Minimum

The Intel Core i3-12100F and Intel Arc B390 combination delivers a strictly entry-level experience in Minimum, a third-person shooter from 2014. The benchmark data, measured across three resolutions and four quality presets, shows a pairing that is heavily constrained by the graphics processor, resulting in a low overall rank among tested configurations.

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

The Intel Core i3-12100F is a 4-core, 8-thread processor based on the Alder Lake architecture, built on Intel's 10 nm process. It operates with a base clock of 3.30 GHz and a boost clock of 4.30 GHz, with a 58 W TDP. Its cache configuration includes 80 KB of L1 per core, 1.25 MB of L2 per core, and a shared 12 MB L3 cache. The processor supports DDR4 and DDR5 memory in a dual-channel configuration and connects via PCIe Gen 5 with 16 lanes. While the game is from 2014, the CPU’s specifications are far beyond what that era typically demanded, suggesting that processing power is not the primary limiter in these results.

Looking at synthetic benchmarks, the i3-12100F shows respectable single-thread performance, scoring 893 in 3dmark_single_thread and 1674 in cinebench_cinebench_r23_singlecore. Its multi-threaded scores are equally solid for a quad-core part, with a cinebench_cinebench_r23_multicore score of 11860 and a passmark_multithread score of 14015. These numbers place the CPU in the 68th percentile of all CPUs, with an average benchmark score of 13494. Its nearest rivals in the database include the Intel Core 3 N355 with an average score of 13492 (0% delta), the Intel Core i5-9500 scoring 13452 (0.3% slower), and the Intel Core 5 120UL scoring 13594 (0.7% faster). This indicates that the i3-12100F is a mid-pack performer in the broader CPU landscape, but the game's frame rates suggest it is not the bottleneck.

The data indicates that in Minimum, the CPU has ample headroom. At 1080p with Low settings, the combo achieves 95 FPS, which is the highest average frame rate recorded in the dataset. Even at 4K Ultra, the frame rate drops to 16 FPS, a dramatic reduction that cannot be attributed to the CPU given its capabilities. The i3-12100F’s 4 cores and 8 threads are sufficient to feed the graphics card in this older title; the consistent scaling of FPS with resolution and settings points directly to the GPU as the limiting component. The CPU’s role here is to provide a stable foundation, which it does, but the measured performance is almost entirely dictated by the graphics subsystem.

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

The Intel Arc B390 is an integrated graphics processor based on the Xe3-LPG architecture, utilizing a 3 nm process. It has 1536 shading units, 48 texture mapping units, and 24 raster output units, along with 12 ray tracing cores. Its base clock is 300 MHz, with a boost clock of 2500 MHz. The memory configuration is "System Shared," meaning it uses the system's main memory rather than dedicated VRAM, with bandwidth described as "System Dependent." The GPU’s TDP is 80 W, and it supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4.

The GPU’s performance is meager. Its only recorded benchmark is a 3dmark_3dmark_steel_nomad_dx12 score of 1482, placing it in the 9th percentile of all GPUs. Its nearest rivals are the NVIDIA GeForce GT 520MX (score 1463, 1.3% slower), the NVIDIA GeForce 800M (score 1460, 1.5% slower), the NVIDIA GeForce GT 625 OEM (score 1446, 2.5% slower), and the NVIDIA GeForce GT 710 (score 1443, 2.7% slower). This puts the Arc B390 at the very bottom of the performance spectrum, and the game's frame rates reflect this reality.

In Minimum, the GPU is the clear bottleneck. At 1080p Low, the combo hits 95 FPS, but this is the ceiling. As settings increase to Medium, the average drops to 72 FPS; at High, it falls to 61 FPS; and at Ultra, it plummets to 46 FPS. This scaling pattern is classic GPU-bound behavior, where increased graphical complexity directly impacts render times. The situation worsens at higher resolutions. At 1440p, the Low setting yields 61 FPS, but Ultra drops to 30 FPS. At 4K, the numbers are even more stark: Low produces 33 FPS, Medium 25 FPS, High 21 FPS, and Ultra a nearly unplayable 16 FPS. The lack of dedicated VRAM and the reliance on system memory likely exacerbate these issues, as the GPU struggles to manage the data throughput required at higher resolutions and settings.

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

The resolution scaling data confirms that the GPU is the limiting component. Moving from 1080p to 1440p to 4K results in significant frame rate reductions across all settings. At Low settings, the average FPS drops from 95 at 1080p to 61 at 1440p, a 36% decrease. At 4K Low, the average is 33 FPS, which is a 65% drop from the 1080p figure. This steep decline with increasing pixel count is a hallmark of a GPU that lacks the raw throughput and memory bandwidth to handle higher resolutions.

At High settings, the trend is similar but less pronounced in absolute terms. The average FPS goes from 61 at 1080p to 39 at 1440p, and then to 21 at 4K. The percentage drop from 1080p to 4K is about 66%. For Ultra settings, the numbers are 46 FPS at 1080p, 30 FPS at 1440p, and 16 FPS at 4K, representing a 65% reduction. The consistency of these percentage drops across settings—roughly 65% from 1080p to 4K—indicates that the performance scaling is purely resolution-driven, which is a direct consequence of the GPU’s limited pixel fill rate and memory bandwidth.

The data suggests that the CPU is not contributing to the performance degradation. If the CPU were the bottleneck, we would expect to see similar frame rates regardless of resolution, as the CPU’s workload is largely independent of pixel count. Instead, the frame rates scale nearly linearly with the number of pixels, which is the definitive signature of a GPU-limited scenario. The i3-12100F, with its strong single-threaded performance (893 in 3dmark_single_thread), is more than capable of keeping up with the demands of a 2014 title, even at lower resolutions where the CPU would typically be more stressed. Therefore, the resolution scaling analysis points exclusively to the Intel Arc B390 as the reason for the poor performance at higher settings.

How This Combo Ranks — use comboRankInGame vs other tested combos

In the database of tested combinations for Minimum, this pairing of the Intel Core i3-12100F and Intel Arc B390 ranks 2602 out of 2939 combos. This places it in the bottom 12% of all tested systems, a position that aligns with the GPU’s 9th percentile standing. The rank is a clear indicator that this is a very low-performance configuration, suitable only for the most basic gaming scenarios at low resolutions and settings.

The combo’s rank is primarily driven by the GPU’s deficiencies. While the CPU performs admirably in its own right—ranking in the 68th percentile—the GPU drags the overall system down. The 2602nd position out of 2939 combos suggests that there are 337 tested configurations that perform worse, but the vast majority of systems are faster. The delta between the CPU's relative strength and the GPU's weakness creates a significant imbalance, and the game's frame rates suffer accordingly. This rank is a holistic measure of the pair's capability, and it correctly identifies that this is not a combination intended for high-fidelity gaming.

The implications of this rank are straightforward. Users with this hardware should expect to play Minimum at 1080p with Low or Medium settings to achieve playable frame rates. At 1080p Low, the 95 FPS average is smooth, but any attempt to increase resolution or settings will result in a rapid decline in performance. The 4K Ultra setting, with its 16 FPS average, is effectively unplayable, and even 1440p Ultra at 30 FPS is borderline. The rank serves as a warning that this combo is entry-level at best, and that the GPU is the component that must be upgraded to improve performance.

FAQ

Q: What is the best resolution and settings for this combo to achieve a playable frame rate?

A: The data shows that 1920x1080 with Low settings yields the highest average FPS at 95. For a more balanced experience, 1920x1080 with Medium settings provides an average of 72 FPS, with a minimum of 62 FPS and a maximum of 83 FPS.

Q: Is the CPU or the GPU the bottleneck in this configuration?

A: Benchmark results indicate the GPU is the bottleneck. The Intel Arc B390 has a 3dmark_3dmark_steel_nomad_dx12 score of 1482, placing it in the 9th percentile, while the Intel Core i3-12100F sits in the 68th percentile. The frame rate drops consistently with resolution and settings, which is characteristic of GPU limitation.

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

A: The Arc B390’s nearest rival is the NVIDIA GeForce GT 520MX, which has an average score of 1463, a 1.3% delta from the Arc’s 1482. Other rivals include the NVIDIA GeForce 800M (1460, 1.5% delta) and the NVIDIA GeForce GT 625 OEM (1446, 2.5% delta).

Q: What is the highest average FPS recorded for this combo in Minimum?

A: The highest average FPS recorded is 95, achieved at a resolution of 1920x1080 with Low settings.

Q: What is the lowest average FPS recorded for this combo in Minimum?

A: The lowest average FPS recorded is 16, achieved at a resolution of 3840x2160 with Ultra settings.

Q: How does this combo rank among all tested systems in this game?

A: This combo ranks 2602 out of 2939 tested combinations, placing it in the lower percentile of all systems.

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

The following table details the exact measured average frame rates for the Intel Core i3-12100F and Intel Arc B390 combination in Minimum.

| Resolution | Settings | Avg FPS | Min FPS | Max FPS |

|---|---|---|---|---|

| 1920x1080 | Low | 95 | - | - |

| 1920x1080 | Medium | 72 | 62 | 83 |

| 1920x1080 | High | 61 | - | - |

| 1920x1080 | Ultra | 46 | - | - |

| 2560x1440 | Low | 61 | - | - |

| 2560x1440 | Medium | 47 | 40 | 54 |

| 2560x1440 | High | 39 | - | - |

| 2560x1440 | Ultra | 30 | - | - |

| 3840x2160 | Low | 33 | - | - |

| 3840x2160 | Medium | 25 | 21 | 29 |

| 3840x2160 | High | 21 | - | - |

| 3840x2160 | Ultra | 16 | - | - |

The data shows a clear pattern of performance degradation as resolution and settings increase. At 1080p, the combo can handle Low and Medium settings with playable frame rates, but High and Ultra settings drop below 60 FPS. At 1440p, only Low settings achieve a 60 FPS average. At 4K, no setting reaches 40 FPS, making the experience suboptimal. The Medium settings at each resolution include minimum and maximum FPS data, which shows some variance. For example, at 1080p Medium, the frame rate fluctuates between 62 and 83 FPS, indicating a relatively stable experience. At 4K Medium, the variance is between 21 and 29 FPS, showing a narrow but low-performance band. Overall, the measured FPS breakdown confirms that this is a low-end configuration best suited for 1080p gaming at lower presets.