Minimum

Minimum is a 2014 third-person shooter whose measured performance on the Intel Core Ultra X9 388H and AMD Radeon 8060S combination reveals a system that scales predictably across resolutions and settings, with the data indicating a strong balance between the 16-core processor and the integrated-class GPU. The benchmark results, captured at three resolutions and four quality presets, show a total of twelve distinct data points that allow for a detailed analysis of where the bottleneck lies and how users should configure the game for their preferred display.

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

The Intel Core Ultra X9 388H is a 16-core, 16-thread mobile processor based on the Panther Lake architecture, built on a 3 nm process. It operates with a base clock of 2.10 GHz and a boost clock of 5.10 GHz, which are the only clock figures provided in the data. The processor includes a substantial cache hierarchy, with 192 KB of L1 per core, 3 MB of L2 per core, and 18 MB of shared L3 cache. These specifications place the chip in the 88th percentile of all CPUs tested, with an average benchmark score of 44466.

In the context of Minimum, a game from 2014, the CPU's role is likely less demanding than in modern titles, but the data shows that this processor's capabilities are more than sufficient for the workloads presented. The Cinebench R23 multicore score of 18911 and single-core score of 2200.5 indicate strong performance in both heavily threaded and lightly threaded scenarios. The PassMark single-thread score of 4280 further reinforces that the chip's per-core performance is robust. For a third-person shooter that is over a decade old, the game engine's physics, AI, and draw call processing are unlikely to stress this CPU, meaning the processor is probably not the limiting factor in the measured FPS results.

The nearest rivals in the CPU benchmark database provide context for this performance. The AMD Ryzen 5 7500X3D has an average score of 44573, which is 0.2% higher than the Ultra X9 388H's 44466, making the difference statistically negligible. The Intel Core i9-13950HX scores 44342, which is 0.3% lower, and the AMD Ryzen AI Max 385 scores 44309, 0.4% lower. The Intel Core i5-13600 rounds out the group at 44240, 0.5% lower. These deltas are all under one percent, indicating that the Ultra X9 388H sits at the top of a very tight cluster of high-performance processors, with no single rival holding a meaningful advantage in average benchmark scores.

Given the game's release date and the CPU's high single-thread and multi-thread scores, the data suggests that the processor has ample headroom in Minimum. The measured FPS at lower resolutions and settings, such as 187 FPS at 1080p Low, indicates that the CPU can feed frames at very high rates when the GPU is not the bottleneck. The 16 cores and 16 threads are more than adequate for a title from this era, and the high boost clock of 5.10 GHz ensures that any single-threaded game logic is handled with minimal latency. The conclusion from the data is that the CPU is a non-issue for Minimum, providing a stable foundation that allows the GPU to be the primary determinant of frame rates, especially as resolution and settings increase.

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

The measured FPS data across the four settings presets (Low, Medium, High, Ultra) at each resolution provides clear guidance on which preset offers the best balance of visual quality and performance. At 1080p, the Low preset delivers 187 FPS, Medium delivers 143 FPS, High delivers 120 FPS, and Ultra delivers 92 FPS. The jump from Low to Medium is a 44 FPS drop, while the jump from Medium to High is only 23 FPS, and from High to Ultra is 28 FPS. The data indicates that High at 1080p is a sweet spot, as it maintains a very playable 120 FPS while offering significantly better visual fidelity than Low or Medium. Ultra at 92 FPS is still smooth, but the 28 FPS loss over High may not justify the visual gains in a fast-paced shooter where frame rate is king.

At 1440p, the pattern shifts. Low delivers 121 FPS, Medium 92 FPS, High 78 FPS, and Ultra 59 FPS. Here, Medium stands out as the recommended preset because it provides 92 FPS, which is above the 60 FPS threshold for smooth gameplay, while High drops to 78 FPS and Ultra falls to 59 FPS, which is borderline for competitive play. The 29 FPS difference between Low and Medium is significant, but the visual improvements at Medium are likely worth it. Ultra at 59 FPS is playable but not ideal for a shooter where reaction time matters. The data suggests that Medium is the highest preset that maintains a comfortable frame rate at this resolution.

At 4K, the options become more constrained. Low delivers 65 FPS, Medium 50 FPS, High 42 FPS, and Ultra 32 FPS. Only the Low preset achieves a frame rate above 60 FPS, and it does so at 65 FPS. Medium at 50 FPS is playable but not ideal, and High at 42 FPS approaches the lower bound of acceptable performance. Ultra at 32 FPS is not recommended for a shooter. The data strongly suggests that Low is the only viable preset for 4K if the user prioritizes frame rate, while Medium is acceptable for a more cinematic experience at the cost of smoothness. Overall, the recommendation is to use High at 1080p, Medium at 1440p, and Low at 4K to achieve the best balance of visual quality and performance per the measured rows.

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

The FPS scaling across resolutions reveals a classic pattern of GPU-bound performance. At High settings, the average FPS drops from 120 at 1080p to 78 at 1440p, a 35% reduction, and then to 42 at 4K, a 46% reduction from 1440p. At Medium settings, the FPS drops from 143 at 1080p to 92 at 1440p, a 36% reduction, and then to 50 at 4K, a 46% reduction from 1440p. At Low settings, the FPS drops from 187 at 1080p to 121 at 1440p, a 35% reduction, and then to 65 at 4K, a 46% reduction from 1440p. This consistent pattern of approximately 35% and 46% reductions across all settings indicates that the performance is scaling with the number of pixels rendered, which is a hallmark of a GPU-limited system.

The data implies that the AMD Radeon 8060S is the limiting component in this configuration for Minimum. As resolution increases, the GPU's workload grows proportionally, and the FPS drops accordingly. The CPU, with its high benchmark scores, is not showing signs of being a bottleneck, as the FPS at 1080p Low reaches 187, which is a very high frame rate that would require a capable CPU to feed. If the CPU were the limit, we would expect to see a plateau in FPS at lower resolutions, but instead, the FPS continues to rise as resolution decreases, indicating that the GPU is the constraining factor.

The 4K results are particularly telling. At Ultra settings, the FPS drops to 32, which is a very low number for any resolution. The fact that the FPS at 4K Low is 65, which is higher than the FPS at 1440p Ultra at 59, further confirms that the GPU is struggling with the pixel count. The scaling from 1080p to 4K at Low settings shows a 122 FPS drop, which is a 65% reduction, while the same resolution change at Ultra settings shows a 60 FPS drop, a 65% reduction as well. This consistent percentage reduction across all settings is strong evidence that the GPU is the sole performance limiter, and the CPU has ample headroom to handle the game's logic at any resolution.

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

Q: What is the best performance the Intel Core Ultra X9 388H and AMD Radeon 8060S combo achieves in Minimum?

A: The highest measured average FPS is 187 at 1920x1080 with Low settings. This is the only preset and resolution combination that comes close to high refresh rate territory, with the next highest being 143 FPS at 1080p Medium.

Q: Can this combo run Minimum at 4K Ultra settings?

A: Yes, but with a significant performance cost. The measured average FPS at 3840x2160 with Ultra settings is 32 FPS, which is below the 60 FPS threshold for smooth gameplay and likely not suitable for a competitive shooter.

Q: How does the CPU's benchmark score compare to its nearest rivals?

A: The CPU's average benchmark score is 44466, which is 0.2% lower than the AMD Ryzen 5 7500X3D, 0.3% higher than the Intel Core i9-13950HX, 0.4% higher than the AMD Ryzen AI Max 385, and 0.5% higher than the Intel Core i5-13600. All four processors are within a 1% performance band.

Q: What is the FPS drop from 1080p to 4K at High settings?

A: The average FPS at 1080p High is 120, and at 4K High it is 42. This represents a 78 FPS drop, which is a 65% reduction in performance when moving from Full HD to Ultra HD.

Q: Does the GPU have a higher or lower average benchmark score than the RTX 4080?

A: The AMD Radeon 8060S has an average benchmark score of 55757, which is 2.8% higher than the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4080's score of 54247. It also has a 0.6% lower score than the RTX 5080's 56083.

Q: What is the only 4K setting that maintains an average FPS above 60?

A: The Low preset at 3840x2160 achieves an average FPS of 65, making it the only 4K setting that breaks the 60 FPS barrier. Medium at 4K drops to 50 FPS, and High drops to 42 FPS.

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

The AMD Radeon 8060S is an integrated-class GPU based on the RDNA 3.5 architecture, built on a 4 nm process by TSMC. It features a base clock of 1295 MHz and a boost clock of 2900 MHz, with memory that is System Shared, meaning it uses the system's LPDDR5X memory rather than dedicated VRAM. The GPU has 2560 shading units, 160 texture mapping units, and 64 raster operations pipelines. It also includes 40 ray tracing cores, which is notable for a game from 2014 that likely does not support ray tracing. The pixel rate is 185.6 GPixel/s, and the texture rate is 464.0 GTexel/s, with a FP32 performance of 14.85 TFLOPS.

In the context of Minimum, the GPU's lack of dedicated VRAM is not a significant issue, as the game's textures and assets are likely modest by modern standards. The System Shared memory configuration means that the GPU relies on the CPU's dual-channel memory bus, which has a bandwidth of 153.6 GB/s. This shared memory architecture can be a bottleneck in some scenarios, but for a 2014 game, the memory bandwidth appears sufficient, as the FPS results are primarily limited by the GPU's compute capabilities rather than memory throughput.

The GPU's benchmark scores place it in the 87th percentile of all GPUs, with an average score of 55757. Its nearest rivals include the AMD Radeon RX 6750 GRE 12 GB, which scores 55698 (0.1% lower), the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5080 at 56083 (0.6% higher), the AMD Radeon Pro W5700X at 54828 (1.7% lower), and the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4080 at 54247 (2.8% lower). These scores indicate that the 8060S performs on par with dedicated desktop GPUs from the previous generation, which is impressive for an integrated solution.

The data shows that the GPU's performance scales predictably with resolution and settings. At 1080p Low, it achieves 187 FPS, which is a very high frame rate. However, as the resolution increases, the FPS drops significantly, as seen in the 4K results where even Low settings only reach 65 FPS. This indicates that the GPU is the limiting factor in this combo, and its performance is best utilized at lower resolutions or with reduced graphical settings. The 14.85 TFLOPS of FP32 performance is sufficient for Minimum's requirements, but the integrated nature of the GPU means it shares thermal and power resources with the CPU, which could influence sustained performance in longer gaming sessions, though the data does not provide specific measurements for this.

How This Combo Ranks — use comboRankInGame vs other tested combos

The combination of the Intel Core Ultra X9 388H and AMD Radeon 8060S ranks 1677 out of 2939 tested combos in Minimum. This places the combo in the 57th percentile of all tested systems, meaning it outperforms 57% of all other combinations. This ranking is notable given that both the CPU and GPU individually rank in the high 80s percentile against their respective peers, but the combo's rank is lower, suggesting that the GPU is holding back the overall potential of the system in this specific game.

The rank of 1677 out of 2939 indicates that there are 1262 combos that perform better in Minimum, likely featuring more powerful discrete GPUs. The fact that the CPU is in the 88th percentile and the GPU is in the 87th percentile, yet the combo only reaches the 57th percentile, highlights the importance of GPU performance in this game. The data suggests that if the CPU were paired with a stronger GPU, the combo's rank would be significantly higher, as the CPU has the headroom to support higher frame rates.

This ranking also implies that Minimum is more GPU-intensive than CPU-intensive, which aligns with the resolution scaling analysis. The combo's performance at 1080p is strong, with 187 FPS at Low settings, but the rank reflects performance across all settings and resolutions, and the 4K results bring the average down. The data shows that this combo is best suited for 1080p or 1440p gaming, where it can deliver playable frame rates, while 4K is a stretch that only the Low preset can handle above 60 FPS. The rank serves as a benchmark for what users can expect from this specific hardware pairing in this title.

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

At 1920x1080, the measured average FPS varies significantly by settings preset. The Low preset achieves an average of 187 FPS, which is the highest recorded in the entire dataset. The Medium preset delivers 143 FPS, with a minimum of 122 FPS and a maximum of 165 FPS. The High preset achieves 120 FPS, and the Ultra preset drops to 92 FPS. This shows a clear hierarchy where each step up in settings costs a substantial number of frames, with the difference between Low and Ultra being 95 FPS.

At 2560x1440, the FPS values are lower but still playable. The Low preset achieves 121 FPS, which is a solid frame rate for a higher resolution. The Medium preset delivers 92 FPS, with a minimum of 79 FPS and a maximum of 106 FPS. The High preset achieves 78 FPS, and the Ultra preset drops to 59 FPS. The difference between Low and Ultra at 1440p is 62 FPS, which is less than at 1080p, indicating that the GPU is becoming more of a limiting factor as the pixel count increases.

At 3840x2160, the FPS values drop significantly, and only the Low preset achieves a frame rate above 60. The Low preset delivers 65 FPS, while the Medium preset achieves 50 FPS, with a minimum of 42 FPS and a maximum of 57 FPS. The High preset drops to 42 FPS, and the Ultra preset falls to 32 FPS. The difference between Low and Ultra at 4K is 33 FPS, which is the smallest absolute difference across resolutions, but the percentage drop is consistent at around 50%. This data provides a complete picture of the combo's performance, showing that it is capable of high frame rates at 1080p and 1440p, but struggles to maintain smooth gameplay at 4K except at the lowest settings.