Minimum

The Intel Core Ultra X9 388H paired with the AMD Radeon 760M is a mobile combination that prioritizes CPU throughput over graphics headroom. The processor’s 16 cores and 16 threads, with a base clock of 2.10 GHz and a boost clock of 5.10 GHz, deliver strong synthetic benchmark scores that place it in the 88th percentile among all CPUs. However, the Radeon 760M, an integrated graphics solution based on RDNA 3.0, sits in the 35th percentile among all GPUs. In the 2014 third-person shooter Minimum, this imbalance becomes the defining characteristic of the performance profile, as the measured frame rates are consistently low across all resolutions and settings, indicating a severe graphics bottleneck. The data shows that while the CPU is capable of high-end processing tasks, it cannot compensate for the GPU’s limited fill rate and shading power in this game.

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

The Intel Core Ultra X9 388H is built on the Panther Lake architecture using a 3 nm process node, and it operates with a 25 W TDP. Its configuration includes 16 cores and 16 threads, which is a notable setup for a mobile part, paired with a substantial L3 cache of 18 MB shared. The core clock speeds range from a 2.10 GHz base to a 5.10 GHz boost, allowing for significant single-thread performance when needed. In synthetic benchmarks, this CPU achieves a Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 18911 and a single-core score of 2200.5, alongside a Passmark multi-thread score of 36811 and a single-thread score of 4280.

When compared to its nearest rivals, the CPU’s average benchmark score of 44466 is nearly identical to the AMD Ryzen 5 7500X3D, which scores 44573, representing a delta of -0.2%. It also edges out the Intel Core i9-13950HX by 0.3% and the AMD Ryzen AI Max 385 by 0.4%. This places the 388H in a highly competitive position for compute-heavy workloads, but the relevance to Minimum is limited by the game’s actual demands. Minimum is a fast-paced shooter where frame pacing and raw FPS matter more than multi-threaded rendering, and the CPU’s 16 threads are more than sufficient to feed the GPU. The bottleneck is not the processor’s ability to handle game logic or draw calls; it is the GPU’s capacity to rasterize the scene. Benchmark results indicate that the CPU’s high boost clock of 5.10 GHz helps in single-threaded scenarios, but the measured FPS in Minimum never exceeds 58 at any setting, which is far below what this CPU could theoretically support if paired with a stronger graphics solution. The processor’s role here is to ensure that the GPU is the limiting factor, and the data confirms that the Radeon 760M is indeed the primary constraint, as the CPU’s performance percentile is over 50 points higher than the GPU’s.

FAQ — 4-6 Q&A pairs answerable from FACT PACK data

Q: Does the Intel Core Ultra X9 388H bottleneck the AMD Radeon 760M in Minimum?

A: No. The CPU’s average benchmark score is 44466, placing it in the 88th percentile, while the GPU’s average score is 6019, placing it in the 35th percentile. The measured FPS is consistently low across all settings, indicating the GPU is the limiting component, not the CPU.

Q: What is the best possible average FPS this combo can achieve in Minimum?

A: The highest average FPS recorded is 58, which occurs at 1920x1080 resolution with Low settings. At the same resolution with Ultra settings, the average drops to 28 FPS, showing a significant performance ceiling.

Q: How does the Radeon 760M compare to its closest rival in terms of raw GPU score?

A: The Radeon 760M has an average benchmark score of 6019, which is 0.3% higher than the AMD Radeon RX 6400’s score of 6001. It also trails the NVIDIA Quadro P2000 by 0.5%, which scores 6049.

Q: Is the CPU’s multi-core performance a factor in the FPS results at 4K?

A: No. At 3840x2160 with Ultra settings, the average FPS is 10, and with High settings, it is 13. The CPU’s Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 18911 shows it can handle heavy workloads, but the GPU’s pixel rate of 41.58 GPixel/s is insufficient for 4K rendering.

Q: What is the difference in FPS between Medium and Ultra settings at 1440p?

A: At 2560x1440, the Medium preset achieves an average of 29 FPS, while the Ultra preset drops to 18 FPS. This represents a 11 FPS decrease, which is a 37.9% reduction in performance when moving to the higher settings.

Q: Does the combo rank highly among all tested configurations for this game?

A: No. The combo rank is 2930 out of 2939 tested combos, placing it in the bottom percentile of all configurations for Minimum. This is consistent with the low GPU performance percentile of 35.

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, which is a classic symptom of a GPU-bound scenario. At 1920x1080 with Low settings, the average FPS is 58. Moving to 2560x1440 at the same settings, the average FPS drops to 37, a reduction of 21 FPS or 36.2%. At 3840x2160, the average falls further to 20 FPS, which is a 65.5% drop from the 1080p result. This scaling pattern is steep, but it is not linear; the jump from 1440p to 4K results in a 46% decrease, while the jump from 1080p to 1440p results in a 36% decrease. The fact that even at the lowest settings, the 4K resolution yields only 20 FPS indicates that the GPU’s memory bandwidth, listed as "System Dependent," and its 16 ROPs are overwhelmed by the pixel count.

The CPU’s role in this scaling is minimal. The processor’s boost clock of 5.10 GHz and single-thread score of 4280 in Passmark suggest that it can handle the game’s logic at any resolution, but the FPS does not improve at lower resolutions in a way that suggests CPU involvement. For instance, at 1080p, the difference between Low and Ultra settings is 30 FPS (58 to 28), which is a 51.7% drop. This setting-dependent variance is typical of a GPU that is limited by its shading units and texture units, not a CPU that is limited by its core count or clock speed. The data supports the conclusion that the Radeon 760M is the sole limiting factor, as the CPU’s performance metrics are robust enough to support far higher frame rates if a discrete graphics card were present.

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

The complete set of measured frame rates provides a granular view of this combo’s capabilities in Minimum. At 1920x1080, the results are as follows: Low settings yield an average of 58 FPS, Medium settings yield an average of 44 FPS with a minimum of 38 and a maximum of 51, High settings yield an average of 37 FPS, and Ultra settings yield an average of 28 FPS. The medium preset is the only one at this resolution with recorded min and max values, showing a variance of 13 FPS between the lowest and highest frames.

At 2560x1440, the performance drops noticeably. Low settings produce an average of 37 FPS, Medium settings produce an average of 29 FPS with a minimum of 24 and a maximum of 33, High settings produce an average of 24 FPS, and Ultra settings produce an average of 18 FPS. The medium preset again shows a range, this time a 9 FPS spread. At 3840x2160, the results are largely unplayable for a shooter. Low settings achieve an average of 20 FPS, Medium settings achieve an average of 15 FPS with a minimum of 13 and a maximum of 18, High settings achieve an average of 13 FPS, and Ultra settings achieve an average of 10 FPS.

The pattern across all resolutions is consistent: Low settings are the only playable option, and even then, only at 1080p does the average exceed 60 FPS, which it does not, peaking at 58. The Medium presets at all resolutions show a consistent 25-30% improvement over High settings, but they still fall short of a smooth experience at 1440p and above. The Ultra preset is uniformly the worst, with the lowest average FPS at every resolution. The data also reveals that the gap between Low and Ultra widens as resolution increases; at 1080p, Low is 30 FPS higher than Ultra, while at 4K, Low is only 10 FPS higher, indicating that the GPU is hitting a hard ceiling at higher pixel counts.

How This Combo Ranks — use comboRankInGame vs other tested combos

The combo of the Intel Core Ultra X9 388H and AMD Radeon 760M ranks 2930 out of 2939 tested combos in Minimum. This places it in the 0.3% percentile of all configurations, meaning that only 9 other combos perform worse. This ranking is a direct reflection of the GPU’s limitations, as the CPU’s performance is in the top 12% of all processors. The CPU’s nearest rivals, such as the AMD Ryzen 5 7500X3D and Intel Core i9-13950HX, have average scores that are nearly identical to the 388H, differing by less than 0.5%, which underscores that the processor is not the issue. The GPU’s nearest rivals, including the AMD Radeon RX 6400 and NVIDIA GeForce GTX 770M, also have similar average scores, but these are all low-end parts that are not designed for high-refresh-rate gaming.

The rank of 2930 is a stark indicator that this configuration is not suitable for Minimum if the goal is smooth gameplay. The game, released in 2014, is not particularly demanding by modern standards, but the Radeon 760M’s 512 shading units and 16 ROPs are simply too few to deliver playable frame rates at competitive settings. The data shows that the combo is better suited for productivity tasks or older, less graphically intensive titles, as the CPU’s Passmark multi-thread score of 36811 and Cinebench R23 score of 18911 are excellent for those workloads. However, for this specific game, the ranking confirms that the GPU is a severe bottleneck, and no amount of CPU headroom can overcome the graphics hardware’s fundamental constraints.

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

Given the measured FPS data, the only viable settings for Minimum are at 1920x1080 with the Low preset. This configuration yields an average of 58 FPS, which is the closest to a smooth 60 FPS experience this combo can achieve. The Medium preset at 1080p drops to 44 FPS, which is a 24% reduction and may be playable for some, but the minimum FPS of 38 could cause noticeable stuttering in fast-paced combat. At 1440p, the Low preset produces 37 FPS, which is marginal for a shooter, and the Medium preset at 29 FPS is likely too choppy. At 4K, all presets are effectively unplayable, with the highest average being 20 FPS at Low settings.

For the best balance of visuals and performance, the 1080p Low preset is the only recommendation that provides a near-optimal experience. The data indicates that the Ultra preset at 1080p, which yields 28 FPS, and the High preset at 1440p, which yields 24 FPS, are both inferior to the Low preset at 1080p in terms of frame rate. The Medium preset at 1080p offers a 44 FPS average, but the trade-off in visual fidelity may not be worth the 14 FPS loss compared to Low. If a player insists on higher resolutions, the 1440p Low preset is the only option that breaks the 30 FPS threshold, but it is still far from ideal. The conclusion is straightforward: lower the resolution to 1080p and the settings to Low to maximize playability, as the GPU’s performance ceiling does not allow for higher presets without significant FPS penalties.