Ready Or Not

# Ready Or Not with Intel Core Ultra 5 235 + Intel Arc B570

This combination of an Intel Core Ultra 5 235 processor and an Intel Arc B570 graphics card ranks 2361 out of 2947 tested combos in Ready Or Not, placing it in the lower half of the database. The benchmark data shows a system that delivers playable frame rates at 1080p and 1440p, but struggles at 4K, particularly on higher settings. The pairing demonstrates a balanced profile where the GPU becomes the primary constraint as resolution increases, while the CPU provides solid foundational performance for this tactical shooter.

How This Combo Ranks

The combo rank of 2361 out of 2947 places this system in the 20th percentile of all tested combinations in Ready Or Not. This ranking reflects the Arc B570's position as a mid-range GPU, with its average benchmark score of 20556 putting it at the 65th percentile among all GPUs. The CPU performs relatively better, with an average benchmark score of 46062 placing the Core Ultra 5 235 at the 89th percentile among all CPUs.

Examining the GPU's nearest rivals contextualizes this ranking. The Arc B570 scores within 0.1% of the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3070 Mobile, and within 0.1% of the Intel Arc A750. This puts it in a performance class that is competitive with previous-generation mid-range offerings, though the deltaPct values indicate these are essentially statistical ties. The CPU's nearest rivals show similar clustering, with the Core Ultra 5 235 sitting 0.1% above the AMD Ryzen AI 9 HX 375 and 0.1% below the Intel Core i9-13900HX, confirming that the processor is well-positioned within its segment.

The combination's ranking suggests that while the individual components are competent, the overall system is not optimized for the highest-end performance in Ready Or Not. The measured frame rates confirm this, showing that the system can handle the game at competitive settings but cannot push maximum quality at high resolutions. The disparity between the CPU's 89th percentile standing and the GPU's 65th percentile standing indicates that the graphics card is the limiting factor in this pairing, a conclusion reinforced by the resolution scaling data.

FAQ

Q: Can this system run Ready Or Not at 60 FPS on High settings?

A: Yes, at 1920x1080 and 2560x1440 resolutions. The measured average FPS at High settings is 152 at 1080p and 96 at 1440p, both comfortably above 60 FPS. However, at 3840x2160 on High settings, the average drops to 50 FPS, which falls below the 60 FPS threshold.

Q: What is the best resolution for this combination in Ready Or Not?

A: Based on the measured data, 2560x1440 offers the best balance. At Medium settings, it delivers 105 average FPS with a minimum of 90 FPS, providing smooth gameplay while maintaining higher visual fidelity than 1080p. The 4K resolution is only viable on Low settings, where it achieves 63 average FPS.

Q: How does the Ultra preset compare to High settings at 1440p?

A: The Ultra preset at 2560x1440 delivers 67 average FPS, which is 29 FPS lower than the High preset's 96 average FPS. The performance cost of Ultra settings is substantial, representing a 30% drop in frame rate while the visual improvement is typically less pronounced in tactical shooters.

Q: Is the Intel Core Ultra 5 235 sufficient for this game?

A: Yes, the CPU's benchmark data suggests it is more than adequate. With a Cinebench R23 multicore score of 14769 and a single-core score of 2085, the processor provides strong performance. The fact that frame rates scale significantly with resolution and settings changes indicates the GPU, not the CPU, is the primary bottleneck.

Q: What frame rate can I expect at 1080p with Medium settings?

A: The measured data shows 167 average FPS with a minimum of 142 FPS and a maximum of 192 FPS. This provides a very smooth experience well above the refresh rate of most standard monitors, with the minimum frame rate still being over 140 FPS.

Q: How does the Arc B570's VRAM affect 4K performance?

A: The 10 GB GDDR6 memory with 380.0 GB/s bandwidth is sufficient for the game's demands at 4K, as evidenced by the playable frame rates on Low and Medium settings. However, the GPU's compute capabilities, specifically its 11.52 TFLOPS FP32 performance, limit high-end 4K rendering, with Ultra settings dropping to 35 average FPS.

CPU Role

The Intel Core Ultra 5 235 brings 14 cores and 14 threads to this pairing, a configuration that reflects its Arrow Lake architecture. The processor operates with a base clock of 3.40 GHz and reaches a boost clock of 5.00 GHz, providing substantial single-thread performance that is crucial for game logic and physics calculations in a tactical shooter like Ready Or Not. The 24 MB of shared L3 cache helps maintain data locality during intense firefights and complex AI interactions.

Benchmark results show the CPU's strengths. The Cinebench R23 multicore score of 14769 and single-core score of 2085 indicate strong all-around capability. The PassMark single-thread score of 4516 and multithread score of 37816 further confirm that this processor handles both lightly-threaded game tasks and background workloads without becoming a constraint. The 89th percentile ranking among all CPUs validates that the Core Ultra 5 235 is substantially above average.

In the context of Ready Or Not's measured results, the CPU's role is evident through the frame rate scaling. At 1080p Low, the system achieves 192 average FPS, a high ceiling that indicates the processor can feed the GPU with data efficiently at lower graphical loads. The drop to 107 FPS at 1080p Ultra shows that the GPU becomes the limiting factor as graphical complexity increases, not the CPU. The processor's 3 nm process node and 65 W TDP also mean it maintains consistent performance without thermal throttling concerns during extended play sessions.

The CPU's nearest rivals in benchmark scores include the AMD Ryzen AI 9 HX 375 at 0.1% higher and the Intel Core i9-13900HX at 0.1% lower, with the AMD EPYC 4364P and EPYC 7303 also within 0.2%. This tight clustering places the Core Ultra 5 235 in a well-established performance tier, confirming that it provides dependable processing power for gaming workloads without being a bottleneck in this configuration.

Measured FPS Breakdown

The measured frame rates provide a comprehensive view of the system's capabilities across three resolutions and four quality settings. At 1920x1080, the system performs exceptionally well across all settings. Low settings produce an average of 192 FPS, Medium produces 167 FPS with a minimum of 142 and a maximum of 192, High produces 152 FPS, and Ultra produces 107 FPS. These numbers indicate that at 1080p, the system has significant headroom even at maximum quality, with Ultra still delivering over 100 FPS.

Moving to 2560x1440, the performance remains strong but shows the expected impact of increased pixel count. Low settings average 121 FPS, Medium averages 105 FPS with a minimum of 90 and maximum of 121, High averages 96 FPS, and Ultra averages 67 FPS. The minimum frame rate of 90 FPS at Medium settings ensures smooth gameplay even during demanding scenes, while the High preset's 96 FPS average provides an excellent balance of visual quality and performance.

At 3840x2160, the system's limitations become apparent. Low settings achieve 63 average FPS, which is just playable, while Medium drops to 55 average FPS with a minimum of 47 and maximum of 63. High settings fall to 50 average FPS, and Ultra drops significantly to 35 average FPS. These numbers indicate that 4K gaming is only viable on the lowest settings, and even then, the frame rate is marginal for a fast-paced tactical shooter where reaction time matters.

The pattern across all resolutions shows consistent scaling: Ultra settings incur a significant performance penalty compared to High, typically costing 30-35% of the frame rate. Medium settings offer a smaller penalty than High while providing better visual fidelity than Low. The data suggests that the system's sweet spot is 1440p with High settings, where it maintains an average of 96 FPS while delivering good visual quality.

Resolution Scaling

The transition from 1080p to 1440p shows a moderate performance drop across all settings. At Low settings, the average FPS drops from 192 at 1080p to 121 at 1440p, a 37% reduction. At Medium settings, the drop is from 167 to 105, a 37% reduction. High settings drop from 152 to 96, a 37% reduction. Ultra settings drop from 107 to 67, a 37% reduction. This consistent 37% scaling factor indicates that the GPU is the primary constraint at these resolutions, as the CPU can maintain its throughput regardless of the graphical load.

The jump from 1440p to 4K produces a more dramatic performance drop, revealing the GPU's limitations more clearly. At Low settings, the average FPS falls from 121 to 63, a 48% reduction. Medium settings drop from 105 to 55, a 48% reduction. High settings fall from 96 to 50, a 48% reduction. Ultra settings drop from 67 to 35, a 48% reduction. The consistent 48% scaling factor across all settings at this resolution transition again points to the GPU as the limiting component.

The uniform scaling percentages across different settings within each resolution transition are notable. Whether running Low or Ultra, the system loses the same percentage of performance when moving to a higher resolution. This behavior is characteristic of GPU-bound scenarios, where the graphics card's rendering capacity is the determining factor. The CPU's 14 cores and 5.00 GHz boost clock are evidently sufficient to keep up with the GPU's demands at all tested configurations.

The implication of this scaling pattern is that users should select their resolution based on their performance targets. For those seeking maximum frame rates, 1080p is the clear choice, with even Ultra settings delivering over 100 FPS. For a balance of quality and performance, 1440p High at 96 FPS is reasonable. At 4K, only Low settings approach playable frame rates, and even then, the 63 average FPS may be insufficient for competitive play.

Settings Recommendations

Based on the measured FPS data, the optimal settings depend on the user's resolution and performance priorities. At 1920x1080, the High preset at 152 average FPS is the recommended choice, as it provides excellent visual quality while maintaining frame rates that exceed the refresh rate of most monitors. The Ultra preset at 107 FPS offers marginal visual improvements but costs 45 FPS, making it a poor trade-off unless the user prioritizes maximum image quality over performance.

At 2560x1440, the Medium preset at 105 average FPS with a 90 FPS minimum is the best option for consistent gameplay. The High preset at 96 FPS is also viable, but the Medium preset's higher minimum frame rate provides a more stable experience during intense firefights. The Ultra preset at 67 FPS is playable but leaves little headroom for framerate drops, and the Low preset at 121 FPS sacrifices too much visual fidelity for only a modest performance gain over Medium.

At 3840x2160, the Low preset at 63 average FPS is the only setting that provides a consistently playable experience. The Medium preset at 55 FPS may be acceptable for some users, but the 47 FPS minimum could cause noticeable stuttering in action-heavy sequences. The High and Ultra presets at 50 and 35 FPS respectively are not recommended for this resolution, as they fall below acceptable playability thresholds for a tactical shooter.

The data suggests that the system is best utilized at 1440p with Medium or High settings, where it delivers a compelling combination of visual quality and performance. Users who prioritize frame rate above all else should consider 1080p with High settings, while those who require 4K output should accept the visual compromises inherent in the Low preset.

GPU Role

The Intel Arc B570 is the defining component of this system's gaming performance, and its specifications explain the measured results. The GPU features 2304 shading units, 144 texture mapping units, and 80 render output units, with 18 ray tracing cores. Its 10 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 160-bit bus provides 380.0 GB/s of bandwidth, which proves sufficient for Ready Or Not's memory requirements at all tested resolutions.

Clock speeds are modest at 2500 MHz base and boost, which contributes to the GPU's 11.52 TFLOPS FP32 performance and 360.0 GTexel/s texture rate. The 200.0 GPixel/s pixel rate is adequate for 1080p and 1440p rendering but becomes a limiting factor at 4K, particularly at higher quality settings. This is reflected in the measured FPS data, where the GPU's pixel throughput constraints become evident at 3840x2160.

The GPU's benchmark scores position it within a specific performance tier. Its PassMark G3D score of 14195 and 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 score of 2649 place it at the 65th percentile among all GPUs. The Geekbench scores of 83514 in OpenCL and 96844 in Vulkan indicate reasonable compute performance. The nearest rivals, the RTX 3070 Mobile at 0.1% higher and Arc A750 at 0.1% lower, confirm that the B570 competes with established mid-range options.

The GPU's 150 W TDP and dual-slot design make it a manageable addition to a system, with the 450 W suggested PSU indicating reasonable power requirements. The PCIe 4.0 x8 interface provides sufficient bandwidth for the GPU's needs, and the 10 GB VRAM capacity ensures that texture-heavy scenes in Ready Or Not do not exceed memory limits. However, the GPU's overall compute capacity, not its memory, is the limiting factor at 4K, as evidenced by the steep performance drop at that resolution.

The Arc B570's 5 nm process and 19,600 million transistors on a 272 mm² die demonstrate a modern architecture, but its performance class is firmly mid-range. The GPU's inability to maintain 60 FPS at 4K High settings, achieving only 50 average FPS, reflects its positioning relative to higher-tier graphics cards. For this game and this CPU pairing, the GPU's role is to deliver strong 1080p and 1440p performance while making 4K gaming possible only at reduced settings.