Minimum

The Intel Core Ultra X9 388H is a 16-core, 16-thread mobile processor based on the Panther Lake architecture, built on Intel's 3 nm process. It features a base clock of 2.10 GHz and a boost clock of 5.10 GHz, with a TDP of 25 W. The CPU's cache hierarchy includes 192 KB of L1 per core, 3 MB of L2 per core, and 18 MB of shared L3 cache. Its memory controller supports dual-channel LPDDR5X with a peak bandwidth of 153.6 GB/s. In synthetic benchmarks, this chip scores 18,911 points in Cinebench R23 multi-core and 2,200.5 points in single-core, while its PassMark multithread score is 36,811 and single-thread score is 4,280. The processor holds an 88th percentile ranking among all CPUs, with an average benchmark score of 44,466. Its nearest rivals in average score include the AMD Ryzen 5 7500X3D (44,573, 0.2% higher), the Intel Core i9-13950HX (44,342, 0.3% lower), the AMD Ryzen AI Max 385 (44,309, 0.4% lower), and the Intel Core i5-13600 (44,240, 0.5% lower).

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

The Core Ultra X9 388H's 16 cores and 16 threads, combined with a boost clock of 5.10 GHz, provide substantial single-thread headroom that is crucial for a third-person shooter like Minimum. The game, released in 2014, is not a modern multi-threaded powerhouse, so the high boost clock becomes the dominant factor in ensuring consistent frame pacing. The data shows that at 1080p Low settings, the system achieves 84 FPS average, which is the highest measured result across all resolutions and settings. This suggests that at lower graphical loads, the CPU's single-core performance (2200.5 in Cinebench R23 single-core) is more than adequate to feed the GPU, allowing the frame rate to scale with graphical settings rather than being capped by processor limitations.

The processor's 88th percentile ranking among all CPUs indicates that it sits well above the median, and its benchmark scores are nearly identical to the AMD Ryzen 5 7500X3D (a delta of only -0.2%). This near-parity in raw computing power means that any performance differences in Minimum are unlikely to stem from CPU deficiencies. The 18 MB of shared L3 cache is ample for a game of this era, reducing the latency penalties when the game engine requests assets. The PassMark physics score of 3,226 further reinforces that the CPU can handle the game's collision detection and object interaction calculations without introducing bottlenecks. In practical terms, when the average FPS drops from 84 at 1080p Low to 54 at 1080p High, the change is driven by the GPU's workload, not by the CPU hitting its limits, since the core count and clocks remain constant across both scenarios.

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

The AMD Radeon 890M is an integrated GPU based on the RDNA 3.5 architecture, built on TSMC's 4 nm process. It operates with a base clock of 400 MHz and a boost clock of 2900 MHz. The GPU has 1,024 shading units, 64 texture mapping units, and 32 render output units, along with 16 ray tracing cores. Its memory configuration is system-shared, meaning the VRAM size, type, and bus width are all dependent on the host system's RAM. The GPU's FP32 performance is 5.939 TFLOPS, and its pixel rate is 92.80 GPixel/s with a texture rate of 185.6 GTexel/s. In the PassMark G3D benchmark, it scores 8,076, placing it in the 45th percentile of all GPUs. Its nearest rivals include the AMD Radeon Vega 8 (9,221, 0.1% higher), NVIDIA GeForce GTX 960 (9,273, 0.7% higher), NVIDIA GeForce GTX 465 (9,294, 0.9% higher), and NVIDIA GeForce GTX 850M (9,302, 1% higher).

The Radeon 890M's performance profile is the primary constraint in Minimum at higher resolutions. At 1080p Low, the GPU delivers 84 FPS, but this drops to 54 FPS at 1080p High, a 35.7% reduction, showing that the GPU is sensitive to increased shading and texture work. The system-shared memory bandwidth, which is system-dependent, becomes a limiting factor as resolution climbs to 4K. At 3840x2160 Low, the average FPS is 29, and at High it is 19, indicating that the GPU's 5.939 TFLOPS compute capability is overwhelmed by the pixel count. The 890M's benchmark scores are very close to the GTX 960, a dedicated desktop card from 2015, which contextualizes its performance level: it is a capable integrated solution but not a high-end discrete part. The GPU's 45th percentile ranking among all GPUs confirms that it is an entry-level performer, which directly explains why the system's frame rates in Minimum are modest even at 1080p.

How This Combo Ranks

The combination of the Intel Core Ultra X9 388H and AMD Radeon 890M ranks 2,767 out of 2,939 tested combos for Minimum, placing it in the bottom 6% of all configurations. This low ranking is almost entirely attributable to the GPU's integrated nature, as the CPU's 88th percentile standing is far stronger than the GPU's 45th percentile. The data shows that while the CPU could easily support a much more powerful discrete GPU, the Radeon 890M's performance ceiling caps the system's overall capability. When comparing to other combos, this pairing is at a significant disadvantage because most systems in the database will include dedicated graphics cards that offer higher fill rates and memory bandwidth. The combo's rank implies that for Minimum, this setup will produce playable frame rates only at lower resolutions and settings, and it will struggle to maintain smooth gameplay at 4K. The gap between the CPU's potential and the GPU's delivery is the defining characteristic of this pairing, making it a balanced choice only for light gaming or productivity, not for a demanding shooter at high settings.

FAQ

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

A: No. The measured data shows an average FPS of 14 at 3840x2160 Ultra, which is below playable thresholds. The GPU's compute capability is insufficient for this workload.

Q: What is the best 1080p setting for this combo?

A: Low settings provide the highest average FPS at 84, while Medium yields 64 FPS and High yields 54 FPS. Low is the smoothest option for competitive play.

Q: How does the CPU compare to its nearest rival in terms of average benchmark score?

A: The Core Ultra X9 388H averages 44,466, which is 0.2% lower than the AMD Ryzen 5 7500X3D (44,573) and 0.3% higher than the Intel Core i9-13950HX (44,342).

Q: Is the GPU's performance closer to a discrete or integrated solution?

A: Its PassMark G3D score of 8,076 is within 1% of the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 960 (9,273) and GTX 465 (9,294), indicating it performs like an older entry-level discrete card, not a modern integrated part.

Q: Does the 4K to 1080p FPS scaling indicate a GPU or CPU bottleneck?

A: The scaling shows a GPU bottleneck. At Low settings, FPS goes from 29 at 4K to 84 at 1080p, a 190% increase, while the CPU's capabilities remain constant, proving the GPU is the limiting factor.

Q: What is the CPU's single-thread performance in Cinebench R23?

A: The Core Ultra X9 388H scores 2,200.5 points in Cinebench R23 single-core, which is a strong result and supports high frame rates in CPU-light scenarios.

Resolution Scaling

The measured FPS data shows a clear pattern of performance degradation as resolution increases, which is a classic sign of a GPU-bound system. At Low settings, the average FPS drops from 84 at 1920x1080 to 54 at 2560x1440, a 35.7% reduction, and then further to 29 at 3840x2160, a 46.3% reduction from 1440p. This translates to a 65.5% total drop from 1080p to 4K. The same trend is visible at High settings, where FPS goes from 54 at 1080p to 35 at 1440p (a 35.2% drop) and then to 19 at 4K (a 45.7% drop from 1440p). The fact that the percentage drop from 1080p to 1440p is nearly identical across Low and High settings (35.7% vs 35.2%) suggests that the GPU's shading units and memory bandwidth are being saturated in a similar fashion regardless of the graphical preset.

The scaling behavior indicates that the Radeon 890M's 32 ROPs and system-shared memory are the primary bottlenecks at higher resolutions. At 4K, the pixel rate of 92.80 GPixel/s is insufficient to fill the screen efficiently, leading to the sub-30 FPS averages. The CPU's role in this scaling is minimal, as its 16 cores and 5.10 GHz boost clock are not stressed by resolution changes. If the system were CPU-bound, we would expect to see similar FPS numbers across resolutions, but the steep drops confirm that the GPU is the limiting component. For users aiming for higher resolutions, the data suggests that the integrated GPU cannot handle the workload, and a discrete GPU would be necessary to achieve playable frame rates at 1440p or 4K.

Settings Recommendations

Based on the measured rows, the Low preset at 1080p offers the best experience for this combo, providing an average FPS of 84, which is well above the threshold for smooth gameplay. This setting minimizes the GPU's workload, allowing the CPU's strong single-thread performance to drive frame rates higher. At 1080p Medium, the average FPS drops to 64, still playable, but the minimum FPS of 55 indicates occasional dips that could be noticeable in fast-paced shooter scenarios. The High preset at 1080p yields 54 FPS, which is borderline, and the Ultra preset drops to 41 FPS, which may feel sluggish during action sequences. For 1440p, the Low preset is the only viable option, with 54 FPS average, while Medium (41 FPS) and High (35 FPS) are marginal, and Ultra (27 FPS) is not recommended.

At 4K, none of the presets deliver playable performance, with the best being Low at 29 FPS, which is below the 30 FPS minimum for most players. The data suggests that users should stick to 1080p for this game to maintain a positive experience. Between Low and Medium at 1080p, the 20 FPS difference (84 vs 64) is significant, and the visual improvement from Low to Medium may not justify the performance loss in a game where reaction time matters. The Ultra preset at 1080p offers 41 FPS, which is a 51% drop from Low, and the visual fidelity gains are unlikely to compensate for the choppiness. Therefore, the measured data points to 1080p Low as the optimal configuration, with 1080p Medium as a secondary option for users who prioritize visuals over maximum smoothness.