Minimum

# Minimum with Intel Core Ultra 7 265 + NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1070

This pairing combines a modern 20-core desktop processor with an end-of-life graphics card from 2016, creating a striking imbalance in a 2014 third-person shooter. The Intel Core Ultra 7 265 sits in the 93rd percentile of all CPUs, while the GeForce GTX 1070 lands in the 47th percentile of all GPUs. The data shows a system where the processor has enormous headroom, yet the GPU becomes the decisive factor at higher resolutions. This analysis examines how these components interact across Minimum's measured frame rates, what the scaling patterns reveal about bottleneck behavior, and which settings provide the most playable experience.

CPU Role — cores, clocks, and how they relate to this game's results

The Intel Core Ultra 7 265 is a 20-core, 20-thread processor built on Arrow Lake architecture and TSMC's 3 nm process. It runs at a 2.40 GHz base clock and can boost to 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. Memory support is DDR5 over a dual-channel bus, delivering 102.4 GB/s of bandwidth. The processor also integrates Arc Xe-LPG Graphics with 32 execution units, though the discrete GPU handles all rendering here.

In synthetic benchmarks, this CPU achieves a Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 42,216 and a single-core score of 5,960. Its PassMark multi-thread score is 49,682, with a single-thread score of 4,689. The average benchmark score across all tests is 64,640, placing it at the 93rd percentile of all CPUs. Compared to its nearest rivals, the Core Ultra 7 265 sits within a tight band: it trails the AMD EPYC 4464P by 0.3% (64,823 vs. 64,640) and the AMD EPYC 9124 by 0.7% (65,104 vs. 64,640), while leading the Intel Core Ultra 7 265F by 0.3% (64,438) and the AMD EPYC 7343 by 0.7% (64,202).

For a game like Minimum, which launched in 2014, the Core Ultra 7 265's 20 cores are far beyond what the title's engine can likely utilize. The high boost clock of 5.30 GHz matters more for gaming, since most titles from that era depend heavily on single-thread performance. The Cinebench R23 single-core score of 5,960 indicates strong per-core capability, which should prevent the CPU from bottlenecking even at high frame rates. However, the measured FPS data reveals that at 1080p Low, the system reaches 140 FPS average, suggesting the CPU can feed frames well beyond typical 60 Hz displays. The processor's PassMark physics score of 2,923 and floating-point math score of 172,776 indicate robust compute power that remains largely untapped in this GPU-limited configuration.

GPU Role — VRAM, clocks, and how they relate to this game's results

The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1070 uses the GP104 chip on Pascal architecture, manufactured on TSMC's 16 nm process. It ships with 8 GB of GDDR5 memory on a 256-bit bus, providing 256.3 GB/s of bandwidth. The core runs at 1506 MHz base and 1683 MHz boost, with memory clocked at 2002 MHz (8 Gbps effective). The GPU has 1,920 shading units, 120 texture mapping units, and 64 raster output units, achieving a pixel rate of 107.7 GPixel/s and a texture rate of 202.0 GTexel/s. Floating-point performance is 6.463 TFLOPS, and the card carries a 150 W TDP with a single 8-pin power connector.

In GPU benchmarks, the GTX 1070 scores 13,498 in PassMark G3D and 6,102 in PassMark GPU compute. Its Geekbench OpenCL score is 44,700, with Vulkan at 22,121 and Metal at 18,801. The average benchmark score is 9,780, placing it at the 47th percentile of all GPUs. Its nearest rivals are remarkably close: the AMD FirePro W5000 scores 9,803 (0.2% ahead), the NVIDIA Quadro M2000M scores 9,832 (0.5% ahead), the NVIDIA Tesla C2070 scores 9,716 (0.7% behind), and the NVIDIA Tesla M10 scores 9,724 (0.6% behind). This clustering shows the GTX 1070 sits in a dense performance tier.

For Minimum, the GTX 1070's 8 GB VRAM is ample for a 2014 title, even at 4K Ultra, where texture memory demands are modest by modern standards. The memory bandwidth of 256.3 GB/s becomes the limiting factor at higher resolutions, as the measured frame rates show a steep decline from 1080p to 4K. The GPU's DirectX 12 support (12_1) is relevant for compatibility, though the game's 2014 release likely uses earlier DirectX versions where this card's legacy strengths apply. The PassMark DirectX 11 score of 100 and DirectX 12 score of 48 suggest the card handles older APIs more efficiently, which aligns with Minimum's era.

How This Combo Ranks — use comboRankInGame vs other tested combos

This specific combination of Intel Core Ultra 7 265 and NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1070 ranks 2,412 out of 2,939 tested combos in Minimum. That places it in approximately the 18th percentile of all system pairings, meaning 527 combinations performed worse. The low ranking reflects the GPU's age relative to other tested configurations, not the CPU's capability. The Core Ultra 7 265 ranks in the 93rd percentile of CPUs, while the GTX 1070 sits at the 47th percentile of GPUs, creating a substantial gap in component tiers.

The data suggests that among the 2,939 tested combos, most pairings with modern high-end CPUs include similarly modern GPUs. This combo's rank is dragged down by the GTX 1070, which was already mid-range at its 2016 launch and is now end-of-life. In Minimum, a 2014 shooter, the CPU's 20 cores provide no advantage over a comparable modern CPU with fewer cores, since the game's engine predates multi-core scaling on this scale. The ranking indicates that for competitive frame rates, the GPU is the binding constraint, and any combo with a faster GPU and a similar CPU would rank significantly higher.

The delta between the CPU's 93rd percentile and the combo's 18th percentile rank quantifies the bottleneck severity. The processor's PassMark multi-thread score of 49,682 and Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 42,216 are exceptional, yet the measured FPS at 4K Ultra is just 24 FPS average. This suggests the game's performance ceiling is set almost entirely by the GPU, with the CPU contributing negligible overhead in this title.

Measured FPS Breakdown — resolution by resolution, settings by settings, exact numbers

At 1080p, the system delivers its highest frame rates. Low settings produce an average of 140 FPS, while Medium averages 107 FPS with a range of 91 to 123 FPS. High settings drop to 90 FPS average, and Ultra falls to 68 FPS. These numbers show a playable experience across all settings at 1080p, with even Ultra maintaining above 60 FPS.

Moving to 1440p, the frame rates decline noticeably. Low settings average 90 FPS, Medium averages 69 FPS with a range of 59 to 79 FPS, High drops to 58 FPS, and Ultra falls to 44 FPS. The step from Low to Medium costs 21 FPS, while the jump from Medium to High costs 11 FPS, and High to Ultra costs 14 FPS. At this resolution, Ultra becomes marginal for smooth gameplay, dipping below the 60 FPS threshold.

At 4K, the GPU's limitations become stark. Low settings average 49 FPS, Medium averages 37 FPS with a range of 32 to 43 FPS, High drops to 31 FPS, and Ultra falls to 24 FPS. None of the 4K settings achieve 60 FPS, and even Low struggles to maintain 50 FPS. The Medium setting's minimum of 32 FPS indicates significant frame time variance at this resolution. The 4K Ultra result of 24 FPS is barely playable for a third-person shooter, where smooth camera movement is essential.

Resolution Scaling — how FPS drops from 1080p to 4K and what it says about the limiting component

The scaling from 1080p to 4K reveals a nearly linear relationship with pixel count, confirming GPU-bound behavior. At Low settings, the system produces 140 FPS at 1080p, 90 FPS at 1440p, and 49 FPS at 4K. The drop from 1080p to 1440p (1.78x pixels) reduces FPS by 35.7%, while the drop from 1440p to 4K (2.25x pixels) reduces FPS by 45.6%. The total drop from 1080p to 4K (4x pixels) is 65% — close to the theoretical 75% reduction if scaling were perfectly linear, but somewhat better, suggesting the CPU provides some assistance at lower resolutions.

At High settings, the scaling is similar: 90 FPS at 1080p, 58 FPS at 1440p, and 31 FPS at 4K. The 1080p-to-1440p drop is 35.6%, and the 1440p-to-4K drop is 46.6%. Ultra settings show 68 FPS at 1080p, 44 FPS at 1440p, and 24 FPS at 4K, with drops of 35.3% and 45.5% respectively. The consistency across settings indicates that resolution, not graphical complexity, drives the performance penalty.

This pattern strongly implicates the GPU's pixel throughput and memory bandwidth as the limiting factors. The GTX 1070's 107.7 GPixel/s pixel rate and 256.3 GB/s bandwidth are simply insufficient for 4K rendering in this title. The CPU's role is minimal — at 1080p Low, 140 FPS suggests the processor can sustain high frame rates without constraint, but the GPU cannot maintain proportional performance as resolution climbs. The fact that frame rates at 4K Low (49 FPS) are lower than 1080p Ultra (68 FPS) confirms that resolution scaling has a larger impact than settings scaling, a hallmark of GPU limitation.

FAQ

Q: Can this system run Minimum at 60 FPS?

A: Yes, but only at 1080p. At 1080p Low, the average FPS is 140; at Medium, it is 107; at High, it is 90; and at Ultra, it is 68. All 1080p settings exceed 60 FPS. At 1440p, only Low (90 FPS) and Medium (69 FPS) average above 60 FPS. At 4K, no setting achieves 60 FPS, with Low averaging 49 FPS and Ultra averaging 24 FPS.

Q: Which component is the bottleneck in this system?

A: The measured FPS data indicates the GPU is the primary bottleneck. The CPU ranks in the 93rd percentile of all CPUs, while the GPU ranks in the 47th percentile. The frame rate scaling from 1080p to 4K shows a near-linear decline with pixel count, which is characteristic of GPU limitation. At 1080p Low, the 140 FPS average suggests the CPU can handle higher frame rates than the GPU can deliver at higher resolutions.

Q: How does this combo rank against other tested systems in Minimum?

A: This combo ranks 2,412 out of 2,939 tested combinations, placing it in approximately the 18th percentile. The low rank is driven by the GTX 1070's age and mid-range positioning, not the CPU, which sits in the 93rd percentile of all processors.

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

A: Based on the measured data, 1080p is the most suitable resolution. All settings at 1080p average above 60 FPS, with Low at 140 FPS, Medium at 107 FPS, High at 90 FPS, and Ultra at 68 FPS. At 1440p, only Low and Medium exceed 60 FPS, and at 4K, no setting reaches 60 FPS.

Q: How does the GTX 1070 compare to its nearest GPU rivals?

A: The GTX 1070's average benchmark score is 9,780. Its nearest rivals are extremely close: the AMD FirePro W5000 scores 9,803 (0.2% higher), the NVIDIA Quadro M2000M scores 9,832 (0.5% higher), the NVIDIA Tesla C2070 scores 9,716 (0.7% lower), and the NVIDIA Tesla M10 scores 9,724 (0.6% lower). This places the GTX 1070 in a tightly clustered performance tier.

Q: Does the CPU's 20-core configuration help in this game?

A: The data suggests minimal benefit. The Core Ultra 7 265's Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 42,216 and PassMark multi-thread score of 49,682 are strong, but Minimum's 2014 engine likely cannot utilize 20 cores effectively. The game's performance scales more with resolution and settings than with CPU capability, as shown by the consistent frame rate drops across all settings when resolution increases.

Settings Recommendations

For the best experience based on the measured rows, 1080p High offers the optimal balance. It delivers 90 FPS average, which is well above the 60 FPS threshold, while providing superior visual quality over Low (140 FPS) and Medium (107 FPS). The jump from High to Ultra costs 22 FPS (from 90 to 68), which may not justify the visual gain for smoother gameplay. At 1080p, all settings are playable, so the choice depends on whether frame rate or visual fidelity takes priority.

At 1440p, Medium is the recommended setting. It averages 69 FPS with a minimum of 59 FPS, keeping gameplay mostly smooth while offering better visuals than Low (90 FPS) or High (58 FPS). The High setting's 58 FPS average dips below 60, and Ultra's 44 FPS is too low for a shooter. At 4K, Low is the only viable option, averaging 49 FPS. Medium (37 FPS), High (31 FPS), and Ultra (24 FPS) all fall below playable thresholds for a fast-paced third-person shooter, where frame rate consistency matters for aiming and camera control.

The data implies that this system is best suited for 1080p gaming in Minimum, with 1440p as a secondary option at medium settings. The 4K results demonstrate the GPU's limitations clearly, and users seeking 4K performance would need a significantly more powerful graphics card. The CPU's high single-thread performance (Cinebench R23 single-core score of 5,960) ensures no CPU-induced frame drops at any resolution, but it cannot compensate for the GPU's pixel throughput constraints. For the smoothest experience, 1080p High at 90 FPS provides a strong balance of visual quality and performance, while 1080p Low at 140 FPS suits competitive play where maximum frame rates matter.