Minimum

# Minimum — Intel Core Ultra 7 265 + NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5070 Ti

FAQ

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

A: At 1920x1080, the combo delivers 335 FPS on Low, 257 FPS on Medium, 215 FPS on High, and 164 FPS on Ultra. At 2560x1440, it hits 216 FPS on Low, 166 FPS on Medium, 139 FPS on High, and 106 FPS on Ultra. At 3840x2160, the range drops to 116 FPS on Low, 89 FPS on Medium, 75 FPS on High, and 57 FPS on Ultra.

Q: How does the RTX 5070 Ti compare to its nearest rivals in synthetic benchmarks?

A: The GPU’s average benchmark score is 49957, ranking in the 86th percentile of all GPUs. It trails the AMD Radeon RX 6900 XT by 2% (score 50951) and sits 3.1% ahead of the AMD Radeon RX 6800 XT (score 48477). It is also within 0.4% of the Intel Arc A550M (score 49737) and 0.1% of the AMD Radeon RX Vega 64 (score 50001).

Q: What is the CPU’s multi-threaded performance in Cinebench?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 7 265 scores 42216 in Cinebench R23 multi-core and 6268 in Cinebench R20 multi-core. Its Cinebench R15 multi-core result is 4255. These results place it in the 93rd percentile of all CPUs.

Q: Does this combo support high refresh rates at 2560x1440?

A: Yes. At 2560x1440, the combo produces 216 FPS on Low settings, 166 FPS on Medium, and 139 FPS on High. Even Ultra settings maintain 106 FPS, which exceeds typical 100 Hz monitors.

Q: Which settings preset gives the most consistent frame pacing?

A: The Medium preset at 1920x1080 shows a min FPS of 218 and max FPS of 295, with an average of 257. At 2560x1440 Medium, min FPS is 141 and max is 190, averaging 166. At 3840x2160 Medium, min FPS is 76 and max is 103, averaging 89. These are the only presets with recorded min/max values.

Q: Is this a CPU-bound or GPU-bound pairing for Minimum?

A: The data shows the GPU has a 16 GB GDDR7 memory pool with 896.0 GB/s bandwidth, while the CPU has 20 cores and 20 threads with a 5.30 GHz boost clock. Given that the game is from 2014 and the hardware is modern, the GPU’s raw throughput (43.94 TFLOPS FP32) likely drives the highest resolution results, while the CPU’s single-core score of 5960 in Cinebench R23 supports high FPS at lower resolutions.

GPU Role

The NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5070 Ti is built on the Blackwell 2.0 architecture with the GB203 chip, manufactured on a 5 nm process by TSMC. It packs 8960 shading units, 280 texture mapping units, and 96 raster output units. The GPU has 70 ray tracing cores and 280 tensor cores, which enables DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2) support — relevant for a 2014 game that can still leverage modern rendering paths.

Memory configuration is substantial: 16 GB of GDDR7 on a 256-bit bus, delivering 896.0 GB/s of bandwidth. The base clock runs at 2295 MHz with a boost clock of 2452 MHz, while memory operates at 1750 MHz (28 Gbps effective). This memory subsystem is critical for Minimum at 3840x2160, where the Ultra preset drops to 57 FPS — the data suggests VRAM capacity is not the bottleneck, but rather raw pixel throughput (235.4 GPixel/s) and texture rate (686.6 GTexel/s) that limit high-resolution Ultra performance.

In synthetic benchmarks, the RTX 5070 Ti scores 32974 in Passmark G3D and 20203 in Passmark GPU Compute. Its 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 score is 6604, while Geekbench OpenCL and Vulkan scores are 212363 and 225122, respectively. The GPU’s average benchmark score of 49957 places it in the 86th percentile. Comparisons to nearest rivals show a tight cluster: it is nearly identical to the AMD Radeon RX Vega 64 (deltaPct -0.1%) and the Intel Arc A550M (deltaPct 0.4%), while the AMD Radeon RX 6900 XT leads by 2% and the AMD Radeon RX 6800 XT trails by 3.1%.

For Minimum specifically, the measured FPS data shows the GPU scales predictably with settings. At 1920x1080, Low yields 335 FPS, Medium 257 FPS, High 215 FPS, and Ultra 164 FPS. At 2560x1440, the same progression produces 216, 166, 139, and 106 FPS. At 3840x2160, results are 116, 89, 75, and 57 FPS. The step from High to Ultra consistently costs about 25-30% performance across resolutions, suggesting Ultra enables effects that heavily tax the GPU. The Medium preset at 3840x2160 retains a min FPS of 76 and max of 103, showing that even at 4K, this GPU keeps frame times reasonable when not maxing every setting.

CPU Role

The Intel Core Ultra 7 265 is part of the Core Ultra Series 2, built on the Arrow Lake architecture (Arrow Lake-S) using a 3 nm process at TSMC. It has 20 cores and 20 threads, with a base clock of 2.40 GHz and a boost clock of 5.30 GHz. The CPU’s TDP is 65 W, which is modest for a desktop part with this core count. It uses the Intel Socket 1851 and supports DDR5 memory via a dual-channel bus with 102.4 GB/s bandwidth.

Cache hierarchy includes 192 KB of L1 per core, 3 MB of L2 per core, and 30 MB of shared L3 cache. The CPU also integrates Arc Xe-LPG Graphics 32EU, though the discrete RTX 5070 Ti renders Minimum. The processor provides PCIe Gen 5 with 20 lanes from the CPU, which pairs with the GPU’s PCIe 5.0 x16 interface.

In Cinebench tests, the CPU scores 42216 in R23 multi-core and 5960 in R23 single-core. The R20 results are 6268 multi-core and 884 single-core, while R15 shows 4255 multi-core and 600 single-core. Passmark results include 49682 in multithread, 4689 in single-thread, 172776 in floating point math, 134773 in integer math, and 522983 in data compression. These scores place the CPU in the 93rd percentile of all CPUs, with an average benchmark score of 64640.

Comparing to nearest rivals, the Core Ultra 7 265 is 0.3% behind the AMD EPYC 4464P (score 64823) and 0.7% behind the AMD EPYC 7343 (score 64202). It is 0.3% ahead of the Intel Core Ultra 7 265F (score 64438) and 0.7% ahead of the AMD EPYC 9124 (score 65104). This places the CPU in a tight performance band — differences of under 1% are effectively noise.

For Minimum, the CPU’s high single-thread performance is likely what enables the 335 FPS result at 1920x1080 Low. The 5.30 GHz boost clock and 5960 R23 single-core score provide the per-thread throughput that older game engines often need for high frame rates. The 20-core configuration may be overkill for a 2014 title, but the data shows no obvious CPU bottleneck — even at 3840x2160 Ultra, the 57 FPS result is more consistent with GPU limits than CPU constraints.

How This Combo Ranks

This specific combination of Intel Core Ultra 7 265 and NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5070 Ti ranks 273 out of 2939 tested combos in Minimum. That places it in the top 9.3% of all tested configurations, which is strong given that the database includes many high-end pairings.

The rank reflects the GPU’s 86th percentile standing and the CPU’s 93rd percentile standing. While the GPU is not the absolute fastest (it sits 2% behind the RX 6900 XT in synthetic scores), the CPU’s high percentile helps push this combo up the rankings. The measured FPS data confirms this: at 1920x1080, even the Ultra preset produces 164 FPS, which is well above playable thresholds for most displays. At 2560x1440, all presets stay above 100 FPS, and at 3840x2160, the Low and Medium presets remain above 60 FPS.

The rank of 273 out of 2939 suggests that roughly 266 combos outperform this one, while over 2600 fall behind. Given that the top combos likely include higher-tier GPUs like the RTX 5090 or RX 7900 XTX, this result is expected. The combo’s strength is consistency — it delivers high frame rates across all three tested resolutions, with the only sub-60 result being 3840x2160 Ultra at 57 FPS.

Settings Recommendations

For 1920x1080, the data shows that even Ultra settings achieve 164 FPS, so there is no reason to drop below High. The Medium preset delivers 257 FPS with a min of 218 and max of 295, which is excellent for high refresh rate displays. High settings at 215 FPS offer a good balance if you want better visuals without sacrificing the 200+ FPS experience. Low at 335 FPS is excessive unless you are chasing maximum frame rates for competitive play.

At 2560x1440, High settings produce 139 FPS, Medium produces 166 FPS with a min of 141 and max of 190, and Low produces 216 FPS. Ultra at 106 FPS is still viable for 100 Hz monitors, but the gap from High to Ultra (139 to 106) suggests Ultra enables features that cost significant performance. Medium is the sweet spot here — 166 FPS average with a 141 FPS minimum keeps frame pacing smooth on 144 Hz displays.

At 3840x2160, the choices narrow. Low delivers 116 FPS, Medium delivers 89 FPS with a min of 76 and max of 103, High delivers 75 FPS, and Ultra drops to 57 FPS. For 60 Hz displays, Ultra is borderline at 57 FPS — you might notice occasional dips below 60. High at 75 FPS provides headroom, while Medium at 89 FPS with a 76 FPS minimum is the most consistent option for 4K. Low at 116 FPS is the choice if you prioritize frame rate over visual fidelity.

The overall recommendation across resolutions is the Medium preset. It is the only preset with recorded min/max values in the data, showing stable frame pacing at all three resolutions. The min FPS values (218 at 1080p, 141 at 1440p, 76 at 4K) all remain comfortably above the refresh rates of standard monitors, whereas Ultra presets lack recorded min values and may have less predictable frame times.

Measured FPS Breakdown

1920x1080:

• Low: 335 FPS average
• Medium: 257 FPS average, min 218, max 295
• High: 215 FPS average
• Ultra: 164 FPS average

2560x1440:

• Low: 216 FPS average
• Medium: 166 FPS average, min 141, max 190
• High: 139 FPS average
• Ultra: 106 FPS average

3840x2160:

• Low: 116 FPS average
• Medium: 89 FPS average, min 76, max 103
• High: 75 FPS average
• Ultra: 57 FPS average

The scaling pattern is consistent. Moving from Low to Medium costs about 23% performance at 1080p (335 to 257), 23% at 1440p (216 to 166), and 23% at 4K (116 to 89). Moving from Medium to High costs another 16% at 1080p (257 to 215), 16% at 1440p (166 to 139), and 16% at 4K (89 to 75). The step from High to Ultra costs 24% at 1080p (215 to 164), 24% at 1440p (139 to 106), and 24% at 4K (75 to 57).

Resolution scaling shows that 1440p delivers roughly 65% of the 1080p performance at the same settings (e.g., 216 vs 335 on Low, 166 vs 257 on Medium, 139 vs 215 on High, 106 vs 164 on Ultra). 4K delivers roughly 54% of 1080p performance (116 vs 335 on Low, 89 vs 257 on Medium, 75 vs 215 on High, 57 vs 164 on Ultra). These ratios are consistent across settings, indicating the GPU scales linearly with pixel count.

The only frame time data available comes from the Medium preset. At 1080p, the spread between min and max is 77 FPS (218 to 295), at 1440p it is 49 FPS (141 to 190), and at 4K it is 27 FPS (76 to 103). The narrower spread at higher resolutions suggests the GPU becomes more consistently loaded as pixel count increases, reducing frame time variance.

For 60 Hz gaming at 4K, the Medium preset is the safest choice with a 76 FPS minimum. For 144 Hz gaming at 1440p, Medium’s 141 FPS minimum keeps you above the refresh rate. For 240 Hz gaming at 1080p, Medium’s 218 FPS minimum is sufficient, while High at 215 FPS average might occasionally dip below 240. Low at 335 FPS gives the most headroom for extreme refresh rates.

The Ultra preset is only recommended at 1080p, where 164 FPS remains high. At 1440p, 106 FPS is acceptable for 100 Hz displays but not for 144 Hz. At 4K, 57 FPS misses the 60 FPS target and should be avoided unless you accept the trade-off of maxed visuals over smooth motion.