Palworld

Palworld presents a demanding workload for this particular pairing, with benchmark results showing that the Intel Core i5-10400F and Intel Arc B370 combination struggles to maintain playable frame rates at higher resolutions and settings. The measured data indicates a system that is heavily constrained by the graphics processor, especially as resolution scales, while the CPU provides adequate support for the game's simulation and world-generation tasks. The overall ranking places this combo in the lower percentile of tested configurations, suggesting that it is best suited for low-fidelity gaming at 1080p.

Resolution Scaling

The frame rate data reveals a steep and consistent performance penalty as resolution increases from 1080p to 4K, a clear indicator that the Intel Arc B370 is the primary limiting factor in this system. At the "High" preset, the average frame rate drops from 47 FPS at 1920x1080 to 31 FPS at 2560x1440, a reduction of 16 FPS. Moving to 3840x2160, the average falls further to 17 FPS, which represents a 64% loss compared to the 1080p result. This pattern strongly suggests that the GPU's pixel throughput and memory bandwidth are exhausted by the increasing number of pixels, rather than the CPU being unable to feed the graphics card with draw calls.

The scaling trend is similar across all presets, though the absolute frame rates differ. At the "Low" preset, the average FPS goes from 76 at 1080p to 50 at 1440p and then to 28 at 4K. The drop from 1440p to 4K is a 44% decline, which is less severe than the 1080p-to-4K drop on High, but it still underscores the GPU's limitations. The "Ultra" preset is the most punishing, with average FPS falling from 36 at 1080p to 24 at 1440p and finally to 13 at 4K. This consistent pattern across all quality levels confirms that the resolution scaling is a function of GPU load, and no amount of CPU headroom can compensate for the Arc B370's rendering ceiling.

The fact that the 1080p-to-1440p transition on "Medium" yields a 21 FPS drop (from 62 to 41) while the 1440p-to-4K transition yields an 18 FPS drop (from 41 to 23) shows that the performance curve is not linear; the GPU is getting closer to its absolute limit at each step. In essence, the data shows that this combo is only viable for 1080p gaming, with a significant performance cliff encountered as soon as the resolution is increased to 1440p. The 4K results are uniformly below playable thresholds, indicating that the GPU is overwhelmed by the pixel count.

CPU Role

The Intel Core i5-10400F, with its 6 cores and 12 threads, provides a solid foundation for Palworld, but its performance characteristics are secondary to the GPU bottleneck in this configuration. The CPU's base clock of 2.90 GHz and boost clock of 4.30 GHz are respectable for a desktop processor from the Comet Lake generation. In terms of raw compute, its Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 10283 and single-core score of 1451 show a balanced capability that is sufficient for modern game engines. The 12 MB of shared L3 cache helps with data locality, which is beneficial for the game's open-world systems.

However, the benchmark results do not suggest that the CPU is the limiting factor at any resolution. At 1080p Low, where the GPU has the least work to do, the average FPS of 76 is the highest recorded for this combo, but it is still not exceptionally high. This indicates that even at the lowest settings, the GPU is unable to fully utilize the CPU's potential. The CPU's 3DMark scores, such as 4748 for 16 threads and 688 for single-thread, place it in the 68th percentile of all CPUs, which is a mid-range position. This suggests that while the i5-10400F is not a top-tier performer, it has enough processing power to handle Palworld's physics and AI calculations without becoming a major bottleneck.

The data shows that the CPU's role is to maintain a stable frame delivery, particularly when the GPU is not saturated. For instance, the jump from 47 FPS at 1080p High to 76 FPS at 1080p Low demonstrates that the CPU can support higher frame rates when the graphics load is lightened. The lack of a significant difference between 1440p and 4K results at the same settings (e.g., 31 FPS vs 17 FPS on High) further reinforces that the GPU is the sole constraint. The CPU's memory bandwidth of 42.7 GB/s and dual-channel DDR4 support are adequate for the game's requirements, but they are not the decisive factor in this pairing's overall performance.

How This Combo Ranks

The combination of the Intel Core i5-10400F and Intel Arc B370 ranks 3423 out of 3711 tested combos in Palworld, placing it in the bottom 8% of all configurations. This low ranking is a direct consequence of the GPU's performance, which is in the 5th percentile of all GPUs based on its average benchmark score of 1184. The GPU's nearest rivals in the benchmark database include the ATI Mobility Radeon HD 5570, which has a similar average score of 1186 (a 0.2% difference), and the AMD Radeon HD 7650M with a score of 1192 (a 0.7% difference). These are legacy or low-power parts, which underscores how far behind the Arc B370 is in raw graphics compute.

In contrast, the CPU is in the 68th percentile, with an average benchmark score of 14185. Its nearest rivals include the Intel Xeon 6756E (with a deltaPct of 0.2% and a score of 14163) and the AMD EPYC 7552 (with a deltaPct of 0.5% and a score of 14115). This indicates that the CPU is a competent mid-range part, but its capabilities are completely overshadowed by the GPU's deficiencies in this specific game. The combo's rank is not a reflection of the CPU's weakness but rather proof of how severely the GPU limits the overall experience.

The data suggests that pairing a stronger GPU with the i5-10400F would likely yield a much higher rank, as the CPU's performance headroom is not being fully utilized. However, as configured, this combo is one of the weakest tested for Palworld, and the benchmark results show that it is only suitable for the most modest graphical settings. The disparity between the CPU's percentile (68) and the GPU's percentile (5) is stark, and it directly explains why the combo rank is so low.

Measured FPS Breakdown

The measured frame rates offer a detailed look at the system's performance across three resolutions and four quality presets. At 1920x1080, the "Low" preset achieves an average of 76 FPS, which is the highest score recorded for this combo. The "Medium" preset averages 62 FPS, with a minimum of 52 and a maximum of 71 FPS, indicating a playable range. The "High" preset drops to an average of 47 FPS, while the "Ultra" preset falls to 36 FPS. These results show that 1080p is the only resolution where the system can maintain a reasonably smooth experience, though even at Low, the frame rate is not exceptionally high.

Moving to 2560x1440, the performance degrades significantly. The "Low" preset averages 50 FPS, which is still playable, but the "Medium" preset drops to 41 FPS (with a minimum of 35 and a maximum of 47). The "High" preset averages 31 FPS, which is borderline for a survival game, and the "Ultra" preset falls to 24 FPS, which is below the threshold for smooth gameplay. At 3840x2160, the results are largely unplayable. The "Low" preset averages 28 FPS, the "Medium" preset averages 23 FPS (with a minimum of 19 and a maximum of 26), the "High" preset averages 17 FPS, and the "Ultra" preset averages just 13 FPS.

The minimum FPS values for the "Medium" preset are notable, as they show that the frame rate can dip even lower than the average. At 1080p, the minimum is 52 FPS, at 1440p it is 35 FPS, and at 4K it is 19 FPS. This indicates that during intense gameplay moments, the system can experience stutters or drops, further compromising the experience at higher resolutions. The data clearly shows that the only viable configuration for a smooth experience is 1080p with Low or Medium settings, and even then, the user may need to accept occasional frame dips.

GPU Role

The Intel Arc B370 is the defining component of this system, and its specifications explain the performance ceiling observed in the benchmark data. With a boost clock of 2400 MHz and 1280 shading units, the GPU has a theoretical FP32 performance of 6.144 TFLOPS. However, its memory configuration is "System Shared," meaning it relies on the system's main memory rather than dedicated VRAM. This is a critical limitation, as the memory bandwidth is listed as "System Dependent," which is typically much lower than what a dedicated graphics card would offer. The GPU also has a very low TDP of 25 W, which classifies it as an integrated or low-power part, and its pixel rate of 48.00 GPixel/s and texture rate of 96.00 GTexel/s are modest for modern gaming.

The GPU's benchmark score of 1184 in 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 places it in the 5th percentile of all GPUs. Its nearest rivals are all much older or lower-tier parts, such as the ATI Radeon HD 5770 (with a deltaPct of -0.5% and a score of 1190) and the AMD FirePro M2000 (with a deltaPct of 1.4% and a score of 1168). This indicates that the Arc B370's performance is on par with graphics cards from over a decade ago, making it unsuitable for demanding modern titles like Palworld at higher settings. The lack of dedicated VRAM is likely a major culprit, as the shared memory architecture creates a bottleneck when the game needs to access large textures and assets.

The 3nm process node and Xe3-LPG architecture are modern, but the chip's low power envelope and shared memory design severely limit its real-world gaming performance. The GPU's DirectX 12 Ultimate support (12_2) and Vulkan 1.4 are forward-looking, but they do not translate into high frame rates in this benchmark. The data suggests that this GPU is designed for basic tasks rather than gaming, and its inclusion in this combo is the primary reason for the low overall rankingikuha.

Settings Recommendations

Based on the measured FPS data, the optimal experience for the Intel Core i5-10400F and Intel Arc B370 in Palworld is achieved at 1920x1080 with the "Low" preset. This configuration yields an average of 76 FPS, which is the only setting that provides a consistently smooth and responsive experience. The "Medium" preset at 1080p, with an average of 62 FPS, is also a viable option, especially since the minimum FPS of 52 ensures that the game remains playable during demanding scenes. For users who prioritize visual fidelity over frame rate, the "High" preset at 1080p offers an average of 47 FPS, which is still playable for a survival game, but it may not be ideal for fast-paced combat.

At 2560x1440, the "Low" preset is the only one that remains playable, with an average of 50 FPS. The "Medium" preset drops to 41 FPS, which is at the edge of acceptability, and the "High" and "Ultra" presets are not recommended due to their low averages of 31 and 24 FPS, respectively. The 3840x2160 resolution should be avoided entirely, as even the "Low" preset fails to reach 30 FPS, and the "Ultra" preset is virtually unplayable at 13 FPS. The data indicates that the system lacks the GPU power to handle 4K rendering in this game.

For the best balance between performance and visual quality, the "Medium" preset at 1080p is the recommended choice. It provides a 62 FPS average, which is well above the 60 FPS target, and the minimum of 52 FPS ensures that there are no severe stutters. Users who are sensitive to frame drops should stick to "Low" at 1080p for the highest possible headroom. The "Ultra" preset is not recommended at any resolution, as the performance penalty is severe and the visual gains are unlikely to justify the frame rate loss. In summary, the measured rows clearly show that this combo is a 1080p machine, and users should tailor their settings accordingly to achieve a playable experience.