Hard West

The Intel Core Ultra 7 265K paired with the Intel Arc B370 produces a highly constrained gaming experience in Hard West, a turn-based tactics title from late 2015. Measured data shows this combination struggles to maintain smooth frame rates at higher resolutions, with the GPU acting as the primary bottleneck. The CPU, a 20-core Arrow Lake-S part, provides ample processing headroom, but the integrated Arc B370 graphics solution limits overall performance to levels far below what the processor’s capabilities would suggest.

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

The Intel Core Ultra 7 265K is a 20-core, 20-thread desktop processor based on the Arrow Lake architecture, built on a 3 nm process at TSMC. It operates with a base clock of 3.90 GHz and a boost clock of 5.50 GHz, with a 125 W TDP. The cache hierarchy includes 192 KB of L1 per core, 3 MB of L2 per core, and 30 MB of shared L3 cache. Memory support is DDR5 over a dual-channel bus, providing 102.4 GB/s of bandwidth, and the processor includes 20 PCIe Gen 5 lanes.

In synthetic benchmarks, this CPU demonstrates strong multi-threaded performance. Its Cinebench R23 multi-core score is 35850, and its single-core score is 2020. Geekbench results show a multi-core score of 23085 and a single-core score of 2713. The processor’s average benchmark score is 70879, placing it in the 94th percentile of all tested CPUs. Its nearest rivals include the Intel Xeon 6511P (deltaPct -0.2), Intel Xeon Platinum 8270 (deltaPct -0.7), Intel Core i7-14700KF (deltaPct 1), and AMD Ryzen 7 9700F (deltaPct 1.3). These deltas, ranging from -0.7% to 1.3%, indicate the Core Ultra 7 265K sits essentially at parity with those parts in aggregate CPU performance.

For a turn-based tactics game like Hard West, CPU demands are generally modest. The game’s logic, AI pathfinding, and turn resolution rely on single-thread performance more than raw core counts. The Core Ultra 7 265K’s single-core score of 2020 in Cinebench R23 and 2713 in Geekbench indicates it handles such workloads with considerable headroom. Even at the lowest measured settings, where frame rates reach 79 FPS at 1080p, the CPU is unlikely to be the limiting factor. The data shows that across all resolutions and settings, the frame rate drops as resolution increases, a pattern consistent with GPU-bound performance. At 4K Ultra, the average FPS falls to 12, while at 1080p Low it reaches 79 — a difference far too large to be attributed to CPU scaling. The processor’s 20 cores and high boost clock are effectively idle resources in this scenario, as the game’s demands are easily satisfied by a fraction of the available throughput.

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

The Intel Arc B370 is an integrated graphics processor (IGP) based on the Xe3-LPG architecture, built on a 3 nm process at Intel. It features a base clock of 300 MHz and a boost clock of 2400 MHz, with 1280 shading units, 40 texture mapping units, and 20 raster output units. The GPU includes 10 ray tracing cores and supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. Its memory configuration is system-shared, with bandwidth described as system-dependent — meaning it relies on the host system’s DDR5 memory rather than dedicated VRAM. The pixel rate is 48.00 GPixel/s, texture rate is 96.00 GTexel/s, and FP32 performance is 6.144 TFLOPS.

In the 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 benchmark, this GPU scores 1184, placing it in the 5th percentile of all tested GPUs. Its nearest rivals are the ATI Mobility Radeon HD 5570 (deltaPct -0.2), ATI Radeon HD 5770 (deltaPct -0.5), AMD Radeon HD 7650M (deltaPct -0.7), and AMD FirePro M2000 (deltaPct 1.4). These deltas, all within 1.4% of the Arc B370’s score, show that its raw graphics performance is comparable to a range of legacy discrete and mobile GPUs from over a decade ago. The 5th percentile ranking underscores that this is a low-end graphics solution, entirely unsuitable for modern gaming at high resolutions.

In Hard West, the GPU’s limitations are stark. At 1080p Low, the average frame rate is 79 FPS, which is playable. However, increasing the resolution to 1440p Low drops the average to 50 FPS, and at 4K Low it falls to 26 FPS. These reductions are directly attributable to the GPU’s fill rate and memory bandwidth constraints. The system-shared memory, which has no dedicated VRAM, forces the GPU to compete with the CPU for memory access, further degrading performance at higher resolutions where memory bandwidth demands increase. The boost clock of 2400 MHz provides some relief at lower resolutions, but the underlying architecture cannot sustain frame rates above 30 FPS at 1440p on anything above Medium settings, and at 4K, even Low settings produce only 26 FPS on average.

Settings Recommendations — which preset gives the best experience per the measured rows

Based on the measured FPS data, the optimal experience depends heavily on the target resolution. At 1920x1080, the Low preset delivers an average of 79 FPS, while Medium yields 64 FPS with a minimum of 55 FPS and a maximum of 74 FPS. High produces 49 FPS, and Ultra drops to 37 FPS. For a turn-based tactics game, where frame pacing is less critical than in action titles, the Medium preset at 1080p offers a strong balance: the average of 64 FPS is smooth, and the minimum of 55 FPS ensures no significant stutter during gameplay. High at 49 FPS is also acceptable, but the 15 FPS gap between Medium and High suggests diminishing returns for visual quality. Ultra at 37 FPS is playable but noticeably less fluid.

At 2560x1440, the situation changes. Low delivers 50 FPS, Medium averages 41 FPS with a minimum of 35 FPS and a maximum of 47 FPS, High drops to 31 FPS, and Ultra falls to 23 FPS. Here, Medium is the recommended preset, as it maintains an average above 40 FPS while keeping the minimum above 30 FPS. Low at 50 FPS is also viable, but Medium provides a better visual fidelity without a substantial frame rate penalty. High and Ultra at 31 FPS and 23 FPS, respectively, are below the threshold for smooth gameplay, especially in a game with frequent UI updates and map pans.

At 3840x2160, the data shows no playable preset. Low averages 26 FPS, Medium averages 21 FPS (with a minimum of 18 FPS and a maximum of 25 FPS), High averages 16 FPS, and Ultra averages 12 FPS. None of these configurations reach 30 FPS, making 4K effectively unplayable with this combo. The recommendation is to avoid 4K entirely and use 1440p Medium or 1080p Medium, depending on display preference. The measured minimums at Medium settings — 55 FPS at 1080p and 35 FPS at 1440p — indicate that these presets provide the most consistent frame delivery.

How This Combo Ranks — use comboRankInGame vs other tested combos

The combination of the Intel Core Ultra 7 265K and Intel Arc B370 ranks 2721 out of 2949 tested combos in Hard West. This places it in the bottom 8% of all configurations, a position that reflects the GPU’s severe performance limitations rather than any CPU deficiency. The rank of 2721 is particularly notable because the CPU alone sits in the 94th percentile of all processors, while the GPU sits in the 5th percentile. The massive discrepancy between the two components means the combo’s overall ranking is dragged down almost entirely by the graphics solution.

In practical terms, this rank indicates that the vast majority of tested combinations outperform this setup. The data suggests that pairing a high-end 20-core CPU with an integrated graphics part creates a fundamentally unbalanced system for gaming. While the CPU’s performance is exemplary — its nearest rivals include the Intel Core i7-14700KF and AMD Ryzen 7 9700F, both of which are strong modern processors — the GPU’s nearest rivals are the ATI Mobility Radeon HD 5570 and ATI Radeon HD 5770, parts that were entry-level offerings in the early 2010s. This mismatch is reflected in the combo’s rank of 2721, which signals that the system will only handle older or less demanding games at modest settings.

FAQ

*Q: Is the Intel Core Ultra 7 265K powerful enough for Hard West?*

A: Yes. The CPU’s Cinebench R23 multi-core score is 35850, and its single-core score is 2020. Hard West is a turn-based tactics game with modest CPU demands, so the processor provides far more performance than needed, even at the highest measured frame rates of 79 FPS at 1080p Low.

Q: Why does the frame rate drop so significantly from 1080p to 4K?

A: The Intel Arc B370 is an integrated GPU with system-shared memory and a 3DMark Steel Nomad score of 1184, placing it in the 5th percentile of all GPUs. At 1080p Low, the average is 79 FPS, but at 4K Low, it falls to 26 FPS. This drop is caused by the GPU’s limited fill rate and memory bandwidth, which cannot handle the increased pixel workload at higher resolutions.

Q: What is the best settings preset for this combo at 1440p?

A: The Medium preset is recommended at 2560x1440, delivering an average of 41 FPS with a minimum of 35 FPS and a maximum of 47 FPS. Low averages 50 FPS, but Medium offers better visuals while staying above 30 FPS. High and Ultra drop to 31 FPS and 23 FPS, respectively.

*Q: Can this combo run Hard West at 4K?*

A: No. At 3840x2160, the best average frame rate is 26 FPS on Low settings. Medium averages 21 FPS, High averages 16 FPS, and Ultra averages 12 FPS. All presets fall below 30 FPS, making 4K unplayable.

Q: How does the Arc B370 compare to other GPUs in this database?

A: The Arc B370’s average benchmark score is 1184, with a percentile ranking of 5. Its nearest rivals include the ATI Mobility Radeon HD 5570 (deltaPct -0.2), ATI Radeon HD 5770 (deltaPct -0.5), AMD Radeon HD 7650M (deltaPct -0.7), and AMD FirePro M2000 (deltaPct 1.4). These are all legacy GPUs from the early 2010s, indicating the Arc B370’s performance level.

*Q: What rank does this CPU+GPU combo hold in Hard West?*

A: The combo ranks 2721 out of 2949 tested combinations. This places it in the bottom 8% of all configurations, reflecting the GPU’s low performance despite the CPU’s high benchmark scores.

Measured FPS Breakdown — resolution by resolution, settings by settings, exact numbers

At 1920x1080, the measured average frame rates are as follows: Low delivers 79 FPS, Medium delivers 64 FPS with a minimum of 55 FPS and a maximum of 74 FPS, High delivers 49 FPS, and Ultra delivers 37 FPS. The spread from Low to Ultra is 42 FPS, showing a substantial performance cost for higher settings. The Medium preset’s minimum of 55 FPS is the highest minimum across all 1080p presets, as no minimum is recorded for Low, High, or Ultra.

At 2560x1440, the averages are: Low at 50 FPS, Medium at 41 FPS with a minimum of 35 FPS and a maximum of 47 FPS, High at 31 FPS, and Ultra at 23 FPS. The drop from Low to Ultra is 27 FPS. The Medium preset’s minimum of 35 FPS is the only recorded minimum at this resolution, indicating that other presets did not log min/max data.

At 3840x2160, the averages are: Low at 26 FPS, Medium at 21 FPS with a minimum of 18 FPS and a maximum of 25 FPS, High at 16 FPS, and Ultra at 12 FPS. The spread from Low to Ultra is 14 FPS, a narrower range than at lower resolutions because the GPU is already severely bottlenecked even at Low. The Medium preset’s minimum of 18 FPS is the only recorded minimum at 4K.

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

The frame rate scaling from 1080p to 4K reveals a clear GPU-bound pattern. At Low settings, the average FPS drops from 79 at 1080p to 50 at 1440p and 26 at 4K. This represents a 36.7% reduction from 1080p to 1440p and a 48% reduction from 1440p to 4K. At Medium settings, the averages are 64 FPS at 1080p, 41 FPS at 1440p, and 21 FPS at 4K, with reductions of 35.9% and 48.8%, respectively. At High settings, the drop is from 49 FPS to 31 FPS to 16 FPS, and at Ultra, from 37 FPS to 23 FPS to 12 FPS.

These consistent percentage drops across all settings indicate that the GPU is the limiting component. The number of pixels at 4K is four times that of 1080p, and the measured FPS reductions are proportionally larger than what a CPU-bound system would show. If the CPU were the bottleneck, the frame rates would remain relatively flat across resolutions, since the CPU’s workload (game logic, AI, turn processing) does not scale with pixel count. Instead, the data shows that doubling the resolution from 1080p to 1440p reduces FPS by roughly a third, and doubling again to 4K reduces FPS by another half. This scaling is characteristic of a GPU with limited fill rate and memory bandwidth, such as the Arc B370 with its system-shared memory and 6.144 TFLOPS FP32 performance.

The 5th percentile GPU ranking and the 94th percentile CPU ranking confirm this imbalance. The CPU’s high single-core performance (2020 in Cinebench R23) and multi-core capability (35850 in Cinebench R23) are unused in this game, as the GPU cannot produce enough frames to stress the processor. The result is a system where the frame rate is almost entirely determined by the Arc B370’s output, which at 4K falls to as low as 12 FPS on Ultra. For users of this combo, the data clearly shows that 1080p is the only resolution where a playable frame rate (above 30 FPS) is achievable on Medium or High settings, and even then, Ultra at 37 FPS is borderline. The resolution scaling analysis reinforces the conclusion that this pairing is severely GPU-limited, and any attempt to improve performance would require a more capable graphics solution.