Minimum

# Intel Core Ultra 7 265 + NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2070 SUPER in Minimum: Benchmark Analysis

This pairing combines a 20-core Arrow Lake desktop processor with an aging Turing-generation GPU, producing a configuration that ranks 1659th out of 2939 tested combos in Minimum. The data shows a system where the RTX 2070 SUPER, with its 8 GB GDDR6 memory and 448.0 GB/s bandwidth, becomes the primary constraint at higher resolutions, while the Core Ultra 7 265's 5.30 GHz boost clock and 30 MB shared L3 cache provide ample headroom for the game's CPU demands. The result is a playable but resolution-sensitive experience, with average frame rates ranging from 188 FPS at 1080p Low down to 32 FPS at 4K Ultra.

FAQ

*Q: What is the combo's overall rank in Minimum?*

A: This CPU-GPU combination ranks 1659th out of 2939 tested combos, placing it in the 56th percentile of all configurations evaluated in this game.

Q: What is the best average frame rate achieved with this combo?

A: The highest measured average FPS is 188, achieved at 1920x1080 with Low settings. The lowest is 32 FPS at 3840x2160 with Ultra settings.

Q: How does the CPU compare to its nearest rivals in overall benchmark score?

A: The Core Ultra 7 265 has an average benchmark score of 64640. It trails the AMD EPYC 4464P by 0.3% (64823) and the AMD EPYC 9124 by 0.7% (65104), while leading the Intel Core Ultra 7 265F by 0.3% (64438) and the AMD EPYC 7343 by 0.7% (64202).

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

A: The RTX 2070 SUPER scores in the 65th percentile of all GPUs, with an average benchmark score of 20282. Its closest rival, the NVIDIA Quadro M4000M, scores 20480, a 1% difference.

Q: Does the measured data show consistent frame times at 1440p Medium?

A: At 2560x1440 Medium, the combo produces an average of 93 FPS with a minimum of 79 and maximum of 106. The spread between min and max (27 FPS) is similar to the 1080p Medium spread (43 FPS difference from 122 to 165), indicating slightly more consistent performance at the lower resolution.

Q: What memory bandwidth does the GPU provide for this game?

A: The RTX 2070 SUPER offers 448.0 GB/s of memory bandwidth through a 256-bit bus, paired with 8 GB of GDDR6 memory running at 14 Gbps effective speed.

How This Combo Ranks

The combination of the Intel Core Ultra 7 265 and NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2070 SUPER achieves rank 1659 out of 2939 tested combos in Minimum. This places the configuration in the middle-upper portion of the database, but not among the top performers. The ranking reflects a significant imbalance: the CPU sits in the 93rd percentile of all processors with a strong 42216 score in Cinebench R23 multi-core, while the GPU's 65th percentile standing drags the overall combo down.

The delta between the two components is stark. The CPU's average benchmark score of 64640 places it within 1% of several high-end server and workstation chips — the AMD EPYC 9124 (65104) and EPYC 4464P (64823) are within 0.7% and 0.3%, respectively. Meanwhile, the RTX 2070 SUPER's average of 20282 is nearly identical to the Intel Arc B570 (20556, 1.3% faster) and the RTX 3070 Mobile (20534, 1.2% faster), both of which are significantly newer designs. This GPU is clearly the limiting factor in the pairing.

In Minimum, a third-person shooter from 2014, this imbalance manifests as a GPU-bound scenario at higher settings. The combo's ranking at 1659 suggests that while the CPU could push much higher frame rates, the GPU's 9.062 TFLOPS of FP32 compute and 8 GB memory capacity cap performance. For context, the RTX 2070 SUPER's PassMark G3D score of 18169 is respectable but far from top-tier, and its DirectX 12 score of 67 indicates modest API-level performance in modern workloads. The game's age means the CPU is never the bottleneck — even at 1080p Low where the combo hits 188 FPS, the data suggests the GPU is still the primary constraint given its 65th percentile standing.

CPU Role

The Intel Core Ultra 7 265 brings 20 cores and 20 threads (no hyperthreading) built on TSMC's 3 nm process. Its base clock of 2.40 GHz and boost clock of 5.30 GHz provide a wide operating range, with the 30 MB shared L3 cache and 102.4 GB/s dual-channel DDR5 memory bandwidth supporting data-intensive workloads. The architecture, Arrow Lake-S, uses a 243 mm² die with 17,800 million transistors, and the chip carries a 65 W TDP — notably efficient for 20 cores.

In Minimum, the CPU's role is primarily to feed frames to the GPU without becoming a bottleneck. The game, being a 2014 title, does not stress modern multicore processors heavily. The Core Ultra 7 265's single-core performance — a Cinebench R23 single-core score of 5960 and a PassMark single-thread score of 4689 — is more than sufficient for the game's logic and physics. The 5.30 GHz boost clock ensures high single-threaded throughput, which matters for older game engines that rely on a few primary threads. The 20 cores provide headroom for background tasks and any modern OS overhead, but the game itself likely uses only a fraction of the available threads.

The CPU's benchmark results show it outperforms its nearest rivals in most synthetic tests. In PassMark multi-thread, the 265 scores 49682; in integer math, 134773; in floating-point math, 172776. These scores are all well above what Minimum would require. The CPU's percentile of 93 means it outperforms 93% of all tested processors, making it a top-tier chip. However, in this combo, that capability is largely untapped. The measured FPS data shows no scenario where the CPU appears to limit performance — even at 1080p Low with 188 FPS average, the GPU is likely the constraint, as the RTX 2070 SUPER's 65th percentile would suggest. The data indicates the CPU is never the bottleneck; rather, it provides a stable platform that allows the GPU to reach its full potential.

Measured FPS Breakdown

The measured FPS data covers three resolutions (1920x1080, 2560x1440, 3840x2160) and four settings presets (Low, Medium, High, Ultra), with average FPS recorded for all twelve configurations. Medium settings also include min and max FPS values, providing insight into frame time consistency.

1920x1080: The combo delivers its best performance here. Low settings produce 188 FPS average, Medium yields 144 FPS (min 122, max 165), High achieves 121 FPS, and Ultra drops to 92 FPS. The scaling from Low to Ultra shows a 96 FPS drop (51% reduction), indicating the GPU becomes more stressed as settings increase. The Medium preset's min-max spread of 43 FPS (122 to 165) suggests frame times vary noticeably, but the 144 FPS average keeps gameplay smooth.

2560x1440: Performance drops significantly from 1080p. Low settings average 121 FPS, Medium 93 FPS (min 79, max 106), High 78 FPS, and Ultra 59 FPS. The jump from 1080p Low (188 FPS) to 1440p Low (121 FPS) represents a 36% reduction, consistent with the increased pixel count. The Ultra preset at 59 FPS is borderline for smooth gameplay, while High at 78 FPS offers a better balance. The Medium preset's min-max spread narrows to 27 FPS (79 to 106), suggesting more consistent frame pacing than at 1080p.

3840x2160: At 4K, the combo struggles. Low settings average 65 FPS, Medium 50 FPS (min 42, max 57), High 42 FPS, and Ultra 32 FPS. The Ultra preset at 32 FPS is barely playable, and even High at 42 FPS may feel stuttery. The Medium preset's min of 42 FPS indicates occasional drops below 45 FPS, which can be noticeable in a third-person shooter. The scaling from 1080p High (121 FPS) to 4K High (42 FPS) represents a 65% reduction, highlighting the GPU's inability to handle 4K rendering in this title.

The data shows a clear pattern: resolution has a more significant impact on FPS than settings changes. Moving from 1080p to 1440p at the same settings costs roughly 35-37% of performance, while 1440p to 4K costs another 45-50%. Settings changes from Low to Ultra within a resolution cost 51-52% of FPS, but the absolute FPS loss is smaller at lower resolutions.

GPU Role

The NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2070 SUPER is the decisive component in this combo's Minimum performance. Built on the Turing architecture (TU104 chip, 12 nm process), it features 2560 shading units, 160 TMUs, and 64 ROPs. The GPU runs at a base clock of 1605 MHz with a boost of 1770 MHz, and its 8 GB of GDDR6 memory operates at 14 Gbps effective on a 256-bit bus, yielding 448.0 GB/s of bandwidth. The card has 40 RT cores and 320 tensor cores, though these are unlikely to be utilized in a 2014 game. Its FP32 performance is 9.062 TFLOPS, and the texture rate is 283.2 GTexel/s.

In Minimum, the GPU's 8 GB memory and 448 GB/s bandwidth are the primary constraints at higher resolutions. The game's textures and geometry at 4K Ultra likely exceed the memory's effective capacity, causing the FPS to drop to 32. Even at 1440p Ultra, the 59 FPS average suggests the GPU is working near its limits. The PassMark G3D score of 18169 and DirectX 12 score of 67 provide context: the GPU performs well in older APIs (DirectX 10 score of 132, DirectX 11 score of 151) but struggles with modern API features, though Minimum likely uses DirectX 11 or earlier given its 2014 release.

The RTX 2070 SUPER's 65th percentile ranking means it outperforms 65% of all GPUs in the database, but it is clearly a mid-range solution by modern standards. Its nearest rivals — the Quadro M4000M (20480, 1% faster), RTX 3070 Mobile (20534, 1.2% faster), and Arc B570 (20556, 1.3% faster) — are all within 1.5% of its average score, indicating the GPU sits in a competitive cluster. However, for a game like Minimum, the GPU's age and memory bandwidth limitations become apparent as resolution increases. The 448 GB/s bandwidth, while sufficient for 1080p and 1440p, is inadequate for 4K at high settings, where the 42 FPS average at High and 32 FPS at Ultra reflect the GPU's struggle to feed the frame buffer.

Settings Recommendations

Based on the measured FPS data, the optimal settings depend on the target resolution and desired frame rate. The data shows that Medium settings consistently provide a balanced experience across all resolutions, with the only min/max measurements available in the dataset.

At 1920x1080, the Medium preset delivers 144 FPS average with a min of 122 and max of 165. This provides a smooth, high-refresh-rate experience well suited to a third-person shooter. The High preset at 121 FPS is also viable, but the 23 FPS drop from Medium to High is not justified by the visual gain. The Ultra preset at 92 FPS is playable but sacrifices the headroom that Medium offers. For maximum performance, Low at 188 FPS is available, but Medium provides the best balance of visual quality and frame rate.

At 2560x1440, the Medium preset averages 93 FPS (min 79, max 106), which is the recommended choice for a responsive experience. The High preset at 78 FPS is acceptable but may feel less fluid during fast movements. The Ultra preset at 59 FPS dips below the 60 FPS threshold, making it less ideal for competitive play. Low at 121 FPS offers the smoothest experience but with diminished visuals. Medium is the sweet spot here, providing a 93 FPS average with a 79 FPS minimum that stays above the 75 FPS threshold for most displays.

At 3840x2160, the situation is more constrained. The Medium preset averages 50 FPS (min 42, max 57), which is borderline for a shooter. The Low preset at 65 FPS is the only configuration that provides a consistently playable experience, though it sacrifices visual fidelity. The High and Ultra presets at 42 FPS and 32 FPS, respectively, are not recommended for gameplay. For 4K, Low settings are the pragmatic choice, but the data suggests this combo is better suited to 1080p or 1440p gaming.

The overall recommendation is to use Medium settings at 1080p or 1440p, where the combo delivers 144 FPS and 93 FPS averages, respectively. At 4K, Low settings at 65 FPS are the only viable option for smooth gameplay.

Resolution Scaling

The FPS data reveals how this combo scales across resolutions, providing insight into the limiting component. From 1080p to 1440p, the average FPS drops by approximately 36% across all settings: Low goes from 188 to 121 (36% reduction), Medium from 144 to 93 (35%), High from 121 to 78 (36%), and Ultra from 92 to 59 (36%). This consistent percentage reduction indicates that the GPU is the limiting factor, as a CPU-bound scenario would show a smaller FPS drop at higher resolutions.

From 1440p to 4K, the reduction is more severe. Low drops from 121 to 65 (46%), Medium from 93 to 50 (46%), High from 78 to 42 (46%), and Ultra from 59 to 32 (46%). The consistent 46% reduction across all settings further confirms the GPU's dominance as the bottleneck. The RTX 2070 SUPER's 8 GB memory and 448 GB/s bandwidth are insufficient for 4K rendering, resulting in the sharp FPS decline.

The scaling behavior indicates that the Core Ultra 7 265 is not a limiting factor at any resolution. Even at 1080p Low with 188 FPS, the CPU's 20 cores and 5.30 GHz boost clock are unlikely to be saturated, as the game's 2014 engine would not utilize more than a few threads. The GPU, with its 65th percentile ranking and 9.062 TFLOPS compute, is the clear constraint. The data shows that the combo performs best at 1080p and 1440p, where the GPU's memory bandwidth is adequate, but degrades significantly at 4K due to the GPU's limitations. The 46% FPS loss from 1440p to 4K, versus the 36% loss from 1080p to 1440p, highlights the exponential cost of resolution scaling on this GPU, and the 32 FPS at 4K Ultra makes that configuration impractical for gameplay.