Hard West

The Intel Core i7-12700KF paired with the Intel Arc B370 produces a very specific set of results in Hard West, and the data shows this combo is positioned near the bottom of the tested field. With a combo rank of 2721 out of 2949 tested combinations, this system sits in the 8th percentile of all tested pairings for this game. That ranking is heavily influenced by the GPU, which is the clear bottleneck at every resolution and settings level. The CPU has substantial multi-threaded capability, but the Arc B370’s integrated graphics solution limits frame rates to levels that are barely playable at 1080p and often unplayable at higher resolutions. This analysis breaks down exactly where this combo stands, what each component contributes, and which settings provide the most usable experience.

How This Combo Ranks

The combination of the Core i7-12700KF and the Arc B370 lands at rank 2721 out of 2949 tested combos in Hard West. That places this system in the bottom 8% of all tested configurations, which is a clear signal that this pairing is not optimized for this turn-based tactics title. The data indicates that the GPU is the dominant limiting factor; the Arc B370’s average benchmark score of 1184 in 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 places it in the 5th percentile of all GPUs. In contrast, the CPU’s average benchmark score of 35365 places it in the 85th percentile of all CPUs, a massive discrepancy that explains why the combo rank is so low despite having a capable processor.

Looking at the nearest rivals for the GPU, the Arc B370 is nearly identical in raw performance to the ATI Mobility Radeon HD 5570, which scores 1186 with a delta of -0.2%, and the ATI Radeon HD 5770, which scores 1190 with a delta of -0.5%. The AMD Radeon HD 7650M is slightly ahead at 1192 with a delta of -0.7%, while the AMD FirePro M2000 trails at 1168 with a delta of 1.4%. These are all legacy or low-end mobile parts, confirming that the Arc B370’s performance class is far below what modern desktop gamers expect. For the CPU, the nearest rivals are all close in average score: the Intel Core i7-13700T at 35403 (-0.1% delta), the Intel Core 5 213PE at 35428 (-0.2% delta), the Intel Core i5-13600T at 35305 (+0.2% delta), and the Intel Core i7-12700K at 35287 (+0.2% delta). These small deltas show that the i7-12700KF is right in line with other mid-range and upper-mid-range processors, so the CPU is not the reason this combo ranks so poorly.

The measured FPS data reinforces this ranking. At 1080p with Low settings, the combo reaches 79 FPS, which is the only row in the entire dataset that approaches smooth gameplay. Every other setting and resolution combination produces lower frame rates, with 4K Ultra dropping to 12 FPS. The gap between the CPU’s strong multi-threaded benchmarks and the GPU’s low percentile score means that any upgrade path should focus on the graphics side first. The data shows that even at 1080p, moving from Low to Medium costs 15 FPS (from 79 to 64), and from Medium to High costs another 15 FPS (from 64 to 49). This steep scaling is typical of a GPU that is fully saturated, with the CPU having plenty of headroom to spare.

GPU Role

The Intel Arc B370 is the critical component in this pairing, and its specifications explain why the measured FPS are so low. The GPU uses the Xe3-LPG architecture on a 3 nm process node from Intel, with a chip codenamed Panther Lake. It has 1280 shading units, 40 texture mapping units, and 20 render output units, along with 10 ray tracing cores. The base clock runs at 300 MHz, and the boost clock reaches 2400 MHz. These clock speeds are respectable on paper, but the memory configuration is the major weakness: the Arc B370 uses system shared memory, with a bus width listed as system shared and bandwidth described as system dependent. This means the GPU relies on the CPU’s memory controller and system RAM for all graphics data, which introduces latency and reduces effective bandwidth compared to a dedicated VRAM solution.

In terms of compute, the Arc B370 delivers 6.144 TFLOPS of FP32 performance and 12.29 TFLOPS of FP16 performance (at a 2:1 ratio). The pixel rate is 48.00 GPixel/s, and the texture rate is 96.00 GTexel/s. The GPU supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4, which is more than sufficient for Hard West, a game released in 2015 that does not require modern graphics features. However, the raw throughput is simply too low for this title at higher resolutions. The GPU’s TDP is 25 W, and it is classified as an IGP with no power connectors, meaning it shares power and thermal resources with the CPU package.

The benchmark data for the Arc B370 is sparse, with only one result: a 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 score of 1184. This score places the GPU in the 5th percentile of all GPUs, which is an extremely low standing. The nearest rivals are all older ATI or AMD parts, with the closest being the ATI Mobility Radeon HD 5570 at 1186 (-0.2% delta) and the ATI Radeon HD 5770 at 1190 (-0.5% delta). These comparisons show that the Arc B370 is not just slow by modern standards; it is on par with GPUs from over a decade ago. In Hard West, this translates to 16 FPS at 4K High, 31 FPS at 1440p High, and 49 FPS at 1080p High. The only playable result is 79 FPS at 1080p Low, which suggests that the GPU can handle the game only when the rendering load is minimized.

CPU Role

The Intel Core i7-12700KF provides a stark contrast to the GPU’s limitations. This processor features 12 cores and 20 threads, with a base clock of 3.60 GHz and a boost clock of 5.00 GHz. It is based on the Alder Lake architecture on a 10 nm process node from Intel, with a die size of 215 mm². The cache hierarchy includes 80 KB of L1 per core, 1.25 MB of L2 per core, and 25 MB of shared L3 cache. Memory support includes both DDR4 and DDR5 in a dual-channel configuration, and the CPU offers PCIe Gen 4 with 20 lanes. The TDP is 125 W, and the processor uses the Intel Socket 1700. The launch MSRP was $384.

Benchmark results for the i7-12700KF show strong multi-threaded performance. In Cinebench R23, it scores 28838 in multi-core and 4071 in single-core. In Cinebench R20, the scores are 12111 multi-core and 1709 single-core. Geekbench results show 14367 multi-core and 2255 single-core. The PassMark multithread score is 34092, with single-thread at 3984. The 3DMark tests show a max threads score of 9983, with 16 threads at 9282, 8 threads at 7211, 4 threads at 4011, and 2 threads at 2065. The single-thread 3DMark score is 1043. These numbers place the CPU in the 85th percentile of all CPUs, with an average benchmark score of 35365.

In Hard West, the CPU’s role is largely underutilized because the game’s turn-based tactics engine does not require heavy multi-threaded processing. The measured FPS across all resolutions and settings are consistently limited by the GPU, as evidenced by the fact that dropping from 1080p to 1440p reduces frame rates by roughly 35-40% at the same settings (for example, High drops from 49 to 31 FPS, and Low drops from 79 to 50 FPS). If the CPU were the bottleneck, these resolution changes would have a much smaller impact. The nearest rivals for the CPU all have similar average scores, with the Intel Core i7-13700T at 35403 (-0.1% delta), the Intel Core 5 213PE at 35428 (-0.2% delta), the Intel Core i5-13600T at 35305 (+0.2% delta), and the Intel Core i7-12700K at 35287 (+0.2% delta). The data shows that this CPU has far more capability than the GPU can feed, making it a poor match for the Arc B370 in this game.

Measured FPS Breakdown

The measured FPS data for this combo covers four resolutions (1920x1080, 2560x1440, and 3840x2160) and four settings levels (Low, Medium, High, and Ultra). At 1080p, the results are as follows: Low produces an average of 79 FPS, Medium produces 64 FPS with a minimum of 55 and a maximum of 74, High produces 49 FPS, and Ultra produces 37 FPS. These are the highest frame rates in the entire dataset, and even the Ultra setting at 37 FPS is technically playable, though not ideal for a tactics game where smooth camera movement matters.

Moving to 1440p, the frame rates drop significantly. Low settings yield 50 FPS, Medium yields 41 FPS with a minimum of 35 and a maximum of 47, High yields 31 FPS, and Ultra yields 23 FPS. The drop from 1080p to 1440p is roughly 37% at Low (79 to 50 FPS), 36% at Medium (64 to 41 FPS), 37% at High (49 to 31 FPS), and 38% at Ultra (37 to 23 FPS). This consistent percentage drop indicates that the GPU is the limiting factor, as the resolution scaling follows a predictable pattern based on pixel count.

At 4K, the results are largely unplayable. Low settings produce 26 FPS, Medium produces 21 FPS with a minimum of 18 and a maximum of 25, High produces 16 FPS, and Ultra produces 12 FPS. The drop from 1440p to 4K is even steeper: Low falls 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). These numbers show that 4K is simply not viable with this GPU, as even Low settings fail to reach 30 FPS.

The only row with all three metrics (min, avg, max) is Medium at each resolution. At 1080p Medium, the range is 55 to 74 FPS, giving a variance of 19 FPS. At 1440p Medium, the range is 35 to 47 FPS, a variance of 12 FPS. At 4K Medium, the range is 18 to 25 FPS, a variance of 7 FPS. This narrowing variance at higher resolutions is another sign of GPU saturation, where the frame rate is more consistently limited by the rendering pipeline rather than by scene complexity or CPU hiccups.

Resolution Scaling

The resolution scaling data reveals a clear pattern: frame rates drop by approximately 37-38% when moving from 1080p to 1440p, and then by another 48-49% when moving from 1440p to 4K. This compounding effect means that 4K performance is roughly one-quarter of 1080p performance at the same settings. For example, at High settings, the average FPS goes from 49 at 1080p to 31 at 1440p to 16 at 4K. That is a 68% total reduction from 1080p to 4K. At Low settings, the drop is from 79 to 50 to 26 FPS, a 67% reduction.

This scaling behavior indicates that the limiting component is the GPU, not the CPU. If the CPU were the constraint, we would expect frame rates to remain more stable across resolutions, since the CPU workload in a turn-based tactics game like Hard West does not increase proportionally with pixel count. Instead, the consistent percentage drops match the increase in pixel count: 1440p has 1.78 times the pixels of 1080p, which would suggest a 44% reduction if perfectly GPU-bound, and the observed 37-38% reduction is close to that. Similarly, 4K has 2.25 times the pixels of 1440p, suggesting a 56% reduction, and the observed 48-49% reduction is in that ballpark. The slight deviation from perfect scaling is likely due to the game’s graphics engine not being fully pixel-bound at these low frame rates, but the trend is unmistakable.

The practical implication is that this combo is only usable at 1080p. At 1440p, even Low settings at 50 FPS are borderline for a tactics game, but the 41 FPS average at Medium and 31 FPS at High are below the 60 FPS threshold that many players prefer. At 4K, no setting is viable, with the best case being 26 FPS at Low, which is still below 30 FPS. The data shows that the Arc B370’s system shared memory and low compute throughput make it unsuitable for high-resolution gaming, and any attempt to play Hard West above 1080p will result in a compromised experience.

Settings Recommendations

Based on the measured FPS rows, the best experience for this combo is at 1080p with Medium settings, which yields an average of 64 FPS with a minimum of 55 and a maximum of 74. This is the only setting that provides both a stable frame rate above 60 FPS and a reasonable visual quality boost over Low. The Medium preset at 1080p offers a 19 FPS range, which is tight enough to avoid noticeable stutters in a turn-based game where camera panning and unit animations are the main sources of movement.

If higher visual fidelity is a priority, 1080p High at 49 FPS is the next best option, but it drops below the 60 FPS threshold and may feel less smooth during map scrolling. The 37 FPS at 1080p Ultra is playable in a tactical sense, but the frame pacing is likely to be inconsistent given the GPU’s low percentile standing. At 1440p, the best option is Low at 50 FPS, which is acceptable for slower-paced gameplay, but Medium at 41 FPS is risky because the minimum of 35 FPS could dip into noticeable lag during complex scenes. At 4K, the data strongly recommends against any setting, as even Low at 26 FPS is below playable standards for most users.

The trade-off between Low and Medium at 1080p is worth highlighting: Low gives 79 FPS, which is 23% faster than Medium’s 64 FPS, but the visual improvements from Medium are significant for a game that relies on atmosphere and lighting to convey its dark Western theme. The Medium preset also has a narrower FPS range (55-74) compared to Low’s single average value, suggesting more consistent performance. For players who prioritize frame rate above all else, 1080p Low is the only setting that exceeds 70 FPS, but for a balanced experience, 1080p Medium is the recommended choice. The data shows that this combo cannot handle higher resolutions without dropping below 50 FPS, so staying at 1080p is essential.