Minimum

Minimum is a 2014 third-person shooter that places surprisingly heavy demands on modern hardware, particularly on the GPU side. The measured data for the Intel Core Ultra 5 245 paired with the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 reveals a combination that struggles to maintain playable frame rates at higher resolutions and settings, making preset selection the single most critical decision for a usable experience. This analysis explores the measured FPS across resolutions and settings, examines the roles of the CPU and GPU, and provides actionable recommendations based strictly on the benchmark data.

Settings Recommendations

The benchmark results clearly indicate that the "Low" preset is the only reliable path to smooth gameplay, and even then, only at 1080p. At 1920x1080 with Low settings, the combo achieves an average of 81 FPS, which is the highest measured frame rate across the entire dataset. This is the target configuration for anyone prioritizing fluid motion over visual fidelity. The next step up, Medium at 1080p, drops to 62 FPS average, which is still playable but represents a 23% performance hit (from 81 to 62 FPS) for a modest increase in visual quality. For users who can tolerate occasional dips, the data shows the Medium preset at 1080p has a minimum FPS of 53, which is generally acceptable for a third-person shooter.

The High preset at 1080p yields 52 FPS average, which is functionally similar to Medium but with a lower floor. The Ultra preset at 1080p is the worst choice, delivering only 40 FPS average, which is a significant drop from Low and likely introduces noticeable stutter in fast-paced combat. The data strongly suggests that High and Ultra settings are not viable for this combination, as they push the GPU beyond its comfortable operating range. At 1440p, no preset achieves a 60 FPS average; the best is Low at 52 FPS, which mirrors the 1080p High result. At 4K, all settings produce averages below 30 FPS, with Ultra at a dismal 14 FPS, making the resolution effectively unplayable for this title.

The optimal experience per the measured rows is unequivocally 1080p with Low settings, offering the highest average FPS and, by extension, the most responsive gameplay. If visual quality is paramount, 1080p Medium at 62 FPS is the balanced compromise, but the data indicates that pushing beyond Medium at 1080p, or attempting any preset at higher resolutions, results in a degraded experience that fails to meet the demands of a shooter genre.

GPU Role

The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 is the primary bottleneck in this configuration, and the measured FPS data confirms this. The GPU features 4 GB of GDDR5 memory on a 128-bit bus, providing a bandwidth of 128.1 GB/s. The core clocks are 1485 MHz base and 1665 MHz boost, with a memory clock of 2001 MHz (8 Gbps effective). These specifications, while modest by modern standards, are the driving force behind the performance ceiling observed.

The VRAM capacity of 4 GB is a critical constraint, particularly at higher resolutions. The data shows a steep decline in performance as resolution increases, which is a classic symptom of VRAM and memory bandwidth saturation. At 1080p Low, the GPU can maintain 81 FPS, but at 4K Low, it falls to 28 FPS, a 65% reduction. This suggests that the GPU's memory subsystem is overwhelmed by the pixel throughput required at 4K, regardless of the reduced texture quality on Low settings. The GPU's FP32 performance is 2.984 TFLOPS, and its pixel rate is 53.28 GPixel/s, which are insufficient for the demands of 4K rendering in this title.

The GTX 1650's nearest rivals in the benchmark database include the AMD Radeon HD 8850M (0.3% faster), Intel UHD Graphics 750 (0.4% faster), AMD Radeon R7 350 (0.6% faster), and Intel Arc A310 (1% slower). These comparisons highlight that the GTX 1650 is positioned at the lower end of the GPU performance spectrum, with its percentile ranking at 40% of all GPUs. The data implies that the GPU's architecture, based on the TU117 chip on a 12 nm process, is fundamentally limited for this 2014 title's engine, which appears to scale poorly with the available resources. The measured results show that the GPU is the limiting factor in every scenario, as the CPU's capabilities far exceed what the GPU can utilize at higher settings.

How This Combo Ranks

The combination of the Intel Core Ultra 5 245 and the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 ranks 2837 out of 2939 tested combos in Minimum, placing it in the bottom 3.5% of all configurations. This ranking underscores the severity of the GPU bottleneck, as the CPU is a high-end part that is completely hamstrung by the graphics card. The combo's rank is a direct consequence of the GTX 1650's limited performance, which is confirmed by its own percentile ranking of 40% against all GPUs.

This ranking implies that the vast majority of other tested combinations, even those with older or less capable CPUs, outperform this pairing in Minimum. The data suggests that the GPU is so underpowered relative to the CPU that any other GPU paired with this processor would yield dramatically better results. The combo's position at 2837 out of 2939 is a stark indicator that this is a poorly balanced pairing for this specific game, and the measured FPS data reflects this systemic weakness across all resolutions and settings.

The CPU's own benchmark scores, such as a Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 32924 and a passmark single-thread score of 4394, place it in the 90th percentile of all CPUs, with rivals like the AMD Ryzen 9 7900 (0.5% faster) and Intel Core i5-14600K (0.8% slower). This contrast between a top-tier CPU and a bottom-tier GPU explains the combo's poor rank — the system's performance is entirely dictated by the GPU's ceiling, which is very low. The data strongly suggests that this combo is unsuitable for Minimum at any resolution above 1080p Low.

Measured FPS Breakdown

The measured FPS data provides a comprehensive view of the combo's capabilities across nine distinct configurations. At 1920x1080, the results are as follows: Low settings produce an average of 81 FPS, Medium produces 62 FPS (with a minimum of 53 and maximum of 72), High produces 52 FPS, and Ultra produces 40 FPS. This progression shows a clear linear degradation as settings increase, with a 41 FPS difference between Low and Ultra at the same resolution.

Moving to 2560x1440, the performance drops significantly. Low settings yield 52 FPS, Medium yields 40 FPS (minimum 34, maximum 46), High yields 34 FPS, and Ultra yields 26 FPS. The gap between Low and Ultra narrows to 26 FPS, but the absolute numbers are all below the 60 FPS target, indicating that 1440p is not a viable resolution for this combo in Minimum. The data shows that even the lowest settings at 1440p barely match the High preset at 1080p, reinforcing the GPU's resolution scaling limitations.

At 3840x2160, the results are largely unplayable. Low settings achieve 28 FPS, Medium achieves 22 FPS (minimum 18, maximum 25), High achieves 18 FPS, and Ultra achieves 14 FPS. The 4K data reveals that the GPU is completely overwhelmed, with no configuration reaching even 30 FPS. The difference between Low and Ultra at 4K is only 14 FPS, suggesting that the GPU's memory bandwidth is the limiting factor, as texture quality changes have a diminished impact when the pixel count is so high. The data across all resolutions shows a consistent pattern: the GPU cannot handle the load, and the CPU's performance is irrelevant to the frame rates achieved.

Resolution Scaling

The resolution scaling behavior is dramatic and reveals the GPU as the sole limiting component. From 1080p Low to 1440p Low, the average FPS drops from 81 to 52, a 36% reduction. From 1080p Low to 4K Low, the average FPS drops from 81 to 28, a 65% reduction. This scaling is far steeper than what would be expected if the CPU were the bottleneck, as the CPU's performance is constant across resolutions.

The data shows that the FPS drop is non-linear, with the most severe degradation occurring between 1440p and 4K. At 1080p, the GPU has enough bandwidth to feed the 896 shading units, but as the pixel count increases, the 128.1 GB/s memory bandwidth becomes saturated. The pixel rate of 53.28 GPixel/s is also a constraint, as 4K requires over 8.3 million pixels per frame, and the GPU simply cannot process them fast enough. The scaling from 1440p to 4K at Medium settings shows a drop from 40 to 22 FPS (45% reduction), which is consistent with the GPU being pushed to its absolute limits.

This scaling pattern implies that the Core Ultra 5 245 is not a factor in the performance degradation. The CPU's 14 cores and 5.10 GHz boost clock are more than sufficient for Minimum's engine, which is likely single-threaded or lightly threaded. The resolution scaling data is a textbook example of a GPU-bound scenario, where the frame rate is inversely proportional to the pixel count, and the CPU's role is reduced to waiting for the GPU to finish rendering each frame.

CPU Role

The Intel Core Ultra 5 245 is a high-performance processor with 14 cores and 14 threads, a base clock of 3.50 GHz, and a boost clock of 5.10 GHz. Its Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 32924 and passmark single-thread score of 4394 place it in the 90th percentile of all CPUs, demonstrating its capability in both multi-threaded and single-threaded workloads. In Minimum, the CPU's role is largely passive, as the GPU is the bottleneck in every measured scenario.

The data shows that the CPU's performance is never the limiting factor. Even at 1080p Low, where the FPS is highest at 81, the CPU has ample headroom. The nearest rivals to the CPU include the AMD Ryzen 7 PRO 5755G (0.4% slower), AMD Ryzen 9 7900 (0.5% faster), Intel Xeon Gold 5318H (0.6% slower), and Intel Core i5-14600K (0.8% faster), all of which would perform identically to the Core Ultra 5 245 in this game when paired with the GTX 1650. The CPU's 24 MB of L3 cache and 102.4 GB/s memory bandwidth are more than adequate for Minimum's data requirements.

The CPU's integrated graphics, Arc Xe-LPG with 64 EU, are not used in this configuration, as the GTX 1650 is the primary display adapter. The CPU's high single-thread performance, evidenced by a passmark single-thread score of 4394, is the key metric for this game, but it is never fully utilized. The benchmark results indicate that the CPU is effectively idle during gameplay, waiting for the GPU to complete its work. This is a prime example of a CPU-GPU imbalance, where the processor's capabilities are wasted due to the graphics card's limitations.

FAQ

Q: What is the best resolution and settings combo for this processor and GPU in Minimum?

A: The data shows that 1920x1080 with Low settings delivers the highest average FPS at 81, making it the optimal configuration. The Medium preset at 1080p (62 FPS) is the highest quality playable option, but Low provides the most headroom.

Q: Can this combo play Minimum at 1440p?

A: Yes, but not at a consistent 60 FPS. The best 1440p result is 52 FPS on Low settings, which is technically playable but falls short of the smoothness target. Higher settings at 1440p produce 40 FPS or lower, which is marginal.

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

A: The GPU is overwhelmingly the bottleneck. The GTX 1650's performance is the limiting factor at all resolutions, as evidenced by the steep FPS drops when increasing resolution. The CPU's high benchmark scores are irrelevant because the GPU cannot keep up.

Q: What is the expected frame rate at 4K with Ultra settings?

A: The measured data shows an average of 14 FPS at 4K Ultra, which is unplayable for a third-person shooter. Even at 4K Low, the average is 28 FPS, which is below the threshold for acceptable gameplay.

Q: How does this combo compare to other tested combinations?

A: This combo ranks 2837 out of 2939 tested combos, placing it in the bottom 3.5% of all configurations for Minimum. This poor ranking is directly attributable to the GTX 1650's low performance, which is in the 40th percentile of GPUs.

Q: Is the 4 GB VRAM on the GTX 1650 sufficient for Minimum?

A: The data suggests that 4 GB is insufficient at higher resolutions. The dramatic FPS drop from 1080p (81 FPS on Low) to 4K (28 FPS on Low) indicates that the memory bandwidth and capacity are overwhelmed, even though the game is from 2014 and should have modest requirements.