reflects the severe GPU limitation that dominates the gaming experience. While the CPU is in the 91st percentile of all processors, the GPU is in the 43rd percentile, and the combo's overall ranking is dragged down by the graphics component.

The data indicates that this combination is heavily mismatched. The 235HX is a processor capable of 34731 points in Cinebench R23 multicore, but the 880M's Passmark G3D score of 7615 means it cannot translate that CPU power into high frame rates in a GPU-limited game like "Minimum." The combo's rank of 2866 out of 2939 suggests that most other tested pairings, including those with older discrete GPUs, outperform this setup in this specific title. The low rank is not a reflection of the CPU's capabilities but rather the inadequacy of the integrated GPU for gaming at anything beyond the lowest settings.

Measured FPS Breakdown

The following table presents the exact measured average FPS for each resolution and settings combination, with minimum and maximum values where recorded.

| Resolution | Settings | Average FPS | Minimum FPS | Maximum FPS |

|------------|----------|-------------|-------------|-------------|

| 1920x1080 | Low | 79 | — | — |

| 1920x1080 | Medium | 61 | 52 | 70 |

| 1920x1080 | High | 51 | — | — |

| 1920x1080 | Ultra | 39 | — | — |

| 2560x1440 | Low | 51 | — | — |

| 2560x1440 | Medium | 39 | 33 | 45 |

| 2560x1440 | High | 33 | — | — |

| 2560x1440 | Ultra | 25 | — | — |

| 3840x2160 | Low | 28 | — | — |

| 3840x2160 | Medium | 21 | 18 | 24 |

| 3840x2160 | High | 18 | — | — |

| 3840x2160 | Ultra | 14 | — | — |

The data shows a consistent pattern: 1080p Low is the only configuration that exceeds 60 FPS, with a 79 FPS average. 1080p Medium falls to 61 FPS with a minimum of 52 FPS, which is still playable but with occasional dips. All 1440p configurations produce averages between 25 and 51 FPS, and all 4K configurations produce averages between 14 and 28 FPS. The minimum FPS data, available only for Medium settings, shows that the 4K Medium configuration drops to 18 FPS, confirming that this resolution is not viable. The maximum FPS at 1080p Medium is 70, indicating that the system can reach higher frame rates in less demanding scenes, but the average is the more reliable indicator of sustained performance. For a third-person shooter from 2014, the 1080p Low result is the only configuration that offers a smooth, consistent experience, while everything else requires significant compromises in visual fidelity or resolution.