Minimum

The Intel Core Ultra 7 155H and AMD Radeon 880M combination delivers a strictly entry-level experience in Minimum, a 2014 third-person shooter. The measured data places this combo at rank 2866 out of 2939 tested combinations, placing it in the bottom 2.5% of systems. The frame rates across all resolutions indicate that this is a configuration for playable-at-low-settings gaming, not high-refresh-rate competition.

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

The Intel Core Ultra 7 155H is a 16-core, 22-thread mobile processor based on the Meteor Lake architecture. It operates with a base clock of 3.80 GHz and a boost clock of 4.80 GHz, with a 28 W TDP. The CPU features a substantial cache hierarchy, including 112 KB of L1 per core, 2 MB of L2 per core, and 24 MB of shared L3 cache. The processor supports dual-channel DDR5 memory with a bandwidth of 89.6 GB/s.

In synthetic benchmarks, the Core Ultra 7 155H scores 15,028 in Cinebench R23 multi-core and 1,743 in single-core. Its Passmark multi-thread score is 24,873, with a single-thread score of 3,468. These numbers place the CPU at the 83rd percentile among all processors, with an average benchmark score of 32,697. The nearest rivals are the Intel Core i5-14600T (avg score 32,707, delta 0%), the AMD Ryzen AI 7 PRO 360 (avg score 32,662, delta 0.1%), the AMD Ryzen 5 7400F (avg score 32,750, delta -0.2%), and the AMD Ryzen 7 PRO 6850H (avg score 32,812, delta -0.4%). The performance delta between the Core Ultra 7 155H and these rivals is essentially negligible, all falling within a 0.4% band.

For a game like Minimum, which was released in 2014, the CPU’s 22 threads are far beyond what the title can utilize. The game’s engine is likely to be limited to a few threads, making the high single-thread score of 1,743 in Cinebench R23 more relevant. The boost clock of 4.80 GHz provides sufficient single-core headroom for the game’s logic and physics. The benchmark data shows that this CPU is not the bottleneck; the frame rates are far more constrained by the integrated GPU. The CPU’s 83rd percentile ranking suggests it has ample computational headroom for this title, and the measured FPS is not indicative of CPU limitation.

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 at TSMC. It features 768 shading units, 48 texture mapping units, and 16 raster output units, along with 12 ray tracing cores. The GPU has a base clock of 400 MHz and a boost clock of 2900 MHz. The Radeon 880M uses system-shared memory for both VRAM and bandwidth, meaning its performance is heavily dependent on the system’s DDR5 memory configuration.

The GPU’s compute capabilities are rated at 4.454 TFLOPS for FP32 operations, with a pixel rate of 46.40 GPixel/s and a texture rate of 139.2 GTexel/s. In synthetic benchmarks, the Radeon 880M scores 7,615 in Passmark G3D and 4,454 in FP32. Its Passmark GPU Compute score is 3,719. These results place the GPU at the 43rd percentile among all GPUs, with an average benchmark score of 8,436. The nearest rivals are the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 675MX (avg score 8,427, delta 0.1%), the NVIDIA GeForce MX330 (avg score 8,458, delta -0.3%), the AMD Radeon HD 8870M (avg score 8,462, delta -0.3%), and the AMD Radeon R9 M375X (avg score 8,325, delta 1.3%). The performance delta to these rivals is small, within a 1.3% range, indicating the 880M is in the same performance class as a decade-old discrete mobile GPU.

In Minimum, the GPU is the clear limiting factor. The measured frame rates show a strong correlation with resolution and settings, which is the classic signature of a GPU-bound scenario. The Radeon 880M’s lack of dedicated VRAM means it relies on system memory bandwidth, which is shared with the CPU. This creates a situation where the GPU’s performance scales poorly at higher resolutions, as seen in the steep FPS drops from 1080p to 4K.

FAQ — 4-6 Q&A pairs answerable from FACT PACK data

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

A: The data shows that 1920x1080 is the only resolution where the combo achieves playable frame rates across all settings. At 1080p, average FPS ranges from 39 (Ultra) to 79 (Low), while at 2560x1440 the range drops to 25-51, and at 3840x2160 it falls to 14-28.

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

A: The Radeon 880M has an average benchmark score of 8,436. Its nearest rival, the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 675MX, scores 8,427 (a 0.1% delta), while the AMD Radeon R9 M375X scores 8,325 (a 1.3% delta). This places the 880M in the same performance tier as these older discrete GPUs.

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

A: The GPU is the limiting component. The CPU has a Passmark multi-thread score of 24,873 and ranks at the 83rd percentile, while the GPU ranks at the 43rd percentile with a G3D score of 7,615. The frame rate scaling with resolution changes indicates GPU limitation, not CPU.

Q: What is the best playable setting at 1080p?

A: At 1920x1080, the Medium preset yields an average of 61 FPS with a minimum of 52 and maximum of 70. This is the highest quality setting that maintains an average above 60 FPS. The Low preset achieves 79 FPS, while High drops to 51 FPS and Ultra to 39 FPS.

Q: How does the combo rank among all tested systems?

A: The combo ranks 2866 out of 2939 tested combinations, placing it in the bottom 2.5% of all configurations. This low ranking reflects the GPU’s integrated nature rather than the CPU’s capability.

Q: Does the CPU’s performance vary significantly from its nearest rivals?

A: No. The Core Ultra 7 155H has an average score of 32,697. The closest rival, the AMD Ryzen 5 7400F, scores 32,750, a delta of -0.2%, while the AMD Ryzen 7 PRO 6850H scores 32,812, a delta of -0.4%. All rivals are within 0.4% of the Core Ultra 7 155H.

How This Combo Ranks

The combination of the Intel Core Ultra 7 155H and AMD Radeon 880M ranks 2866 out of 2939 tested combos in Minimum. This places the system in the bottom 2.5% of all configurations tested, indicating that it is suitable only for low-demand scenarios. The rank is primarily driven by the GPU’s performance ceiling, as the CPU is a high-end mobile processor.

The CPU alone sits at the 83rd percentile among all processors, with an average benchmark score of 32,697. This is a strong result, nearly identical to the Intel Core i5-14600T (32,707) and slightly ahead of the AMD Ryzen AI 7 PRO 360 (32,662). The GPU, however, sits at the 43rd percentile with an average score of 8,436, making it the weaker component in this pairing.

The vast gap between the CPU’s and GPU’s percentile rankings explains the combo’s low overall rank. The CPU has enough power to feed the GPU in most scenarios, but the GPU cannot translate that into high frame rates. In Minimum, this means the combo is only viable at 1080p with lower settings, as higher resolutions cause the frame rate to collapse. The rank of 2866 signifies a system that is fundamentally graphics-limited, and the data confirms that no amount of CPU headroom compensates for the integrated GPU’s limits.

Resolution Scaling

The measured FPS data reveals a clear pattern of resolution scaling that points directly to the GPU as the bottleneck. At 1920x1080 with Low settings, the combo achieves 79 FPS. Moving to 2560x1440 at Low settings, the frame rate drops to 51 FPS, a 35% reduction. At 3840x2160 with Low settings, the frame rate falls to 28 FPS, a 65% reduction from 1080p.

This scaling is consistent across all settings. At Medium settings, the frame rates are 61 FPS at 1080p, 39 FPS at 1440p, and 21 FPS at 4K. At High settings, the numbers are 51 FPS at 1080p, 33 FPS at 1440p, and 18 FPS at 4K. The Ultra preset shows the steepest drop: 39 FPS at 1080p, 25 FPS at 1440p, and 14 FPS at 4K.

The frame rate drop from 1080p to 4K is approximately 65% across all settings, which is a strong indicator of GPU limitation. If the CPU were the bottleneck, the frame rates would remain more constant across resolutions, as the CPU work does not scale with pixel count. Instead, the data shows that the Radeon 880M’s compute and memory bandwidth are exhausted as resolution increases, confirming that the integrated GPU is the limiting component. The CPU’s high single-thread score of 1,743 in Cinebench R23 is irrelevant here, as the GPU cannot push enough frames to stress the processor.

Measured FPS Breakdown

The measured FPS data for Minimum covers three resolutions and four quality presets, providing a complete picture of the combo’s performance envelope.

1920x1080 (1080p):

• Low: 79 FPS average
• Medium: 61 FPS average, with a minimum of 52 and maximum of 70
• High: 51 FPS average
• Ultra: 39 FPS average

2560x1440 (1440p):

• Low: 51 FPS average
• Medium: 39 FPS average, with a minimum of 33 and maximum of 45
• High: 33 FPS average
• Ultra: 25 FPS average

3840x2160 (4K):

• Low: 28 FPS average
• Medium: 21 FPS average, with a minimum of 18 and maximum of 24
• High: 18 FPS average
• Ultra: 14 FPS average

The 1080p data shows that only the Low and Medium presets achieve an average above 60 FPS. The Medium preset’s minimum of 52 FPS indicates occasional dips below the 60 FPS threshold, but the average of 61 FPS is acceptable for a smooth experience. The High preset at 51 FPS is playable but not ideal, while Ultra at 39 FPS is below the standard for smooth gameplay.

At 1440p, the Low preset achieves 51 FPS, which is playable, but the Medium preset drops to 39 FPS, and High and Ultra fall to 33 and 25 FPS, respectively. The 4K data shows that all presets are below 30 FPS, with Ultra at 14 FPS being effectively unplayable. The Medium preset at 4K has a minimum of 18 FPS, which is well below any acceptable threshold.

Settings Recommendations

Based on the measured FPS data, the optimal experience for this combo is at 1920x1080 with the Medium preset. This configuration delivers an average of 61 FPS with a minimum of 52 FPS, providing a balance between visual quality and smoothness. The Medium preset is the highest quality setting that maintains an average above 60 FPS, making it the recommended choice for a consistent gameplay experience.

The Low preset at 1080p achieves 79 FPS, which is smoother but at a visual quality cost. For players prioritizing frame rate over visuals, Low is the better choice, as it provides a 30% FPS increase over Medium. The High preset at 1080p drops to 51 FPS, which is below the 60 FPS threshold, and the Ultra preset at 39 FPS is not recommended due to the significant frame rate penalty.

At 2560x1440, the Low preset at 51 FPS is the only playable option, but it is still below the 60 FPS target. The Medium preset at 39 FPS is borderline, but the minimum of 33 FPS suggests potential stuttering. For 1440p, the Low preset is the only viable choice, and even then, the experience is not optimal.

At 3840x2160, none of the presets are playable, with the highest average being 28 FPS at Low. This resolution is not recommended for this combo, as the frame rates are consistently below 30 FPS across all settings. The data indicates that 1080p is the only resolution where this combo can provide a satisfactory experience, with Medium being the best settings choice for balancing quality and performance.