Hard West

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

The AMD Ryzen 9 9900X is a 12-core, 24-thread desktop processor built on the Zen 5 architecture (Granite Ridge) using a 4 nm process at TSMC. It operates with a base clock of 4.40 GHz and a boost clock of 5.60 GHz, with a 120 W TDP. The CPU's cache hierarchy includes 80 KB of L1 per core, 1 MB of L2 per core, and a shared 64 MB L3 cache. It supports DDR5 memory over a dual-channel bus with 89.6 GB/s of memory bandwidth, and it integrates Radeon Graphics alongside its 16,630 million transistors spread across two 70.6 mm² dies.

For a game like Hard West, a turn-based tactics title, the computational demands are not overwhelmingly parallel. The CPU's single-thread performance is a critical factor, and the data confirms this processor is strong in that regard. In Cinebench R23, the 9900X scores 2,253 points in single-core and 32,172 points in multi-core. The Geekbench results show 3,010 single-core and 22,174 multi-core. The 3DMark single-thread test yields 1,286 points, while the 2-thread test scores 2,519, indicating that even with just two threads, the processor scales well. The 4-thread score jumps to 4,886, and the 8-thread score reaches 9,114, showing healthy scaling up to eight threads. The max-thread score of 13,929 in 3DMark and the Passmark multithread score of 54,643 suggest that the 24 threads are effectively utilized, but for Hard West's turn-based logic, the single-thread capabilities are likely what keep the game running at playable frame rates when the GPU is not the bottleneck.

The CPU's percentile ranking against all CPUs is 92, placing it in the top tier. Its average benchmark score is 57,498, which is nearly identical to the AMD EPYC 9015 (57,555, a -0.1% delta) and the AMD EPYC 7313 (57,399, a +0.2% delta). It trails the Intel Core i9-14900 (58,115, a -1.1% delta) and the Intel Xeon Platinum 8260M (58,323, a -1.4% delta) by small margins. These rivals are server or high-end desktop parts, so the 9900X is competitively positioned. In Hard West, where the action is driven by discrete turns and unit interactions rather than continuous physics simulation, the CPU's robust single-thread score ensures that game logic, pathfinding, and AI decisions do not become a limiting factor at lower resolutions. However, as the measured FPS data will show, the GPU becomes the dominant constraint at higher settings and resolutions.

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

The Intel Arc B390 is an integrated graphics solution based on the Xe3-LPG architecture (Panther Lake chip) built on a 3 nm process at Intel. It has a base clock of 300 MHz and a boost clock of 2500 MHz, with a TDP of 80 W. The GPU's memory is system shared, meaning it uses the host system's DDR5 memory rather than dedicated VRAM; the memory bus width and bandwidth are also system dependent. It features 1,536 shading units, 48 texture mapping units, and 24 ROPs, along with 12 ray tracing cores. The pixel rate is 60.00 GPixel/s, texture rate is 120.0 GTexel/s, and FP32 compute is 7.680 TFLOPS. It supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4.

The Arc B390's benchmark presence is minimal, with a single 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 score of 1,482. This places it at the 9th percentile among all GPUs, which is low. Its nearest rivals in synthetic benchmarks are all older NVIDIA parts: the GeForce GT 520MX (1,463, a +1.3% delta), the GeForce 800M (1,460, a +1.5% delta), the GeForce GT 625 OEM (1,446, a +2.5% delta), and the GeForce GT 710 (1,443, a +2.7% delta). These deltas show that the Arc B390 is marginally faster than these legacy mobile and OEM parts, but it is still far below the performance of any modern discrete GPU. In Hard West, the GPU's shared memory architecture means that the available bandwidth for textures and frame buffers is contingent on the system's memory configuration, which introduces variability. The 2500 MHz boost clock is high for an integrated part, but the limited ROP count (24) and relatively modest shading unit count (1,536) cap its fill-rate and pixel throughput. The measured FPS data will demonstrate that this GPU struggles to maintain high frame rates even at lower resolutions, confirming its role as the primary bottleneck in this combo.

How This Combo Ranks

In Hard West, the combination of the AMD Ryzen 9 9900X and Intel Arc B390 ranks 2,614 out of 2,949 tested combos. This places it in the bottom percentile of all combinations, around the 11th percentile (calculated from the rank and total). This is a low ranking, but it is expected given the GPU's 9th percentile standing. The CPU is clearly not the limiting factor here; its 92nd percentile ranking is a stark contrast to the GPU's low standing. The data indicates that the combo's overall performance is dragged down almost entirely by the integrated graphics.

When examining the rank, it is important to note that this is not a reflection of the CPU's capability but rather a measure of the entire system's gaming performance. The CPU is overkill for this GPU, meaning that in most scenarios, the Arc B390 will be saturated long before the 9900X is strained. The combo's rank of 2,614 suggests that the vast majority of other tested combinations—likely those with even entry-level discrete GPUs—outperform this setup. For a turn-based tactics game like Hard West, which is not graphically intense by modern standards, this low rank still translates to playable frame rates at certain settings, as the measured FPS breakdown will show. The data suggests that the CPU's high benchmark scores are irrelevant to the gaming experience in this configuration, as the GPU's 9th percentile performance caps the system.

Measured FPS Breakdown

The measured FPS data for Hard West reveals a clear pattern: performance scales with resolution and settings, but the GPU consistently limits the experience.

At 1920x1080, the lowest resolution tested, the combo achieves an average of 87 FPS on Low settings, which is smooth and highly playable. On Medium settings, the average drops to 71 FPS, with a minimum of 61 FPS and a maximum of 82 FPS, indicating consistent frame delivery. High settings bring the average down to 55 FPS, still within a playable range. Ultra settings, however, push the average down to 41 FPS, which is borderline for some players but acceptable for a turn-based game where reaction time is not critical.

At 2560x1440, the frame rates drop significantly. Low settings yield an average of 55 FPS, which is identical to the 1080p High result, suggesting the GPU is becoming more strained. Medium settings average 45 FPS, with a minimum of 38 FPS and a maximum of 52 FPS. High settings drop to 35 FPS on average. Ultra settings fall to 26 FPS, which is approaching the lower limits of playability.

At 3840x2160 (4K), the performance collapses. Low settings average 29 FPS, which is barely playable. Medium settings average 24 FPS, with a minimum of 20 FPS and a maximum of 27 FPS. High settings average 18 FPS, and Ultra settings average only 14 FPS. These results are not playable for most users, but they are expected given the GPU's limited compute and fill-rate capabilities.

The data shows a consistent trend: each increase in resolution or settings tier costs a significant number of frames. The gap between Low and Ultra at 1080p is 46 FPS (from 87 to 41), while at 4K, the gap is 15 FPS (from 29 to 14). This suggests that at higher resolutions, the GPU is so saturated that settings changes have a smaller absolute impact on frame rate, but the frame rates are already too low to be practical.

FAQ

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

A: The data shows that 1920x1080 is the only resolution where all settings tiers achieve an average FPS above 40, with Low at 87 FPS, Medium at 71 FPS, High at 55 FPS, and Ultra at 41 FPS. This makes 1080p the only viable resolution for a smooth experience.

Q: Can I play at 4K with this setup?

A: The measured results at 3840x2160 show average FPS ranging from 14 on Ultra to 29 on Low. These are below the generally accepted threshold for smooth gameplay, so 4K is not recommended unless you are willing to accept a slide-show-like experience.

Q: How does the CPU's performance compare to its rivals?

A: The Ryzen 9 9900X has an average benchmark score of 57,498. It is 0.1% behind the AMD EPYC 9015 (57,555) and 0.2% ahead of the AMD EPYC 7313 (57,399). It trails the Intel Core i9-14900 (58,115) by 1.1% and the Intel Xeon Platinum 8260M (58,323) by 1.4%.

Q: Is the GPU's performance comparable to any discrete graphics card?

A: The Intel Arc B390's 3DMark Steel Nomad score is 1,482, which is 1.3% ahead of the NVIDIA GeForce GT 520MX (1,463), 1.5% ahead of the GeForce 800M (1,460), 2.5% ahead of the GeForce GT 625 OEM (1,446), and 2.7% ahead of the GeForce GT 710 (1,443). These are all very old or low-end parts.

Q: What is the difference between Low and Medium settings at 1440p?

A: At 2560x1440, Low settings average 55 FPS, while Medium settings average 45 FPS. The Medium setting also provides a minimum of 38 FPS and a maximum of 52 FPS, showing a 10 FPS average drop from Low.

Q: Does the game run better at Low settings on 1440p than at High settings on 1080p?

A: Yes, the data shows that 1440p Low averages 55 FPS, which is identical to the 1080p High average of 55 FPS. This indicates that the GPU is equally stressed by either configuration.

Settings Recommendations

Based on the measured FPS rows, the optimal settings for this combo are at 1920x1080 with Medium settings. This configuration yields an average of 71 FPS, with a minimum of 61 FPS and a maximum of 82 FPS. This provides a smooth and consistent frame rate that is well above the playability threshold for a turn-based tactics game. The minimum of 61 FPS ensures that even in the most demanding scenes, the game does not stutter significantly.

If you prefer higher visual fidelity, 1080p High settings average 55 FPS, which is still acceptable, but the lack of a minimum FPS reading in the data means there is some uncertainty about frame consistency. The 1080p Ultra setting averages 41 FPS, which may be playable for some, but the drop from 55 to 41 FPS is substantial. For those who prioritize frame rate over quality, 1080p Low at 87 FPS is the smoothest option, but it sacrifices visual detail. At 1440p, the Medium settings (45 FPS average) are the only viable tier, but they are not as smooth as the 1080p Medium experience. At 4K, no settings tier provides a playable frame rate, with the highest average being 29 FPS on Low.

The data shows that the best balance of visual quality and performance is achieved at 1080p Medium. This setting avoids the frame rate volatility of High and Ultra (which have no min/max data) and provides a comfortable margin above the 60 FPS threshold. If you are willing to accept a lower frame rate, 1440p Medium is the highest resolution that remains playable, but the 38 FPS minimum is a risk during complex scenes. The recommendation is to stay at 1080p for a consistent experience.

Resolution Scaling

The FPS drop from 1080p to 4K is steep and reveals the limiting component. At 1080p Medium, the average is 71 FPS. Moving to 1440p Medium, the average drops to 45 FPS, a 36.6% reduction. Moving to 4K Medium, the average drops to 24 FPS, a 66.2% reduction from 1080p. This scaling pattern is characteristic of a GPU-bound scenario. If the CPU were the bottleneck, the frame rates would remain relatively flat across resolutions, as the CPU's workload (game logic, AI) does not change with resolution. The fact that FPS drops dramatically as resolution increases confirms that the Intel Arc B390's pixel throughput and fill rate are the limiting factors.

The reduction from 1080p to 1440p is 26 FPS (from 71 to 45), and from 1440p to 4K is another 21 FPS (from 45 to 24). The scaling is not linear; the drop from 1440p to 4K is less severe in absolute terms, but this is because the GPU is already near its limits at 1440p. The data indicates that the GPU's 24 ROPs and 60.00 GPixel/s pixel rate are insufficient for higher resolutions. The CPU, with its 12 cores and high single-thread score, is far from being stressed; it is waiting on the GPU to deliver frames. This is a classic case of a high-end CPU paired with a low-end integrated GPU, where the system's gaming performance is entirely dictated by the graphics solution. The 89.6 GB/s memory bandwidth of the CPU is likely not the bottleneck either, as the GPU's shared memory access is system dependent, but the GPU's compute and fill-rate limits are the clear constraint.