Evolve

Measured FPS Breakdown

Starting with the highest target, 3840x2160, the data shows a steep climb in demand. At High settings, the average frame rate is 19 FPS. Dropping to Medium raises the average to 24 FPS, with a minimum of 20 FPS and a maximum of 27 FPS. Low settings improve things further, reaching an average of 31 FPS. The Ultra preset is the most punishing, yielding only 13 FPS on average. None of these figures approach the 60 FPS playability threshold, and even the most favorable setting, Low, sits at roughly half of that target.

Moving down to 2560x1440, the picture improves but remains short of smooth gameplay. High settings deliver an average of 33 FPS. Medium settings produce 42 FPS on average, with recorded lows of 35 FPS and highs of 48 FPS. Low settings push the average to 54 FPS, which is close to the 60 FPS target but still below it. Ultra settings again bring the lowest result, averaging 23 FPS. The gap between Low and Ultra is 31 FPS, showing how much headroom the higher presets consume at this resolution.

At 1920x1080, the results finally cross the playability line. Low settings achieve an average of 80 FPS, which is well above the threshold. Medium settings average 62 FPS, with a minimum of 53 FPS and a maximum of 72 FPS. High settings drop to 49 FPS on average, just under the 60 FPS mark. Ultra settings fall further to 34 FPS. This resolution is the only one where any preset clears the 60 FPS bar, and it does so with two settings: Low and Medium.

The pattern across resolutions is consistent. For every preset, dropping from 3840x2160 to 2560x1440 yields a substantial gain, and dropping again to 1920x1080 yields another gain. For example, High settings go from 19 FPS at 4K to 33 FPS at 1440p to 49 FPS at 1080p. Medium settings go from 24 FPS to 42 FPS to 62 FPS. Low settings go from 31 FPS to 54 FPS to 80 FPS. The scaling is not linear, but the trend is clear: resolution is a dominant factor in this game's performance profile.

CPU and GPU Roles

The recorded data suggests that for Evolve, the graphics processor carries the heavier load at higher resolutions, while the CPU's influence becomes more visible at lower resolutions. Consider the frame rate scaling between 3840x2160 and 2560x1440. At Low settings, the average jumps from 31 FPS to 54 FPS, a gain of 23 FPS. At High settings, the gain is 14 FPS (from 19 to 33). At Medium, the gain is 18 FPS (from 24 to 42). These are large jumps, which indicates that the GPU is the primary bottleneck when rendering at 4K. The CPU, an AMD Ryzen 5 8400F with 6 cores and 12 threads, is unlikely to be the limiting factor at such a high pixel count, since the GPU is clearly struggling to keep up.

Between 2560x1440 and 1920x1080, the scaling continues but with a different shape. Low settings jump from 54 FPS to 80 FPS, a gain of 26 FPS. High settings gain 16 FPS (from 33 to 49). Medium settings gain 20 FPS (from 42 to 62). The fact that Low settings still show a large jump when moving to 1080p suggests the GPU remains a constraint even at lower settings. However, the CPU's role becomes more pronounced at 1080p, because the frame rates are higher and the per-frame CPU work is more likely to surface.

The Intel Arc B370 is an integrated graphics solution with a 25 W TDP, and its benchmark percentile is 5, meaning it sits near the bottom of all tested GPUs. The Ryzen 5 8400F, by contrast, has an average benchmark score of 25005 and sits at the 77th percentile among all CPUs. This disparity strongly suggests that the GPU is the weaker link in this pairing. At 1080p Medium, the average is 62 FPS, but the minimum drops to 53 FPS, which is below the 60 FPS threshold. That fluctuation points to moments where the GPU cannot sustain the load, even though the CPU has ample headroom.

The settings scaling within each resolution reinforces this. At 1080p, moving from Low to Medium costs 18 FPS on average (from 80 to 62). Moving from Medium to High costs 13 FPS (from 62 to 49). Moving from High to Ultra costs 15 FPS (from 49 to 34). These are significant drops for each step, which is typical of a GPU-bound scenario. If the CPU were the limiting factor, the frame rate would be more consistent across presets. Instead, each quality increase directly reduces the frame rate, which indicates that the graphics hardware is doing most of the work.

At 1440p, the same pattern holds but with lower absolute numbers. Low averages 54 FPS, Medium 42 FPS, High 33 FPS, and Ultra 23 FPS. The step from Low to Medium costs 12 FPS, from Medium to High costs 9 FPS, and from High to Ultra costs 10 FPS. The differences are slightly smaller than at 1080p, but the direction is the same. At 4K, the steps are smaller still: Low 31 FPS, Medium 24 FPS, High 19 FPS, and Ultra 13 FPS. The compression of frame rates at 4K indicates that the GPU is hitting a hard ceiling, and no amount of CPU capability can overcome it.

Best Settings per Resolution

At 3840x2160, no tested preset reaches 60 FPS. The highest average is 31 FPS at Low settings, and the lowest is 13 FPS at Ultra. Since the playable threshold is 60 FPS, the database records no playable settings for this resolution. The best possible average, 31 FPS, falls far short of a smooth experience.

At 2560x1440, the situation is similar. No preset clears 60 FPS. Low settings average 54 FPS, which is the closest result, but it remains 6 FPS below the threshold. Medium averages 42 FPS, High averages 33 FPS, and Ultra averages 23 FPS. The database lists no playable settings for this resolution either.

At 1920x1080, the story changes. Low settings average 80 FPS, which is comfortably above the threshold. Medium settings average 62 FPS, also above the threshold, with a minimum of 53 FPS and a maximum of 72 FPS. High settings average 49 FPS, which falls below the threshold. Ultra averages 34 FPS. The most demanding preset that stays at or above 60 FPS is Medium, with an average of 62 FPS. That is the best settings choice for this resolution, as it offers a higher quality level than Low while still maintaining a playable average frame rate.

The minimum frame rate at 1080p Medium is worth noting. At 53 FPS, it dips below the 60 FPS target, which means there will be brief moments of slower rendering. However, the average of 62 FPS and the maximum of 72 FPS indicate that the overall experience remains fluid for the majority of the time. For players who prioritize a strict 60 FPS floor, Low settings would be the safer choice, since the average of 80 FPS leaves more headroom, though the database does not list a minimum for Low at 1080p.

FAQ

Q: What is the best resolution for this PC in Evolve?

A: The only resolution with any playable settings is 1920x1080. At 2560x1440 and 3840x2160, no preset reaches the 60 FPS threshold.

Q: Which settings preset is recommended at 1920x1080?

A: Medium settings, with an average of 62 FPS, is the most demanding preset that stays at or above 60 FPS. Low settings average 80 FPS but offer lower visual quality.

Q: Can this system handle 2560x1440 at all?

A: It can render the game, but not smoothly. The best average at 1440p is 54 FPS on Low settings, which is below the 60 FPS playable threshold. Medium, High, and Ultra all average below that as well.

Q: How does Ultra settings compare to Low settings at 3840x2160?

A: Ultra settings average 13 FPS, while Low settings average 31 FPS. The difference is 18 FPS, but neither reaches a playable level.

Q: Is the CPU or GPU more responsible for the performance at 1080p?

A: The data indicates the GPU is the primary constraint. The Intel Arc B370 has a benchmark percentile of 5, while the Ryzen 5 8400F sits at the 77th percentile. The frame rates drop significantly with each settings increase, which is typical of GPU-bound rendering.

Q: What is the minimum frame rate at 1080p Medium?

A: The minimum is 53 FPS, with a maximum of 72 FPS and an average of 62 FPS. The minimum dips below the 60 FPS threshold, but the average remains playable.

The Verdict

The question is whether this PC can run Evolve. The answer depends entirely on the resolution. At 3840x2160, the answer is no. The best average is 31 FPS on Low settings, and every other preset is lower. At 2560x1440, the answer is also no. Low settings reach 54 FPS on average, but that is still below the 60 FPS threshold. At 1920x1080, the answer is yes, but with qualifications. Low settings average 80 FPS and Medium settings average 62 FPS, both of which clear the 60 FPS bar. High settings fall short at 49 FPS, and Ultra is far behind at 34 FPS.

The verdict by resolution is clear: 1920x1080 with Medium settings is the best playable configuration, delivering an average of 62 FPS. The minimum of 53 FPS means there will be occasional dips below the target, but the overall experience is acceptable for a fast-paced FPS. Low settings provide a more comfortable margin at 80 FPS, though the visual quality is reduced. For anyone wanting to play Evolve with this hardware, 1080p is the only viable option, and Medium is the highest preset that stays above the playability line.

How This Combo Ranks

Within the database, this combination of the AMD Ryzen 5 8400F and the Intel Arc B370 ranks 3414 out of 3700 tested combos for Evolve. That places it in the lower tier of all recorded configurations, which makes sense given the GPU's low benchmark percentile of 5. The CPU is not the problem; it ranks in the 77th percentile among all CPUs. But the integrated graphics solution drags the overall combo down significantly.

The rank of 3414 means that roughly 92% of tested combos perform better than this one in Evolve. That is a sobering statistic for anyone hoping for a capable gaming machine. The frame rates at higher resolutions are consistently below playable levels, and even at 1080p, only Low and Medium presets clear the 60 FPS threshold. This combo is functional for light gaming at 1080p, but it cannot be considered a strong performer for a demanding FPS title.

The data shows a clear imbalance. The CPU has ample compute headroom, but the GPU cannot translate that into high frame rates. In Evolve, the graphics card is the deciding factor, and this particular Intel Arc B370 is near the bottom of the performance ladder. The combo rank reflects that reality, placing this system among the weaker options in the database.

Similar Performance Alternatives

Looking at the nearest rivals for each component provides context for what else would behave similarly. For the CPU, the AMD Ryzen 5 8400F has an average benchmark score of 25005. Its closest competitors are the AMD Ryzen 5 7500F with an average score of 24964 and a delta of 0.2%, the Intel Core i7-11850H with a score of 24935 and a delta of 0.3%, the Intel Core i7-13620H with a score of 24911 and a delta of 0.4%, and the AMD EPYC 9474F with a score of 25103 and a delta of -0.4%. These deltas are tiny, meaning any of these CPUs would deliver nearly identical CPU-side performance in Evolve. If a system paired one of these chips with the same Intel Arc B370, the frame rates would be essentially unchanged.

For the GPU, the Intel Arc B370 has an average benchmark score of 1184. Its nearest rivals are the ATI Mobility Radeon HD 5570 with a score of 1186 and a delta of -0.2%, the ATI Radeon HD 5770 with a score of 1190 and a delta of -0.5%, the AMD Radeon HD 7650M with a score of 1192 and a delta of -0.7%, and the AMD FirePro M2000 with a score of 1168 and a delta of 1.4%. These are all older or lower-end graphics solutions, and the deltas are again very small. Swapping the Intel Arc B370 for any of these would produce nearly the same frame rates in Evolve, meaning the overall combo rank would stay in the same low tier.

What this suggests is that the performance ceiling is set by the GPU, not the CPU. The CPU rivals are all modern processors with strong multi-threaded scores, but they cannot compensate for a GPU that sits at the 5th percentile. Conversely, the GPU rivals are all ancient or low-power parts, which reinforces that the Intel Arc B370 is not a gaming-oriented chip. For anyone considering a similar build, the data implies that upgrading the GPU would be the only meaningful path to better Evolve performance, while CPU swaps would yield negligible gains.