Palworld

Palworld pairs the Intel Core Ultra 7 265 with the Intel Arc B370, a combination that produces heavily GPU-bound results across all tested resolutions. The data reveals a system where the processor’s substantial 20-core/20-thread configuration is effectively idle while the integrated graphics struggle to maintain playable frame rates, particularly at higher resolutions and quality presets.

Resolution Scaling

The measured FPS data shows a steep and consistent performance cliff as resolution increases, which is a classic indicator of a system limited entirely by the graphics solution. At 1080p with Low settings, the combo achieves 76 FPS, but this drops to 50 FPS at 1440p and further to 28 FPS at 4K. This represents a 63% performance loss from 1080p to 4K at Low settings, demonstrating that the Arc B370’s rendering pipeline becomes the dominant bottleneck as pixel count rises.

The scaling pattern becomes even more pronounced at higher quality presets. At High settings, the frame rate falls from 47 FPS at 1080p to 31 FPS at 1440p (a 34% drop), then to 17 FPS at 4K (a 45% drop from 1440p). The Medium preset shows a similar trajectory: 62 FPS at 1080p, 41 FPS at 1440p, and 23 FPS at 4K. These results indicate that the integrated GPU’s 1280 shading units and 20 ROPs are simply overwhelmed by the combination of higher resolution and more complex shading work.

Notably, the gap between 1080p and 1440p is consistently smaller than the gap between 1440p and 4K across all presets. For example, at Low settings, moving from 1080p to 1440p costs 26 FPS, while moving from 1440p to 4K costs 22 FPS. At Ultra settings, the 1080p-to-1440p drop is 12 FPS, and the 1440p-to-4K drop is 11 FPS. This suggests that the GPU hits a hard architectural limit around the 4K mark, where the 48.00 GPixel/s pixel rate and 6.144 TFLOPS FP32 throughput cannot keep up with the demand.

The data strongly implies that the Core Ultra 7 265 is not the limiting factor in any scenario. The CPU’s 5.30 GHz boost clock and 30 MB of shared L3 cache are more than sufficient for Palworld’s survival-game workload, which typically relies on a few heavily threaded tasks. The fact that frame rates scale almost linearly with resolution and settings changes points to the Arc B370 as the sole performance gatekeeper, with the CPU’s 20 threads remaining largely underutilized.

How This Combo Ranks

In the global database of tested CPU-GPU combinations for Palworld, this pairing sits at rank 2706 out of 2944 total combos. This places it in the bottom 8% of all tested systems, which aligns with the measured frame rates that rarely exceed 76 FPS even at the lowest settings and resolution. The combo’s position reflects the Arc B370’s status as an integrated graphics solution rather than a discrete GPU, despite its 2400 MHz boost clock.

The GPU itself ranks in the 5th percentile among all tested graphics cards, with an average benchmark score of 1184 in 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12. Its nearest rivals in the GPU benchmark database are all legacy parts: the ATI Mobility Radeon HD 5570 (1186, just 0.2% faster), the ATI Radeon HD 5770 (1190, 0.5% faster), and the AMD Radeon HD 7650M (1192, 0.7% faster). The only GPU scoring lower is the AMD FirePro M2000 at 1168, which is 1.4% slower. This places the Arc B370 in extremely dated company, which explains why Palworld’s frame rates are so low.

On the CPU side, the Core Ultra 7 265 is a much stronger performer. It ranks in the 93rd percentile among all CPUs, with an average benchmark score of 64640. Its nearest rivals show tight competition: the AMD EPYC 4464P scores 64823 (0.3% faster), the Intel Core Ultra 7 265F scores 64438 (0.3% slower), the AMD EPYC 7343 scores 64202 (0.7% slower), and the AMD EPYC 9124 scores 65104 (0.7% faster). This indicates that the processor is a high-end part, but its potential is completely wasted in this configuration because the GPU cannot feed it enough frames.

The combination of a 93rd-percentile CPU with a 5th-percentile GPU creates a massive imbalance. The combo’s rank of 2706 out of 2944 is far worse than the CPU’s percentile would suggest, confirming that the Arc B370 drags down the entire system’s gaming performance. In Palworld specifically, the data shows that even the weakest CPU paired with a mid-range discrete GPU would likely outperform this setup, as the game’s frame rates are entirely dictated by the graphics subsystem.

FAQ

Q: What is the best frame rate this combo can achieve in Palworld?

A: The highest measured average FPS is 76, which occurs at 1920x1080 resolution with Low settings. At this same resolution, High settings yield 47 FPS, Medium yields 62 FPS, and Ultra yields 36 FPS.

Q: Is the Intel Core Ultra 7 265 bottlenecking the Arc B370 in this game?

A: No. The CPU ranks in the 93rd percentile among all processors with an average benchmark score of 64640, while the GPU ranks in the 5th percentile with a score of 1184. The frame rate drops consistently with resolution and settings increases, indicating the GPU is the sole limiting component.

Q: How does the Arc B370 compare to its nearest GPU rivals in raw benchmark performance?

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

Q: What is the combo’s overall ranking in Palworld among all tested systems?

A: The combination ranks 2706 out of 2944 total tested combos. This places it in the lower tier of systems, with only 238 combinations performing worse.

Q: Does the Ultra preset provide any playable frame rates at any resolution?

A: No. At 1080p, Ultra averages 36 FPS. At 1440p, it drops to 24 FPS. At 4K, it falls to 13 FPS. Only the 1080p Ultra result approaches playability, and even that is marginal.

Q: What is the CPU’s benchmark performance relative to its nearest rivals?

A: The Core Ultra 7 265 has an average benchmark score of 64640. It is 0.3% slower than the AMD EPYC 4464P (64823), 0.3% faster than the Intel Core Ultra 7 265F (64438), 0.7% faster than the AMD EPYC 7343 (64202), and 0.7% slower than the AMD EPYC 9124 (65104).

Measured FPS Breakdown

The dataset provides average frame rates for twelve distinct configurations, spanning three resolutions and four quality presets. At 1920x1080, the combo delivers 76 FPS on Low, 62 FPS on Medium (with a minimum of 52 and maximum of 71), 47 FPS on High, and 36 FPS on Ultra. This is the only resolution where any preset exceeds the 60 FPS threshold, and it requires the lowest quality settings to do so.

Moving to 2560x1440, performance drops significantly across the board. Low settings produce 50 FPS, Medium produces 41 FPS (minimum 35, maximum 47), High produces 31 FPS, and Ultra produces 24 FPS. The 1440p results indicate that even the Low preset cannot maintain a consistent 60 FPS experience, and the Medium preset’s minimum of 35 FPS suggests noticeable stuttering during demanding scenes.

At 3840x2160, the results are largely unplayable for action-oriented gameplay. Low settings yield 28 FPS, Medium yields 23 FPS (minimum 19, maximum 26), High yields 17 FPS, and Ultra yields just 13 FPS. The 4K Medium preset’s minimum of 19 FPS is particularly telling, as it shows that even the most stable configuration at this resolution frequently dips below 20 FPS.

Across all resolutions, the scaling from Low to Ultra is consistent: Ultra is roughly half the frame rate of Low. At 1080p, Ultra (36 FPS) is 47% of Low (76 FPS). At 1440p, Ultra (24 FPS) is 48% of Low (50 FPS). At 4K, Ultra (13 FPS) is 46% of Low (28 FPS). This uniform ratio suggests that the GPU’s shading units and texture units are saturated in a predictable manner as quality increases, with no unexpected bottlenecks or throttling events.

The data also shows that the gap between High and Ultra is smaller than the gap between Low and Medium at every resolution. At 1080p, Low-to-Medium costs 14 FPS, while High-to-Ultra costs 11 FPS. This indicates that the highest quality preset adds less incremental load than the jump from Low to Medium, which may reflect differences in specific rendering features like shadow quality or draw distance that are more computationally expensive at lower tiers.

Settings Recommendations

Given the measured performance, the only configuration that approaches a smooth gaming experience is 1080p with Low settings, which averages 76 FPS. This is the sole preset where the frame rate exceeds the 60 FPS target, making it the default recommendation for any player seeking responsive gameplay. The 1080p Medium preset, at 62 FPS, also crosses the 60 FPS line, but its minimum of 52 FPS indicates occasional dips that may be noticeable in fast-paced combat or when traversing dense environments.

For players who prioritize visual fidelity over frame rate, 1080p High at 47 FPS is the best compromise. It offers a significant visual upgrade over Low while maintaining a frame rate that is playable, though not smooth. The 1080p Ultra preset at 36 FPS is not recommended, as the visual gains over High are typically marginal in survival games while the performance cost is substantial.

At 1440p, the data suggests that only the Low preset (50 FPS) is viable for actual gameplay, and even it falls short of 60 FPS. The Medium preset at 41 FPS could be considered for slower-paced exploration, but the 35 FPS minimum makes it risky for any situation requiring quick reactions. High (31 FPS) and Ultra (24 FPS) at 1440p are effectively slideshows and should be avoided.

The 4K resolution is not viable for this combo under any settings. Even Low (28 FPS) fails to reach 30 FPS, and the Ultra preset at 13 FPS is essentially a static image. Players with 4K displays should run the game at 1080p or 1440p and accept the lower native resolution, as the integrated GPU cannot handle the pixel count of 3840x2160 in any quality mode.

The overall recommendation is clear: use 1080p Low for competitive or fast-paced play, 1080p Medium for a balanced experience, and 1080p High for maximum visual quality while maintaining playability. Any setting above 1080p requires dropping to Low, and even then, the frame rate ceiling of 50 FPS at 1440p is a significant compromise.

CPU Role

The Intel Core Ultra 7 265 is a 20-core, 20-thread processor based on the Arrow Lake architecture, built on a 3 nm process by TSMC. It features a base clock of 2.40 GHz and a boost clock of 5.30 GHz, with a 65 W TDP. The cache hierarchy includes 192 KB of L1 per core, 3 MB of L2 per core, and 30 MB of shared L3 cache. In synthetic benchmarks, it scores 42216 in Cinebench R23 multi-core and 5960 in single-core, placing it in the 93rd percentile of all CPUs.

In Palworld, the CPU’s role is minimal because the game’s frame rates are entirely dictated by the GPU. The measured FPS scales directly with resolution and quality settings, which is the signature of a graphics-bound workload. The CPU’s 20 threads are more than adequate for Palworld’s simulation and AI tasks, which typically scale well across multiple cores but rarely require the full throughput of a high-end desktop processor.

The CPU’s benchmark results show it is competitive with server-class parts. Its nearest rival, the AMD EPYC 4464P, scores only 0.3% higher (64823 vs 64640), while the Intel Core Ultra 7 265F is 0.3% lower (64438). This level of performance is far beyond what Palworld needs, as the game’s CPU demands are modest compared to its GPU demands. Even a processor with half the cores would likely produce identical frame rates in this configuration, since the Arc B370 cannot render frames fast enough to saturate the CPU.

The 30 MB of shared L3 cache and 102.4 GB/s memory bandwidth provide ample headroom for the game’s asset streaming and entity management. However, these resources go largely unused in practice because the GPU’s 6.144 TFLOPS FP32 throughput and 48.00 GPixel/s pixel rate are the hard limits. The CPU’s 5.30 GHz boost clock ensures that any single-threaded game logic runs at maximum speed, but this has no measurable impact on the frame rates, which are uniformly low across all tested configurations.

In summary, the Core Ultra 7 265 is a high-end processor that is completely wasted in this pairing. Its 93rd-percentile ranking and strong synthetic scores have no bearing on Palworld’s performance, as the Arc B370’s 5th-percentile GPU ranking is the sole determinant of the combo’s 2706th-place finish out of 2944 tested systems. The data unequivocally shows that upgrading the graphics solution would yield massive frame rate improvements, while the CPU would remain the same bottleneck-free component it already is.