Minimum

# Minimum: Intel Core i7-14700K + Intel Arc B570 — Benchmark Analysis

The Intel Core i7-14700K paired with the Intel Arc B570 lands at rank 2336 out of 2939 tested combos in Minimum, placing it in the lower-mid tier of all configurations measured. This positioning is notable given that the CPU sits in the 94th percentile among all processors, while the GPU only reaches the 65th percentile among all graphics cards. The data suggests a significant bottleneck on the graphics side, with the processor's substantial headroom going largely untapped in this third-person shooter. With a combo rank that puts it in the bottom 21% of tested systems, the pairing produces playable but not exceptional frame rates, and the performance ceiling appears firmly dictated by the Arc B570's capabilities rather than the i7-14700K's raw compute power.

How This Combo Ranks

The combo's rank of 2336 out of 2939 tested combinations places it in the 79.5th percentile of all measured systems, meaning roughly four out of five tested combos perform better in Minimum. This is a surprisingly low standing for a system built around a top-tier CPU. The i7-14700K alone benchmarks in the 94th percentile among all CPUs, with an average benchmark score of 69355, yet the combined system struggles to climb higher. The nearest CPU rivals provide context: the AMD EPYC 9115 scores 69288 (0.1% behind), the AMD Ryzen 9 7950X scores 69515 (0.2% ahead), the AMD Ryzen 9 7940HX scores 69875 (0.7% ahead), and the AMD Ryzen 7 9700F scores 69996 (0.9% ahead). These are all essentially equivalent processors in synthetic tests, yet none of them would rescue this GPU pairing from its rank.

On the GPU side, the Arc B570's average benchmark score of 20556 puts it in the 65th percentile among all graphics cards. Its nearest rivals are remarkably close: the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3070 Mobile scores 20534 (0.1% behind), the Intel Arc A750 scores 20582 (0.1% ahead), the NVIDIA Quadro M4000M scores 20480 (0.4% behind), and the AMD Radeon R9 M390X scores 20662 (0.5% ahead). The Arc B570 sits in a tight cluster of mid-range GPUs, and in Minimum, this cluster lands in the lower portion of the combo rankings. The data implies that the game's engine and workload characteristics do not favor this architecture, or that the 10 GB VRAM and 160-bit memory bus create a ceiling that more balanced combinations avoid.

What makes this rank particularly interesting is the delta between the CPU's percentile standing and the combo's overall position. A 94th-percentile CPU paired with a 65th-percentile GPU should theoretically land somewhere around the 65th percentile in gaming performance, yet it falls to roughly the 20th percentile in this specific title. This suggests Minimum may be particularly sensitive to GPU architectural traits rather than raw compute, or that driver optimization plays an outsized role in this older title (released in 2014). The combination's rank indicates that users seeking higher placement would need a substantially stronger GPU, as the CPU is clearly not the limiting factor.

GPU Role

The Intel Arc B570 features 10 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 160-bit bus, delivering 380.0 GB/s of bandwidth. Its base and boost clocks are both locked at 2500 MHz, while memory runs at 2375 MHz with 19 Gbps effective speed. The GPU is built on TSMC's 5 nm process with the BMG-G21 chip, containing 19,600 million transistors on a 272 mm² die. With 2304 shading units, 144 texture mapping units, and 80 raster operation pipelines, the card produces 200.0 GPixel/s pixel rate and 360.0 GTexel/s texture rate, with FP32 performance at 11.52 TFLOPS. These specifications place it firmly in the mid-range tier, and the measured FPS data reflects this positioning.

In Minimum, the GPU's memory configuration appears to be a critical factor. At 4K Ultra, the combo manages only 25 FPS average, while dropping to High settings at 4K yields 32 FPS. The jump from Low to Medium at 4K shows 50 FPS to 39 FPS, indicating that memory bandwidth constraints may be limiting performance as texture sizes increase. The 380.0 GB/s bandwidth is modest by modern standards, and the 160-bit bus width means the card must rely on higher clock speeds to compensate. The 10 GB VRAM capacity is adequate for this 2014 title, but the bandwidth ceiling appears to bind performance at higher resolutions.

The GPU's benchmark scores tell a story of mixed architectural strengths. The 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 score of 2649 is respectable, while Geekbench Vulkan score of 96844 and OpenCL score of 83514 show compute capability. PassMark scores reveal interesting patterns: DirectX 9 scores 164, DirectX 11 scores 118, DirectX 12 scores 72, and DirectX 10 scores 65. The declining scores with newer API versions suggest that the Xe2-HPG architecture excels with older DirectX versions, which aligns with Minimum's 2014 release date. The PassMark G3D score of 14195 and G2D score of 661 further characterize the card's capabilities, with compute performance at 7281.

The practical implication for Minimum is that the GPU handles the game's workload reasonably well at 1080p, but struggles as resolution increases. The 25 FPS at 4K Ultra versus 71 FPS at 1080p Ultra represents a 65% drop, which is steeper than typical scaling and points to the bandwidth limitation becoming critical at higher pixel counts. The card's 150 W TDP and dual-slot design with a single 8-pin power connector suggest it operates within a modest power envelope, but the performance ceiling is clear from the data.

FAQ

*Q: How does this combo compare to the average system in Minimum?*

A: The combo ranks 2336 out of 2939 tested combinations, placing it in the lower 21% of all measured systems. The CPU is in the 94th percentile among all processors, while the GPU sits in the 65th percentile among all graphics cards, indicating the GPU drags the overall ranking down significantly.

Q: What is the best resolution to play at with this hardware?

A: At 1080p, all settings produce playable frame rates, with Low at 145 FPS, High at 93 FPS, and Ultra at 71 FPS. At 1440p, Low and Medium remain smooth at 94 FPS and 72 FPS respectively, but Ultra drops to 46 FPS. At 4K, only Low settings reach 50 FPS, with all other presets falling below 40 FPS.

Q: How does the Intel Arc B570 compare to its closest GPU rivals?

A: The Arc B570 has an average benchmark score of 20556, which is 0.1% behind the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3070 Mobile (20534), 0.1% ahead of the Intel Arc A750 (20582), 0.4% ahead of the NVIDIA Quadro M4000M (20480), and 0.5% behind the AMD Radeon R9 M390X (20662). These are all effectively equivalent in synthetic benchmarks.

Q: Is the CPU or GPU the limiting factor in this game?

A: The data clearly indicates the GPU is the bottleneck. The i7-14700K performs in the 94th percentile among CPUs with a multithread score of 52392 in PassMark, while the Arc B570 only reaches the 65th percentile among GPUs. The frame rate drops as resolution increases suggest GPU-bound behavior.

Q: What is the CPU's synthetic performance profile?

A: The i7-14700K scores 33440.5 in Cinebench R23 multicore and 2160 in single-core, with Geekbench scores of 20767 multicore and 2569 single-core. PassMark multithread score is 52392, and the CPU has an average benchmark score of 69355 across all tests.

Q: What memory and bandwidth specifications does the GPU have?

A: The Arc B570 has 10 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 160-bit bus, with 2375 MHz memory clock and 19 Gbps effective speed, providing 380.0 GB/s bandwidth. This configuration appears to limit performance at higher resolutions in Minimum.

Measured FPS Breakdown

At 1080p, the combo delivers its strongest performance across all settings. Low settings achieve 145 FPS average, which is the highest frame rate measured for this pairing in any configuration. Medium settings drop to 111 FPS with a minimum of 95 FPS and maximum of 128 FPS, showing stable frame pacing. High settings produce 93 FPS, while Ultra settings yield 71 FPS. These numbers indicate that 1080p is the sweet spot for this hardware, with all presets clearing the 60 FPS threshold that is generally considered necessary for smooth gameplay.

Moving to 1440p, the performance degradation becomes more pronounced. Low settings maintain 94 FPS, still comfortably above 60 FPS. Medium settings achieve 72 FPS with a minimum of 61 FPS and maximum of 82 FPS, hovering right at the playability boundary. High settings drop to 60 FPS exactly, which is marginal for competitive play. Ultra settings fall to 46 FPS, which is below the smoothness threshold and indicates that the GPU is struggling with the increased pixel count combined with higher visual fidelity.

At 4K, the limitations become severe. Low settings produce 50 FPS, which is playable but not ideal. Medium settings achieve 39 FPS with a minimum of 33 FPS and maximum of 44 FPS, showing noticeable frame dips. High settings drop to 32 FPS, while Ultra settings bottom out at 25 FPS. None of the 4K configurations reach 60 FPS, and even Low settings are borderline. The 4K Medium measurement includes min/max values (33/44), which suggests frame time variance that could cause stuttering during intense gameplay moments.

The pattern across resolutions is consistent: Low settings always provide the highest frame rates, followed by Medium, then High, with Ultra always being the most demanding. The gap between Low and Ultra widens as resolution increases. At 1080p, the difference is 74 FPS (145 vs 71). At 1440p, it's 48 FPS (94 vs 46). At 4K, it narrows to 25 FPS (50 vs 25). This narrowing gap at higher resolutions indicates that the GPU becomes increasingly bottlenecked regardless of settings, as pixel throughput becomes the dominant constraint.

Resolution Scaling

The frame rate scaling from 1080p to 4K reveals the GPU-bound nature of this configuration. At Low settings, the progression is 145 FPS at 1080p, 94 FPS at 1440p, and 50 FPS at 4K. This represents a 35% drop from 1080p to 1440p and a 66% drop from 1080p to 4K. The pixel count increases by 78% from 1080p to 1440p and by 300% from 1080p to 4K, so the frame rate drops are less than proportional to pixel count increases, suggesting some headroom in the GPU's compute capabilities.

At Medium settings, the scaling is 111 FPS at 1080p, 72 FPS at 1440p, and 39 FPS at 4K. The drop from 1080p to 1440p is 35%, and from 1080p to 4K is 65%. These percentages are nearly identical to Low settings, indicating that the GPU's pixel throughput limitation is consistent regardless of texture quality or shading complexity. This consistency suggests that the 380.0 GB/s memory bandwidth is the primary constraint, as higher resolutions require more data to be fetched per frame.

High settings show 93 FPS at 1080p, 60 FPS at 1440p, and 32 FPS at 4K — drops of 35% and 66% respectively. Ultra settings demonstrate 71 FPS at 1080p, 46 FPS at 1440p, and 25 FPS at 4K — drops of 35% and 65%. The uniformity of these scaling percentages (all around 35% for 1440p and 65-66% for 4K) strongly indicates that the limiting factor is resolution-independent in nature, pointing to memory bandwidth or fill rate constraints rather than compute shading limits.

The 4K Medium measurement with min/max values (33/44) shows a spread of 11 FPS, which is proportionally larger than the 1440p Medium spread of 21 FPS (61/82) or the 1080p Medium spread of 33 FPS (95/128). This suggests that frame time consistency degrades at higher resolutions, which could manifest as stuttering or hitches during gameplay. The data implies that 4K is not a viable resolution for this combo, and even 1440p requires Low or Medium settings to maintain acceptable frame pacing.

CPU Role

The Intel Core i7-14700K is a 20-core, 28-thread processor based on Raptor Lake architecture, manufactured on Intel's 10 nm process. It features a base clock of 3.40 GHz and boost clock of 5.60 GHz, with 80 KB L1 cache per core, 2 MB L2 cache per core, and 33 MB shared L3 cache. The CPU supports both DDR4 and DDR5 memory in dual-channel configuration, with ECC memory support and PCIe Gen 5 with 16 lanes. Its 125 W TDP and unlocked multiplier make it a versatile desktop processor, and it was released in October 2023 with a launch MSRP of $409.

In synthetic benchmarks, the i7-14700K demonstrates formidable performance. Cinebench R23 scores reach 33440.5 in multicore and 2160 in single-core, while Cinebench R20 scores are 18544 and 2617 respectively. Geekbench shows 20767 multicore and 2569 single-core. PassMark results include a multithread score of 52392, single-thread score of 4472, integer math at 182876, floating-point math at 134222, and data compression at 695234. The CPU's average benchmark score of 69355 places it in the 94th percentile among all processors.

The CPU's nearest rivals in synthetic performance are all within 1% of its average score. The AMD Ryzen 9 7950X scores 69515 (0.2% ahead), the AMD Ryzen 9 7940HX scores 69875 (0.7% ahead), and the AMD Ryzen 7 9700F scores 69996 (0.9% ahead). The AMD EPYC 9115 scores 69288 (0.1% behind). This tight clustering indicates that the i7-14700K is not significantly better or worse than its direct competitors in raw compute, meaning any performance differences in Minimum would come from game-specific optimization rather than CPU capability.

Despite this CPU's strength, the measured FPS data shows that it is not the limiting factor in this pairing. The consistent frame rate scaling patterns across resolutions align with GPU-bound behavior, and the fact that the combo ranks in the bottom 21% of tested systems despite a top-tier CPU confirms that the Arc B570 is the constraining component. The CPU's 20 cores and 28 threads are vastly more than Minimum would need for a 2014 title, and its single-thread performance (4472 PassMark, 2160 Cinebench R23) ensures that even older game engines that rely on fewer threads would be adequately served.

Settings Recommendations

Based on the measured FPS data, the optimal settings depend heavily on the target resolution. At 1080p, all settings are playable, but Medium provides the best balance of visual quality and performance. The Medium preset delivers 111 FPS average with a minimum of 95 FPS, ensuring smooth gameplay even during demanding sequences. High settings at 93 FPS are also viable, but the 18 FPS drop from Medium to High may not justify the visual improvements. Ultra at 71 FPS remains above 60 FPS, but the additional cost in frame rate suggests diminishing returns.

At 1440p, Medium is the recommended preset. The 72 FPS average with a 61 FPS minimum barely clears the 60 FPS threshold, and the 82 FPS maximum shows there is some headroom. Low settings at 94 FPS would be preferable for competitive play, but Medium offers a better visual experience while maintaining playability. High settings at exactly 60 FPS are marginal, as any frame drop below 60 would cause noticeable stuttering. Ultra at 46 FPS should be avoided for anything beyond casual exploration.

At 4K, the data suggests that only Low settings are viable for actual gameplay. The 50 FPS average at Low is the only 4K configuration that approaches playability, and even this would require accepting reduced visual fidelity. Medium at 39 FPS and High at 32 FPS are below acceptable thresholds, while Ultra at 25 FPS is essentially a slideshow. For users with 4K displays, the recommendation would be to either play at Low settings or drop to 1440p for a better experience.

The overall best experience across all resolutions appears to be 1080p Medium or 1440p Medium, depending on display capabilities. At 1080p Medium, the 111 FPS average provides a comfortable margin above refresh rate thresholds, while 1440p Medium at 72 FPS offers higher visual clarity with acceptable performance. For users with high refresh rate monitors, 1080p Low at 145 FPS would maximize frame rates, but the visual compromise may not be worth the additional 34 FPS over Medium. The data clearly indicates that this combo is best utilized at 1080p or 1440p with Medium settings, avoiding the performance cliffs present at higher resolutions and presets.