Ready Or Not

Intel Core Ultra 7 265 paired with the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2060 produces a highly resolution-dependent experience in Ready Or Not. At 1080p the system delivers thoroughly playable frame rates across all settings, but 4K Ultra pushes the GPU to its limits, dropping below 40 FPS. The data indicates a classic bottleneck shift: at lower resolutions the CPU’s strong single-thread performance carries the load, while at higher resolutions the RTX 2060’s 6 GB VRAM and Turing architecture become the primary constraint.

FAQ

Q: What is the best resolution for this combo in Ready Or Not?

A: The 1920x1080 resolution yields the highest average frame rates, ranging from 205 FPS at Low settings to 114 FPS at Ultra. This is the only resolution where every preset maintains an average above 100 FPS.

Q: How does the RTX 2060 perform at 1440p with this CPU?

A: At 2560x1440, the average frame rates range from 129 FPS at Low settings down to 72 FPS at Ultra. High settings produce 102 FPS, which remains comfortably smooth for tactical gameplay.

Q: Is 4K gaming viable with this hardware combination?

A: 4K performance is marginal. The best average at 3840x2160 is 67 FPS on Low settings, while Medium yields 59 FPS and High drops to 54 FPS. Ultra falls to 38 FPS, which is likely too demanding for consistent play.

Q: What is the CPU’s benchmark standing compared to its nearest rivals?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 7 265 sits at the 93rd percentile among all CPUs. It is 0.3% ahead of the Intel Core Ultra 7 265F and 0.7% ahead of the AMD EPYC 7343, while trailing the AMD EPYC 4464P by 0.3% and the AMD EPYC 9124 by 0.7%.

Q: How does the GPU’s average benchmark score compare to similar cards?

A: The RTX 2060’s average benchmark score is 15290, placing it at the 58th percentile. It essentially matches the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 580 (delta 0%) and is 0.1% behind the AMD Radeon 680M, while edging out the RTX 3050 OEM by 0.6% and the RX 7600 by 0.8%.

Q: Which settings preset offers the largest FPS jump from Ultra to Low?

A: At 1920x1080, the difference between Ultra (114 FPS) and Low (205 FPS) is 91 FPS. At 2560x1440, the gap narrows to 57 FPS (72 vs 129), and at 3840x2160 it reduces to 29 FPS (38 vs 67).

GPU Role

The NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2060 is built on the Turing architecture with a TU106 chip fabricated on a 12 nm process. Its memory configuration consists of 6 GB of GDDR6 on a 192-bit bus, delivering 336.0 GB/s of bandwidth. The GPU operates with a base clock of 1365 MHz and a boost clock of 1680 MHz, with memory clocked at 1750 MHz (14 Gbps effective). These specifications place the card at the 58th percentile among all GPUs, with an average benchmark score of 15290.

In Ready Or Not, the RTX 2060’s role becomes increasingly dominant as resolution rises. At 3840x2160, the GPU is clearly the limiting factor. The Ultra preset at 4K produces only 38 FPS, which is a substantial drop from the 54 FPS seen at High settings. The gap between Low (67 FPS) and Medium (59 FPS) at 4K is 8 FPS, suggesting that even modest settings increases stress the GPU’s rendering capacity. The 6 GB VRAM capacity may also contribute to performance degradation at higher resolutions, though the data does not isolate memory pressure from raw compute limits.

The GPU’s compute throughput is rated at 6.451 TFLOPS for FP32, with 1920 shading units and 48 ROPs. These figures correlate with the observed frame rates: at 1080p, the card can push 205 FPS on Low settings, but this drops to 162 FPS at High. The texture rate of 201.6 GTexel/s and pixel rate of 80.64 GPixel/s provide context for how the card handles the game’s environments, which feature dense interior spaces with dynamic lighting. The RTX 2060 includes 30 RT cores and 240 tensor cores, though Ready Or Not’s measured results do not specify whether ray tracing effects are enabled, so their impact remains unquantified.

Compared to its nearest rivals in benchmark scores, the RTX 2060 sits nearly level with the GTX 580 (0% delta) and the Radeon 680M (0.1% delta). It is slightly ahead of the RTX 3050 OEM (0.6%) and RX 7600 (0.8%). This indicates that within the benchmark database, the RTX 2060 occupies a narrow performance band, and its Ready Or Not results should be interpreted within that context.

CPU Role

The Intel Core Ultra 7 265 is a 20-core, 20-thread processor from the Arrow Lake-S architecture, built on a 3 nm process by TSMC. It features a base clock of 2.40 GHz and a boost clock of 5.30 GHz, with a 65 W TDP. The cache hierarchy includes 192 KB of L1 per core, 3 MB of L2 per core, and 30 MB of shared L3 cache. Memory support is DDR5 with dual-channel configuration, offering 102.4 GB/s of bandwidth. The CPU’s benchmark results place it at the 93rd percentile among all CPUs, with an average score of 64640.

In Ready Or Not, the CPU’s single-thread performance appears critical for achieving high frame rates at lower resolutions. The Cinebench R23 single-core score of 5960 and multi-core score of 42216 indicate strong per-thread capability. At 1920x1080, the system reaches 205 FPS on Low settings, which suggests the CPU can feed frames faster than the GPU can render them at this resolution. The PassMark single-thread score of 4689 and multithread score of 49682 reinforce this interpretation.

The CPU’s 20 cores and 20 threads (no hyperthreading) provide ample parallel processing for a tactical shooter, which typically involves complex AI behaviors and physics simulations. The L3 cache of 30 MB shared across cores helps with data locality for game logic. The memory bandwidth of 102.4 GB/s over DDR5 is sufficient to avoid starving the GPU at lower resolutions, but at 4K the GPU’s limitations become the dominant factor.

Comparing to nearest rivals, the Core Ultra 7 265 is 0.3% behind the AMD EPYC 4464P and 0.7% behind the AMD EPYC 9124 in average benchmark score. It is 0.3% ahead of the Core Ultra 7 265F and 0.7% ahead of the EPYC 7343. These deltas are small, indicating that the CPU’s performance is well within a competitive band. The boost clock of 5.30 GHz is notable for single-thread workloads like game logic and draw call processing.

Settings Recommendations

The measured data provides clear guidance for optimizing the experience. At 1920x1080, all settings presets deliver playable frame rates, but the Medium preset stands out with an average of 178 FPS, a minimum of 152 FPS, and a maximum of 205 FPS. This provides a smooth experience with room for visual fidelity improvements over Low. High settings at 1080p yield 162 FPS, which is still excellent, but the 16 FPS difference between Medium and High may not justify the graphical gains for all players. Ultra at 1080p drops to 114 FPS, which remains playable but shows a significant 64 FPS penalty versus Medium.

At 2560x1440, the Medium preset again offers the best balance, with an average of 113 FPS, a minimum of 96 FPS, and a maximum of 129 FPS. High settings produce 102 FPS, which is acceptable for most players, but the 11 FPS difference makes Medium the more consistent choice. Low settings at 1440p reach 129 FPS, but the visual trade-off may be too steep for a game that relies on environmental details for tactical awareness. Ultra at 1440p falls to 72 FPS, which is borderline for fast-paced action.

For 3840x2160, the recommendations shift toward lower presets. Low settings provide 67 FPS, which is the only preset at 4K that clears the 60 FPS threshold. Medium delivers 59 FPS, which may be tolerable for slower gameplay but risks dips into the 50 FPS range (minimum 50 FPS observed). High settings at 4K produce 54 FPS, and Ultra falls to 38 FPS, which is likely too choppy for effective play. The data suggests that 4K gaming with this combo requires accepting Low or Medium settings, with Medium being the preference if visual quality matters more than the 8 FPS difference.

How This Combo Ranks

The combination of the Intel Core Ultra 7 265 and NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2060 ranks 2322 out of 2947 tested combos in Ready Or Not. This places it in the lower third of all configurations in the database, which aligns with the GPU being an older, end-of-life product (released January 2019) while the CPU is a recent release (January 2025). The rank reflects the GPU’s 58th percentile standing against all GPUs, combined with the CPU’s 93rd percentile standing, resulting in a system that is CPU-heavy relative to its GPU.

The rank of 2322 out of 2947 means that approximately 625 combos perform worse, while 2321 perform better. This suggests that while the CPU is capable of driving high frame rates at lower resolutions, the GPU holds the system back in more demanding scenarios. The data’s measured nature confirms these are real-world results, not synthetic estimates.

The delta between the CPU’s high percentile (93rd) and the GPU’s mid-range percentile (58th) creates an imbalance. At 1080p, this imbalance is masked by the GPU’s ability to render frames quickly enough, but at 4K, the GPU’s limitations become starkly apparent. The combo rank of 2322 reflects the overall performance profile across all tested scenarios, which includes the demanding 4K Ultra case where the system falls to 38 FPS.

Measured FPS Breakdown

At 1920x1080, the system demonstrates its peak performance. Low settings achieve an average of 205 FPS. Medium settings produce 178 FPS on average, with a minimum of 152 FPS and a maximum of 205 FPS. High settings yield 162 FPS. Ultra settings drop to 114 FPS. The spread from Low to Ultra is 91 FPS, indicating that the GPU is not the primary bottleneck at this resolution, as even Ultra maintains triple-digit frame rates.

At 2560x1440, performance scales down proportionally. Low settings average 129 FPS. Medium settings reach 113 FPS, with a minimum of 96 FPS and a maximum of 129 FPS. High settings produce 102 FPS. Ultra settings fall to 72 FPS. The difference between Low and Ultra is 57 FPS, showing that the GPU begins to exert more influence at this resolution.

At 3840x2160, the GPU becomes the decisive factor. Low settings average 67 FPS. Medium settings achieve 59 FPS, with a minimum of 50 FPS and a maximum of 68 FPS. High settings drop to 54 FPS. Ultra settings plummet to 38 FPS. The gap between Low and Ultra narrows to 29 FPS, indicating that even at Low settings, the GPU is struggling to keep up with the 4K pixel count.

The Medium settings across all resolutions show the most complete data, with minimum and maximum values recorded. At 1080p Medium, the minimum of 152 FPS and maximum of 205 FPS show a 53 FPS variance. At 1440p Medium, the variance is 33 FPS (96 to 129). At 4K Medium, the variance is 18 FPS (50 to 68). This tightening variance at higher resolutions suggests that frame pacing becomes more consistent as the GPU approaches its limits.

Resolution Scaling

The transition from 1080p to 4K reveals how the bottleneck shifts. At Low settings, the average FPS drops from 205 at 1920x1080 to 129 at 2560x1440, a 37% reduction. Moving to 3840x2160, the FPS drops to 67, a further 48% reduction from 1440p. The cumulative drop from 1080p to 4K at Low is 67% (205 to 67). This steep decline indicates that the GPU is increasingly saturated as pixel count quadruples from 1080p to 4K.

At Medium settings, the progression is 178 FPS at 1080p, 113 FPS at 1440p (a 37% drop), and 59 FPS at 4K (a 48% drop from 1440p). The pattern is nearly identical to Low settings, suggesting that the resolution scaling is consistent regardless of preset. At High settings, 162 FPS at 1080p drops to 102 FPS at 1440p (37% drop) and 54 FPS at 4K (47% drop from 1440p). Ultra settings show 114 FPS at 1080p, 72 FPS at 1440p (37% drop), and 38 FPS at 4K (47% drop).

The consistent percentage drops across all settings point to a GPU-bound scenario at higher resolutions. If the CPU were the limiting factor, the FPS would not scale so uniformly with resolution changes. The fact that 1080p to 1440p (1.78x pixels) yields a 37% FPS drop, and 1440p to 4K (2.25x pixels) yields a 47-48% drop, indicates that the RTX 2060’s rendering throughput is the primary constraint. The CPU’s strong single-thread performance (boost clock of 5.30 GHz) allows it to keep up with the GPU’s demands at lower resolutions, but it cannot compensate for the GPU’s limited pixel throughput at 4K.

The data also shows that the gap between Low and Ultra settings shrinks as resolution increases. At 1080p, Low beats Ultra by 91 FPS. At 1440p, the gap is 57 FPS. At 4K, the gap narrows to 29 FPS. This suggests that at 4K, the GPU is so heavily loaded that even reducing settings from Ultra to Low provides diminishing returns, as the pixel count itself becomes the dominant cost. Players targeting 4K should expect to use Low or Medium settings, while 1080p users can afford Ultra without sacrificing playability.