Overpower

The Intel Core i5-14400F paired with the Intel Arc B390 produces a highly constrained gaming experience in Overpower, a 2023 action title. Benchmark data shows this combination ranks 2638th out of 2980 tested combos, placing it in the bottom 11.5% of all systems evaluated. The measured frame rates reveal a configuration where the integrated graphics solution is the definitive bottleneck, with the CPU’s substantial multi-core headroom never coming into play at any resolution or settings level. The data indicates a system that can achieve playable frame rates only at the lowest settings and lowest resolution, with performance collapsing rapidly as graphical demands increase.

Resolution Scaling

The frame rate drop from 1080p to 4K is severe and tells a clear story about where the performance limit lies. At Low settings, the average FPS falls from 72 at 1920x1080 to 64 at 2560x1440, a reduction of 11.1%. Moving from 1440p to 3840x2160 at the same Low preset drops the average from 64 to 54 FPS, another 15.6% loss. The total scaling from 1080p Low to 4K Low is 25.0% fewer frames, which indicates that even at the least demanding settings, resolution increases are heavily penalized.

For High settings, the scaling becomes even more punishing. Starting at 42 FPS in 1080p, the average falls to 37 FPS at 1440p (an 11.9% drop), and then to 32 FPS at 4K (a 13.5% drop from 1440p). The cumulative loss from 1080p High to 4K High is 23.8%, but the absolute numbers are more telling: the system never exceeds 42 FPS at High settings, regardless of resolution. This pattern suggests the graphics processor is operating near its absolute ceiling even at the lowest resolution tested.

Medium settings follow a similar trajectory. The 1080p Medium average of 45 FPS drops to 40 FPS at 1440p, an 11.1% decrease, and then to 34 FPS at 4K, a 15.0% decrease from the 1440p result. The 4K Medium frame rate with a minimum of 29 and maximum of 39 shows significant variance, indicating that the graphics solution is struggling to maintain consistent output under moderate load.

Ultra settings are where the scaling becomes catastrophic. From 35 FPS at 1080p, the average drops to 31 FPS at 1440p (11.4% loss), and finally to 26 FPS at 4K (16.1% loss from 1440p). The 4K Ultra result of 26 FPS is barely above slideshow territory, and the total scaling from 1080p Ultra to 4K Ultra represents a 25.7% reduction in frame rate. Across all four settings presets, the resolution scaling pattern is remarkably consistent: each step from 1080p to 1440p to 4K costs roughly 11-16% of performance, with the losses slightly accelerating at higher resolutions.

This scaling behavior points unambiguously to the GPU as the limiting component. If the CPU were the constraint, we would expect to see frame rates that remain relatively flat across resolutions, since the processor's workload would be unchanged. Instead, every resolution increase produces a proportional frame rate penalty, which is the classic signature of a graphics-bound system. The Arc B390's integrated nature, with system-shared memory and a 9th percentile ranking among all GPUs, explains why even 1080p Low cannot reach 75 FPS. The data shows a system that is fundamentally constrained by its graphics capabilities, with the i5-14400F’s performance headroom entirely untapped.

How This Combo Ranks

The combo rank of 2638 out of 2980 tested combinations places this system firmly in the lower percentile of all configurations evaluated in Overpower. This ranking means that approximately 88.5% of tested combos deliver higher average frame rates in this game. The position is consistent with the GPU’s individual standing, which shows a 9th percentile ranking among all GPUs based on its 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 score of 1482.

The CPU, by contrast, is a much stronger component. The Intel Core i5-14400F achieves an 83rd percentile ranking among all CPUs, with an average benchmark score of 32279. Its nearest rivals in synthetic CPU tests include the AMD Ryzen 7 PRO 8840U with an average score of 32233 (0.1% difference), the Intel Core i9-11900 at 32226 (0.2% difference), the AMD Ryzen 7 6800HS at 32354 (-0.2% difference), and the Intel Core i7-12800H at 32121 (0.5% difference). These extremely tight margins, all within 0.5% of the i5-14400F’s score, indicate that the processor is competitive with mid-range mobile and older desktop parts from both Intel and AMD.

The vast discrepancy between CPU and GPU performance tiers is the defining feature of this combo. A processor in the 83rd percentile paired with a graphics solution in the 9th percentile creates a massive imbalance that manifests directly in the game’s frame rates. The combo rank of 2638 reflects the GPU’s dominance in determining gaming performance, not the CPU’s capability. In Overpower, the data shows that this pairing performs like a low-end graphics solution with a high-end processor attached, and the game’s results are entirely consistent with that interpretation.

When compared to other combos in the database, this system’s rank suggests it would be suitable only for the least demanding gaming scenarios. The fact that the CPU’s synthetic scores are within 0.5% of processors like the Ryzen 7 PRO 8840U and Core i9-11900 does nothing to improve the gaming outcome, because the Arc B390’s 3DMark score of 1482 places it alongside ancient and entry-level parts like the GeForce GT 520MX (1463, 1.3% delta), GeForce 800M (1460, 1.5% delta), GeForce GT 625 OEM (1446, 2.5% delta), and GeForce GT 710 (1443, 2.7% delta). These rival GPUs are all within 2.7% of the Arc B390’s score, confirming that this is an entry-level graphics solution by any measure.

GPU Role

The Intel Arc B390 is an integrated graphics processor built on the Xe3-LPG architecture, part of the Arc Graphics-M generation designed for Panther Lake. Its process node is 3 nm, and it operates with a base clock of 300 MHz and a boost clock of 2500 MHz. The GPU contains 1536 shading units, 48 texture mapping units, and 24 raster output units, along with 12 ray tracing cores. Its pixel rate is 60.00 GPixel/s and texture rate is 120.0 GTexel/s, with FP32 performance of 7.680 TFLOPS and FP16 of 15.36 TFLOPS at a 2:1 ratio. The power draw is rated at 80 W.

Critically, the memory configuration is entirely system-shared. The VRAM size, type, and bus width are all listed as "System Shared," with bandwidth described as "System Dependent." This means the GPU has no dedicated memory of its own and must rely on the system’s main memory, which introduces latency and bandwidth limitations that are particularly harmful in gaming workloads. The data shows this is an IGP (integrated graphics processor) with no power connectors and a slot width listed as IGP, confirming it is not a discrete solution.

The 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 score of 1482 places this GPU at the 9th percentile among all GPUs. Its nearest rivals are all ancient or extremely low-end NVIDIA parts: the GeForce GT 520MX scores 1463 (1.3% higher than the Arc B390), the GeForce 800M scores 1460 (1.5% higher), the GeForce GT 625 OEM scores 1446 (2.5% higher), and the GeForce GT 710 scores 1443 (2.7% higher). These deltas mean the Arc B390 is essentially performance-equivalent to GPUs that are over a decade old, which explains its poor showing in Overpower.

The boost clock of 2500 MHz is relatively high for an integrated solution, but the shared memory architecture and limited shader resources (1536 units) cap its real-world potential. In Overpower, the GPU’s limitations manifest as the hard ceiling on frame rates across all settings. Even at 1080p Low, the average FPS does not exceed 72, which is a moderate result at best. The ultra preset at any resolution produces averages below 35 FPS, making the game effectively unplayable at that quality level. The GPU’s 9th percentile ranking accurately predicts these results, as the measured frame rates are consistent with a solution that sits at the very bottom of the performance spectrum.

Settings Recommendations

Based on the measured data, the only settings preset that provides a consistently playable experience is Low at 1920x1080, which achieves an average FPS of 72. This is the only configuration in the entire dataset that exceeds 70 FPS, and it is the clear recommendation for any user seeking smooth gameplay. The next closest result is 1440p Low at 64 FPS, which is playable but begins to show the system’s limits.

At 1080p Medium, the average drops to 45 FPS, which is below the 60 FPS threshold typically considered smooth for action games. The minimum FPS at this setting is 38, with a maximum of 52, indicating that frame times are inconsistent and may result in noticeable stuttering during intense action sequences. The 4K Medium result of 34 FPS, with minimum 29 and maximum 39, is similarly inconsistent and falls below playable thresholds for most users.

High settings are not recommended at any resolution. The best High result is 1080p at 42 FPS, which is below the Medium preset’s performance and offers no advantage in terms of smoothness. The 1440p High result of 37 FPS and 4K High of 32 FPS are both sub-30 or marginal at best, making them poor choices. Ultra settings are the worst option, with 1080p Ultra at 35 FPS, 1440p Ultra at 31 FPS, and 4K Ultra at 26 FPS. None of these results approach playability for an action game.

The data suggests a clear hierarchy: Low settings are the only viable option for acceptable frame rates, with 1080p being the sole resolution that delivers a smooth experience. Medium settings at 1080p can be considered for users willing to tolerate frame rates in the 38-52 range, but the measured minimums indicate potential frame drops during gameplay. For users with 1440p or 4K displays, Low settings are the only option, yielding 64 and 54 FPS respectively, which may be acceptable depending on the user’s tolerance for reduced visual quality. The 1080p Low result of 72 FPS is the standout configuration, representing the best balance of playability and visual clarity that this hardware can achieve.

Measured FPS Breakdown

At 1920x1080, the full range of settings produces the following averages: Low 72 FPS, Medium 45 FPS (minimum 38, maximum 52), High 42 FPS, and Ultra 35 FPS. The gap between Low and Medium is 27 FPS, a 37.5% reduction, which is the largest single-settings jump in the entire dataset. Medium to High costs only 3 FPS (6.7% reduction), and High to Ultra costs 7 FPS (16.7% reduction). This pattern suggests that the Low to Medium transition introduces a significant increase in graphical load that the GPU cannot handle gracefully.

At 2560x1440, the averages are: Low 64 FPS, Medium 40 FPS (minimum 34, maximum 46), High 37 FPS, and Ultra 31 FPS. The Low to Medium drop is 24 FPS (37.5%), identical in percentage terms to the 1080p result. Medium to High costs 3 FPS (7.5%), and High to Ultra costs 6 FPS (16.2%). The consistency of these percentage drops across resolutions indicates that the settings presets impose similar relative loads on the GPU regardless of pixel count.

At 3840x2160, the averages are: Low 54 FPS, Medium 34 FPS (minimum 29, maximum 39), High 32 FPS, and Ultra 26 FPS. The Low to Medium drop is 20 FPS (37.0%), again matching the pattern. Medium to High costs 2 FPS (5.9%), and High to Ultra costs 6 FPS (18.8%). The 4K results are uniformly lower, with only Low settings exceeding 50 FPS, and Ultra producing a 26 FPS average that is essentially unplayable.

Comparing across resolutions at each setting reveals the following: Low settings range from 72 FPS at 1080p to 54 FPS at 4K, a 25.0% total reduction. Medium settings range from 45 to 34 FPS, a 24.4% reduction. High settings range from 42 to 32 FPS, a 23.8% reduction. Ultra settings range from 35 to 26 FPS, a 25.7% reduction. The uniformity of these scaling percentages, all within a 2 percentage point band, confirms that the GPU’s performance scales predictably with resolution regardless of the quality preset. The minimum FPS data, available only for Medium settings, shows 38 at 1080p, 34 at 1440p, and 29 at 4K, with maximums of 52, 46, and 39 respectively. These figures indicate that frame pacing is stable but low, with no evidence of sudden spikes or catastrophic drops beyond what the average suggests.

CPU Role

The Intel Core i5-14400F is a 10-core, 16-thread processor from the Core 14th Gen series, built on Raptor Lake architecture with a 10 nm process node. Its base clock is 2.50 GHz with a boost clock of 4.70 GHz, and it has a 65 W TDP. The cache hierarchy includes 80 KB L1 per core, 1.25 MB L2 per core, and 20 MB shared L3. Memory support covers both DDR4 and DDR5 in dual-channel configuration, with ECC support. The processor uses the Intel Socket 1700 and has a PCIe Gen 5 interface with 16 lanes from the CPU.

Synthetic benchmarks show the CPU is highly capable. Its Cinebench R23 multi-core score is 21645, with a single-core score of 3055. Geekbench results are 11268 multi-core and 2058 single-core. PassMark multi-thread score is 25470, with single-thread at 3701. The average benchmark score of 32279 places it at the 83rd percentile among all CPUs. Its nearest rivals in average score are the AMD Ryzen 7 PRO 8840U at 32233 (0.1% delta), Intel Core i9-11900 at 32226 (0.2% delta), AMD Ryzen 7 6800HS at 32354 (-0.2% delta), and Intel Core i7-12800H at 32121 (0.5% delta). These results indicate the CPU performs on par with or slightly better than these alternatives, all within a 0.7 percentage point range.

In Overpower, however, the CPU’s contribution is minimal. The measured frame rates are entirely consistent with a GPU-bound scenario, as evidenced by the resolution scaling analysis. The CPU’s 10 cores and 16 threads, capable of producing a Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 21645, are never stressed by the game’s demands because the Arc B390 cannot feed frames fast enough to utilize them. The boost clock of 4.70 GHz and strong single-core performance (Cinebench R23 single-core 3055, Geekbench single-core 2058) would be sufficient for any modern action game’s CPU requirements, but the graphics solution prevents the system from reaching even 75 FPS at the lowest settings.

The data shows no evidence of CPU limitation in any of the 12 measured configurations. If the CPU were the bottleneck, we would expect to see frame rates that plateau or even increase at lower resolutions, since the CPU would be the limiting factor. Instead, every resolution change produces a proportional FPS change, which is the definitive signature of a GPU bottleneck. The CPU’s 83rd percentile ranking and its proximity to rivals like the Ryzen 7 PRO 8840U and Core i9-11900 confirm that it is not the weak link in this pairing. The i5-14400F is a strong processor that is completely wasted in this configuration, as the Arc B390’s 9th percentile GPU ranking and 3DMark score of 1482 cap the system’s gaming performance at entry-level levels. For Overpower, the CPU role is that of a capable but underutilized component, with all performance limitations traceable to the integrated graphics solution.