Dave The Diver

Dave The Diver pairs an AMD Ryzen 5 2600 with an Intel Arc B580, a combination that lands at rank 2780 out of 3710 tested combos for this title. The measured frame rates show a system that is consistently playable across all resolutions, with the Arc B580 providing the muscle to push high and ultra settings at 1440p and 1080p, while the six-core Ryzen 5 2600 keeps pace without becoming a bottleneck in most scenarios. The data indicates a well-balanced pairing for this adventure title, where the GPU does the heavy lifting and the CPU provides adequate support, though the limits of the older Zen architecture become apparent at the highest settings.

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

The AMD Ryzen 5 2600 is a six-core, twelve-thread processor built on the Zen architecture, with a base clock of 3.40 GHz and a boost clock of 3.90 GHz. This 12 nm chip from the 2000 series operates on the AMD Socket AM4 platform and supports dual-channel DDR4 memory with a bandwidth of 46.9 GB/s. The processor carries 16 MB of shared L3 cache and per-core 512 KB L2 cache, which are modest by modern standards but sufficient for the demands of an adventure title like Dave The Diver.

Benchmark data places the Ryzen 5 2600 in the 75th percentile of all CPUs, with an average benchmark score of 21484. Its nearest rivals include the Intel Core Ultra 5 228V, which scores 21440 (0.2% higher), and the Intel Core i9-11900H, which scores 21367 (0.5% lower). The single-thread performance, as measured by PassMark at 2239, is a key indicator for this game, as adventure titles often rely on a few primary threads for game logic and physics. The Geekbench single-core score of 1154 reinforces that the Ryzen 5 2600 is not a top-tier performer in this regard, but it is adequate.

In the context of Dave The Diver, the CPU's role is to feed the GPU with draw calls and handle the game's simulation, which involves managing a restaurant, exploring the ocean, and triggering event sequences. The data shows that at 1080p Low, the system achieves 189 FPS, indicating that the CPU is not the limiting factor at lower settings. However, the gap between 1080p and 4K frame rates reveals a scaling pattern that is typical of a GPU-bound scenario, where the Ryzen 5 2600 has enough headroom to keep the Intel Arc B580 supplied with data. The multi-threaded scores, such as Cinebench R15 multicore at 1248 and PassMark multithread at 13160, suggest that the processor can handle background tasks and multiple game systems without issue, though it does not excel in heavy computational workloads that might cause frame hitches in more complex titles.

How This Combo Ranks — use comboRankInGame vs other tested combos

The combination of the AMD Ryzen 5 2600 and the Intel Arc B580 achieves a rank of 2780 out of 3710 tested combos in Dave The Diver, placing it in the lower third of all pairings tested. This ranking reflects the age of the CPU relative to the GPU, as the Arc B580 is a newer part with a higher performance ceiling. The Intel Arc B580 itself sits in the 68th percentile of all GPUs with an average benchmark score of 23021, and its nearest rivals include the AMD Radeon RX 580 2048SP (0.2% higher), the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2080 (0.6% higher), and the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3080 (0.7% lower).

The delta between the CPU and GPU percentiles highlights a potential imbalance; the Ryzen 5 2600's 75th percentile is above the GPU's 68th percentile, which might suggest the CPU is relatively stronger in synthetic tests. However, in gaming, the single-thread performance is often more critical, and the PassMark single-thread score of 2239 is modest. The combo rank of 2780 indicates that many other pairings were able to extract more performance, likely due to newer CPUs with higher IPC and faster memory support. The data shows that this combo is far from the top of the charts, but it is not the worst either, as there are 930 combos that performed worse. This placement suggests that while the Arc B580 is capable, the Ryzen 5 2600 does not fully unlock its potential in every scenario, particularly at lower resolutions where CPU overhead is more pronounced.

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

The measured FPS data shows a clear and expected scaling pattern as resolution increases from 1920x1080 to 3840x2160. At High settings, the average FPS drops from 141 at 1080p to 106 at 1440p, and then to 71 at 4K. This represents a 25% drop from 1080p to 1440p, and a 33% drop from 1440p to 4K, which is a classic sign of increasing GPU load. The Low settings show a similar trend, with 189 FPS at 1080p, 142 FPS at 1440p, and 95 FPS at 4K. The percentage drops are 25% and 33% respectively, indicating a consistent GPU-bound behavior.

The scaling between Medium and Ultra settings further confirms this. At 1080p Medium, the average is 158 FPS, which drops to 119 at 1440p (25% lower) and 80 at 4K (33% lower). For Ultra, the numbers are 124 FPS at 1080p, 94 at 1440p (24% lower), and 63 at 4K (33% lower). The uniformity of these percentage drops—around 25% between 1080p and 1440p, and 33% between 1440p and 4K—strongly suggests that the Intel Arc B580 is the primary limiting factor. If the CPU were the bottleneck, the frame rates would show a smaller drop when increasing resolution, as the CPU workload would remain constant while the GPU work increases. The data indicates that the Ryzen 5 2600 is providing enough throughput to keep the GPU fed, and the performance ceiling is set by the Arc B580's rendering capabilities.

The only exception to this pattern is at the absolute lowest settings and resolution, where 1080p Low hits 189 FPS. This is high enough that the CPU might start to introduce some overhead, but the fact that the frame rate still scales down by 25% at 1440p Low (142 FPS) suggests that the GPU is still the dominant factor. The data does not show any resolution where the FPS stays flat, which would indicate a CPU bottleneck. Therefore, the limiting component in this combo is the graphics card, which is a positive sign for the longevity of the pairing, as lowering resolution or settings can yield significant performance gains.

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

At 1920x1080, the system delivers high frame rates across all settings. The Low preset achieves an average of 189 FPS, which is the highest measured value in the entire dataset. Medium settings yield an average of 158 FPS, with a minimum of 134 FPS and a maximum of 182 FPS, showing a tight frame time distribution. High settings drop to an average of 141 FPS, while Ultra settings average 124 FPS. The difference between Low and Ultra at 1080p is 65 FPS, which is a significant gap that highlights the impact of graphical fidelity on performance.

Moving to 2560x1440, the frame rates remain strong but show a clear step down. Low settings average 142 FPS, which is still excellent for a 1440p display. Medium settings average 119 FPS, with a minimum of 101 FPS and a maximum of 137 FPS, indicating that the system can maintain smooth gameplay even in demanding scenes. High settings average 106 FPS, and Ultra settings average 94 FPS. The scaling from Low to Ultra at 1440p is 48 FPS, which is a smaller absolute drop than at 1080p, but the relative performance is still solid. All 1440p settings are above the 60 FPS threshold, making this resolution a sweet spot for a high-refresh-rate monitor.

At 3840x2160, the system starts to feel the strain of the higher pixel count. Low settings average 95 FPS, which is still playable, but Medium settings drop to an average of 80 FPS with a minimum of 68 FPS and a maximum of 92 FPS. High settings average 71 FPS, and Ultra settings average 63 FPS. The minimum FPS values for 4K are only available for the Medium preset, showing a floor of 68 FPS, which is just above the 60 FPS target. The data shows that at 4K, the system is best suited for Medium or Low settings if a consistent 60+ FPS experience is desired, while High and Ultra will be playable but may dip below 60 FPS in heavy scenes. The average FPS for Ultra at 63 is the only setting that falls below the 60 FPS mark on average, indicating that the Arc B580 is maxed out at this resolution.

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

The Intel Arc B580 is a discrete graphics card based on the Xe2-HPG architecture, built on a 5 nm process at TSMC. It features 12 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 192-bit bus, providing a bandwidth of 456.0 GB/s. The GPU has 2560 shading units, 160 texture mapping units, and 80 raster output pipelines, along with 20 ray tracing cores. Its base and boost clock are both rated at 2670 MHz, and the memory operates at 2375 MHz with 19 Gbps effective speed. The card has a TDP of 190 W and requires a 450 W power supply.

In Dave The Diver, the GPU's role is to render the vibrant underwater environments, character models, and UI elements. The 12 GB VRAM is more than sufficient for this title, as the measured frame rates do not indicate any memory-related stutters or performance cliffs. The data shows that the Arc B580 is capable of delivering high frame rates at 1080p and 1440p, with the 456.0 GB/s bandwidth providing ample data throughput for the game's textures. The GPU's benchmark scores include a PassMark G3D score of 15748 and a 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 score of 3068, which place it in the 68th percentile of all GPUs.

The comparison to rivals is telling. The Arc B580's average benchmark score of 23021 is nearly identical to the AMD Radeon RX 580 2048SP (23061, 0.2% higher) and the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2080 (22895, 0.6% lower). This indicates that the Arc B580 is a mid-range performer that trades blows with older high-end cards. In Dave The Diver, the GPU's performance is the primary driver of the FPS, as evidenced by the resolution scaling data. The 16 MB L3 cache on the CPU and the 456.0 GB/s GPU bandwidth work together to ensure that the game's assets are streamed efficiently, but the GPU's raw compute power, measured at 13.67 TFLOPS FP32, is what ultimately sets the frame rate limits. The card's texture rate of 427.2 GTexel/s and pixel rate of 213.6 GPixel/s are adequate for the game's visual complexity, allowing it to maintain high averages at 1440p and playable averages at 4K.

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

Based on the measured FPS data, the optimal settings for this combo depend on the target resolution and desired frame rate. For a 1080p display, the High preset at 141 FPS offers an excellent balance between visual quality and performance, providing a smooth experience on any monitor. The Ultra preset at 124 FPS is also viable, and the 17 FPS drop from High to Ultra may be worth it for users who prioritize image quality. The Medium preset at 158 FPS is the best choice for users with 144Hz or 165Hz displays, as it provides a high enough frame rate to take full advantage of the refresh rate while still offering a visually rich experience.

At 1440p, the High preset at 106 FPS is the recommended choice, as it delivers a buttery-smooth experience on a 100Hz or 120Hz monitor. The Ultra preset at 94 FPS is also playable and offers the best visual fidelity, but the 12 FPS difference from High might be noticeable in fast-paced scenes. The Medium preset at 119 FPS is the best option for users with 120Hz displays who want to ensure no frame drops, as the minimum of 101 FPS provides a comfortable margin. The Low preset at 142 FPS is overkill for most 1440p monitors and should be avoided unless maximum frame rates are required for competitive play.

For 4K gaming, the system is more constrained. The Medium preset at an average of 80 FPS, with a minimum of 68 FPS, offers the best experience, as it provides a playable frame rate that stays above the 60 FPS threshold in most scenarios. The High preset at 71 FPS is also acceptable, but the average is closer to the 60 FPS line, and the minimum FPS is not reported, which could be a concern for stutter-sensitive players. The Low preset at 95 FPS is surprisingly strong at 4K and is the best choice for users with a 4K 120Hz display, as it provides a significant performance boost over Medium at 15 FPS. The Ultra preset at 63 FPS is the only setting that averages below 60 FPS and should be avoided for a consistent experience. The data suggests that for 4K, choosing Medium settings strikes the best balance between visual fidelity and smooth performance, while Low settings are available for those who prioritize frame rate above all else.