Minimum

The Intel Core Ultra 7 155H is a 16-core, 22-thread mobile processor based on the Meteor Lake architecture, running on a 7 nm process. Its base clock is 3.80 GHz with a boost clock of 4.80 GHz, and it carries 24 MB of shared L3 cache. In synthetic benchmarks, this CPU posts a Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 15028 and a single-core score of 1743. Its PassMark multithread score is 24873, with a single-thread score of 3468. These figures place the processor in the 83rd percentile against all CPUs, with an average benchmark score of 32697. Compared to its nearest rivals, the data shows a dead heat: it is exactly 0% faster than the Intel Core i5-14600T (which scores 32707), and only 0.1% faster than the AMD Ryzen AI 7 PRO 360 (scoring 32662). It is actually 0.2% slower than the AMD Ryzen 5 7400F (32750) and 0.4% slower than the AMD Ryzen 7 PRO 6850H (32812). For a game like Minimum, a Third-Person Shooter from 2014, the CPU’s role is primarily to feed the GPU with draw calls and game logic. The high boost clock of 4.80 GHz ensures that single-threaded tasks, which often dominate in older game engines, are handled briskly. However, the benchmark results for this combo suggest that the CPU is not the primary bottleneck at most settings, as the frame rates scale heavily with resolution, which is a classic sign of GPU limitation. The 22 threads provide ample headroom for background tasks, but the data indicates that the game’s performance is more sensitive to graphical load than to processor core count. The 83rd percentile ranking confirms this is a strong mobile chip, but its performance parity with the listed rivals means that in Minimum, you should not expect CPU-bound differences to be the deciding factor between systems.

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

The Intel Core Ultra 7 155H brings 16 cores and 22 threads to the table, a configuration designed for heavy multi-threaded workloads. With a base clock of 3.80 GHz and a boost clock of 4.80 GHz, the processor can rapidly switch between efficiency and performance demands. In the context of Minimum, the game’s release date of 2014 suggests an engine that may not fully utilize 22 threads, but the strong single-core performance, evidenced by a Cinebench R23 single-core score of 1743, is crucial for maintaining minimum frame pacing. The PassMark single-thread score of 3468 reinforces this, showing that the CPU can handle the legacy code paths that often bottleneck in older titles. The multi-core might, represented by a Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 15028, is impressive, but the measured FPS data shows that the CPU is rarely the limiting factor. For instance, at 1080p Low settings, the combo achieves 199 FPS, but at 1080p Ultra, it drops to 97 FPS. If the CPU were the bottleneck, we would expect similar frame rates regardless of settings, as the CPU work would remain constant. The fact that the frame rate drops by over half from Low to Ultra at the same resolution clearly indicates that the GPU is struggling with the increased graphical load, not the CPU. The CPU’s place in the 83rd percentile of all processors, with a 0% delta compared to the Intel Core i5-14600T, suggests that it is a capable partner for the RTX 5070, but it does not have the raw headroom to push the GPU much harder in this specific title. The 24 MB of L3 cache helps with game data locality, but it is the combination of high boost clocks and sufficient core count that ensures the GPU is fed with data, even if the GPU is the one working overtime.

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

The NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5070 is the clear driver of performance in this pairing. It features 12 GB of GDDR7 memory on a 192-bit bus, delivering a bandwidth of 672.0 GB/s. The GPU’s base clock is 2325 MHz, with a boost clock of 2512 MHz. This memory configuration is crucial for Minimum, as higher resolutions and texture settings demand more video memory bandwidth. The GPU’s PassMark G3D score is 29137, placing it in the 82nd percentile of all GPUs, with an average benchmark score of 40377. Its nearest rivals are oddly matched: it is 0.1% faster than the AMD Radeon Pro 580 (40318), 0.8% faster than the AMD Radeon Pro WX 7100 (40063), but 1.2% slower than the AMD Radeon Pro 5300 (40870) and 2% slower than the NVIDIA RTX A500 Mobile (39568). These delta values are small, indicating that the RTX 5070 is positioned in a tight performance band, but the measured FPS in Minimum shows it is more than capable of handling the game. The GPU’s role becomes apparent when examining the resolution scaling. At 1080p Low, the combo hits 199 FPS, but at 4K Ultra, it falls to 34 FPS. This 5.8x drop in frame rate while the resolution increases by 4x and the settings increase shows that the GPU is the primary bottleneck at higher loads. The 12 GB of VRAM is sufficient for the game’s demands, as we do not see data suggesting memory capacity issues. The boost clock of 2512 MHz provides the raw compute power, with an FP32 performance of 30.87 TFLOPS, which is necessary to handle the pixel and texture processing at 4K. The GPU’s 48 RT cores and 192 tensor cores are likely underutilized in this 2014 title, but the standard shader performance, with 6144 shading units, is what drives the frame rates. The data shows that at 1440p High, the combo achieves 82 FPS, which is a solid playable frame rate, indicating that the GPU has enough headroom for this resolution without breaking a sweat.

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

The measured FPS data provides a clear picture of how the system scales with resolution. At 1080p Low, the combo averages 199 FPS. Moving to 1440p Low, the frame rate drops to 128 FPS, a 36% decrease. At 4K Low, it further drops to 69 FPS, which is a 46% decrease from 1440p and a 65% decrease from 1080p. This scaling pattern is typical of a GPU-bound scenario. If the CPU were the limiting factor, the frame rate would remain relatively constant as resolution increases, because the CPU work (game logic, physics) stays the same, while the GPU work (rendering pixels) increases. The fact that the frame rate drops consistently with resolution increases indicates that the RTX 5070 is the bottleneck. The data for High settings shows a similar trend: 128 FPS at 1080p, 82 FPS at 1440p (a 36% drop), and 44 FPS at 4K (a 46% drop from 1440p). The consistency of these percentage drops across settings strongly suggests that the GPU is the limiting component. The CPU, with its high boost clocks, is able to keep up with the GPU’s demands at lower resolutions, but as the pixel count rises, the GPU’s raw fill rate and shading power become the constraining factor. The 4K Ultra result of 34 FPS is particularly telling; it is a demanding scenario that the GPU cannot handle, dropping below playable thresholds. This scaling analysis shows that for Minimum, the RTX 5070 is the component to watch. If you are aiming for high refresh rates, you will need to stay at 1080p or 1440p, as the GPU does not have the horsepower to maintain high frame rates at 4K with anything above Low settings. The data suggests a 2x performance penalty for doubling the resolution, which is a classic sign of GPU limitation, not a CPU or memory bandwidth issue.

How This Combo Ranks — use comboRankInGame vs other tested combos

This specific combination of the Intel Core Ultra 7 155H and the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5070 ranks 1584 out of 2939 tested combos in Minimum. This places it in the 54th percentile of all tested systems. While this might seem like a mid-pack result, it is important to consider the context. The rank includes a wide variety of hardware, from low-end integrated graphics to top-tier desktop setups. For a mobile processor paired with a mid-range desktop GPU, this rank is respectable. The data shows that the combo is not at the top, which is expected given the mobile CPU’s thermal constraints, but it is also not at the bottom. The rank of 1584 suggests that there are many faster combos, likely those with desktop-class CPUs and higher-end GPUs. However, the measured FPS shows that this combo is perfectly capable of running the game at high frame rates at 1080p and 1440p. The fact that it sits in the middle of the pack is more a reflection of the competition than a weakness of this pairing. The CPU’s performance parity with its rivals (0% delta vs. the i5-14600T) and the GPU’s tight performance band (0.1% to 2% deltas vs. rivals) suggest that this combo is a balanced pairing, where neither component is drastically outperforming the other. The rank indicates that while there is headroom for improvement, the system is not fundamentally flawed. For a mobile platform, achieving a rank above the median is a positive sign. The data shows that the combo is capable of delivering playable frame rates at most settings, and the rank is a summary of its overall performance across all tested scenarios. It is not a top-tier combo, but it is a competent one that will not disappoint for this game.

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

Based on the measured FPS data, the optimal settings preset depends on your target resolution and frame rate preference. At 1080p, the Medium preset delivers an average of 152 FPS, with a minimum of 129 FPS and a maximum of 175 FPS. This is an excellent balance between visual quality and performance, ensuring a smooth experience on high refresh rate monitors. The High preset at 1080p drops to 128 FPS, which is still very playable, but the Medium preset offers a 19% performance uplift with likely minimal visual differences in a game from 2014. The Ultra preset at 1080p yields 97 FPS, which is still above 60 FPS, but the jump from Medium to Ultra only adds visual fidelity that may not be worth the 36% performance loss. At 1440p, the Medium preset is the best choice, with an average of 98 FPS and a minimum of 83 FPS. This ensures that the frame rate stays above the 60 FPS threshold for most of the time, providing a smooth experience. The High preset at 1440p drops to 82 FPS, which is still acceptable, but the Medium preset gives you more headroom to avoid dips. The Low preset at 1440p offers 128 FPS, which is overkill for most monitors, and the visual quality loss is likely not worth it. At 4K, the situation is different. The Medium preset yields 53 FPS, with a minimum of 45 FPS, which is borderline playable but may suffer from noticeable stuttering. The Low preset gives 69 FPS, which is more comfortable, but you are sacrificing visual quality to achieve it. The High preset at 4K drops to 44 FPS, which is below the playable threshold for many. For the best experience, the data suggests that Medium settings are the sweet spot, as they provide the best balance of visual quality and frame rate stability across all resolutions. If you have a 1080p or 1440p monitor, Medium is the clear winner. For 4K, you may need to drop to Low to maintain a consistently smooth frame rate, but the Medium preset is still viable if you can tolerate occasional dips below 60 FPS.

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

The measured FPS data provides a detailed look at the system’s performance. At 1920x1080, the average frame rates are as follows: Low settings produce 199 FPS, Medium settings produce 152 FPS (with a minimum of 129 and a maximum of 175), High settings produce 128 FPS, and Ultra settings produce 97 FPS. This shows a clear progression: as settings increase, frame rates decrease. The delta between Low and Medium is 47 FPS, which is a 24% drop. The delta between Medium and High is 24 FPS, a 16% drop. The delta between High and Ultra is 31 FPS, a 24% drop. These numbers indicate that the GPU is handling the increased load well at this resolution, but the Ultra preset is starting to strain. At 2560x1440, the average frame rates are: Low settings produce 128 FPS, Medium settings produce 98 FPS (with a minimum of 83 and a maximum of 113), High settings produce 82 FPS, and Ultra settings produce 63 FPS. The drop from Low to Medium is 30 FPS (23%), from Medium to High is 16 FPS (16%), and from High to Ultra is 19 FPS (23%). The frame rates are still playable at all settings, but the Ultra preset is just above the 60 FPS mark. At 3840x2160, the average frame rates are: Low settings produce 69 FPS, Medium settings produce 53 FPS (with a minimum of 45 and a maximum of 61), High settings produce 44 FPS, and Ultra settings produce 34 FPS. The drop from Low to Medium is 16 FPS (23%), from Medium to High is 9 FPS (17%), and from High to Ultra is 10 FPS (23%). At this resolution, the system struggles to maintain high frame rates, with only the Low preset providing a comfortable margin above 60 FPS. The data shows that the system is best suited for 1080p and 1440p gaming, where it can achieve high frame rates at most settings. For 4K, the system is only viable on Low settings, and even then, it is not ideal for high refresh rate displays. The minimum FPS numbers, only provided for the Medium preset, show that the system maintains a consistent frame rate without major dips, which is a positive sign for overall stability.