Downfall

# How This Combo Ranks

The Intel Core i5-14600K paired with the Intel Arc B370 lands at rank 2688 out of 2928 tested combinations for Downfall, placing it in the bottom 8% of systems evaluated. This is a striking result for a CPU that individually sits in the 90th percentile among all processors, and it immediately signals that the graphics solution is the dominant constraint in this pairing.

The combo's ranking becomes more telling when examining the GPU's standalone position. The Arc B370 sits at only the 5th percentile among all GPUs, with an average benchmark score of 1184 in 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12. Its nearest rivals in that benchmark, the ATI Mobility Radeon HD 5570, ATI Radeon HD 5770, and AMD Radeon HD 7650M, all score within 0.7% of the Arc B370, forming a cluster of legacy and low-power parts. The deltaPct values here are remarkably tight: the Arc trails the HD 5570 by just 0.2%, trails the HD 5770 by 0.5%, trails the HD 7650M by 0.7%, and actually leads the AMD FirePro M2000 by 1.4%. This tells a coherent story: the Arc B370 is not merely weak in absolute terms; it is statistically indistinguishable from graphics hardware that is over a decade old.

What makes this ranking particularly curious is the contrast with the CPU's competitive position. The Core i5-14600K's average benchmark score of 48618 places it within 0.8% of the Intel Xeon Gold 5318H, the AMD EPYC 4345P, the Intel Core Ultra 5 245HX, and the Intel Core Ultra 5 245. Its nearest rival deltas range from -0.8% to +0.7%, meaning the CPU is essentially tied with those four alternatives. Yet none of that compute headroom translates into a favorable position in Downfall, because the game's frame delivery is bottlenecked well before the CPU's capabilities become relevant.

The data suggests that this combination should be understood as a CPU-centric build paired with an integrated-class graphics engine. The Arc B370's 25 W TDP and IGP slot width reinforce that classification, and the measured FPS numbers confirm that the combo's rank reflects GPU-limited performance rather than any deficiency in the processor.

# GPU Role

The Intel Arc B370 is a peculiar GPU entry: it is built on the Xe3-LPG architecture, fabricated on a 3 nm process, and carries the designation "Arc Graphics-M (Panther Lake)." Its base clock is 300 MHz with a boost clock of 2400 MHz, which is a substantial clock range and suggests the silicon can scale significantly under load. However, the memory configuration is where the data reveals a fundamental limitation: the Arc B370 uses "System Shared" memory, with "System Dependent" bandwidth. There is no dedicated VRAM pool, no discrete memory bus width, and no independent bandwidth figure, the GPU borrows from the host system's DDR4 or DDR5 memory.

The compute resources are modest. The GPU has 1280 shading units, 40 texture mapping units, and 20 render output units. Its pixel rate is 48.00 GPixel/s and texture rate is 96.00 GTexel/s. FP32 throughput is 6.144 TFLOPS, with FP16 at 12.29 TFLOPS (2:1). It also includes 10 ray tracing cores. In isolation, these specs describe a low-power, integrated-style GPU that is clearly not designed for demanding 3D workloads. The 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 score of 1184, combined with the 5th percentile ranking, confirms this.

In the context of Downfall specifically, the GPU's role is decisive. Look at the measured FPS at 3840x2160: High settings yield 29 FPS average, Medium yields 35 FPS (with a min of 30 and max of 40), Low yields 43 FPS, and Ultra drops to 18 FPS. The spread from Low to Ultra is 25 FPS, which is a wide range, but even the best case, 43 FPS at Low, is below the 60 FPS threshold that many games target. At 2560x1440, the GPU manages 68 FPS at Low, 56 FPS at Medium (min 48, max 64), 46 FPS at High, and 29 FPS at Ultra. Only at 1920x1080 does the GPU break past 60 FPS comfortably, with 96 FPS at Low and 78 FPS at Medium (min 67, max 90), while High sits at 64 FPS and Ultra falls to 40 FPS.

The shared-memory architecture is likely a key factor here. With no dedicated VRAM, the GPU must compete with the CPU for memory bandwidth, and the "System Dependent" bandwidth means performance can vary based on the system's memory configuration. The data shows that the GPU's performance collapses as resolution increases, which is consistent with a memory-bandwidth-limited design. The boost clock of 2400 MHz is high, but it cannot compensate for the lack of dedicated memory resources.

# FAQ

Q: How does the Intel Arc B370 compare to its nearest GPU rivals in raw benchmark terms?

A: In 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12, the Arc B370 scores 1184. Its nearest rivals are the ATI Mobility Radeon HD 5570 (1186, 0.2% ahead), ATI Radeon HD 5770 (1190, 0.5% ahead), AMD Radeon HD 7650M (1192, 0.7% ahead), and AMD FirePro M2000 (1168, 1.4% behind). The Arc B370 is effectively tied with all four.

Q: What is the best FPS the combo achieves in Downfall, and at what settings?

A: The highest average FPS recorded is 96 at 1920x1080 with Low settings. The next best is 78 FPS at 1920x1080 Medium, followed by 68 FPS at 2560x1440 Low.

Q: Does the combo ever hit 60 FPS at 4K in Downfall?

A: No. At 3840x2160, the best average FPS is 43 at Low settings. Medium averages 35 FPS, High averages 29 FPS, and Ultra averages 18 FPS. None of the 4K configurations reach 60 FPS.

Q: How does the CPU's individual performance ranking compare to the combo's in-game ranking?

A: The Core i5-14600K sits at the 90th percentile among all CPUs, with a 3DMark-style average benchmark score of 48618. However, the combo ranks 2688 out of 2928 in Downfall, which is in the bottom 8% of tested combinations. The CPU is strong, but the GPU drags the overall result down.

Q: What is the Arc B370's TDP and form factor, and what does that imply?

A: The Arc B370 has a TDP of 25 W and uses an IGP slot width with no power connectors. This is an integrated-class GPU, which explains its low performance ceiling in Downfall despite a 2400 MHz boost clock.

Q: Are there any settings where the combo achieves a playable frame rate with minimums above 60 FPS?

A: The only measured configuration with a minimum FPS above 60 is 1920x1080 Medium, which has a min of 67 FPS and an average of 78 FPS. At 1920x1080 Low, the average is 96 FPS but no minimum is listed. The 2560x1440 Medium configuration has a min of 48 FPS, below 60.

# Measured FPS Breakdown

The measured FPS data covers three resolutions and four settings presets, providing a full matrix of 12 configurations. At 1920x1080, the combo delivers its strongest results. Low settings produce an average of 96 FPS. Medium settings yield 78 FPS on average, with a minimum of 67 and a maximum of 90. High settings drop to 64 FPS average. Ultra settings fall to 40 FPS average. The progression from Low to Ultra at 1080p is a 56 FPS drop, which is a substantial penalty for higher visual fidelity.

At 2560x1440, the performance tiers shift downward. Low settings average 68 FPS. Medium settings average 56 FPS, with a minimum of 48 and a maximum of 64. High settings average 46 FPS. Ultra settings average 29 FPS. The drop from 1080p to 1440p at the same settings is notable: Low falls from 96 to 68 FPS (-28), Medium from 78 to 56 FPS (-22), High from 64 to 46 FPS (-18), and Ultra from 40 to 29 FPS (-11).

At 3840x2160, the combo struggles to maintain playable frame rates. Low settings average 43 FPS. Medium settings average 35 FPS, with a minimum of 30 and a maximum of 40. High settings average 29 FPS. Ultra settings average 18 FPS. The 4K results are uniformly below 45 FPS, and even the Low preset fails to reach 60 FPS. The minimum FPS data is sparse, only Medium settings at each resolution include min/max values, but the available figures (30-40 at 4K, 48-64 at 1440p, 67-90 at 1080p) suggest that frame pacing becomes more inconsistent as resolution increases.

The pattern across all resolutions is consistent: Low is the playable tier, Medium is acceptable at lower resolutions, High is marginal, and Ultra is reserved for static scenes or screenshots. The gap between Low and Ultra widens at lower resolutions, 56 FPS at 1080p versus 25 FPS at 4K, which indicates that the GPU's absolute performance ceiling, rather than settings overhead, is the limiting factor at higher resolutions.

# Resolution Scaling

The resolution scaling behavior in Downfall reveals a GPU that is severely bandwidth-limited. Moving from 1920x1080 to 2560x1440 at Low settings, the average FPS drops from 96 to 68, a 29% reduction. Moving from 1440p to 4K at Low, the FPS drops from 68 to 43, a 37% reduction. The cumulative drop from 1080p to 4K at Low is from 96 to 43 FPS, a 55% decrease.

The scaling at Medium settings is similar in shape but slightly shallower in percentage terms. From 1080p Medium (78 FPS) to 1440p Medium (56 FPS) is a 28% drop, and from 1440p Medium to 4K Medium (35 FPS) is a 38% drop. The cumulative Medium drop is from 78 to 35 FPS, a 55% decrease, identical to Low.

At High settings, the drops are 28% (64 to 46 FPS) from 1080p to 1440p, and 37% (46 to 29 FPS) from 1440p to 4K. The cumulative High drop is from 64 to 29 FPS, a 55% decrease. At Ultra settings, the drops are 28% (40 to 29 FPS) and 38% (29 to 18 FPS), with a cumulative drop of 55% as well.

This consistency is striking. Every settings preset shows roughly a 55% total drop from 1080p to 4K, and the per-step drops are nearly identical across presets. This uniformity indicates that the GPU is not becoming compute-bound or shader-limited at any particular preset; instead, the memory system is the bottleneck. Since the Arc B370 uses System Shared memory with System Dependent bandwidth, the increased memory traffic required at higher resolutions, more pixels to fill, more texture fetches, directly translates into proportional FPS losses. The fact that the percentage drops are identical across all settings suggests the GPU's render output units and memory interface are saturated regardless of the shading workload.

The data also implies that the CPU is not a factor in resolution scaling. If the CPU were limiting performance, the FPS would stay flatter at lower resolutions (where the CPU has to feed more frames) and drop more sharply at higher resolutions (where the GPU becomes the limit). Instead, the FPS drops are smooth and proportional, which means the GPU is the sole constraint across the entire resolution range.

# CPU Role

The Intel Core i5-14600K is a 14-core, 20-thread processor based on Raptor Lake architecture, fabricated on Intel's 10 nm process. Its base clock is 3.50 GHz with a boost clock of 5.30 GHz, and it has a 125 W TDP. The cache hierarchy includes 80 KB of L1 per core, 2 MB of L2 per core, and 24 MB of shared L3 cache. It supports DDR4 and DDR5 memory in dual-channel mode, and it includes Intel UHD Graphics 770 as integrated graphics. The CPU's launch MSRP is $319.

In synthetic benchmarks, the i5-14600K is a strong performer. Its Cinebench R23 multicore score is 24491, with a single-core score of 2064. Geekbench scores are 16673 multicore and 2491 single-core. Passmark results include a multithread score of 38682 and a single-thread score of 4270. The CPU's average benchmark score of 48618 places it at the 90th percentile among all CPUs, and its nearest rivals, the Intel Xeon Gold 5318H, AMD EPYC 4345P, Intel Core Ultra 5 245HX, and Intel Core Ultra 5 245, all score within 0.8% of it.

However, in Downfall, the CPU's role is almost entirely passive. The measured FPS numbers are so low across all configurations that the i5-14600K's 20 threads and 5.30 GHz boost clock are never stressed. A CPU that can score 13709 in Cinebench R20 multicore and 38682 in Passmark multithread is not going to bottleneck a GPU that averages 29 FPS at 4K High. Even at 1080p Low, where the combo reaches 96 FPS, the CPU has ample headroom.

The data suggests that Downfall is a GPU-bound title for this combination, and the CPU's capabilities are largely irrelevant to the outcome. This is not a criticism of the CPU, it is a reflection of the GPU's performance class. The i5-14600K's single-core strength, evidenced by its 2064 Cinebench R23 single-core score and 2491 Geekbench single-core score, would be more relevant in CPU-heavy scenarios, but the measured frame rates indicate that the GPU cannot feed frames fast enough to engage the CPU meaningfully.

The one area where the CPU could matter is memory bandwidth, given the Arc B370's reliance on System Shared memory. The i5-14600K supports dual-channel DDR4/DDR5, and the memory bandwidth is not specified in the data. But the consistent resolution scaling pattern suggests that the memory system is already saturated, and a faster CPU would not change that.

# Settings Recommendations

Based on the measured FPS rows, the recommended settings depend heavily on the target resolution. At 1920x1080, Medium settings provide the best balance: 78 FPS average with a minimum of 67 FPS, which keeps frame pacing above 60 FPS throughout. Low settings offer a higher average (96 FPS) but sacrifice visual quality, and the lack of a minimum FPS value makes it harder to assess consistency. High settings at 64 FPS average are playable but leave little margin for demanding scenes. Ultra at 40 FPS average is not recommended for smooth gameplay.

At 2560x1440, Low settings are the only tier that averages above 60 FPS, hitting 68 FPS. Medium settings average 56 FPS with a minimum of 48 FPS, which means the experience will dip below 60 FPS regularly. High at 46 FPS and Ultra at 29 FPS are both below the 60 FPS threshold and will feel noticeably less fluid. For 1440p, Low is the recommended preset, with Medium as a compromise for users who prioritize visual fidelity over consistent frame rates.

At 3840x2160, no settings tier achieves 60 FPS. Low averages 43 FPS, Medium averages 35 FPS (min 30, max 40), High averages 29 FPS, and Ultra averages 18 FPS. The best experience at 4K is Low, but even that will feel stuttery in action sequences. Given the data, 4K is not a viable resolution for this combo in Downfall unless the user accepts sub-45 FPS performance.

The overall recommendation is to run Downfall at 1920x1080 with Medium settings, which is the only measured configuration that combines a 60+ FPS average with a 60+ FPS minimum. For users with 1440p displays, Low settings are the pragmatic choice. The Ultra preset should be avoided at all resolutions, as it delivers the largest FPS penalty, a 40-58% drop from High depending on resolution, with diminishing visual returns. The data shows that the Arc B370's limited memory bandwidth and 20 ROPS cannot sustain Ultra settings even at 1080p, where it manages only 40 FPS.