Minimum

The Intel Core Ultra 7 265HX paired with the AMD Radeon RX 7800M delivers a clear performance curve across Minimum’s resolution and settings matrix. The data shows a system that is firmly GPU-limited at higher resolutions, but which transitions into a more balanced state as pixel count drops. This analysis walks through the measured frames per second to explain where the bottleneck sits, which settings provide the most consistent experience, and how this specific combination of mobile hardware stacks up against other tested configurations.

Resolution Scaling

The frame rate drop from 1080p to 4K is steep and reveals the Radeon RX 7800M as the primary limiting component in this pairing. At High settings, the average frame rate falls from 111 FPS at 1920x1080 to 72 FPS at 2560x1440, then down to 39 FPS at 3840x2160. That represents a 65% reduction in average FPS from 1080p to 4K, a scaling pattern typical of a GPU that is being saturated by pixel throughput. The Ultra preset shows an even more pronounced collapse, dropping from 85 FPS at 1080p to 55 FPS at 1440p and finally to 29 FPS at 4K.

The Low preset follows the same trend but with a different shape. At 1080p Low, the system hits 173 FPS, which is the highest measured result in the entire dataset. Dropping to 1440p Low yields 112 FPS, and 4K Low produces 60 FPS. The fact that 4K Low still reaches 60 FPS suggests that the GPU’s raw rasterization power, backed by its 12 GB of GDDR6 memory and 432.0 GB/s bandwidth, can handle the geometry and texture loads of Minimum at lower settings, but the shader workload at higher presets becomes too heavy.

The scaling from Medium to Ultra at each resolution is also informative. At 1080p, Medium averages 133 FPS, High drops to 111 FPS, and Ultra falls to 85 FPS. At 1440p, the same progression goes 85, 72, and 55 FPS. At 4K, it goes 46, 39, and 29 FPS. The consistent ratio between presets indicates that the game’s graphics options scale linearly with GPU load rather than introducing sudden algorithmic jumps. The CPU, with its 20 cores and 20 threads, does not appear to create a ceiling at 1080p, as the 173 FPS Low result shows headroom that is never approached by higher settings.

Settings Recommendations

The measured data points toward Medium as the optimal balance point for this combination, particularly at 1440p and 4K. At 2560x1440, Medium produces an average of 85 FPS with a minimum of 73 FPS and a maximum of 98 FPS. That minimum is comfortably above the 60 FPS threshold for smooth gameplay, and the average leaves room for occasional dips without falling into stutter territory. The 4K Medium result of 46 FPS average, with a 39 FPS minimum and 53 FPS maximum, is playable but not ideal for fast-paced third-person shooting, where consistent frame pacing matters more than peak output.

High settings at 1440p are viable, with a 72 FPS average, but the lack of a reported minimum makes it harder to guarantee stability. The 4K High result of 39 FPS average is below the threshold for fluid action, making it a poor choice for competitive play. Ultra settings are only recommendable at 1080p, where the 85 FPS average provides a solid experience, but even there, the gap to High’s 111 FPS is significant. At 1440p Ultra, the 55 FPS average is borderline, and 4K Ultra’s 29 FPS is effectively a slideshow for a shooter.

Low settings at 1080p, with 173 FPS average, are useful for players chasing maximum refresh rates, but the visual compromise is substantial. The data suggests that most users should start at Medium and adjust upward only if their display’s refresh rate and their tolerance for frame drops allow it. For 4K displays, Low’s 60 FPS average is the only preset that hits the standard refresh target, while Medium at 4K offers 46 FPS, which may be acceptable on a 60 Hz panel with adaptive sync.

GPU Role

The AMD Radeon RX 7800M is the dominant factor in these results. Its 12 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 192-bit bus provides 432.0 GB/s of bandwidth, which is sufficient for Minimum’s texture streaming at 4K Ultra, but the GPU’s compute throughput appears to be the limiting factor. The 3840 shading units and 96 ROPs, running at a boost clock of 2335 MHz and a game clock of 2145 MHz, produce a pixel rate of 224.2 GPixel/s and a texture rate of 560.4 GTexel/s. These figures translate into the observed frame rates, which show the GPU struggling to maintain 30 FPS at 4K Ultra despite having enough memory capacity.

The GPU’s percentile ranking of 73 places it above most mobile parts, but the nearest rivals in the database—the AMD Radeon Pro Vega 20, Radeon Pro W5500X, NVIDIA GeForce GTX 980 Ti, and AMD FirePro S7150—are all desktop or workstation parts with similar aggregate scores. The RX 7800M’s 17613 Passmark G3D score and 9342 GPU compute score reflect its position in the broader landscape, but for Minimum specifically, the 4K results show that the card is pushing against its architectural limits. The FP32 throughput of 35.87 TFLOPS is respectable, yet the game’s Ultra preset at 4K demands more than this GPU can deliver.

The memory clock of 2250 MHz, running at 18 Gbps effective, is not a bottleneck, as evidenced by the fact that lowering settings from Ultra to High at 4K improves the average FPS from 29 to 39, a 34% gain. That improvement is too large to be explained by memory bandwidth alone, pointing instead to shader and ROP utilization. The GPU’s 60 ray tracing cores are present but do not appear to influence these results, as Minimum’s rasterization workload is what drives the measured frame rates.

Measured FPS Breakdown

At 1920x1080, the full settings range is available. Low averages 173 FPS, Medium averages 133 FPS with a minimum of 113 and a maximum of 152, High averages 111 FPS, and Ultra averages 85 FPS. The 60 FPS gap between Low and Medium suggests that Medium introduces substantial effects that tax the GPU, while the 26 FPS gap between Medium and High is smaller. The jump from High to Ultra costs 26 FPS, indicating that the Ultra preset adds heavy post-processing or shadow quality that disproportionately impacts performance.

At 2560x1440, the numbers compress. Low averages 112 FPS, Medium averages 85 FPS with a minimum of 73 and a maximum of 98, High averages 72 FPS, and Ultra averages 55 FPS. The difference between Low and Ultra is 57 FPS, less than the 88 FPS difference at 1080p, showing how resolution scaling tightens the range as the GPU becomes more stressed. The Medium minimum of 73 FPS is the only reported minimum in this resolution that stays above 60 FPS, making it the safest choice for consistent frame delivery.

At 3840x2160, the results are stark. Low averages 60 FPS, Medium averages 46 FPS with a minimum of 39 and a maximum of 53, High averages 39 FPS, and Ultra averages 29 FPS. The 4K Medium minimum of 39 FPS is identical to the 4K High average, which illustrates the steep cost of each preset tier. The 4K Low result of exactly 60 FPS suggests that this configuration is right at the edge of what the GPU can handle at that resolution, with any additional load pushing it below the smoothness threshold.

FAQ

Q: What is the best resolution for this CPU/GPU combo?

A: The data shows 2560x1440 as the sweet spot. At Medium settings, it delivers an 85 FPS average with a 73 FPS minimum, which is the highest resolution and settings combination that maintains a consistent frame rate above 60 FPS.

Q: Can this combo run Minimum at 4K 60 FPS?

A: No. The only 4K result reaching 60 FPS is at Low settings. Medium averages 46 FPS, High averages 39 FPS, and Ultra averages 29 FPS, so 60 FPS at 4K is not achievable at any higher preset.

Q: How much does Ultra settings cost compared to High?

A: At 1080p, Ultra is 26 FPS slower than High (85 vs 111). At 1440p, the gap is 17 FPS (55 vs 72). At 4K, the gap is 10 FPS (29 vs 39). The cost of Ultra decreases in absolute terms as resolution rises, but the relative percentage cost remains similar.

Q: Does the CPU bottleneck the GPU at any point?

A: The 1080p Low result of 173 FPS indicates the GPU is the limiting factor, as the CPU’s 20 cores and 20 threads can feed frames faster than that. There is no evidence of a CPU bottleneck in the measured data, as frame rates continue to rise as settings are lowered.

Q: What is the most stable preset for competitive play?

A: 2560x1440 Medium, with a 73 FPS minimum and 85 FPS average, offers the best balance of visual quality and frame stability. At 1080p, Medium’s 113 FPS minimum is also strong, but the lower resolution may not be preferred.

Q: How does this combo rank among all tested systems?

A: The combination ranks 1934th out of 2939 tested combos for this game. This places it in the lower half of the database, which aligns with the GPU’s 73rd percentile ranking and the CPU’s 93rd percentile ranking, indicating the GPU drags the overall score down.

CPU Role

The Intel Core Ultra 7 265HX is a 20-core, 20-thread processor with a base clock of 2.60 GHz and a boost clock of 5.30 GHz. Its 30 MB of shared L3 cache and 102.4 GB/s of dual-channel DDR5 memory bandwidth provide ample headroom for Minimum’s game logic and physics calculations. The CPU’s Passmark multithread score of 47985 and single-thread score of 4500 place it in the 93rd percentile of all CPUs, and its Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 40642 confirms its high-throughput capability.

In this game, the CPU’s role is supportive rather than limiting. The fact that 1080p Low reaches 173 FPS while 4K Low only reaches 60 FPS proves that the GPU is the bottleneck at every resolution. The CPU’s 20 threads are more than sufficient for a third-person shooter, which typically uses fewer than 8 threads for the main simulation. The data shows no scenario where the CPU’s clock speed or core count prevents the GPU from reaching its potential.

The CPU’s nearest rivals in aggregate benchmark scores—the Intel Core i7-13790F (0.1% faster), AMD Ryzen AI 7 450G (0.2% slower), AMD Ryzen AI Embedded P185 (0.5% faster), and Intel Core Ultra 7 255HX (0.7% faster)—are all within a percentage point of the 265HX’s average score of 63173. This indicates that the specific CPU choice has minimal impact on Minimum’s frame rates, as the GPU is the dominant factor. The 265HX’s 3 nm process node and Arrow Lake architecture contribute to its efficiency, but these characteristics do not translate into measurable FPS advantages in this title.

How This Combo Ranks

The Intel Core Ultra 7 265HX and AMD Radeon RX 7800M combination ranks 1934th out of 2939 tested combos for Minimum, placing it in the 34th percentile of all configurations. This is a below-average result for a game that is nearly a decade old, but it reflects the GPU’s mid-tier positioning rather than any deficiency in the CPU. The GPU’s 73rd percentile rank and the CPU’s 93rd percentile rank show a significant mismatch: the CPU is a top-tier mobile part, while the GPU is a solid but not flagship option.

The ranking suggests that this combo is better suited to 1080p and 1440p gaming than to 4K. At 1080p, the combo delivers high frame rates across all presets, with even Ultra exceeding 85 FPS. At 1440p, Medium and High are playable, but Ultra dips below 60 FPS. At 4K, only Low achieves 60 FPS. The 1934th rank places this combo in the company of systems that can handle esports titles and older games at high refresh rates, but it will struggle with newer, more demanding releases at 4K.

Compared to its nearest GPU rivals, the RX 7800M’s average benchmark score of 27883 is nearly identical to the Radeon Pro Vega 20 (0.2% higher), Radeon Pro W5500X (0.3% lower), GTX 980 Ti (0.5% lower), and FirePro S7150 (0.8% lower). These are all older or workstation-oriented parts, which means the RX 7800M’s performance in Minimum is roughly equivalent to a GTX 980 Ti from 2015. The 12 GB VRAM and modern RDNA 3.0 architecture do not provide a meaningful advantage in this particular game, as the measured FPS is dictated by raw shader throughput rather than memory capacity or feature support. The combo’s rank reflects this reality: it is a functional pairing for 1080p and 1440p play, but it does not excel at 4K.