Barony

# Barony with Intel Core Ultra 5 245 + Intel Arc B390

The Intel Core Ultra 5 245 paired with the Intel Arc B390 delivers a playable but constrained experience in Barony, with the GPU acting as the primary bottleneck across most settings. The combo ranks 2601st out of 2935 tested configurations, placing it in the bottom 11% of all combinations. At 1080p Low, the system reaches 159 FPS, but this drops precipitously to just 24 FPS at 4K Ultra. The CPU, a 14-core/14-thread Arrow Lake part with a 5.10 GHz boost clock, is never the limiting factor in this roguelike; instead, the Arc B390's integrated-class performance caps frame rates, particularly at higher resolutions and quality presets.

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

The Intel Core Ultra 5 245 is a 14-core, 14-thread desktop processor built on the Arrow Lake architecture using a 3 nm process from TSMC. It operates at a 3.50 GHz base clock and boosts up to 5.10 GHz, with a 65 W TDP. The chip includes 24 MB of shared L3 cache and 3 MB of L2 cache per core, plus 192 KB of L1 cache per core. It supports DDR5 memory on a dual-channel bus with a bandwidth of 102.4 GB/s, and it integrates Arc Xe-LPG Graphics with 64 execution units.

In Barony, a roguelike with relatively modest CPU demands, this processor is far more capable than the workload requires. The data supports this conclusion: the CPU scores 32,924 in Cinebench R23 multi-core and 4,648 in single-core, placing it in the 90th percentile of all CPUs. Its PassMark single-thread score is 4,394, and its multithread score is 38,706. These figures indicate a processor that can easily handle the game's logic, AI, and procedural generation without breaking a sweat.

The nearest rival comparisons confirm the CPU's position in the broader market. The AMD Ryzen 7 PRO 5755G averages 49,196 points, just 0.4% higher than the Ultra 5 245's 48,995 average benchmark score. The AMD Ryzen 9 7900 is 0.5% ahead, while the Intel Xeon Gold 5318H trails by 0.6% and the Intel Core i5-14600K trails by 0.8%. These tiny deltas show the Ultra 5 245 sits in a tightly contested performance band, but for Barony specifically, the CPU's headroom means it never becomes the constraint.

The measured FPS data reinforces this. At 1080p Low, the combo produces 159 FPS, which is far above what a CPU-bound scenario would show if the processor were the limiting factor. Even at 1080p Ultra, the system delivers 73 FPS — a level that would be impossible if the CPU were struggling. The pattern across resolutions shows the GPU taking over as the bottleneck at higher settings, with the CPU consistently providing ample frame generation capacity. In practical terms, the Ultra 5 245's 14 threads and high boost clock are more than sufficient for Barony's single-threaded and lightly threaded workloads, leaving all performance variance to the graphics subsystem.

FAQ — 4-6 Q&A pairs answerable from FACT PACK data

Q: What is the best resolution to play Barony with this combo?

A: 1920x1080 is the strongest choice. At 1080p Low, the system hits 159 FPS, and even at 1080p Ultra it maintains 73 FPS. Moving to 2560x1440 drops Ultra to 46 FPS, and 3840x2160 Ultra falls to 24 FPS, so 1080p provides the only fully fluid experience across all quality settings.

Q: How does the Intel Arc B390 compare to its nearest GPU rivals?

A: The Arc B390 scores 1,482 in the 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 benchmark, placing it in the 9th percentile of all GPUs. Its closest rival, the NVIDIA GeForce GT 520MX, scores 1,463 (1.3% lower), followed by the GeForce 800M at 1,460 (1.5% lower), the GeForce GT 625 OEM at 1,446 (2.5% lower), and the GeForce GT 710 at 1,443 (2.7% lower). This shows the Arc B390 is marginally faster than these older low-end parts but still in the same performance class.

Q: Is the Intel Core Ultra 5 245 a bottleneck in Barony?

A: No. The CPU's benchmark scores — including 32,924 in Cinebench R23 multi-core and 4,648 in single-core — far exceed what Barony requires. The 90th percentile ranking among all CPUs, combined with FPS scaling that tracks resolution changes rather than core utilization, indicates the processor is never the limiting factor in this game.

Q: What frame rates can I expect at 1440p with Medium settings?

A: At 2560x1440 with Medium settings, the combo delivers an average of 75 FPS, with a minimum of 64 FPS and a maximum of 86 FPS. This is a playable range for most users, though it is noticeably lower than the 118 FPS average at 1080p Medium.

Q: How does this combo rank among all tested systems in Barony?

A: The combination ranks 2601st out of 2935 tested combos, putting it in the bottom 11.4% of all configurations. This low ranking is driven primarily by the Arc B390's weak GPU performance, not the CPU, which performs well above the median.

Q: What is the difference between Low and Ultra settings at 4K?

A: At 3840x2160, Low settings produce 53 FPS, while Ultra drops to 24 FPS — a 29 FPS gap. The Medium preset lands at 39 FPS, and High at 34 FPS. This steep scaling shows that quality settings have a massive impact on performance at 4K, more than doubling the frame rate when moving from Ultra to Low.

Resolution Scaling — how FPS drops from 1080p to 4K and what it says about the limiting component

The resolution scaling data reveals a GPU-bound system with clear pixel-throughput limitations. At 1080p Low, the combo achieves 159 FPS. Moving to 1440p Low drops this to 100 FPS, a 37.1% reduction. At 4K Low, the frame rate falls to 53 FPS, which is 66.7% lower than the 1080p Low result. This dramatic scaling with pixel count is the signature of a GPU-limited scenario.

The same pattern appears across all quality settings. At 1080p High, the system hits 102 FPS; 1440p High drops to 64 FPS; and 4K High falls to 34 FPS. For Medium settings, the progression is 118 FPS at 1080p, 75 FPS at 1440p, and 39 FPS at 4K. Ultra settings show the steepest drop: 73 FPS at 1080p, 46 FPS at 1440p, and just 24 FPS at 4K.

The Arc B390's specifications explain this behavior. With 1,536 shading units, 48 texture mapping units, and 24 raster output units, the GPU has limited fillrate and pixel-processing capacity. Its pixel rate is 60.00 GPixel/s and texture rate is 120.0 GTexel/s, with FP32 performance of 7.680 TFLOPS. Compare this to the CPU's massive headroom — the Ultra 5 245 sits in the 90th percentile of all processors — and it becomes clear that the GPU is the sole constraint.

The FPS drop from 1440p to 4K is proportionally larger than the drop from 1080p to 1440p in most settings. For Low, the 1440p-to-4K drop is 47 FPS (from 100 to 53), while the 1080p-to-1440p drop is 59 FPS (from 159 to 100). This nonlinear scaling suggests the GPU's memory bandwidth — listed as "System Dependent" since the B390 uses shared system memory — becomes increasingly problematic at higher resolutions. The GPU's integrated design, with system-shared memory and no dedicated VRAM, means that 4K workloads overwhelm the available bandwidth, causing frame rates to plummet.

How This Combo Ranks — use comboRankInGame vs other tested combos

The Intel Core Ultra 5 245 + Intel Arc B390 combination ranks 2601st out of 2935 tested combos in Barony. This places the system in the bottom 11.4% of all configurations, a position that might surprise given the capable CPU but makes sense when the GPU's performance class is considered.

The Arc B390's 3DMark Steel Nomad score of 1,482 puts it in the 9th percentile of all GPUs — a bottom-decile result. Its nearest rivals are all older NVIDIA entry-level parts: the GT 520MX (1,463), GeForce 800M (1,460), GT 625 OEM (1,446), and GT 710 (1,443). The Arc B390 beats each of these by 1.3% to 2.7%, but these are all extremely low-performance GPUs by modern standards. That the combo's ranking is in the bottom 11% of all tested systems aligns with the GPU's bottom 9% percentile ranking.

The CPU, by contrast, ranks in the 90th percentile of all CPUs, with an average benchmark score of 48,995. This is nearly identical to the AMD Ryzen 7 PRO 5755G (49,196, 0.4% higher), AMD Ryzen 9 7900 (49,228, 0.5% higher), Intel Xeon Gold 5318H (48,698, 0.6% lower), and Intel Core i5-14600K (48,618, 0.8% lower). The Ultra 5 245 is thus a high-end processor paired with a bottom-tier GPU, and the combo's ranking reflects the GPU's dominance in determining game performance.

The measured FPS data supports this interpretation. At 1080p Low, 159 FPS is a respectable result, but it is achieved only because the CPU can feed frames quickly while the GPU handles the low pixel count. At 4K Ultra, 24 FPS is essentially unplayable, and the system falls far behind what mid-range or high-end GPU combos would achieve. The 2,601st ranking is therefore a direct consequence of the GPU bottleneck, not a reflection of the CPU's capabilities.

Settings Recommendations — which preset gives the best experience per the measured rows

For the best balance of visual quality and playable frame rates, Medium settings at 1080p are the clear recommendation. The combo delivers 118 FPS average at 1080p Medium, with a minimum of 101 FPS and a maximum of 136 FPS. This is comfortably above the 60 FPS threshold, provides smooth gameplay, and retains more visual fidelity than Low settings. The 101 FPS minimum ensures no significant drops during intense scenes, making this the safest choice for consistent performance.

At 1440p, Medium settings are still viable, producing 75 FPS average with 64 FPS minimum and 86 FPS maximum. This is playable for most users, though the 64 FPS minimum approaches the edge of what might cause noticeable stutter on high-refresh displays. If 1440p is the target resolution, Medium is the recommended preset, as High drops to 64 FPS average and Ultra falls to 46 FPS.

At 4K, no setting provides a fully smooth experience. Low settings achieve 53 FPS, which is borderline but might be acceptable for slower-paced roguelike gameplay. Medium drops to 39 FPS, High to 34 FPS, and Ultra to 24 FPS. For 4K users, Low is the only reasonable option, and even then, the experience will be suboptimal.

For users who prioritize frame rate above all else, 1080p Low delivers 159 FPS, which is excellent for competitive or fast-paced play. However, the jump from Low to Medium at 1080p costs only 41 FPS (from 159 to 118) while likely providing a noticeable visual improvement. The jump from Medium to High costs 16 FPS (118 to 102), and High to Ultra costs 29 FPS (102 to 73). The most efficient upgrade path is from Low to Medium, making Medium the best value in terms of frames-per-second retained versus quality gained.

Measured FPS Breakdown — resolution by resolution, settings by settings, exact numbers

1920x1080 (1080p):

• Low: 159 FPS average
• Medium: 118 FPS average, 101 FPS minimum, 136 FPS maximum
• High: 102 FPS average
• Ultra: 73 FPS average

At 1080p, the combo performs well across all settings. The 159 FPS Low result shows the system's ceiling when pixel load is minimal. Medium maintains a strong 118 FPS with tight minimum/maximum bounds, indicating stable frame pacing. High drops to 102 FPS, still excellent for most displays. Ultra delivers 73 FPS, which is playable but shows the GPU beginning to struggle with additional effects and detail.

2560x1440 (1440p):

• Low: 100 FPS average
• Medium: 75 FPS average, 64 FPS minimum, 86 FPS maximum
• High: 64 FPS average
• Ultra: 46 FPS average

At 1440p, the resolution increase takes a significant toll. Low drops from 159 to 100 FPS, a 37% reduction. Medium falls to 75 FPS, still above 60 but with a 64 FPS minimum that shows the GPU working harder. High at 64 FPS is borderline — playable but at the edge of smoothness. Ultra at 46 FPS is below the 60 FPS threshold and not recommended for fluid gameplay.

3840x2160 (4K):

• Low: 53 FPS average
• Medium: 39 FPS average, 33 FPS minimum, 45 FPS maximum
• High: 34 FPS average
• Ultra: 24 FPS average

At 4K, the Arc B390's limitations become severe. Low achieves 53 FPS, which is the only setting remotely close to playable. Medium drops to 39 FPS, and the 33 FPS minimum indicates occasional stutter. High at 34 FPS and Ultra at 24 FPS are both below playable thresholds. The 4K results highlight the GPU's inability to handle high pixel counts, with the system-shared memory architecture likely contributing to the poor scaling. The difference between 1080p Ultra (73 FPS) and 4K Ultra (24 FPS) is a 49 FPS drop, demonstrating that this combo is best utilized at 1080p or, at most, 1440p with Medium settings.