Hard West

The AMD Ryzen 7 9700F and Intel Arc B370 pairing produces a profoundly GPU-bound experience in Hard West, with the processor's substantial compute headroom largely untapped at every tested setting. The data shows a 3DMark Steel Nomad score of 1184 for the graphics solution, placing it in the 5th percentile of all GPUs, while the CPU sits in the 94th percentile. This disparity dictates that frame rates are consistently limited by the integrated graphics component, making resolution and preset selection the primary levers for playability.

CPU Role — cores, clocks, and how they relate to this game's results

The AMD Ryzen 7 9700F provides a formidable foundation that is never the bottleneck in this configuration. With 8 cores and 16 threads based on the Zen 5 architecture, its compute capabilities far exceed the demands of a turn-based tactics title like Hard West. The processor's boost clock reaches 5.50 GHz, and its single-threaded Passmark score of 4691 demonstrates ample per-core performance for game logic, AI pathfinding, and UI responsiveness—tasks that dominate in this genre.

Benchmark results position the 9700F with an average benchmark score of 69996, which places it within a narrow competitive band. Compared to its nearest rivals, the data shows a delta of only 0.2% against the AMD Ryzen 9 7940HX (score 69875), -0.2% against the Intel Core i7-14700KF (score 70163), 0.7% against the AMD Ryzen 9 7950X (score 69515), and 0.9% against the Intel Core i7-14700K (score 69355). These margins are negligible, indicating that any of these CPUs would deliver identical frame rates in Hard West given the same GPU, because the graphics card is the limiting factor.

The CPU's 32 MB of shared L3 cache and 89.6 GB/s memory bandwidth provide more than enough throughput for the game's data sets. The processor's 94th percentile ranking among all CPUs reinforces that it is a high-end part, yet the measured FPS in Hard West never exceeds 79 at 1080p Low settings. If the CPU were the constraint, we would expect to see frame rates scale more dramatically with resolution changes; instead, the opposite occurs, with FPS collapsing at higher resolutions. This behavior is consistent with a system where the GPU is saturated while the CPU remains largely idle, waiting on the graphics pipeline to complete its work.

GPU Role — VRAM, clocks, and how they relate to this game's results

The Intel Arc B370 is the decisive factor in this system's Hard West performance. Operating as an integrated graphics processor (IGP) with a 25 W TDP, it draws on system shared memory, meaning its bandwidth is system dependent. Its base clock of 300 MHz boosts to 2400 MHz, and the architecture (Xe3-LPG on a 3 nm process) includes 1280 shading units, 40 texture mapping units, and 20 raster operation units. The pixel rate of 48.00 GPixel/s and texture rate of 96.00 GTexel/s are modest figures that directly limit how quickly the GPU can fill frames at high resolutions.

The GPU's single benchmark entry is a 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 score of 1184, which places it in the 5th percentile of all GPUs. Its nearest rivals in the database are all legacy parts: the ATI Mobility Radeon HD 5570 (score 1186, delta -0.2%), ATI Radeon HD 5770 (score 1190, delta -0.5%), AMD Radeon HD 7650M (score 1192, delta -0.7%), and AMD FirePro M2000 (score 1168, delta 1.4%). This clustering indicates that the Arc B370 delivers performance comparable to integrated and entry-level discrete graphics from over a decade ago. For a game released in 2015, this is sufficient for lower settings, but the GPU's architectural limitations become apparent at higher presets and resolutions.

With 10 ray tracing cores and support for DirectX 12 Ultimate, the GPU has modern feature support, but raw rasterization throughput is what matters in Hard West. The measured frame rates show a clear pattern: at 1080p, the GPU can produce 79 FPS on Low, but this drops to 37 FPS on Ultra. At 4K, even Low settings only yield 26 FPS. The GPU's memory being system shared means there is no dedicated VRAM pool to suffer capacity issues, but the bandwidth constraints of shared memory further hamper high-resolution performance. The 5th percentile ranking is unambiguous: this is a low-end graphics solution that requires significant settings compromises to achieve playable frame rates.

Resolution Scaling — how FPS drops from 1080p to 4K and what it says about the limiting component

The resolution scaling data reveals a textbook GPU-bound scenario. Moving from 1920x1080 to 3840x2160 on Low settings, the average FPS drops from 79 to 26, a reduction of 67%. On High settings, the drop is from 49 FPS to 16 FPS, a 67% decrease as well. This consistent proportional decline across settings is a hallmark of a system where the GPU is the bottleneck; the CPU's performance headroom does not compensate for the increased pixel count.

At 2560x1440, the middle ground, Low settings produce 50 FPS, Medium produces 41 FPS, and High produces 31 FPS. The scaling from 1080p to 1440p on Low is 79 to 50 FPS, a 37% drop, while from 1440p to 4K it falls further to 26 FPS, a 48% drop. These nonlinear declines indicate that the GPU's fill rate and memory bandwidth are increasingly overwhelmed as pixel count grows. The pixel rate of 48.00 GPixel/s becomes the hard ceiling; at 4K (approximately 8.3 million pixels), the theoretical maximum frame rate is roughly 5.8 FPS before any other workload, yet the measured 26 FPS on Low suggests the game's rendering workload is not purely pixel-bound, but the trend is unmistakable.

The data also shows that the gap between Low and Ultra settings widens with resolution. At 1080p, Low achieves 79 FPS while Ultra achieves 37 FPS, a 42 FPS spread. At 4K, Low achieves 26 FPS while Ultra achieves 12 FPS, a 14 FPS spread. This compression at higher resolutions indicates that the GPU is so saturated that even lowering settings cannot fully compensate for the pixel load. The limiting component is definitively the Intel Arc B370, as the CPU's 94th percentile standing would easily sustain much higher frame rates if the GPU could deliver them.

FAQ

*Q: What is the best resolution to play Hard West with this hardware?*

A: Based on the measured data, 1920x1080 is the only resolution where any settings preset achieves above 60 FPS. At 1080p Low, the average FPS is 79, and at Medium it is 64. At 1440p, even Low settings only reach 50 FPS, so 1080p is recommended for smooth gameplay.

Q: How does the Intel Arc B370 compare to its closest rivals?

A: The GPU's 3DMark Steel Nomad score of 1184 is nearly identical to the ATI Mobility Radeon HD 5570 (1186, delta -0.2%) and the ATI Radeon HD 5770 (1190, delta -0.5%). It is slightly ahead of the AMD FirePro M2000 (1168, delta 1.4%), but all are within a 2% performance band.

Q: Is the AMD Ryzen 7 9700F holding back the system in this game?

A: No. The CPU's average benchmark score of 69996 places it in the 94th percentile, and its nearest rivals are within 0.9% of its score. The frame rates in Hard West are consistently limited by the GPU, as evidenced by the steep FPS drops at higher resolutions, which would not occur if the CPU were the constraint.

Q: What frame rate can I expect at 2560x1440 with Medium settings?

A: The measured data shows an average of 41 FPS at 1440p Medium, with a minimum of 35 FPS and a maximum of 47 FPS. This is playable but not consistently smooth, and the 35 FPS minimum indicates occasional dips below 40 FPS.

Q: Does the GPU's system shared memory affect performance?

A: The Intel Arc B370 uses system shared memory with bandwidth described as system dependent. This means the GPU competes with the CPU for memory access, which contributes to the significant performance degradation at 4K resolutions where memory bandwidth demands are highest.

Q: How does the Ultra preset perform across all resolutions?

A: Ultra settings yield 37 FPS at 1080p, 23 FPS at 1440p, and 12 FPS at 4K. None of these reach the 60 FPS threshold, and only the 1080p result is borderline playable. The 12 FPS at 4K is effectively unplayable for a tactics game requiring cursor precision.

How This Combo Ranks

The combination of the AMD Ryzen 7 9700F and Intel Arc B370 ranks 2721 out of 2949 tested combos in Hard West, placing it in the bottom 8% of all systems. This ranking is almost entirely attributable to the GPU's 5th percentile standing, as the CPU's 94th percentile score would otherwise place this system in the upper tier of configurations. The pairing is a stark example of component imbalance: a high-end processor paired with a low-end graphics solution yields a system that performs like an entry-level machine in GPU-intensive tasks.

The rank of 2721 means that 228 other tested combos perform worse, while 2720 perform better. Given the GPU's nearest rivals are all legacy ATI parts, this ranking reflects the Arc B370's position as a modern but very low-power integrated solution. In the context of Hard West, which was released in 2015 and is not graphically demanding by modern standards, this combo still struggles to maintain 60 FPS at 1080p on anything above Medium settings. The data suggests that users of this combo would need to prioritize either resolution or visual fidelity, as the system cannot deliver both.

The disparity between CPU and GPU rankings (94th vs 5th percentile) is the defining characteristic of this combo. It means the processor is never the limiting factor, and any performance gains would require a GPU upgrade. The measured FPS figures confirm this: even at 1080p Low, where the CPU has the least work relative to the GPU, the frame rate of 79 FPS is far below what the CPU could theoretically support.

Settings Recommendations

Given the measured frame rates, the optimal experience balances visual quality with playability. At 1920x1080, the Medium preset delivers 64 FPS average with a minimum of 55 FPS and maximum of 74 FPS. This is the best combination of smoothness and graphical fidelity, as it maintains frame rates above 60 FPS while offering improved textures and effects over Low settings. The Low preset at 1080p achieves 79 FPS, but the visual downgrade is not worth the 15 FPS gain when the minimum frame rate is already above 55.

At 2560x1440, the Medium preset produces 41 FPS average with a minimum of 35 FPS. This is the highest settings preset that stays above 30 FPS at this resolution, making it the recommended choice for users who prioritize resolution over smoothness. The Low preset at 1440p reaches 50 FPS, which is smoother but still below 60 FPS, so the choice between Low and Medium at 1440p depends on whether the user prefers frame rate or visual quality.

At 3840x2160, no preset achieves a playable frame rate. Even Low settings only reach 26 FPS, which is below the 30 FPS threshold typically considered minimum for playability. The Medium preset at 4K yields 21 FPS with a minimum of 18 FPS, and Ultra produces 12 FPS. For this resolution, the data indicates that the GPU is simply not capable, and users should avoid 4K entirely with this hardware.

The High preset is consistently a poor choice across all resolutions. At 1080p it delivers 49 FPS, which is between Medium (64 FPS) and Ultra (37 FPS), but it offers no advantage over Medium in terms of playability while sacrificing 15 FPS. The same pattern holds at 1440p (31 FPS) and 4K (16 FPS), where High is always the second-worst option. The recommended presets are therefore: 1080p Medium for the best overall experience, 1440p Low or Medium depending on preference, and no settings at 4K.

Measured FPS Breakdown

The full dataset of measured average frame rates reveals a consistent hierarchy across settings and resolutions. At 1920x1080, the Low preset achieves 79 FPS, followed by Medium at 64 FPS, High at 49 FPS, and Ultra at 37 FPS. The Medium preset has documented variance, with a minimum of 55 FPS and maximum of 74 FPS, indicating stable performance without severe dips.

At 2560x1440, the same ordering applies but with lower absolute values. Low produces 50 FPS, Medium produces 41 FPS (minimum 35, maximum 47), High produces 31 FPS, and Ultra produces 23 FPS. The scaling from 1080p to 1440p shows a reduction of 29 FPS for Low (79 to 50), 23 FPS for Medium (64 to 41), 18 FPS for High (49 to 31), and 14 FPS for Ultra (37 to 23). This decreasing gap with higher settings indicates that at Ultra, the GPU is already so stressed at 1080p that additional resolution has less relative impact.

At 3840x2160, the results are uniformly poor. Low achieves 26 FPS, Medium achieves 21 FPS (minimum 18, maximum 25), High achieves 16 FPS, and Ultra achieves 12 FPS. The scaling from 1440p to 4K is severe: Low drops from 50 to 26 FPS (48% reduction), Medium from 41 to 21 FPS (49% reduction), High from 31 to 16 FPS (48% reduction), and Ultra from 23 to 12 FPS (48% reduction). This consistent ~48% reduction across all settings at the 4K step confirms that the GPU's pixel throughput limit is the dominant constraint, regardless of the quality preset applied.

The minimum and maximum FPS data is only available for the Medium preset at each resolution. At 1080p Medium, the range is 55-74 FPS, a 19 FPS spread. At 1440p Medium, the range is 35-47 FPS, a 12 FPS spread. At 4K Medium, the range is 18-25 FPS, a 7 FPS spread. The narrowing range at higher resolutions indicates that the GPU is operating at its saturation point, leaving less headroom for frame time variation. The data shows that this combo is best suited for 1080p gaming at Medium settings, with playable but not ideal performance at 1440p Low, and no viable options at 4K.