Fortnite

The Intel Core i5-10400F paired with the Intel Arc B370 is a combination that sits near the bottom of the performance hierarchy for Fortnite, ranking 2517 out of 2740 tested combos. This places the pairing in the 8th percentile of all tested systems, meaning roughly 92 percent of configurations deliver higher frame rates in this title. The data is measured, not estimated, and the results consistently show that this combo is heavily constrained, with playable performance limited to lower resolutions and reduced settings.

How This Combo Ranks

The combo rank of 2517 out of 2740 combos is a stark indicator of where this pairing stands in Fortnite. With an average FPS that never exceeds 104 at any measured point, the system is firmly in the lower tier of the database. The rank reflects a fundamental imbalance: the GPU component, the Intel Arc B370, sits at the 5th percentile among all GPUs, while the CPU, the Intel Core i5-10400F, performs at the 68th percentile among all CPUs. This disparity suggests that the graphics solution is the primary bottleneck, a conclusion reinforced by the measured frame rates across all settings and resolutions.

The Arc B370’s average benchmark score of 1184 places it in direct competition with legacy graphics cards. Its nearest rivals include the ATI Mobility Radeon HD 5570, which scores 1186, and the ATI Radeon HD 5770 at 1190. The deltaPct values are minimal — the B370 trails the HD 5570 by 0.2 percent, trails the HD 5770 by 0.5 percent, and trails the AMD Radeon HD 7650M by 0.7 percent. The only rival it beats is the AMD FirePro M2000, which it edges out by 1.4 percent. These are not modern competitors; they are products from a different era of graphics hardware. The implication for Fortnite is clear: this GPU is not designed for demanding modern titles at high settings.

On the CPU side, the Core i5-10400F holds its own relative to the GPU’s standing. Its average benchmark score of 14185 places it at the 68th percentile, with nearest rivals including the Intel Xeon 6756E (14163, 0.2 percent behind), the Intel Core 7 160UL (14232, 0.3 percent ahead), the AMD EPYC 7552 (14115, 0.5 percent behind), and the AMD Ryzen 3 7320C (14277, 0.6 percent ahead). The deltas are tiny, all within one percent, indicating that the CPU is competitive with a broad range of server and mobile processors in synthetic benchmarks. However, in Fortnite, the CPU’s potential is never realized because the GPU cannot keep pace, dragging the overall combo rank down to 2517.

CPU Role

The Intel Core i5-10400F is a 6-core, 12-thread processor based on the Comet Lake architecture, built on Intel’s 14 nm process. It has a base clock of 2.90 GHz and a boost clock of 4.30 GHz, with a 65 W TDP. The L3 cache is 12 MB shared, and memory support is DDR4 dual-channel with a bandwidth of 42.7 GB/s. These specifications are modest by current standards but should be sufficient for a game like Fortnite, which is known to scale well with multi-core CPUs.

Benchmark results show the CPU’s multi-threaded capability. In Cinebench R23, it scores 10283 in multi-core and 1451 in single-core. Geekbench scores are 6257 multi-core and 1420 single-core. PassMark multi-thread score is 12115, with a single-thread score of 2541. The 3DMark scores further illustrate scaling: 1350 for 2 threads, 2560 for 4 threads, 3929 for 8 threads, and 4735 for max threads. The jump from 4 to 8 threads shows a meaningful gain of 53 percent, while the jump from 8 to max threads (12) is just 20 percent, indicating diminishing returns beyond 8 threads.

In Fortnite, the CPU’s role is to feed the GPU with draw calls and physics calculations. The measured FPS data suggests that the CPU is not the limiting factor at low settings, where the GPU is clearly maxed out. At 1080p Low, the combo hits 104 FPS, which is the highest recorded value. If the CPU were the bottleneck, we would expect this number to be lower, given the CPU’s percentile ranking. The fact that 104 FPS is achievable at 1080p Low indicates that the CPU can handle the game’s single-threaded and lightly-threaded workloads at that level.

However, the CPU’s boost clock of 4.30 GHz is not exceptional, and the single-thread score of 1451 in Cinebench R23 is moderate. In Fortnite, which relies heavily on a single main thread for game logic, this could become a secondary bottleneck at higher frame rates. But the data shows that frame rates never get high enough for the CPU to be the primary constraint. The GPU’s 5th percentile standing is the dominant factor in every measured scenario.

GPU Role

The Intel Arc B370 is an integrated-class graphics solution based on the Xe3-LPG architecture, manufactured on Intel’s 3 nm process. It has 1280 shading units, 40 texture mapping units, and 20 raster operation units. The boost clock is 2400 MHz, with a base clock of 300 MHz. Memory is system shared, with no dedicated VRAM, and bandwidth is system dependent. The GPU supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4, with 10 ray tracing cores. Its pixel rate is 48.00 GPixel/s, texture rate is 96.00 GTexel/s, and FP32 performance is 6.144 TFLOPS. The TDP is 25 W, and it is an IGP with no power connectors.

The GPU’s 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 score is 1184, which places it at the 5th percentile among all GPUs. This is a very low score, and the nearest rivals are all older discrete cards from the early 2010s. The ATI Mobility Radeon HD 5570 and ATI Radeon HD 5770 are separated by less than one percent in score, showing that the Arc B370 is not in the same league as even low-end modern GPUs.

In Fortnite, the GPU’s limitations are immediately apparent. The measured FPS at 4K Ultra is just 13 FPS, which is unplayable. At 4K High, it rises to 19 FPS, still far below playable thresholds. The GPU’s system shared memory means there is no dedicated VRAM, and the bandwidth is system dependent, which likely contributes to poor performance at high resolutions where memory bandwidth demands increase. The 20 ROPs and 40 TMUs are very low numbers, limiting fill rate and texture throughput, which are critical for a game like Fortnite with its vibrant, detailed environments.

The GPU’s boost clock of 2400 MHz is relatively high, but it cannot compensate for the low core count and memory bandwidth. The FP32 performance of 6.144 TFLOPS is modest, and the 6.144 TFLOPS figure is often cited as a minimum for playable modern gaming. The data confirms this: only at 1080p Low does the combo exceed 60 FPS, and even then, it is just 104 FPS. At 1080p Medium, it drops to 73 FPS, and at 1080p High, it falls to 57 FPS.

Measured FPS Breakdown

The measured FPS data covers four resolutions (3840x2160, 2560x1440, 1920x1080) and four settings (Low, Medium, High, Ultra). The results are consistent and reveal a clear performance ceiling.

At 3840x2160 (4K), the combo struggles across all settings. Low settings yield an average of 35 FPS, Medium drops to 25 FPS (with min 21 and max 28), High falls to 19 FPS, and Ultra is essentially unplayable at 13 FPS. The gap between Low and Ultra is 22 FPS, a 63 percent drop. Even at Low, 35 FPS is below the 60 FPS target for smooth gameplay, and the frame pacing would likely be erratic given the low overall performance.

At 2560x1440 (1440p), performance improves but remains marginal. Low settings produce 66 FPS, which is above the 60 FPS threshold but not by a wide margin. Medium yields 46 FPS (min 39, max 53), High drops to 36 FPS, and Ultra falls to 24 FPS. The jump from Low to Medium is a 20 FPS drop, indicating that the GPU is sensitive to settings changes. The delta between Low and Ultra at 1440p is 42 FPS, a 64 percent reduction, mirroring the 4K scaling pattern.

At 1920x1080 (1080p), the combo finally becomes playable at some settings. Low settings deliver 104 FPS, which is smooth and responsive. Medium drops to 73 FPS (min 62, max 84), still above 60 FPS. High falls below the 60 FPS threshold to 57 FPS, and Ultra drops to 37 FPS. The difference between Low and Medium is 31 FPS, between Medium and High is 16 FPS, and between High and Ultra is 20 FPS. This shows that the GPU has a hard ceiling around 104 FPS, and each settings tier costs a significant chunk of performance.

The data shows that the combo is only viable at 1080p with Low or Medium settings. At 1440p, only Low settings approach playability, and at 4K, no settings are playable. The min and max FPS values for Medium settings show some variance: at 1080p, the range is 62 to 84 FPS, a 22 FPS spread; at 1440p, the range is 39 to 53 FPS, a 14 FPS spread; at 4K, the range is 21 to 28 FPS, a 7 FPS spread. The variance decreases as resolution increases, suggesting that at higher resolutions, the GPU is consistently saturated, while at lower resolutions, there is more headroom for occasional spikes.

Resolution Scaling

The resolution scaling behavior of this combo is telling. Moving from 1080p to 1440p to 4K produces predictable FPS drops, but the magnitude varies by settings.

At Low settings, the FPS drops from 104 at 1080p to 66 at 1440p, a 36.5 percent reduction. From 1440p to 4K, it drops from 66 to 35, a 47 percent reduction. The total drop from 1080p to 4K is from 104 to 35, a 66 percent reduction. This scaling is aggressive, indicating that the GPU is heavily dependent on pixel count.

At Medium settings, the FPS drops from 73 at 1080p to 46 at 1440p, a 37 percent reduction. From 1440p to 4K, it drops from 46 to 25, a 45.7 percent reduction. The total drop from 1080p to 4K is from 73 to 25, a 66 percent reduction, matching the Low settings pattern.

At High settings, the FPS drops from 57 at 1080p to 36 at 1440p, a 36.8 percent reduction. From 1440p to 4K, it drops from 36 to 19, a 47.2 percent reduction. The total drop is from 57 to 19, a 67 percent reduction.

At Ultra settings, the FPS drops from 37 at 1080p to 24 at 1440p, a 35 percent reduction. From 1440p to 4K, it drops from 24 to 13, a 45.8 percent reduction. The total drop is from 37 to 13, a 65 percent reduction.

The consistency of these drops (66-67 percent from 1080p to 4K) across all settings is a strong indicator that the GPU is the limiting component. If the CPU were the bottleneck, we would expect the FPS to remain more constant as resolution increases, because the CPU workload does not scale with resolution. Instead, the FPS drops proportionally with the increase in pixels, which is classic GPU-bound behavior. The 1440p to 4K drop is consistently steeper than the 1080p to 1440p drop, which aligns with the fact that 4K has 2.25 times the pixels of 1440p, while 1440p has 1.78 times the pixels of 1080p.

The scaling also reveals that the GPU’s memory bandwidth, which is system dependent, is a limiting factor at higher resolutions. At 4K, the GPU must access the system memory for textures and frame buffers, and the bandwidth constraints become more severe, leading to the sharp FPS drops observed.

Settings Recommendations

Given the measured FPS data, the optimal settings for this combo depend on the target resolution and acceptable frame rate.

At 1920x1080, the only settings that deliver a consistently smooth experience are Low and Medium. Low settings produce 104 FPS, which is ideal for competitive play where high frame rates matter. Medium settings produce 73 FPS, still above the 60 FPS threshold, and offer better visual quality with only a 31 FPS penalty. The min FPS of 62 at Medium indicates that the frame rate stays above 60 FPS even during dips, making it a viable choice for players who want better visuals without sacrificing smoothness. High settings at 57 FPS are borderline; the average is below 60, and players sensitive to frame pacing may notice stutter. Ultra at 37 FPS is not recommended for any play style, as it falls well below the 60 FPS target and would feel sluggish.

At 2560x1440, Low settings are the only option that exceeds 60 FPS, producing 66 FPS. This is playable, but the visual quality will be noticeably reduced. Medium settings at 46 FPS are below the 60 FPS threshold, and the min FPS of 39 suggests that there will be noticeable dips during intense scenes. High at 36 FPS and Ultra at 24 FPS are not recommended for serious gameplay. If a player is using a 1440p monitor, they would need to accept Low settings to maintain a playable frame rate, or they could consider lowering the resolution to 1080p.

At 3840x2160, no settings are playable. Low settings at 35 FPS are below 60, and the low average indicates that the game would be stuttery. Medium at 25 FPS, High at 19 FPS, and Ultra at 13 FPS are all well below acceptable thresholds. The data suggests that this combo is not suited for 4K gaming in Fortnite under any settings.

The best experience per the measured rows is at 1080p with Medium settings. This provides an average of 73 FPS with a min of 62, ensuring that the frame rate rarely drops below 60 FPS. The visual quality is significantly better than Low, and the performance is still smooth. For players who prioritize frame rate above all, 1080p Low at 104 FPS is the choice, but for a balanced experience, 1080p Medium is the recommended setting. At 1440p, Low is the only playable option, and at 4K, the combo should be avoided entirely.

The data also shows that the Ultra preset is not worth the performance cost. At 1080p, upgrading from High to Ultra costs 20 FPS (from 57 to 37), a 35 percent drop, for marginal visual gains. The jump from Medium to High costs 16 FPS (from 73 to 57), and the jump from Low to Medium costs 31 FPS (from 104 to 73). The settings scaling is not linear, with the largest drop occurring between Low and Medium. This suggests that the GPU’s shader and texture resources are quickly exhausted when settings are raised, and players should stay at Medium or below to avoid severe performance penalties.