Minimum

FAQ

Q: What is the overall performance ranking of the AMD Ryzen 5 9600X + Intel Arc B370 combo in "Minimum"?

A: The data places this combination at rank 2703 out of 2939 tested combos, meaning it sits in the bottom 8% of all configurations tested for this game.

Q: How does the CPU compare to its nearest rivals in benchmark scores?

A: The Ryzen 5 9600X has an average benchmark score of 29713. It sits within 1% of the AMD Ryzen 7 PRO 5755GE (29656, +0.2%), Ryzen 7 7840H (29868, -0.5%), Ryzen 7 5800XT (29879, -0.6%), and Ryzen 7 8845HS (29955, -0.8%).

Q: What is the GPU's performance percentile, and how does it compare to similar graphics processors?

A: The Intel Arc B370 sits in the 5th percentile of all GPUs, with an average benchmark score of 1184. Its nearest rivals include the ATI Mobility Radeon HD 5570 (1186, -0.2%), ATI Radeon HD 5770 (1190, -0.5%), AMD Radeon HD 7650M (1192, -0.7%), and AMD FirePro M2000 (1168, +1.4%).

Q: What are the best and worst average FPS figures recorded for this combo?

A: The highest average FPS recorded is 85 at 1920x1080 with Low settings. The lowest average FPS is 15 at 3840x2160 with Ultra settings.

Q: Is the measured data available for all settings at every resolution?

A: The data includes Low, Medium, High, and Ultra settings at 1080p, 1440p, and 4K resolutions. However, minFps and maxFps values are only provided for Medium settings across all three resolutions.

Q: What is the CPU's launch MSRP?

A: The launch MSRP for the AMD Ryzen 5 9600X is $279.

CPU Role

The AMD Ryzen 5 9600X is a 6-core, 12-thread processor built on the Zen 5 architecture (Granite Ridge) using a 4 nm process at TSMC. Its base clock runs at 3.90 GHz with a boost clock reaching 5.40 GHz. The CPU has 80 KB of L1 cache per core, 1 MB of L2 cache per core, and 32 MB of shared L3 cache. It supports DDR5 memory over a dual-channel bus with 89.6 GB/s bandwidth, and includes integrated Radeon Graphics.

This processor sits in the 81st percentile of all CPUs based on average benchmark score, placing it well above the median. In the 3DMark tests, single-thread performance registers 1253, while 2-thread and 4-thread scores jump to 2456 and 4649 respectively. The 8-thread score reaches 6726, and the max-thread score of 7590 nearly matches the 16-thread score of 7585. This pattern suggests the processor scales almost linearly up to 6 cores, with diminishing returns beyond that point.

Cinebench R23 results reinforce this picture: multicore scores 17528.5 while singlecore scores 2183.5. The ratio between these scores (roughly 8x) indicates strong multi-threaded scaling for a 6-core part, likely due to the high boost clock sustaining all cores simultaneously. Geekbench scores follow the same theme, with multicore at 14438 and singlecore at 2923.

For a game like "Minimum," a Third-Person Shooter from 2014, the CPU's 6 cores and 12 threads should be more than sufficient for the game's logical thread demands. The PassMark physics score of 2012 suggests moderate real-world gaming physics capability. The data shows this CPU can handle the game's simulation and AI workloads without becoming the primary bottleneck, especially given the GPU's much lower relative performance.

The CPU's percentile ranking (81st) versus the combo's rank in-game (2703rd out of 2939) reveals a massive imbalance: the processor is competitive with top-tier parts, but the overall system performance is dragged down by the graphics side. Benchmark results indicate the CPU is not the limiting factor in this configuration for "Minimum."

GPU Role

The Intel Arc B370 is an integrated graphics processor (IGP) based on the Xe3-LPG architecture (Panther Lake chip) built on Intel's 3 nm process. It operates with a base clock of 300 MHz and a boost clock of 2400 MHz. The GPU has 1280 shading units, 40 texture mapping units, 20 render output units, and 10 ray tracing cores. Its memory is system-shared, meaning the VRAM size, bus width, and bandwidth are all dependent on the host system's main memory configuration.

The GPU's raw throughput figures are 6.144 TFLOPS FP32, 12.29 TFLOPS FP16 (2:1 ratio), a pixel rate of 48.00 GPixel/s, and a texture rate of 96.00 GTexel/s. It consumes just 25 W of power and uses no external power connectors, confirming its integrated nature. The graphics processor supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4.

In the 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 test, the Arc B370 scores 1184, placing it in the 5th percentile of all GPUs. This is an extremely low ranking, and its nearest rivals include integrated and older discrete parts like the ATI Radeon HD 5770 (1190) and AMD Radeon HD 7650M (1192). The delta percentages are tiny — all within 1.4% of each other — indicating the Arc B370 is clustered with some of the weakest graphics solutions ever benchmarked.

For "Minimum," the GPU's system-shared memory architecture means performance is partly dependent on the CPU's DDR5 memory bandwidth. The CPU provides 89.6 GB/s of bandwidth, which is shared between the processor and the GPU. This arrangement likely contributes to the low frame rates observed, as the GPU competes with the CPU for memory access.

The combination of 20 ROPs and 40 TMUs at a 2400 MHz boost clock is severely constrained for modern gaming, and even a game from 2014 pushes this IGP to its limits. The data shows the GPU is the unequivocal bottleneck in this configuration — the CPU ranks in the 81st percentile while the GPU sits in the 5th percentile, a 76-point gap that explains the combo's low overall ranking.

How This Combo Ranks

The AMD Ryzen 5 9600X + Intel Arc B370 combination ranks 2703rd out of 2939 tested combos for "Minimum." This places it in the bottom 8.1% of all configurations, which is consistent with the GPU's 5th percentile standing. The ranking data suggests that the vast majority of tested systems — regardless of their CPU — outperform this combo in this game.

The massive gap between the CPU's strong standing (81st percentile) and the GPU's weak one (5th percentile) creates an unusual pairing. The Ryzen 5 9600X is a modern, high-performance desktop processor, while the Arc B370 is an integrated GPU designed for portable devices (its display outputs are described as "Portable Device Dependent"). This mismatch is reflected in the measured frame rates.

The combo's rank of 2703 out of 2939 means that 2702 other CPU+GPU combinations delivered better average performance in "Minimum." The data implies that even budget-oriented discrete GPUs from prior generations would likely outperform this IGP-based setup, given the Arc B370's nearest rivals all score within 1.4% of it in 3DMark.

For a game from 2014, this ranking is particularly telling. "Minimum" is not a graphically demanding title by modern standards, yet this combo still lands in the bottom 8%. The implication is that the Arc B370's integrated nature fundamentally limits the experience, regardless of the powerful CPU it is paired with.

Resolution Scaling

The measured FPS data reveals a clear pattern of performance degradation as resolution increases from 1080p to 4K. At 1920x1080 with Low settings, the combo achieves 85 FPS average. Moving to 2560x1440 with the same settings drops to 55 FPS — a 35% reduction. At 3840x2160, the average falls to 30 FPS, a further 45% reduction from the 1440p figure and a 65% drop from 1080p.

The Medium settings tell a similar story: 65 FPS at 1080p, 42 FPS at 1440p (down 35%), and 23 FPS at 4K (down 45% from 1440p, 65% from 1080p). High settings show 55 FPS at 1080p, 35 FPS at 1440p (down 36%), and 19 FPS at 4K (down 46% from 1440p, 65% from 1080p). Ultra settings follow the trend: 42 FPS at 1080p, 27 FPS at 1440p (down 36%), and 15 FPS at 4K (down 44% from 1440p, 64% from 1080p).

The consistency of the percentage drops across settings — roughly 35% from 1080p to 1440p and another 45% from 1440p to 4K — indicates a pixel-bound bottleneck. The GPU is the limiting component, as the frame rate scales almost exactly with the pixel count increase. The pixel throughput is constrained by the GPU's 20 ROPs and the system-shared memory bandwidth.

The data also shows that the gap between Low and Ultra settings narrows at higher resolutions. At 1080p, Ultra is 51% slower than Low (42 vs 85 FPS). At 4K, Ultra is exactly 50% slower than Low (15 vs 30 FPS). This suggests that at 4K, the GPU is so overwhelmed by pixel fill requirements that the settings difference matters less — the ROPs are saturated regardless.

This resolution scaling pattern strongly implies that no amount of CPU headroom can compensate for the GPU's limitations. The Ryzen 5 9600X's strong single-thread performance (1253 in 3DMark single-thread) is irrelevant when the GPU cannot render enough pixels to feed the display.

Measured FPS Breakdown

At 1920x1080, the resolution with the highest overall performance, the combo delivers playable frame rates only at Low settings (85 FPS average). Medium settings drop to 65 FPS average with a minimum of 56 and maximum of 75. High settings yield 55 FPS average, and Ultra falls to 42 FPS average. These figures indicate that 1080p Low is the only configuration that approaches smooth gameplay, while 1080p Medium offers a marginal experience with occasional dips.

The 2560x1440 results show a significant step down. Low settings average 55 FPS, Medium averages 42 FPS (min 36, max 48), High averages 35 FPS, and Ultra averages 27 FPS. The Medium settings at 1440p exhibit a 12 FPS spread between minimum and maximum, suggesting noticeable frame pacing variation. Even the best 1440p result (55 FPS Low) matches the worst 1080p result (42 FPS Ultra) — the resolution penalty is severe.

At 3840x2160, the performance becomes marginal to unplayable. Low settings average 30 FPS, Medium averages 23 FPS (min 19, max 26), High averages 19 FPS, and Ultra averages 15 FPS. The 4K Medium data shows a 7 FPS range between minimum and maximum, which in absolute terms is narrow but represents a 30% variation relative to the average. The data indicates that 4K gaming is not viable with this combo, even at the lowest settings.

The MinFPS and MaxFPS data provided only for Medium settings across all three resolutions shows interesting patterns. At 1080p Medium, the range is 56-75 FPS (spread of 19). At 1440p Medium, the range is 36-48 FPS (spread of 12). At 4K Medium, the range is 19-26 FPS (spread of 7). As resolution increases, the absolute spread narrows, but the percentage variation remains around 25-30%. This suggests the GPU's frame time consistency does not improve at lower resolutions — it just produces more frames overall.

Settings Recommendations

Based on the measured data, the optimal experience for this combo in "Minimum" is at 1920x1080 with Low settings, delivering 85 FPS average. This is the only configuration in the entire dataset that exceeds 60 FPS, which is generally considered the threshold for smooth gameplay in a Third-Person Shooter. The next best option is 1080p Medium at 65 FPS, which provides better visual quality but with a 24% performance penalty compared to Low.

For players who prioritize visual fidelity over frame rate, 1080p High at 55 FPS is a viable compromise, offering improved graphics while remaining above the 30 FPS playability floor. However, the data shows that 1080p Ultra at 42 FPS introduces a noticeable drop from High, and the visual gains from Ultra settings in a 2014 game may not justify the 24% performance loss.

At 2560x1440, the data suggests that Low settings (55 FPS) are the only reasonable choice. Medium at 42 FPS and High at 35 FPS approach the borderline of playability, while Ultra at 27 FPS falls below it. The 1440p resolution provides more screen real estate but at a significant performance cost — the best 1440p result (55 FPS) is 35% slower than the best 1080p result (85 FPS).

The 3840x2160 results are uniformly poor across all settings, with the highest average being 30 FPS at Low. None of the 4K configurations reach 30 FPS at Medium or higher. The data implies that 4K should be avoided entirely with this combo. Even at Low settings, the 30 FPS average is exactly at the edge of playability, and any scene complexity could push it lower.

The benchmark results indicate that the settings presets have a linear effect on performance — the FPS drop from Low to Medium to High to Ultra is relatively consistent across resolutions. However, the absolute numbers matter more than the relative differences. For a smooth experience, 1080p Low is the only recommendation. For a balance of quality and performance, 1080p Medium is acceptable. The data does not support any 1440p or 4K configuration as satisfactorily playable, given that the best 1440p result (55 FPS) is borderline and the best 4K result (30 FPS) is marginal.