Minimum

The Intel Core Ultra 5 245 and AMD Radeon RX 7700 combination delivers a highly playable experience in Minimum, a 2014 third-person shooter. The data shows a clear performance hierarchy across resolutions, with the combo achieving a rank of 1298 out of 2939 tested configurations. The measured frame rates indicate that this pairing is well-balanced, though the specific bottlenecks shift depending on the resolution and graphical preset selected.

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

The Intel Core Ultra 5 245 is a 14-core, 14-thread processor based on the Arrow Lake architecture, built on a 3 nm process by TSMC. Its base clock is 3.50 GHz, and it can boost up to 5.10 GHz, which provides substantial single-thread headroom for a title like Minimum. The processor’s 24 MB of shared L3 cache and 3 MB per-core L2 cache help reduce memory latency, which is beneficial for maintaining consistent frame pacing in a fast-paced third-person shooter.

The CPU sits at the 90th percentile when compared to all tested processors, indicating strong overall performance. Its average benchmark score is 48995, placing it directly between the AMD Ryzen 7 PRO 5755G (49196, a 0.4% difference) and the Intel Core i5-14600K (48618, a 0.8% difference). This suggests the Ultra 5 245 is a mid-to-high-tier desktop part that should not be the primary limiting factor in most gaming scenarios, especially at lower resolutions where frame rates are high.

Benchmark results from Cinebench R23 show a multi-core score of 32924 and a single-core score of 4648. These figures indicate that the processor can handle both the game’s main thread and background tasks without issue. In Minimum, which was released well before this CPU’s 2025 launch, the game’s engine is unlikely to fully utilize all 14 cores, but the high boost clock of 5.10 GHz ensures that the few threads it does use can execute quickly.

The measured FPS data supports this interpretation. At 1080p Low, the combo produces an average of 214 FPS, which is far beyond the refresh rate of most displays. This high frame rate is achievable only if the CPU can feed the GPU with enough draw calls and game logic updates. The fact that the CPU is not causing a hard cap at this level suggests it has sufficient headroom. When the resolution increases to 4K, the average FPS drops significantly, which points to the GPU becoming the dominant bottleneck, not the CPU.

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

The AMD Radeon RX 7700 is built on the RDNA 3.0 architecture, specifically the Navi 32 chip, and is manufactured on a 5 nm process by TSMC. It features 16 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 256-bit bus, providing a bandwidth of 624.1 GB/s. This large memory capacity is a significant asset, even for a game from 2014, as it allows for high-resolution textures and settings without risk of running out of video memory.

The GPU’s base clock is 1900 MHz, with a game clock of 2041 MHz and a boost clock of 2459 MHz. It has 2560 shading units, 160 TMUs, and 96 ROPs. The pixel rate is 236.1 GPixel/s, and the texture rate is 393.4 GTexel/s, which are the raw throughput figures that dictate how quickly the GPU can fill the screen with rendered geometry and textures. The FP32 performance is 25.18 TFLOPS, giving it a solid computational foundation for modern graphical effects.

The GPU’s benchmark scores show an interesting contrast with its peer group. Its Passmark G3D score is 20974, and it sits at the 58th percentile of all GPUs. Its average benchmark score is 15852, which is nearly identical to the AMD Radeon R9 370X (15862, a -0.1% difference) and slightly lower than the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3060 Ti (16129, a -1.7% difference). This places the RX 7700 as a competent mid-range card, but the data suggests it is not a top-tier performer relative to the absolute best available.

In Minimum, the GPU’s role becomes more pronounced at higher resolutions and settings. At 1080p Low, the GPU is barely stressed, resulting in an average FPS of 214. However, at 4K Ultra, the average FPS plummets to 36, indicating that the GPU’s compute and fill-rate limits are being reached. The 16 GB VRAM is not the limiting factor here, as a game from 2014 is unlikely to use even 8 GB; instead, the raw processing power of the GPU is what determines the performance ceiling.

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

The measured FPS data for the High preset reveals a clear scaling pattern across resolutions. At 1080p High, the combo averages 137 FPS. Moving to 1440p High, the average drops to 89 FPS, which is a reduction of about 35%. At 4K High, the average falls to 48 FPS, which is a further 46% drop from 1440p. This steep decline indicates that the GPU is the primary limiting factor as the pixel count increases.

The scaling for the Low preset is even more telling. At 1080p Low, the average is 214 FPS. At 1440p Low, it drops to 138 FPS (a 36% decrease), and at 4K Low, it falls to 74 FPS (a 46% decrease from 1440p). The consistent percentage drops across presets suggest that the GPU is scaling predictably with resolution, and there is no sudden cliff that would indicate a CPU bottleneck at lower resolutions.

However, the fact that 1080p Low produces 214 FPS while 1080p High produces 137 FPS shows that the GPU workload increases significantly with graphical settings. This gap narrows at higher resolutions. At 4K, the difference between Low and High is 26 FPS (74 vs. 48), whereas at 1080p, the difference is 77 FPS (214 vs. 137). This compression at 4K indicates that the GPU is becoming saturated, and the setting changes have a diminishing impact on frame rate because the pixel fill rate is the dominant constraint.

The data suggests that for this game, the CPU is adequately powerful to maintain high frame rates at 1080p, but the GPU begins to limit performance as the resolution climbs. For a user targeting 60 FPS, the combo can achieve this at 1440p High (89 FPS) and 4K Low (74 FPS), but falls short at 4K High (48 FPS). This makes the GPU the component to upgrade if the goal is higher fidelity at 4K.

How This Combo Ranks — use comboRankInGame vs other tested combos

The combination of the Intel Core Ultra 5 245 and the AMD Radeon RX 7700 ranks 1298th out of 2939 tested combos in Minimum. This places it in the 44th percentile of all tested configurations, meaning that 44% of the tested combos perform better, and 56% perform worse. This is a solid mid-pack result, indicating that this pairing is not a top-tier configuration but is far from the bottom.

The ranking is influenced by the GPU’s relative position in the benchmark hierarchy. The RX 7700 sits at the 58th percentile of all GPUs, which is slightly above the CPU’s 90th percentile. This suggests that the GPU is the weaker link in this pairing, pulling the overall combo rank down. If the CPU were paired with a higher-performing GPU, the combo rank would likely improve, as the CPU has enough headroom to support a faster graphics card.

The nearest rivals for the CPU include the AMD Ryzen 9 7900 (a 0.5% difference) and the Intel Core i5-14600K (a 0.8% difference), which are both capable processors. The GPU’s nearest rivals include the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3060 Ti (a -1.7% difference), which is a slightly faster card. Given that the combo rank is in the middle of the pack, it suggests that this pairing is competitive with other mid-range systems, but it does not break into the upper echelon of performance.

The data indicates that the combo’s performance is consistent with what one would expect from a mid-range 2025-era CPU paired with a mid-range GPU. The rank is a reflection of the GPU’s limitations at higher resolutions, but at 1080p and 1440p, the combo performs admirably, as shown by the measured FPS.

FAQ

Q: What is the average FPS at 1080p with Ultra settings?

A: The measured average FPS at 1920x1080 with Ultra settings is 105 FPS.

Q: Can this combo maintain 60 FPS at 4K?

A: Yes, but only on lower settings. At 3840x2160 with Low settings, the average FPS is 74, while at Medium settings it is 57, and at High settings it drops to 48.

Q: How does the CPU compare to the AMD Ryzen 9 7900?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 5 245 has an average benchmark score of 48995, which is 0.5% lower than the AMD Ryzen 9 7900's score of 49228.

Q: What is the GPU's memory bandwidth?

A: The AMD Radeon RX 7700 has a memory bandwidth of 624.1 GB/s, utilizing 16 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 256-bit bus.

Q: What is the best resolution for this combo to exceed 100 FPS?

A: At 1920x1080 with High settings, the average FPS is 137, and at 2560x1440 with Low settings, it is 138 FPS. Both exceed 100 FPS.

Q: What is the combo's rank out of all tested configurations?

A: The combo ranks 1298 out of 2939 tested combinations in Minimum.

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

The measured FPS data provides a comprehensive look at performance across three resolutions and four settings levels.

At 1920x1080, the lowest resolution tested, the combo delivers its highest frame rates. With Low settings, the average FPS is 214. Moving to Medium settings, the average drops to 164 FPS, with a minimum of 139 FPS and a maximum of 188 FPS. High settings yield an average of 137 FPS. Ultra settings produce the lowest average at this resolution, which is 105 FPS.

At 2560x1440, the performance scales down noticeably. Low settings average 138 FPS. Medium settings average 106 FPS, with a minimum of 90 FPS and a maximum of 121 FPS. High settings average 89 FPS. Ultra settings drop to an average of 68 FPS.

At 3840x2160, the highest resolution tested, the GPU is clearly stressed. Low settings average 74 FPS. Medium settings average 57 FPS, with a minimum of 48 FPS and a maximum of 65 FPS. High settings average 48 FPS. Ultra settings produce an average of 36 FPS.

The data shows a consistent pattern: for every resolution, the frame rate decreases as settings increase from Low to Ultra. The gap between Low and Ultra is most pronounced at 1080p, where there is a 109 FPS difference (214 vs. 105). At 4K, the gap narrows to 38 FPS (74 vs. 36), confirming that the GPU is the limiting factor at higher pixel counts.

Settings Recommendations — which preset gives the best experience per the measured rows

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

For users with a 1080p display, the High preset is an excellent choice. It delivers an average of 137 FPS, which is well above the 60 FPS threshold and suitable for high-refresh-rate monitors. The Ultra preset at 105 FPS is also playable, but the drop of 32 FPS from High may not justify the visual gains, especially if the user prefers smoother motion. The Low preset at 214 FPS is overkill for most displays and sacrifices visual fidelity unnecessarily.

For 1440p users, the Medium preset offers a balanced experience. It averages 106 FPS, with a minimum of 90 FPS, ensuring that frame rates remain above 60 FPS even during demanding scenes. The High preset at 89 FPS is also viable for those who prioritize visual quality, but it hovers closer to the 60 FPS floor. The Low preset at 138 FPS provides the smoothest experience, but the graphical downgrade is significant.

For 4K users, the Low preset is the only reliable option for maintaining high frame rates. It averages 74 FPS, which is above the 60 FPS target. The Medium preset at 57 FPS is borderline, falling just short of 60 FPS on average, and the High preset at 48 FPS is likely to feel stuttery in fast-paced gameplay. The Ultra preset at 36 FPS is not recommended for a competitive third-person shooter, as it may compromise responsiveness.

In summary, the data suggests that the combo is best utilized at 1080p or 1440p with medium-to-high settings. At 4K, users should stick to Low settings to achieve a playable frame rate. The measured results indicate that this pairing is not designed for maximum fidelity at 4K, but it excels at lower resolutions where the CPU’s speed and the GPU’s memory bandwidth can be fully leveraged.