Minimum

Resolution Scaling

The measured frame rate progression across resolutions reveals a system that scales predictably with pixel count, but the shape of that curve tells a clear story about where the bottleneck sits. At 1080p with Low settings, the combo delivers 175 FPS average. Moving to 1440p drops that to 113 FPS, a reduction of 62 FPS, and at 4K the average falls to 61 FPS — roughly a third of the 1080p Low result. This is a steep decline that indicates the GPU is the primary constraint as resolution climbs.

The scaling pattern is consistent across every settings tier. At High settings, the averages are 112 FPS at 1080p, 72 FPS at 1440p, and 39 FPS at 4K. That represents a 65% drop from 1080p to 4K. The Medium preset follows the same trajectory: 134 FPS at 1080p, 86 FPS at 1440p, and 46 FPS at 4K. Even the Low preset, which typically minimizes GPU load, shows the same relative collapse — from 175 FPS down to 61 FPS across the three resolutions. This uniformity suggests that the limiting component is not the CPU, which would typically show less resolution sensitivity, but rather the GPU's rendering throughput.

The Ultra preset amplifies the effect. At 1080p Ultra, the combo manages 85 FPS. At 1440p Ultra, that falls to 55 FPS. At 4K Ultra, the average is just 30 FPS. The gap between 1080p and 4K at Ultra is 55 FPS, a 65% reduction that mirrors the other presets. What is notable is that the 4K Ultra result falls below the 30 FPS threshold that many users consider the minimum for playable frame pacing. The 4K Medium result, at 46 FPS, is more viable, but still leaves little headroom for demanding scenes.

The implication for the limiting component is straightforward. If the CPU were the constraint, we would expect to see frame rates plateau at higher resolutions, since the CPU work per frame is largely resolution-independent. Instead, the data shows continuous degradation as pixel count rises. The GPU is doing the heavy lifting, and its 8 GB memory configuration and 128-bit bus are part of that picture. The 4K Low result of 61 FPS versus the 1080p Low result of 175 FPS is a 65% reduction, which is a larger proportional drop than the resolution's pixel count increase alone would suggest, indicating that memory bandwidth and fill rate are being taxed heavily at 4K.

How This Combo Ranks

In the database of tested combinations, this pairing of the Intel Core Ultra X9 388H with the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5060 ranks 1920th out of 2939 combos for Minimum. That places it in the lower-mid portion of the field, at roughly the 35th percentile of all tested pairings. This is not a top-tier configuration for this specific game, but it is also far from the bottom of the list.

The ranking context matters when interpreting the raw frame rates. A combo ranked 1920th of 2939 suggests that a substantial number of other CPU-GPU pairings deliver higher performance in Minimum. The data shows that this system is capable of playable frame rates at 1080p across all settings, but at 4K, only the Low preset crosses the 60 FPS threshold, and just barely. The rank reflects this mixed profile — strong at lower resolutions, but limited at higher ones.

The percentile position also helps calibrate expectations. The CPU itself sits at the 88th percentile versus all CPUs in the broader benchmark database, and the GPU sits at the 72nd percentile versus all GPUs. Yet the combined result in Minimum ranks lower than either component's individual percentile might suggest. This indicates that Minimum's engine is not scaling perfectly with this particular hardware combination, or that the game has specific demands that this pairing does not fully satisfy. The combo rank is the more relevant figure for anyone considering this system for Minimum specifically, as it accounts for the actual measured interaction between the two components in this game.

GPU Role

The NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5060 is built on the Blackwell 2.0 architecture, fabricated by TSMC on a 5 nm process. The GB206 chip contains 21,900 million transistors on a 181 mm² die, giving a transistor density of 121.0 million per square millimeter. These figures describe a mid-range mobile GPU, and the measured results in Minimum align with that positioning.

The memory subsystem is a key factor in this game. The RTX 5060 has 8 GB of GDDR7 memory on a 128-bit bus, delivering a bandwidth of 448.0 GB/s. The memory clock runs at 1750 MHz, with 28 Gbps effective data rate. At 4K resolutions, the 8 GB capacity is likely being stressed, which helps explain why the frame rates drop so sharply at 3840x2160. The 4K Medium result of 46 FPS with a minimum of 39 FPS suggests that memory pressure is causing frame time spikes. The 4K Ultra result of 30 FPS is the lowest measured in the entire dataset, reinforcing the idea that the GPU's memory bandwidth and capacity are insufficient for the highest settings at this resolution.

The GPU's core configuration includes 3840 shading units, 120 texture mapping units, and 48 raster output units. The base clock is 2280 MHz with a boost clock of 2497 MHz. The pixel rate is 119.9 GPixel/s and the texture rate is 299.6 GTexel/s. The FP32 compute performance is 19.18 TFLOPS. These specifications produce the measured results, but the raw numbers only tell part of the story. The 30 ray tracing cores and 120 tensor cores indicate support for advanced rendering features, though the measured data in Minimum does not specifically break out ray tracing performance.

The GPU's passmark G3D score of 20891 places it at the 72nd percentile versus all GPUs. Its nearest rivals in the benchmark database are the AMD Radeon 860M (0.3% higher score), the NVIDIA GeForce MX550 (0.3% higher), the AMD Radeon RX 5700 XT 50th Anniversary (0.8% higher), and the AMD Radeon RX 6750 XT (1.2% lower). These are close comparisons, indicating that the RTX 5060 sits in a crowded performance band. In Minimum, however, the measured FPS results are what matter, and they show a GPU that handles 1080p comfortably but struggles at 4K.

Measured FPS Breakdown

At 1920x1080, the combo delivers its strongest results. Low settings produce an average of 175 FPS. Medium settings average 134 FPS, with a minimum of 114 FPS and a maximum of 154 FPS. High settings average 112 FPS. Ultra settings average 85 FPS. All four presets at 1080p exceed the 60 FPS threshold, and even the Ultra preset maintains a solid average that would be smooth on most displays.

Moving to 2560x1440, the frame rates drop noticeably. Low settings average 113 FPS. Medium settings average 86 FPS, with a minimum of 73 FPS and a maximum of 99 FPS. High settings average 72 FPS. Ultra settings average 55 FPS. The Ultra result at 1440p falls below the 60 FPS mark, which may be noticeable on high refresh rate monitors. The other three presets remain playable.

At 3840x2160, the performance profile changes character. Low settings average 61 FPS, which is exactly at the 60 FPS threshold. Medium settings average 46 FPS, with a minimum of 39 FPS and a maximum of 53 FPS. High settings average 39 FPS. Ultra settings average 30 FPS. The 4K results show a clear pattern: only the Low preset achieves a playable average, and even that is borderline. The minimum frame rates at 4K Medium (39 FPS) indicate that there will be noticeable stutter in demanding scenes.

FAQ

Q: What is the best resolution for this combo in Minimum?

A: The 1920x1080 resolution provides the most consistent performance, with all four settings presets exceeding 60 FPS average. The lowest result at 1080p is 85 FPS on Ultra, while the highest is 175 FPS on Low.

Q: Can this system handle 4K gaming in Minimum?

A: At 3840x2160, only the Low preset achieves an average above 60 FPS, at 61 FPS. The Medium preset averages 46 FPS, High averages 39 FPS, and Ultra averages 30 FPS. 4K is playable only on Low settings.

Q: How does the RTX 5060 compare to its nearest rivals in the benchmark database?

A: The GPU's average benchmark score of 26331 is 0.3% lower than the AMD Radeon 860M, 0.3% lower than the NVIDIA GeForce MX550, and 0.8% lower than the AMD Radeon RX 5700 XT 50th Anniversary. It is 1.2% higher than the AMD Radeon RX 6750 XT.

Q: What is the CPU's performance percentile?

A: The Intel Core Ultra X9 388H sits at the 88th percentile versus all CPUs, with an average benchmark score of 44466. Its closest rival is the AMD Ryzen 5 7500X3D, which scores 0.2% lower.

Q: What is the highest average FPS measured across all resolutions and settings?

A: The highest measured average is 175 FPS, achieved at 1920x1080 with Low settings. The lowest measured average is 30 FPS at 3840x2160 with Ultra settings.

Q: Does the CPU or GPU limit performance at 4K?

A: The frame rate drops from 175 FPS at 1080p Low to 61 FPS at 4K Low, a 65% reduction. This steep scaling with resolution indicates the GPU is the limiting component at 4K.

Settings Recommendations

For a smooth experience at 1920x1080, any preset is viable. The Medium preset at 134 FPS average offers a good balance between visual quality and frame rate, with a minimum of 114 FPS that keeps frame pacing consistent. The High preset at 112 FPS is also excellent, and even Ultra at 85 FPS provides a comfortable margin above 60 FPS. There is no reason to compromise below Medium at this resolution unless chasing the highest possible frame rates for competitive play, in which case Low at 175 FPS is available.

At 2560x1440, the Medium preset delivers 86 FPS average with a minimum of 73 FPS, making it the recommended choice for this resolution. High settings at 72 FPS are also playable, but the lower minimum frame rate of Medium (73 FPS versus no minimum reported for High) suggests better consistency. Ultra at 55 FPS is below the 60 FPS threshold and is not recommended for a consistently smooth experience. Low at 113 FPS is the choice for maximum responsiveness.

At 3840x2160, the options are more constrained. Low settings at 61 FPS average is the only preset that clears the 60 FPS bar, and it does so narrowly. Medium at 46 FPS is playable but will show visible frame pacing issues, as the minimum of 39 FPS indicates. High at 39 FPS and Ultra at 30 FPS are not recommended for a playable experience. For 4K, the recommendation is to use Low settings, or to drop to 1440p and use Medium or High for better visual quality with higher frame rates.

Considering the full dataset, the Medium preset at 2560x1440 represents the best overall experience. It provides 86 FPS average, which is smooth, and the minimum of 73 FPS keeps the experience consistent. The visual quality at Medium is higher than Low, and the frame rate is high enough that most users will not notice a difference from the 1080p results. For users with 1080p displays, High at 112 FPS is the sweet spot.

CPU Role

The Intel Core Ultra X9 388H is a 16-core, 16-thread processor from the Core Ultra Series 3, built on the Panther Lake architecture using a 3 nm process from Intel. The base clock is 2.10 GHz with a boost clock of 5.10 GHz. The cache hierarchy includes 192 KB of L1 per core, 3 MB of L2 per core, and 18 MB of shared L3 cache. This configuration provides ample compute resources for Minimum, which is a third-person shooter from 2014.

The CPU's benchmark results show strong single-thread and multi-thread performance. In Cinebench R23, it scores 18911 in multi-core and 2200.5 in single-core. The Passmark single-thread score is 4280, and the multi-thread score is 36811. The CPU sits at the 88th percentile versus all CPUs. Its nearest rivals include the AMD Ryzen 5 7500X3D (0.2% lower average score), the Intel Core i9-13950HX (0.3% higher), the AMD Ryzen AI Max 385 (0.4% higher), and the Intel Core i5-13600 (0.5% higher). These are very close margins, indicating that the Ultra X9 388H is competitive with a broad range of desktop and mobile processors.

In Minimum specifically, the CPU's role is to feed the GPU with draw calls and game logic. The measured frame rates show that the CPU is not the bottleneck in this pairing. At 1080p Low, the combo hits 175 FPS, which is well above what most displays can show. If the CPU were limiting, we would expect to see frame rates plateau at a lower value regardless of resolution. Instead, the frame rates scale inversely with resolution, confirming that the GPU is the limiting factor.

The 16-core configuration with a 5.10 GHz boost clock provides substantial headroom for Minimum's engine. The game was released in 2014 and does not require the latest multi-threading capabilities. The Ultra X9 388H has more than enough compute to handle the game's physics, AI, and rendering commands. The 18 MB of L3 cache helps with data locality, and the 153.6 GB/s memory bandwidth from LPDDR5X support ensures that the CPU can quickly access game assets.

The TDP of 25 W for the CPU and 145 W for the GPU, with a suggested PSU of 300 W, indicates that this is a mobile-oriented platform. The CPU's performance in Cinebench R23 multi-core (18911) is notable for a 25 W part, suggesting efficient power delivery. In Minimum, the CPU's performance is more than sufficient — the data shows no scenario where the CPU limits the frame rate. The bottleneck is consistently the GPU, particularly at higher resolutions where pixel throughput becomes the deciding factor.