Archeage

FAQ

Q: Can this PC run Archeage at 1920x1080 with Ultra settings?

A: Yes. The recorded data shows an average of 84.1 FPS at 1080p Ultra, which clears the 60 FPS playable threshold. Ultra is listed among the playable settings for this resolution.

Q: What is the most demanding preset that stays at or above 60 FPS at 2560x1440?

A: High settings. The measured average at 1440p High is 81.4 FPS, while Ultra drops to 59.2 FPS, just below the 60 FPS threshold.

Q: Does the combo achieve 60 FPS at 4K?

A: Only on Low and Medium settings. At 3840x2160, Low averages 78.7 FPS and Medium averages 68 FPS, but High falls to 49.9 FPS and Ultra drops to 30.6 FPS.

Q: How does the CPU compare to its nearest rivals in aggregate benchmark score?

A: The Intel Core i5-10400F has an average benchmark score of 14185. It sits within 0.6% of the Intel Core 7 160UL (14232, delta -0.3%), the AMD Ryzen 3 7320C (14277, delta -0.6%), the Intel Xeon 6756E (14163, delta 0.2%), and the AMD EPYC 7552 (14115, delta 0.5%).

Q: What is the GPU's performance percentile relative to all tested GPUs?

A: The NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3080 sits in the 68th percentile of all GPUs in the database. Its average benchmark score is 23172, with nearest rivals within 0.4% including the NVIDIA P106-100 (23249, delta -0.3%), AMD Radeon Pro Vega 16 (23250, delta -0.3%), AMD Radeon RX 6600M (23273, delta -0.4%), and AMD Radeon R9 M290X (23276, delta -0.4%).

Q: What is the overall rank of this CPU+GPU combination among tested combos for Archeage?

A: The combo ranks 1191 out of 3708 tested combinations, placing it in the upper third of the database.

CPU and GPU Roles

The benchmark data for Archeage reveals a clear pattern: the GPU becomes progressively more dominant as resolution increases, while the CPU's role is more pronounced at lower resolutions and higher preset levels. At 1920x1080, the gap between Low and Ultra settings is substantial, from 167.2 FPS down to 84.1 FPS, a difference of 83.1 FPS. This wide spread indicates that at 1080p, the rendering load scales heavily with preset quality, but even the most demanding preset leaves headroom for the CPU to feed frames.

Moving to 2560x1440, the same preset ladder shows a compressed range: Low runs at 137.5 FPS, Medium at 123.9 FPS, High at 81.4 FPS, and Ultra at 59.2 FPS. The drop from Medium to High is particularly steep at 42.5 FPS, suggesting that High settings introduce shading and geometry workloads that begin to stress the GPU more than the CPU. At this resolution, the CPU still has enough throughput to keep frame rates high on Low and Medium, but Ultra falls below the 60 FPS threshold, indicating the GPU becomes the limiting factor.

At 3840x2160, the trend completes. Low averages 78.7 FPS, Medium 68 FPS, High 49.9 FPS, and Ultra 30.6 FPS. The scaling from High to Ultra is a 19.3 FPS drop, the largest single-step penalty across all resolutions. The 4K data shows that the RTX 3080's rendering throughput, not the i5-10400F's compute capability, dictates performance. The CPU's 6 cores and 12 threads, with a boost clock of 4.30 GHz, are sufficient to keep up with the GPU's frame generation at 4K even on Low settings, where the 78.7 FPS average demonstrates that the processor is not bottlenecking at this resolution.

Comparing resolution scaling at the same preset reinforces this interpretation. At High settings, the transition from 1080p (124.6 FPS) to 1440p (81.4 FPS) is a 34.7% reduction, and the transition from 1440p to 4K (49.9 FPS) is a 38.7% reduction. These proportional drops align with pixel-count scaling, which is a GPU-bound characteristic. At Low settings, the same transitions show smaller relative drops: 1080p to 1440p goes from 167.2 to 137.5 FPS (17.8% reduction), and 1440p to 4K goes from 137.5 to 78.7 FPS (42.8% reduction). The larger 4K penalty at Low settings suggests that even minimal shading workloads at 4K overwhelm the GPU's fill rate.

The data indicates that for this game, the RTX 3080 is the primary performance arbiter at every resolution above 1080p. At 1080p, the CPU's single-thread score of 2541 in Passmark and multi-thread score of 12115 are adequate to drive all presets above 84 FPS, meaning neither component is fully saturated. At 1440p and 4K, the GPU's 10 GB of GDDR6X memory and 760.3 GB/s bandwidth become the decisive factors, as evidenced by the consistent frame rate rankings across presets.

Measured FPS Breakdown

1920x1080: The lowest preset delivers the highest frame rate at 167.2 FPS average. Medium settings are nearly identical at 164.6 FPS, a difference of only 2.6 FPS. High settings drop to 124.6 FPS, a 40 FPS reduction from Medium. Ultra settings produce 84.1 FPS, which remains comfortably above the 60 FPS threshold. The progression from Low to Ultra shows that this combo has substantial headroom at 1080p, with even the most demanding preset leaving 24.1 FPS of margin above the playable threshold.

2560x1440: Low settings average 137.5 FPS, which is 29.7 FPS lower than the same preset at 1080p. Medium settings follow at 123.9 FPS. High settings drop significantly to 81.4 FPS, a 42.5 FPS reduction from Medium. Ultra settings average 59.2 FPS, falling just 0.8 FPS short of the 60 FPS threshold. This is the only preset at 1440p that fails to clear the playable bar, and the margin is razor-thin. The data shows that High settings are the practical ceiling for consistent 60+ FPS gameplay at this resolution.

3840x2160: Low settings average 78.7 FPS, the only preset at 4K that provides substantial headroom above 60 FPS. Medium settings average 68 FPS, still playable with an 8 FPS margin. High settings drop to 49.9 FPS, which is 10.1 FPS below the threshold. Ultra settings average 30.6 FPS, representing a 38 FPS drop from High and a 48.1 FPS drop from Low. The 4K data shows a clear bifurcation: Low and Medium are playable, while High and Ultra are not. The gap between Medium and High at 4K is 18.1 FPS, indicating that the High preset's additional effects impose a severe rendering cost on the GPU.

Across all resolutions, the measured data shows no min or max FPS values recorded, only averages. This means the analysis relies on sustained average performance rather than frame time consistency. The averages suggest that the combo maintains stable throughput, but the lack of minimum frame data means transient stutters cannot be ruled out from the database.

Similar Performance Alternatives

The CPU's nearest rivals in aggregate benchmark score provide a reference for what other processors would behave similarly in this system. The Intel Xeon 6756E scores 14163, a 0.2% delta relative to the i5-10400F's 14185. The AMD EPYC 7552 scores 14115, a 0.5% delta. Both are within a rounding error of the i5-10400F's aggregate performance, meaning a system built with either would likely produce nearly identical frame rates in Archeage, assuming the same GPU. The Intel Core 7 160UL scores 14232 (delta -0.3%) and the AMD Ryzen 3 7320C scores 14277 (delta -0.6%), both slightly ahead but still within 0.6% of the i5-10400F. These four alternatives bracket the CPU's performance so tightly that any of them would deliver indistinguishable results in this game's CPU-bound scenarios.

On the GPU side, the RTX 3080's nearest rivals are more varied in their market positioning. The NVIDIA P106-100 scores 23249, a 0.3% delta below the RTX 3080's 23172. The AMD Radeon Pro Vega 16 scores 23250, also a 0.3% delta. The AMD Radeon RX 6600M scores 23273, a 0.4% delta, and the AMD Radeon R9 M290X scores 23276, a 0.4% delta. All four GPUs sit within 0.4% of the RTX 3080's aggregate score, which suggests that in the database's overall GPU benchmark suite, these cards perform nearly identically. For Archeage specifically, the measured FPS data for the RTX 3080 would likely be mirrored by any of these alternatives within a few frames, given the narrow benchmark deltas.

It is important to note that these rival comparisons are based on aggregate benchmark scores, not game-specific measurements. The database does not provide Archeage-specific FPS data for these rival parts. However, the small deltas imply that a user swapping the RTX 3080 for any of these four GPUs would see very similar performance characteristics in this title, assuming the CPU remains the same.

The Verdict

The verdictByResolution data provides a clear answer: this PC can run Archeage, but the playable settings vary by resolution. At 1920x1080, all four presets clear the 60 FPS threshold, with Ultra averaging 84.1 FPS. At 2560x1440, High, Medium, and Low are all playable, with High being the best playable preset at 81.4 FPS, while Ultra falls just short at 59.2 FPS. At 3840x2160, only Low and Medium are playable, with Medium being the best option at 68 FPS. High at 4K averages 49.9 FPS and Ultra averages 30.6 FPS, both below the 60 FPS playable bar.

The verdict is straightforward: for 1080p and 1440p gaming, this combo delivers a smooth experience at most presets, with the single exception of 1440p Ultra. For 4K gaming, the system is limited to Medium settings or lower. The 68th percentile GPU ranking and 68th percentile CPU ranking indicate that this is a mid-to-upper tier combination, and the measured FPS data confirms that it handles Archeage well at mainstream resolutions.

How This Combo Ranks

The Intel Core i5-10400F + NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3080 combination ranks 1191 out of 3708 tested combos in the database for Archeage. This places the combo in the 67.9th percentile of all tested systems, meaning roughly two-thirds of tested combos rank below it. The ranking reflects the balance between the CPU's 6-core, 12-thread configuration and the GPU's high-end Ampere architecture.

The rank is notable because the CPU is a mid-range part from 2020, while the GPU is a high-end part from the same generation. The combination works because Archeage appears to scale more with GPU rendering than CPU compute, as evidenced by the measured FPS data. The 1191 rank out of 3708 means there are 1190 combos that perform better in this game, likely featuring newer CPUs or even higher-tier GPUs, but the margin is not extreme given the 68th percentile ranking of both components individually.

For context, the CPU's percentile versus all CPUs is 68, and the GPU's percentile versus all GPUs is also 68. The combo's in-game rank aligns closely with these individual percentiles, suggesting that neither component is dragging the other down significantly. If the CPU were a bottleneck, the combo rank would likely be lower than the GPU's percentile. The data indicates a well-matched pairing for this title.

Best Settings per Resolution

1920x1080: The best playable preset is Ultra, which averages 84.1 FPS. This is the most demanding setting that stays at or above 60 FPS, and it provides 24.1 FPS of headroom above the threshold. There is no need to drop to High (124.6 FPS), Medium (164.6 FPS), or Low (167.2 FPS) for performance reasons, though users seeking higher frame rates for competitive play could choose Medium for a 80.5 FPS increase over Ultra.

2560x1440: The best playable preset is High, averaging 81.4 FPS. This provides 21.4 FPS of headroom above the 60 FPS threshold. Medium (123.9 FPS) and Low (137.5 FPS) are also playable but offer less visual fidelity. Ultra at 59.2 FPS is not playable by the database's standard, missing the threshold by 0.8 FPS. Users who prioritize visual quality above all else could attempt Ultra, but the data does not classify it as playable.

3840x2160: The best playable preset is Medium, averaging 68 FPS. This is the most demanding setting that clears the 60 FPS bar, with 8 FPS of headroom. Low (78.7 FPS) is also playable, but Medium provides a better visual experience while maintaining playability. High (49.9 FPS) and Ultra (30.6 FPS) are not playable at 4K. The 18.1 FPS gap between Medium and High indicates that the High preset's additional visual effects are too costly for this GPU at 4K resolution.