Ready Or Not

Settings Recommendations

The measured FPS data for Ready Or Not with the AMD Ryzen 9 9900X3D and Intel Arc B370 shows a clear hierarchy across the four available presets. At 1920x1080, Low delivers 113 FPS average, Medium drops to 98 FPS, High lands at 89 FPS, and Ultra falls to 63 FPS. The jump from Low to Medium costs 15 FPS, while the jump from High to Ultra costs 26 FPS, making Ultra the most expensive tier in relative terms.

Given the GPU's performance class, Low is the only preset that consistently pushes frame rates above the 100 FPS threshold at 1080p. Medium remains playable at 98 FPS, but the data shows diminishing returns when moving beyond Medium. At 2560x1440, the pattern shifts: Low produces 71 FPS, Medium 62 FPS, High 56 FPS, and Ultra drops to 40 FPS. The 1440p results indicate that even Low cannot maintain a 60 FPS floor, though it comes close.

For the best balance between visual fidelity and playability, Medium is the recommended preset for most users. It delivers 98 FPS at 1080p and 62 FPS at 1440p, which keeps the game responsive while still offering improved textures and effects over Low. High is viable at 1080p with 89 FPS, but at 1440p it slips to 56 FPS, which may feel less smooth in a tactical shooter where reaction times matter. Ultra is only advisable for users who prioritize image quality over frame rate, as it drops to 63 FPS at 1080p and 40 FPS at 1440p.

The minimum FPS data for Medium settings reinforces this recommendation. At 1080p, the 83 FPS minimum stays well above the 60 FPS line, and at 1440p the 53 FPS minimum is borderline but still playable. The maximum FPS values mirror the averages closely, suggesting stable frame pacing rather than erratic spikes. For 4K gaming, all presets fall below 40 FPS, with Ultra at 21 FPS, High at 29 FPS, Medium at 32 FPS, and Low at 37 FPS — none of which are suitable for competitive play.

FAQ

Q: What is the best preset for 1080p gaming with this CPU/GPU combo?

A: Medium provides the best experience at 1080p, delivering 98 FPS average with an 83 FPS minimum. Low is faster at 113 FPS, but Medium offers improved visuals without sacrificing smoothness.

Q: Can this combo handle 1440p gaming in Ready Or Not?

A: Yes, but only at lower presets. Low achieves 71 FPS, Medium 62 FPS, and High 56 FPS at 2560x1440. Ultra drops to 40 FPS, which is below the 60 FPS target for smooth gameplay.

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

A: The Arc B370 scores 1184 in the 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 test. This is nearly identical to the ATI Mobility Radeon HD 5570 (1186, -0.2% delta), ATI Radeon HD 5770 (1190, -0.5% delta), and AMD Radeon HD 7650M (1192, -0.7% delta). It sits slightly above the AMD FirePro M2000 (1168, +1.4% delta).

Q: Is 4K gaming viable with this hardware?

A: No. At 3840x2160, even Low settings only reach 37 FPS, and Medium produces 32 FPS with a 28 FPS minimum. Ultra falls to 21 FPS, making 4K impractical for this title.

Q: How does the Ryzen 9 9900X3D rank against other CPUs overall?

A: The CPU sits in the 91st percentile of all CPUs tested. Its average benchmark score is 54762, which is 0.6% behind the Intel Core Ultra 5 245KF (55093) and 1.3% ahead of the Intel Core Ultra 5 245K (54053).

Q: What is the CPU's launch MSRP?

A: The AMD Ryzen 9 9900X3D launched with an MSRP of $599.

CPU Role

The AMD Ryzen 9 9900X3D is a 12-core, 24-thread processor based on the Zen 5 architecture, built on TSMC's 4 nm process. It features a base clock of 4.40 GHz and a boost clock of 5.50 GHz, with 128 MB of L3 cache distributed across its cores. This cache configuration is particularly relevant for gaming workloads, as Ready Or Not's level geometry and AI routines benefit from large, fast caches.

The CPU's multi-threaded performance is strong across synthetic benchmarks. Cinebench R23 multicore scores 47737, while the 3DMark 16-thread test reaches 12490. Single-thread performance is also respectable, with Cinebench R23 single-core scoring 6739 and 3DMark single-thread scoring 1269. These figures place the 9900X3D in the 91st percentile of all CPUs, with an average benchmark score of 54762. Its nearest rivals include the Intel Core Ultra 5 245KF (55093, -0.6% delta), the Intel Core Ultra 5 245K (54053, +1.3% delta), and the Intel Core i7-14700F (53620, +2.1% delta).

In Ready Or Not specifically, the CPU is unlikely to be the primary bottleneck at lower resolutions. The game's tactical shooter genre typically involves moderate thread counts, and the 9900X3D's 24 threads provide ample headroom. At 1080p with Low settings, the system reaches 113 FPS, which suggests the CPU can feed the GPU effectively at that resolution. However, the GPU's limited performance becomes evident as resolution increases and settings are raised.

The CPU's memory bandwidth of 89.6 GB/s over dual-channel DDR5 is adequate for this workload. The 128 MB L3 cache helps reduce memory latency, which can improve frame pacing in scenarios where the game streams in new areas or spawns AI characters. The 4 nm process node and 120 W TDP indicate efficient power delivery, though the CPU's performance in this game is more dependent on its cache layout than its raw clock speed.

How This Combo Ranks

The combination of the AMD Ryzen 9 9900X3D and Intel Arc B370 ranks 2710 out of 2947 tested combos in Ready Or Not. This places it in the bottom 8% of all combinations, reflecting the GPU's modest performance rather than any CPU limitation. The ranking is heavily influenced by the Arc B370's position in the 5th percentile of all GPUs, with an average benchmark score of just 1184 in 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12.

The GPU's nearest rivals are all older or lower-end parts: the ATI Mobility Radeon HD 5570 (1186, -0.2% delta), ATI Radeon HD 5770 (1190, -0.5% delta), and AMD Radeon HD 7650M (1192, -0.7% delta). These comparisons show that the Arc B370 performs at a level roughly equivalent to mid-range GPUs from over a decade ago, which explains the low combo ranking.

In practical terms, this ranking means that users should expect frame rates typical of entry-level gaming hardware. The combo's 1080p performance is acceptable for casual play, but it will not compete with higher-end GPU pairings. The CPU is clearly overqualified for the GPU; a less powerful processor would likely produce similar results in this game, as the bottleneck sits firmly on the graphics side.

The combo ranking also reflects the resolution scaling pattern. At 1080p, the system can exceed 100 FPS on Low settings, but at 4K, even Low settings drop to 37 FPS. This steep falloff is characteristic of a GPU-limited configuration, where the CPU's performance headroom cannot compensate for the GPU's lack of fill rate and compute throughput.

Resolution Scaling

The FPS data across resolutions reveals a predictable scaling curve that points directly at the GPU as the limiting component. Moving from 1080p to 1440p on Medium settings, the average FPS drops from 98 to 62, a 36.7% reduction. Moving from 1440p to 4K at Medium, the average drops from 62 to 32, another 48.4% reduction. These are substantial falls that indicate the GPU is saturated well before the CPU becomes a factor.

At Low settings, the scaling is similar: 113 FPS at 1080p, 71 FPS at 1440p, and 37 FPS at 4K. The relative drops are 37.2% and 47.9% respectively. High settings show 89 FPS at 1080p, 56 FPS at 1440p, and 29 FPS at 4K, with drops of 37.1% and 48.2%. Ultra settings follow the same pattern: 63, 40, and 21 FPS, representing drops of 36.5% and 47.5%.

The consistency of these percentage drops across all settings is telling. If the CPU were the bottleneck, we would expect the FPS to remain more constant as resolution increases, since the CPU workload stays roughly the same. Instead, the FPS drops nearly linearly with pixel count, which is the signature of a GPU-bound scenario. The Arc B370's 1280 shading units and 20 ROPs simply cannot keep up with the pixel fill demands of higher resolutions.

The resolution scaling also shows that the game's settings have a multiplicative rather than additive effect on GPU load. At 1080p, the difference between Low and Ultra is 50 FPS (113 vs 63). At 1440p, the difference narrows to 31 FPS (71 vs 40). At 4K, it shrinks to 16 FPS (37 vs 21). This suggests that at higher resolutions, the GPU is so heavily loaded that even reducing settings cannot fully compensate for the increased pixel count.

Measured FPS Breakdown

The measured FPS data provides a complete picture of this combo's performance across all tested configurations.

1920x1080:

• Low: 113 FPS average
• Medium: 98 FPS average, 83 FPS minimum, 113 FPS maximum
• High: 89 FPS average
• Ultra: 63 FPS average

2560x1440:

• Low: 71 FPS average
• Medium: 62 FPS average, 53 FPS minimum, 71 FPS maximum
• High: 56 FPS average
• Ultra: 40 FPS average

3840x2160:

• Low: 37 FPS average
• Medium: 32 FPS average, 28 FPS minimum, 37 FPS maximum
• High: 29 FPS average
• Ultra: 21 FPS average

The minimum and maximum FPS values for Medium settings show a narrow range at each resolution. At 1080p, the 83-113 FPS range represents a 30 FPS spread. At 1440p, the 53-71 FPS range is an 18 FPS spread. At 4K, the 28-37 FPS range is just 9 FPS. This tightening of the frame time distribution at higher resolutions suggests that the GPU is running closer to its sustained limit, with less headroom for brief spikes.

The gap between Low and Ultra at each resolution is worth noting. At 1080p, Low beats Ultra by 50 FPS (113 vs 63). At 1440p, the gap narrows to 31 FPS (71 vs 40). At 4K, it narrows further to 16 FPS (37 vs 21). This means that at 4K, users gain only 16 FPS by dropping from Ultra to Low, which may not justify the visual downgrade. At 1080p, however, the 50 FPS gain from switching to Low is substantial and could be the difference between a playable and unplayable experience for competitive players.

Overall, the data shows that this combo is best suited for 1080p gaming at Medium or Low settings. The 1440p results are marginal, with only Low reaching the 60 FPS threshold. The 4K results are not viable for smooth gameplay under any settings configuration.