Minimum

Minimum, a third-person shooter released in 2014, places the Intel Core Ultra 9 185H and AMD Radeon 890M combination in a surprisingly weak position. The benchmark data places this pairing at rank 2767 out of 2939 tested combos, putting it in the bottom 6% of all systems evaluated for this title. This is a striking result for a modern mobile platform, suggesting that the game’s engine interacts poorly with this specific hardware configuration, or that the integrated GPU simply lacks the necessary muscle for a game from this era.

The measured frame rates tell a consistent story across all resolutions and settings: this combo struggles to deliver smooth gameplay. The data shows that even at 1080p with Low settings, the average FPS reaches only 84, which is the absolute ceiling for this configuration. As resolution and graphical fidelity increase, the frame rates plummet dramatically, making high-resolution play virtually impossible. The performance is clearly bound by the GPU, as the CPU’s substantial core count and high clock speeds cannot compensate for the rendering limitations of the integrated Radeon 890M.

How This Combo Ranks

The overall ranking of 2767 out of 2939 combos is a clear signal of this pairing’s performance tier. This places it in the bottom percentile of all systems tested for Minimum, indicating that users with this hardware will have a significantly subpar experience compared to the vast majority of other configurations in the database. The fact that this is a 2014 title makes the rank even more telling; modern integrated graphics should typically handle older games with relative ease, but the data suggests otherwise for this specific combination.

Looking at the individual components, the AMD Radeon 890M sits at the 45th percentile among all GPUs, with an average benchmark score of 9210. Its nearest rivals in the synthetic benchmarks are the AMD Radeon Vega 8 (scoring 9221, just 0.1% higher), the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 960 (score of 9273, 0.7% higher), and the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 465 (score of 9294, 0.9% higher). While these deltaPct values are small, they all show the 890M trailing behind. This tells us the integrated GPU is positioned at the entry-level of discrete graphics performance from several generations ago, which explains its struggles.

The CPU, on the other hand, is a powerhouse. The Intel Core Ultra 9 185H ranks in the 85th percentile of all CPUs, with an average benchmark score of 35670. Its rivals are all very close in score, with the AMD Ryzen AI 7 PRO 350 (35719, 0.1% higher), Intel Core 7 250H (35728, 0.2% higher), AMD Ryzen 7 PRO 5845 (35802, 0.4% higher), and AMD Ryzen 7 7700X (35909, 0.7% higher) all within a single percentage point. This indicates the processor is not the bottleneck in Minimum; its performance is comparable to top-tier desktop and mobile chips, making the GPU the clear limiting factor in this combo's low rank.

Settings Recommendations

The measured FPS data provides a clear path for users who want the most playable experience. The only settings combination that yields a consistently smooth frame rate is 1080p with Low settings, which delivers an average of 84 FPS. This is the only preset that breaks the 60 FPS threshold, making it the recommended choice for any semblance of fluid gameplay. While Low settings will reduce visual fidelity, it is the only way to leverage the hardware’s full potential for frame rate.

At 1080p Medium, the average FPS drops to 64, which is still technically playable but represents a 23.8% performance hit from Low. This could be a viable option for users who want better visuals and can tolerate occasional dips below 60 FPS, as the minimum FPS is not listed for this setting. However, the data shows that the High preset at 1080p yields an average of 54 FPS, which begins to feel less responsive. The Ultra preset at 1080p is the worst option, with an average of just 41 FPS, making it unsuitable for a fast-paced third-person shooter.

For 1440p, the data strongly advises against anything above Low. The Low preset at 1440p produces an average of 54 FPS, which is playable but not ideal. Medium drops to 41 FPS, High to 35 FPS, and Ultra to a barely interactive 27 FPS. At 4K, all presets are effectively unplayable, with the best case being Low at 29 FPS and the worst being Ultra at 14 FPS. The recommendation is clear: stick to 1080p Low for the best experience, or 1440p Low if you can tolerate a lower frame rate for increased sharpness.

FAQ

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

A: The data shows that 1920x1080 with Low settings provides the highest average FPS at 84, making it the optimal configuration for smooth gameplay. This is the only preset that achieves an average above 60 FPS.

Q: Can this combo handle 4K resolution in Minimum?

A: No. At 3840x2160, the average FPS ranges from 14 on Ultra to 29 on Low. All of these results are well below playable thresholds, indicating that 4K is not a viable option for this game with this hardware.

Q: How does the 1440p Medium performance compare to 1080p High?

A: At 2560x1440 with Medium settings, the average FPS is 41. At 1920x1080 with High settings, the average FPS is 54. The 1080p High setting offers a 31.7% higher frame rate than 1440p Medium.

Q: Is the Intel Core Ultra 9 185H the reason for the low frame rates?

A: The benchmark data suggests no. The CPU ranks in the 85th percentile and is within 0.7% of top rivals like the AMD Ryzen 7 7700X. The performance bottleneck is clearly the integrated GPU.

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

A: The difference is substantial. Low settings produce an average of 84 FPS, while Ultra settings produce an average of 41 FPS. This represents a 51.2% reduction in frame rate when moving from Low to Ultra.

Q: Does the data show any settings where the minimum FPS is reported?

A: Yes, the Medium preset at all three resolutions includes min and max FPS data. At 1080p, it ranges from 55 to 74; at 1440p, it ranges from 35 to 48; and at 4K, it ranges from 19 to 26.

Measured FPS Breakdown

The measured FPS data provides a comprehensive look at how the combo scales across different settings and resolutions. The pattern is consistent: frame rates are highest at 1080p and degrade predictably as resolution increases. At 1920x1080, the range spans from a low of 41 FPS on Ultra to a high of 84 FPS on Low. The Medium preset at this resolution records an average of 64 FPS with a minimum of 55 and a maximum of 74, showing a playable range. High settings at 1080p yield an average of 54 FPS, which is a significant step down from the Low preset.

Moving to 2560x1440, the performance drops considerably. The Low preset here achieves an average of 54 FPS, which is identical to the High preset at 1080p. This illustrates the heavy cost of resolution scaling. Medium at 1440p averages 41 FPS, with a min/max of 35/48. High at 1440p averages 35 FPS, and Ultra plummets to 27 FPS. None of these 1440p results offer a consistently smooth experience.

At 3840x2160, the performance is fundamentally broken for gameplay. The Low preset is the only one that approaches playability, with an average of 29 FPS. Medium averages 22 FPS (min 19, max 26), High averages 19 FPS, and Ultra averages a mere 14 FPS. The data shows a clear and steep performance cliff between 1080p and 4K, with the integrated GPU unable to handle the pixel count at higher resolutions.

GPU Role

The AMD Radeon 890M is the primary driver of the performance issues in Minimum. Its specifications paint a picture of an entry-level integrated solution. The GPU has 1024 shading units, 64 texture mapping units, and 32 raster output pipelines. It also features 16 ray tracing cores, but these are of little use in a 2014 title. The memory configuration is "System Shared," meaning it uses a portion of the main system RAM, with bandwidth listed as "System Dependent." This is a critical bottleneck, as the shared memory bandwidth is far lower than what a dedicated GPU would offer.

The clock speeds are interesting, with a base clock of 400 MHz and a boost clock of 2900 MHz. The high boost clock is what allows the GPU to achieve its peak performance, but it is likely thermally limited in sustained workloads. The GPU’s FP32 performance is listed at 5.939 TFLOPS, which is a modest figure. In synthetic benchmarks, the 890M scores 8076 in Passmark G3D and 590 in 3DMark Steel Nomad, placing it in the 45th percentile. Its nearest rival, the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 960, scores 9273, a 0.7% difference, showing that the 890M is roughly comparable to a mid-range discrete GPU from a decade ago, yet still insufficient for smooth high-refresh gameplay in Minimum.

The 15W TDP is exceptionally low, which is typical for an integrated GPU. This power limit, combined with the shared memory architecture, severely restricts the GPU's ability to maintain high frame rates. The 890M's performance in Minimum, as shown by the measured FPS, is consistently below the 60 FPS threshold at all settings above 1080p Low. This indicates that while the GPU has enough raw compute for lighter tasks, it lacks the memory bandwidth and sustained power delivery needed for demanding gaming scenarios.

Resolution Scaling

The performance drop from 1080p to 4K is severe and reveals the GPU-bound nature of this system. At 1080p Low, the average FPS is 84. At 1440p Low, it drops to 54, a 35.7% decrease. At 4K Low, it falls further to 29, a 65.5% decrease from the 1080p baseline. This scaling pattern is typical of a GPU-limited scenario; the CPU is not the bottleneck, so the frame rate is directly tied to the number of pixels the GPU must render.

The data shows that the scaling is not linear. The jump from 1080p to 1440p involves a 77.8% increase in pixel count, and the FPS drops by 35.7%. The jump from 1440p to 4K involves a 125% increase in pixel count, and the FPS drops by 46.3%. This suggests that the GPU is running out of memory bandwidth or fill rate as the resolution increases. The 890M’s pixel rate is listed at 92.80 GPixel/s, and texture rate at 185.6 GTexel/s, which are simply not high enough to sustain 4K rendering in a game like Minimum.

The scaling also indicates that the CPU's role diminishes as resolution increases. At 1080p, the CPU's high single-thread performance (scoring 1810.5 in Cinebench R23 single-core) helps push frame rates to 84. However, at 4K, the GPU is so overwhelmed that the CPU's performance becomes irrelevant, and the frame rate is entirely dictated by the GPU's rendering abilities. The fact that the 1080p Low frame rate of 84 is the highest across all tests shows that even at the lowest resolution, the GPU is still the primary limiter, as a CPU-bound system would show more consistent frame rates across resolutions.

CPU Role

The Intel Core Ultra 9 185H is a high-performance mobile processor, and its benchmark results confirm that it is not the limiting factor in this game. With 16 cores and 22 threads, it offers substantial multi-threaded capability. Its boost clock of 5.10 GHz and base clock of 3.90 GHz are high for a mobile chip. In Cinebench R23, it scores 17984.5 in multi-core and 1810.5 in single-core, both strong results. Its Passmark single-thread score is 3697, and its Geekbench single-core score is 1794. These figures place it in the 85th percentile of all CPUs.

The CPU's nearest rivals include the AMD Ryzen 7 7700X, a desktop processor, which scores 35909 in average benchmark score, only 0.7% higher. This indicates that the Ultra 9 185H is performing at a level comparable to high-end desktop parts from a previous generation. In a game like Minimum, which was released in 2014 and likely relies more on single-core performance, the CPU's strong single-thread scores should be more than sufficient to feed the GPU. The L3 cache is 24 MB shared, and the memory bandwidth is 89.6 GB/s, which provides a solid foundation for gaming.

Given the CPU's capabilities, the poor frame rates in Minimum must be attributed entirely to the GPU. The data shows that the CPU is capable of far higher frame rates than the GPU can deliver. For example, the CPU’s performance would theoretically support well over 100 FPS in a game of this era, but the GPU’s maximum output is 84 FPS at 1080p Low. This creates a severe bottleneck where the CPU is waiting for the GPU to finish rendering each frame. The 45W TDP of the CPU is also notable, but it does not impact gaming performance in this scenario, as the GPU is the clear constraint.