Downfall

The Intel Core Ultra 5 245 paired with the Intel Arc B370 delivers a playable but constrained experience in Downfall, a 2016 horror title. Benchmark data shows this combination sits near the bottom of the tested hardware pool, with a combo rank of 2688 out of 2928 combinations. The CPU is a strong modern desktop part, but the integrated-class GPU becomes the dominant bottleneck as resolution and settings increase. This analysis breaks down the measured FPS across resolutions, the roles of each component, and how this pairing compares to other tested systems.

Resolution Scaling

The measured FPS data reveals a clear and steep decline as resolution climbs from 1920x1080 to 3840x2160. At 1080p with Low settings, the combo averages 96 FPS, which is the highest figure recorded in the entire dataset. Moving to 1440p Low drops that to 68 FPS, a reduction of 28 FPS or roughly 29%. At 4K Low, the average falls further to 43 FPS, which is 55 FPS below the 1080p Low result. This pattern indicates that the Intel Arc B370’s rendering throughput is the primary limiter; the CPU’s performance headroom is not the issue at these settings.

The scaling from 1080p to 1440p at High settings shows a similar trend: 64 FPS at 1080p falls to 46 FPS at 1440p, a drop of 18 FPS. From 1440p to 4K High, the average goes from 46 FPS to 29 FPS, another 17 FPS reduction. The 4K High result of 29 FPS is below the 30 FPS threshold commonly considered the minimum for smooth gameplay, suggesting that users targeting 4K must reduce settings. At Ultra settings, the situation is more severe: 1080p Ultra averages 40 FPS, 1440p Ultra drops to 29 FPS, and 4K Ultra plummets to 18 FPS. The gap between Low and Ultra at the same resolution widens with resolution; at 1080p, the difference between Low (96 FPS) and Ultra (40 FPS) is 56 FPS, while at 4K it is 25 FPS (43 vs 18). This compression at higher resolutions reinforces that the GPU is saturated.

The data suggests that the Arc B370, with its system-shared memory and modest 6.144 TFLOPS FP32 performance, hits a wall around 1440p Medium. At that configuration, the average FPS is 56, with minimum and maximum readings of 48 and 64 FPS respectively, indicating a playable but not fluid experience. At 1080p, the combo is more capable; Medium settings yield 78 FPS on average, with a minimum of 67 FPS and a maximum of 90 FPS. For a horror game where atmosphere depends on consistent frame delivery, the 1080p Medium result is the most stable high-FPS option. The 4K Ultra result of 18 FPS is effectively unplayable, and even 4K High at 29 FPS will feel stuttery in action sequences. The scaling pattern points to a GPU-bound scenario; the CPU’s role is secondary, as evidenced by the fact that FPS drops nearly proportionally with pixel count.

FAQ

*Q: What is the best resolution and settings combination for this hardware in Downfall?*

A: Based on the measured data, 1920x1080 with Medium settings offers the best balance, averaging 78 FPS with a minimum of 67 FPS and a maximum of 90 FPS. This stays above the 60 FPS target for most of the run. 1080p Low achieves 96 FPS average, but Medium provides higher visual quality with only an 18 FPS penalty.

*Q: Can this combo handle 4K gaming in Downfall?*

A: The data indicates 4K is only viable at Low settings, where the average FPS is 43. 4K Medium drops to 35 FPS, 4K High to 29 FPS, and 4K Ultra to 18 FPS. None of these meet a 60 FPS standard, and only Low stays above the 30 FPS playability threshold.

Q: How does the Intel Arc B370 compare to its nearest rivals in synthetic benchmarks?

A: The Arc B370 scores 1184 in the 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 test. Its nearest rival, the ATI Mobility Radeon HD 5570, scores 1186, which is 0.2% higher. The ATI Radeon HD 5770 scores 1190 (0.5% higher), and the AMD Radeon HD 7650M scores 1192 (0.7% higher). The AMD FirePro M2000 scores 1168, which is 1.4% lower. This places the Arc B370 in the bottom percentile of all GPUs, at the 5th percentile.

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

A: No, the CPU is not the limiting factor in Downfall. The Ultra 5 245 has 14 cores and 14 threads, with a boost clock of 5.10 GHz. Synthetic benchmarks show it at the 90th percentile among all CPUs. The FPS drops from 1080p to 4K are consistent with GPU limitations, not CPU constraints.

Q: What is the combo’s overall rank among tested systems?

A: This CPU and GPU pairing ranks 2688 out of 2928 tested combinations in Downfall. That places it in the bottom 8% of all combos, reflecting the GPU’s low performance relative to other tested graphics solutions.

Q: Does the GPU have dedicated VRAM?

A: No, the Intel Arc B370 uses system-shared memory for both its memory size and type. Its memory bandwidth is listed as system dependent, meaning performance relies on the host system’s RAM configuration. This is a key factor in its limited FPS at higher resolutions.

CPU Role

The Intel Core Ultra 5 245 is a desktop processor from the Core Ultra Series 2, built on the Arrow Lake architecture with a 3 nm process from TSMC. It features 14 cores and 14 threads, with no hyper-threading, a base clock of 3.50 GHz and a boost clock of 5.10 GHz. The CPU’s cache hierarchy includes 192 KB of L1 per core, 3 MB of L2 per core, and 24 MB of shared L3 cache. It supports DDR5 memory on a dual-channel bus, with a theoretical memory bandwidth of 102.4 GB/s. The processor also includes integrated Arc Xe-LPG Graphics with 64 execution units, though the discrete Arc B370 is the primary GPU for this test.

In synthetic workloads, the Ultra 5 245 performs strongly. Its Cinebench R23 multicore score is 32924, and its single-core score is 4648. PassMark multithread results show 38706, with a single-thread score of 4394. The CPU’s average benchmark score is 48995, placing it at the 90th percentile among all CPUs. Its nearest rivals in average score include the AMD Ryzen 7 PRO 5755G (49196, 0.4% higher), the AMD Ryzen 9 7900 (49228, 0.5% higher), the Intel Xeon Gold 5318H (48698, 0.6% lower), and the Intel Core i5-14600K (48618, 0.8% lower). These deltas are within 1%, indicating the Ultra 5 245 is competitively positioned against those parts.

In Downfall, the CPU’s role is to feed the GPU with draw calls and game logic. Given that the game released in 2016, its CPU demands are modest by modern standards. The measured FPS at 1080p Low (96 FPS) suggests the CPU can push well over 90 frames per second in this title. The fact that 1080p Ultra only reaches 40 FPS, while 4K Ultra falls to 18 FPS, is a direct result of GPU workload, not CPU limitations. The CPU’s high single-thread performance, evidenced by a Cinebench R23 single-core score of 4648, ensures that it does not bottleneck even at lower resolutions where the GPU has less work. The 14 threads are more than sufficient for a 2016 horror game, which likely uses only a few cores. The data indicates that the Ultra 5 245 is overqualified for this pairing; a weaker CPU would likely produce identical FPS figures at most settings.

How This Combo Ranks

The combo of the Intel Core Ultra 5 245 and the Intel Arc B370 ranks 2688 out of 2928 tested combinations in Downfall. This places it in the bottom 8.2% of all systems tested, which is a poor showing for a modern CPU. The ranking is almost entirely attributable to the GPU, as the CPU alone sits at the 90th percentile in overall CPU performance. The GPU’s percentile is 5th, meaning 95% of tested GPUs perform better in synthetic benchmarks. This mismatch creates a system where the CPU has ample headroom, but the GPU caps the gaming experience.

To contextualize the rank, consider that the Arc B370’s nearest GPU rivals are all older or lower-tier parts. The ATI Mobility Radeon HD 5570, ATI Radeon HD 5770, and AMD Radeon HD 7650M all score within 1% of the Arc B370 in the Steel Nomad test. These are legacy GPUs from over a decade ago, and the Arc B370’s performance in Downfall reflects that level of capability. The combo’s rank of 2688 means that the vast majority of tested systems, including those with mid-range CPUs from several years ago, outperform this pairing in this specific game. For a game like Downfall, which is not graphically demanding by 2026 standards, this rank signals that the GPU is the weak link.

The data also shows that the combo’s rank is not a reflection of the CPU’s ability to handle the game. If the Arc B370 were replaced with a higher-performing GPU, the rank would likely improve dramatically, limited only by the CPU’s ability to keep up. However, as tested, the 2688th position out of 2928 is a clear warning to users that this is a low-end gaming solution. The measured FPS at 1080p Low (96 FPS) is the only result that approaches a high-refresh-rate experience, and even that is at the lowest visual quality. The rank underscores that this combo is suited for esports or older titles at low settings, not for modern or demanding games.

GPU Role

The Intel Arc B370 is an integrated graphics solution, classified as IGP, with a 25 W TDP and no power connectors. It is built on the Panther Lake chip using the Xe3-LPG architecture and a 3 nm process from Intel. The GPU has 1280 shading units, 40 texture mapping units, and 20 render output units. It includes 10 ray tracing cores, though Downfall does not use ray tracing. Its clock speeds are a base of 300 MHz and a boost of 2400 MHz. The pixel rate is 48.00 GPixel/s, and the texture rate is 96.00 GTexel/s. FP32 performance is 6.144 TFLOPS, with FP16 at 12.29 TFLOPS (2:1 ratio).

Crucially, the Arc B370 has no dedicated VRAM. Its memory size, type, and bus width are all listed as “System Shared,” and its bandwidth is “System Dependent.” This means the GPU relies on the host system’s DDR5 memory, which is shared with the CPU. In a dual-channel configuration, the CPU’s memory bandwidth is 102.4 GB/s, but the GPU must compete with the CPU for that bandwidth. This shared memory setup is a major reason for the poor performance at higher resolutions, where the GPU needs to access large textures and framebuffers. The lack of dedicated VRAM also explains why FPS drops so sharply from 1080p to 4K; at 4K, the memory bandwidth demands increase, and the shared pool becomes a bottleneck.

In synthetic testing, the Arc B370 scores 1184 in 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12. This places it at the 5th percentile of all GPUs, meaning 95% of tested graphics cards score higher. Its nearest rivals are the ATI Mobility Radeon HD 5570 (1186, 0.2% higher), ATI Radeon HD 5770 (1190, 0.5% higher), AMD Radeon HD 7650M (1192, 0.7% higher), and AMD FirePro M2000 (1168, 1.4% lower). These are all older discrete or mobile GPUs, and the Arc B370 matches them, which is a poor result for a 2026 product. The GPU’s low percentile is directly reflected in the Downfall FPS data, where it cannot maintain 60 FPS at 1080p High (64 FPS average) or at any resolution above 1080p Medium.

Measured FPS Breakdown

The measured FPS data provides a complete picture of performance across three resolutions and four settings levels. At 1920x1080, the combo delivers its best results. Low settings average 96 FPS, which is the only result above 90 FPS in the entire dataset. Medium settings average 78 FPS, with a minimum of 67 FPS and a maximum of 90 FPS, indicating a playable range with occasional dips. High settings average 64 FPS, which is above 60 but leaves little headroom. Ultra settings average 40 FPS, which is below the 60 FPS target and may feel sluggish during fast-paced horror sequences. The gap between Low and Ultra at 1080p is 56 FPS, showing that settings have a significant impact at this resolution.

At 2560x1440, performance drops across the board. Low settings average 68 FPS, down 28 FPS from 1080p Low. Medium settings average 56 FPS, with a minimum of 48 FPS and a maximum of 64 FPS; the minimum here is below the 60 FPS threshold, so users may notice stutters. High settings average 46 FPS, which is not smooth for a game that benefits from consistent frame pacing. Ultra settings average 29 FPS, which is below 30 and approaches unplayability. The drop from 1080p to 1440p at the same settings is roughly 28-29 FPS for Low, 22 FPS for Medium, 18 FPS for High, and 11 FPS for Ultra. The smaller absolute drop at Ultra suggests the GPU is already near its limit at 1080p Ultra, so the additional resolution has less relative impact.

At 3840x2160, the results are marginal. Low settings average 43 FPS, which is the only 4K result above 40. Medium settings average 35 FPS, with a minimum of 30 FPS and a maximum of 40 FPS; the 30 FPS minimum is the absolute floor for playability. High settings average 29 FPS, just below 30, and Ultra settings average 18 FPS, which is a slideshow. The scaling from 1440p to 4K shows a drop of 25 FPS for Low (68 to 43), 21 FPS for Medium (56 to 35), 17 FPS for High (46 to 29), and 11 FPS for Ultra (29 to 18). The consistent reduction across settings indicates that the GPU’s fill rate and memory bandwidth are exhausted at 4K, regardless of how light the workload is. For users with a 4K display, the data suggests sticking to Low settings for a playable experience, or dropping to 1440p Medium for a better balance of quality and performance. The 1080p Medium result remains the most balanced option overall, offering 78 FPS average with a 67 FPS minimum, which avoids the dips that plague higher resolutions.