Ready Or Not

How This Combo Ranks

The AMD Ryzen 9 9950X3D paired with the Intel Arc B370 lands at rank 3427 out of 3714 tested combos in Ready Or Not. That places this configuration in the bottom 8% of all tested pairings, a position driven almost entirely by the graphics side of the equation. The CPU itself is a top-tier part — its benchmark percentile versus all CPUs sits at 95 — but the Arc B370's 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 score of 1184 places it at just the 5th percentile versus all GPUs. The combination of an elite processor with a very weak integrated GPU creates a lopsided pairing where the graphics component becomes the definitive bottleneck.

Looking at the nearest rivals for each component clarifies the picture. The Ryzen 9 9950X3D's average benchmark score of 75779 is within 0.4% of the AMD Ryzen 7 PRO 9755 (75738), the AMD Ryzen 7 PRO 9755X3D (75716), the AMD EPYC 8224P (75582), and the Intel Core Ultra 9 285 (75488). These are all high-end desktop or server parts, confirming the CPU is not the limiting factor. The Arc B370, by contrast, sits in much humbler company — its nearest rivals are the ATI Mobility Radeon HD 5570 (1186, a 0.2% gap), the ATI Radeon HD 5770 (1190, 0.5% gap), the AMD Radeon HD 7650M (1192, 0.7% gap), and the AMD FirePro M2000 (1168, a 1.4% gap in the other direction). These are legacy parts from over a decade ago, which underscores how far behind the Arc B370 is in raw graphics throughput.

The rank of 3427 is not a reflection of the CPU's capability — with a Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 42018 and a single-core score of 2259, the 9950X3D is among the fastest processors available. Rather, the ranking reflects the measured reality that this game, at the resolutions tested, is heavily GPU-bound with this particular graphics solution. The data suggests that swapping the Arc B370 for even a modest discrete GPU would dramatically improve the combo's standing, while swapping the CPU would yield almost no change in Ready Or Not performance.

GPU Role

The Intel Arc B370 is classified as an integrated graphics processor (IGP) with a slot width of IGP and no power connectors. Its TDP is 25 watts, and it operates on the Xe3-LPG architecture built on Intel's 3 nm process. The chip is designated as Panther Lake, part of the Arc Graphics-M generation. Clock speeds are modest: a base clock of 300 MHz and a boost clock of 2400 MHz. The memory configuration is entirely system-shared, with no dedicated VRAM — the memory size, type, and bus width are all listed as "System Shared," and bandwidth is "System Dependent."

In terms of compute resources, the Arc B370 has 1280 shading units, 40 texture mapping units, and 20 raster output pipelines. It also includes 10 ray tracing cores. The pixel rate is 48.00 GPixel/s, the texture rate is 96.00 GTexel/s, and FP32 throughput is 6.144 TFLOPS (with FP16 at 12.29 TFLOPS via a 2:1 ratio). These figures, while not trivial for an integrated solution, are far below what a modern discrete GPU would offer, and the benchmark results confirm this — the only GPU benchmark in the pack is the 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 score of 1184.

The practical impact of these specifications in Ready Or Not is visible in the measured FPS data. At 1080p with Low settings, the combo averages 113 FPS, which is playable. But at 4K Ultra, the average drops to 21 FPS — effectively unplayable for a tactical shooter that demands precision and responsiveness. The system-shared memory means the GPU is competing with the CPU for the same DDR5 memory bandwidth (89.6 GB/s for the CPU's dual-channel configuration), and the "System Dependent" bandwidth figure suggests performance will vary with the rest of the system's memory configuration.

The Arc B370's percentile ranking of 5 versus all GPUs is telling. It places this integrated solution in the bottom 5% of all GPUs ever tested on the benchmark database. The nearest rivals — the ATI Mobility Radeon HD 5570, ATI Radeon HD 5770, AMD Radeon HD 7650M, and AMD FirePro M2000 — are all parts from a previous graphics era. This is not a GPU designed for demanding modern titles at high settings; it is a basic integrated solution that can handle light loads and older games, but struggles with a game like Ready Or Not that pushes visual fidelity.

FAQ

Q: Can this combo run Ready Or Not at 1080p?

A: Yes, at 1080p the configuration achieves 113 FPS on Low settings, 98 FPS on Medium (with a minimum of 83 FPS), and 89 FPS on High. Even at Ultra, the average is 63 FPS, which is technically playable, though the lack of min/max data for that setting leaves some uncertainty about frame time consistency.

Q: Is the Ryzen 9 9950X3D the reason for the low rank?

A: No. The CPU is at the 95th percentile versus all CPUs, with an average benchmark score of 75779, placing it within 0.4% of several high-end rivals. The bottleneck is the Intel Arc B370, which sits at the 5th percentile versus all GPUs with an average score of 1184.

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

A: The Arc B370's 3DMark Steel Nomad score of 1184 is nearly identical to the ATI Mobility Radeon HD 5570 (1186), the ATI Radeon HD 5770 (1190), the AMD Radeon HD 7650M (1192), and the AMD FirePro M2000 (1168). The deltas range from -0.7% to +1.4%, meaning these parts are statistically equivalent in performance.

Q: What is the best playable settings/resolution combination?

A: At 1440p, Low settings yield 71 FPS and Medium yields 62 FPS (with a minimum of 53 FPS). At 1080p, all settings from Low to High are playable, with 89 FPS on High being the highest quality option that maintains a comfortable frame rate. 4K is not recommended, as even Low settings only produce 37 FPS.

Q: Does the Arc B370 have dedicated VRAM?

A: No. The memory configuration is entirely system-shared — the size, type, and bus width are all listed as "System Shared," and bandwidth is "System Dependent." This means it draws from the same DDR5 memory pool used by the CPU.

Q: Is this combo better suited for other games?

A: The data in this pack is specific to Ready Or Not. However, given that the Arc B370's only benchmark score (1184 in 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12) places it at the 5th percentile versus all GPUs, it is reasonable to infer that the GPU will struggle with most modern titles at high settings, regardless of the CPU's strength.

Measured FPS Breakdown

The measured FPS data covers three resolutions (1920x1080, 2560x1440, and 3840x2160) and four settings tiers (Low, Medium, High, Ultra), for a total of twelve data points. At 1080p, the progression is smooth and predictable: Low averages 113 FPS, Medium averages 98 FPS (with a minimum of 83 and maximum of 113), High averages 89 FPS, and Ultra averages 63 FPS. The step from High to Ultra is the largest drop at 26 FPS, suggesting that the Ultra preset introduces effects that disproportionately tax the Arc B370.

Moving to 1440p, the same pattern holds but with lower absolute numbers. Low averages 71 FPS, Medium averages 62 FPS (with a minimum of 53 and maximum of 71), High averages 56 FPS, and Ultra averages 40 FPS. The gap between Low and Ultra at 1440p is 31 FPS, which is proportionally similar to the 50 FPS gap at 1080p. The frame times at 1440p Medium show a spread of 18 FPS between minimum and maximum, which is the same spread as 1080p Medium, indicating consistent frame pacing behavior across resolutions.

At 4K, the numbers become marginal. Low averages 37 FPS, Medium averages 32 FPS (with a minimum of 28 and maximum of 37), High averages 29 FPS, and Ultra averages 21 FPS. None of these are playable for a tactical shooter where reaction time matters. The spread at 4K Medium is 9 FPS between minimum and maximum, which is tighter than the lower resolutions, but that is cold comfort when the average is below 35 FPS. The data shows a clear ceiling: this combo can handle 1080p with most settings, struggles at 1440p with high quality settings, and fails to deliver playable performance at 4K.

The min/max data is only available for Medium settings at each resolution. At 1080p Medium, the minimum is 83 and maximum is 113, giving a range of 30 FPS. At 1440p Medium, the minimum is 53 and maximum is 71, also a range of 18 FPS. At 4K Medium, the minimum is 28 and maximum is 37, a range of 9 FPS. The narrowing range at higher resolutions suggests that the GPU is becoming fully saturated, reducing the CPU's ability to influence frame times.

Resolution Scaling

The FPS drop from 1080p to 4K reveals the nature of the bottleneck. At Low settings, 1080p yields 113 FPS, 1440p yields 71 FPS, and 4K yields 37 FPS. The scaling from 1080p to 1440p is a 37% reduction (113 to 71), and from 1440p to 4K is a 48% reduction (71 to 37). If the system were purely GPU-bound, we would expect the 4K figure to be roughly one-quarter of the 1080p figure (since 4K has four times the pixels), which would be approximately 28 FPS. The actual 37 FPS is higher than that, suggesting that at Low settings, there is some CPU headroom that partially compensates for the pixel load.

At High settings, the pattern shifts. 1080p averages 89 FPS, 1440p averages 56 FPS, and 4K averages 29 FPS. The drop from 1080p to 1440p is 37% (89 to 56), and from 1440p to 4K is 48% (56 to 29). These are nearly identical percentages to the Low settings case, which indicates that the scaling behavior is consistent regardless of quality preset. The absolute numbers are lower, but the relative degradation follows the same curve.

At Ultra settings, 1080p averages 63 FPS, 1440p averages 40 FPS, and 4K averages 21 FPS. The drop from 1080p to 1440p is 37% (63 to 40), and from 1440p to 4K is 48% (40 to 21). Again, the same proportional scaling. This consistency across all four settings tiers strongly suggests that the limiting component is the GPU, and that the CPU (with its 16 cores, 32 threads, and 128 MB of L3 cache) has ample headroom to feed the Arc B370 at any resolution.

The fact that the resolution scaling percentages are nearly identical across settings (37% and 48% in all cases) indicates that the Arc B370's rendering pipeline is the fixed constraint. If the CPU were the bottleneck, we would expect the FPS to remain relatively flat as resolution increases, since the CPU's workload (draw calls, physics, AI) does not scale with pixel count. Instead, the steady drop with resolution confirms that the GPU is saturated at all quality levels.

CPU Role

The AMD Ryzen 9 9950X3D is a 16-core, 32-thread processor based on the Zen 5 architecture (Granite Ridge codename), built on TSMC's 4 nm process. It has a base clock of 4.30 GHz and a boost clock of 5.70 GHz, with a TDP of 170 watts. The cache configuration includes 80 KB of L1 per core, 1 MB of L2 per core, and a substantial 128 MB of L3 cache. Memory support is DDR5 with dual-channel configuration and 89.6 GB/s bandwidth. The CPU also includes integrated Radeon Graphics, though in this pairing the discrete Arc B370 handles rendering.

Benchmark results show this is a powerhouse. Cinebench R23 multi-core scores 42018 and single-core scores 2259. Geekbench multi-core is 26736 and single-core is 3064. PassMark multi-thread is 70255 and single-thread is 4737. The 3DMark multi-thread scores range from 16374 (16 threads) to 17184 (max threads), while single-thread scores 1292. These numbers place the CPU at the 95th percentile versus all CPUs, with an average benchmark score of 75779.

In Ready Or Not, the CPU's role is to handle game logic, AI, physics, and draw call submission. Given the measured FPS data, it is clear that the 9950X3D is not the limiting factor. At 1080p Low, the combo reaches 113 FPS, and the fact that this number does not increase further is due to the Arc B370's rendering limits, not the CPU. The CPU's nearest rivals (AMD Ryzen 7 PRO 9755, AMD Ryzen 7 PRO 9755X3D, AMD EPYC 8224P, Intel Core Ultra 9 285) all have average scores within 0.4% of the 9950X3D, meaning any of them would perform identically in this game when paired with the same GPU.

The CPU's high thread count (32 threads) and large L3 cache (128 MB) are characteristics that benefit CPU-intensive games, but Ready Or Not's measured performance shows no sign of CPU limitation. The consistent resolution scaling percentages (37% from 1080p to 1440p, and 48% from 1440p to 4K) across all settings are the definitive evidence: if the CPU were the bottleneck, these percentages would shrink at higher resolutions as the GPU becomes more loaded. Instead, they remain constant, indicating the CPU is never the constraint.

Settings Recommendations

Based on the measured FPS data, the optimal settings depend on the target frame rate and resolution. For 1080p, which is the most accessible resolution for this combo, the High preset at 89 FPS offers the best balance of visual quality and performance. The step from High to Ultra costs 26 FPS (89 to 63), which is a 29% performance penalty for what is typically a marginal visual improvement in most games. The Medium preset at 98 FPS is also viable if frame rate is prioritized, with a minimum of 83 FPS ensuring consistent performance.

At 1440p, the choices narrow. The Low preset at 71 FPS is the only setting that comfortably exceeds 60 FPS, while Medium at 62 FPS (with a minimum of 53) is borderline. High at 56 FPS and Ultra at 40 FPS are below the threshold for smooth gameplay in a tactical shooter. For 1440p, the recommendation is Low or Medium, with the understanding that Medium's minimum of 53 FPS may cause occasional hitches in intense firefights.

At 4K, none of the settings are recommended for serious play. Even Low at 37 FPS is below the playable threshold for a game that requires quick reactions. Medium at 32 FPS, High at 29 FPS, and Ultra at 21 FPS are all too slow. If 4K is the target resolution, this combo is not suitable for Ready Or Not, and users would need to consider a different graphics solution.

The data suggests that the Arc B370's performance ceiling in this game is around 113 FPS (1080p Low), and the playable envelope extends to 1080p High (89 FPS) and 1440p Low (71 FPS). The Ultra preset is never worthwhile with this GPU — at 1080p it drops to 63 FPS, and the proportional penalties at higher resolutions are even steeper. For the best experience per the measured rows, 1080p High at 89 FPS is the recommended configuration, offering substantial visual improvements over Low while maintaining a frame rate well above the 60 FPS threshold.