Minimum

The AMD Radeon RX 7800M paired with the Intel Core Ultra X7 368H delivers a performance profile in Minimum that is heavily dictated by resolution and graphical preset. The measured data reveals a system capable of high refresh rate play at 1080p, but one that struggles to maintain smooth frame rates at 4K with maximum settings. This analysis breaks down the measured FPS numbers, examining the roles of the CPU and GPU, and contextualizes the combo's standing against other tested configurations.

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

The measured FPS data shows a clear and predictable decline as resolution increases, but the rate of that decline offers crucial insight into which component is the bottleneck at different settings. At Low settings, the frame rate drops from 173 FPS at 1920x1080 to 112 FPS at 2560x1440, a 35% reduction. Moving from 1440p to 4K (3840x2160) brings the average down to 60 FPS, another 46% drop. This steep scaling curve at Low settings suggests that while the CPU is capable of feeding frames at lower resolutions, the GPU's raw pixel-pushing power becomes the primary constraint as the pixel count grows.

The pattern holds, but with different magnitudes, at higher presets. At High settings, the average FPS falls from 111 at 1080p to 72 at 1440p (a 35% drop), and then to 39 at 4K (a 46% drop). This consistent percentage decrease across presets indicates that the RX 7800M's workload scales nearly linearly with resolution. The data points to the GPU being the definitive limiting factor at 4K, especially when considering the Ultra preset, where the average FPS plummets to 29 at 4K. This is a playability cliff, not a gradual decline.

The medium preset provides the only complete dataset with min and max FPS values, which helps illustrate the variance. At 1080p Medium, the average is 133 FPS with a range of 113 to 152 FPS. At 1440p Medium, the average drops to 85 FPS with a range of 73 to 98 FPS. At 4K Medium, the average falls to 46 FPS with a range of 39 to 53 FPS. The spread between min and max stays proportionally similar, suggesting consistent frame pacing rather than sporadic stutters. The overall picture is that the RX 7800M is a strong 1080p and capable 1440p performer, but the path to 4K requires significant compromises in settings.

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

For a third-person shooter like Minimum, maintaining a frame rate that supports responsive aiming is critical. The data shows that the Ultra preset is largely untenable for smooth play. At 4K Ultra, the average of 29 FPS is well below any acceptable threshold for a fast-paced game. Even at 1440p, Ultra yields only 55 FPS, which may feel inconsistent. The 1080p Ultra result of 85 FPS is playable, but the performance cost of Ultra over High is substantial across all resolutions.

The High preset offers the most balanced experience for visual fidelity and performance. At 1080p, it achieves 111 FPS, which is excellent for a high-refresh-rate display. At 1440p, the 72 FPS average is solidly in the playable range for a shooter. The 4K High result of 39 FPS is the weakest link, making 4K gaming a difficult proposition without further compromises.

The Medium preset emerges as the best choice for players prioritizing higher resolutions. At 4K Medium, the average of 46 FPS is a significant improvement over High and is more likely to be tolerable. The data shows that dropping from High to Medium at 4K yields a 7 FPS gain, a modest but important 18% improvement. At 1440p, Medium's 85 FPS is a robust 13 FPS jump over High, making it the sweet spot for a 144Hz monitor. The Low preset, while delivering the highest frame rates (173 FPS at 1080p), sacrifices too much visual quality for most players, effectively serving as a competitive mode option.

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

The Intel Core Ultra X7 368H is a 16-core, 16-thread processor with a base clock of 2.00 GHz and a boost clock of 5.00 GHz. For a game released in 2014, this modern processor provides an immense amount of computational headroom. The measured FPS data suggests that the CPU is not a bottleneck until the frame rate reaches very high levels. At 1080p Low, the 173 FPS average is a strong indicator that the CPU can handle the game's logic and draw calls efficiently, feeding the GPU enough data to achieve that frame rate.

The CPU's single-threaded performance is a key factor. A benchmark score of 3984 in Cinebench R23 single-core places it in the 87th percentile of all CPUs, which is crucial for a game engine from 2014 that likely relies heavily on one primary thread for game logic. The multi-core score of 28221 in Cinebench R23 shows the processor's immense parallel capability, but Minimum likely doesn't scale perfectly across all 16 threads. The data implies that the CPU's high boost clock is more important than its core count for this specific title.

The comparison to the nearest rivals reinforces this. The Core Ultra X7 368H has an average benchmark score of 40518, which is nearly identical to the Intel Core 7 253PE (40557, -0.1%) and the AMD Ryzen 9 7940H (40431, +0.2%). This indicates that for CPU-bound tasks, the performance is on par with these alternatives. However, the measured FPS in Minimum suggests that the CPU's headroom is sufficient to avoid limiting the RX 7800M, meaning the GPU is the primary driver of the frame rate differences we see across resolutions.

How This Combo Ranks — use comboRankInGame vs other tested combos

In the database of tested combinations, this specific pairing of the Intel Core Ultra X7 368H and AMD Radeon RX 7800M ranks 1934 out of 2939 combos. This places it in the lower third of all tested configurations for Minimum. This rank is surprisingly low given the individual component scores. The CPU ranks in the 87th percentile, and the GPU ranks in the 73rd percentile, yet the combined performance lands at approximately the 34th percentile.

This discrepancy suggests that the combination is not optimized for this specific game, or that the game's engine has limitations that prevent it from fully utilizing the potential of this hardware. The rank of 1934 indicates that there are many other CPU-GPU pairings that achieve higher average FPS in Minimum. The data implies that while the components are individually capable, the overall system performance is held back by factors that are not purely computational, such as memory bandwidth or driver overhead.

The GPU's nearest rivals provide some context. The RX 7800M has an average benchmark score of 27883, which is within 1% of the AMD Radeon Pro Vega 20 (27839, +0.2%) and the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 980 Ti (28020, -0.5%). This suggests that the GPU's raw compute power is similar to these older, yet powerful, cards. The low combo rank might indicate that these rival GPUs, when paired with different CPUs, achieve better frame rates in Minimum, perhaps due to more favorable driver optimizations for this older title.

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

The AMD Radeon RX 7800M is a robust mobile GPU with 12 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 192-bit bus, providing a bandwidth of 432.0 GB/s. For a 2014 game, the memory capacity is more than sufficient, and the bandwidth is unlikely to be a limiting factor even at 4K with high-resolution textures. The GPU's boost clock of 2335 MHz and game clock of 2145 MHz are high for a mobile part, contributing to its strong raw compute performance of 35.87 TFLOPS.

The measured FPS data shows the GPU's capabilities are stretched at 4K. The transition from 1440p High (72 FPS) to 4K High (39 FPS) represents a 46% reduction in performance. This is a clear sign that the GPU's pixel fill rate and shading units are being saturated at the higher resolution. The GPU has 3840 shading units and 96 ROPs, which are significant numbers, but the workload of 4K rendering is immense.

The GPU's performance against its nearest rivals is telling. The RX 7800M's average benchmark score of 27883 is nearly identical to the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 980 Ti (28020, -0.5%). This suggests that in synthetic benchmarks, the two cards are comparable. However, the RX 7800M has more modern architecture (RDNA 3.0) and features like 60 RT cores, which are irrelevant for a 2014 game. The data implies that for Minimum, the GPU's raw fill-rate and shader performance are the deciding factors, and the RX 7800M's capabilities are well-suited for 1080p and 1440p but insufficient for a stable 4K experience at high settings.

FAQ

*Q: What is the best resolution to play Minimum with this hardware?*

A: Based on the measured data, 2560x1440 is the optimal resolution. At High settings, it produces an average of 72 FPS, which is smooth. 1920x1080 is even better for high refresh rates, with 111 FPS at High settings, but 1440p is the sweet spot for visual clarity and performance.

*Q: Can this combo handle 4K gaming in Minimum?*

A: It can run the game at 4K, but with significant compromises. At Medium settings, it achieves an average of 46 FPS, which is borderline playable. At High settings, the average drops to 39 FPS, which is not ideal for a fast-paced shooter. Ultra settings are not viable at 4K, with an average of only 29 FPS.

Q: How does the Ultra preset compare to High at 1080p?

A: At 1920x1080, the High preset delivers an average of 111 FPS, while the Ultra preset delivers 85 FPS. This is a 26 FPS difference, meaning Ultra costs a significant amount of performance for the extra visual fidelity. High is the more sensible choice for maintaining high frame rates.

Q: Is the CPU or GPU the limiting factor for this game?

A: The data suggests the GPU is the primary limiting factor, especially at higher resolutions. At 1080p Low, the system achieves 173 FPS, indicating the CPU has enough headroom. As resolution increases, the frame rate drops proportionally, which is a classic sign of GPU saturation.

Q: What is the combo's overall ranking compared to other tested systems?

A: This specific combination of the Intel Core Ultra X7 368H and AMD Radeon RX 7800M ranks 1934 out of 2939 tested combos for Minimum. This places it in the lower third of the database, suggesting that while the parts are strong, other pairings yield better results in this title.

Q: How much better is 1440p Medium compared to 1440p High?

A: At 2560x1440, the Medium preset achieves an average of 85 FPS, which is 13 FPS higher than the High preset's 72 FPS. This represents an 18% performance improvement, making Medium a better choice for players with 144Hz monitors.

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

The following table presents the exact measured average FPS values for all tested configurations. For the Medium preset, the min and max FPS are also provided.

| Resolution | Settings | Avg FPS | Min FPS | Max FPS |

| :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- |

| 3840x2160 | Ultra | 29 | - | - |

| 3840x2160 | High | 39 | - | - |

| 3840x2160 | Medium | 46 | 39 | 53 |

| 3840x2160 | Low | 60 | - | - |

| 2560x1440 | Ultra | 55 | - | - |

| 2560x1440 | High | 72 | - | - |

| 2560x1440 | Medium | 85 | 73 | 98 |

| 2560x1440 | Low | 112 | - | - |

| 1920x1080 | Ultra | 85 | - | - |

| 1920x1080 | High | 111 | - | - |

| 1920x1080 | Medium | 133 | 113 | 152 |

| 1920x1080 | Low | 173 | - | - |

The data shows a clear hierarchy. At 1080p, all presets are playable, with even Ultra reaching 85 FPS. At 1440p, the Ultra preset is the first to dip below 60 FPS. At 4K, the performance drops sharply, with only the Low preset maintaining a 60 FPS average. The Medium preset's min FPS values at 4K (39 FPS) and 1440p (73 FPS) show that while the average is acceptable, there are moments of lower performance, which could be noticeable in fast action.