Minimum

How This Combo Ranks

The AMD Ryzen 5 7500F paired with the Intel Arc B390 lands at rank 2602 out of 2939 tested combos in Minimum. That places this configuration in the bottom 12 percent of all tested combinations, which is a strikingly low result for a CPU that sits in the 77th percentile among all processors. The data shows a profound mismatch: the Ryzen 5 7500F is a capable mid-range desktop chip, while the Arc B390 — an integrated graphics solution with a 9th percentile ranking among all GPUs — becomes the decisive bottleneck in nearly every scenario.

Looking at the CPU’s synthetic benchmarks, the Ryzen 5 7500F posts an average benchmark score of 24964. Its nearest rivals in the database include the Intel Core i7-11850H at 24935 (0.1 percent ahead), the AMD Ryzen 5 8400F at 25005 (0.2 percent behind), the Intel Core i7-13620H at 24911 (0.2 percent ahead), and the Intel Core 5 210H at 24872 (0.4 percent ahead). These deltas are negligible — the 7500F is effectively performance-equivalent to those four chips in aggregate CPU workloads. The CPU is not the problem here.

The GPU tells a different story entirely. The Intel Arc B390’s only recorded benchmark, 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12, yields a score of 1482. Its nearest rivals are the NVIDIA GeForce GT 520MX at 1463 (1.3 percent behind), the NVIDIA GeForce 800M at 1460 (1.5 percent behind), the NVIDIA GeForce GT 625 OEM at 1446 (2.5 percent behind), and the NVIDIA GeForce GT 710 at 1443 (2.7 percent behind). These are all legacy or entry-level mobile/desktop parts from over a decade ago. The Arc B390 edges them out, but only barely. In the context of a 2014 third-person shooter, this GPU is operating at a level far below what the CPU could theoretically feed.

The combo rank reflects the whole system. With the CPU capable of 3DMark scores like 6376 for 16 threads and 6379 for max threads, and the GPU scoring only 1482 in Steel Nomad, the imbalance is stark. The data suggests that this configuration is heavily GPU-limited across all tested settings and resolutions. The 2602nd place finish out of 2939 combos is not a commentary on the CPU’s capabilities — it is a direct consequence of pairing a strong desktop processor with an integrated GPU designed for low-power mobile contexts.

Settings Recommendations

The measured FPS data across three resolutions and four quality presets provides clear guidance for the best playable experience. At 1080p, the Low preset delivers an average of 95 FPS, which is the highest frame rate recorded for this combo in any configuration. Medium at 1080p yields 72 FPS average, with a minimum of 62 and maximum of 83. High at 1080p averages 61 FPS. Ultra at 1080p drops to 46 FPS.

The data indicates that Low settings at 1080p is the only preset that comfortably exceeds 90 FPS. Medium at 1080p remains playable at 72 FPS, and High at 1080p is borderline acceptable at 61 FPS. However, the jump from High to Ultra costs 15 FPS at 1080p — a 24.6 percent reduction — which suggests the GPU is struggling with the additional effects and draw distance that Ultra enables.

At 1440p, the picture changes. Low averages 61 FPS, which matches High at 1080p. Medium at 1440p averages 47 FPS (minimum 40, maximum 54). High at 1440p averages 39 FPS, and Ultra falls to 30 FPS. For a third-person shooter, 30 FPS is generally considered the floor for playability, so Ultra at 1440p is technically playable but not recommended. Medium at 1440p offers a more stable experience, with the minimum of 40 FPS indicating less severe dips.

At 4K, all presets fall below 35 FPS. Low averages 33 FPS, Medium averages 25 FPS (minimum 21, maximum 29), High averages 21 FPS, and Ultra averages 16 FPS. None of these are genuinely playable for a shooter. Even the Low preset at 4K produces frame times that would feel sluggish and unresponsive.

The recommendation from the measured rows is clear: use Low settings at 1080p for the best experience, with Medium at 1080p as a viable alternative if visual quality matters more than raw frame rate. For users who insist on 1440p, Low is the only preset that maintains 60 FPS. The data does not support any preset at 4K as a playable option.

Resolution Scaling

The FPS drop from 1080p to 4K reveals the limiting component with unusual clarity. At Low settings, the progression is 95 FPS at 1080p, 61 FPS at 1440p, and 33 FPS at 4K. That is a 35.8 percent drop from 1080p to 1440p, followed by a 45.9 percent drop from 1440p to 4K. If the CPU were the bottleneck, frame rates would stay relatively flat as resolution increases, because the CPU workload per frame remains roughly constant — only the GPU fill rate and shading load scale with pixel count.

The data shows severe scaling with resolution, which is the signature of a GPU-bound system. The Arc B390’s pixel rate is listed at 60.00 GPixel/s, and its texture rate is 120.0 GTexel/s. These figures are modest by modern standards, and the 4K resolution demands 3840×2160 pixels — over 8.3 million per frame. At 4K Low, the GPU is producing 33 FPS, which translates to roughly 275 million pixels processed per second at full screen coverage. That number is well below the theoretical pixel rate, indicating that shading and texture work, not raw pixel throughput, are the limiting factors.

At High settings, the scaling is even more dramatic: 61 FPS at 1080p, 39 FPS at 1440p, and 21 FPS at 4K. The 1080p-to-1440p drop is 36.1 percent, and the 1440p-to-4K drop is 46.2 percent. Ultra settings follow a similar pattern: 46 FPS at 1080p, 30 FPS at 1440p, and 16 FPS at 4K — a 65.2 percent drop from 1080p to 4K. These percentage drops are larger than the pixel-count differences alone would predict, which suggests that higher settings introduce effects (possibly ambient occlusion, shadows, or post-processing) that scale super-linearly with resolution on this GPU architecture.

The conclusion from the resolution scaling data is unambiguous: the Intel Arc B390 is the limiting component at every resolution and setting. The Ryzen 5 7500F, with its 32 MB of shared L3 cache and 5.00 GHz boost clock, is more than capable of feeding frames at 1080p Low, where the GPU still manages 95 FPS — but even then, the GPU is the constraint. At 4K, the GPU is overwhelmed regardless of settings.

Measured FPS Breakdown

The complete measured FPS table for the AMD Ryzen 5 7500F + Intel Arc B390 combo in Minimum is as follows:

1920×1080 (1080p):

• Low: 95 FPS average
• Medium: 72 FPS average, 62 FPS minimum, 83 FPS maximum
• High: 61 FPS average
• Ultra: 46 FPS average

2560×1440 (1440p):

• Low: 61 FPS average
• Medium: 47 FPS average, 40 FPS minimum, 54 FPS maximum
• High: 39 FPS average
• Ultra: 30 FPS average

3840×2160 (4K):

• Low: 33 FPS average
• Medium: 25 FPS average, 21 FPS minimum, 29 FPS maximum
• High: 21 FPS average
• Ultra: 16 FPS average

The Medium preset is the only one with recorded minimum and maximum values, which provides a partial picture of frame time consistency. At 1080p Medium, the spread from minimum to maximum is 21 FPS (62 to 83), which is a 33.9 percent range relative to the average. At 1440p Medium, the spread is 14 FPS (40 to 54), or 29.8 percent of the average. At 4K Medium, the spread is 8 FPS (21 to 29), or 32 percent of the average. These ranges suggest that frame pacing is relatively consistent across resolutions, with no catastrophic stuttering indicated in the available data.

The relative performance across settings follows a consistent pattern. At 1080p, Low is 32 percent faster than Medium, Medium is 18 percent faster than High, and High is 32.6 percent faster than Ultra. At 1440p, the gaps are 29.8 percent (Low vs. Medium), 20.5 percent (Medium vs. High), and 30 percent (High vs. Ultra). At 4K, the gaps are 32 percent (Low vs. Medium), 19 percent (Medium vs. High), and 31.3 percent (High vs. Ultra). The consistency of these percentage gaps across resolutions indicates that each quality tier adds a roughly uniform workload increase on this GPU, regardless of pixel count.

GPU Role

The Intel Arc B390 is an integrated graphics processor built on the Xe3-LPG architecture, fabricated on Intel’s 3 nm process. Its base clock is 300 MHz with a boost clock of 2500 MHz. The memory configuration is listed as “System Shared” for size, type, bus width, and bandwidth — meaning the GPU relies on the host system’s DDR5 memory, and its effective bandwidth is “System Dependent.” The Ryzen 5 7500F supports DDR5 with dual-channel memory at 83.2 GB/s, which is the theoretical ceiling for this iGPU’s memory bandwidth in practice.

The shading engine consists of 1536 shading units, 48 texture mapping units, and 24 ROPs. There are 12 ray tracing cores. The pixel rate is 60.00 GPixel/s and the texture rate is 120.0 GTexel/s. Floating-point performance is rated at 7.680 TFLOPS for FP32 and 15.36 TFLOPS for FP16 (at a 2:1 ratio). The GPU’s TDP is 80 W, which for an integrated part means it shares power and thermal headroom with the CPU in whatever portable device it resides in.

The 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 score of 1482 places this GPU at the 9th percentile among all GPUs in the database. Its nearest rivals are the NVIDIA GeForce GT 520MX (1463, 1.3 percent behind), the NVIDIA GeForce 800M (1460, 1.5 percent behind), the NVIDIA GeForce GT 625 OEM (1446, 2.5 percent behind), and the NVIDIA GeForce GT 710 (1443, 2.7 percent behind). These are all extremely low-end parts, and the Arc B390 only marginally outperforms them. In practical terms, this GPU is competing with hardware from the early 2010s.

The VRAM situation is notable: there is no dedicated VRAM. The GPU uses system memory, which means the Ryzen 5 7500F’s DDR5 memory bandwidth of 83.2 GB/s is shared between CPU and GPU workloads. In Minimum, a game from 2014, the memory requirements are modest, but the shared-bandwidth architecture still introduces latency and contention that a discrete GPU would not face. The boost clock of 2500 MHz is respectable for an iGPU, but the underlying execution resources — 1536 shading units — are simply too few to drive modern resolutions at high settings.

The data shows that the GPU’s performance in Minimum aligns with its synthetic benchmark standing. At 1080p Low, the 95 FPS result is the best case, but even that represents a GPU that is working near its limits. The 4K results, ranging from 16 to 33 FPS depending on settings, confirm that this is not a part designed for high-resolution gaming. The CPU’s role in this pairing is largely irrelevant to the final frame rates — the Arc B390 governs everything.

FAQ

*Q: What is the overall rank of this CPU + GPU combo in Minimum?*

A: The combo ranks 2602 out of 2939 tested combinations, placing it in the bottom 12 percent of all systems tested.

Q: What is the best settings preset for playable frame rates?

A: Low at 1080p produces the highest average FPS at 95. Medium at 1080p is also viable at 72 FPS average. At 1440p, Low is the only preset that maintains 60 FPS. No 4K preset reaches 35 FPS.

Q: How does the Arc B390 compare to its nearest GPU rivals?

A: The Arc B390 scores 1482 in 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12. It is 1.3 percent ahead of the NVIDIA GeForce GT 520MX, 1.5 percent ahead of the NVIDIA GeForce 800M, 2.5 percent ahead of the NVIDIA GeForce GT 625 OEM, and 2.7 percent ahead of the NVIDIA GeForce GT 710.

Q: Is the Ryzen 5 7500F the bottleneck in this system?

A: No. The CPU’s average benchmark score is 24964, placing it in the 77th percentile among all CPUs. The GPU’s 9th percentile ranking and the FPS scaling pattern across resolutions indicate the GPU is the limiting component.

Q: What memory type does the Arc B390 use, and why does it matter?

A: The GPU uses System Shared memory, meaning it draws from the host system’s DDR5 memory. The effective bandwidth is System Dependent, and in this pairing the CPU’s memory support provides 83.2 GB/s of dual-channel bandwidth shared between CPU and GPU.

Q: What are the GPU’s clock speeds and compute specifications?

A: The Arc B390 has a base clock of 300 MHz and a boost clock of 2500 MHz. It features 1536 shading units, 48 TMUs, 24 ROPs, 12 ray tracing cores, 7.680 TFLOPS FP32 performance, and an 80 W TDP.