Hard West

Resolution Scaling

The measured FPS data for Hard West with the Intel Core i5-13400F and AMD Radeon RX 7700 reveals a clear and consistent pattern of resolution scaling. At 1080p with Low settings, the combo averages 197 FPS, which drops to 125 FPS at 1440p and further to 65 FPS at 4K. This progression shows that the game becomes progressively more taxing on the GPU as pixel count increases.

The scaling from 1080p to 1440p at Low settings represents a 36.5% reduction in average FPS (from 197 to 125). Moving from 1440p to 4K at Low settings brings another 48% reduction (from 125 to 65). These substantial drops indicate that Hard West's rendering load scales strongly with resolution, even at lower preset levels.

At High settings, the pattern is similar but with lower absolute values. The combo delivers 124 FPS at 1080p, 78 FPS at 1440p, and 41 FPS at 4K. The drop from 1080p to 1440p is 37.1%, while the drop from 1440p to 4K is 47.4%. This consistency across presets suggests that resolution scaling is relatively uniform regardless of the visual quality level.

Looking at Ultra settings, the data shows 93 FPS at 1080p, 59 FPS at 1440p, and 31 FPS at 4K. The percentage drops are 36.6% and 47.5% respectively, mirroring the pattern seen in other presets. This uniformity indicates that the GPU is the primary limiting factor across all resolution and settings combinations tested.

The Medium preset provides the only complete min/max FPS data, showing 4K results of 46 FPS minimum and 62 FPS maximum with an average of 54 FPS. At 1440p Medium, the range is 87 to 117 FPS with an average of 102 FPS. At 1080p Medium, the range is 137 to 186 FPS with an average of 161 FPS. These ranges demonstrate that frame pacing remains relatively consistent, with approximately 30% variation between minimum and maximum values at each resolution.

The data suggests that at 1080p, the CPU has more headroom, as evidenced by the wide gap between Low (197 FPS) and Ultra (93 FPS) settings. This gap narrows at 4K, where Low produces 65 FPS and Ultra produces 31 FPS. The narrowing gap at higher resolutions further confirms that pixel throughput becomes the dominant constraint as resolution increases.

Settings Recommendations

Based on the measured FPS rows, the optimal settings balance depends heavily on the target resolution and desired frame rate. At 1080p, all four presets produce playable results, with even Ultra averaging 93 FPS. However, the Medium preset at 1080p offers an average of 161 FPS with a minimum of 137 FPS, making it the best choice for high-refresh-rate displays while maintaining visual quality.

For 1440p, the High preset delivers 78 FPS on average, which is suitable for most gaming scenarios. The Medium preset at 1440p produces 102 FPS average with an 87 FPS minimum, providing a smoother experience with only a modest reduction in visual fidelity compared to High. The Ultra preset at 1440p drops to 59 FPS, which may be acceptable for slower-paced turn-based tactics but leaves less headroom for demanding scenes.

At 4K, the High preset averages 41 FPS, which is below the 60 FPS threshold commonly desired for smooth gameplay. The Medium preset at 4K offers 54 FPS average with a 46 FPS minimum, making it the highest quality setting that maintains playable frame rates. The Low preset at 4K reaches 65 FPS, providing a comfortable margin above 60 FPS but at significantly reduced visual quality.

For the best experience per the measured data, the Medium preset at 1440p stands out as the sweet spot. It delivers 102 FPS average with a minimum of 87 FPS, ensuring consistent performance while retaining moderate visual quality. Players prioritizing visual fidelity over frame rate could consider High at 1440p (78 FPS) or Medium at 4K (54 FPS), depending on their display capabilities and performance preferences.

The Ultra preset appears to be the least efficient choice across all resolutions. At 4K, it produces only 31 FPS, which is below the threshold for comfortable gameplay. Even at 1080p, Ultra's 93 FPS average provides only a 42.4% improvement over the 4K Medium result, despite requiring significantly more GPU resources. This suggests that Ultra settings offer diminishing returns for this title.

FAQ

Q: What is the highest playable setting at 4K resolution?

A: The Medium preset at 4K averages 54 FPS with a minimum of 46 FPS and maximum of 62 FPS, making it the highest quality setting that maintains playable frame rates at this resolution. The High preset drops to 41 FPS, while Ultra falls to 31 FPS.

Q: How does the combo perform at 1080p for high-refresh-rate displays?

A: At 1080p, the Low preset achieves 197 FPS, Medium reaches 161 FPS, High delivers 124 FPS, and Ultra produces 93 FPS. All presets exceed 90 FPS, making this combination suitable for displays up to 144Hz or 165Hz with appropriate settings.

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

A: At 1440p, Low averages 125 FPS while Ultra averages 59 FPS, representing a 52.8% reduction in average frame rate when moving from the lowest to the highest preset. The Medium preset sits between these at 102 FPS, and High achieves 78 FPS.

Q: Is the frame rate consistent across each resolution?

A: The data shows consistent frame pacing. At Medium settings, the 1080p range is 137-186 FPS, the 1440p range is 87-117 FPS, and the 4K range is 46-62 FPS. The variation between minimum and maximum remains around 30% of the average across all three resolutions.

Q: Which resolution provides the best balance of visual quality and performance?

A: The 1440p Medium preset offers 102 FPS average with an 87 FPS minimum, providing a strong balance. It delivers 89% of the 1080p Medium average (161 FPS) while offering significantly more pixel detail than 1080p.

Q: How does the Ultra preset compare to High at each resolution?

A: At 1080p, Ultra (93 FPS) is 25% slower than High (124 FPS). At 1440p, Ultra (59 FPS) is 24.4% slower than High (78 FPS). At 4K, Ultra (31 FPS) is 24.4% slower than High (41 FPS). The percentage penalty for Ultra remains nearly constant across resolutions.

How This Combo Ranks

The combination of the Intel Core i5-13400F and AMD Radeon RX 7700 achieves a rank of 1735 out of 3722 tested combos in Hard West. This places the pairing in the 53.4th percentile of all tested combinations, meaning it outperforms roughly half of the systems tested while being outperformed by the other half.

This mid-pack ranking is somewhat surprising given the individual component specifications. The CPU ranks in the 77th percentile among all processors tested, while the GPU ranks in the 58th percentile among all graphics cards tested. The combo's overall ranking being lower than either component's individual percentile suggests that Hard West's performance characteristics may not fully utilize the strengths of this particular hardware pairing.

The CPU's nearest rivals include the AMD Ryzen 9 6900HS with an average score of 25284 (0% delta), the Intel Core 5 120 with 25362 (-0.3% delta), the AMD Ryzen 5 5600X3D with 25365 (-0.3% delta), and the AMD Ryzen 7 6800H with 25201 (0.4% delta). These scores indicate that the i5-13400F's processing capability is tightly clustered with several competing CPUs, with less than 1% variation between them.

On the GPU side, the RX 7700's nearest rivals include the AMD Radeon R9 370X with an average score of 15862 (-0.1% delta), the AMD Radeon RX 9060 with 16014 (-1% delta), the AMD Radeon Pro W5500 with 15679 (1.1% delta), and the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3060 Ti with 16129 (-1.7% delta). The RX 7700's average benchmark score of 15852 places it near the middle of this group, with the RTX 3060 Ti holding a slight 1.7% advantage.

The combo's ranking in Hard West specifically, as opposed to synthetic benchmarks, suggests that the game's turn-based tactics engine may be more sensitive to certain architectural characteristics than to raw compute performance. The 1735th rank out of 3722 combos indicates that other hardware pairings achieve better frame rates in this title, despite the i5-13400F and RX 7700 performing competitively in general benchmarks.

GPU Role

The AMD Radeon RX 7700 features 16 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 256-bit bus, providing 624.1 GB/s of memory bandwidth. The GPU's base clock is 1900 MHz, with a game clock of 2041 MHz and a boost clock of 2459 MHz. These specifications position the card for 1440p gaming, which is reflected in the measured FPS data.

The RX 7700's memory configuration appears sufficient for Hard West at all tested resolutions. The 16 GB capacity is ample for the game's texture and asset requirements, while the 624.1 GB/s bandwidth supports the resolution scaling observed in the data. At 4K Medium, the card maintains 54 FPS average, indicating that memory bandwidth is not a bottleneck at this resolution.

The GPU's RDNA 3.0 architecture provides 2560 shading units, 160 texture mapping units, and 96 render output units. These specifications translate to a pixel rate of 236.1 GPixel/s and a texture rate of 393.4 GTexel/s. The FP32 performance of 25.18 TFLOPS provides substantial compute headroom for the game's rendering effects.

The RX 7700's benchmark scores show a Passmark G3D score of 20974able, with a DirectX 11 score of 186 and a DirectX 12 score of 96. The GPU's percentile ranking of 58 among all tested GPUs indicates slightly above-average performance, though its nearest rivals show small deltas. The GPU compute score of 10963 suggests that compute-heavy workloads perform adequately.

The 200 W TDP and 550 W suggested PSU requirement indicate that this GPU is designed for mainstream systems. The dual-slot cooler and 267 mm length make it compatible with most mid-tower cases. The PCIe 4.0 x16 interface provides sufficient bandwidth for the card's memory architecture.

In Hard West specifically, the GPU's role becomes more pronounced at higher resolutions. The scaling from 1080p to 4K at each preset shows consistent performance degradation, confirming that the GPU is the primary driver of frame rate at 4K. At 1080p, the GPU has more headroom, allowing even Ultra settings to maintain 93 FPS.

Measured FPS Breakdown

At 1920x1080, the combo delivers its highest frame rates. The Low preset averages 197 FPS, which represents the maximum performance measured in this dataset. The Medium preset averages 161 FPS with a minimum of 137 FPS and maximum of 186 FPS. High settings produce 124 FPS average, while Ultra drops to 93 FPS. The progression from Low to Ultra at 1080p shows a 52.8% reduction in average FPS.

At 2560x1440, the performance scales down proportionally. Low settings average 125 FPS, Medium averages 102 FPS with a range of 87 to 117 FPS, High averages 78 FPS, and Ultra averages 59 FPS. The 1440p results represent roughly 63-64% of the corresponding 1080p values across all presets, showing consistent scaling.

At 3840x2160, the frame rates drop significantly. Low settings average 65 FPS, Medium averages 54 FPS with a minimum of 46 FPS and maximum of 62 FPS, High averages 41 FPS, and Ultra averages 31 FPS. The 4K results represent approximately 33% of the 1080p values, indicating the substantial GPU load at this resolution.

The Medium preset provides the most complete data with min and max FPS recorded at all three resolutions. At 1080p, the spread between minimum and maximum is 49 FPS (137 to 186). At 1440p, the spread is 30 FPS (87 to 117). At 4K, the spread is 16 FPS (46 to 62). The narrowing spread at higher resolutions suggests that GPU-bound scenarios produce more consistent frame times.

The Ultra preset shows the lowest performance at every resolution. At 1080p, Ultra delivers 93 FPS, which is 47.2% of the Low preset's 197 FPS. At 1440p, Ultra produces 59 FPS, which is 47.2% of Low's 125 FPS. At 4K, Ultra achieves 31 FPS, which is 47.7% of Low's 65 FPS. This consistency indicates that Ultra settings impose a similar relative cost regardless of resolution.

CPU Role

The Intel Core i5-13400F provides 10 cores and 16 threads, with a base clock of 2.50 GHz and a boost clock of 4.60 GHz. The processor features 80 KB of L1 cache per core, 1.25 MB of L2 cache per core, and 20 MB of shared L3 cache. This configuration is designed for balanced gaming and productivity workloads.

The CPU's benchmark results show strong multi-threaded performance, with a Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 22604 and a single-core score of 3191. The 3DMark 16-thread score of 7314 and max-thread score of 7307 indicate consistent scaling across thread counts. The Passmark multi-thread score of 25032 and single-thread score of 3634 further confirm balanced performance.

In Hard West, the CPU's role appears secondary to the GPU at higher resolutions, but becomes more relevant at 1080p. The large frame rate differences between presets at 1080p (197 FPS at Low vs 93 FPS at Ultra) suggest that the CPU can feed the GPU at this resolution, allowing graphics settings to become the limiting factor. The CPU's boost clock of 4.60 GHz provides sufficient single-thread performance for the game's turn-based logic and AI calculations.

The i5-13400F's 65 W TDP and 10 nm process node contribute to efficient operation. The CPU supports DDR4 and DDR5 memory through a dual-channel interface, though the memory bandwidth figure is not specified. The PCIe Gen 5 interface with 16 lanes provides ample bandwidth for the RX 7700's PCIe 4.0 x16 connection.

The CPU's percentile ranking of 77 among all processors places it well above the GPU's 58th percentile ranking. This disparity suggests that the CPU has more performance headroom than the GPU in this pairing, which is consistent with the measured FPS data showing GPU-bound behavior at higher resolutions.

The nearest CPU rivals show tight performance clustering, with the AMD Ryzen 9 6900HS matching the i5-13400F's average score exactly (0% delta). The Intel Core 5 120 and AMD Ryzen 5 5600X3D trail by 0.3%, while the AMD Ryzen 7 6800H leads by 0.4%. These small deltas indicate that the i5-13400F is near the center of its performance class.

In Hard West, the CPU's 10 cores and 16 threads are likely more than sufficient for the game's requirements benching. The turn-based tactics genre typically does not demand extreme multi-threaded performance, and the measured FPS data suggests that the GPU is the primary constraint at 1440p and 4K resolutions. At 1080p with lower settings, the CPU's single-thread performance of 3634 in Passmark provides adequate support for high frame rates up to 197 FPS.