Minimum

The Intel Core Ultra 7 165H paired with the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5090 delivers a wide performance envelope in Minimum, spanning from highly playable 4K Ultra to exceptionally high refresh rate 1080p Low. The data set shows a clear trend: this combination is overwhelmingly GPU-bound at lower resolutions, while the CPU begins to influence performance at 4K Ultra. The benchmark results indicate that the best experience depends entirely on the target display and refresh rate, but the 1440p Medium preset offers the most balanced blend of visual fidelity and frame rate for high-refresh monitors.

Settings Recommendations

For users with a 1440p 144Hz display, the Medium preset is the definitive sweet spot. The measured data shows an average of 144 FPS at 2560x1440 with Medium settings, which exactly matches the refresh rate of common high-end monitors. The minimum FPS for this configuration is 123, ensuring that frame pacing remains smooth even during intense combat sequences. This is a superior choice over the High preset, which averages 121 FPS and may occasionally drop below the 144Hz threshold. The Medium preset at 1440p provides a 19% performance uplift over High while delivering a visually similar experience, making it the most efficient setting.

At 4K, the analysis changes. The Medium preset at 3840x2160 averages 78 FPS with a minimum of 66 FPS. This is the only 4K setting with recorded minimum and maximum values (66 and 89 respectively), indicating a stable frame delivery. The High preset at 4K averages 65 FPS, which is playable but leaves less headroom for demanding scenes. The Ultra preset at 4K drops to 50 FPS, which is below the threshold for smooth gameplay on most modern displays. Therefore, for 4K, Medium is the recommended preset as it provides a 20% improvement over High and a 56% improvement over Ultra while maintaining a consistent frame rate.

For competitive play at 1080p, the Low preset is the clear winner. At 1920x1080 with Low settings, the system achieves an average of 293 FPS. This far exceeds the refresh rate of even the fastest gaming monitors, providing maximum responsiveness with minimal input lag. The Medium preset at 1080p averages 224 FPS (minimum 190), which is also excellent but leaves performance on the table for users seeking the absolute highest frame rates. The High preset at 1080p averages 188 FPS, which is still competitive but represents a 36% reduction compared to Low. The data suggests that for esports-focused play, Low settings are optimal.

The Ultra preset is only recommended for users with 1080p 144Hz displays who prioritize visual quality above all else. At 1920x1080 Ultra, the system averages 143 FPS, which just meets the 144Hz threshold. At 1440p Ultra, the average drops to 92 FPS, which is better suited for 60-90Hz displays. It's notable that the performance delta between Medium and Ultra at the same resolution is substantial: at 1080p, Ultra is 36% slower than Medium; at 1440p, it is 36% slower; at 4K, it is 36% slower. This consistency indicates that Ultra imposes a near-constant rendering cost multiplier across all resolutions.

How This Combo Ranks

This specific combination of the Intel Core Ultra 7 165H and NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5090 ranks 581st out of 2939 tested combos in Minimum, placing it in the top 19.8% of all configurations. This is a strong result, given that the combo pairs a mobile CPU (the 165H) with a desktop-class GPU (the RTX 5090). The ranking suggests that the GPU is doing most of the heavy lifting, as the CPU's mobile pedigree does not bottleneck the overall experience in most scenarios.

The benchmark data shows that the RTX 5090 sits in the 92nd percentile among all GPUs, while the Core Ultra 7 165H sits in the 84th percentile among all CPUs. This asymmetry in raw compute capability is reflected in the game's performance scaling. At lower resolutions like 1080p, the combo delivers frame rates exceeding 290 FPS, which indicates that the CPU is capable of feeding the GPU enough data to saturate its rendering pipeline. However, the combo's rank of 581 suggests that there are 580 other combinations that achieve better overall performance in Minimum, likely those pairing the RTX 5090 with higher-end desktop CPUs.

The CPU's nearest rivals in synthetic benchmarks provide context for its performance tier. The Core Ultra 7 165H has an average benchmark score of 34083, which is 0.3% higher than the Intel Core Ultra 5 338H (33989) and 0.4% higher than the AMD EPYC 4244P (34220) and AMD Ryzen AI 7 350 (34222). It trails the AMD Ryzen 7 3700X (34260) by 0.5%. These deltaPct values are all within 0.5%, indicating that the 165H is competitively positioned in the mid-range CPU market. In Minimum, this means the CPU is unlikely to be the primary bottleneck except in extreme CPU-bound scenarios, which the data suggests are rare for this title.

GPU Role

The NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5090 is the dominant component in this pairing, and its specifications directly explain the game's performance at various settings. The GPU features a massive 32 GB of GDDR7 memory on a 512-bit bus, delivering 1.79 TB/s of bandwidth. This memory configuration is overkill for Minimum, a 2014 title that was never designed to use such resources. However, the sheer memory bandwidth ensures that texture streaming and high-resolution assets are never a limiting factor, even at 4K Ultra.

The GPU's clock speeds are equally impressive: a base clock of 2017 MHz and a boost clock of 2407 MHz. The boost clock is particularly relevant for gaming, as it represents the sustained maximum frequency under load. The data shows that at 4K Ultra, the system averages 50 FPS, which suggests the GPU is being pushed to its limits. At 4K Low, the average jumps to 102 FPS, indicating that the GPU's rendering load is significantly reduced when visual effects are lowered. This pattern confirms that the RTX 5090 is the primary performance driver, with its 104.8 TFLOPS of FP32 compute power being the main resource consumed by higher settings.

The GPU's 92nd percentile ranking among all GPUs is validated by the measured frame rates. At 1080p Low, the system achieves 293 FPS, which is an exceptional result that places it well above the performance of typical configurations. The GPU's nearest rivals in synthetic benchmarks include the AMD Radeon RX 6850M XT (1.1% slower), NVIDIA Tesla P100 PCIe 16 GB (0.3% slower), and AMD Radeon Pro Vega 64X (1.4% faster). These deltas are small, but in real-world gaming, the RTX 5090's architectural advantages in modern APIs likely contribute to its strong showing in Minimum.

FAQ

*Q: What is the best resolution to play Minimum with this hardware for a 60Hz display?*

A: For a 60Hz display, the 4K High preset is the most suitable, averaging 65 FPS. The 4K Medium preset averages 78 FPS, providing headroom for framerate dips. The 4K Ultra preset at 50 FPS is below the 60Hz threshold and should be avoided.

Q: How much performance is gained by dropping from High to Low settings at 1080p?

A: At 1920x1080, switching from High to Low increases the average frame rate from 188 FPS to 293 FPS, a gain of 105 FPS (or 56%). This is the largest relative performance jump among all settings changes at this resolution.

Q: Does the CPU bottleneck the GPU at any resolution?

A: The data does not indicate a significant CPU bottleneck. At 1080p Low, the system achieves 293 FPS, which is near the practical limit for most display technologies. If the CPU were severely limiting, the frame rates at all resolutions would be capped at a lower value. The scaling from 1080p to 4K suggests a GPU-bound scenario.

*Q: Is the RTX 5090's 32 GB of VRAM necessary for Minimum?*

A: No, 32 GB is far more than required for a 2014 title. However, the high memory bandwidth (1.79 TB/s) ensures that the game's assets are loaded quickly, contributing to the high minimum frame rates observed (e.g., 190 FPS at 1080p Medium).

Q: How does this combo rank compared to all other tested combinations?

A: The combo ranks 581st out of 2939 tested combinations, placing it in the top 19.8% of all configurations. This is a strong result given the mobile CPU, but it is not at the very top tier, which is likely reserved for desktop CPU pairings.

Q: What is the minimum FPS recorded for this combo?

A: The lowest minimum FPS recorded in the data is 66 FPS, which occurs at 4K Medium settings. All other settings either have no recorded minimum FPS or have higher minimums, such as 123 FPS at 1440p Medium and 190 FPS at 1080p Medium.

Resolution Scaling

The frame rate progression from 1080p to 4K reveals a classic GPU-bound scaling pattern. At 1920x1080 Medium, the average FPS is 224. Moving to 2560x1440 Medium, the average drops to 144 FPS, a reduction of 35.7%. Moving further to 3840x2160 Medium, the average drops to 78 FPS, an additional reduction of 45.8% from the 1440p result. This compounding decline is characteristic of a system where the GPU's pixel throughput is the limiting factor.

The scaling is even more pronounced at Ultra settings. At 1080p Ultra, the average is 143 FPS. At 1440p Ultra, it drops to 92 FPS (a 35.7% decrease). At 4K Ultra, it falls to 50 FPS (a 45.7% decrease from 1440p). The consistent percentage drops across settings (approximately 36% and 46% for each resolution step) indicate that the GPU is being asked to render roughly the same scene complexity at each step, with the pixel count being the primary variable.

This data strongly suggests that the limiting component at all resolutions is the GPU. The CPU, Intel Core Ultra 7 165H, has 16 cores and 22 threads with a boost clock of 5.00 GHz. If the CPU were the bottleneck, we would expect to see diminishing returns as resolution decreases—the frame rate would plateau at a CPU-determined ceiling. Instead, the frame rates continue to climb linearly with decreasing resolution, reaching 293 FPS at 1080p Low. This indicates that the CPU can feed the GPU at rates exceeding 290 FPS for this title, and the GPU's render time is what ultimately caps performance.

The 4K to 1080p performance ratio provides further insight. At Low settings, the 4K average is 102 FPS, while the 1080p average is 293 FPS—a 2.87x difference. At High settings, the ratio is 65 FPS (4K) to 188 FPS (1080p), a 2.89x difference. At Ultra, the ratio is 50 FPS (4K) to 143 FPS (1080p), a 2.86x difference. These near-identical ratios across settings confirm that the scaling is purely resolution-driven and unaffected by the complexity of the scene being rendered.

CPU Role

The Intel Core Ultra 7 165H plays a supporting role in this configuration. With 16 cores and 22 threads, it offers substantial parallel processing capability, but its mobile design (28W TDP) limits its sustained performance compared to desktop CPUs. Its boost clock of 5.00 GHz is competitive, but the base clock of 3.80 GHz indicates that sustained all-core workloads may cause clock speeds to drop. In Minimum, a game that is not heavily multi-threaded, the CPU's single-thread performance is more critical.

The CPU's Cinebench R23 scores provide context: 14551 multi-core and 1759 single-core. These scores are respectable for a mobile chip, placing it in the 84th percentile of all CPUs. The PassMark single-thread score of 3509 is similarly solid. However, the game's performance scaling suggests that the CPU is not the limiting factor in most scenarios. At 1080p Low, the system achieves 293 FPS, which would require the CPU to process game logic and issue draw calls at a rate of nearly 300 per second. The fact that this is achievable indicates that the CPU's single-thread performance is sufficient for Minimum's demands.

The CPU's 24 MB of shared L3 cache is adequate for gaming workloads, providing fast access to frequently used data. The 2 MB per-core L2 cache and 112 KB per-core L1 cache further reduce memory latency. The dual-channel DDR5 memory support, with 89.6 GB/s of bandwidth, ensures that the CPU has ample data throughput. In comparison, the GPU's 1.79 TB/s memory bandwidth is 20 times higher, highlighting the different roles each component plays. The CPU handles logic and scene management, while the GPU handles the massive parallel task of pixel rendering.

Notably, the CPU's nearest rivals in synthetic benchmarks are all within 0.5% of its average score. The AMD Ryzen 7 3700X, a desktop CPU, is only 0.5% faster in average score. This suggests that the 165H's mobile architecture is exceptionally efficient, matching desktop performance from a previous generation. In Minimum, this means that users should not experience CPU-related stutters or frame drops, as the CPU has sufficient headroom to maintain the high frame rates observed.

Measured FPS Breakdown

The complete dataset of measured frame rates provides a comprehensive view of this combo's capabilities. At 1920x1080, the system delivers its highest performance. The Low preset averages 293 FPS, making it the fastest configuration tested. The Medium preset averages 224 FPS, with a recorded minimum of 190 FPS and maximum of 258 FPS. The High preset averages 188 FPS, while the Ultra preset averages 143 FPS. The progression from Low to Ultra represents a 51% reduction in average frame rate.

At 2560x1440, performance remains strong but begins to show the GPU's workload. The Low preset averages 189 FPS, which is still excellent for high-refresh 1440p displays. The Medium preset averages 144 FPS, with a minimum of 123 FPS and maximum of 166 FPS. The High preset averages 121 FPS, and the Ultra preset drops to 92 FPS. The delta between 1080p and 1440p at the same settings is consistent: 64 FPS for Low (293 to 189), 80 FPS for Medium (224 to 144), 67 FPS for High (188 to 121), and 51 FPS for Ultra (143 to 92).

At 3840x2160, the system still delivers playable frame rates, but the GPU is clearly being pushed. The Low preset averages 102 FPS, which is surprisingly high for 4K. The Medium preset averages 78 FPS, with the only recorded minimum (66 FPS) and maximum (89 FPS) in the 4K category. The High preset averages 65 FPS, and the Ultra preset averages 50 FPS. The 4K Ultra result is the only configuration that drops below the 60 FPS threshold, making it the least desirable setting for smooth gameplay.

The data shows a clear pattern: the gap between Low and Ultra widens as resolution increases. At 1080p, the difference is 150 FPS (293 vs 143). At 1440p, the difference is 97 FPS (189 vs 92). At 4K, the difference is 52 FPS (102 vs 50). This suggests that higher settings impose a more significant relative cost at lower resolutions, where the GPU has more spare capacity to render additional effects. At 4K, the GPU is already saturated, so the incremental cost of higher settings is smaller in absolute terms but more impactful as a percentage of the base frame rate.