Assetto Corsa

Assetto Corsa, a racing simulation from 2014, remains a demanding title for lower-tier hardware. This analysis examines the measured performance of the Intel Core i5-14400F paired with the Intel Arc B370 integrated GPU. The data reveals a combination that is heavily constrained by its graphics processor, requiring significant settings adjustments to achieve playable frame rates across common resolutions.

CPU Role — cores, clocks, and how they relate to this game's results

The Intel Core i5-14400F is a 10-core, 16-thread processor based on the Raptor Lake architecture, manufactured on Intel's 10 nm process. It operates with a base clock of 2.50 GHz and a boost clock of 4.70 GHz, featuring a 20 MB shared L3 cache and 1.25 MB of L2 cache per core. This configuration places the CPU in the 83rd percentile against all tested CPUs, indicating strong multi-threaded and single-threaded capability relative to the broader market.

In the context of Assetto Corsa's benchmark results with the Arc B370, the CPU's role is largely preparatory. The processor's headroom is evident when examining the frame rate scaling; the i5-14400F is theoretically capable of far higher frame rates than what the iGPU can deliver. The benchmark scores support this; for instance, the CPU achieves a Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 21645 and a single-core score of 3055, alongside a Geekbench single-core score of 2058. This level of processing power is more than sufficient to handle the game's physics and AI calculations at the resolutions tested.

The data shows the limiting factor is not the CPU. When comparing the i5-14400F to its nearest rivals, it performs within a narrow band. It is 0.1% ahead of the AMD Ryzen 7 PRO 8840U, 0.2% ahead of the Intel Core i9-11900, and 0.5% ahead of the Intel Core i7-12800H in average benchmark scores. It trails the AMD Ryzen 7 6800HS by 0.2%. These negligible deltas confirm that in this specific pairing, variations in CPU performance would not translate into observable frame rate differences in-game. The bottleneck is unequivocally the graphics subsystem, which is a separate component in this analysis.

GPU Role — VRAM, clocks, and how they relate to this game's results

The Intel Arc B370 is an integrated graphics processor based on the Xe3-LPG architecture, built on a 3 nm process. Its performance is severely limited, placing it in the 5th percentile of all tested GPUs. It has a boost clock of 2400 MHz and a base clock of 300 MHz, with 1280 shading units, 40 texture mapping units, and 20 render output units. Critically, its memory is "System Shared," meaning it relies on the host system's RAM for both capacity and bandwidth, which is described as "System Dependent." This architecture is the primary reason for its low performance ceiling.

The GPU's benchmark score from 3DMark Steel Nomad (DX12) is 1184, which places it in direct competition with very old discrete graphics cards. It is 0.2% slower than the ATI Mobility Radeon HD 5570, 0.5% slower than the ATI Radeon HD 5770, and 0.7% slower than the AMD Radeon HD 7650M. It does manage to be 1.4% faster than the AMD FirePro M2000. This context is crucial: the Arc B370 is competing with hardware from a bygone era, which explains its struggle to maintain high frame rates in a 2014 title like Assetto Corsa.

The frame rate data directly reflects this GPU constraint. At 1080p with Low settings, the combo achieves 106 FPS, but this number plummets as resolution and graphical fidelity increase. At 4K Ultra, the average frame rate is just 19 FPS. The iGPU's reliance on shared system memory means that higher resolutions, which require larger framebuffers, disproportionately impact performance due to increased memory traffic and limited bandwidth. The GPU's 6.144 TFLOPS of FP32 compute is not the bottleneck; rather, the memory subsystem and the overall architectural efficiency for a modern API like DirectX 12 Ultimate are the limiting factors.

FAQ

Q: Can this combo run Assetto Corsa at 1080p with high settings?

A: The measured data shows an average of 56 FPS at 1920x1080 with High settings. This is playable, though not a locked 60 FPS experience. For a more consistent frame rate, dropping to Medium settings yields 75 FPS.

Q: What is the best resolution for this hardware?

A: Based on the data, 1920x1080 is the only resolution where frame rates approach or exceed 60 FPS across multiple settings presets. At 2560x1440, only the Low preset achieves a playable 74 FPS, while High drops to 39 FPS. At 3840x2160, all presets result in sub-60 FPS averages, with the highest being 45 FPS on Low.

Q: How does the Arc B370's performance compare to older discrete GPUs?

A: The benchmark data indicates it is comparable to early 2010s discrete cards. Specifically, it is 0.2% slower than the ATI Radeon HD 5770, 0.2% slower than the ATI Mobility Radeon HD 5570, and 0.7% slower than the AMD Radeon HD 7650M. It is 1.4% faster than the AMD FirePro M2000.

Q: Is the CPU or the GPU the main bottleneck in this system?

A: The benchmark results indicate the GPU is the definitive bottleneck. The CPU, an Intel Core i5-14400F, is in the 83rd percentile of all CPUs and is competitive with processors like the Intel Core i9-11900 (0.2% faster average score). The GPU, however, is in the 5th percentile, showing a massive disparity in relative performance that manifests as low frame rates across all tested configurations.

Q: What kind of frame rate can I expect at 1440p with Medium settings?

A: The measured average is 52 FPS, with a minimum of 44 FPS and a maximum of 60 FPS. This indicates a mostly smooth experience but with occasional dips that might be noticeable in a racing simulation.

Q: Does the Arc B370 have dedicated VRAM?

A: No. The memory specification is listed as "System Shared" for size, type, and bus width. The bandwidth is also "System Dependent," meaning it uses the system's main memory and its performance is tied to the platform's memory configuration.

Measured FPS Breakdown

The measured data provides a complete matrix of performance across three resolutions and four settings presets. At 1920x1080, the frame rates are as follows: Low averages 106 FPS, Medium averages 75 FPS (with a 64-86 FPS range), High averages 56 FPS, and Ultra averages 46 FPS. This shows a clear linear regression as settings increase, with a 60 FPS drop from Low to Ultra.

Moving to 2560x1440, the performance degrades significantly. The Low preset averages 74 FPS, which is a 30% decrease from 1080p Low. Medium averages 52 FPS (44-60 FPS range), High averages 39 FPS, and Ultra averages 32 FPS. The gap between Low and Ultra narrows to 42 FPS, indicating that the GPU is becoming saturated and the settings have less relative impact on the final frame rate.

At 3840x2160, the results are largely unplayable. Low averages 45 FPS, Medium averages 32 FPS (27-36 FPS range), High averages 24 FPS, and Ultra averages 19 FPS. The data shows a stark reality: even the lowest settings cannot achieve a consistent 60 FPS at 4K. The difference between Low and Ultra is only 26 FPS, demonstrating that the GPU is at its absolute limit, and the resolution itself is the primary performance killer.

Resolution Scaling

The frame rate drop from 1080p to 4K illustrates the GPU-bound nature of this configuration. At Low settings, the 106 FPS at 1080p drops to 74 FPS at 1440p and then to 45 FPS at 4K. This represents a 30% reduction from 1080p to 1440p and a further 39% reduction from 1440p to 4K, for a total of 58% fewer frames at 4K compared to 1080p. This scaling is consistent with a component that is overwhelmed by pixel count.

For the Ultra preset, the degradation is equally stark. Starting at 46 FPS at 1080p, it falls to 32 FPS at 1440p (a 30% drop) and then to 19 FPS at 4K (a 41% drop from 1440p). The consistency of the percentage drops across different settings presets is a strong indicator that the resolution is the controlling variable. If the CPU were the bottleneck, we would expect the frame rate to remain more stable as resolution increases, since the CPU workload would not change. Instead, the systematic halving of performance with each step up in resolution confirms that the Arc B370's memory bandwidth and fill rate are exhausted, making 4K a non-viable option for this hardware.

Settings Recommendations

For users targeting 1920x1080, the data suggests that the Medium preset offers the best balance of visual quality and performance. The 75 FPS average is significantly smoother than the 56 FPS on High, and the 64 FPS minimum is more acceptable for a racing sim where frame pacing is critical. The Low preset at 106 FPS feels extremely fluid but sacrifices visual fidelity. Ultra at 46 FPS is playable but risks dipping below 40 FPS in dense scenes.

At 2560x1440, the options are more limited. The Low preset, averaging 74 FPS, is the only configuration that provides a consistently smooth experience. The Medium preset's 52 FPS average and 44 FPS minimum might be acceptable for some, but the lower bound is close to the threshold where input lag becomes noticeable. High and Ultra at 39 FPS and 32 FPS respectively are not recommended for competitive driving, as the frame rate is too low to reliably judge braking points and cornering speeds.

For 3840x2160, there is no recommended preset for a playable experience. The Low preset's 45 FPS average is the best case, but the lack of a reported minimum FPS suggests potential instability. Given the data, users should avoid 4K entirely with this GPU. The optimal experience is unequivocally at 1080p with Medium or Low settings, where the system can maintain a frame rate that supports responsive gameplay.

How This Combo Ranks

The Intel Core i5-14400F and Intel Arc B370 combination ranks 2669 out of 2897 tested combos for Assetto Corsa. This places it in the bottom 8% of all tested systems, a position that is consistent with the GPU's 5th percentile performance ranking. The ranking underscores that while the CPU is a modern, capable part, the integrated graphics processor anchors the entire system's gaming capability to the lowest tier.

This ranking is a direct consequence of the GPU's limitations. The CPU's high percentile ranking (83rd) is effectively negated by the GPU's severe bottleneck. The data suggests that users of this combo are limited to 1080p gaming with reduced settings, and that any attempt to increase resolution will result in sub-30 FPS performance. While the CPU has headroom for future upgrades, the current configuration is not suitable for a high-fidelity racing simulation experience. The measured FPS data confirms that this is one of the least capable configurations in the database for this specific game.