Assetto Corsa

The Intel Core i5-14400F paired with the Intel Arc B390 produces a distinctive performance profile in Assetto Corsa, a 2014 racing simulation. The data indicates a configuration that is heavily constrained by its graphics component, with the CPU showing significant headroom across all tested resolutions. This analysis breaks down the measured FPS data, component roles, and performance rankings to provide a methodical look at what this combo delivers.

FAQ

Q: What is the overall rank of this CPU and GPU combination in Assetto Corsa?

A: The combo ranks 2566 out of 2897 tested combinations, placing it in the lower percentile of systems benchmarked for this title.

Q: How does the GPU's benchmark score compare to its nearest rivals?

A: The Intel Arc B390 has an average benchmark score of 1482. Its closest rival, the NVIDIA GeForce GT 520MX, scores 1463, which is 1.3% lower. The GeForce 800M scores 1460 (1.5% lower), and the GT 625 OEM scores 1446 (2.5% lower).

Q: What is the highest average FPS achieved by this combo at 1920x1080?

A: The highest average FPS at 1080p is 118, achieved with the Low settings preset. The Medium preset produces 83 FPS, High produces 62 FPS, and Ultra drops to 51 FPS.

Q: What is the difference in average FPS between the High and Ultra presets at 2560x1440?

A: At 1440p, the High preset averages 44 FPS, while the Ultra preset averages 36 FPS. This represents a decrease of 8 FPS when moving from High to Ultra.

Q: Does the CPU show any signs of bottlenecking the GPU in this game?

A: The data does not indicate a CPU bottleneck. The Intel Core i5-14400F has a strong Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 21645 and a single-core score of 3055. The FPS drops align more closely with the GPU's low performance percentile (9th) rather than CPU limitations.

Q: What is the minimum FPS recorded in the benchmark data?

A: The only minimum FPS values provided are for the Medium settings preset. At 1920x1080, the minimum is 70 FPS; at 2560x1440, it is 49 FPS; and at 3840x2160, it is 30 FPS.

GPU Role

The Intel Arc B390 is the primary performance limiter in this configuration. Its benchmark data shows a 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 score of 1482, which places it in the 9th percentile of all GPUs. This is an extremely low score, and the nearest rivals—the NVIDIA GeForce GT 520MX, GeForce 800M, GT 625 OEM, and GT 710—are all similarly dated or low-end parts. The deltaPct values between the Arc B390 and these rivals are small, ranging from 1.3% to 2.7%, indicating that the B390 performs on par with this group of legacy graphics solutions.

The GPU's memory configuration is listed as "System Shared," meaning it relies on shared system memory rather than dedicated VRAM. The memory bandwidth is described as "System Dependent," and the memory clock is also "System Shared." In a racing simulation like Assetto Corsa, which renders detailed tracks and car models, this dependency on shared memory can create performance variability. The GPU's base clock is 300 MHz, with a boost clock of 2500 MHz. The boost clock is substantially higher than the base, but the overall compute power is limited by its 1536 shading units and 24 ROPs.

The pixel rate is listed at 60.00 GPixel/s, and the texture rate is 120.0 GTexel/s. The FP32 performance is 7.680 TFLOPS. These figures are modest, and the measured FPS data reflects this. At 3840x2160 with High settings, the average FPS is 26. Dropping to Low settings at the same resolution increases the average to 50 FPS, which suggests that the GPU is heavily taxed by higher graphical loads. The data shows a clear pattern: as resolution and settings increase, the average FPS falls sharply, confirming the GPU as the bottleneck. The GPU's power consumption is rated at 80 W, but no cooler or power connector details are provided, just that it is an IGP.

CPU Role

The Intel Core i5-14400F provides a stark contrast to the GPU in terms of performance capability. With 10 cores and 16 threads, it is a modern desktop processor based on the Raptor Lake architecture. Its base clock is 2.50 GHz, boosting up to 4.70 GHz. The CPU's benchmark scores are robust: a Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 21645 and a single-core score of 3055. Its average benchmark score is 32279, placing it in the 83rd percentile of all CPUs.

In the context of Assetto Corsa, the CPU's role is to handle game logic, physics calculations, and frame pacing. The data suggests the i5-14400F is more than capable in this regard. The CPU's nearest rivals include the AMD Ryzen 7 PRO 8840U (avg score 32233, 0.1% higher), Intel Core i9-11900 (avg score 32226, 0.2% higher), AMD Ryzen 7 6800HS (avg score 32354, 0.2% higher), and Intel Core i7-12800H (avg score 32121, 0.5% higher). These deltaPct values are all within 0.5% of the i5-14400F, meaning this CPU performs on par with a range of other high-end mobile and desktop chips.

The CPU's memory support includes DDR4 and DDR5, with a dual-channel memory bus. It has 20 MB of shared L3 cache and 1.25 MB of L2 cache per core. The L1 cache is 80 KB per core. The CPU's TDP is 65 W, and it uses an Intel Socket 1700. The launch MSRP is $196. The CPU's high single-thread performance, as evidenced by its Cinebench R23 single-core score of 3055, is crucial for a simulation game that may not fully utilize all threads. The data indicates that the CPU is not the limiting factor; the FPS is consistently low across all settings, which points directly to the GPU's inability to keep up with the CPU's frame generation requests.

How This Combo Ranks

The combo rank of 2566 out of 2897 places this system in the 11th percentile of all tested combinations for Assetto Corsa. This is a very low ranking, indicating that the vast majority of other CPU and GPU pairings deliver higher performance in this game. The rank is directly attributable to the GPU's performance, as the CPU's 83rd percentile ranking would suggest a much higher overall position if the graphics component were more capable.

To contextualize the ranking, one must look at the individual component percentiles. The CPU is a strong performer, but the GPU is in the 9th percentile. The combination of a top-tier CPU with a bottom-tier GPU results in a system that is severely unbalanced for gaming. The rank of 2566 means that 331 other combos perform worse, but the vast majority—2565 combos—perform better. This places the system in a position where it can handle the game at low settings and lower resolutions, but it will struggle to provide a smooth experience at higher graphical presets or 4K resolution.

The data shows that this is not a system built for high-refresh-rate or high-fidelity racing. The measured FPS at 1080p Low is 118, which is playable, but the Ultra preset at the same resolution drops to 51 FPS. At 4K, the Ultra preset averages only 22 FPS, which is not a playable experience. The combo rank reflects this reality: it is a low-tier performer in the grand scheme of tested hardware.

Measured FPS Breakdown

The measured FPS data provides a comprehensive look at how this combo performs across three resolutions and four settings presets. At 1920x1080, the results are as follows: Low settings produce an average of 118 FPS, Medium produces 83 FPS (with a minimum of 70 and maximum of 95), High produces 62 FPS, and Ultra produces 51 FPS. The gap between Low and Ultra is 67 FPS, showing a steep performance cost for higher visual fidelity.

Moving to 2560x1440, the averages drop considerably. Low settings average 82 FPS, Medium averages 58 FPS (minimum 49, maximum 67), High averages 44 FPS, and Ultra averages 36 FPS. The difference between Low and Ultra at this resolution is 46 FPS. The Medium preset's minimum FPS of 49 is still above 30, but the Ultra preset's average of 36 would result in noticeable stuttering.

At 3840x2160, the performance becomes marginal. Low settings average 50 FPS, Medium averages 35 FPS (minimum 30, maximum 40), High averages 26 FPS, and Ultra averages 22 FPS. The Low preset is the only one that approaches a playable level at 4K, and even it falls short of a consistent 60 FPS target. The Ultra preset's 22 FPS is effectively unplayable for a racing simulation where smooth frame pacing is critical for control.

The data shows a consistent pattern: the performance drop from 1080p to 1440p and then to 4K is significant at every settings level. For example, at High settings, the FPS goes from 62 at 1080p to 44 at 1440p, and then to 26 at 4K. This represents a 29% drop from 1080p to 1440p, and a 41% drop from 1440p to 4K.

Settings Recommendations

Based on the measured FPS data, the optimal settings preset depends heavily on the user's target resolution and tolerance for frame rate variability. For a consistent 60 FPS experience, the data suggests that 1920x1080 with Low settings is the only configuration that reliably exceeds this threshold, averaging 118 FPS. The Medium preset at 1080p averages 83 FPS, which is also above 60, but the minimum FPS of 70 indicates some frame dips.

For users with a 1440p monitor, the Low settings preset is the only one that provides an average above 60 FPS, at 82 FPS. The Medium preset at 1440p averages 58 FPS, which is close to but not quite at the 60 FPS target. The High and Ultra presets at 1440p, averaging 44 and 36 FPS respectively, are not recommended for competitive or immersive play, as the frame rate will be noticeably choppy.

At 4K resolution, the data indicates that Low settings is the only viable option, averaging 50 FPS. This is below 60 FPS but may be acceptable for less demanding play. The Medium preset at 4K averages 35 FPS, and the High and Ultra presets are not playable. The data suggests that this combo is best suited for 1080p gaming at Low or Medium settings, or 1440p gaming at Low settings. Pushing the graphics settings higher will result in a significant degradation of frame rate that could impact gameplay.

Resolution Scaling

The FPS data reveals a clear trend in how this combo scales with resolution. Moving from 1920x1080 to 2560x1440, the average FPS at Low settings drops from 118 to 82, a decrease of 30.5%. At Medium settings, the drop is from 83 to 58, a 30.1% decrease. At High settings, the drop is from 62 to 44, a 29.0% decrease. At Ultra settings, the drop is from 51 to 36, a 29.4% decrease. The percentage drop is remarkably consistent, hovering around 30% across all settings.

When moving from 2560x1440 to 3840x2160, the drops become more pronounced. At Low settings, the average FPS falls from 82 to 50, a 39.0% decrease. At Medium settings, it falls from 58 to 35, a 39.7% decrease. At High settings, it falls from 44 to 26, a 40.9% decrease. At Ultra settings, it falls from 36 to 22, a 38.9% decrease. The drop from 1440p to 4K is consistently around 39-41%, which is a larger relative decrease than the 1080p to 1440p transition.

This scaling behavior is indicative of a GPU-bound system. The consistent percentage drops across all settings presets suggest that the GPU is the primary determinant of frame rate, and the resolution increase is directly translating to a proportional increase in rendering load. If the CPU were the bottleneck, we would expect to see smaller FPS differences at higher resolutions, as the CPU would be the limiting factor regardless of resolution. The data shows the opposite: the FPS drops significantly as resolution increases, confirming that the Intel Arc B390 is the limiting component. The CPU's strong single-thread performance is sufficient to feed the GPU, but the GPU's low compute power cannot handle the increased pixel count at higher resolutions.