The Medium

The Intel Core Ultra 7 265HX paired with the AMD Radeon 880M delivers a severely constrained experience in The Medium, ranking in the bottom percentile of all tested combinations. The data shows a system where the integrated GPU is the overwhelming bottleneck, rendering the CPU's substantial processing power largely irrelevant for gaming at every tested resolution and settings level.

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

The Intel Core Ultra 7 265HX is a 20-core, 20-thread processor based on the Arrow Lake-HX architecture, built on a 3nm process. It operates with a base clock of 2.60 GHz and a boost clock of 5.30 GHz, with a thermal design power of 55 W. This is a high-end mobile CPU, evidenced by its 93rd percentile ranking among all tested processors and an average benchmark score of 63,173. Its 30 MB of shared L3 cache and dual-channel DDR5 memory support (with a 102.4 GB/s memory bandwidth) provide a robust foundation for compute-heavy tasks.

In the context of The Medium, however, the CPU's role is almost entirely secondary. The game is a horror title that relies on fixed camera angles and pre-rendered scenes, which typically place a moderate load on the processor. The benchmark results confirm this: across all resolutions, from 1920x1080 to 3840x2160, the frame rates do not scale in a way that suggests CPU limitation. For instance, at 1080p Low, the average FPS is 43, while at 1080p Ultra, it drops to 15. If the CPU were the limiting factor, we would expect to see minimal variation between settings at the same resolution, as the processor would be saturated. Instead, the dramatic drop from 43 to 15 FPS when moving from Low to Ultra at 1080p clearly points to the GPU struggling with the increased graphical load.

The CPU’s single-thread performance, while strong (Cinebench R23 single-core score of 5,737), is not a differentiator here because the integrated Radeon 880M cannot generate enough frames to push the processor to its limits. Even at the lowest settings, where the GPU has the least work to do, the 43 FPS average is far below what the CPU could theoretically support. The 20 threads and high boost clock are simply underutilized; the processor is effectively waiting on the GPU to finish rendering each frame. The data suggests that this CPU would be capable of far higher frame rates in this game if paired with a discrete graphics solution, but in this combo, its potential is capped by the integrated graphics.

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

Q: What is the average frame rate for this combo at 1080p with Medium settings?

A: The measured average FPS is 27, with a minimum of 23 and a maximum of 31. This is a playable but not smooth experience, indicating the system is struggling to maintain a consistent frame rate in The Medium.

Q: How does this combo's overall performance rank against other tested systems?

A: This CPU and GPU combination ranks 2,843rd out of 2,911 tested combos in The Medium, placing it in the bottom 2-3% of all tested systems. This is a very poor result, indicating that the integrated GPU is not suited for this game.

Q: Is the CPU or the GPU the primary bottleneck in this configuration?

A: The GPU is the clear bottleneck. Evidence comes from the FPS scaling: at 1440p, increasing settings from Low (36 FPS) to Ultra (13 FPS) results in a 64% drop in performance. This sensitivity to graphical settings, rather than resolution, is the classic signature of a GPU-limited scenario. The CPU is not the constraint because its performance is more than sufficient to handle the game's logic.

*Q: What is the best-case scenario for this combo in The Medium?*

A: The best measured result is at 1080p with Low settings, achieving an average of 43 FPS. This is the only configuration that approaches a comfortable playable frame rate, though it still falls short of a solid 60 FPS target. All other settings and resolutions yield average FPS below 30.

Q: How does the Radeon 880M's performance compare to its nearest rivals?

A: The Radeon 880M has an average benchmark score of 8,436, which is nearly identical to the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 675MX (8,427, a 0.1% difference). It is also marginally slower than the NVIDIA GeForce MX330, which scores 8,458 (a -0.3% difference). This places it in the same performance class as decade-old discrete mobile GPUs, explaining its poor showing in The Medium.

Q: Does the game's resolution have a larger impact on performance than the graphics settings?

A: Yes, the impact of resolution is substantial. For example, at Low settings, the average FPS drops from 43 at 1080p to 36 at 1440p and further to 28 at 4K. This is a 35% reduction in FPS from 1080p to 4K. However, the impact of settings is even more pronounced. At 4K, moving from Low (28 FPS) to High (13 FPS) cuts performance by more than half, showing that both factors are severely limiting, but settings have a slightly larger effect.

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

The FPS scaling across resolutions paints a clear picture of a system that is severely GPU-bound. At Low settings, the average FPS drops from 43 at 1920x1080 to 36 at 2560x1440, a 16% decrease. Moving from 1440p to 4K (3840x2160), the FPS falls further to 28, another 22% reduction. This consistent decline with increasing pixel count is the expected behavior when the rendering pipeline is saturated by the GPU's limited pixel and texture throughput.

The pattern becomes even more telling at higher settings. At Medium settings, the average FPS declines from 27 at 1080p to 22 at 1440p and then to 18 at 4K. At High settings, the numbers are 19, 16, and 13 FPS for 1080p, 1440p, and 4K, respectively. The absolute FPS values are so low that the percentage changes are less meaningful; the key observation is that the system cannot maintain a smooth experience at any resolution above 1080p.

This resolution scaling behavior indicates that the limiting component is the AMD Radeon 880M. A CPU-limited system would show flat FPS across resolutions, as the processor would be the bottleneck regardless of pixel count. Here, the FPS drops steadily as resolution increases, which is the definitive sign of a GPU that is running out of fill rate and memory bandwidth. The integrated GPU's memory is "System Shared," and its bandwidth is "System Dependent," meaning it relies on the CPU's dual-channel DDR5 memory. This shared memory architecture is a significant disadvantage for a game like The Medium, which demands high texture bandwidth, contributing to the poor performance at higher resolutions.

How This Combo Ranks — use comboRankInGame vs other tested combos

This combination of the Intel Core Ultra 7 265HX and AMD Radeon 880M ranks 2,843rd out of 2,911 tested combos in The Medium. This places it in the bottom 2.3% of all systems, a staggeringly poor result that firmly establishes this as an unsuitable configuration for this game. To put this in perspective, the combo is outperformed by 2,842 other system combinations, and only 68 combos perform worse.

The rank is driven entirely by the GPU's limitations. The CPU, as previously noted, is a high-end part with a 93rd percentile ranking among all CPUs. The Radeon 880M, however, sits at the 43rd percentile among all GPUs, with an average benchmark score of 8,436. This score is nearly identical to the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 675MX (8,427), a mobile GPU from 2012. The pairing of a top-tier 2025 CPU with a GPU that performs on par with a 2012 mobile part creates a massive performance disparity.

The combo's rank of 2,843 out of 2,911 is a direct consequence of this imbalance. While the CPU could theoretically drive a high-end discrete GPU to excellent frame rates in The Medium, the integrated Radeon 880M cannot provide the necessary graphics horsepower. The data indicates that this combo is fundamentally mismatched for gaming, and its rank reflects that the system is only suitable for the most undemanding of titles or for non-gaming productivity tasks.

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

The AMD Radeon 880M is an integrated graphics processor based on the RDNA 3.5 architecture, built on a 4nm process. It features a boost clock of 2900 MHz and a base clock of 400 MHz. Its memory configuration is "System Shared," meaning it has no dedicated VRAM and instead uses the system's DDR5 memory. The bus width and bandwidth are also "System Shared" and "System Dependent," respectively, which means its memory performance is tied to the CPU's dual-channel memory controller.

The GPU's compute specifications are modest: 768 shading units, 48 texture mapping units, and 16 raster output units. It has 12 ray tracing cores and a theoretical FP32 performance of 4.454 TFLOPS. Its average benchmark score is 8,436, placing it at the 43rd percentile of all GPUs. This score is nearly identical to the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 675MX (8,427) and slightly below the NVIDIA GeForce MX330 (8,458). This performance level is simply insufficient for a demanding horror title like The Medium.

The GPU's role in this game is to be the primary bottleneck. The measured FPS data shows that the system is unable to achieve a stable 30 FPS at any resolution above 1080p Low. The GPU's lack of dedicated VRAM and reliance on shared system memory is a critical weakness. The Medium is known for its high-resolution textures and complex rendering, which requires substantial memory bandwidth. The "System Dependent" bandwidth of the 880M means that it is competing with the CPU for memory access, leading to stuttering and low frame rates. The data strongly suggests that the Radeon 880M is not designed for this level of graphical fidelity, and the benchmark results confirm this by showing that the GPU's performance is the single largest factor limiting the entire system.

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

The following data presents the exact measured average FPS for each resolution and settings combination. The data clearly shows a system that is only marginally playable at the lowest settings and resolution.

3840x2160 (4K)

• Ultra: 10 FPS average.
• High: 13 FPS average.
• Medium: 18 FPS average (min 15, max 20).
• Low: 28 FPS average.

At 4K, the system is essentially unplayable. Even at Low settings, the average FPS of 28 is below the standard 30 FPS playability threshold. The Ultra setting at 10 FPS is a slideshow, and the Medium setting's minimum of 15 FPS indicates severe stuttering.

2560x1440 (1440p)

• Ultra: 13 FPS average.
• High: 16 FPS average.
• Medium: 22 FPS average (min 19, max 26).
• Low: 36 FPS average.

At 1440p, the system remains unplayable except at Low settings, where it achieves a 36 FPS average. This is the only setting at this resolution that is remotely playable, but it still falls short of a smooth 60 FPS experience. The Ultra and High settings produce frame rates in the low teens, which are not viable for gameplay.

1920x1080 (1080p)

• Ultra: 15 FPS average.
• High: 19 FPS average.
• Medium: 27 FPS average (min 23, max 31).
• Low: 43 FPS average.

At 1080p, the results improve but remain below acceptable standards for a modern game. The Low setting achieves a 43 FPS average, which is the best result for this combo. The Medium setting at 27 FPS is borderline playable but with noticeable dips to 23 FPS. Ultra and High settings remain unplayable at 15 and 19 FPS, respectively.

The data reveals a consistent pattern: this system cannot maintain a stable 60 FPS at any setting or resolution. The jump from Low to Medium settings at any resolution results in a significant performance penalty (e.g., from 43 to 27 FPS at 1080p), highlighting the GPU's inability to handle increased graphical complexity. The only configuration that approaches a playable state is 1080p Low, and even then, it is not a smooth experience. For The Medium, this combo is only suitable for players who are willing to accept significant visual compromises for a sub-optimal frame rate.