Palworld

The Intel Core i9-14900K paired with the Intel Arc B370 in Palworld produces a profoundly GPU-limited experience, where the processor’s top-tier specifications are effectively neutralized by a graphics solution that ranks in the 5th percentile. The data shows that this combination delivers playable frame rates only at 1080p with Low settings, while all other configurations fall below the 60 FPS threshold, making the Arc B370 the definitive bottleneck in every measured scenario.

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

The Intel Core i9-14900K is a 24-core, 32-thread processor based on the Raptor Lake architecture, with a base clock of 3.20 GHz and a boost clock of 6.00 GHz. This configuration places the CPU in the 95th percentile among all tested processors, with an average benchmark score of 79097. In synthetic multi-threaded tests, the chip achieves 39399.5 points in Cinebench R23 multicore and 20793 points in Cinebench R20 multicore, while single-core performance reaches 2262.5 and 2935 points in the respective R23 and R20 tests. These figures indicate a processor with substantial headroom for handling game logic, physics, and AI workloads in a survival title like Palworld, which typically involves numerous concurrent entities and world-state calculations.

However, the measured FPS data reveals that this CPU power is largely irrelevant to the final frame rates in Palworld. At 1080p Low, where CPU load is typically highest relative to GPU load, the combo achieves 76 FPS, but this is still far below what the i9-14900K could theoretically deliver if the GPU were not the limiting factor. The nearest CPU rivals, including the Intel Core i9-14900KF with a deltaPct of -0.3 and the Intel Core Ultra 9 290HX Plus with -0.6, show that the i9-14900K is essentially at parity with its closest competitors in raw compute. The AMD EPYC 7413 sits 1.2% higher in average score, while the AMD Ryzen AI Max+ 395 trails by 1.7%. These narrow margins confirm that the CPU is not a differentiator in this pairing; the processor’s 36 MB of shared L3 cache and dual-channel memory support for both DDR4 and DDR5 provide ample bandwidth for feeding the GPU, but the GPU simply cannot utilize it effectively.

The data suggests that in Palworld, the i9-14900K’s role is to ensure that frame pacing remains stable and that the game never becomes CPU-bound at the settings tested. The fact that frame rates scale almost linearly with resolution and settings reductions—rather than remaining flat—indicates that the CPU is never the constraining factor. For instance, moving from 1080p High at 47 FPS to 1440p High at 31 FPS represents a 34% drop, which is a classic GPU-bound signature rather than a CPU limitation. The i9-14900K’s 125 W TDP and active production status suggest it is a mainstream desktop part, but in this context, it operates well within its capabilities, likely idling through most frames while the Arc B370 struggles to keep up.

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

The Intel Arc B370 is an integrated graphics solution based on the Xe3-LPG architecture, built on a 3 nm process with a chip codename of Panther Lake. Its specifications paint a picture of a low-power IGP: a base clock of 300 MHz and a boost clock of 2400 MHz, with 1280 shading units, 40 texture mapping units, and 20 raster output units. The memory configuration is entirely system-shared, with no dedicated VRAM, memory type, or bus width; bandwidth is listed as system-dependent, which means performance scales with the host system’s RAM speed and architecture. This is a critical limitation for Palworld, a game that likely benefits from consistent memory bandwidth for streaming textures and world geometry.

The GPU’s benchmark results are stark. In 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12, the Arc B370 scores 1184 points, placing it in the 5th percentile of all GPUs. Its nearest rivals are all legacy or low-end parts: the ATI Mobility Radeon HD 5570 scores 1186 (-0.2% delta), the ATI Radeon HD 5770 scores 1190 (-0.5%), the AMD Radeon HD 7650M scores 1192 (-0.7%), and the AMD FirePro M2000 scores 1168 (+1.4%). This places the Arc B370 in performance territory that is roughly a decade old, which directly explains the low frame rates observed in Palworld. The GPU’s pixel rate of 48.00 GPixel/s and texture rate of 96.00 GTexel/s are modest figures that align with its FP32 throughput of 6.144 TFLOPS, but these theoretical numbers do not translate into playable performance in a modern title.

The 25 W TDP and IGP slot width confirm that this is not designed for gaming, yet the data shows it is being tested as such. At 1080p Low, the combo reaches 76 FPS, but this is the only setting where the GPU can keep up with the CPU’s frame generation requests. The system-shared memory means that the GPU competes with the CPU for the same RAM pool, which can introduce latency and bandwidth contention in a game like Palworld that has large open-world environments. The lack of dedicated VRAM also means that texture caching and geometry buffering are limited by system memory bandwidth, which is a likely contributor to the severe frame rate drops at higher resolutions and settings.

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

The measured FPS data across resolutions reveals a clear pattern of GPU-bound scaling, with frame rates dropping dramatically as pixel count increases. At Low settings, the combo delivers 76 FPS at 1080p, 50 FPS at 1440p, and 28 FPS at 4K. This represents a 34% drop from 1080p to 1440p and a 44% drop from 1440p to 4K, which are consistent with the GPU’s limited pixel processing capabilities. At High settings, the progression is 47 FPS at 1080p, 31 FPS at 1440p, and 17 FPS at 4K, showing similar relative declines. The Ultra preset follows the same trend: 36 FPS at 1080p, 24 FPS at 1440p, and 13 FPS at 4K.

These scaling patterns are textbook GPU-bound behavior. If the CPU were the limiting factor, frame rates would remain relatively flat across resolutions because the CPU’s workload does not increase with pixel count. Instead, the data shows that every resolution increase results in a proportional FPS loss, which indicates that the Arc B370’s fill rate and memory bandwidth are being saturated. The drop from 1080p Low to 4K Low (76 to 28 FPS) is a 63% reduction, while the same resolution change at Ultra (36 to 13 FPS) is a 64% reduction. This consistency across settings suggests that the GPU is operating at its maximum throughput in all cases, and the only way to improve performance is to reduce the rendering load.

The data also shows that the gap between settings narrows at higher resolutions. At 1080p, the difference between Low and Ultra is 40 FPS (76 vs 36), but at 4K, this gap shrinks to 15 FPS (28 vs 13). This is because at 4K, the GPU is so heavily constrained by pixel throughput that additional settings changes have diminishing returns. The 4K Medium setting shows a min FPS of 19 and a max of 26, with an average of 23, which is only 5 FPS above the 4K Ultra average. This compression of frame rates at 4K further confirms that the GPU is the sole limiting component, and the i9-14900K’s substantial compute resources are never called upon to pick up the slack.

Settings Recommendations — which preset gives the best experience per the measured rows

Based on the measured FPS data, the only preset that approaches a playable experience is 1080p Low, which achieves an average of 76 FPS. This is the sole configuration that clears the 60 FPS threshold, and it is the recommended setting for any user who prioritizes smooth gameplay over visual fidelity. At 1080p Medium, the average drops to 62 FPS, which is still technically playable but leaves little headroom for dips; the measured min FPS of 52 and max of 71 indicate that the frame rate can fluctuate significantly during intense scenes, so users with variable refresh rate displays may tolerate this setting, but it is riskier.

For users who prefer higher visual quality, 1080p High at 47 FPS is a compromise that sacrifices smoothness for improved textures and effects, but the data shows that this is a significant step down from the 76 FPS at Low, representing a 38% performance loss. At 1440p, the situation deteriorates further: Low settings yield 50 FPS, Medium yields 41 FPS, and High yields 31 FPS, with Ultra at 24 FPS. None of these are ideal for fast-paced gameplay, but 1440p Low might be acceptable for users with less demanding expectations. At 4K, all settings are effectively unplayable, with the highest average being 28 FPS at Low and the lowest at 13 FPS on Ultra.

The data indicates that the Arc B370 is not capable of delivering a consistent 60 FPS experience at any resolution above 1080p, and even at 1080p, only the Low preset achieves this target. The Medium preset at 1080p is the best balance of quality and performance for users who cannot tolerate Low settings, but it is borderline. Given that the Ultra preset at 1080p only reaches 36 FPS, there is no scenario where high-quality settings are viable. The recommendation is to run Palworld at 1080p Low for the best measured experience, with 1080p Medium as a secondary option for those who accept occasional frame dips below 60 FPS.

How This Combo Ranks — use comboRankInGame vs other tested combos

This specific combination of the Intel Core i9-14900K and Intel Arc B370 ranks 2706 out of 2944 tested combos in Palworld, placing it in the bottom 8% of all configurations. This rank is a direct consequence of the GPU’s 5th percentile standing, which drags down what would otherwise be a high-performing CPU. The i9-14900K’s 95th percentile CPU ranking is essentially wasted in this pairing, as the Arc B370 cannot translate the processor’s compute power into frame rates. The rank indicates that there are 2705 other combos that deliver better performance in Palworld, which is unsurprising given that the Arc B370’s nearest GPU rivals are over a decade old.

The data shows that this combo performs worse than the vast majority of alternatives, and the rank reflects the GPU’s severe limitations rather than any CPU deficiency. In the context of the benchmark database, this rank serves as a warning that the Arc B370 is not suitable for gaming at any reasonable quality level. The CPU’s compatibility with the GPU is irrelevant to the outcome; even if the i9-14900K were paired with a mid-range discrete GPU, the rank would improve substantially. The 2706th position out of 2944 combos means that only 238 tested configurations perform worse, all of which likely feature similarly low-end GPUs. This rank is a clear indicator that users should avoid this pairing for Palworld unless they are prepared to play at minimal settings and low resolutions.

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

The complete measured FPS dataset for Palworld with this combo is as follows. At 3840x2160 (4K), the High preset delivers an average of 17 FPS with no recorded min or max values. The Low preset at 4K achieves 28 FPS on average. The Medium preset at 4K shows an average of 23 FPS, with a min of 19 and a max of 26. The Ultra preset at 4K has an average of 13 FPS, with no min or max data. At 2560x1440 (1440p), the High preset averages 31 FPS, Low averages 50 FPS, Medium averages 41 FPS with a min of 35 and max of 47, and Ultra averages 24 FPS. At 1920x1080 (1080p), the High preset averages 47 FPS, Low averages 76 FPS, Medium averages 62 FPS with a min of 52 and max of 71, and Ultra averages 36 FPS.

The data shows that the Medium presets are the only ones with recorded min and max FPS values, which suggests that these settings exhibit the most frame time variance. At 1080p Medium, the 52 to 71 FPS range indicates a 19 FPS spread, which can cause noticeable stuttering. At 1440p Medium, the range is 35 to 47 FPS, a 12 FPS spread. At 4K Medium, the range is 19 to 26 FPS, a 7 FPS spread. This decreasing variance at higher resolutions is likely due to the GPU being so thoroughly saturated that frame times become more consistent, albeit at unplayable levels. The absence of min and max data for other settings suggests that those configurations were tested without frame time capture, so only averages are available, but the averages alone tell a clear story of GPU-limited performance across all resolutions and settings.