Minimum

# Minimum — Intel Core Ultra 7 165H + NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5060 Mobile

This benchmark analysis examines the measured frame rates for the third-person shooter Minimum (released June 25, 2014) when paired with an Intel Core Ultra 7 165H processor and an NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5060 Mobile GPU. The data covers four resolutions (1920x1080, 2560x1440, 3840x2160) across four quality presets (Low, Medium, High, Ultra), with the combo ranking 2460 out of 3712 tested combinations. The results reveal a system that scales predictably with resolution but shows distinct behavior depending on which component becomes the bottleneck.

Resolution Scaling

The measured FPS data shows a clear and consistent pattern as resolution increases from 1080p to 4K. At 1920x1080 with High settings, the combo produces 112 FPS average. Moving to 2560x1440 High drops this to 72 FPS, a reduction of roughly 36%. At 3840x2160 High, the average falls further to 39 FPS, which is about 65% lower than the 1080p result. This scaling pattern—where each step up in resolution costs a significant chunk of performance—suggests that the GPU is the primary limiting factor at higher resolutions, rather than the CPU.

The Low preset tells a similar story but with higher absolute numbers. At 1080p Low, the system achieves 175 FPS. At 1440p Low, it drops to 113 FPS (a 35% reduction), and at 4K Low, it reaches 61 FPS (a 65% reduction from 1080p). The consistency of these percentage drops across different quality settings is notable—it indicates that the resolution scaling behavior is largely independent of the graphics preset, which points to a GPU-bound scenario where pixel count drives performance more than shading complexity.

Medium settings provide the only rows with min and max FPS data, offering additional insight. At 1080p Medium, the average is 134 FPS with a min of 114 and max of 154, a spread of 40 FPS. At 1440p Medium, the average is 86 FPS with a min of 73 and max of 99, a spread of 26 FPS. At 4K Medium, the average is 46 FPS with a min of 39 and max of 53, a spread of 14 FPS. The narrowing spread at higher resolutions suggests that frame times become more consistent when the GPU is more heavily loaded, which is counterintuitive—one might expect more variance under stress. This could indicate that at lower resolutions, the CPU occasionally becomes the limiting factor, creating uneven frame pacing that smooths out once the GPU takes over as the bottleneck.

Ultra settings show the most dramatic scaling. At 1080p Ultra, the system manages 85 FPS. At 1440p Ultra, it drops to 55 FPS (a 35% reduction), and at 4K Ultra, it falls to 30 FPS (a 65% reduction from 1080p). The 4K Ultra result of exactly 30 FPS is worth noting—it's right at the edge of playability for most titles, suggesting that this combo is not well-suited for maximum quality at 4K in Minimum.

The percentage drops between 1080p and 1440p are remarkably consistent across all four presets: approximately 35% for Low, Medium, High, and Ultra. Similarly, the drop from 1080p to 4K is uniformly around 65%. This uniformity strongly indicates that the GPU's pixel throughput is the dominant constraint, with the CPU's 16 cores and 22 threads providing ample headroom to feed the graphics pipeline regardless of quality settings.

CPU Role

The Intel Core Ultra 7 165H is a 16-core, 22-thread mobile processor based on the Meteor Lake architecture, manufactured on Intel's 7nm process. It features a base clock of 3.80 GHz and a boost clock of 5.00 GHz, with a 28W TDP. The CPU has a 24 MB shared L3 cache, with 112 KB L1 and 2 MB L2 per core. This processor sits in the 84th percentile among all CPUs, with an average benchmark score of 34083.

In Cinebench R23, the CPU scores 14551 multi-core and 1759 single-core. The single-core score is notably modest relative to the multi-core result, which suggests that while the processor can handle heavily threaded workloads well, its per-thread performance is more typical of a mid-range mobile part. For Minimum, a game from 2014, single-thread performance often matters more than raw core count, as older titles frequently rely on fewer threads. The 1759 single-core score in Cinebench R23 indicates reasonable but not exceptional single-threaded capability.

The CPU's nearest rivals provide context for its overall performance. The Intel Core Ultra 5 338H scores 33989, a delta of 0.3% higher than the Ultra 7 165H. The AMD EPYC 4244P and AMD Ryzen AI 7 350 both score 34220 and 34222 respectively, each about 0.4% higher. The AMD Ryzen 7 3700X scores 34260, 0.5% higher. These deltas are all within 0.5%, meaning the Ultra 7 165H performs essentially identically to these rivals in aggregate benchmarks. For Minimum, this suggests that any of these CPUs would produce similar frame rates, as the game's CPU demands are likely modest given its age.

The Passmark multithread score of 25933 and single-thread score of 3509 further illustrate the CPU's profile. The data compression score of 291161 and floating-point math score of 66273 show strong integer and FP throughput, which could help in games that use physics calculations. However, for a 2014 shooter, the CPU's capabilities are likely overkill—the bottleneck in this system is almost certainly the GPU, especially at higher resolutions.

At 1080p Low, the system achieves 175 FPS, which approaches the refresh rate of many high-end gaming monitors. If the CPU were a limiting factor, we would expect to see diminishing returns as resolution drops, but the scaling pattern from 1080p to 1440p to 4K is remarkably linear in percentage terms. This suggests the CPU is not constraining performance at any tested resolution, leaving the RTX 5060 Mobile as the primary determinant of frame rates.

FAQ

*Q: Is the Intel Core Ultra 7 165H powerful enough to avoid bottlenecking the RTX 5060 Mobile in Minimum?*

A: Yes. The CPU ranks in the 84th percentile among all processors with an average benchmark score of 34083, and the FPS scaling from 1080p to 4K is uniform across all quality presets (roughly 35% drop to 1440p and 65% drop to 4K). This consistent scaling pattern indicates the GPU is the limiting component, not the CPU.

Q: What is the best resolution for this combo to maintain 60+ FPS?

A: At 1920x1080, all four presets exceed 60 FPS, ranging from 85 FPS at Ultra to 175 FPS at Low. At 2560x1440, Low (113 FPS), Medium (86 FPS), and High (72 FPS) all stay above 60 FPS, but Ultra drops to 55 FPS. At 3840x2160, only Low (61 FPS) barely clears 60 FPS, with Medium at 46 FPS, High at 39 FPS, and Ultra at 30 FPS.

Q: How does the RTX 5060 Mobile compare to its nearest GPU rivals?

A: The RTX 5060 Mobile has an average benchmark score of 22435, placing it in the 67th percentile of all GPUs. It trails the AMD Radeon RX 7700 XT by 0.5% (22549), but leads the AMD Radeon RX 5700 by 1.2% (22170) and the AMD Radeon RX 6700S by 1.3% (22154). It is 1.3% behind the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4060 Mobile (22729).

Q: Does the game run better with Medium settings at 1440p or High at 1080p?

A: Medium at 2560x1440 produces 86 FPS average with a min of 73 and max of 99. High at 1920x1080 produces 112 FPS average with no min/max recorded. The 1080p High result offers a 30% higher frame rate, but the 1440p Medium result provides more pixels with a still-playable frame rate.

Q: What does the combo's rank of 2460 out of 3712 mean for performance?

A: The rank places this combo in the bottom third of all tested combinations in the database for Minimum. This is somewhat surprising given the modern components, but the game's age and the GPU's 67th percentile standing among all GPUs likely contribute to this lower ranking relative to other combos.

*Q: Is 4K gaming viable with this hardware in Minimum?*

A: Only at Low settings, where the combo achieves 61 FPS average. Medium drops to 46 FPS, High to 39 FPS, and Ultra to 30 FPS. For a third-person shooter, 39-46 FPS may be acceptable for casual play, but competitive play would favor 1440p or 1080p.

How This Combo Ranks

The Intel Core Ultra 7 165H + NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5060 Mobile combination ranks 2460 out of 3712 tested combos in Minimum, placing it in the 33rd percentile of all systems in the database. This is a surprisingly low position for hardware that is relatively modern—the CPU was released in December 2023 and the GPU in May 2025. The rank suggests that many older or more balanced combinations outperform this pairing in this specific title.

The CPU's percentile ranking (84th among all CPUs) is significantly higher than the GPU's (67th among all GPUs), which hints at an imbalance. The RTX 5060 Mobile, despite its 8 GB of GDDR7 memory and 384.0 GB/s bandwidth, appears to be the weaker link in this pairing for Minimum. The GPU's average benchmark score of 22435 is only slightly above its nearest rival, the AMD Radeon RX 7700 XT, which scores 22549—a mere 0.5% difference.

What's striking about the combo rank is how it contrasts with the component-level rankings. A CPU in the 84th percentile paired with a GPU in the 67th percentile should theoretically land somewhere in the middle, yet the combo sits at the 33rd percentile among tested systems. This discrepancy could indicate that Minimum is particularly sensitive to certain GPU characteristics, such as the RTX 5060 Mobile's 9.684 TFLOPS FP32 throughput, which is modest for a modern GPU. Alternatively, it may suggest that the tested combos skew toward high-end desktop systems that are better suited to this game.

The GPU's nearest rival, the RTX 4060 Mobile, scores 1.3% higher on average yet the combination ranking places this system in the bottom third. This implies that in Minimum specifically, the RTX 5060 Mobile's architectural advantages (Blackwell 2.0, 21,900 million transistors, 5nm process) do not translate into direct performance gains, possibly because the game's rendering techniques favor older GPU designs or because driver optimization for a 2014 title is limited.

GPU Role

The NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5060 Mobile is built on the Blackwell 2.0 architecture, fabricated by TSMC on a 5nm process. The chip, designated GB206, contains 21,900 million transistors on a 181 mm² die, giving it a transistor density of 121.0M per mm². The GPU operates at a base clock of 952 MHz and a boost clock of 1455 MHz, with memory running at 1500 MHz (24 Gbps effective). It has 3328 shading units, 104 TMUs, and 48 ROPs, along with 26 RT cores and 104 tensor cores. The pixel rate is 69.84 GPixel/s and texture rate is 151.3 GTexel/s.

The GPU's 8 GB of GDDR7 memory on a 128-bit bus delivers a bandwidth of 384.0 GB/s. This is a modest memory configuration for a modern GPU, and in Minimum, the 8 GB capacity is unlikely to be a constraint given the game's 2014 vintage. However, the bandwidth might come into play at higher resolutions, where texture streaming and framebuffer access become more demanding. The measured FPS data suggests this is not a major issue—the scaling from 1080p to 4K is smooth and predictable.

In synthetic benchmarks, the RTX 5060 Mobile achieves a 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 score of 3013.5, which reflects its DirectX 12 Ultimate capability (12_2). The Geekbench OpenCL score of 96969 and Vulkan score of 96451 are nearly identical, indicating balanced compute performance across APIs. Passmark scores show 18852 in G3D and 7607 in GPU compute, with the DirectX 11 score of 168, DirectX 12 score of 87, and DirectX 9 score of 203.

The GPU's percentile ranking of 67th among all GPUs places it in the upper-mid range, but its nearest rivals show how close the competition is. The AMD Radeon RX 7700 XT scores 22549 (0.5% higher), the AMD Radeon RX 5700 scores 22170 (1.2% lower), and the AMD Radeon RX 6700S scores 22154 (1.3% lower). The RTX 4060 Mobile, the direct predecessor, scores 22729 (1.3% higher). These deltas are tight, meaning the RTX 5060 Mobile is not a clear performance leader in its class.

In Minimum, the GPU's 4K performance is the most revealing metric. At 4K Ultra, the system averages 30 FPS, which is exactly half the 60 FPS target. At 4K High, it reaches 39 FPS, and at 4K Medium, 46 FPS. Only 4K Low exceeds 60 FPS at 61 FPS. This pattern indicates that the RTX 5060 Mobile's 9.684 TFLOPS of FP32 compute is insufficient for heavy 4K workloads in this game, despite its modern architecture and high memory bandwidth.

Measured FPS Breakdown

At 1920x1080, the measured average FPS across settings is as follows: Low produces 175 FPS, Medium produces 134 FPS (min 114, max 154), High produces 112 FPS, and Ultra produces 85 FPS. The spread between Low and Ultra is 90 FPS, showing a wide performance envelope depending on quality preferences. The Medium preset's min-max range of 40 FPS indicates considerable frame time variance, which could manifest as stuttering in gameplay.

At 2560x1440, the averages are: Low at 113 FPS, Medium at 86 FPS (min 73, max 99), High at 72 FPS, and Ultra at 55 FPS. The gap between Low and Ultra narrows to 58 FPS, and the Medium min-max range shrinks to 26 FPS. The 1440p Ultra result of 55 FPS is just below the 60 FPS threshold, which means gamers seeking a smooth experience must drop to High or below.

At 3840x2160, the averages are: Low at 61 FPS, Medium at 46 FPS (min 39, max 53), High at 39 FPS, and Ultra at 30 FPS. The Low preset barely clears 60 FPS, while every other setting falls below playable thresholds for competitive gaming. The Medium min-max range of 14 FPS is the tightest of any resolution, suggesting that at 4K, the GPU is consistently saturated and frame pacing becomes more uniform.

Comparing across resolutions for each setting reveals the scaling factors. For Low, 1440p is 64.6% of 1080p performance, and 4K is 34.9% of 1080p. For Medium, 1440p is 64.2% and 4K is 34.3%. For High, 1440p is 64.3% and 4K is 34.8%. For Ultra, 1440p is 64.7% and 4K is 35.3%. These percentages are remarkably consistent, with the 4K scaling hovering around 34-35% across all settings. This uniformity strongly implies that the GPU's pixel fill rate is the dominant constraint, as the relative performance drop is identical regardless of shading workload.

Settings Recommendations

For players targeting 60 FPS as a minimum, the data suggests different optimal settings depending on resolution. At 1920x1080, all four presets exceed 60 FPS, with Ultra providing 85 FPS—this is the highest quality setting that still maintains a comfortable margin above 60. For those with high refresh rate displays, Medium at 134 FPS or Low at 175 FPS would be preferable, but High at 112 FPS offers a strong balance between visual quality and smoothness.

At 2560x1440, the choices narrow. High produces 72 FPS, which clears the 60 FPS bar with some headroom)Skip. Medium produces 86 FPS, offering a 19% improvement over High with presumably reduced visual fidelity. Ultra at 55 FPS falls short of 60 FPS, making it a poor choice for smooth gameplay. The recommendation here is High for balanced quality, or Medium if frame rate stability is paramount.

At 3840x2160, only Low at 61 FPS achieves the 60 FPS target, and it does so barely. Medium at 46 FPS and High at 39 FPS are usable for less demanding play, but Ultra at 30 FPS is only suitable for screenshots or cinematic viewing. Given that the game is a third-person shooter, where aiming precision matters, 4K is not recommended for competitive play with this hardware. The 1440p High preset at 72 FPS offers a better overall experience than 4K Low at 61 FPS, with nearly double the frame rate and only a modest resolution penalty.

The Medium preset's min FPS data provides additional guidance. At 1080p Medium, the min of 114 FPS ensures no drops below 100 FPS. At 1440p Medium, the min of 73 FPS keeps frames above 70. At 4K Medium, the min of 39 FPS means occasional dips below 40. For the smoothest experience, 1080p Medium or High are the safest choices, while 1440p High offers the best visual quality without sacrificing the 60 FPS floor. The absence of min FPS data for other presets means their frame pacing consistency is unknown, but the Medium preset's recorded ranges suggest it is a stable choice across all resolutions.