Minecraft

Similar Performance Alternatives

The Intel Core i5-9400 in this configuration sits near the middle of the CPU performance distribution, with a percentile rank of 47 among all tested processors. Its average benchmark score of 2254 places it in a tightly clustered group of rivals. The nearest comparable CPU is the Intel Core i3-10305, which scores 2264, a delta of only 0.4 percent ahead. The Intel Core i7-1068NG7 scores 2259, which is 0.2 percent higher than the i5-9400, meaning the two would deliver nearly identical frame pacing in CPU-bound scenarios. On the other side, the Intel Core i7-10710U scores 2248, a 0.3 percent deficit, and the AMD Ryzen 5 PRO 1500 scores 2246, a 0.4 percent deficit. These four processors form a performance band of less than one percent, so any of them would behave essentially the same as the i5-9400 in Minecraft, provided the GPU and memory configuration remain unchanged. The i5-9400 has 6 cores and 6 threads, with a base clock of 2.90 GHz and a boost clock of 4.10 GHz, but the benchmark deltas show that architectural differences among these rivals are minimal in aggregate workloads. For single-threaded tasks, the i5-9400 scores 935 in Cinebench R23 single-core, which is consistent with its position among these rivals, although the database does not provide single-core scores for the comparison chips. In practical terms, a user swapping the i5-9400 for any of these four CPUs would see no measurable difference in Minecraft frame rates, since the game is not heavily threaded and the delta between the best and worst of this group is under one percent.

The Intel Arc B370 GPU presents a more dramatic comparison. Its average benchmark score of 1184 from the 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 test places it at the 5th percentile among all GPUs, meaning it outperforms only a small fraction of the field. The nearest rival is the AMD FirePro M2000, which scores 1168, a delta of 1.4 percent behind the Arc B370. The ATI Mobility Radeon HD 5570 scores 1186, which is 0.2 percent higher, and the ATI Radeon HD 5770 scores 1190, a 0.5 percent lead. The AMD Radeon HD 7650M scores 1192, sitting 0.7 percent ahead. This cluster spans a range of roughly two percent total, so all five GPUs would produce similar raw throughput in synthetic benchmarks. However, the Arc B370 is a modern integrated GPU based on the Xe3-LPG architecture, built on a 3 nm process, with 1280 shading units, 40 texture mapping units, and 20 raster output units. It supports DirectX 12 Ultimate and Vulkan 1.4, which the older ATI and AMD parts do not, so in a game like Minecraft that can leverage newer graphics APIs, the Arc B370 may translate its modest compute advantage into better real-world frame rates than the raw score suggests. The nearest rivals are all legacy discrete mobile or desktop parts from over a decade ago, and their driver support for modern titles is limited. The recorded data for Minecraft, however, does not include direct comparisons to these GPUs, so the synthetic deltas are the only quantitative link. For a user considering an alternative GPU, the FirePro M2000 or Radeon HD 5770 would likely fall short of the Arc B370 in actual gameplay due to API limitations, even though their 3DMark scores are within one percent.

CPU and GPU Roles

Minecraft is a game where the CPU often dictates performance, but the recorded data for this combo shows that the GPU becomes the limiting factor at higher resolutions. The measured FPS scaling across resolutions and presets illustrates this clearly. At 1920x1080 with Low settings, the combo achieves 195 FPS on average, which is far above the 60 FPS threshold. When the resolution increases to 2560x1440 at Low, the average drops to 123 FPS, a reduction of 72 FPS. Moving to 3840x2160 at Low, the average falls to 64 FPS, exactly at the playable threshold. This steep decline with resolution indicates that the GPU is the bottleneck at 4K even on the least demanding preset. At 1080p, the CPU has enough headroom to feed the GPU well beyond 60 FPS, but the Arc B370's limited fill rate and memory bandwidth, which is system shared and dependent on the platform, prevent it from maintaining high frame rates as pixel count grows.

The preset scaling reinforces this interpretation. At 1080p, moving from Low to Medium reduces the average from 195 to 155 FPS, a 40 FPS drop. Going from Medium to High reduces it further to 123 FPS, and from High to Ultra it falls to 77 FPS. The gap between Low and Ultra at 1080p is 118 FPS, which suggests that the GPU is still capable at this resolution but that each settings tier adds enough load to meaningfully reduce frame rates. At 1440p, the same progression shows Low at 123 FPS, Medium at 98 FPS, High at 77 FPS, and Ultra at 48 FPS. The drop from High to Ultra is 29 FPS, steeper than the 46 FPS drop from Low to High, indicating that Ultra settings introduce a particularly heavy load. At 4K, the pattern becomes more severe: Low at 64 FPS, Medium at 51 FPS, High at 40 FPS, and Ultra at 25 FPS. The gap between Low and Ultra at 4K is 39 FPS, and even Medium fails to reach 60 FPS. The CPU, with its 47th percentile rank, is not the primary constraint at 4K because the frame rates collapse regardless of settings, pointing to the GPU as the decisive factor. At 1080p, the CPU still has enough single-thread performance, evidenced by its 935 Cinebench R23 single-core score, to keep the game running smoothly, but the GPU is the component that determines how high the settings can go before frame rates fall below the threshold.

How This Combo Ranks

Out of 3710 tested combinations, this pairing of the Intel Core i5-9400 and Intel Arc B370 ranks 3408th in Minecraft. That places it in the bottom 8 percent of all combos, which is a low position driven almost entirely by the GPU's 5th percentile standing. The CPU is not the weak link; a 47th percentile processor is average, but the GPU sits near the very bottom of the performance distribution. The combination of an average CPU with a bottom-tier GPU results in a system that can handle the game at lower resolutions but struggles at higher ones. The rank of 3408 means that only 302 combos in the database perform worse in Minecraft. Most of those worse-performing systems likely pair similarly weak GPUs with even slower CPUs. This combo outperforms systems with older integrated graphics or entry-level discrete GPUs from a decade ago, but it falls behind the vast majority of modern desktop configurations. For context, the CPU's nearest rivals all have average scores within one percent, so swapping the i5-9400 for an i3-10305 or Ryzen 5 PRO 1500 would not change the combo rank meaningfully. The GPU is the differentiator, and its low standing dominates the overall ranking.

The data shows that this combo is playable at 1080p across all settings, which is a notable achievement for a GPU at the 5th percentile. However, the rank reflects the overall capability across all resolutions and presets, and the failure to maintain 60 FPS at 4K on Medium or higher, or at 1440p on Ultra, drags the position down. The combo's best performance is at 1080p Ultra, where it averages 77 FPS, but that is still only slightly above the 60 FPS threshold. The rank of 3408 is a verdict on the system's versatility, and the data indicates that it is a 1080p-oriented machine, not a multi-resolution performer.

The Verdict

This PC can run Minecraft, and the recorded data shows clear boundaries for what is playable. The playable threshold is 60 FPS, and the verdict by resolution is as follows. At 3840x2160, only the Low preset clears 60 FPS, with an average of 64 FPS. Medium averages 51 FPS, High averages 40 FPS, and Ultra averages 25 FPS, all below the threshold. At 2560x1440, the playable settings are High, Low, and Medium. High averages 77 FPS, Low averages 123 FPS, and Medium averages 98 FPS. Ultra at 1440p averages 48 FPS, which is not playable. At 1920x1080, all four settings are playable: Low averages 195 FPS, Medium averages 155 FPS, High averages 123 FPS, and Ultra averages 77 FPS. Therefore, this system is fully capable of running Minecraft smoothly at 1080p with any settings, and at 1440p with most settings, but 4K is limited to Low settings. The CPU is not a barrier, as even the most demanding preset at 1080p stays well above 60 FPS, and the bottleneck at higher resolutions is the GPU. For a user with a 1080p monitor, this combo delivers a consistently smooth experience. For a 1440p display, it is still viable as long as Ultra is avoided. For 4K, only the lowest visual quality is acceptable.

Measured FPS Breakdown

The recorded FPS data covers three resolutions and four settings tiers each. At 1920x1080, the Low preset delivers an average of 195 FPS, with no minimum or maximum values recorded. Medium averages 155 FPS, with a minimum of 131 and a maximum of 178. High averages 123 FPS, with no min or max recorded. Ultra averages 77 FPS, again without min or max data. This resolution shows the widest spread between Low and Ultra, a difference of 118 FPS, and even the lowest recorded minimum, which is 131 FPS at Medium, remains far above the 60 FPS threshold. The absence of min and max values for Low, High, and Ultra suggests that the database only captured average frame rates for those presets, but the averages alone are sufficient to judge playability.

At 2560x1440, Low averages 123 FPS, Medium averages 98 FPS with a minimum of 83 and a maximum of 112, High averages 77 FPS, and Ultra averages 48 FPS. The Medium preset at 1440p shows a minimum of 83 FPS, which is still above 60, indicating that even in the slowest moments, the system does not dip below the playable threshold. High at 1440p has no min or max recorded, but the 77 FPS average is comfortable. Ultra falls to 48 FPS on average, and without min or max data, it is clear that it does not meet the threshold. The drop from High to Ultra at 1440p is 29 FPS, the largest single-step decline at this resolution.

At 3840x2160, Low averages 64 FPS, which is just above the threshold. Medium averages 51 FPS, with a minimum of 43 and a maximum of 59. High averages 40 FPS, and Ultra averages 25 FPS. The Medium preset at 4K is notable because its maximum of 59 FPS is below the 60 FPS threshold, meaning that even the best-case frame rate does not reach playable levels. Low at 4K has no min or max recorded, but the 64 FPS average suggests that the system can hold around 60 FPS in typical scenes. The progression from Low to Ultra at 4K is steep, with each tier reducing the average by 9 to 15 FPS. The recorded data shows no min or max values for High and Ultra at 4K, but the averages are far below the threshold.

Best Settings per Resolution

At 3840x2160, the most demanding preset that stays at or above 60 FPS is Low, with an average of 64 FPS. Medium averages 51 FPS, which is below the threshold, so Low is the only playable option at 4K. The 64 FPS average is close to the threshold, and while no minimum is recorded, the average suggests that the system is just barely playable. Users at 4K should accept Low settings to maintain smooth frame rates, as any higher preset will drop below 60 FPS.

At 2560x1440, the best playable preset is High, with an average of 77 FPS. Medium averages 98 FPS and Low averages 123 FPS, but High is the most demanding setting that still clears 60 FPS. Ultra at 1440p averages 48 FPS, so it is not playable. The 77 FPS average at High provides a comfortable margin above the threshold, and the absence of min or max data for High means the average is the only recorded metric, but it is sufficient. Users at 1440p can run High settings and expect a smooth experience, with headroom for occasional dips that would still remain above 60 FPS based on the Medium preset's minimum of 83 FPS.

At 1920x1080, the best playable preset is Ultra, with an average of 77 FPS. This is the highest settings tier available, and it clears the 60 FPS threshold. Low averages 195 FPS, Medium averages 155 FPS, and High averages 123 FPS, but Ultra is the most demanding option that remains playable. The 77 FPS average at Ultra is 17 FPS above the threshold, providing a reasonable buffer. Since no minimum is recorded for Ultra at 1080p, the average is the only metric, but it indicates that the system can handle the maximum visual quality at this resolution. For users prioritizing visual fidelity, 1080p Ultra is the recommended configuration.