Fortnite

The AMD Ryzen 5 5600 with an Intel Arc B370 is a low-power pairing that ranks 3414 out of 3700 tested combos. The processor is a solid mainstream part, but the Arc B370 is an integrated GPU that holds everything back. At 1080p Low the pair hits 104 FPS, yet climbing to 4K Ultra collapses to 13 FPS. The split is clear: the CPU is not the bottleneck, the GPU is. This profile explains the measured results, how the components interact, and what settings offer the most playable experience.

CPU Role

The R9 5600 is a 6-core, 12-thread processor based on the Zen 3 architecture. It has a base clock of 3.5 GHz, a boost clock of 4.4 GHz, an L3 cache of 32 MB shared across the six cores, and uses Dual-channel DDR5-3200 memory (the pack labels it DDR4, however the memory speed is 51.2 GB/s). The CPU sits in the 74th percentile of all tested CPUs—meaning it outperforms most modern chips, even those with integrated graphics. Its own 3DMark scores are high: 18,309 in Cinebench R23 multicore and 2,584 in single-core; PassMark single-thread is 3,256 and multithread 21,541.

We look at the measured Fortnite frames: at 1080p Low, the average is 104 FPS, at 1080p Medium 73 FPS. At 1440p Low 66 FPS, and at 4K Low 35 FPS. Because the CPU does not rise sharply with resolution scaling—the frame rate halves when the pixel count doubles—the CPU is far from the limiting component. In fact, at 1080p High (57 FPS) or Medium (73 FPS), the CPU can easily push more frames than the GPU can render. The data says the processor handles single-threaded load efficiently, which matters for Fortnite’s typical core scaling. The boost clock of 4.4 GHz, combined with 6 fast cores, is enough to fill a ray-tracing frame at lower presets but the GPU gives out earlier.

The CPU benchmark lineup also includes PassMark integer math (68,396), floating-point math (38,778), and encryption (15,531), all of which point to a healthy desktop part. But the absolute bottleneck is the graphic’s side; the CPU quietly sits at the limit of what the integrated GPU allows. In terms of recent rivals, the R9 5600 appears right next to the AMD Ryzen 5 8500G (average score 20,425, delta 0.2%) and Intel Core Ultra 7 258V (20,454, delta 0.1%). This means the chip is not the weak link. The weak link is the GPU, as will be explored in the next section.

GPU Role

The Intel Arc B370 is a 3 nm integrated GPU with 1280 shading units, 40 texture units, and 20 ROPs. It has 10 Ray Tracing cores, and it uses system-shared memory; there is no dedicated VRAM, and it draws only 25 W TDP. The base clock is 300 MHz and boost 2400 MHz, with FP32 compute of 6.144 TFLOPS. Its only available benchmark, 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12, is 1,184—placing it in the 5th percentile of all GPUs. Only the previous-generation integrated offerings sit nearby: ATI Mobility Radeon HD 5570 (score 1186, delta −0.2%), ATI Radeon HD 5770 (score 1190, delta −0.5%), and AMD FirePro M2000 (score 1168, delta 1.4%). This is a bottom-tier graphics solution.

Because it draws from system RAM, performance is especially dependent on memory bandwidth—and the datasheet labels the bandwidth “System Dependent”. This immediately explains why resolution scaling hits the GPU hard. At 1080p Low, the GPU can push 104 FPS, but its peak geome only renders a fraction of that in silent. At 1440p Low it falls to 66 FPS, and by 4K it is only 35 FPS. High settings at 4K drop below 19 FPS, and Ultra ends at 13 FPS. The card's pedestrian compute throughput is insufficient for high-definition gaming, even with only 20 ROPs.

The “Arc B370” name suggests a bit more power than an IG, but the data says otherwise. The only measured benchmark - 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 - equals a ceiling. That puts it worse than two ATI parts from the early 2010s. In Fortnite, the measured frames are consistent with a GPU that is fundamentally bandwidth-bound, with large min/max variance—for example, at 1080p Medium, the frame time on MSI gives 73 average with a minimum of 62 and a maximum of 84. This is a GPU that only makes sense for low resolution and moderate settings.

Settings Recommendations

Based on the measured rows, the combination behaves differently across presets:

• At 1080p Low: 104 FPS (average). This is the absolute highest smoothness. If you are playing Fortnite competitively or prefer maximum responsiveness, this is the only setting that the system can drive with confidence.
• At 1080p Medium: 73 FPS average, with min 62 and max 84. This is the better quality-per-frame ratio. The 73 FPS is still well above a 60 Hz display refresh rate, and the dips stay above 60 FPS, minimizing stutter. For balance, this is the strongest recommendation.
• At 1080p High: 57 FPS, still watchable, but corners drop below 60 during intense moments.
• At 1080p Ultra: 37 FPS, no longer consistent for smooth combat; best avoided.

At 1440p, the situation is harsher: only Low gives 66 FPS Average; Medium drops to 46 FPS (min 39), High to 36, and Ultra to 24. Even 1440p Low (which is the highest framerate setting on a 1440p panel) is a trade-off because visual quality is drastically low. At 4K, no setting reaches the 60 FPS mark, with LowVal (35 FPS) the best. So for a positive experience, the only sensible route is 1080p Medium for quality, or 1080p Low if the priority is a cinematic ultra, there is no setting that retains both resolution and framerate.

The data implies there is no such thing as a “best” preset that works across all monitors. For a 1080p display with a 120 Hz target, choose Low (104 FPS) and adjust anti-aliasing or rendering integer settings. For a 1440p panel, Medium at 1440p sags to 46 FPS, so you are already at the edge of playable if you want 60; the safe recommendation is 1080p Medium rendered on the GPU with the output set to 1440. For 4K panels, any preset is—with Ultra at 13 FPS and even Low at 35 – the game enters a presentation that is not playable for a dynamic battle-royale system. The only realistic path is to set the in-game rendering to 1080p while manten the output.

How This Combo Ranks

Of all 3700 measured combinations, this pairing ranks #3414. It is better than only 286 combos, or roughly the 8th percentile of the whole database. This is a very low standing for a pair that happens to include a 74th-percentile CPU and a 5th-percentile GPU. The CPU efficiency is sound, but its contribution is entirely negated by the graphic device.

Let’s put it on the same context: the CPU alone, with an average benchmark 20,468, places it close to the EPYC 7713 (20,363, delta 0.5%) and above the EPYC 9454P (20,422, delta 0.2%). Yet the GPU’s own average is 1184, nearly matching the ATI HD 5770 (1190, delta −0.5%). When a budget desktop CPU is combined with a chip that is five years old in terms of per-frame throughput, the outcome is obvious.

The 86% of the combined list is 3,414, so the pairing is in the lowest 9% of tested configs. That position is not because of the CPU, which is the stronger component. It is because the B370, an ultra-low-power integrated-class chip, is responsible for rendering. It pulls the whole score down. The measured framescale, as shown in the settings section, aligns with the GPU’s positioning: it cannot stretch far beyond low-parameter 1080p gaming. In a ranking that includes discrete GPUs of various eras, this engine lands at battle-bottom.

Resolution Scaling

Resolution scaling is the clearest measurement to diagnose which component limits the flow. With the 8 game FPS, consider the average at the four settings across the three resolutions:

• Low: 1080p = 104, 1440p = 66, 4K = 35.
• Medium: 1080p = 73, 1440p = 46, 4K = 25.
• High: 1080p = 57, 1440p = 36, 4K = 19.
• Ultra: 1080p = 27, 1440p = 24, 4K = 13.

If the CPU were the limiting factor, the average frame rates would stay roughly constant as you increase resolution because the CPU might still be limited to the number of draw calls, but here the frame rate scales almost linearly with pixel count. From 1080p to 4K, the pixel count increases by a factor of 16× (actually 3,840×4,360 vs 1,920×1,080 = 2.25× more pixels; so the 4K framerate for Low (104) would ideally be 104/3 = 34.7, and measured 35? Wait probably due to rounding. But we see the same pattern: 104 / 3.3 ≈ 29.5 for 4K, and measured 35 (low) is actually higher, because the CPU might take a smaller role. Actually the actual drop is 104 → 35, which is 2.97×, close to area ratio of 3.2 Well.

The perfect CPU-bound scenario would give you a flat line across, with 1080p and 4K producing the exact same, which is not happening. Because these are GPU-bound, it is a classic internal bandwidth limitation. The bandwidth for the integrated GPU is system-dependent, which means the memory controller becomes the separator. The GPU is the bottleneck, because the frame rate does not remain constant; it halves when the total pixel count doubles.

The graph shows a consistent drop: from 1080p to 1440p the scores ratio, per setting, is 104/66 ≈ 1.58× ; 73/46 ≈ 1.59; 57/36 ≈ 1.58 ; 27/24 ≈ 1.39. The original resolution ratio is 1.5pixel ( full 2.25 last). That means the frames drop slightly more than the resolution change suggests, reinforcing that the renderer is shader- and pixel-limited, not geometry-bound.

At 4K the scaling changes one more time: 66/35 ≈ 1.89. From 1080 to 4K, the drop is 3× (104 down to 35), which is close to the 4× increase in pixel count, but not exact memory. The conclusion is that the GPU runs out of texture and pixel ability faster than the CPU can sneak in. If the system were CPU-limited, the difference between Low and Ultra settings at the same resolution would be small, but the measured data gives a huge 104 vs 27 at 1080p — showing that the GPU is also severely stressing all compute units.

Thus the resolution analysis points toward a single truth: the Arc B370 is the exclusive throttle, and the resolution hops make it visible.

Measured FPS Breakdown

Below is the exact set of measured average frames, minimum, and maximum values. The rows come straight from the dataset.

| Resolution | Settings | Avg FPS | Min FPS | Max FPS |

|------------|-----------|---------|---------|---------|

| 3840x2160 | High | 19 | – | – |

| 3840x2160 | Low | 35 | – | – |

| 3840x2160 | Medium | 25 | 21 | 28 |

| 3840x2160 | Ultra | 13 | – | – |

| 2560x1440 | High | 36 | – | – |

| 2560x1440 | Low | 66 | – | – |

| 2560x1440 | Medium | 46 | 39 | 53 |

| 2560x1440 | Ultra | 24 | – | – |

| 1920x1080 | High | 57 | – | – |

| 1920x1080 | Low | 104 | – | – |

| 1920x1080 | Medium | 73 | 62 | 84 |

| 1920x1080 | Ultra | 37 | – | – |

Only the Medium preset at each resolution reports min and max values, while all others give only averages. The average numbers show the same pattern regardless of fidelity: the system is heavily reliant on 1080p. There is no setting where the 4K resolution produces a 25 FPS except the Medium at 4K, and that is still below the playable threshold.

The conclusion from this table alone is that 1080p Low and Medium are the only configurations that maintain a smooth, playable frame rate. At 1440p, only W uno (66 FPS) and Medium (46) pass the 40 FPS line; High and Ultra are too low for a fast-paced game. At 4K, all presets stay below 38 FPS, making Fortnite’s building and fighting nearly unplayable. This, and the resolution scaling section, confirms the entire system is GPU-bound, and the CPU’s 74th percentile is wasted at higher resolution.