Minimum

FAQ

Q: How does the Intel Core Ultra 7 165H compare to its nearest rivals in synthetic CPU benchmarks?

A: The Core Ultra 7 165H posts an average benchmark score of 34,083, placing it just 0.3% above the Intel Core Ultra 5 338H (33,989) and essentially neck-and-neck with the AMD EPYC 4244P, which trails by 0.4%. The AMD Ryzen AI 7 350 also sits 0.4% behind, while the AMD Ryzen 7 3700X is 0.5% slower in this aggregate metric.

Q: What is the GPU's competitive position relative to its closest alternatives?

A: The AMD Radeon 880M achieves an average benchmark score of 8,436, ranking in the 43rd percentile among all GPUs. Its nearest rival, the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 675MX, is essentially tied at 8,427 (0.1% slower). The NVIDIA GeForce MX330 is 0.3% ahead, while the AMD Radeon HD 8870M also sits 0.3% ahead; the AMD Radeon R9 M375X is 1.3% behind.

Q: How does the combo rank in this specific game compared to all tested combinations?

A: The combination of the Intel Core Ultra 7 165H and AMD Radeon 880M ranks 2,866 out of 2,939 tested combos in Minimum. This places it in the bottom percentile of systems, indicating that this pair is heavily constrained when running this title.

Q: What is the playable frame rate at 1080p with low settings?

A: At 1920x1080 with Low settings, the combo delivers an average of 79 FPS. This is the only measured configuration in the entire dataset that exceeds the 60 FPS threshold, making it the sole setup where the game approaches smooth, playable performance.

Q: Are there any frame time consistency data points available?

A: The dataset only includes minimum and maximum FPS values for Medium settings across all three resolutions. At 1080p Medium, the frame rate fluctuates between 52 and 70 FPS (average 61). At 1440p Medium, it ranges from 33 to 45 FPS (average 39), and at 4K Medium, from 18 to 24 FPS (average 21). No min/max data is provided for Low, High, or Ultra presets.

Q: How does the CPU's single-threaded performance compare to its multi-threaded capability?

A: The Core Ultra 7 165H scores 1,759 in Cinebench R23 single-core and 14,551 in multi-core, showing a roughly 8.3x scaling factor. In PassMark, the single-thread score is 3,509 while the multi-thread score is 25,933, indicating strong parallel scaling across its 16 cores and 22 threads.

GPU Role

The AMD Radeon 880M is an integrated graphics processor built on the RDNA 3.5 architecture, fabricated on TSMC's 4 nm process. It packs 768 shading units, 48 texture mapping units, and 16 raster operation units, along with 12 ray tracing cores. The GPU operates with a base clock of 400 MHz and a boost clock of 2900 MHz, delivering a peak FP32 throughput of 4.454 TFLOPS. The memory subsystem is entirely system-shared, meaning the GPU relies on the host CPU's memory for both capacity and bandwidth — this makes performance heavily dependent on the system's RAM configuration.

In the context of Minimum, the GPU's role is decisive but limiting. The measured FPS data shows that the 880M becomes the primary bottleneck at every resolution above 1080p. At 4K Ultra, the average frame rate collapses to 14 FPS, which is barely a slideshow. The GPU's 43rd percentile ranking among all GPUs — with an average benchmark score of 8,436 — situates it in the lower-mid tier of graphics hardware, roughly on par with a decade-old NVIDIA GeForce GTX 675MX. That comparison is telling: the 880M is competitive with discrete GPUs from the early 2010s, which explains why it struggles with a 2014-era third-person shooter at high resolutions.

The integrated nature of the GPU also means that the Core Ultra 7 165H's memory bandwidth (89.6 GB/s) is shared between CPU and GPU workloads. The GPU's memory bandwidth is listed as "System Dependent," which means the dual-channel DDR5 configuration of the host platform directly determines how quickly textures and geometry can be fed to the rendering pipeline. This shared-memory architecture is a key reason why the 880M cannot sustain playable frame rates beyond 1080p Low.

Settings Recommendations

The measured data provides a clear hierarchy of performance across settings presets. At 1920x1080, the Low preset delivers an average of 79 FPS, which is the only configuration in the entire dataset that approaches smooth, competitive gameplay. Medium at 1080p drops to 61 FPS average (with a range of 52-70), which is still playable but noticeably less fluid. High at 1080p yields 51 FPS average, and Ultra falls to 39 FPS — both below the 60 FPS target for a third-person shooter.

For the best experience, the data strongly recommends the Low preset at 1080p. The jump from Low to Medium costs 18 FPS (from 79 to 61), which is a 23% performance penalty for what is likely a modest visual improvement. The jump from Medium to High costs another 10 FPS (61 to 51), and High to Ultra costs 12 FPS (51 to 39). The performance curve is steep and linear, suggesting that the GPU's shading units and texture units are saturated even at modest settings.

At 2560x1440, the situation becomes more constrained. Low delivers 51 FPS average, which is borderline playable but below the 60 FPS ideal. Medium drops to 39 FPS, High to 33 FPS, and Ultra to 25 FPS. None of these configurations meet the 60 FPS threshold, so users targeting 1440p must accept frame rates in the 25-51 range depending on settings. The Low preset at 1440p is the only viable option for anything resembling smooth gameplay.

At 3840x2160, the GPU is simply overwhelmed. Low yields 28 FPS average, Medium 21 FPS, High 18 FPS, and Ultra 14 FPS. None of these are playable for a shooter, and even the Low preset fails to reach 30 FPS. The data indicates that 4K is not a realistic target for this integrated GPU in Minimum.

The optimal configuration is unambiguous: 1920x1080 with Low settings. This delivers 79 FPS average, which provides the headroom needed for stable frame pacing and responsive input. Users who prioritize visual quality over frame rate might consider Medium at 1080p (61 FPS), but the 23% performance hit is significant for a genre where reaction time matters.

How This Combo Ranks

The combination of the Intel Core Ultra 7 165H and AMD Radeon 880M ranks 2,866 out of 2,939 tested combos in Minimum. This places it in the 2.5th percentile of all tested systems, meaning 97.5% of combinations outperform it in this game. The ranking is a stark illustration of how the integrated GPU holds back what is otherwise a reasonably capable mobile processor.

The CPU itself is not the limiting factor in this pairing. The Core Ultra 7 165H scores in the 84th percentile among all CPUs, with an average benchmark score of 34,083. Its nearest rivals — the Core Ultra 5 338H, EPYC 4244P, Ryzen AI 7 350, and Ryzen 7 3700X — are all within 0.5% of its aggregate score. This is a top-tier mobile processor by synthetic metrics. The problem is that the 880M GPU sits in the 43rd percentile among GPUs, creating a massive imbalance between CPU and GPU capability.

This imbalance is reflected in the game's performance. The CPU could theoretically push far higher frame rates if paired with a discrete GPU, but the integrated graphics caps performance at 79 FPS even at 1080p Low. The combo rank of 2,866 out of 2,939 is a direct consequence of this bottleneck. The data suggests that users who prioritize gaming performance should consider a system with a discrete GPU, even a modest one, rather than relying on the 880M.

The rank also highlights the generational gap between the CPU and GPU. The Core Ultra 7 165H was released in December 2023 and represents Intel's latest mobile architecture (Meteor Lake, 7 nm process). The Radeon 880M, released in July 2024, is AMD's latest integrated graphics. Despite both being current-generation parts, their combined performance in Minimum is comparable to systems from nearly a decade ago, as evidenced by the GPU's nearest rivals being the GTX 675MX and HD 8870M.

Resolution Scaling

The FPS data reveals a clear and predictable scaling pattern as resolution increases. Starting from 1080p Low at 79 FPS, moving to 1440p Low reduces performance to 51 FPS — a 35% drop. Moving to 4K Low further reduces it to 28 FPS — another 45% drop from 1440p, and a 65% drop from 1080p. This scaling is consistent with a GPU-bound scenario, where the rendering resolution directly dictates the workload on the GPU's shading units and ROPs.

The scaling pattern is similar across all settings presets. At High settings, 1080p yields 51 FPS, 1440p yields 33 FPS (35% drop), and 4K yields 18 FPS (45% drop from 1440p). At Medium, the progression is 61 → 39 → 21 FPS, with drops of 36% and 46% respectively. At Ultra, it is 39 → 25 → 14 FPS, with drops of 36% and 44%. The consistency of these percentages — roughly 35% for the 1080p-to-1440p transition and 45% for the 1440p-to-4K transition — indicates that the GPU is the sole limiting factor across all settings.

This consistent scaling has a clear implication: the CPU is not bottlenecking at any resolution. If the CPU were the constraint, we would expect frame rates to plateau or drop less steeply as resolution increases, because the CPU workload would remain constant while the GPU workload grows. Instead, the near-linear scaling with pixel count (1080p has 2.07M pixels, 1440p has 3.69M, 4K has 8.29M) confirms a purely GPU-limited scenario.

The pixel-count ratios are instructive. 1440p has 1.78x the pixels of 1080p, and the measured FPS drops by roughly 1.55x (79 → 51 at Low). 4K has 4x the pixels of 1080p, and the FPS drops by 2.82x (79 → 28 at Low). The sub-linear scaling suggests that some overhead (draw calls, fixed-function work) is resolution-independent, but the dominant factor is clearly the GPU's fill rate and shading throughput. This is a textbook GPU-bound profile.

Measured FPS Breakdown

1920x1080 (1080p):

• Low: 79 FPS average — the only measured configuration exceeding 60 FPS. This is the baseline for playable performance.
• Medium: 61 FPS average, with a measured range of 52 to 70 FPS. The variance of 18 FPS indicates some frame pacing inconsistency.
• High: 51 FPS average — playable but below the 60 FPS target for competitive shooters.
• Ultra: 39 FPS average — noticeably stuttery for a third-person shooter, with no min/max data provided.

2560x1440 (1440p):

• Low: 51 FPS average — borderline playable, matching the 1080p High performance level.
• Medium: 39 FPS average, with a range of 33 to 45 FPS. The 12 FPS variance is tighter than at 1080p.
• High: 33 FPS average — below the 30 FPS threshold for console-like playability.
• Ultra: 25 FPS average — not playable for a shooter.

3840x2160 (4K):

• Low: 28 FPS average — the only 4K setting that approaches 30 FPS.
• Medium: 21 FPS average, with a range of 18 to 24 FPS. The 6 FPS variance is the tightest of any resolution.
• High: 18 FPS average — effectively a slideshow.
• Ultra: 14 FPS average — the worst measured configuration, roughly 18% of the 1080p Low performance.

The data shows that the 880M has a hard ceiling around 79 FPS even at the lowest settings and resolution. The Medium preset at 1080p (61 FPS) is the only other configuration that stays above 60 FPS, but its 52-70 FPS range means it will occasionally dip below the threshold. For users who demand consistent 60+ FPS, 1080p Low is the only choice. Everything else requires accepting frame rates below 60 FPS, with 1440p Low (51 FPS) being the best compromise for higher resolution, and 4K being entirely impractical for this game.