Minimum

The AMD Ryzen 9 7900X and Intel Arc B370 pairing in Minimum presents a stark study in component imbalance. The CPU is a high-end desktop part with a robust core configuration, while the GPU is an integrated graphics solution with extremely limited performance. The measured frame rates reflect this bottleneck clearly, with the system struggling to maintain playable numbers at most settings and resolutions. This analysis examines the data to show exactly how these two very different components interact in this specific game.

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

The AMD Ryzen 9 7900X is a 12-core, 24-thread processor from the 7000 series, built on the Zen 4 architecture (codenamed Raphael) using a 5 nm process from TSMC. It operates at a base clock of 4.70 GHz and can boost up to 5.60 GHz. This is a desktop-class CPU with a 170 W TDP, designed for heavy multi-threaded workloads. Its benchmark scores are substantial: it achieves a Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 29300 and a single-core score of 2016.5. In Geekbench, it scores 19267 multi-core and 2617 single-core. The processor sits in the 91st percentile of all CPUs tested, with an average benchmark score of 53288.

Given the CPU's high percentile and strong synthetic scores, it is not the limiting factor in the game's performance. The data indicates that the processor has ample headroom to handle the game's logic and physics. Its nearest rivals in the benchmark database include the AMD EPYC 7313P (average score 53206, deltaPct 0.2) and the Intel Xeon Phi 7290 (average score 53469, deltaPct -0.3). These rivals are all within a fraction of a percent of the 7900X's average score, confirming that the CPU is performing exactly as expected. In the context of Minimum, a third-person shooter from 2014, the 7900X's 12 cores and 24 threads are far more than what the game's engine is likely to utilize. The data shows that the game's performance is entirely dictated by the GPU, as the frame rates are low across all configurations, regardless of the CPU's capabilities. The processor's high single-thread performance is also irrelevant here, as the bottleneck lies elsewhere. The fact that the CPU has 64 MB of shared L3 cache and supports DDR5 memory with an 83.2 GB/s bandwidth does not translate into better frame rates when the GPU cannot keep up. Ultimately, the CPU role in this pairing is to sit idle, waiting for the integrated graphics to deliver a frame.

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 and is part of the Arc Graphics-M (Panther Lake) generation. It is manufactured on Intel's 3 nm process. Its specifications are modest: it has 1280 shading units, 40 texture mapping units, and 20 raster output pipelines. The GPU has 10 ray tracing cores. Its clocks are listed as a base of 300 MHz and a boost of 2400 MHz. Critically, its memory is "System Shared," meaning it uses a portion of the main system RAM. The memory bus and bandwidth are also listed as "System Shared" and "System Dependent," respectively, which means the GPU's memory performance is entirely dependent on the system's DDR5 memory configuration, but the exact allocation is not specified in the data.

This is the component that dictates the game's performance. The Arc B370 has a single benchmark score: 1184 in 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12. This places it in the 5th percentile of all GPUs, with an average benchmark score of 1184. Its nearest rivals are the ATI Mobility Radeon HD 5570 (avgScore 1186, deltaPct -0.2), the ATI Radeon HD 5770 (avgScore 1190, deltaPct -0.5), and the AMD Radeon HD 7650M (avgScore 1192, deltaPct -0.7). This performance class is from a much older generation, indicating the Arc B370 is a very low-power and low-performance part, with a TDP of just 25 W. The data shows that the GPU's FP32 performance is 6.144 TFLOPS, which is decent on paper, but the memory bandwidth is the critical constraint. Because the memory is system-shared, the effective bandwidth is limited by the system's memory speed and the overhead of sharing it with the CPU. This is a common bottleneck for integrated graphics. The benchmark results in Minimum reflect this: the frame rates are low even at 1080p, and they drop further as resolution and settings increase, confirming the GPU is the primary limiter.

FAQ

Q: What is the overall performance ranking of this CPU and GPU combination in the database?

A: The combo ranks 2703 out of 2939 tested combinations in the database for Minimum.

Q: How does the Intel Arc B370 compare to its closest rivals in synthetic benchmarks?

A: The Arc B370's 3DMark Steel Nomad score of 1184 is nearly identical to its closest rivals. It is 0.2% behind the ATI Mobility Radeon HD 5570 (score 1186) and 0.5% behind the ATI Radeon HD 5770 (score 1190).

Q: Is the CPU or GPU the more capable component in this pairing?

A: The data clearly shows the CPU is far more capable. The Ryzen 9 7900X is in the 91st percentile of all CPUs, while the Arc B370 is in the 5th percentile of all GPUs, indicating a massive performance gap.

Q: What is the best frame rate achieved by this combination in the game?

A: The highest average frame rate recorded is 85 FPS at 1920x1080 with Low settings.

Q: What is the worst frame rate achieved by this combination in the game?

A: The lowest average frame rate recorded is 15 FPS at 3840x2160 with Ultra settings.

Q: Are the frame rate results at different settings consistent with a CPU or GPU bottleneck?

A: The results are consistent with a GPU bottleneck. As resolution and settings increase, the frame rate drops significantly, which is typical when the graphics processor is the limiting factor.

How This Combo Ranks

The combination of the AMD Ryzen 9 7900X and Intel Arc B370 ranks 2703 out of 2939 tested combos in Minimum. This places it in the bottom 8% of all tested configurations, a very low position. The ranking is a direct consequence of the GPU's performance, as the CPU is a top-tier part. The data suggests that the Arc B370, being an integrated GPU, is simply not suited for gaming at any meaningful level of quality. The system's performance is so low because the graphics processor cannot render frames fast enough, regardless of the powerful CPU sitting behind it. In the context of the database, this combo sits alongside other low-end or mismatched pairings, where a strong processor is bottlenecked by a weak graphics solution. The ranking highlights that for gaming, the GPU is the primary determinant of performance, and in this case, it is severely lacking. The 2703rd rank out of 2939 means there are 2702 combinations that perform better, and only 236 that perform worse. This puts the combo in a precarious position for any gaming task, including a 2014 title like Minimum. The data shows that a user would need to make significant compromises in resolution and settings to achieve playable frame rates, as detailed in the following sections.

Resolution Scaling

The FPS data for this combo shows a clear and predictable scaling pattern as resolution increases from 1920x1080 to 3840x2160. At 1920x1080 with Low settings, the system achieves an average of 85 FPS. Moving to 2560x1440 at the same Low settings, the average drops to 55 FPS, a reduction of 30 FPS. At 3840x2160 with Low settings, the average falls further to 30 FPS, a drop of 25 FPS from the 1440p result. This pattern shows a significant performance penalty as the rendering resolution increases.

This scaling behavior is a classic sign of a GPU bottleneck. When the resolution increases, the number of pixels the GPU must process increases, which directly impacts the fill rate and memory bandwidth requirements. The Arc B370, with its system-shared memory and low pixel rate of 48.00 GPixel/s, is quickly overwhelmed. The data shows that the frame rate drops by nearly half when going from 1080p to 1440p at Low settings, and then halves again from 1440p to 4K. This is a much steeper drop than would be expected if the CPU were the limiting factor, as a CPU bottleneck would typically show less sensitivity to resolution changes. The fact that the performance scales almost linearly with the number of pixels confirms that the GPU's rendering pipeline is saturated. The system is not able to maintain a stable 60 FPS at any resolution above 1080p, and even at 1080p, it only achieves 60 FPS at Low settings. The data indicates that the limiting component is unquestionably the graphics processor.

Measured FPS Breakdown

The measured FPS data provides a detailed look at the system's performance across different settings and resolutions. All numbers below are average FPS unless otherwise noted.

1920x1080:

• Low: 85 FPS. This is the only configuration that approaches a high refresh rate experience.
• Medium: 65 FPS, with a minimum of 56 and a maximum of 75. This is playable but not smooth.
• High: 55 FPS. This is borderline playable, but frame drops are likely.
• Ultra: 42 FPS. This is below the threshold for smooth gameplay.

2560x1440:

• Low: 55 FPS. This is a significant drop from the 1080p Low result.
• Medium: 42 FPS, with a minimum of 36 and a maximum of 48. This is starting to stutter.
• High: 35 FPS. This is not ideal for a fast-paced shooter.
• Ultra: 27 FPS. This is approaching unplayable territory.

3840x2160:

• Low: 30 FPS. This is just at the edge of playability for some.
• Medium: 23 FPS, with a minimum of 19 and a maximum of 26. This is a very poor experience.
• High: 19 FPS. This is not a playable experience.
• Ultra: 15 FPS. This is a slideshow.

The data shows a consistent trend: at 1080p, the user has some options, but the experience becomes increasingly compromised at higher resolutions. The minimum FPS values for Medium settings at each resolution (56 at 1080p, 36 at 1440p, and 19 at 4K) show that the frame rate is not only low on average but also unstable, which can cause noticeable stuttering. The gap between Low and Ultra settings is also telling. At 1080p, there is a 43 FPS difference between the two extremes (85 vs 42). At 1440p, this gap narrows to 28 FPS (55 vs 27), and at 4K, it narrows to 15 FPS (30 vs 15). This narrowing gap indicates that at higher resolutions, the GPU is so saturated that even lowering the settings provides diminishing returns. The performance is so heavily constrained by the GPU's limits that the setting changes have less impact at 4K than they do at 1080p. In summary, the data suggests that the only way to get a decent experience with this combo is to play at 1080p with Low or Medium settings.