Ready Or Not

The tested configuration pairs an Intel Core i7-14700F (20 cores, 28 threads, base clock 2.10 GHz, boost up to 5.40 GHz, 33 MB L3 cache) with an AMD Radeon RX 6600 (8 GB GDDR6, 128‑bit bus, 224.0 GB/s bandwidth, base 1626 MHz, boost 2491 MHz, game clock 2044 MHz, memory 14 Gbps effective). This combination was measured in Ready Or Not, a tactical shooter released December 16, 2021. The CPU belongs to the Core 14th Gen Raptor Lake family, fabricated on a 10 nm process, with a 65 W TDP and a launch MSRP of $359. The GPU is based on RDNA 2.0, a 7 nm part with 11,060 million transistors and a 237 mm² die, listed as end‑of‑life; its launch MSRP was 329 USD.

The data set does not include minimum or maximum frame times for most presets, but it does provide average FPS for four quality levels (Low, Medium, High, Ultra) across three resolutions (1920×1080, 2560×1440, 3840×2160). The numbers are grounded in a real measured session, not simulated estimates.

How This Combo Ranks

Within the database’s pool of tested configurations for Ready or Not, this specific CPU‑GPU pair occupies a low‑ranked position. The database records a combo rank of 2886 out of 3714 tested combinations. That rank places the system in the bottom quarter of all measured rigs – only about 22% of tested combos perform worse. Such a ranking is consistent with a setup that pairs a high‑core‑count desktop CPU with an entry‑level graphics card from the discontinuing Radeon RX 6000 series.

The CPU itself is no slouch in synthetic benches. The Intel i7-14700F scored 35122 in Cinebench R23 multi‑core, 14751 in R20 multi‑core, and 3540 in R15 multi‑core. Its single‑core figures are 4598 (R23), 2082 (R20), and 499 (R15). In the broader CPU benchmark aggregate, it averages 53620 points, which places it in the 91st percentile of all CPUs. Its nearest rivals in aggregated score are the Intel Xeon 6505P (53701, delta −0.2), the AMD Ryzen 9 7900X (53223, delta +0.6), and the AMD EPYC 7313P (53206, delta +0.8) – all within a few points of each other, meaning the i7‑14600F is firmly in mainstream‑desktop performance territory.

On the GPU side, the Radeon RX 6600 averages 19036 points across its GPU benchmark suite, placing at the 63rd percentile of all GPUs. Its closest synthetic rivals include the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4050 Mobile (19049, delta −0.1), the NVIDIA Quadro K6000 (19030, delta 0.0), and the NVIDIA Tesla K20m (19089, delta −0.3). These are all within less than one percentage point, indicating that the RX 6600 is roughly in the same class as those cards in raw compute. However, in the specific context of Ready for Not, the actual frame rate results will tell us more about how that compute budget translates into playable performance.

Given that the combo sits near the bottom of the ranking, it is clear that the pairing does not leverage the full potential of the 14700F. The high‑core CPU is likely not the limiting factor; instead, the GPU is the bottleneck. As we will see in the FPS section, at higher resolutions the difference is more acute, further that notion.

---

FAQ

Q: How does the Intel Core i7-14700F compare to its nearest rivals in generic benchmark performance?

A: The i7‑14600F has an average benchmark score of 53620, with a best Cinebench ST of 4958 and R23 multi of 35122. Its nearest rivals in the aggregate benchmark include the AMD Ryzen 9 7900X (delta 0.6), the Intel Xeon 6505P (delta −0.2), and the AMD EPYC 7313P (delta +0.8) – all within one percentage point.

Q: What is the combo’s rank out of all tested Ready For Not configurations?

A: The specific pairing of Intel Core i7‑14700F with the AMD Radeon RX 6600 is ranked 2886th out of 3714 tested combinations, placing it in the bottom quarter of the performance spectrum.

Q: Does the RX 6600 have enough VRAM to handle high resolutions in this title?

A: The card carries 8 GB GDDR6 memory on a 128‑bit bus, with a bandwidth of 224.0 GB/s. The measured data show that at 4K Ultra, the average frame rate drops to 38 FPS, and 4K high is 103 FPS, which suggests the 8‑GB capacity is not the obvious limiter – the raw GPU compute is.

Q: Why does the config perform better at lower resolutions?

A: At 1920×1080 Low, the measured average is 205 FPS, while at 2560×1440 Low it is 130 FPS, and at 3840×2160 Low it is 68 FPS. The decline across resolutions is significant, but the relative drop is much steeper at 4K, confirming that the GPU becomes the dominant limitation as pixel count rises.

Q: Is there a single preset that consistently produces the highest average frame rate?

A: The data show that for each resolution, the Low preset generates the highest average – 205 (1080p), 130 (1440p), and 68 (4K). However, for playability above 60 FPS, even High at 1080p (163) and 1440p (103) are acceptable, while at 4K only Low (68) remains above 60.

Q: What does the CPU’s 28‑thread count mean for this game?

A: The CPU has 20 cores / 28 threads with a boost to 5.40 GHz. These resources are not directly highlighted in the measured FPS, but the CPU’s Cinebench R23 multi‑core score of 35122 shows it can handle heavy multitasking. Since the game appears to be steady beyond the GPU’s limit, the thread count is not a constraint for these frame rates.

---

GPU Role

The AMD Radeon RX 6600 is the likely performance limiter for this configuration. Its V‑RAM capacity (8 GB), bus width (128‑bit), and effective memory clock (1750 MHz, yielding 14 Gbps effective) are moderate, while the bandwidth sits at 224.0 GB/s. The GPU has 1792 shading units, 112 TMUs, and 64 ROPS; the render compute is rated at 159.4 GPixel/s pixel rate, 279.0 GTexel/s texture rate, and 8.928 TFLOPS FP32. The boost clock reaches 2491 MHz, with a base of 1626 MHz.

In the benchmark suite, the GPU’s DirectX12 test yields a score of 51 (Passmark), while its overall G3D rating is 15096, placing it at the 63rd percentile. In isolation, those scores describe a mid‑range to lower‑mid-range GPU.

Within game‑specific frame rates, the RX 6600 governs the upper ceiling. At 1080p with Low settings, the card can push the frame rate to 205 FPS, but as we move to Medium (179 165 in 1080p?), the data shows 178 avg. Actually, check: at 1440p: 103 on High, at 4K: continues the drop. The sustained performance at 4K is weak – only 54 FPS on High (and that yields a playable result, but with no headroom). The GPU also shows a min‑max for Medium at each resolution: 1080p Medium min 152, max 206; 1440p Medium min 96, max 130; 4K Medium min 50, max 68**. Those swings are typical for a card that has enough power to run the game at lower pixel counts, but starts to struggle when the ROPs and shading units are overused.

The 8 GB VRAM and 128‑bit bus are sufficient for 1080p and 1440p textures, but at 4K the card’s processing capability, not the memory capacity, is the limiting factor. The frame rate drop by 4K is more severe than the difference in shading capacity would suggest, implying that the game’s geometry and lighting at high resolution become compute‑heavy.

---

Measured FPS Breakdown

The following numbers are pulled directly from the measured FPS table for the combination of this CPU and GPU. Every row includes the average, and for the Medium preset a minimum and maximum are also reported.

1920×1080 (1080p)

| Preset | Avg FPS | Min | Max |

|--------|---------|-----|-----|

| Low | 205 | – | – |

| Medium | 179 | 152 | 206 |

| High | 163 | – | – |

| Ultra | 114 | – | – |

At 1080p the playable range is wide. Low hits 205 FPS, and even Ultra provides 114 FPS, which is comfortably above 60. The step from Medium to High costs 16 FPS (179→163), while the Ultra preset reduces a further v‑49 (114 vs 163), which is a heavy hit for visual correctness.

2560×1440 (1440p)

| Preset | Avg FPS | Min | Max |

|--------|--------|-----|-----|

| Low | 130 | – | – |

| Medium | 113 | 96 | 130 |

| High | 103 | – | – |

| Ultra | 72 | – | – |

At 400p, the averages still stay above 70 FPS for Ultra, but the drop from 1080p Low – from 205 to 130 – reflects the GPU’s load. Low 1440p gives 130 FPS, which is still very smooth. High yields 103, Ultra yields **72 – barely enough for a high‑refresh experience but still above 60.

3840×2160 (4K)

| Preset | Avg FPS | Min | Max |

|--------|---------|-----|------|

| Low | 68 | – | – |

| Medium | 59 | 50 | 68 |

| High | 54 | – | – |

| Ultra | 38 | – | – |

At 4K the playability implodes. The average drops from 68 on Low to 38 on Ultra, a 36 FPS swing. The min‑max on Medium shows 50–68, which contains dips below 60, indicating that the RX 6600 is already close to its limit. Only the Low preset is at an acceptable level (>60 avg), and even that is borderline for fast‑paced tactical gameplay.

In all, the data shows a progressive degradation as resolution climbs, with a more severe penalty from 1440p to 4K compared to the 1080p to 1440p step. This is consistent with the GPU’s limited pixel fill rate and bandwidth.

---

Resolution Scaling

The FPS differences across resolutions follow a predictable curves, but the rates of decline are telling.

At 1080p Low the system averages 205 FPS. At 1440p Low it falls to 130 FPS, a a 75 FPS decrease — or about 36% lower in absolute terms (that, is 130 is 63.4% of 205). At 4K Low it is 68 FPS, which is 33.2% of the 1080p value. The same ratio is seen for High: 1080p High 163 FPS → 2160p High 54 (33.1% of 163). The ratio stable across settings because the scaling is determined by the GPU’s fill rate and bandwidth limits, not by the quality presets.

The 1440p to 4K drop is harsher: 1440p Low → 4K Low is a 68‑70% reduction (from 130 to 68 is nearly half). Comparatively, 1080p→1440p is a ~35% loss. This non‑linearity is typical for a memory‑limited GPU when the pixel count crosses a certain vertex – at 4K, the 8 GB GPU and 224 GB/s bandwidth are saturated, causing average FPS to collapse.

The implication is that the CPU, despite its high thread count and frequency, is not the bottleneck at any resolution. If it were, the FPS at 1080p would be substantially higher than at 1080p and exactly the same at 4K. The 205‑38 spread across Low Ultra settings at 1080p shows the GPU dictates the frames.

Settings Recommendations

Choosing the preset depends on user preference for smoothness versus visual fidelity. The measured data provides concrete numbers to make that choose.

• At 1920×1080: All presets average well over 114 FPS. Ultra is still at 114, which is above 60 and likely acceptable. However, High (163) gives the best balance: it adds 49 FPS over Ultra (114) while retaining most of the quality jump over Low (205). If aiming for maximum fluidity, Low at 205 FPS is clearly the top pick.
• At 2560×1440: Ultra achieves 72 FPS, which is above 60 but leaves little margin. For a more secure frame rate, Medium provides 113 FPS with a min of 96 and a max of 130, proving better consistency with minimal visual compromise. High sits at 103, which is also stable, but the 123 FPS of Medium is a more solid choice.
• At 3840×2160: This combination cannot sustain 60 FPS on any High or Ultra preset. Only Low (68 FPS) passes the 60 FPS threshold, though Medium (59 average, with lows of 50) is borderline. For 4K, the only way to maintain 60+ is to use Low, and even then, any scene little detail could drop kiss. The inference is that the GPU is not sufficient for 4K gaming in this title unless you accept a 30–50 FPS experience.

According to the data, 1080p Medium (179 FPS, min 152) delivers the highest FPS with a comfortable pacing at the lowest fraction of the performance sink. For 1440p, Medium (113) is balanced. For 4K, only Low (68) is feasible for a fluid experience.

CPU Role

The Intel Core i7‑14700F is a a 20‑core / 28‑thread processor based on Raptor Lake‑R, with a base clock of 2.10 GHz and a boost of 5.40 GHz. It sports 80 KB (per core) L1, 2 MB (per core) L2, and 33 MB shared L3 cache. Its multi‑core Cinebench R23 score is 35122 and single‑core 4958. Those figures place it in the top 91st percentile all CPUs, and its nearest rivals are the AMD Ryzen 9 7900X (delta +0.6) and Intel Xeon 6505P (delta −0.2), meaning it is not only capable in threaded workloads but also in lightly‑threaded ones.

In the game world, the CPU rarely becomes the absolute bar, even at 1080p. The measured FPS at 205 FPS on 1080p Low suggests that the CPU is far from taking a leading role. Typically, tactical shooter titles have many NPC AIs and physics calculations, but the numbers indicate that the CPU resources (20 cores, 28 threads) are enough to feed the GPU at these rates. For a comparison, the per‑frame cost at 1080p is higher than at 4K, but the FPS stays high throughout.

The CPU’s tests in PassMark also show its extensive: a multithread score of 41317, single‑thread 4257, and a floating‑point math score of 107005. These numbers are indicative of a processor that can handle any game logic without bottleneck. The combo’s ranking, however, is low not because of the CPU – it is the 6600 GPU that caps it down.

The only scenario where the CPU might be slightly influenced is when the graphics settings are low at 1080p, where the framerate reaches 205 FPS. At such high rates, the CPU must provide frame data within ~0.5 ms; the 5.40 GHz boost and the fast cache help to avoid a CPU‑bottleneck there. Nevertheless, data does not show a collapse at many FPS, so the CPU remains an ample partner.

In summary, the I7‑14700F is a high‑point CPU that will not constrain the game in almost all tested configurations. The limiting factor is clearly the RX 6600, as evidenced by the sharp up‑front drop when moving to higher resolutions and the consistent advantage of Low over Ultra. The low combo ranking is a direct consequence of the GPU’s position in the lower‑mid tier.