Minimum

FAQ

Q: What is the measured performance of the Intel Core Ultra 7 265 paired with the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 in Minimum?

A: The best measured result is 81 FPS average at 1920x1080 with Low settings. The worst is 14 FPS average at 3840x2160 with Ultra settings, showing a massive spread depending on resolution and preset.

Q: How does this CPU compare to its nearest rivals in synthetic benchmarks?

A: The Core Ultra 7 265 scores 64,640 on average. It 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). The differences are negligible.

Q: What is the GPU's standing among all tested graphics cards?

A: The GTX 1650 sits at the 40th percentile of all GPUs, with an average benchmark score of 7,472. Its closest rival, the AMD Radeon HD 8850M, scores 7,447, which is 0.3% lower, while the Intel Arc A310 scores 7,550, which is 1% higher.

Q: Does the game scale better with resolution changes or settings changes?

A: Looking at 1080p to 4K, dropping from High to Low settings at 4K improves FPS from 18 to 28 (a 55% gain), while moving from 1080p Low to 4K Low drops FPS from 81 to 28 (a 65% loss). Resolution has a slightly larger impact than settings.

Q: What is the CPU's single-thread and multi-thread performance profile?

A: The CPU achieves a Cinebench R23 single-core score of 5,960 and a multi-core score of 42,216. Its PassMark single-thread score is 4,689, and its multithread score is 49,682, indicating strong balanced performance.

Q: How many combos does this specific CPU-GPU pairing rank above in Minimum?

A: The combo ranks 2,837 out of 2,939 total tested combinations, meaning it outperforms 102 other combos. This places it near the bottom of the database for this game.

GPU Role

The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 is the clear bottleneck in this pairing for Minimum. Its 4 GB of GDDR5 memory on a 128-bit bus provides 128.1 GB/s of bandwidth, which is modest by modern standards. The GPU's base clock of 1485 MHz and boost clock of 1665 MHz are fixed, and the data shows the card struggling at higher resolutions where memory bandwidth and fill rate become critical.

At 3840x2160, the GTX 1650 produces 18 FPS on High settings and just 14 FPS on Ultra. These numbers are barely playable even for a slow-paced third-person shooter. The 4 GB frame buffer is likely exhausted at 4K, especially with higher texture qualities, forcing the card into memory-swap scenarios that crater performance. The 53.28 GPixel/s pixel rate and 93.24 GTexel/s texture rate are simply insufficient for 8.3 million pixels at 4K with advanced shading.

Interestingly, the GPU's synthetic benchmarks tell a similar story. Its PassMark G3D score of 7,880 places it at the 40th percentile, and its DirectX 12 score of 35 is notably weak. The card supports DirectX 12 (12_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4, but raw throughput is the limiting factor. The 896 shading units and 32 ROPs are entry-level figures that align with its 40th percentile ranking.

The data implies that the GTX 1650 was designed for 1080p gaming, not 4K. At 1080p Low, it achieves 81 FPS, which is respectable. But the moment resolution climbs to 1440p or 4K, the card's pixel throughput and memory bandwidth become severe constraints. The 128.1 GB/s bandwidth is particularly telling—at 4K, the GPU must move massive amounts of texture and geometry data, and this pipe simply cannot keep up.

Another key observation: the GPU's closest rivals are integrated and low-end discrete parts. The Intel UHD Graphics 750 scores 7,441 (0.4% lower), and the AMD Radeon R7 350 scores 7,425 (0.6% lower). This places the GTX 1650 in a performance tier that is barely above modern integrated graphics, which explains its struggles in Minimum at higher settings.

Resolution Scaling

The measured data reveals a predictable but steep resolution scaling curve. From 1080p to 1440p, average FPS drops by roughly 35% across all settings. From 1440p to 4K, the drop is another 45-50%. This is a classic sign of a GPU-bound scenario where pixel count directly dictates performance.

At 1080p Low, the combo produces 81 FPS. Moving to 1440p Low drops that to 52 FPS—a 36% reduction. At 4K Low, it falls to 28 FPS—another 46% reduction from 1440p. The pattern holds across every preset: High goes from 52 to 34 to 18 FPS (1080p to 1440p to 4K), Medium goes from 62 to 40 to 22 FPS, and Ultra goes from 40 to 26 to 14 FPS.

The scaling is nearly linear with pixel count. 1080p has 2.07 million pixels, 1440p has 3.69 million (1.78x), and 4K has 8.29 million (4x from 1080p). If the GPU were perfectly pixel-bound, 4K would take roughly 4x longer per frame than 1080p. The actual data shows 81 FPS at 1080p Low versus 28 FPS at 4K Low—a factor of 2.9x. This suggests some inefficiency at 4K, likely from memory bandwidth limitations or driver overhead, but the trend is clearly GPU-limited.

The CPU, with its 20 cores and 30 MB of L3 cache, is almost certainly not the limiting factor at any resolution. Its Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 42,216 and PassMark multithread score of 49,682 position it as a high-end desktop processor. The fact that FPS scales so predictably with resolution confirms that the GTX 1650 is the sole bottleneck.

For players, this means resolution choice is the most critical decision. At 1080p, the game is playable even on Ultra (40 FPS). At 1440p, only Low (52 FPS) approaches smoothness. At 4K, no setting reaches 30 FPS, making the game effectively unplayable at that resolution with this GPU.

Measured FPS Breakdown

At 1920x1080, the combo shows its only playable results. Low settings yield 81 FPS average, Medium produces 62 FPS (with a minimum of 53 and maximum of 72), High drops to 52 FPS, and Ultra falls to 40 FPS. The frame time consistency at Medium—a 19 FPS range—suggests some stuttering, but overall this resolution is viable.

At 2560x1440, performance becomes marginal. Low settings manage 52 FPS, which is acceptable for a third-person shooter. Medium produces 40 FPS (minimum 34, maximum 46), High drops to 34 FPS, and Ultra falls to 26 FPS. The 1440p Medium numbers show a 12 FPS variance, indicating less stability than at 1080p.

At 3840x2160, the GPU is overwhelmed. Low settings produce 28 FPS, Medium yields 22 FPS (minimum 18, maximum 25), High drops to 18 FPS, and Ultra bottoms out at 14 FPS. None of these are playable for a shooter, even a slower-paced one. The 4K Medium minimum of 18 FPS confirms that frame drops are severe.

The settings scaling at each resolution is consistent: Low to Medium costs roughly 20-25% performance, Medium to High costs another 15-20%, and High to Ultra costs another 20-25%. This is a linear relationship, suggesting that each preset tier adds a similar amount of graphical work.

Notably, the data does not include minimum FPS for Low, High, or Ultra presets at any resolution except Medium. This omission suggests either the testing methodology only recorded min/max for Medium or the variance was too high to report meaningfully. The Medium min/max figures at each resolution (53/72 at 1080p, 34/46 at 1440p, 18/25 at 4K) provide a glimpse into frame pacing, but the full picture is incomplete.

How This Combo Ranks

This pairing ranks 2,837 out of 2,939 tested combinations in Minimum. That places it in the bottom 4% of all systems tested for this game. The rank reflects the GPU's age and entry-level positioning rather than the CPU, which is a current-generation high-end part.

The CPU alone ranks at the 93rd percentile of all processors. Its average benchmark score of 64,640 is competitive with server-class chips like the AMD EPYC 4464P (64,823) and AMD EPYC 9124 (65,104). Yet when paired with the GTX 1650, the system's game performance is dragged down to near the bottom of the database.

This is a textbook bottleneck scenario. The CPU is capable of far more than the GPU can deliver. The data suggests that if the GTX 1650 were replaced with a stronger GPU, this combo's rank would improve dramatically. The GPU's 40th percentile standing is the limiting factor.

The rank also implies that most other tested combos—2,836 of them—produce higher average FPS in Minimum. This is unsurprising given that the GTX 1650 is end-of-life (production status) and was released in 2019. The game itself launched in 2014, but modern hardware has moved far beyond this GPU's capabilities.

For context, the GPU's nearest rivals (Radeon HD 8850M, UHD Graphics 750, Radeon R7 350, Arc A310) are all low-end or integrated parts. The fact that this combo ranks so low confirms that Minimum, despite its age, still demands more GPU power than this card can provide at higher resolutions.

Settings Recommendations

The data clearly shows that 1920x1080 is the only resolution where this combo delivers consistently playable performance. At 1080p, Low settings provide 81 FPS, which is excellent for a shooter. Medium still delivers 62 FPS, making it the best balance of visual quality and smoothness. High at 52 FPS is acceptable, while Ultra at 40 FPS is borderline.

For players prioritizing smoothness, 1080p Low is the safe choice—81 FPS gives ample headroom for frame drops. For those wanting better visuals, 1080p Medium is recommended: 62 FPS average with a 53 FPS minimum still clears the 60 FPS target most of the time. The 72 FPS maximum shows the system can push higher when the scene is less demanding.

At 1440p, Low settings (52 FPS) are the only reasonable option. Medium drops to 40 FPS, which is noticeably less smooth for a shooter. High and Ultra are not recommended at this resolution. At 4K, no settings are viable, with even Low producing only 28 FPS.

The settings scaling suggests that the GTX 1650 benefits most from resolution reduction rather than preset reduction. Dropping from Ultra to Low at 1080p improves FPS from 40 to 81 (a 102% gain), while dropping from 1080p to 4K at Low reduces FPS from 81 to 28 (a 65% loss). This indicates that resolution is the primary lever, but settings still matter significantly.

Given the game's genre (third-person shooter), a stable 60 FPS is preferable to higher visual fidelity. The recommendation is clear: 1920x1080 Medium. This preset provides 62 FPS average with acceptable minimums, and the visual upgrade over Low is worth the 23% performance cost. For competitive play, 1080p Low at 81 FPS is the better choice.

CPU Role

The Intel Core Ultra 7 265 is a 20-core, 20-thread processor based on the Arrow Lake architecture. It runs at a base clock of 2.40 GHz and boosts to 5.30 GHz, with a 65 W TDP. This is a high-end desktop CPU, released in January 2025, and its benchmark scores reflect that positioning.

In Cinebench R23, it scores 5,960 single-core and 42,216 multi-core. The single-core score is particularly relevant for gaming, as most titles rely heavily on single-thread performance. The PassMark single-thread score of 4,689 and multithread score of 49,682 confirm balanced performance. The CPU's 30 MB of shared L3 cache and 3 MB L2 per core provide ample bandwidth for game data.

However, in Minimum, the CPU's role is minimal. The measured FPS data shows GPU-bound behavior at every resolution and setting. The CPU is not the bottleneck—the GTX 1650 is. This is evident from the resolution scaling pattern: FPS drops proportionally with pixel count, which is characteristic of GPU limitations, not CPU limitations.

The CPU's percentile ranking (93rd among all CPUs) versus the GPU's (40th) illustrates the mismatch. The CPU is near the top of the performance charts, while the GPU is in the middle-low range. In Minimum, this means the CPU sits idle waiting for the GPU to render frames, particularly at higher resolutions.

Interestingly, the CPU's nearest rivals are server processors (EPYC 4464P, EPYC 7343, EPYC 9124), indicating it competes with enterprise silicon in multi-threaded workloads. Yet in this game, that power is untapped. The 20 cores and 20 threads are irrelevant when the GPU can only produce 18 FPS at 4K High.

This pairing demonstrates a fundamental principle: a powerful CPU cannot compensate for a weak GPU in GPU-bound scenarios. The Core Ultra 7 265 is overqualified for this workload, and the GTX 1650 is the definitive limiting factor. For Minimum specifically, the CPU contributes virtually nothing to the measured FPS beyond ensuring the GPU is never starved of data—a task even a modest processor could handle.