Minimum

This combination of the AMD Ryzen 9 9950X3D and the Intel Arc B370 produces a severely lopsided pairing in Minimum, with the CPU being a top-tier performer while the GPU is an entry-level integrated-class part. The benchmark data shows this combo ranks 2703rd out of 2939 tested combinations, placing it in the bottom 8% of all pairings for this game, a position driven almost entirely by the graphics card's limitations rather than any deficiency in the processor.

How This Combo Ranks

The combo's rank of 2703 out of 2939 tested combinations places it in the lowest decile of all pairings tested in Minimum. This is a poor overall standing, but the context matters: the ranking reflects the sum of both components, and the GPU is the overwhelming bottleneck. The data shows the Intel Arc B370 sits at the 5th percentile among all GPUs, with an average benchmark score of 1184. Its nearest rivals in raw compute are the ATI Mobility Radeon HD 5570 (scoring 1186, a 0.2% difference), the ATI Radeon HD 5770 (scoring 1190, a 0.5% difference), and the AMD Radeon HD 7650M (scoring 1192, a 0.7% difference). The Arc B370 essentially trades blows with graphics hardware from over a decade ago, which explains why the overall combo ranking is so low despite the processor's strength.

In stark contrast, the AMD Ryzen 9 9950X3D sits at the 95th percentile among all CPUs, with an average benchmark score of 75779. Its nearest rivals are the AMD Ryzen 7 PRO 9755 (75738, just 0.1% lower), the AMD Ryzen 7 PRO 9755X3D (75716, 0.1% lower), the AMD EPYC 8224P (75582, 0.3% lower), and the Intel Core Ultra 9 285 (75488, 0.4% lower). This processor is within a fraction of a percent of the fastest chips available, yet its contribution to Minimum's frame rate is almost entirely squandered because the GPU cannot keep up with the CPU's output. The rank of 2703 is a direct consequence of this mismatch, and the data makes it clear that the graphics card, not the processor, is what drags this combo down.

GPU Role

The Intel Arc B370 is the limiting factor in this pairing, and its specifications make that immediately apparent. This is an integrated graphics processor (IGP) based on the Xe3-LPG architecture, built on Intel's 3 nm process. Its base clock is 300 MHz and it boosts to 2400 MHz. The memory configuration is "System Shared," meaning it uses a portion of the system's main memory rather than dedicated VRAM. The memory bus width is also "System Shared," and the bandwidth is "System Dependent," which means performance will vary based on the system's DDR5 memory speed and configuration. This is a fundamental constraint, as the GPU cannot access dedicated high-bandwidth memory.

The shader configuration consists of 1280 shading units, 40 texture mapping units, and 20 raster output units. It has 10 ray tracing cores. The pixel rate is 48.00 GPixel/s and the texture rate is 96.00 GTexel/s. The FP32 compute throughput is 6.144 TFLOPS, with FP16 at 12.29 TFLOPS (2:1). The power draw is a mere 25 W, which reflects its integrated nature. For context, this GPU's nearest rival in the 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 benchmark is the ATI Mobility Radeon HD 5570, which scores 1186 versus the Arc B370's 1184. The Arc B370 is 0.2% slower than that chip. It is also 0.5% slower than the ATI Radeon HD 5770 (1190) and 0.7% slower than the AMD Radeon HD 7650M (1192). These are ancient parts, and the fact that the Arc B370 competes with them explains why the measured FPS in Minimum is so low.

The GPU's role in Minimum is to render frames, but its limited compute resources and shared memory architecture severely cap its output. The data shows that even at the lowest settings, the GPU cannot push frame rates high enough to take advantage of the CPU's capabilities. The GPU's 5th percentile ranking among all GPUs is a stark indicator of its performance tier, and the measured results in Minimum align with that assessment.

CPU Role

The AMD Ryzen 9 9950X3D is a flagship processor that is wasted in this configuration. It has 16 cores and 32 threads, based on the Zen 5 architecture (Granite Ridge), built on a 4 nm process by TSMC. The base clock is 4.30 GHz and the boost clock is 5.70 GHz. The cache hierarchy is substantial: 80 KB of L1 per core, 1 MB of L2 per core, and a massive 128 MB of L3 cache. The CPU supports DDR5 memory in a dual-channel configuration, with a memory bandwidth of 89.6 GB/s. It supports ECC memory and provides Gen 5 PCIe with 24 lanes. The TDP is 170 W, and it uses the AMD Socket AM5.

The CPU's benchmark results are exceptional. In Cinebench R23, it scores 42018 in multi-core and 2259 in single-core. In Geekbench, it scores 26736 in multi-core and 3064 in single-core. In the PassMark suite, its multithread score is 70255, and its single-thread score is 4737. The 3DMark scores are also strong: 17184 at max threads, 16374 at 16 threads, 9259 at 8 threads, 4963 at 4 threads, 2549 at 2 threads, and 1292 at single thread. These numbers place it at the 95th percentile of all CPUs, with its nearest rival, the AMD Ryzen 7 PRO 9755, being just 0.1% behind in average score.

In Minimum, the CPU's role is to feed the GPU with draw calls and game logic. However, the GPU is so weak that the CPU spends most of its time idle. The data shows that the CPU is not the bottleneck at any resolution or setting. Even at 1080p Low, where the CPU typically matters most, the frame rate is only 85 FPS, which is far below what this CPU could drive in a balanced system. The CPU's high single-thread performance, evidenced by its 1292 score in 3DMark single-thread and 2259 in Cinebench R23 single-core, is irrelevant here because the GPU cannot process frames fast enough to become a limiting factor.

Measured FPS Breakdown

The measured frame rates in Minimum are uniformly low, reflecting the GPU's limitations. At 1920x1080, the lowest resolution tested, the results are as follows: Low settings produce an average of 85 FPS. Medium settings drop to 65 FPS, with a minimum of 56 FPS and a maximum of 75 FPS. High settings produce 55 FPS on average. Ultra settings produce 42 FPS.

At 2560x1440, the frame rates fall further. Low settings average 55 FPS. Medium settings average 42 FPS, with a minimum of 36 FPS and a maximum of 48 FPS. High settings average 35 FPS. Ultra settings average 27 FPS.

At 3840x2160, the results are barely playable. Low settings average 30 FPS. Medium settings average 23 FPS, with a minimum of 19 FPS and a maximum of 26 FPS. High settings average 19 FPS. Ultra settings average 15 FPS.

These numbers paint a clear picture. At 1080p Low, the combo achieves 85 FPS, which is the only setting where the frame rate approaches a smooth experience. At 1440p, every setting falls below 60 FPS. At 4K, every setting falls below 30 FPS, with Ultra being essentially unplayable at 15 FPS. The data shows that this combo is only viable for Minimum at 1080p with lower settings, and even then, the frame rates are not particularly high.

Resolution Scaling

The FPS drop from 1080p to 4K is steep and reveals the GPU as the limiting component. At Low settings, the average FPS goes from 85 at 1080p to 55 at 1440p to 30 at 4K. That is a 35% drop from 1080p to 1440p, and a further 45% drop from 1440p to 4K. At Medium settings, the average FPS goes from 65 at 1080p to 42 at 1440p to 23 at 4K. At High settings, it goes from 55 at 1080p to 35 at 1440p to 19 at 4K. At Ultra settings, it goes from 42 at 1080p to 27 at 1440p to 15 at 4K.

The scaling pattern shows that frame rates drop almost linearly with the number of pixels, which is characteristic of a GPU-bound scenario. If the CPU were the bottleneck, the frame rate would remain relatively flat as resolution increases, because the CPU's workload would not change much. Instead, the frame rates drop dramatically, indicating that the GPU is struggling to fill the increasing pixel count. The 4K results are particularly telling: at 4K Low, the average is 30 FPS, and at 4K Ultra, it is 15 FPS. These are not playable frame rates for a third-person shooter, and the data confirms that this combo is not suited for high-resolution gameplay in Minimum.

The limiting component is unequivocally the GPU. The CPU's performance is far beyond what the GPU can utilize, and the resolution scaling confirms this. At 1080p Low, the combo hits 85 FPS, but even that is limited by the GPU's raw pixel throughput. The CPU has enough headroom to drive far higher frame rates if paired with a more capable graphics card.

Settings Recommendations

Based on the measured data, the best experience for Minimum with this combo is at 1920x1080 with Low settings, which yields an average of 85 FPS. This is the only configuration that provides a consistently smooth frame rate above 60 FPS. The Medium preset at 1080p produces 65 FPS on average, which is still playable, but the margin for error is tighter, with minimums dipping to 56 FPS. If a player prefers higher visual fidelity, 1080p Medium is the maximum that still maintains an average above 60 FPS.

At 2560x1440, the data shows that no setting provides a playable experience. Low settings average 55 FPS, which is below the 60 FPS threshold for smooth gameplay. Medium settings average 42 FPS, and High and Ultra are lower still at 35 FPS and 27 FPS, respectively. At 3840x2160, all settings are below 30 FPS, making the game effectively unplayable in any competitive or fast-paced context.

The recommendation is to run Minimum at 1080p with the Low preset for the best frame rate. If visual quality is a priority, the Medium preset at 1080p offers a 65 FPS average, which is acceptable for a third-person shooter. There is no benefit to increasing resolution with this GPU, as the frame rate penalty is severe. The Ultra preset is not recommended at any resolution, as it produces at best 42 FPS at 1080p and drops to 15 FPS at 4K. The data indicates that this combo is best suited for 1080p gaming at lower settings, and players should avoid higher resolutions unless they are willing to accept substantially reduced frame rates.