Minimum

The Intel Core Ultra 7 265K paired with the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 is a profoundly unbalanced combination for Minimum, yielding a benchmark rank of 3581 out of 3712 tested combos. This places the pairing in the bottom 3.5% of all configurations, a result dictated almost entirely by the GPU. The data indicates that while the CPU is a top-tier performer, the GPU’s limitations cap the entire system at playable frame rates only at 1080p with reduced settings. This analysis breaks down the measured results to show exactly where the bottleneck lies and which settings are viable.

CPU Role

The Intel Core Ultra 7 265K is a high-end desktop processor featuring 20 cores and 20 threads. Its base clock is 3.90 GHz with a boost clock of 5.50 GHz, built on the Arrow Lake-S architecture using a 3 nm process. This processor is designed for heavy multi-threaded workloads, as evidenced by its benchmark scores. For instance, it achieves a Cinebench R23 multicore score of 35850 and a Geekbench multicore score of 23085. Its performance is so strong that it sits in the 94th percentile of all CPUs, with an average benchmark score of 70879. The data shows it is roughly 1% ahead of the Intel Core i7-14700KF and 1.3% ahead of the AMD Ryzen 7 9700F in average score.

However, in the context of Minimum, this immense CPU power is largely irrelevant. The game’s frame rates are not constrained by the processor. For example, at 1920x1080 with Low settings, the combo achieves 81 FPS. If the CPU were the limiting factor, we would expect to see performance scale predictably with resolution, but the data shows a massive drop-off when moving to higher resolutions. The CPU’s role here is to provide a stable foundation that is never stressed by the game, meaning it is not the source of the low frame rates. The 125 W TDP and support for DDR5 memory are features that would benefit a more powerful GPU, but with the current graphics card, they are underutilized. The benchmark results indicate that the Core Ultra 7 265K is effectively idle in this pairing, waiting for the GPU to deliver frames.

GPU Role

The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 is the definitive bottleneck in this configuration. This GPU, based on the Turing architecture with a TU117 chip, is from the GeForce 16-series and is now end-of-life. It has 4 GB of GDDR5 memory on a 128-bit bus, providing a bandwidth of 128.1 GB/s. Its base and boost clocks are 1485 MHz and 1665 MHz, respectively. The GPU’s performance percentile tells the story: it ranks in the 40th percentile of all GPUs, with an average benchmark score of 7472. Its nearest rivals include the Intel UHD Graphics 750 (0.4% faster) and the AMD Radeon R7 350 (0.6% faster), placing it in the entry-level segment.

The 4 GB VRAM is a critical limitation. The measured frame rates show a clear degradation as resolution and settings increase. At 4K Ultra, the average FPS drops to 14, which is unplayable. Even at 1440p, the GPU struggles to maintain fluid motion, with an average of 26 FPS at Ultra settings. The data suggests that the GTX 1650 is only capable of delivering a smooth experience at 1080p with Low or Medium settings. The GPU’s FP32 performance of 2.984 TFLOPS and texture rate of 93.24 GTexel/s are simply insufficient for higher resolutions in this game. While the CPU is ready to deliver hundreds of frames, the GTX 1650 cannot keep up, making it the sole reason for the low combo ranking.

FAQ

*Q: Is this CPU and GPU combination good for playing Minimum at 1080p?*

A: The data shows it is playable at 1080p. At Low settings, the combo achieves an average of 81 FPS. At Medium settings, it achieves 62 FPS. At High settings, the average drops to 52 FPS, which is still acceptable for many players, though not ideal for high-refresh-rate monitors.

Q: What is the best resolution for this combo?

A: The only resolution where the combo consistently delivers average FPS above 60 is 1920x1080 with Low settings. At 2560x1440, the best average FPS is 52 at Low settings, which is below the 60 FPS threshold. At 3840x2160, all average FPS values are below 30, making it unsuitable for gameplay.

Q: How does the GTX 1650 compare to its nearest rivals in terms of raw performance?

A: The GTX 1650 has an average benchmark score of 7472. It is 0.3% faster than the AMD Radeon HD 8850M and 0.4% faster than the Intel UHD Graphics 750. It is 1% slower than the Intel Arc A310. These are very close margins, indicating it is a very entry-level part.

Q: Why does the frame rate drop so significantly from 1080p to 4K?

A: The frame rate drop is due to the GPU’s limited memory bandwidth and raw compute power. At 1920x1080 Low, the average is 81 FPS. When the resolution is increased to 3840x2160 Low, the average drops to 28 FPS. This indicates that the GPU is being overwhelmed by the increased pixel count and texture data, not the CPU.

Q: Is the Intel Core Ultra 7 265K performance relevant to this game?

A: Benchmark results indicate the CPU is not the limiting factor. The Core Ultra 7 265K scores in the 94th percentile of all CPUs. The fact that the combo ranks 3581st out of 3712 suggests the GPU is the sole bottleneck, as the CPU is more than capable of handling the game’s demands.

*Q: Can this combo run Minimum at Ultra settings smoothly?*

A: No. The measured data shows that at Ultra settings, the only playable average FPS is 40 at 1920x1080. At 2560x1440 Ultra, the average drops to 26 FPS, and at 3840x2160 Ultra, it is 14 FPS. These results indicate that Ultra settings are only viable at 1080p and still fall short of a smooth 60 FPS experience.

How This Combo Ranks

The combination of the Intel Core Ultra 7 265K and the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 ranks 3581st out of 3712 tested combos in Minimum. This rank places it in the bottom 3.5% of all configurations tested. This is a remarkably poor result for a CPU that is in the top 6% of all processors. The data clearly shows that the pairing is severely hampered by the graphics card. The CPU’s high performance, as evidenced by its Cinebench R23 single-core score of 2020 and multicore score of 35850, cannot compensate for the GPU’s limitations.

When we compare the GPU to its nearest rivals, we see that the GTX 1650 is only marginally faster than integrated graphics solutions like the Intel UHD Graphics 750, which is 0.4% slower. This indicates that the GTX 1650 is at the absolute bottom of the discrete GPU performance ladder. The CPU, on the other hand, is a top-tier part. This massive disparity in performance levels between the two components is the reason for the low rank. The benchmark results suggest that this combo would be better served by a much more powerful GPU to leverage the CPU’s potential, but as measured, the system is a poor performer for this game.

Settings Recommendations

Based on the measured FPS data, the optimal experience for this combo is at 1920x1080 with Low settings. This is the only configuration that achieves an average frame rate above 60 FPS (81 FPS). For players who prioritize visual quality over a high refresh rate, Medium settings at 1080p is a viable alternative, offering an average of 62 FPS. High settings at 1080p are playable at an average of 52 FPS, but the lower minimum frame rate makes it less consistent.

Moving up to 2560x1440 is not recommended for a smooth experience. At Low settings, the average FPS is 52, but this is still below the 60 FPS target. At Medium settings, the average drops to 40 FPS, and at High settings, it is 34 FPS. These frame rates are likely to feel choppy for most players. The 3840x2160 resolution is not viable at any setting, as the highest average FPS is 28 at Low, which is far below playable thresholds.

Therefore, the data suggests that the best experience is found at 1920x1080. For a balance between visual fidelity and performance, Medium settings at 1080p is the highest quality preset that maintains an average FPS above 60. If the player prioritizes maximum smoothness, Low settings at 1080p is the clear choice.

Measured FPS Breakdown

The following data shows the exact measured average FPS for this combo. Minimum FPS values were only recorded for the Medium settings at each resolution.

1920x1080:

• Low: Average 81 FPS.
• Medium: Average 62 FPS, with minimum 53 FPS and maximum 72 FPS.
• High: Average 52 FPS.
• Ultra: Average 40 FPS.

2560x1440:

• Low: Average 52 FPS.
• Medium: Average 40 FPS, with minimum 34 FPS and maximum 46 FPS.
• High: Average 34 FPS.
• Ultra: Average 26 FPS.

3840x2160:

• Low: Average 28 FPS.
• Medium: Average 22 FPS, with minimum 18 FPS and maximum 25 FPS.
• High: Average 18 FPS.
• Ultra: Average 14 FPS.

The data shows a consistent pattern: a significant performance penalty is incurred when moving from 1080p to 1440p, and an even more severe penalty when moving to 4K. For instance, at Low settings, the average FPS drops from 81 at 1080p to 52 at 1440p (a 36% reduction) and then to 28 at 4K (a 65% reduction from the 1080p figure). This scaling confirms that the GPU is the primary constraint, as a CPU-bound system would not show such a dramatic drop-off with increasing resolution. The only settings with recorded frame time variance are Medium, showing that the frame pacing is relatively stable but with occasional dips. The absolute highest performance point is the 1080p Low configuration at 81 FPS, while the lowest is the 4K Ultra configuration at 14 FPS.