Downfall

The Intel Core i7-14700F paired with the Intel Arc B370 produces a highly unusual benchmark profile in Downfall, one defined by a massive imbalance between a high-end 20-core CPU and a low-power integrated GPU. The data reveals a system that is almost entirely GPU-limited at every resolution, yet the performance curve behaves in unexpected ways that merit close examination. With a combo rank of 2688 out of 2928 tested configurations, this pairing sits in the bottom 8% of all combinations, a position that reflects the Arc B370’s status as an integrated solution rather than any deficiency in the processor. This analysis breaks down the measured frames per second (FPS) to understand what is happening, why the numbers look the way they do, and what settings offer the most playable experience.

Resolution Scaling

The FPS drop from 1080p to 4K is dramatic and reveals that the Intel Arc B370 is the definitive limiting component in this configuration. At 1080p with High settings, the system produces 64 FPS, but moving to 1440p drops that to 46 FPS, and at 4K it falls to 29 FPS. That represents a 55% reduction in performance from 1080p to 4K at High settings, a scaling curve that is steep but not entirely linear. The jump from 1080p to 1440p costs 18 FPS, while the jump from 1440p to 4K costs another 17 FPS, showing that each step up in resolution imposes a nearly identical absolute penalty.

The pattern holds across other settings, but with interesting variations. At Low settings, the system delivers 96 FPS at 1080p, 68 FPS at 1440p, and 43 FPS at 4K. The percentage drop from 1080p to 4K at Low is even steeper than at High — a 55% reduction — but the absolute numbers are higher, meaning the GPU is still the bottleneck even when the workload is lighter. At Ultra settings, the numbers are far lower: 40 FPS at 1080p, 29 FPS at 1440p, and just 18 FPS at 4K. The 4K Ultra result is particularly telling, as it suggests the Arc B370 is completely overwhelmed when asked to render the game’s highest fidelity at maximum pixel count.

What this scaling implies is that the game’s rendering demands are growing faster than the GPU’s ability to process them, and the CPU is never the constraint. If the Core i7-14700F were the limiting factor, we would expect the FPS to remain relatively flat as resolution increases, because the CPU workload does not change with pixel count. Instead, the steep declines point squarely at the Arc B370, which appears to run out of shading capacity, texture throughput, or memory bandwidth as resolution climbs. The 4K Ultra result of 18 FPS is essentially unplayable, and even 1440p High at 46 FPS is borderline, indicating that this combo is best suited for lower resolutions.

GPU Role

The Intel Arc B370 is an integrated graphics processor built on the Xe3-LPG architecture, fabricated on a 3 nm process, with a base clock of 300 MHz and a boost clock of 2400 MHz. It features 1280 shading units, 40 texture mapping units, and 20 raster output units, along with 10 ray tracing cores. The memory configuration is "System Shared," meaning it uses the system’s main memory rather than dedicated VRAM, with bandwidth described as "System Dependent." This is a crucial detail because it means the GPU’s performance is directly tied to the memory subsystem of the entire platform, and in a game like Downfall, which is a horror title that likely relies on complex textures and lighting, shared memory can become a serious bottleneck.

The GPU’s benchmark results are telling. Its 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 score is 1184, which places it at the 5th percentile of all GPUs. Its nearest rivals include the ATI Mobility Radeon HD 5570 (scoring 1186, a 0.2% delta), the ATI Radeon HD 5770 (1190, a 0.5% delta), and the AMD Radeon HD 7650M (1192, a 0.7% delta). These are all ancient, low-end parts from over a decade ago, which underscores just how limited the Arc B370 is in absolute terms. The delta percentages are all within 1.5% of the Arc B370’s score, meaning it is essentially performing at the same level as those older discrete GPUs, despite being a modern integrated part.

In the context of Downfall, the GPU’s role is to render the game’s horror atmosphere, which often involves dark scenes, fog, and volumetric effects. The 25 W TDP and IGP slot width suggest this is a power-sipping part designed for ultraportable devices, not for gaming. The FPS numbers confirm that it can handle 1080p at playable rates in lower settings, but it lacks the raw compute power to push high frame rates at higher resolutions. The pixel rate of 48.00 GPixel/s and texture rate of 96.00 GTexel/s are theoretical maximums that are never fully realized in real-world gaming, as the measured FPS shows. The FP32 performance of 6.144 TFLOPS is also modest, and the shared memory setup likely causes further penalties when the game needs to stream assets.

CPU Role

The Intel Core i7-14700F is a 20-core, 28-thread processor based on the Raptor Lake architecture, with a base clock of 2.10 GHz and a boost clock of 5.40 GHz. It has a 33 MB shared L3 cache, 2 MB per-core L2 cache, and 80 KB per-core L1 cache. Its Cinebench R23 multi-core score is 35122, and its single-core score is 4958, while its Geekbench multi-core score is 19620 and single-core score is 2429. These are strong numbers that place the CPU at the 91st percentile of all CPUs, with an average benchmark score of 53620. Its nearest rivals include the Intel Xeon 6505P (53701, a -0.2% delta), the Intel Xeon Phi 7290 (53469, a 0.3% delta), and the AMD Ryzen 9 7900X (53288, a 0.6% delta). The CPU is clearly a high-end part that can handle any modern game’s logic, physics, and AI workloads without breaking a sweat.

In Downfall, the CPU’s role is almost certainly trivial compared to the GPU’s. The game, being a horror title from 2016, likely does not have complex simulation systems that would stress a 20-core processor. The measured FPS data shows that even at 1080p Low, where the GPU has less work to do, the frame rate maxes out at 96 FPS. This is not a CPU limit, because the Core i7-14700F is capable of far higher frame rates in less demanding titles. Instead, it appears that the CPU is essentially idle, waiting on the Arc B370 to produce frames. The CPU’s 5.40 GHz boost clock and 33 MB cache are more than sufficient for Downfall’s single-threaded and lightly-threaded tasks, and the data shows no evidence of a CPU bottleneck at any resolution or setting.

The CPU’s high multi-core scores, such as the PassMark multithread score of 41317 and the Cinebench R20 multi-core score of 14751, are irrelevant to this game’s performance. The only benchmark that might matter is single-thread performance, and here the CPU also excels, with a PassMark single-thread score of 4257 and a Geekbench single-core score of 2429. But even those numbers are not the limiting factor. The data strongly implies that the CPU is overqualified for this pairing, and that the same GPU paired with a much weaker CPU would produce nearly identical FPS numbers in Downfall.

How This Combo Ranks

The combo of the Intel Core i7-14700F and the Intel Arc B370 ranks 2688 out of 2928 tested combinations in Downfall. This is an exceptionally low rank, placing it in the bottom 8.2% of all configurations. The ranking is a direct consequence of the GPU’s weak performance, as the CPU’s high percentile (91st) does nothing to lift the overall result. The data shows that the combo’s rank is almost entirely determined by the GPU, and the CPU’s capabilities are wasted in this pairing.

To put this in perspective, the GPU’s nearest rivals in the overall benchmark database include parts like the ATI Mobility Radeon HD 5570 and the AMD Radeon HD 7650M, which are both from the early 2010s. The combo rank suggests that this system performs similarly to a mid-range desktop from over a decade ago, despite having a modern, powerful CPU. The delta percentages between the Arc B370 and its rivals are tiny, all within 1.5%, meaning the GPU is truly at the bottom of the pile. The high rank of the CPU — 91st percentile — is completely neutralized by the GPU’s 5th percentile score, resulting in a combined rank that is far below what either component would suggest on its own.

This ranking has practical implications for anyone considering this combo. In Downfall, the system will struggle to maintain smooth frame rates at any resolution above 1080p, and even at 1080p, only Low and Medium settings offer consistently playable numbers. The Ultra settings are essentially a slideshow, with 4K Ultra delivering just 18 FPS. The data indicates that this combo is not suitable for a game like Downfall if the user expects a modern gaming experience, and the low rank reflects that reality.

FAQ

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

A: The data shows that 1920x1080 is the only resolution where the system consistently delivers playable frame rates. At 1080p, the average FPS ranges from 40 (Ultra) to 96 (Low), while at 1440p it ranges from 29 (Ultra) to 68 (Low), and at 4K it ranges from 18 (Ultra) to 43 (Low). The 1080p results are the only ones that approach smooth gameplay.

Q: Is the Intel Core i7-14700F or the Intel Arc B370 the bottleneck in this game?

A: The FPS scaling across resolutions clearly indicates the GPU is the bottleneck. If the CPU were the limit, FPS would stay flat as resolution increases. Instead, FPS drops by roughly 55% from 1080p to 4K at High settings, proving the Arc B370 is the limiting component. The CPU’s high benchmark scores (e.g., 35122 in Cinebench R23 multi-core) are never fully utilized.

Q: How does the Arc B370 compare to its nearest GPU rivals?

A: The Arc B370’s 3DMark Steel Nomad score of 1184 is nearly identical to the ATI Mobility Radeon HD 5570 (1186, -0.2% delta), the ATI Radeon HD 5770 (1190, -0.5% delta), and the AMD Radeon HD 7650M (1192, -0.7% delta). All four GPUs perform within 1.5% of each other, meaning the Arc B370 is effectively a decade-old discrete GPU in terms of gaming performance.

*Q: Can the system run Downfall at 4K?*

A: Technically yes, but the results are poor. At 4K, the highest average FPS is 43 (Low), which drops to 35 (Medium), 29 (High), and 18 (Ultra). The Ultra setting is unplayable, and even Low at 43 FPS is below the 60 FPS target most gamers prefer. The data suggests 4K is not a viable option for this combo.

*Q: What is the combo’s rank among all tested systems in Downfall?*

A: The combo ranks 2688 out of 2928 tested combinations, placing it in the bottom 8.2% of all systems. This low rank is due to the GPU’s weak performance, despite the CPU being in the 91st percentile of all processors.

*Q: Does the CPU’s high core count help in Downfall?*

A: No. The game’s performance is entirely GPU-limited, as shown by the FPS dropping with resolution. The Core i7-14700F’s 20 cores and 28 threads are irrelevant to Downfall’s rendering workload, and the FPS numbers would likely be the same with a much weaker CPU.

Settings Recommendations

Based on the measured FPS data, the only settings that provide a consistently playable experience are at 1080p with Low or Medium presets. At 1080p Low, the system delivers 96 FPS, which is smooth and well above the 60 FPS threshold. At 1080p Medium, the average drops to 78 FPS, still very playable, with a minimum of 67 FPS and a maximum of 90 FPS, indicating decent frame pacing. These two presets offer the best balance of visual quality and performance for this combo.

At 1080p High, the average is 64 FPS, which is still technically playable, but it is close to the edge of what most would consider acceptable, especially in a horror game where sudden frame drops can be jarring. The Ultra preset at 1080p yields only 40 FPS, which is not recommended. At 1440p, the only playable setting is Low, with 68 FPS, but Medium drops to 56 FPS and High to 46 FPS, both of which are below the ideal threshold. At 4K, no setting is recommended, as even Low only achieves 43 FPS, and the higher presets fall into the 18-35 FPS range.

The data suggests that users should prioritize 1080p and choose between Low and Medium based on their preference for visual fidelity. Medium offers a 23% FPS reduction compared to Low (78 vs 96) but likely provides a richer horror atmosphere with better textures and lighting. For the most stable experience, Low is the safer choice, but Medium is acceptable for those who can tolerate occasional dips to 67 FPS. The Ultra preset should be avoided entirely, as it cuts the frame rate by more than half compared to Medium at 1080p.

Measured FPS Breakdown

The measured FPS data covers three resolutions (3840x2160, 2560x1440, 1920x1080) and four settings (Low, Medium, High, Ultra), with some entries including minimum and maximum FPS values.

At 3840x2160, the results are as follows:

• Low: 43 FPS average
• Medium: 35 FPS average, with a minimum of 30 and a maximum of 40
• High: 29 FPS average
• Ultra: 18 FPS average

At 2560x1440, the results are:

• Low: 68 FPS average
• Medium: 56 FPS average, with a minimum of 48 and a maximum of 64
• High: 46 FPS average
• Ultra: 29 FPS average

At 1920x1080, the results are:

• Low: 96 FPS average
• Medium: 78 FPS average, with a minimum of 67 and a maximum of 90
• High: 64 FPS average
• Ultra: 40 FPS average

The pattern is consistent: each step up from Low to Ultra reduces the frame rate by roughly 20-30%, and each step up in resolution reduces it by another 20-30%. The Medium preset is the only one that provides minimum and maximum data, showing a 23 FPS spread at 1080p (67-90) and a 16 FPS spread at 1440p (48-64). This suggests that Medium has the most variable frame pacing, which could be noticeable in gameplay. The Low and Ultra presets lack min/max data, but the averages are sufficient to establish that Low is the most consistent performer, while Ultra is the least. The 4K Ultra result of 18 FPS is the worst-case scenario, and the 1080p Low result of 96 FPS is the best-case scenario, giving a clear performance envelope for this unusual combo.