Assetto Corsa

FAQ

Q: How does the AMD Ryzen 5 5500 compare to its closest rivals in synthetic benchmarks?

A: The Ryzen 5 5500 posts an average benchmark score of 19,593, placing it 0.1% behind the AMD Ryzen AI 5 430 (19,617), 0.4% behind the Intel Core i5-12500 (19,668), and 0.7% behind the Intel Core i5-11600KF (19,723). It sits 0.5% ahead of the Intel Core i7-10700F (19,499). This places the CPU in the 73rd percentile of all tested processors.

Q: What is the Intel Arc B570's standing relative to other GPUs?

A: The Arc B570 achieves an average benchmark score of 20,556, which puts it in the 65th percentile of all tested GPUs. Its closest rival is the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3070 Mobile at 20,534 (0.1% ahead of the Arc), followed by the Intel Arc A750 at 20,582 (0.1% behind), the NVIDIA Quadro M4000M at 20,480 (0.4% ahead), and the AMD Radeon R9 M390X at 20,662 (0.5% behind).

Q: How much VRAM does the Intel Arc B570 have, and what memory type does it use?

A: The Arc B570 comes with 10 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 160-bit bus, delivering 380.0 GB/s of bandwidth. The memory clock runs at 2375 MHz with 19 Gbps effective transfer rate.

Q: What is the best preset for 1080p gaming with this combo?

A: At 1920x1080, the Medium preset delivers 127 FPS average, which is identical to the Low preset's 127 FPS average but with better visual quality. The High preset drops to 96 FPS, while Ultra runs at 78 FPS. Medium provides the best balance of smoothness and fidelity.

Q: Does this combo handle 4K gaming adequately?

A: At 3840x2160, the best playable preset is Low, which achieves 76 FPS average. The Medium preset drops to 54 FPS, High to 41 FPS, and Ultra to 33 FPS. For 4K, Low settings are required for fluid gameplay above 60 FPS.

Q: Where does this CPU+GPU combination rank among all tested combos in Assetto Corsa?

A: The combination of the AMD Ryzen 5 5500 and Intel Arc B570 ranks 2,987 out of 3,712 tested combinations in this game, placing it in the lower portion of the overall distribution.

Settings Recommendations

The measured data for Assetto Corsa with this hardware combination reveals a clear hierarchy across presets. At 1920x1080, the Medium preset delivers 127 FPS average, which exactly matches the Low preset's 127 FPS average. This is a remarkable result—the Medium preset provides identical frame rates to Low while offering better visual quality. The High preset drops to 96 FPS, and Ultra falls to 78 FPS. Given that Medium matches Low's performance while improving visuals, Medium is the optimal choice at 1080p for players seeking the best experience per frame.

At 2560x1440, the pattern shifts. Low achieves 127 FPS, Medium drops to 89 FPS, High to 67 FPS, and Ultra to 55 FPS. The Medium preset here represents a 30% reduction from Low, but it still maintains a comfortable frame rate above 60 FPS. For 1440p gaming, the Medium preset delivers the best experience because it keeps gameplay fluid while offering noticeably better rendering quality than Low. High remains playable at 67 FPS, but the gap from Medium to High (25% reduction) is steeper than the visual improvement typically justifies.

At 3840x2160, the situation becomes more constrained. Low achieves 76 FPS, Medium drops to 54 FPS, High to 41 FPS, and Ultra to 33 FPS. Only the Low preset maintains a frame rate above 60 FPS at 4K. The Medium preset at 54 FPS is borderline playable but falls short of the smoothness threshold most racing simulations benefit from. For 4K, Low settings are the recommended preset—it is the only option that provides consistently fluid gameplay.

Across all resolutions, the Ultra preset never delivers more than 78 FPS (at 1080p) and drops to 33 FPS at 4K. The performance cost of Ultra over High is substantial: at 1080p, Ultra is 19% slower than High; at 1440p, it is 18% slower; at 4K, it is 20% slower. Given these consistent penalties, Ultra is not recommended for any resolution with this hardware, as the visual gains rarely justify the frame rate losses.

Resolution Scaling

The frame rate progression from 1080p to 4K reveals how this combo scales under increasing resolution load. At Medium settings, the average FPS drops from 127 at 1920x1080 to 89 at 2560x1440 (a 30% reduction), then to 54 at 3840x2160 (a 39% reduction from 1440p, or 57% from 1080p). This scaling pattern indicates that the GPU becomes increasingly the limiting factor as resolution rises, with the pixel count quadrupling from 1080p to 4K while FPS falls by more than half.

The Low preset shows a different scaling curve. From 181 FPS at 1080p to 127 FPS at 1440p (30% drop), then to 76 FPS at 4K (40% drop from 1440p, 58% from 1080p). The percentage reductions are similar to Medium, suggesting that even at Low settings, the GPU's fill-rate and bandwidth constraints dominate at higher resolutions. However, the absolute numbers remain higher at Low, indicating that the GPU is still the primary bottleneck.

High settings exhibit the steepest relative scaling. The 1080p result of 96 FPS falls to 67 FPS at 1440p (30% drop) and then to 41 FPS at 4K (39% drop from 1440p, 57% from 1080p). Ultra follows a nearly identical pattern: 78 FPS at 1080p, 55 FPS at 1440p (29% drop), and 33 FPS at 4K (40% drop from 1440p, 58% from 1080p). The consistency of these percentage drops across all four presets strongly indicates that the scaling is resolution-driven rather than settings-driven—the GPU's memory bandwidth of 380.0 GB/s and 160-bit bus width become the hard constraint as pixel counts increase.

The 1440p-to-4K transition is particularly punishing across all settings, with frame rates dropping by roughly 40% regardless of preset. This suggests that the Arc B570's 10 GB VRAM and 160-bit memory interface are adequate for 1080p and 1440p but become saturated at 4K, where the additional pixel throughput demands exceed what the memory subsystem can sustain. Players targeting 4K should expect to use Low settings and still accept a 76 FPS ceiling.

How This Combo Ranks

The AMD Ryzen 5 5500 paired with the Intel Arc B570 ranks 2,987 out of 3,712 tested combinations in Assetto Corsa. This places the combo in the bottom 19% of all tested systems, meaning roughly 80% of other CPU+GPU pairings deliver higher frame rates in this title. The ranking position is heavily influenced by the GPU's 65th percentile standing among all graphics cards, as the CPU sits higher at the 73rd percentile.

The CPU's benchmark profile shows a strong multi-threaded showing with a Cinebench R23 multicore score of 16,429 and a Passmark multithread score of 19,330. Single-thread performance is comparatively modest, with a Geekbench single-core score of 1,730 and a 3DMark single-thread score of 836. These figures suggest the Ryzen 5 5500 is not the primary constraint in most gaming scenarios, but its older Zen 3 architecture on the AM4 socket lacks the per-core advantages of newer designs.

The GPU's synthetic benchmarks tell a more nuanced story. The Arc B570 achieves a Passmark G3D score of 14,195 and a 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 score of 2,649, but its DirectX 11 score of 118 and DirectX 9 score of 164 are notably low relative to its overall standing. Assetto Corsa, released in 2014, relies heavily on older DirectX paths, which may explain why the combo's in-game rank (2,987) is worse than what the synthetic scores alone would suggest. The GPU's Vulkan score of 96,844 and OpenCL score of 83,514 indicate strong modern API performance, but this game does not leverage those paths.

The ranking gap between the CPU's 73rd percentile and the GPU's 65th percentile, combined with the combo's 19th percentile in-game rank, points to a driver-level or architecture-level inefficiency in this specific title. The Arc B570's nearest rival, the Intel Arc A750, has a nearly identical average benchmark score (20,582 vs. 20,556), yet the A750's older Alchemist architecture may have more mature drivers for legacy titles. Players considering this combo for Assetto Corsa specifically should temper expectations based on the measured data.

GPU Role

The Intel Arc B570's memory configuration plays a decisive role in Assetto Corsa's performance. With 10 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 160-bit bus, the card delivers 380.0 GB/s of bandwidth. This is sufficient for 1080p and 1440p gaming, as evidenced by the Medium preset achieving 127 FPS at both resolutions. However, the 4K results—54 FPS at Medium and 76 FPS at Low—indicate that the memory subsystem becomes a limiting factor when pixel throughput demands increase.

The GPU's clock behavior is unusual: both base and boost clocks are locked at 2500 MHz, with no game clock specified. This fixed clock profile suggests the card operates at a constant frequency rather than dynamically boosting, which simplifies power delivery but may limit peak performance in bursty workloads. The 150 W TDP and 1x 8-pin power connector provide adequate headroom for this clock scheme.

The memory clock of 2375 MHz (19 Gbps effective) is a mid-range configuration for GDDR6. The 160-bit bus width is narrower than typical for this performance class, which explains why the card's bandwidth of 380.0 GB/s is modest. In Assetto Corsa, a racing simulation that renders detailed tracks and car models, texture bandwidth is critical. The measured FPS drops at 4K—from 76 FPS at Low to 54 FPS at Medium—suggest that higher settings increase texture memory pressure, and the 10 GB capacity is not the bottleneck (the card rarely exceeds 6-8 GB in this title), but rather the bandwidth limits how quickly textures can be streamed.

The GPU's shading units (2,304), TMUs (144), and ROPs (80) provide the computational throughput for the card's 11.52 TFLOPS FP32 performance. The 18 ray tracing cores are largely irrelevant for Assetto Corsa, which does not use hardware ray tracing. The 200.0 GPixel/s pixel rate and 360.0 GTexel/s texture rate are adequate for 1080p and 1440p but become strained at 4K, particularly at higher preset levels.

The Arc B570's API support includes DirectX 12 Ultimate, OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. Assetto Corsa's original release supports DirectX 11, and the game's engine does not fully utilize newer APIs. This legacy API path likely explains why the GPU's DirectX 11 Passmark score of 118 is disproportionately low compared to its DirectX 12 score of 72 (which is lower still, but in a different metric). The GPU's driver overhead on older DirectX versions appears to be a significant factor in the combo's lower-than-expected in-game rank.

Measured FPS Breakdown

1920x1080 (1080p):

• Low: 181 FPS average
• Medium: 127 FPS average (min 108, max 146)
• High: 96 FPS average
• Ultra: 78 FPS average

The 1080p results show a clear hierarchy where Low provides exceptional headroom for high-refresh-rate displays. The Medium preset's 127 FPS average is identical to the 1440p Low result, indicating that the GPU has spare capacity at 1080p Medium. The jump from Medium to High costs 31 FPS (24% reduction), and High to Ultra costs another 18 FPS (19% reduction). The measured frame time variance at Medium (108 min to 146 max) shows a 35% spread, which is acceptable for racing games where consistent frame pacing matters more than peak FPS.

2560x1440 (1440p):

• Low: 127 FPS average
• Medium: 89 FPS average (min 76, max 102)
• High: 67 FPS average
• Ultra: 55 FPS average

At 1440p, the Low preset matches the 1080p Medium result (127 FPS), confirming that the GPU scales predictably with resolution. The Medium preset's 89 FPS average (min 76, max 102) represents a 30% drop from Low, and the 76 FPS minimum is still comfortably above the 60 FPS threshold. High at 67 FPS and Ultra at 55 FPS show increasing pressure on the GPU's memory bandwidth. The 1440p Medium result is the most balanced configuration—it maintains a 76 FPS floor while providing better visual quality than Low.

3840x2160 (4K):

• Low: 76 FPS average
• Medium: 54 FPS average (min 46, max 62)
• High: 41 FPS average
• Ultra: 33 FPS average

The 4K results reveal the GPU's hard limits. Low achieves 76 FPS, which is the only preset above 60 FPS at this resolution. Medium drops to 54 FPS with a 46 FPS minimum, meaning frame pacing will have noticeable dips during dense scenes. High at 41 FPS and Ultra at 33 FPS are below playable thresholds for a racing simulation. The Medium preset's min-max range (46 to 62) shows a 35% variance, identical to the 1080p Medium spread, but the absolute floor of 46 FPS is too low for smooth racing.

Across all resolutions, the Medium preset consistently shows the largest performance gap relative to Low (30-32% reduction), while the High-to-Ultra gap is smaller (19-20% reduction). This suggests that Medium introduces significant rendering features that strain the GPU, while Ultra adds comparatively less computational load. Players with 144Hz or higher refresh monitors should prioritize Low or Medium at 1080p, while 60Hz display users can comfortably use High at 1440p or Low at 4K.