Doom

The Intel Core Ultra 5 245 paired with the Intel Arc B370 delivers a playable but constrained experience in Doom, with performance that scales predictably across resolutions and settings. The combination ranks 2696th out of 2930 tested combos, placing it in the lower tier of systems evaluated for this title. While the CPU demonstrates strong synthetic capabilities, the GPU’s modest benchmark standing limits overall frame rates, particularly at higher resolutions.

How This Combo Ranks

The combination of the Intel Core Ultra 5 245 and Intel Arc B370 sits near the bottom of the tested field for Doom, with a combo rank of 2696 out of 2930 combinations. This places the pairing in roughly the 8th percentile of all tested systems, indicating that a substantial majority of hardware configurations deliver higher average frame rates in this game. The ranking reflects the GPU’s position as the primary constraint; the Arc B370 holds a percentile rank of 5 among all GPUs, with an average benchmark score of 1184 in 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12. Its nearest rivals in synthetic testing include the ATI Mobility Radeon HD 5570 (1186, 0.2% faster), ATI Radeon HD 5770 (1190, 0.5% faster), and AMD Radeon HD 7650M (1192, 0.7% faster), while the AMD FirePro M2000 trails slightly at 1168 (1.4% slower). These deltas are minimal, underscoring that the Arc B370 performs in a narrow band around these legacy and low-power parts.

The CPU, by contrast, is a far stronger component. The Intel Core Ultra 5 245 achieves an average benchmark score of 48995, ranking in the 90th percentile among all CPUs. Its nearest rivals in average score are the AMD Ryzen 7 PRO 5755G (49196, 0.4% slower), AMD Ryzen 9 7900 (49228, 0.5% slower), Intel Xeon Gold 5318H (48698, 0.6% faster), and Intel Core i5-14600K (48618, 0.8% faster). This places the Ultra 5 245 within a tight cluster of high-end desktop and workstation processors, all within roughly one percentage point of each other in aggregate performance. The data indicates that the CPU is not the limiting factor in this combo; rather, the Arc B370’s low percentile ranking drags the overall system down. In Doom, the measured FPS numbers align with this interpretation, showing that the GPU becomes the bottleneck as resolution and settings increase.

FAQ

Q: How does this combo rank among all tested combinations for Doom?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 5 245 with the Intel Arc B370 ranks 2696th out of 2930 tested combos, placing it in the lower tier of systems evaluated for this game.

Q: What is the best average FPS this combo achieves in Doom?

A: The highest measured average FPS is 96, achieved at 1920x1080 resolution with Low settings. The next best is 84 FPS at the same resolution with Medium settings.

Q: Is the CPU or GPU the stronger component in this pairing?

A: The CPU is significantly stronger, ranking in the 90th percentile among all CPUs with an average benchmark score of 48995. The GPU ranks in the 5th percentile among all GPUs with an average score of 1184, indicating the GPU is the primary performance limiter.

Q: What settings produce a consistent 60+ FPS experience?

A: At 1920x1080, Low settings average 96 FPS and Medium settings average 84 FPS, both exceeding the 60 FPS threshold. At 2560x1440, only Low settings reach 62 FPS, while Medium drops to 54 FPS.

Q: How does the CPU’s multi-core performance compare to its single-core performance?

A: In Cinebench R23, the CPU scores 32924 in multi-core and 4648 in single-core. In Cinebench R20, the scores are 13828 multi-core and 1952 single-core, showing strong scaling across cores.

Q: What is the minimum FPS recorded for this combo?

A: The lowest minimum FPS recorded is 25, observed at 3840x2160 with Medium settings. The corresponding average FPS at that configuration is 29, with a maximum of 34.

Settings Recommendations

The measured data reveals a clear hierarchy of playability across settings and resolutions. At 1920x1080, the combo delivers its most comfortable experience. Low settings produce an average of 96 FPS, Medium settings yield 84 FPS, and High settings still manage 71 FPS. Ultra settings drop to 58 FPS, which falls below the 60 FPS threshold but remains playable for many users. For a smooth, responsive experience at this resolution, Medium settings offer the best balance, providing 84 FPS average with a minimum of 71 FPS and a maximum of 96 FPS, as recorded in the measured rows. This configuration avoids the visual compromises of Low while maintaining a significant margin above the 60 FPS baseline.

At 2560x1440, the options narrow. Low settings achieve 62 FPS average, which is just above the 60 FPS mark, while Medium settings fall to 54 FPS. High settings average 46 FPS, and Ultra drops to 37 FPS. For users prioritizing frame rate at this resolution, Low settings are the only reliable choice for maintaining 60 FPS, but the margin is slim. Those willing to accept a slightly lower frame rate may find Medium settings acceptable, as the recorded minimum is 46 FPS and maximum is 62 FPS, but the average of 54 FPS indicates occasional dips below the target.

At 3840x2160, the combo struggles across all settings. Low averages 34 FPS, Medium averages 29 FPS, High averages 25 FPS, and Ultra averages 20 FPS. None of these configurations reach playable frame rates for fast-paced action, and even Low settings fall well short of the 60 FPS target. The data suggests that 4K gaming is not viable with this pairing, as the GPU lacks the throughput to maintain acceptable performance. The optimal experience, based on the measured rows, is 1920x1080 with Medium settings, which provides the highest average FPS while retaining moderate visual quality. For users who prioritize higher resolutions, the trade-offs are steep, and the data indicates that reducing resolution to 1080p is the most effective way to achieve smooth gameplay.

Measured FPS Breakdown

The measured FPS data spans three resolutions and four settings presets, providing a comprehensive view of the combo’s performance envelope. At 1920x1080, the results are as follows: Low settings produce an average of 96 FPS, Medium settings produce 84 FPS with a minimum of 71 and maximum of 96, High settings produce 71 FPS, and Ultra settings produce 58 FPS. This resolution demonstrates the widest performance range, with a 38 FPS spread between Low and Ultra. The Medium preset’s minimum of 71 FPS indicates that even during demanding scenes, the frame rate stays comfortably above the 60 FPS threshold, making it the most consistent option.

At 2560x1440, the average FPS values are 62 for Low, 54 for Medium, 46 for High, and 37 for Ultra. The Medium preset records a minimum of 46 FPS and a maximum of 62 FPS, showing a narrower band than at 1080p. The step from Low to Medium represents a 12.9% drop in average FPS, while the step from Medium to High is a 14.8% drop, and from High to Ultra is a 19.6% drop. These diminishing returns suggest that the GPU’s fill rate and shading capacity become increasingly strained as settings rise. The 62 FPS average at Low is the only configuration at this resolution that meets the 60 FPS target, and it does so with little headroom.

At 3840x2160, the average FPS values are 34 for Low, 29 for Medium, 25 for High, and 20 for Ultra. The Medium preset records a minimum of 25 FPS and a maximum of 34 FPS. The gap between Low and Ultra is 14 FPS, representing a 41.2% reduction in performance. None of these configurations approach playable frame rates, and the data indicates that the Arc B370’s System Shared memory and low pixel rate of 48.00 GPixel/s are insufficient for 4K rendering in this title. The texture rate of 96.00 GTexel/s and FP32 performance of 6.144 TFLOPS further corroborate the GPU’s limitations at high resolutions. Across all resolutions, the pattern is consistent: lower settings yield proportionally higher frame rates, but the absolute performance ceiling is set by the GPU’s capabilities.

Resolution Scaling

The transition from 1920x1080 to 2560x1440 and then to 3840x2160 reveals how the combo’s performance degrades with increasing pixel count. At 1920x1080 with Medium settings, the average FPS is 84. Moving to 2560x1440 with the same settings, the average drops to 54 FPS, a reduction of 35.7%. This is a substantial decline, reflecting the 78% increase in pixel count from 1080p to 1440p. The GPU’s limited shading units (1280) and ROPs (20) struggle to keep up with the additional workload. At 3840x2160 with Medium settings, the average falls to 29 FPS, a further 46.3% drop from the 1440p result, and a total reduction of 65.5% from the 1080p baseline. The 4K resolution has four times the pixels of 1080p, but the frame rate does not scale linearly, indicating that memory bandwidth (System Dependent) and the System Shared memory architecture create additional bottlenecks.

Comparing Low settings across resolutions provides a clearer picture of the scaling behavior. At 1080p Low, the average is 96 FPS. At 1440p Low, it drops to 62 FPS, a 35.4% decrease. At 4K Low, it falls to 34 FPS, a 45.2% decrease from 1440p and a 64.6% decrease from 1080p. These consistent percentage drops across settings suggest that the resolution scaling is primarily a function of the GPU’s pixel throughput, rather than CPU limitations. The CPU’s strong performance—such as a Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 32924 and single-core score of 4648—indicates that it can feed the GPU adequately at lower resolutions, but the GPU’s FP32 throughput of 6.144 TFLOPS and pixel rate of 48.00 GPixel/s cap the output. At 1080p, the CPU has more headroom, allowing the GPU to operate closer to its limits. At 4K, the GPU is saturated, and the CPU’s role diminishes. The data points to the Arc B370 as the limiting component, as the frame rate drops are more pronounced at higher resolutions, where GPU load dominates.

CPU Role

The Intel Core Ultra 5 245 brings substantial processing power to this combo, with 14 cores and 14 threads based on the Arrow Lake-S architecture. Its base clock of 3.50 GHz and boost clock of 5.10 GHz provide strong single-threaded performance, as evidenced by Cinebench R23 single-core score of 4648 and Cinebench R20 single-core score of 1952. The CPU’s 24 MB of shared L3 cache and 3 MB L2 cache per core support efficient data access for game logic and physics. In Doom, which relies heavily on single-threaded performance for frame pacing, this CPU should not be a bottleneck at any tested resolution. The measured FPS patterns support this, as the frame rates scale smoothly with resolution and settings, without the erratic drops that would indicate CPU stalls.

The CPU’s multi-threaded capabilities are equally robust, with Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 32924 and Cinebench R20 multi-core score of 13828. PassMark multi-thread score of 38706 and integer math score of 91187 further reinforce its strength in parallel workloads. However, Doom’s rendering pipeline is primarily GPU-bound, and the CPU’s high scores do not translate into proportionally higher frame rates because the Arc B370 limits output. The CPU’s 90th percentile ranking among all CPUs, compared to the GPU’s 5th percentile, highlights the imbalance. In synthetic tests, the CPU’s nearest rivals include the AMD Ryzen 9 7900 (0.5% slower) and Intel Core i5-14600K (0.8% faster), indicating it competes with high-end desktop chips. Yet in gaming, the GPU’s 1280 shading units and 10 RT cores are the deciding factors.

The CPU’s memory support for DDR5 with a dual-channel bus and 102.4 GB/s bandwidth provides adequate data throughput for the System Shared GPU memory, but the GPU’s memory bandwidth is listed as System Dependent, meaning it relies on the same DDR5 pool. This shared architecture can create contention, particularly at higher resolutions where the GPU requires more memory bandwidth. At 1080p, the CPU’s fast single-core performance ensures that draw calls and game logic are processed quickly, allowing the GPU to reach its maximum frame rates. At 4K, the GPU’s pixel rate of 48.00 GPixel/s and texture rate of 96.00 GTexel/s are insufficient, and the CPU’s role becomes secondary. The data suggests that upgrading the GPU would yield far greater gains in Doom than upgrading the CPU, as the Ultra 5 245 already performs at a level that exceeds the GPU’s capabilities. The combination’s 2696th rank out of 2930 combos is directly attributable to the GPU, not the CPU, which ranks in the 90th percentile of all processors.