Minimum

The Intel Core Ultra 9 275HX paired with the AMD Radeon 760M produces a severely constrained gaming experience in Minimum, a 2014 third-person shooter. The measured frame rates place this combination in the bottom percentile of all tested hardware configurations, with performance that is almost entirely dictated by the integrated GPU’s limits rather than the CPU’s capabilities. The data indicates that this combo is only marginally viable for playable frame rates at the lowest settings and 1080p, while any attempt to increase resolution or graphical fidelity results in slideshow-level performance.

CPU Role — cores, clocks, and how they relate to this game's results

The Intel Core Ultra 9 275HX is a 24-core, 24-thread mobile processor built on the Arrow Lake architecture using a 3 nm process. It features a base clock of 2.70 GHz and a boost clock of 5.40 GHz, with a 36 MB shared L3 cache. This is an exceptionally powerful CPU, ranking in the 94th percentile against all processors in the benchmark database. Its average benchmark score of 67469 places it nearly even with the Intel Xeon w5-3525, which scores 67673 (a 0.3% difference), and the AMD EPYC 4484PX, which scores 67822 (a 0.5% difference). In multi-threaded workloads like Cinebench R23, it achieves 35589 points, and its single-core performance is equally strong at 2204 points.

However, in the context of Minimum, this CPU power is almost entirely irrelevant. The game is from 2014 and is not designed to utilize 24 cores or a 5.40 GHz boost clock to any significant degree. The benchmark results show that the CPU is not the bottleneck in any resolution or settings configuration. At 1080p Low, the combo achieves 58 FPS, but this is a result of the GPU being able to push frames at that low graphical load; the CPU is fully capable of far more. The fact that the same CPU with a different, more powerful GPU would produce dramatically higher frame rates is not measured here, but the data strongly suggests the CPU is leaving massive performance headroom unused. The 36 MB L3 cache and 102.4 GB/s dual-channel memory bandwidth are ample for a game of this era, meaning the CPU is never waiting on data. The processor’s 55 W TDP and 3 nm process node are indicators of efficiency, but they do not translate into gaming performance when paired with such a weak integrated GPU. The 24 threads are simply idle resources waiting for work that never arrives.

GPU Role — VRAM, clocks, and how they relate to this game's results

The AMD Radeon 760M is the clear and definitive limiting factor in this configuration. This is an integrated graphics processor (IGP) based on the RDNA 3.0 architecture, with 512 shading units, 32 texture mapping units, and 16 ROPs. It operates at a base clock of 800 MHz and a boost clock of 2599 MHz, but its memory performance is crippled by design: it uses "System Shared" memory, meaning it relies on the system’s DDR5 RAM rather than dedicated VRAM. The memory bandwidth is listed as "System Dependent," which often results in lower effective bandwidth than a dedicated GPU. The GPU has a 15 W TDP, which severely limits its sustained performance potential.

This GPU sits in the 35th percentile of all GPUs in the benchmark database, with an average benchmark score of 6019. Its nearest rivals are the AMD Radeon RX 6400 (6001, a 0.3% difference) and the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 770M (6000, a 0.3% difference). These are all entry-level or older mid-range parts, and the Radeon 760M matches them on paper. However, in Minimum, the GPU’s raw compute power, rated at 5.323 TFLOPS FP32, is not the primary issue. The real problem is the shared memory architecture. The game requires a certain amount of bandwidth to pull textures and geometry, and the shared system memory cannot deliver it fast enough. This explains why the frame rates are so low across all settings. The GPU’s 8 ray tracing cores are irrelevant for a 2014 title that does not support them. The DirectX 12 Ultimate support is also moot, as the game likely runs in an older API mode. The data clearly shows a GPU that is being asked to do a job it was never designed for: running a modern benchmark at 4K or even 1440p. Its pixel rate of 41.58 GPixel/s and texture rate of 83.17 GTexel/s are simply insufficient for higher resolutions.

Settings Recommendations — which preset gives the best experience per the measured rows

Based on the measured FPS rows, there is only one viable configuration for acceptable playability, and even that is marginal. At 1920x1080 with Low settings, the combo achieves an average of 58 FPS. This is the only setting that comes close to a standard 60 FPS target. The data shows a clear progression at 1080p: Medium drops to 44 FPS, High drops to 37 FPS, and Ultra plummets to 28 FPS. The difference between Low and Medium is a 14 FPS drop, which is a 24% reduction in performance. This indicates that the GPU is sensitive to even minor increases in texture detail and shadow complexity.

At 1440p, the situation is worse. Low settings yield 37 FPS, which is technically playable but not smooth. Medium drops to 29 FPS, and High to 24 FPS. Ultra at 1440p is a non-starter at 18 FPS. At 4K, no setting is playable, with Low producing just 20 FPS and Ultra producing 10 FPS. The recommendation is unambiguous: use 1080p Low settings for the only playable experience. The 58 FPS average is still not a locked 60, so users should expect minor dips. There is no benefit to using Medium at 1080p, as the visual improvement is not worth the 14 FPS loss. The data suggests that users should not attempt any resolution above 1080p if they value frame rate over visual fidelity.

How This Combo Ranks — use comboRankInGame vs other tested combos

The performance of this specific combination is catastrophic in the context of the benchmark database. The combo is ranked 2930 out of 2939 tested combinations in Minimum. This places it in the 99.7th percentile of worst performers, meaning only 9 other hardware pairings are slower. This is a profound result, especially given the CPU’s top-tier status. The Intel Core Ultra 9 275HX is a 94th percentile CPU, yet this combo outperforms only a handful of other systems.

This ranking is a direct consequence of the GPU choice. The data shows that the CPU is not a differentiator in this game, as even a significantly weaker CPU would likely produce similar frame rates when paired with the Radeon 760M. The combo’s position at the bottom of the list is not a reflection of the CPU’s quality but a signal of the GPU’s limitations. The 2930th place finish means that almost any dedicated GPU, even an entry-level model from a decade ago, would likely outperform this setup. The only combos ranked lower are presumably those with even older or more integrated graphics solutions. This rank is a critical data point for anyone considering a system with this CPU, as it demonstrates that the processor’s power is entirely wasted in this configuration for gaming.

Resolution Scaling — how FPS drops from 1080p to 4K and what it says about the limiting component

The resolution scaling data provides a clear diagnostic of the system’s bottleneck. At Low settings, the frame rate drops from 58 FPS at 1080p to 37 FPS at 1440p, a 36% decrease. From 1440p to 4K, it drops from 37 FPS to 20 FPS, a 46% decrease. This is a classic sign of a GPU-bound system. When the resolution increases, the GPU must render more pixels, and the frame rate drops proportionally to the increase in pixel count. The pixel count from 1080p to 1440p is an increase of 78%, and the frame rate drops by 36%, which is less than the pixel increase, suggesting the GPU is not purely fill-rate limited but is also constrained by memory bandwidth.

At High settings, the drop is even more severe: 37 FPS at 1080p, 24 FPS at 1440p (a 35% drop), and 13 FPS at 4K (a 46% drop from 1440p). This pattern is consistent across all settings. The key takeaway is that the CPU is not the limiting factor. If the CPU were the bottleneck, the frame rates would remain relatively constant across resolutions, as the CPU’s workload is independent of resolution. Instead, the frame rates plummet as resolution increases, which is a textbook indicator that the AMD Radeon 760M is the sole performance limiter. The system’s shared memory architecture exacerbates this, as higher resolutions require more memory bandwidth, which the system cannot provide. The 4K numbers are particularly telling: 13 FPS at High and 10 FPS at Ultra are unplayable, confirming that this system cannot handle modern high-resolution gaming.

FAQ

Q: What is the best playable setting for this hardware combo in Minimum?

A: The only configuration that reaches near-standard playability is 1920x1080 with Low settings, which produces an average of 58 FPS. All other settings or resolutions yield significantly lower frame rates.

Q: Is the Intel Core Ultra 9 275HX a bottleneck for the AMD Radeon 760M in this game?

A: No. The data shows the frame rates drop dramatically with increasing resolution, which is a sign of a GPU bottleneck. The CPU’s performance is far above what this game requires, leaving it underutilized.

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

A: It ranks 2930 out of 2939 tested combos, placing it in the bottom 0.3% of all systems. Only 9 other combinations perform worse.

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

A: At 1080p, Low settings achieve 58 FPS, while Ultra settings drop to 28 FPS. This is a 30 FPS difference, representing a 52% performance loss for higher visual quality.

Q: Can this system run the game at 4K?

A: No. At 4K, the highest average FPS is 20 at Low settings, with Ultra producing just 10 FPS. All 4K configurations are unplayable.

Q: How does the Radeon 760M compare to its nearest rivals in benchmark scores?

A: The Radeon 760M has an average benchmark score of 6019. It is nearly identical to the AMD Radeon RX 6400 (6001) and NVIDIA GeForce GTX 770M (6000), with a 0.3% difference from both.

Measured FPS Breakdown — resolution by resolution, settings by settings, exact numbers

The following table presents all measured average frame rates for the Intel Core Ultra 9 275HX and AMD Radeon 760M combination in Minimum. Where available, minimum and maximum frame rates are included for specific settings.

1920x1080 (1080p)

• Low: Average 58 FPS.
• Medium: Average 44 FPS, with a minimum of 38 FPS and a maximum of 51 FPS.
• High: Average 37 FPS.
• Ultra: Average 28 FPS.

2560x1440 (1440p)

• Low: Average 37 FPS.
• Medium: Average 29 FPS, with a minimum of 24 FPS and a maximum of 33 FPS.
• High: Average 24 FPS.
• Ultra: Average 18 FPS.

3840x2160 (4K)

• Low: Average 20 FPS.
• Medium: Average 15 FPS, with a minimum of 13 FPS and a maximum of 18 FPS.
• High: Average 13 FPS.
• Ultra: Average 10 FPS.

The data reveals a consistent pattern of performance degradation as resolution and settings increase. The 1080p Low result of 58 FPS is the only outlier in terms of acceptable performance, while every other configuration falls below the generally accepted threshold for smooth gameplay. The minimum FPS values, where recorded, show that frame pacing can be inconsistent, with the 1080p Medium configuration dipping to 38 FPS and the 1440p Medium configuration dipping to 24 FPS. This suggests that even the playable settings may experience stutter during intense scenes. The 4K results are uniformly poor, with the highest average being 20 FPS at Low, which is below the threshold for even basic interactivity. The overall picture is one of severe GPU limitation, where the system’s performance is dictated entirely by the integrated Radeon 760M and its shared memory constraints.