Minimum

Resolution Scaling

The measured frame rates for Minimum with the Intel Core Ultra 7 265 and Intel Arc B370 show a steep performance decline as resolution increases. At 1920x1080 with Ultra settings, the combo achieves 42 FPS. Moving to 2560x1440 at Ultra drops the average to 27 FPS, a reduction of 15 FPS. At 3840x2160 Ultra, the average falls further to 15 FPS, which is a 64% decrease from the 1080p Ultra result.

The pattern across all settings levels confirms that this game becomes heavily GPU-bound at higher resolutions with this hardware combination. At Low settings, the scaling from 1080p to 1440p shows a drop from 85 FPS to 55 FPS, and then to 30 FPS at 4K. The gap between 1440p and 4K at Low settings (25 FPS difference) is nearly as large as the gap between 1080p and 1440p (30 FPS difference), indicating that the GPU's rendering capacity is the limiting factor rather than the CPU.

The Medium preset data includes min and max FPS values, which provide additional insight into frame pacing. At 3840x2160 Medium, the average is 23 FPS with a range from 19 to 26 FPS. This narrow range suggests the system is consistently hitting a performance ceiling rather than experiencing intermittent stutters. At 2560x1440 Medium, the average rises to 42 FPS with a range of 36 to 48 FPS, showing a wider spread that indicates more headroom in the rendering pipeline.

At 1920x1080 Medium, the average reaches 65 FPS with a range of 56 to 75 FPS. The relative stability of the frame times at 4K, where the variance is only 7 FPS between min and max, points to the GPU being saturated. In contrast, the 1080p Medium variance of 19 FPS suggests that at lower resolutions, the system has more variable performance, likely due to CPU-side frame generation or driver overhead becoming more apparent when the GPU is less stressed.

The data indicates that for this game, the Intel Arc B370's integrated graphics solution is the primary constraint at 1440p and above. The Core Ultra 7 265's 20 cores and 20 threads are more than adequate to feed the GPU at these resolutions, but the rendering hardware simply cannot keep up with the pixel count. The transition from 1080p to 1440p at High settings costs 20 FPS (from 55 to 35), while the transition from 1440p to 4K at High costs another 16 FPS (from 35 to 19). These consistent drops suggest a linear relationship between pixel count and frame rate, which is characteristic of a GPU-bound scenario.

GPU Role

The Intel Arc B370 is an integrated graphics processor based on the Xe3-LPG architecture, built on Intel's 3 nm process node. Its base clock is 300 MHz with a boost clock of 2400 MHz. The GPU contains 1280 shading units, 40 texture mapping units, and 20 raster output units, along with 10 ray tracing cores. The pixel rate is 48.00 GPixel/s and the texture rate is 96.00 GTexel/s, with FP32 performance rated at 6.144 TFLOPS.

Memory configuration is entirely system-shared, with no dedicated VRAM. The memory type, bus width, and bandwidth are all listed as "System Shared" or "System Dependent," meaning the GPU relies on the CPU's DDR5 memory subsystem. The Core Ultra 7 265 supports dual-channel DDR5 with a memory bandwidth of 102.4 GB/s, which becomes the effective bandwidth available to the GPU. This shared memory architecture is a significant factor in the performance results, as the GPU must compete with CPU workloads for memory access.

The GPU's TDP is 25 W, and it uses no power connectors, reflecting its integrated nature. In the 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 benchmark, the Arc B370 scores 1184 points, placing it in the 5th percentile of all GPUs. Its nearest rivals include the ATI Mobility Radeon HD 5570 (score 1186, delta -0.2%), ATI Radeon HD 5770 (score 1190, delta -0.5%), AMD Radeon HD 7650M (score 1192, delta -0.7%), and AMD FirePro M2000 (score 1168, delta 1.4%). These comparisons show that the Arc B370 sits in a performance tier with older discrete mobile and entry-level desktop GPUs.

Given this GPU's modest compute capabilities, the measured FPS in Minimum are consistent with expectations. The game, released in 2014, has modest system requirements by modern standards, yet the Arc B370 still struggles to maintain playable frame rates at higher resolutions. At 1080p Low, the 85 FPS average is acceptable, but the drop to 42 FPS at 1080p Ultra shows that even at the lowest resolution, the GPU's fill rate and shading capacity are taxed by higher-quality settings.

The boost clock of 2400 MHz is relatively high for an integrated GPU, but the 25 W TDP envelope limits sustained performance. The data shows no evidence of thermal throttling causing inconsistent results, as the 4K Medium frame range of 19-26 FPS is tight. However, the overall performance ceiling is clearly defined by the GPU's architectural limits rather than any software or driver inefficiency.

How This Combo Ranks

In the database of tested combinations for Minimum, the Intel Core Ultra 7 265 paired with the Intel Arc B370 ranks 2703 out of 2939 total combos. This places the combo in the bottom 8% of all tested configurations, which aligns with the GPU's low performance percentile relative to all GPUs.

The combo rank reflects the integrated GPU's limitations more than the CPU's capabilities. The Core Ultra 7 265 itself ranks in the 93rd percentile of all CPUs, with an average benchmark score of 64640. Its nearest CPU rivals are the AMD EPYC 4464P (avg score 64823, delta -0.3%), Intel Core Ultra 7 265F (avg score 64438, delta 0.3%), AMD EPYC 7343 (avg score 64202, delta 0.7%), and AMD EPYC 9124 (avg score 65104, delta -0.7%). These scores show that the CPU is competitive with server-class processors in synthetic benchmarks, yet in gaming performance, the GPU drags the overall combo ranking down significantly.

The discrepancy between the CPU's high percentile (93) and the combo's low rank (2703 of 2939) illustrates how the integrated GPU becomes a bottleneck in Minimum. For a game that relies primarily on GPU throughput for rendering, the CPU's 20 cores and 20 threads provide ample processing headroom that goes largely unused. The benchmark results suggest that pairing this CPU with a discrete GPU would yield dramatically better combo rankings, but the data as measured reflects only the integrated configuration.

In the context of the full combo list, 2703rd place means that 236 other tested combinations perform worse. This positions the combo in the lower tier of playable configurations, where frame rates at higher settings fall below typical playability thresholds. The 4K Ultra result of 15 FPS is particularly low, while the 1080p Low result of 85 FPS is serviceable for casual play. The rank accurately captures this middle-to-low performance envelope.

FAQ

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

A: The measured data shows that 1920x1080 provides the highest frame rates across all settings. At Low settings, the average is 85 FPS, at Medium it is 65 FPS, at High it is 55 FPS, and at Ultra it is 42 FPS. Higher resolutions yield progressively lower performance, with 1440p ranging from 27 to 55 FPS and 4K ranging from 15 to 30 FPS.

Q: How does the Intel Arc B370 compare to its nearest GPU rivals?

A: The Arc B370 scores 1184 in 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12, which is within 1.4% of the AMD FirePro M2000 (1168) and within 0.7% of the AMD Radeon HD 7650M (1192). It trails the ATI Radeon HD 5770 (1190) by 0.5% and the ATI Mobility Radeon HD 5570 (1186) by 0.2%.

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

A: The data indicates the GPU is the limiting factor. At 4K Ultra, the average FPS is 15, while at 1080p Low it is 85. The CPU's 20 cores and 20 threads with a boost clock of 5.30 GHz provide ample processing power, but the Arc B370's 1280 shading units cannot sustain higher frame rates at increased resolutions or settings.

Q: What frame rates can I expect at 1440p with Medium settings?

A: At 2560x1440 with Medium settings, the measured average FPS is 42, with a minimum of 36 FPS and a maximum of 48 FPS. This is the only 1440p setting with reported min/max values, indicating a stable performance range.

Q: How does the Core Ultra 7 265 compare to the Core Ultra 7 265F?

A: The Core Ultra 7 265 has an average benchmark score of 64640, while the Core Ultra 7 265F scores 64438. The delta is 0.3%, meaning the 265 is slightly faster. Both CPUs share the same core and thread counts, but the 265 has a 0.3% performance advantage in synthetic benchmarks.

Q: Can this combo handle Ultra settings at any resolution?

A: At 1920x1080 Ultra, the average FPS is 42, which is playable. At 2560x1440 Ultra, the average drops to 27 FPS, and at 3840x2160 Ultra, it falls to 15 FPS. Only 1080p Ultra provides a frame rate above 30 FPS.

CPU Role

The Intel Core Ultra 7 265 is a 20-core, 20-thread processor from the Core Ultra Series 2, based on the Arrow Lake architecture. It has a base clock of 2.40 GHz and a boost clock of 5.30 GHz, with a TDP of 65 W. The CPU's cache hierarchy includes 192 KB of L1 cache per core, 3 MB of L2 cache per core, and 30 MB of shared L3 cache. It supports DDR5 memory in a dual-channel configuration with a bandwidth of 102.4 GB/s.

In synthetic benchmarks, the CPU demonstrates strong multi-threaded performance. Its Cinebench R23 multicore score is 42216, while the single-core score is 5960. The PassMark multithread score is 49682, and the single-thread score is 4689. The CPU's percentile rank of 93 among all CPUs confirms its high-end positioning, with an average benchmark score of 64640.

For Minimum, the CPU's role is to prepare frames for the GPU to render. Given that the game is a third-person shooter from 2014, the CPU's 20 cores are far more than the game can utilize. The measured FPS data shows that at 1080p Low, the system reaches 85 FPS, which is the highest measured average across all configurations. This suggests that even at low settings, the GPU is still the bottleneck, as the CPU could theoretically push higher frame rates if the GPU could render them.

The PassMark data compression score of 522983 and floating-point math score of 172776 indicate that the CPU excels at compute-heavy tasks, but these capabilities do not translate into gaming performance advantages with an integrated GPU. The CPU's memory bandwidth of 102.4 GB/s is shared with the GPU, and at 4K resolutions, the memory subsystem may become a secondary bottleneck, though the GPU's raw rendering limits are likely the primary constraint.

The 3 nm process node and 17,800 million transistors on a 243 mm² die allow for high clock speeds and efficient power consumption. The boost clock of 5.30 GHz is among the highest for desktop CPUs, ensuring that single-threaded game logic runs quickly. However, in this game, the CPU's performance headroom is largely untapped, as the frame rates are dictated by the Arc B370's rendering capabilities.

Settings Recommendations

Based on the measured FPS data, the optimal settings for Minimum depend on the target resolution and desired frame rate. At 1920x1080, all settings presets produce playable frame rates. Low settings yield 85 FPS, Medium yields 65 FPS, High yields 55 FPS, and Ultra yields 42 FPS. For smooth gameplay on a standard 60 Hz display, Medium or High settings at 1080p provide the best balance, with 65 and 55 FPS respectively, while maintaining visual quality improvements over Low.

At 2560x1440, the choice narrows. Low settings produce 55 FPS, Medium produces 42 FPS, High produces 35 FPS, and Ultra produces 27 FPS. For a 60 Hz display, only Low settings reliably hit near 60 FPS, while Medium may be acceptable if the player can tolerate occasional drops to 36 FPS. For a 30 FPS target, Medium or High are viable, but Ultra falls below 30 FPS.

At 3840x2160, no settings preset achieves 60 FPS. Low produces 30 FPS, Medium produces 23 FPS, High produces 19 FPS, and Ultra produces 15 FPS. The only settings level that reaches the 30 FPS threshold is Low, making it the sole viable option for 4K gaming, and even then, the frame rate is marginal.

The data suggests that the best experience overall is at 1920x1080 with Medium settings, which delivers 65 FPS average with a range of 56 to 75 FPS. This configuration offers a comfortable margin above 60 FPS while providing more visual detail than Low settings. For players prioritizing frame rate over visuals, 1080p Low at 85 FPS is the smoothest option. For those who want the best visuals, 1080p Ultra at 42 FPS is playable but may feel less responsive on high-refresh displays.

Measured FPS Breakdown

At 1920x1080, the measured average FPS values are as follows: Low settings achieve 85 FPS, Medium settings achieve 65 FPS with a minimum of 56 and maximum of 75, High settings achieve 55 FPS, and Ultra settings achieve 42 FPS. The spread from Low to Ultra is 43 FPS, showing a significant performance cost for higher visual quality.

At 2560x1440, the averages drop: Low settings achieve 55 FPS, Medium settings achieve 42 FPS with a minimum of 36 and maximum of 48, High settings achieve 35 FPS, and Ultra settings achieve 27 FPS. The spread from Low to Ultra is 28 FPS, narrower than at 1080p, indicating that the GPU is approaching its limits even at Low settings.

At 3840x2160, the averages are substantially lower: Low settings achieve 30 FPS, Medium settings achieve 23 FPS with a minimum of 19 and maximum of 26, High settings achieve 19 FPS, and Ultra settings achieve 15 FPS. The spread from Low to Ultra is 15 FPS, the narrowest of all resolutions, confirming that the GPU is fully saturated at 4K regardless of settings.

Comparing settings across resolutions, the 1080p Low result of 85 FPS is more than double the 4K Low result of 30 FPS. Similarly, 1080p Ultra at 42 FPS is nearly three times the 4K Ultra result of 15 FPS. The data shows consistent scaling, with each resolution step reducing frame rates by roughly 30-40% across all settings levels. The Medium preset provides the most complete dataset with min/max values at all three resolutions, allowing for the most precise assessment of frame time consistency.