Minimum

The Intel Core Ultra 9 185H paired with the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4080 Mobile delivers a decisively GPU-bound experience in Minimum, with resolution scaling exposing a steep performance curve that favors high-refresh 1440p play over 4K. The data indicates that 1080p performance is excellent, but the jump to 4K Ultra pushes the combo to the edge of playability, highlighting the mobile GPU's 12 GB VRAM and 192-bit memory bus as the primary constraints.

Resolution Scaling

The measured FPS data shows a predictable and pronounced drop as resolution increases, but the rate of that drop reveals the bottleneck. At 1080p with Low settings, the combo produces 256 FPS, which is a massive headroom figure typical of a CPU-limited scenario at lower resolutions. However, the scaling from 1080p to 1440p and then to 4K is steep, indicating that the RTX 4080 Mobile becomes the limiting factor as pixel count rises.

At High settings, the average frame rate falls from 164 FPS at 1080p to 106 FPS at 1440p—a 35% reduction—and then to 57 FPS at 4K, another 46% drop from the 1440p figure. This nonlinear degradation is the signature of a GPU struggling with memory bandwidth and fill rate. The 4K Ultra result of 43 FPS is particularly telling: it is only 34% of the 1080p Ultra score of 125 FPS, showing that the GPU’s 432.0 GB/s bandwidth is saturated by 4K textures and effects.

Comparing Low settings across resolutions reveals the CPU’s role. At 1080p Low, 256 FPS suggests the processor can feed frames faster than the GPU can render them, but at 1440p Low, the score drops to 165 FPS, and at 4K Low, it falls to 89 FPS. The delta between 1080p and 1440p Low (91 FPS) is larger than the delta between 1440p and 4K Low (76 FPS), which is unusual. It implies that even at Low settings, the GPU’s pixel throughput is the ceiling once you leave 1080p, and the CPU’s 16 cores and 22 threads are not the primary constraint.

The medium settings row provides the only min/max data, offering insight into frame pacing. At 4K Medium, the average is 68 FPS with a min of 58 and max of 78, showing a tight 20 FPS spread. This indicates consistent frame delivery without severe stutter, which is a positive sign for a game from 2014 that may not be perfectly optimized for modern multi-core processors. At 1440p Medium, the spread widens to 38 FPS (107-145), suggesting that the GPU is working harder but still maintaining stable output.

The verdict is clear: this combo is optimal for 1440p gaming, where it delivers high refresh rates without exceeding the GPU’s memory or compute limits. 4K is possible but only at Medium settings for a comfortable 60+ FPS experience, while Ultra at 4K should be avoided for competitive play.

Settings Recommendations

The benchmark data strongly favors Medium settings as the best compromise between visual fidelity and frame rate, particularly at 1440p and 4K. At 4K, Medium produces 68 FPS, which is 58% higher than Ultra’s 43 FPS and 24% lower than Low’s 89 FPS. This positions Medium as the only 4K preset that guarantees a smooth experience on a 60 Hz display without sacrificing too much visual quality.

At 1440p, Medium delivers 126 FPS, which is sufficient for high-refresh 120 Hz panels. The jump to High (106 FPS) is a 16% loss, while Low (165 FPS) offers diminishing returns for competitive play. Medium’s min FPS of 107 at 1440p is also notable—it stays above the 100 FPS threshold, ensuring no noticeable hitches during intense firefights.

For 1080p users, the choice is less critical, as all presets exceed 125 FPS. However, Ultra at 125 FPS is the most visually impressive option, and the data shows it maintains a playable average. Low at 256 FPS is overkill for most displays, but it demonstrates the CPU’s ability to push extreme frame rates when the GPU is less burdened.

The recommendation hierarchy is: 4K Medium, 1440p Medium or High, 1080p Ultra. The Ultra preset at 1440p (81 FPS) is a viable alternative for those prioritizing image quality over refresh rate, as it remains above 60 FPS. At 4K, High (57 FPS) is borderline—it misses the 60 FPS target by a small margin, making Medium the safer choice for consistent performance.

The data also shows a consistent pattern: Low settings are rarely worth the visual downgrade because the GPU has enough headroom at lower resolutions to handle Medium without significant FPS loss. The difference between Medium and Low at 1440p is 39 FPS (126 vs 165), which is noticeable but not transformative, whereas the difference between Medium and High is only 20 FPS, making High a better value for the visual uplift.

GPU Role

The RTX 4080 Mobile’s specifications directly explain the measured results. With 12 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 192-bit bus, the GPU provides 432.0 GB/s of bandwidth. This is the critical figure for Minimum’s 4K performance, as the game’s textures and post-processing effects at Ultra likely exceed the effective memory throughput. The 43 FPS at 4K Ultra versus 68 FPS at 4K Medium demonstrates a 37% performance penalty for the highest preset, which is disproportionate to the visual gains typically seen in a 2014 title.

The GPU’s clocks are modest by desktop standards—boost at 1665 MHz—but the Ada Lovelace architecture’s efficiency shines through. The 24.72 TFLOPS of FP32 compute is ample for a game of this era, yet the pixel rate of 133.2 GPixel/s becomes the bottleneck at 4K. This is evident in the scaling from 1440p to 4K: at High settings, the FPS drops from 106 to 57, a 46% reduction that aligns with the 2.25x increase in pixel count (2560x1440 to 3840x2160), suggesting the GPU is operating near its theoretical fill-rate limit.

The 80 ROPs and 232 TMUs are sufficient for 1440p, where the GPU delivers over 100 FPS on High. However, the 192-bit bus is a known limitation for 4K gaming, and the data confirms this. The 12 GB VRAM capacity is not the issue—Minimum is not a VRAM-heavy title—but the bandwidth is. At 1080p, the GPU is never the limiting factor, as even Ultra (125 FPS) exceeds the refresh rate of most monitors, and Low (256 FPS) shows the CPU is feeding frames faster than the GPU can render.

The GPU’s benchmark scores support its placement. The Passmark G3D score of 24926 and Geekbench OpenCL score of 159575 indicate strong raw compute, but the nearest rivals list shows it is closely matched with the desktop RTX 4070 (deltaPct of 1.3), which has a wider memory bus. This suggests that in bandwidth-sensitive scenarios like 4K, the mobile 4080’s narrower bus is a tangible weakness.

How This Combo Ranks

The combo ranks 1228 out of 3712 tested configurations, placing it in the 67th percentile of all combos. This is a respectable position, but not top-tier, which is surprising given the high-end CPU and GPU. The ranking reflects the GPU’s mobile power envelope (110 W TDP) and the CPU’s performance relative to desktop counterparts.

The nearest rival data for the CPU shows the Ultra 9 185H is essentially tied with the AMD Ryzen AI 7 PRO 350 (deltaPct -0.1) and Intel Core 7 250H (deltaPct -0.2). This means the CPU is not a differentiator in this combo—it performs as well as mid-range competitors. The GPU’s nearest rivals are more telling: the RTX 4080 Mobile is 0.4% behind the GeForce MX570 (a surprising pairing) and 0.6% behind the RTX 5080 Mobile, but 1.3% ahead of the desktop RTX 4070.

The rank of 1228 out of 3712 suggests that many combos with less powerful CPUs but similar or better GPUs outperform this pairing in Minimum. This is likely because the game is not heavily multi-threaded, so the Ultra 9’s 16 cores are underutilized. The combo’s position in the middle of the pack indicates that the RTX 4080 Mobile’s 4K weakness drags down the overall score, despite excellent 1080p and 1440p results.

For context, the top 33% of combos likely feature desktop GPUs with higher bandwidth or mobile GPUs with larger memory buses. The 4080 Mobile’s 192-bit bus is a clear handicap in this ranking, as the game’s 4K Ultra preset appears to be a stress test for memory throughput. The rank would likely improve significantly if the evaluation focused on 1440p, where the combo’s performance is exceptional.

CPU Role

The Intel Core Ultra 9 185H provides 16 cores and 22 threads, with a boost clock of 5.10 GHz and a base of 3.90 GHz. In Minimum, this CPU is rarely the bottleneck, as evidenced by the 256 FPS result at 1080p Low. However, the CPU’s performance is not exceptional for this game’s workload, as indicated by its Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 17984.5 and single-core score of 1810.5.

The single-core performance is more relevant for a 2014 shooter, as older games often rely on one or two threads for game logic and physics. The 1810.5 single-core score places the CPU in the 85th percentile of all CPUs, which is solid but not elite. The nearest rival data shows it is within 0.7% of the AMD Ryzen 7 7700X, a desktop part, meaning the mobile chip’s single-thread performance is competitive.

The CPU’s 24 MB of shared L3 cache is generous and helps with frame pacing. The Medium settings min FPS data (166 at 1080p, 107 at 1440p, 58 at 4K) shows that the CPU can maintain consistent frame delivery without stutters, which is crucial for a third-person shooter. The lack of min FPS data for Ultra and High presets suggests the game is GPU-bound in those scenarios, as the CPU is not stressed.

The 45 W TDP is modest for a 16-core part, but the Meteor Lake architecture’s efficiency means it does not throttle excessively during gaming. The Passmark multi-thread score of 29376 confirms the CPU’s strength in productivity tasks, but in Minimum, the GPU is the clear limiting factor at resolutions above 1080p. At 1080p Ultra, the CPU still delivers 125 FPS, indicating it can handle the game’s logic demands without issue.

The CPU’s role becomes more apparent at 1080p Low, where the 256 FPS result is likely near the engine’s frame rate cap or the CPU’s single-thread limit. The data suggests that upgrading to a faster single-core CPU could push higher FPS at 1080p, but the gains would be marginal for most users with 144 Hz or 165 Hz monitors.

Measured FPS Breakdown

At 1920x1080, the combo delivers outstanding performance across all presets. Low settings produce 256 FPS average, Medium averages 196 FPS with a min of 166 and max of 225, High averages 164 FPS, and Ultra averages 125 FPS. The spread between Low and Ultra is 131 FPS, showing that even the most demanding preset at 1080p is well within the GPU’s capabilities.

At 2560x1440, performance remains strong but the GPU begins to show strain. Low averages 165 FPS, Medium averages 126 FPS with a min of 107 and max of 145, High averages 106 FPS, and Ultra averages 81 FPS. The Medium min of 107 FPS is the only sub-100 FPS value at 1440p, indicating that all presets are playable on high-refresh displays, with Ultra still exceeding 60 FPS.

At 3840x2160, the GPU’s limitations are exposed. Low averages 89 FPS, Medium averages 68 FPS with a min of 58 and max of 78, High averages 57 FPS, and Ultra averages 43 FPS. The Medium preset is the only one that consistently stays above 60 FPS, while High falls just short and Ultra is not viable for competitive play. The 4K Low result of 89 FPS shows that even with reduced settings, the pixel count overwhelms the GPU’s fill rate.

The complete dataset reveals a clear hierarchy: 1080p is CPU-bound (evidenced by the 256 FPS Low), 1440p is balanced, and 4K is purely GPU-bound. The lack of min/max data for most presets means we only have averages, but the Medium preset’s min/max values suggest stable performance with no major frame time spikes. The Ultra preset at 4K (43 FPS) is the only result below 50 FPS, making it the sole unplayable configuration in the dataset.