Minimum

The Intel Core Ultra 9 275HX paired with the AMD Radeon 880M produces a playable but firmly entry-level experience in Minimum, a 2014 third-person shooter. The data shows a system where the integrated GPU is the overwhelming bottleneck, with the processor’s substantial multi-core capabilities largely untapped by this title. Across all tested resolutions and settings, frame rates scale predictably with graphical load, but the ceiling is low enough that only the lightest settings at 1080p approach what most players would consider smooth. This analysis breaks down the measured performance, the roles of each component, and how this combination ranks against 2,938 other tested combos.

Resolution Scaling

The frame rate drop from 1080p to 4K is steep and consistent, revealing a GPU-bound scenario at every step. At Low settings, the average FPS falls from 79 at 1920x1080 to 51 at 2560x1440, a 35% reduction, and then to 28 at 3840x2160, a further 45% drop from the 1440p figure. This pattern indicates that the Radeon 880M’s rendering throughput is the limiting factor; the pixel count increase directly translates into a near-linear performance penalty. Moving from 1080p Low to 1440p Low costs 28 FPS on average, while the jump from 1440p to 4K costs another 23 FPS. The scaling is not perfectly linear, but the trend is unmistakable: each resolution increase demands significantly more from the GPU, and the integrated solution struggles to keep pace.

The same scaling behavior appears at Medium settings. At 1080p Medium, the average is 61 FPS, dropping to 39 FPS at 1440p Medium (a 36% loss) and then to 21 FPS at 4K Medium (a 46% loss from 1440p). The consistency of these percentage drops across Low and Medium settings suggests that the GPU’s fill rate and shading capacity are the primary constraints, rather than any specific setting causing a disproportionate spike in demand. Even the minimum FPS values reflect this: at 1440p Medium, the minimum is 33 FPS, while at 4K Medium it falls to 18 FPS, matching the pattern of average scores.

At High settings, the scaling continues but from a lower baseline. The average at 1080p High is 51 FPS, which drops to 33 FPS at 1440p High (a 35% loss) and then to 18 FPS at 4K High (a 45% loss from 1440p). This mirrors the Low and Medium results almost exactly, reinforcing that the resolution is the dominant variable. The Ultra preset, which is the most demanding, shows the same trend: 39 FPS at 1080p, 25 FPS at 1440p, and 14 FPS at 4K. The percentage drops are 36% and 44% respectively, again consistent with the other settings.

What does this say about the limiting component? The data is clear. The CPU, with its 24 cores and 24 threads, is not the constraint. A CPU-bound scenario would show relatively flat FPS across resolutions, since the processor’s workload does not scale with pixel count. Instead, the FPS falls sharply as resolution rises, which is the classic signature of a GPU bottleneck. The Radeon 880M’s 768 shading units and 16 ROPs are simply overwhelmed by the increasing pixel workload. The game’s age (released in 2014) means it is not heavily multithreaded, so the Ultra 9 275HX’s raw compute power is largely idle, leaving the integrated GPU to dictate performance. The result is a system where 1080p Low is the only configuration that breaks the 60 FPS barrier, and even then, it does so by a slim margin.

GPU Role

The AMD Radeon 880M is the decisive component in this pairing. Its benchmark profile is modest, sitting at the 43rd percentile among all GPUs, with an average benchmark score of 8,436. The nearest rivals in synthetic tests are the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 675MX (average score 8,427, a 0.1% delta) and the NVIDIA GeForce MX330 (average score 8,458, a -0.3% delta). This places the 880M in the same performance class as a decade-old discrete laptop GPU and a low-end modern discrete option. In Minimum, this translates directly to the sub-60 FPS averages seen at most settings.

The GPU’s memory configuration is a critical factor, though the specifics are system-dependent. The 880M uses System Shared memory, meaning its bandwidth is dependent on the host system’s DDR5 memory, which for the Ultra 9 275HX is rated at 102.4 GB/s. This shared arrangement means the GPU competes with the CPU for memory bandwidth, and in a game like Minimum that relies on constant texture streaming, this can exacerbate performance dips. The 4K Medium result shows a minimum FPS of 18 and a maximum of 24, a narrow range that suggests the GPU is consistently hitting a hard performance wall rather than experiencing occasional spikes.

Clock speeds for the 880M are a base of 400 MHz and a boost of 2900 MHz. The boost clock is high for an integrated GPU, but the sheer number of compute units is limited. With 768 shading units, 48 texture mapping units, and 16 ROPs, the pixel rate is 46.40 GPixel/s and the texture rate is 139.2 GTexel/s. These figures are low by modern discrete standards, and the data reflects that. The FP32 performance is 4.454 TFLOPS, which is sufficient for light gaming but not for sustained high-detail workloads. The DirectX 12 Ultimate support (12_2) and Vulkan 1.4 are modern, but the hardware lacks the raw throughput to leverage them effectively in a demanding scene.

The GPU’s synthetic benchmarks further contextualize its in-game behavior. The PassMark G3D score is 7,615, and the 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 score is 535. These are low scores, and they align with the observed FPS. The GPU’s percentile rank of 43 means it performs better than 43% of all GPUs tested, but that also means 57% of GPUs are faster. In a 2014 title, this level of performance is adequate only at lower resolutions and settings. The data shows that the 880M is the primary reason why this combo cannot maintain 60 FPS at 1440p or 4K under any settings, and even at 1080p, only Low settings exceed that threshold.

FAQ

*Q: What is the highest average frame rate this combo achieves in Minimum?*

A: The highest average FPS measured is 79, achieved at 1920x1080 with Low settings. This is the only configuration that comfortably exceeds 60 FPS.

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

A: At 1080p Medium, the average FPS is 61, while at 1440p Medium it drops to 39. This represents a 36% reduction in performance when moving to the higher resolution.

Q: Is the CPU or GPU the bottleneck in this game?

A: The data strongly indicates the GPU is the bottleneck. Frame rates drop significantly as resolution increases (e.g., from 51 FPS at 1080p High to 18 FPS at 4K High), which is a classic sign of GPU limitation, while the CPU’s 24 cores remain underutilized by this older title.

Q: What is the lowest average frame rate recorded?

A: The lowest average FPS is 14, recorded at 3840x2160 with Ultra settings. This is effectively unplayable for a third-person shooter.

Q: Does the Radeon 880M have dedicated VRAM?

A: No. The memory size, type, and bus width are all listed as "System Shared," meaning it uses the system’s DDR5 memory. The bandwidth is "System Dependent," which in this case is tied to the CPU’s 102.4 GB/s dual-channel memory support.

*Q: How does this combo’s rank in Minimum compare to its total tested combos?*

A: This combo ranks 2,866 out of 2,939 tested combos, placing it in the bottom 2.5% of all configurations tested for this game.

How This Combo Ranks

The combo rank for Minimum is 2,866 out of 2,939 tested combinations. This places it in the bottom 2.5% of all systems, a position that underscores its performance limitations. To put this in perspective, only 73 other combinations perform worse in this game. This is not surprising given the GPU’s low percentile rank (43rd) and the game’s age, which does not benefit from the CPU’s multi-core architecture.

The rank is a direct consequence of the Radeon 880M’s modest specifications. With a PassMark G3D score of 7,615 and a 3DMark Steel Nomad score of 535, the GPU is not designed for high-refresh-rate gaming at modern resolutions. The CPU, by contrast, ranks in the 94th percentile among all CPUs, with an average benchmark score of 67,469. This mismatch—a top-tier mobile processor paired with an entry-level integrated GPU—creates a system that is heavily imbalanced for gaming. The CPU’s nearest rivals (Intel Xeon w5-3525, AMD EPYC 4484PX, AMD Ryzen Threadripper PRO 5955WX) all have average scores within 0.7% of the Ultra 9 275HX, but they are workstation-class parts, not gaming CPUs. The GPU’s nearest rivals (GTX 675MX, MX330, HD 8870M) are all older or lower-end parts, confirming its entry-level status.

In the context of Minimum, the rank of 2,866 means that almost every other tested combo delivers better frame rates. The game’s low system requirements (a 2014 release) mean that even modest discrete GPUs can run it at high settings, but the 880M struggles. The data shows that at 1080p Ultra, the average FPS is 39, which is below the 60 FPS target. At 1440p, even Low settings only reach 51 FPS. This places the combo in a niche where it can play the game, but only at reduced settings and resolutions. The rank reflects this: it is not at the very bottom, but it is far from the middle.

CPU Role

The Intel Core Ultra 9 275HX is a 24-core, 24-thread processor based on the Arrow Lake architecture, built on a 3 nm process by TSMC. Its base clock is 2.70 GHz with a boost clock of 5.40 GHz. In synthetic benchmarks, it performs strongly: Cinebench R23 multi-core scores 35,589, Geekbench multi-core scores 20,795, and PassMark multi-thread scores 55,759. The single-core performance is also solid, with a Geekbench single-core score of 2,458 and a Cinebench R23 single-core score of 2,204. These numbers place the CPU in the 94th percentile of all CPUs, indicating it is a high-end mobile part.

However, in Minimum, this power is largely irrelevant. The game, released in 2014, was designed for the dual-core and quad-core processors of that era. It does not scale well across 24 threads. The CPU’s L3 cache is 36 MB (shared), and it has 3 MB of L2 cache per core, which is generous, but the game’s engine likely does not leverage this. The data shows no evidence of CPU bottlenecks: frame rates scale with resolution in a way that points exclusively to GPU limits. If the CPU were the constraint, the FPS would be similar across 1080p, 1440p, and 4K, which is not the case.

The CPU’s memory bandwidth of 102.4 GB/s (dual-channel DDR5) is shared with the integrated GPU, and this could be a subtle factor. In a game that streams textures, the shared memory bandwidth might cause minor stutters, but the average FPS data does not show unusual dips. The minimum FPS at 1080p Medium is 52, which is close to the average of 61, indicating stable frame times. The CPU’s boost clock of 5.40 GHz is high, and if the game were single-threaded, this would help, but the integrated GPU still holds performance back. The CPU’s PassMark single-thread score of 4,713 is strong, but it cannot compensate for the GPU’s 4.454 TFLOPS of FP32 performance.

In short, the Ultra 9 275HX is overkill for this game. Its 24 cores and 5.40 GHz boost clock provide no tangible benefit in Minimum because the game does not utilize them. The CPU’s role is to feed the GPU with draw calls and physics calculations, and it does so without breaking a sweat. The bottleneck is entirely on the GPU side, and the CPU’s vast headroom remains unused. This is a classic example of a high-end CPU paired with an integrated GPU, where the CPU’s potential is wasted in GPU-bound scenarios.

Measured FPS Breakdown

The measured FPS data provides a complete picture across four resolutions and four settings levels. All numbers are average FPS unless otherwise noted.

1920x1080 (1080p):

• Low: 79 FPS average. This is the best result for this combo, exceeding 60 FPS by a 19 FPS margin.
• Medium: 61 FPS average, with a minimum of 52 FPS and a maximum of 70 FPS. The range indicates some variability, but it stays above 50 FPS.
• High: 51 FPS average. This drops below the 60 FPS threshold, making it less smooth for fast-paced action.
• Ultra: 39 FPS average. This is a playable frame rate but will feel sluggish in a third-person shooter.

2560x1440 (1440p):

• Low: 51 FPS average. This matches the 1080p High result, showing a significant penalty for the resolution increase.
• Medium: 39 FPS average, with a minimum of 33 FPS and a maximum of 45 FPS. The minimum is below 30 FPS, which can cause noticeable hitches.
• High: 33 FPS average. This is borderline playable, but the low average suggests frequent drops.
• Ultra: 25 FPS average. This is below the standard for smooth gameplay.

3840x2160 (4K):

• Low: 28 FPS average. This is below 30 FPS, making it difficult to play comfortably.
• Medium: 21 FPS average, with a minimum of 18 FPS and a maximum of 24 FPS. The narrow range shows the GPU is maxed out.
• High: 18 FPS average. This is a slideshow for a shooter.
• Ultra: 14 FPS average. This is the lowest recorded result and is unplayable.

The pattern is consistent: 1080p Low is the only playable configuration, 1080p Medium is acceptable, and everything else falls short. The FPS drops from 1080p to 1440p are roughly 35% across all settings, and from 1440p to 4K they are roughly 45%. These are substantial penalties that confirm the GPU’s limitations. The minimum FPS values, where available, show that the frame times are relatively stable, but at low averages, stability does not help. For a game like Minimum, which requires quick reactions, the data suggests that players should stick to 1080p with Low or Medium settings to maintain a playable experience. Anything higher requires a more powerful GPU.