Minimum

# How This Combo Ranks

The Intel Core Ultra 7 265 paired with the AMD Radeon RX 580 ranks 2,682nd out of 2,939 tested combos in Minimum, placing it in the bottom 9% of all configurations. This is a low-ranking combination, and the benchmark data makes the reason clear: the RX 580, while a capable 1080p card in its era, is severely outclassed by the modern CPU paired with it. The Core Ultra 7 265 sits in the 93rd percentile among all CPUs, with an average benchmark score of 64,640, while the RX 580 languishes in the 53rd percentile with an average score of 12,928. The disparity between these two components is the defining characteristic of this combo.

Looking at the CPU's nearest rivals, the Core Ultra 7 265 performs nearly identically to the AMD EPYC 4464P, which scores 64,823 (a -0.3% delta), and the Intel Core Ultra 7 265F, which scores 64,438 (a +0.3% delta). The AMD EPYC 7343 trails by 0.7% with a score of 64,202, while the AMD EPYC 9124 leads by 0.7% at 65,104. These are all server-class processors, and the fact that a desktop chip like the Core Ultra 7 265 trades blows with them shows its raw multi-threaded capability. The CPU's Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 42,216 and single-core score of 5,960 reinforce this, as does its PassMark multi-thread score of 49,682.

On the GPU side, the RX 580's nearest rival is the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3050 Ti Mobile, which scores 12,940 (a -0.1% delta). The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1660 SUPER is 0.4% ahead at 12,986, while the AMD Radeon 740M trails by 0.5% at 12,870, and the AMD FirePro W5100 is 0.6% behind at 12,847. The RX 580's position in this cluster—essentially tied with a mobile GPU and an integrated solution—underscores its age. It was released in 2017 on the GCN 4.0 architecture with a 14 nm process, and while it retains 8 GB of GDDR5 memory on a 256-bit bus with 256.0 GB/s bandwidth, its compute capabilities (6.175 TFLOPS FP32) are modest by modern standards.

In Minimum, this combo's rank is dragged down entirely by the GPU. The CPU is not the bottleneck at any resolution; rather, the RX 580 simply cannot push the frame rates that the Core Ultra 7 265 is capable of feeding. The data shows a consistent pattern: at every resolution and settings level, the FPS figures are GPU-limited, with the CPU having ample headroom. This is a classic "old GPU, new CPU" pairing that yields a poor overall rank despite the CPU's strength.

Settings Recommendations

The measured FPS data reveals a clear hierarchy of playable settings, and the verdict is unambiguous: Low settings at 1080p is the only configuration that approaches a smooth experience, while Medium at 1080p is the highest quality setting that maintains acceptable playability. The data shows that at 1920x1080, Low settings produce an average of 91 FPS—the only triple-digit result in the entire dataset. Medium at 1080p averages 70 FPS with a minimum of 59 FPS and a maximum of 80 FPS. This is the sweet spot for this combo: it delivers a frame rate that stays above the 60 FPS threshold for most of the run, with only occasional dips to 59 FPS.

High settings at 1080p drop to 58 FPS average, which is technically playable but leaves no margin for demanding scenes. Ultra at 1080p falls to 45 FPS, which is noticeably less smooth. The data strongly suggests that Medium is the best quality-to-performance balance for this combo at 1080p. It offers a 55% improvement over High in average FPS (70 vs 58) while still providing better visual fidelity than Low.

At 1440p, the picture changes dramatically. Low settings average 59 FPS, which is marginal, while Medium drops to 45 FPS (minimum 38 FPS) and High falls to 38 FPS. Ultra at 1440p is a non-starter at 29 FPS. The data indicates that 1440p is only viable on Low settings, and even then, the 59 FPS average is close to the edge of playability. For users with a 1440p monitor, the recommendation is to stick with Low or drop to 1080p Medium for a better experience.

At 4K, none of the settings are truly playable. Low averages 32 FPS, Medium averages 24 FPS (minimum 21 FPS), High averages 20 FPS, and Ultra averages 15 FPS. The recommendation is unambiguous: do not attempt 4K with this combo. The GPU lacks the raw throughput to maintain playable frame rates at this resolution, regardless of settings. The best 4K result—32 FPS on Low—is still below the 60 FPS threshold by a wide margin.

The overall recommendation is to run Medium settings at 1080p. This gives an average of 70 FPS with a minimum of 59 FPS, which is the best combination of visual quality and smoothness the data supports. If absolute smoothness is the priority, Low at 1080p (91 FPS) is the fallback, but Medium provides 46% more visual quality (as measured by the settings tier) for only a 23% FPS penalty.

Resolution Scaling

The FPS drop from 1080p to 4K is severe and reveals the limiting component with absolute clarity. At Medium settings, the average frame rate falls from 70 FPS at 1080p to 45 FPS at 1440p (a 36% drop) and then to 24 FPS at 4K (a 66% drop from 1080p). This scaling pattern is characteristic of a GPU-bound scenario. If the CPU were the bottleneck, we would expect the FPS to remain relatively flat as resolution increases, since the CPU's workload (draw calls, physics, game logic) stays constant while the GPU's pixel-pushing workload grows.

Instead, the data shows a steep, consistent decline that tracks almost perfectly with pixel count. Moving from 1080p (1,920 x 1,080 = 2.07 million pixels) to 1440p (2,560 x 1,440 = 3.69 million pixels) increases the pixel count by 78%, and the FPS drops by 36%. Moving from 1440p to 4K (3,840 x 2,160 = 8.29 million pixels) increases pixels by 125%, and FPS drops by 47%. The non-linear relationship is typical of a GPU that is already near its limits at lower resolutions, where additional pixel load causes disproportionately larger frame rate penalties.

The same pattern holds at Low settings: 91 FPS at 1080p, 59 FPS at 1440p (a 35% drop), and 32 FPS at 4K (a 65% drop from 1080p). High settings show 58 FPS at 1080p, 38 FPS at 1440p (a 34% drop), and 20 FPS at 4K (a 66% drop). Ultra settings follow suit: 45 FPS at 1080p, 29 FPS at 1440p (a 36% drop), and 15 FPS at 4K (a 67% drop). The consistency of these percentages across all settings is a textbook sign of GPU saturation.

The limiting component is unambiguously the AMD Radeon RX 580. Its 6.175 TFLOPS of FP32 compute and 256.0 GB/s memory bandwidth are simply insufficient for the demands of 4K rendering in Minimum. The Core Ultra 7 265, with its 20 cores and 5.30 GHz boost clock, is nowhere near its limits here. The CPU's PassMark single-thread score of 4,689 and Cinebench R23 single-core score of 5,960 indicate it can feed the GPU far more frames than the RX 580 can render. For users wanting to play at 1440p or 4K, the RX 580 is the component that must be upgraded; swapping the CPU would yield no measurable improvement in this game.

Measured FPS Breakdown

The complete dataset of measured FPS is as follows, broken down by resolution and settings tier:

1920x1080 (1080p):

• Low: 91 FPS average
• Medium: 70 FPS average, 59 FPS minimum, 80 FPS maximum
• High: 58 FPS average
• Ultra: 45 FPS average

At 1080p, the spread from Low to Ultra is 46 FPS (91 to 45), representing a 51% performance penalty for the highest quality preset. The Medium preset's minimum of 59 FPS and maximum of 80 FPS shows a variance of 21 FPS, indicating some scene-to-scene variability but generally stable performance. High settings at 58 FPS sit just below the 60 FPS threshold, making them marginal for smooth gameplay.

2560x1440 (1440p):

• Low: 59 FPS average
• Medium: 45 FPS average, 38 FPS minimum, 52 FPS maximum
• High: 38 FPS average
• Ultra: 29 FPS average

At 1440p, the performance collapse is evident. Even Low settings only manage 59 FPS, which is exactly at the edge of playability. The Medium preset's minimum of 38 FPS is a significant dip that would be noticeable during intense action sequences. The gap between Low and Ultra narrows to 30 FPS (59 to 29), a 51% penalty consistent with the 1080p spread, but the absolute numbers are too low for a comfortable experience.

3840x2160 (4K):

• Low: 32 FPS average
• Medium: 24 FPS average, 21 FPS minimum, 28 FPS maximum
• High: 20 FPS average
• Ultra: 15 FPS average

At 4K, the RX 580 is completely overwhelmed. The best case—Low settings at 32 FPS—is below the minimum threshold for playable frame rates. Medium's minimum of 21 FPS and maximum of 28 FPS shows a tight but very low band of performance. Ultra at 15 FPS is essentially a slideshow. The data shows a 53% penalty from Low to Ultra (32 to 15 FPS), but at these absolute levels, the percentage difference is meaningless.

Across all resolutions, the Medium preset consistently shows a 35-36% FPS reduction compared to Low, while Ultra consistently shows a 50-53% reduction. This consistency indicates the game's settings scale predictably with GPU load. The only configuration that delivers both smoothness and reasonable quality is Medium at 1080p, with its 70 FPS average and 59 FPS minimum.

GPU Role

The AMD Radeon RX 580 is the definitive bottleneck in this combo, and its specifications explain why. The GPU features 8 GB of GDDR5 memory on a 256-bit bus, providing 256.0 GB/s of memory bandwidth. Its clocks are modest: 1257 MHz base and 1340 MHz boost, with memory running at 2000 MHz (8 Gbps effective). The chip contains 2,304 shading units, 144 texture mapping units, and 32 ROPs, yielding a pixel rate of 42.88 GPixel/s and a texture rate of 193.0 GTexel/s. FP32 compute is 6.175 TFLOPS, which matches FP16 at a 1:1 ratio.

These numbers place the RX 580 at the 53rd percentile among all GPUs, with an average benchmark score of 12,928. Its nearest rival, the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3050 Ti Mobile, scores 12,940—a 0.1% difference that is within measurement noise. The GTX 1660 SUPER is 0.4% ahead at 12,986. This is a GPU that, in raw compute terms, is roughly equivalent to a modern mobile chip or an entry-level desktop part.

The 8 GB VRAM capacity is not the issue in Minimum. At 1080p with Ultra settings, the game runs at 45 FPS, which suggests the GPU is compute-limited rather than memory-limited; if VRAM capacity were the constraint, we would expect stuttering or texture pop-in, not a consistent frame rate reduction. The 256.0 GB/s bandwidth is likely sufficient for this game's needs at 1080p. The limitation is the raw shading throughput of the Polaris 20 chip.

The GPU's architecture, GCN 4.0 on a 14 nm process at GlobalFoundries, is from 2017. It supports DirectX 12 (12_0), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.3, so it is not lacking in API support for Minimum, a 2014 title. The card's 185 W TDP and dual-slot design are indicative of its era. The data shows that in this game, the RX 580's performance ceiling is approximately 91 FPS at 1080p Low, and it degrades rapidly with both resolution and quality increases. The GPU's PassMark G3D score of 8,813 and 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 score of 1,005 are consistent with this observed behavior: it is a mid-range GPU from its generation that is now outclassed by even entry-level modern parts.

The verdict is clear: the RX 580 is the limiting component, and no amount of CPU headroom can compensate for its throughput constraints in this game.

FAQ

*Q: Is this combo capable of running Minimum at 60 FPS?*

A: Yes, but only at 1080p with Low or Medium settings. Low settings average 91 FPS, and Medium averages 70 FPS with a minimum of 59 FPS. At 1440p, only Low settings approach 60 FPS with a 59 FPS average. At 4K, no settings reach 60 FPS.

Q: What is the best settings preset for this combo?

A: Medium at 1080p is the optimal choice. It delivers a 70 FPS average with a minimum of 59 FPS, providing a good balance between visual quality and smoothness. Low at 1080p offers 91 FPS but with reduced visual fidelity, while High drops to 58 FPS and Ultra to 45 FPS.

Q: How does the CPU compare to its nearest rivals?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 7 265 scores 64,640 on average, which is 0.3% behind the AMD EPYC 4464P (64,823), 0.3% ahead of the Intel Core Ultra 7 265F (64,438), 0.7% ahead of the AMD EPYC 7343 (64,202), and 0.7% behind the AMD EPYC 9124 (65,104). It sits in the 93rd percentile among all CPUs.

Q: Is the RX 580 the bottleneck in this system?

A: Yes. The FPS scaling from 1080p to 4K shows a consistent 35-36% drop at each resolution step, which is a classic sign of GPU saturation. The CPU's 93rd percentile ranking and multi-core strength (Cinebench R23 score of 42,216) far exceed the GPU's 53rd percentile ranking (average score 12,928).

*Q: Can this combo handle 4K gaming in Minimum?*

A: No. The best 4K result is 32 FPS at Low settings, which is below playable thresholds. Medium averages 24 FPS, High averages 20 FPS, and Ultra averages 15 FPS. The RX 580's 6.175 TFLOPS FP32 compute is insufficient for 4K rendering in this game.

Q: How does the RX 580 compare to its nearest GPU rivals?

A: The RX 580 scores 12,928 on average, which is 0.1% behind the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3050 Ti Mobile (12,940), 0.4% behind the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1660 SUPER (12,986), 0.5% ahead of the AMD Radeon 740M (12,870), and 0.6% ahead of the AMD FirePro W5100 (12,847). It sits in the 53rd percentile among all GPUs.