Minimum

# Minimum with Intel Core Ultra 7 265 + AMD Radeon RX 6800 XT

The Intel Core Ultra 7 265 paired with the AMD Radeon RX 6800 XT delivers a strong showing in Minimum, a 2014 third-person shooter that remains demanding at higher resolutions. The combination ranks 877th out of 2,939 tested combos in this game, placing it comfortably in the top third of all systems evaluated. Across the measured resolution ladder, the combo shows a clear pattern: CPU-bound at 1080p, balanced at 1440p, and increasingly GPU-limited as resolution climbs toward 4K. The data indicates this pairing is well-suited for high-refresh 1440p play, with 4K requiring settings compromises to maintain smooth frame rates.

Resolution Scaling

The measured FPS data reveals a steep and predictable drop as resolution increases, but the shape of that curve changes dramatically depending on the quality preset. At Low settings, the combo delivers 259 FPS at 1920x1080, dropping to 167 FPS at 2560x1440 (a 35.5% reduction), and further to 90 FPS at 3840x2160 (a 46.1% reduction from 1440p). This Low-preset curve shows the system scaling almost purely with pixel count, indicating that even at 1080p the CPU is keeping pace and the GPU is doing most of the work.

The High preset tells a slightly different story. At 1080p High, the average FPS is 166 — a substantial 93 FPS drop from Low at the same resolution. This gap narrows at 1440p High (107 FPS vs 167 FPS at Low) and at 4K High (58 FPS vs 90 FPS at Low). The fact that the Low-to-High gap shrinks from 93 FPS at 1080p to 32 FPS at 4K suggests that at lower resolutions, the CPU is capable of pushing far more frames than the GPU can render when settings are increased, while at 4K the GPU becomes the dominant bottleneck regardless of preset.

Looking at the Medium preset, which includes min and max FPS data, the scaling is more gradual: 198 FPS at 1080p, 128 FPS at 1440p, and 69 FPS at 4K. The 4K Medium result of 69 FPS with a 59 FPS minimum shows that this combination can hold near-60 FPS at 4K, but just barely. The Ultra preset reveals the steepest degradation: 127 FPS at 1080p, 82 FPS at 1440p, and 44 FPS at 4K. The 4K Ultra result drops below playable thresholds for most users, confirming that this game's Ultra settings are too demanding for this GPU at native 4K.

The resolution scaling pattern across all presets indicates that the RX 6800 XT is the limiting factor at 4K, while the Core Ultra 7 265 has ample headroom to feed the GPU at 1080p. At 1440p, the system achieves a balance where both components contribute meaningfully to performance, with High settings delivering 107 FPS — a strong result for a game that rewards smooth motion.

How This Combo Ranks

The combo achieves a rank of 877 out of 2,939 tested configurations in Minimum, placing it in the 70th percentile of all tested systems. This is a solid position, though not elite — the top 30% of combos outperform this pairing, which is expected given the RX 6800 XT's position in the GPU hierarchy. The CPU alone sits at the 93rd percentile among all processors, while the GPU ranks at the 85th percentile among all GPUs, so the combined result is slightly lower than either component's individual standing suggests.

The gap between component percentiles and combo ranking indicates that Minimum is not purely GPU-bound or CPU-bound — it rewards balanced systems. The RX 6800 XT's 85th percentile GPU ranking is the weaker link here, and the combo's overall rank reflects that constraint. However, the 877th rank out of 2,939 is not a poor showing; it places this system ahead of roughly two-thirds of all tested configurations, which includes many newer and more expensive components.

Looking at the CPU's nearest rivals provides context: the Core Ultra 7 265 scores within 0.3% of the AMD EPYC 4464P and within 0.7% of the AMD EPYC 7343, while trailing the AMD EPYC 9124 by 0.7%. These are all enterprise-class processors with similar multi-threaded performance, suggesting that the 265's 20-core/20-thread configuration is well-suited for this game's CPU demands. On the GPU side, the RX 6800 XT sits between the NVIDIA RTX A1000 Mobile (1.5% faster) and the Intel Arc A550M (2.5% slower), with the RTX 5070 Ti and RX Vega 64 both about 3% faster in aggregate benchmarks.

GPU Role

The AMD Radeon RX 6800 XT is built on the RDNA 2.0 architecture with the Navi 21 chip, manufactured on a 7 nm process at TSMC. It packs 4,608 shading units, 288 texture mapping units, and 128 raster operation pipelines, along with 72 ray tracing cores. The card's clock behavior is notable: a base clock of 1825 MHz, a game clock of 2015 MHz, and a boost clock of 2250 MHz. In Minimum, the GPU's performance at 4K Ultra (44 FPS) versus 4K Low (90 FPS) demonstrates a 46 FPS swing purely from settings, highlighting that the card's raw compute is sufficient but its shading and texture throughput gets taxed heavily by higher-quality presets.

The 16 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 256-bit bus provides 512.0 GB/s of bandwidth, which is generous for a 2014 game that was designed before high-resolution texture packs became standard. At 4K Medium, the card maintains 69 FPS with a 59 FPS minimum, suggesting that memory bandwidth is not a limiting factor — the bottleneck is more likely the GPU's shading units and ROP throughput. The pixel rate of 288.0 GPixel/s and texture rate of 648.0 GTexel/s are substantial, yet the 4K Ultra result of 44 FPS shows that this game's Ultra settings demand more than the card can deliver at that resolution.

The GPU's 20.74 TFLOPS of FP32 performance and 41.47 TFLOPS of FP16 (at 2:1 ratio) put it in a strong position for a game released in 2014, but the measured results show that Minimum scales well beyond what older titles typically require. The transition from 1440p High (107 FPS) to 4K High (58 FPS) represents a 45.8% drop, which is steeper than pure pixel-count scaling would predict — indicating that the GPU's fill-rate and memory bandwidth are being pushed to their limits at 4K. For players targeting 1440p, the RX 6800 XT has ample headroom, but at 4K, even Medium settings require careful consideration.

Settings Recommendations

Based on the measured FPS data, the optimal settings for this combo depend heavily on the target resolution and refresh rate. At 1920x1080, all presets deliver playable frame rates, with Low hitting 259 FPS, Medium at 198 FPS, High at 166 FPS, and Ultra at 127 FPS. For high-refresh 1080p displays, the Medium or High preset provides the best balance — Medium delivers 198 FPS with a 168 FPS minimum, while High offers 166 FPS without the settings compromises of Ultra. The Ultra preset at 1080p still achieves 127 FPS, which is smooth, but the 71 FPS gap between High and Ultra suggests diminishing returns for the visual quality boost.

At 2560x1440, the Medium preset stands out as the sweet spot: 128 FPS average with a 109 FPS minimum and 147 FPS maximum. This delivers smooth gameplay on 144Hz monitors while maintaining decent visual quality. High settings at 1440p drop to 107 FPS, which is still playable but requires a 100Hz or lower refresh display to avoid tearing. Ultra at 1440p falls to 82 FPS, which is borderline for competitive play but acceptable for casual sessions. Low at 1440p (167 FPS) is unnecessarily fast for most displays and sacrifices too much visual fidelity.

At 3840x2160, the choices become more constrained. Medium is the only preset that guarantees a playable experience, with 69 FPS average and a 59 FPS minimum. This is just above the 60 FPS threshold, but the minimum dipping to 59 FPS means occasional stutter is possible. High at 4K (58 FPS) is technically playable but sits below the 60 FPS mark, and Ultra (44 FPS) is not recommended for smooth gameplay. Low at 4K (90 FPS) is an option for players who prioritize frame rate over visuals, but the visual sacrifice is significant. The data strongly suggests that 1440p Medium is the best overall experience for this combo, offering a 128 FPS average with a 109 FPS floor.

FAQ

Q: What is the best resolution for this combo in Minimum?

A: Based on the measured data, 2560x1440 with Medium settings delivers the best balance, achieving 128 FPS average with a 109 FPS minimum. At 1080p, all presets are playable, while 4K requires Medium settings or lower to maintain 60 FPS.

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

A: Yes, but with limitations. At 4K Medium, the combo achieves 69 FPS with a 59 FPS minimum, which is playable. 4K High (58 FPS) is borderline, and 4K Ultra (44 FPS) is not recommended for smooth gameplay.

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

A: The Intel Core Ultra 7 265 scores within 0.3% of the AMD EPYC 4464P and within 0.7% of the AMD EPYC 7343, while trailing the AMD EPYC 9124 by 0.7%. It outperforms the Intel Core Ultra 7 265F by 0.3% in average benchmark scores.

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

A: The RX 6800 XT is 1.5% slower than the NVIDIA RTX A1000 Mobile and 2.5% faster than the Intel Arc A550M. The NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5070 Ti and AMD Radeon RX Vega 64 are both approximately 3% faster in aggregate benchmarks.

Q: What is the combo's ranking among all tested configurations?

A: The combo ranks 877th out of 2,939 tested combinations in Minimum, placing it in the top 30% of all tested systems. The CPU alone sits at the 93rd percentile among all processors, while the GPU sits at the 85th percentile among all GPUs.

Q: Is the CPU or GPU the limiting factor at different resolutions?

A: At 1080p, the CPU has ample headroom — the GPU becomes the bottleneck as settings increase. At 1440p, both components contribute meaningfully. At 4K, the GPU is clearly the limiting factor, with frame rates dropping steeply across all presets.

CPU Role

The Intel Core Ultra 7 265 is a 20-core, 20-thread processor based on the Arrow Lake architecture, manufactured on a 3 nm process at TSMC. It features a base clock of 2.40 GHz and a boost clock of 5.30 GHz, with a 65 W TDP. The CPU's cache hierarchy includes 192 KB of L1 per core, 3 MB of L2 per core, and 30 MB of shared L3 cache. In Minimum, the CPU's role is most evident at 1080p, where the system achieves 259 FPS at Low settings — a frame rate that would be impossible if the CPU were a limiting factor.

The CPU's benchmark scores provide context for its gaming performance. Its Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 42,216 and single-core score of 5,960 indicate strong threading and per-core performance. The PassMark multi-thread score of 49,682 and single-thread score of 4,689 further confirm that this processor can handle both heavily threaded and lightly threaded workloads. In a 2014 game like Minimum, which was released before the current trend toward high core counts, the 265's 20 cores are more than sufficient — the game likely uses only a fraction of the available threads.

The CPU's 93rd percentile ranking among all processors reflects its strong overall performance, but its nearest rivals are all EPYC server processors, which suggests that the 265's gaming performance is not solely dependent on raw multi-threaded throughput. The 2.40 GHz base clock and 5.30 GHz boost clock provide a wide operating range, and the 30 MB of shared L3 cache helps reduce memory latency. The CPU's memory bandwidth of 102.4 GB/s over dual-channel DDR5 is substantial for gaming workloads, though Minimum likely does not stress memory bandwidth as heavily as more modern titles.

At 1080p, the gap between Low (259 FPS) and Ultra (127 FPS) shows that the CPU can push over 250 FPS when the GPU is not the bottleneck, but the GPU's rendering workload at higher settings limits the system to 127 FPS at Ultra. This indicates that the CPU is not the primary constraint at any resolution in this game — even at 4K Ultra (44 FPS), the GPU is clearly the limiting factor. The CPU's 20 threads ensure that even if Minimum were to use multiple cores for physics or AI, the 265 would have ample headroom. For players upgrading from older systems, this CPU provides enough performance to avoid being the bottleneck in this title, leaving the GPU as the sole determinant of frame rates at higher resolutions and settings.