Ready Or Not

The Intel Core Ultra 5 225 and Intel Arc B370 pairing occupies a very specific and challenging position in the Ready Or Not benchmark database. The CPU is a modern 10-core Arrow Lake desktop processor, but the GPU is an integrated graphics solution based on the Xe3-LPG architecture, designed for mobile Panther Lake platforms. This combination produces a system that is almost entirely constrained by its graphics subsystem, a fact that becomes immediately clear when examining the frame rate data. The processor has ample headroom, but the graphics solution struggles to translate that into playable performance at higher resolutions.

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

The Intel Core Ultra 5 225 is a 10-core, 10-thread desktop processor based on the Arrow Lake architecture, built on a 3 nm process by TSMC. It operates with a base clock of 3.30 GHz and a boost clock of 4.90 GHz. The processor includes 20 MB of shared L3 cache and relies on dual-channel DDR5 memory with a bandwidth of 102.4 GB/s. In synthetic benchmarks, this CPU demonstrates strong single-thread performance with a Cinebench R23 single-core score of 3655, and its multi-core capability is solid with a Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 25891. Its Passmark single-thread score of 4412 places it in the 85th percentile of all CPUs, indicating that it is a capable processor for gaming workloads that depend on high-frequency cores.

In the context of Ready Or Not, a tactical shooter that relies heavily on physics and AI for enemy and civilian behavior, the CPU's performance is generally sufficient. The game's simulation logic can be demanding, but the Core Ultra 5 225's strong single-core performance is well-suited for this task. The benchmark results show that the system is not CPU-limited at any tested resolution. For instance, at 1080p Low settings, the system achieves 113 FPS, while at 1080p Ultra it drops to 63 FPS. This scaling pattern indicates that the frame rate is being dictated by the graphics load, not the CPU's processing power. The CPU's 10 threads are likely underutilized, as the game's primary thread is handling the simulation while the GPU is saturated.

The processor's nearest rivals in the database include the AMD Ryzen 5 5600F with an average score of 36945 (0% delta), the AMD Ryzen 5 5500X3D with a score of 37018 (-0.2% delta), and the Intel Core i9-12900T with a score of 37112 (-0.5% delta). These comparisons show that the Core Ultra 5 225 is essentially on par with these alternatives in overall CPU performance. However, the frame rate results in this game are not reflective of these CPU capabilities; they are a direct consequence of the GPU's limitations. The data suggests that even a significantly weaker CPU would produce nearly identical frame rates in this pairing, as the bottleneck lies entirely elsewhere.

How This Combo Ranks — use comboRankInGame vs other tested combos

The combination of the Intel Core Ultra 5 225 and the Intel Arc B370 ranks 2710 out of 2947 tested combos in Ready Or Not. This places the system in the bottom 8% of all configurations, which is a direct reflection of the graphics solution's performance class. The Arc B370 is an integrated GPU, and its benchmark data confirms this low standing. Its 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 score is 1184, which puts it in the 5th percentile of all GPUs. Its nearest rivals are the ATI Mobility Radeon HD 5570 (score 1186, -0.2% delta), the ATI Radeon HD 5770 (score 1190, -0.5% delta), and the AMD Radeon HD 7650M (score 1192, -0.7% delta). These are all legacy or low-power parts from over a decade ago, underscoring that the Arc B370 is not positioned for modern desktop gaming.

The rank of 2710 out of 2947 is a clear signal that this combo is not intended for high-refresh-rate or high-resolution gaming. In a tactical shooter like Ready Or Not, where situational awareness and smooth aiming are critical, this rank suggests a significant disadvantage. The data indicates that this system will struggle to maintain fluid frame rates, particularly in intense firefights or when multiple AI characters are on screen. The high CPU percentile (85th) versus the low GPU percentile (5th) creates a massive imbalance. The system is effectively a powerful desktop CPU strapped to an integrated graphics core that is typically found in thin-and-light laptops. This ranking is a quantitative confirmation of the qualitative assessment that the GPU is the limiting factor in every single frame rendered.

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

The frame rate scaling across resolutions is a textbook example of a GPU-bound system. At 1080p with High settings, the system achieves 89 FPS. Moving to 1440p High, the average drops to 56 FPS, and at 4K High, it falls to 29 FPS. This represents a 37% drop from 1080p to 1440p and a 67% drop from 1080p to 4K. This steep decline is directly proportional to the increase in pixel count, which is the primary workload for the GPU's rasterization units. The Arc B370 has only 20 ROPs and a pixel rate of 48.00 GPixel/s, which is insufficient for high-resolution rendering.

The data shows a similar pattern for other settings. At 1080p Low, the system hits 113 FPS, but at 1440p Low, it drops to 71 FPS, and at 4K Low, it bottoms out at 37 FPS. The scaling is consistent, with the frame rate roughly halving with each doubling of resolution. This behavior confirms that the CPU is not a factor in the performance ceiling. If the CPU were the bottleneck, the frame rates would remain relatively flat across resolutions, as the CPU workload does not scale with pixel count. Instead, the frame rates are inversely proportional to the number of pixels, which is the definitive signature of a GPU bottleneck. The system's memory bandwidth, which is system-dependent for this IGP, also contributes to this scaling, as the shared memory architecture limits the data throughput available to the GPU.

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

The measured frame rate data provides a comprehensive view of the system's performance. At 1920x1080, the system produces an average of 113 FPS on Low settings, 98 FPS on Medium, 89 FPS on High, and 63 FPS on Ultra. The Medium preset shows a minimum of 83 FPS and a maximum of 113 FPS, indicating some variance but generally playable performance. At 2560x1440, the averages are 71 FPS on Low, 62 FPS on Medium, 56 FPS on High, and 40 FPS on Ultra. The Medium preset at this resolution shows a minimum of 53 FPS and a maximum of 71 FPS. At 3840x2160, the averages drop significantly: 37 FPS on Low, 32 FPS on Medium, 29 FPS on High, and 21 FPS on Ultra. The Medium preset at 4K shows a minimum of 28 FPS and a maximum of 37 FPS.

These numbers show a clear hierarchy. The system is only capable of delivering a consistently smooth experience (above 60 FPS) at 1080p on Low and Medium settings. At 1080p High, the 89 FPS average is acceptable for most players, but it is not high-refresh-rate territory. At 1440p, the system falls below the 60 FPS threshold for all settings except Low, which just barely clears it at 71 FPS. The 4K results are uniformly unplayable for a tactical shooter, with even Low settings failing to reach 40 FPS. The minimum frame rates, where available, provide additional context. At 1080p Medium, the 83 FPS minimum suggests that the system does not experience severe stutters, but at 1440p Medium, the 53 FPS minimum indicates occasional dips below the refresh rate of standard 60 Hz monitors. At 4K Medium, the 28 FPS minimum confirms that the experience is a slideshow during intense scenes.

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

The Intel Arc B370 is an integrated graphics processor (IGP) based on the Xe3-LPG architecture, built on Intel's 3 nm process. It has a base clock of 300 MHz and a boost clock of 2400 MHz. The GPU features 1280 shading units, 40 texture mapping units, and 20 ROPs. It has 10 ray tracing cores and supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The GPU's memory is system-shared, meaning it has no dedicated VRAM of its own. The bus width and bandwidth are listed as "System Shared" and "System Dependent," respectively. The TDP is 25 W, and it is designed as an IGP with a slot width of "IGP." The FP32 performance is 6.144 TFLOPS, with a texture rate of 96.00 GTexel/s and a pixel rate of 48.00 GPixel/s.

The GPU's specifications directly explain the measured frame rates. The 6.144 TFLOPS of compute power is modest, and the 20 ROPs are a severe limitation for fill-rate-bound scenarios like high-resolution rendering. The shared memory architecture is another bottleneck, as the GPU must compete with the CPU for memory bandwidth. The 102.4 GB/s system bandwidth is shared, and the actual bandwidth available to the GPU will be lower, especially when the CPU is also active. This explains why the frame rates drop so precipitously at 4K, where the demand for memory bandwidth is highest. The GPU's 5th percentile ranking among all GPUs is a stark reminder of its positioning. It is not designed for demanding modern titles; it is meant for basic display output and light media tasks. The 3DMark Steel Nomad score of 1184 is in the same league as the ATI Radeon HD 5770 from 2009, which is a clear indication of its performance capability relative to gaming standards.

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

Based on the measured frame rates, the only viable settings for a playable experience in Ready Or Not are at 1080p. The data shows that 1080p Low produces an average of 113 FPS, which is excellent for a fast-paced tactical shooter. This setting provides a high degree of smoothness and responsiveness. However, the visual fidelity will be reduced. The 1080p Medium setting, with an average of 98 FPS and a minimum of 83 FPS, offers a better balance between visual quality and performance. This is the recommended preset for most players, as it maintains a frame rate well above the 60 FPS threshold while providing a more detailed environment for spotting enemies.

At 1080p High, the average of 89 FPS is still playable, but the drop from Medium is noticeable, and the visual improvements may not be worth the loss of fluidity for a game where reaction time is critical. The 1080p Ultra setting, at 63 FPS, is borderline. It is playable on a 60 Hz monitor, but any slight dip in performance could cause stuttering. Given that the Medium preset provides a 35 FPS advantage over Ultra, it is the superior choice. Moving to 1440p, the Low preset at 71 FPS is the only setting that offers a consistently smooth experience, but it is a marginal recommendation. The Medium preset at 1440p has an average of 62 FPS but a minimum of 53 FPS, which will result in noticeable frame pacing issues. For 4K, no setting is recommended; even Low at 37 FPS is well below playable for this genre. The best experience, per the measured data, is achieved at 1080p with the Medium preset, which provides a high frame rate with a comfortable margin above the minimum, ensuring a stable and responsive gaming session.