Minimum

The Intel Core Ultra 7 265HX paired with the AMD Radeon 760M places itself at the very bottom of the performance hierarchy for Minimum, ranking 2930 out of 2939 tested combos. This is a decisive result: the combination is in the 0.3rd percentile of all tested systems, meaning virtually every other configuration delivers higher frame rates in this third-person shooter. The data shows a system that is fundamentally GPU-limited, with the integrated Radeon 760M struggling to maintain playable framerates even at 1080p. While the CPU is a high-end mobile part—the Core Ultra 7 265HX scores in the 93rd percentile among all CPUs—its capabilities are largely wasted in this pairing, as the graphics solution becomes the dominant bottleneck across every resolution and settings preset tested. The measured FPS numbers confirm this: at 1080p Low, the combo averages 58 FPS, but this is the only configuration that approaches smooth gameplay, and it falls apart quickly as settings or resolution increase.

How This Combo Ranks

The ranking data is unambiguous. With a combo rank of 2930 out of 2939, this system sits at the 99.7th percentile from the top—or, more accurately, in the bottom 0.3% of all tested combinations. The Intel Core Ultra 7 265HX itself is a powerful processor; its average benchmark score of 63173 places it in the 93rd percentile of all CPUs, and it trades blows with close rivals. The nearest CPU competitor, the Intel Core i7-13790F, scores 63080, a delta of just 0.1%—essentially a statistical tie. The AMD Ryzen AI 7 450G scores 63331, putting it 0.2% ahead, while the AMD Ryzen AI Embedded P185 (62839) and Intel Core Ultra 7 255HX (62738) sit 0.5% and 0.7% behind, respectively. These margins are minuscule, indicating that the CPU is not the limiting factor in this combo.

The GPU tells a different story. The AMD Radeon 760M has an average benchmark score of 6019, placing it in the 35th percentile of all GPUs. Its nearest rivals are the AMD Radeon RX 6400 (6001, 0.3% ahead), NVIDIA GeForce GTX 770M (6000, 0.3% ahead), NVIDIA RTX PRO 6000 Blackwell Server (5996, 0.4% ahead), and NVIDIA Quadro P2000 (6049, 0.5% behind). These are all older or lower-tier discrete GPUs, and the 760M is an integrated graphics solution—a fact reflected in its ranking. The gap between the CPU's high percentile and the GPU's mid-low percentile creates a severe imbalance. In Minimum, the combo's overall rank is dragged down almost entirely by the GPU. The CPU could theoretically push far higher frame rates, but the Radeon 760M cannot deliver them. This is a textbook case of a bottlenecked system, and the measured FPS data corroborates it: even at the lowest settings, the combo fails to hit 60 FPS at 1080p, and at higher resolutions it drops to unplayable levels.

GPU Role

The AMD Radeon 760M is an integrated graphics processor based on the RDNA 3.0 architecture, built on a 4 nm process. It features 512 shading units, 32 texture mapping units, and 16 raster operation pipelines, along with 8 ray tracing cores. Its clock speeds range from a base of 800 MHz to a boost of 2599 MHz. The memory configuration is entirely system-shared, meaning the GPU uses the same DDR5 memory as the CPU, with bandwidth described as "System Dependent." This is a critical limitation: unlike a discrete GPU with dedicated VRAM, the 760M must contend with the CPU for memory bandwidth, which impacts performance in memory-intensive scenarios.

In Minimum, the GPU's role is the dominant factor in determining frame rates. The measured FPS data shows a clear pattern: as resolution increases, performance drops dramatically, and as settings increase, performance also drops. At 1080p Low, the combo averages 58 FPS. At 1080p Medium, it drops to 44 FPS. At 1080p High, it falls to 37 FPS, and at 1080p Ultra, it bottoms out at 28 FPS. The same trend holds at 1440p and 4K. The GPU's low pixel rate (41.58 GPixel/s) and texture rate (83.17 GTexel/s) relative to the demands of higher resolutions explain this behavior. The FP32 performance of 5.323 TFLOPS is modest for modern gaming, and the 760M's 35th percentile ranking among all GPUs reflects its position as an entry-level integrated solution.

The boost clock of 2599 MHz is relatively high for an iGPU, but it cannot compensate for the limited shading units and memory bandwidth. The 760M's PassMark G3D score of 5310 and DirectX 11 score of 52 (out of a possible higher range) show that it is capable of running games, but not at high settings or resolutions. The data indicates that the GPU is the primary bottleneck in this combo. The CPU, with its 20 cores and 20 threads and a boost clock of 5.30 GHz, is far more capable than the GPU. This is confirmed by the CPU's Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 40642 and single-core score of 5737, which are strong numbers for a mobile processor. In Minimum, the GPU is the limiting component, and the measured FPS reflects this at every tested configuration.

FAQ

*Q: What is the best average FPS this combo achieves in Minimum?*

A: The highest average FPS recorded is 58, achieved at 1920x1080 resolution with Low settings. This is the only configuration that comes close to a smooth 60 FPS experience.

Q: How does the combo perform at 4K resolution?

A: At 3840x2160, the average FPS ranges from 10 at Ultra settings to 20 at Low settings. Medium settings yield 15 FPS, and High settings yield 13 FPS. These are all below playable thresholds.

Q: Is the CPU or GPU the limiting factor in this combo?

A: The data indicates the GPU is the primary bottleneck. The Intel Core Ultra 7 265HX ranks in the 93rd percentile of all CPUs, while the AMD Radeon 760M ranks in the 35th percentile of all GPUs. The measured FPS drops significantly with resolution and settings, which is characteristic of a GPU-limited system.

Q: What is the performance difference between Low and Ultra settings at 1080p?

A: At 1920x1080, Low settings average 58 FPS, while Ultra settings average 28 FPS. This represents a 30 FPS drop, or roughly 52% lower performance when moving from the lowest to the highest preset.

*Q: How does this combo rank compared to other tested systems in Minimum?*

A: The combo ranks 2930 out of 2939 tested combinations, placing it in the bottom 0.3% of all systems. This is consistent with the GPU's low percentile ranking and the measured FPS results.

Q: What are the minimum and maximum FPS recorded for this combo?

A: The only configurations with recorded min and max FPS are Medium settings. At 3840x2160 Medium, the range is 13 to 18 FPS. At 2560x1440 Medium, the range is 24 to 33 FPS. At 1920x1080 Medium, the range is 38 to 51 FPS. Other settings only have average FPS data.

Measured FPS Breakdown

The measured FPS data provides a complete picture of this combo's performance across resolutions and settings. At 1920x1080, the lowest resolution tested, the combo achieves its best results. With Low settings, the average FPS is 58, which is the highest recorded for any configuration. Medium settings drop the average to 44 FPS, with a minimum of 38 and a maximum of 51. High settings yield 37 FPS on average, and Ultra settings drop to 28 FPS. This shows that even at 1080p, the combo cannot maintain a consistent 60 FPS experience except at the lowest settings, and even then, it barely reaches that threshold.

At 2560x1440, performance falls off significantly. Low settings average 37 FPS, which is a 36% drop from the 1080p Low result. Medium settings average 29 FPS, with a range of 24 to 33 FPS. High settings drop to 24 FPS, and Ultra settings fall to 18 FPS. None of these configurations are playable for a fast-paced third-person shooter, as they all fall below the 30 FPS threshold except for Low, which barely exceeds it.

At 3840x2160, the results are uniformly poor. Low settings average 20 FPS, Medium settings average 15 FPS (with a range of 13 to 18 FPS), High settings average 13 FPS, and Ultra settings average 10 FPS. These numbers are far below any playable threshold, confirming that this combo is not suitable for 4K gaming in Minimum. The pattern is consistent: every increase in resolution or settings results in a substantial FPS drop, and the GPU is clearly the limiting factor.

The data also shows that the gap between settings presets grows with resolution. At 1080p, the difference between Low and Ultra is 30 FPS (58 vs 28). At 1440p, the difference is 19 FPS (37 vs 18). At 4K, the difference is 10 FPS (20 vs 10). This indicates that at higher resolutions, the GPU is so constrained that even reducing settings has diminishing returns. The combo is simply not equipped to handle the demands of Minimum beyond the most modest configurations.

Resolution Scaling

The resolution scaling data reveals a steep performance curve. Moving from 1920x1080 to 2560x1440 at Low settings, the average FPS drops from 58 to 37, a decrease of 36%. At Medium settings, the drop is from 44 to 29 FPS, a 34% decrease. At High settings, it goes from 37 to 24 FPS, a 35% decrease. At Ultra settings, it drops from 28 to 18 FPS, a 36% decrease. The consistency of these percentages—all around 34-36%—suggests that the GPU is uniformly stressed by the increase in pixel count, regardless of the settings preset.

Moving from 2560x1440 to 3840x2160 shows an even steeper decline. At Low settings, FPS drops from 37 to 20, a 46% decrease. At Medium settings, it drops from 29 to 15, a 48% decrease. At High settings, it drops from 24 to 13, a 46% decrease. At Ultra settings, it drops from 18 to 10, a 44% decrease. This acceleration in the rate of decline at higher resolutions is a clear sign of a GPU that is running out of resources. The pixel count quadruples from 1080p to 4K, but the FPS does not scale linearly—it drops much faster, indicating that the GPU's memory bandwidth and shading capacity are severely insufficient.

The data points to the GPU as the limiting component in this scaling behavior. If the CPU were the bottleneck, we would expect the FPS to remain relatively stable across resolutions, as the CPU's workload is largely independent of resolution. Instead, the FPS drops dramatically as resolution increases, which is the classic signature of a GPU-limited system. The AMD Radeon 760M, with its system-shared memory and modest 512 shading units, simply cannot keep up with the demands of higher resolutions. The Intel Core Ultra 7 265HX, by contrast, has ample headroom—its 20 cores and 5.30 GHz boost clock are far more than this game requires at any resolution. The measured data confirms that the GPU is the primary bottleneck, and the resolution scaling behavior is a direct consequence of this limitation.

Settings Recommendations

Based on the measured FPS data, the most viable configuration for this combo is 1920x1080 with Low settings, which delivers an average of 58 FPS. This is the only setting that approaches the 60 FPS target for smooth gameplay in a third-person shooter. Even so, the lack of a recorded minimum FPS for this configuration means we cannot confirm frame-time consistency, but the average is sufficient for a playable experience. If the user is willing to accept lower frame rates, 1920x1080 with Medium settings offers 44 FPS on average, with a range of 38 to 51 FPS. This is playable but may feel less responsive during fast action sequences.

At 2560x1440, the best option is Low settings, which averages 37 FPS. This is below the 60 FPS target but may be acceptable for less demanding gameplay. However, the drop from 1080p Low (58 FPS) to 1440p Low (37 FPS) is substantial, and the visual upgrade may not justify the performance loss. At 3840x2160, no settings preset is recommended. Even Low settings average only 20 FPS, which is far below playable thresholds. The data shows that this combo is not suitable for 4K gaming in Minimum.

The settings recommendations are clear: for the best experience, use 1920x1080 with Low settings. This yields the highest average FPS and is the only configuration that approaches smooth gameplay. If visual fidelity is a priority, Medium settings at 1080p is a compromise, but the 14 FPS drop from Low to Medium (58 to 44) is significant. High and Ultra settings at any resolution are not recommended, as they all fall below 40 FPS and most fall below 30 FPS. The GPU's limited capabilities mean that lower settings are necessary to achieve acceptable performance, and the data supports prioritizing frame rate over visual quality with this hardware combination.