Archeage

How This Combo Ranks

The AMD Ryzen 5 5600F paired with the Intel Arc B370 ranks 3423 out of 3708 tested combinations in the database for Archeage. This places the combo in the bottom 8% of all tested systems, a position driven almost entirely by the graphics component. The Intel Arc B370 sits at the 5th percentile among all GPUs, and its nearest rivals in raw compute are legacy mobile and desktop parts from over a decade ago. The CPU, by contrast, is a strong performer: the Ryzen 5 5600F lands at the 85th percentile among all CPUs, with an average benchmark score of 36945. The imbalance is stark. The processor is capable of feeding far more frames than the graphics solution can render, and the recorded frame rates reflect this ceiling.

In practical terms, the combo only clears the 60 FPS threshold at 1920x1080 with Low settings, where it averages 65 FPS. Every other tested setting and resolution falls below 60 FPS. At 2560x1440, the best average is 43 FPS on Low. At 3840x2160, the best average is 25 FPS on Low. The ranking of 3423 out of 3708 is consistent with these results: this is a combination that struggles with a 2014 MMORPG at modern resolutions and higher presets.

CPU and GPU Roles

The recorded data shows a system where the GPU is the decisive bottleneck at every resolution and preset. The Intel Arc B370 is an integrated-class part with 1280 shading units, 40 texture mapping units, and 20 raster output units, built on a 3 nm process with a 25 W TDP. Its 6.144 TFLOPS of FP32 compute is modest by any modern standard. The Ryzen 5 5600F, meanwhile, is a 6-core, 12-thread Zen 3 processor with a 4.00 GHz boost clock and 32 MB of shared L3 cache. On CPU-bound workloads, the 5600F scores 19236 in Passmark multithread and 2872 in single-thread tests, numbers that place it far above the GPU's performance class.

The scaling between resolutions confirms the GPU limitation. Moving from 1920x1080 Low (65 FPS) to 2560x1440 Low (43 FPS) is a 34% drop in frame rate. Moving from 2560x1440 Low to 3840x2160 Low (25 FPS) is another 42% drop. This is classic graphics-bound scaling: as pixel count rises, the frame rate falls nearly proportionally, with no sign of CPU saturation. The CPU's role is essentially constant across these tests; it is never the limiting factor.

Preset scaling at a fixed resolution tells the same story. At 1920x1080, the jump from Low (65 FPS) to Medium (57 FPS) costs 12% performance, from Medium to High (39 FPS) costs 32%, and from High to Ultra (27 FPS) costs 31%. At 2560x1440, the same progression runs 43, 39, 26, and 18 FPS. At 3840x2160, it runs 25, 22, 15, and 10 FPS. The consistent and large drops when raising image quality indicate that the B370's shading, texture, and raster resources are fully saturated. The CPU is not contributing to these frame rate differences. If it were, the 1080p results would show a plateau at higher presets, where the CPU would cap the frame rate. Instead, every preset increase produces a substantial penalty, which is the signature of a GPU-bound system.

Similar Performance Alternatives

The nearest rivals for the AMD Ryzen 5 5600F are all within half a percent of its average benchmark score. The Intel Core Ultra 5 225 scores 36938, a delta of 0%. The AMD Ryzen 5 5500X3D scores 37018, 0.2% higher. The AMD Ryzen AI 7 PRO 450 scores 37093, 0.4% higher. The Intel Core i9-12900T scores 37112, 0.5% higher. Any of these CPUs would behave nearly identically to the 5600F in this game, since none of them would change the GPU-bound outcome. Swapping the processor to a slightly stronger or weaker part would not move the measured frame rates in any meaningful way.

The nearest rivals for the Intel Arc B370 are much older parts, and the deltas are small. The ATI Mobility Radeon HD 5570 scores 1186, 0.2% higher than the B370's 1184. The ATI Radeon HD 5770 scores 1190, 0.5% higher. The AMD Radeon HD 7650M scores 1192, 0.7% higher. The AMD FirePro M2000 scores 1168, 1.4% lower. The implication is that the Arc B370 delivers performance in the same class as these legacy GPUs, which is a severe limitation for a modern game even one released in 2014. Users coming from any of these rival GPUs would experience essentially the same frame rates in Archeage, assuming the rest of the system was not the limiting factor.

The database also shows that the B370's only recorded benchmark test is 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 with a score of 1184. This single data point reinforces the picture of a very low-end graphics solution. The percentile ranking of 5 among all GPUs means the B370 outperforms only 5% of the GPU population, and the rival list confirms the company it keeps.

FAQ

Q: Can this PC run Archeage at 60 FPS in 1920x1080?

A: Yes, at Low settings only. The recorded average FPS is 65 at 1920x1080 Low, which is above the 60 FPS playable threshold. Medium settings average 57 FPS, which is below 60 FPS.

Q: What is the best playable setting at 2560x1440?

A: There is no playable setting at 2560x1440. The best average FPS across Low, Medium, High, and Ultra is 43 FPS on Low, and all other presets are at 39 FPS or lower, all below 60 FPS.

Q: How does the Ryzen 4.00 GHz boost clock affect performance?

A: The CPU has a 4.00 GHz boost clock, 6 cores, and 32 MB of L3 cache. Benchmark results indicate the CPU is not the limiting factor; the GPU's 6.144 TFLOPS FP32 compute and 48.00 GPixel/s pixel rate bound the frame rates.

Q: How does the Intel Arc B370 compare to its nearest rivals?

A: The Arc B370 scores 1184 in 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12. The ATI Radeon HD 5770 scores 1190, which is 0.5% higher, and the ATI Mobility Radeon HD 5570 scores 1186, 0.2% higher. Performance is effectively in the same class as these legacy parts.

Q: Is 1920x1080 Medium playable?

A: No. The recorded average FPS at 1920x1080 Medium is 57, with a minimum of 49 and maximum of 66. The average is below the 60 FPS threshold, so it does not qualify as playable.

Q: What frame rate can be expected at 3840x2160 Ultra?

A: 10 FPS average. This is the lowest recorded result for this combo. The highest result at 3840x2160 is 25 FPS average on Low settings.

Measured FPS Breakdown

At 1920x1080, the database records the following results. Low settings produce an average of 65 FPS. Medium settings produce an average of 57 FPS, with a minimum of 49 and a maximum of 66. High settings produce an average of 39 FPS. Ultra settings produce an average of 27 FPS. The Medium preset is the only one at this resolution with recorded min and max values; the others only have averages.

At 2560x1440, the results are as follows. Low settings average 43 FPS. Medium settings average 39 FPS, with a minimum of 33 and a maximum of 44. High settings average 26 FPS. Ultra settings average 18 FPS. As with 1080p, only the Medium preset has recorded min and max values.

At 3840x2160, the results are the weakest. Low settings average 25 FPS. Medium settings average 22 FPS, with a minimum of 19 and a maximum of 25. High settings average 15 FPS. Ultra settings average 10 FPS. Again, only Medium carries min and max data.

Across all resolutions, the pattern is identical: Low is the only preset that comes close to playable, and even then only at 1080p. The minimum frame rates recorded at Medium settings (49 at 1080p, 33 at 1440p, 19 at 4K) show that even the average values do not tell the full story; dips below the average are common and would be noticeable in an MMORPG with crowded scenes.

Best Settings per Resolution

At 1920x1080, the most demanding preset that stays at or above 60 FPS is Low, with an average of 65 FPS. Medium falls below the threshold at 57 FPS, so it is not eligible. The verdict data confirms that Low is the best setting at this resolution, with an average FPS of 65.

At 2560x1440, no preset reaches 60 FPS. The best result is Low at 43 FPS, but the playable settings list is empty for this resolution. There is no best setting that meets the threshold.

At 3840x2160, no preset reaches 60 FPS either. The best result is Low at 25 FPS, and the playable settings list is empty. The database marks the best setting as null at both 1440p and 4K, indicating that no preset qualifies.

For users who must play at 1440p or 4K, the choice is between Low (43 FPS and 25 FPS respectively) or Medium (39 FPS and 22 FPS). The frame rate cost of Medium over Low is modest at 4K (3 FPS) and 1440p (4 FPS), but the visual improvement may not justify the drop below an already low frame rate. At 1080p, Low is the only option above 60 FPS, and Medium at 57 FPS is arguably close enough for some players despite being below the strict threshold.

The Verdict

The AMD Ryzen 5 5600F and Intel Arc B370 can run Archeage, but only under a narrow set of conditions. The verdict by resolution is unambiguous: at 3840x2160, there are no playable settings, meaning no preset reaches 60 FPS. At 2560x1440, there are also no playable settings. At 1920x1080, only Low settings clear the 60 FPS bar, with an average of 65 FPS.

The data shows a system that is severely graphics-limited. The Ryzen 5 5600F is a high-percentile CPU with strong multithread and single-thread scores, but the Intel Arc B370 is a 5th-percentile GPU with performance equivalent to legacy parts like the ATI Radeon HD 5770. In a game like Archeage, an MMORPG from 2014 that can stress CPU performance in crowded areas, the bottleneck here is clearly the GPU. The frame rate drops as resolution and preset increase, with no sign of CPU limitation.

For a player with a 1080p monitor, the combo is technically playable on Low settings, but the margin is thin: 65 FPS average leaves little headroom for demanding scenes, and the Medium preset at 57 FPS demonstrates how quickly the system falls below the threshold. For 1440p or 4K displays, the system is not playable at any setting. The CPU has headroom to spare, but the GPU cannot deliver the pixel throughput required. This is a combination that can run the game, but only at the lowest quality level and at the lowest resolution, and even then it does not inspire confidence for sustained performance in a live MMORPG environment.