Red Dead Redemption 2

# Red Dead Redemption 2 with AMD Ryzen 5 7600 + Intel Arc B370

The AMD Ryzen 5 7600 paired with the Intel Arc B370 delivers a profoundly constrained experience in Red Dead Redemption 2, with the benchmark data showing this combination ranks 2670th out of 2902 tested combos. The CPU is a modern 6-core, 12-thread Zen 4 part with a 3.80 GHz base clock and 5.10 GHz boost clock, yet the integrated-class Arc B370 GPU, with its 1280 shading units and 20 ROPs, becomes the overwhelming bottleneck at every resolution and preset tested. The measured frames per second tell a stark story: even at the lowest settings and resolution, this combo barely approaches playable territory, and at higher settings the experience degrades into single-digit territory.

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

The Ryzen 5 7600 brings 6 cores and 12 threads based on AMD's Zen 4 architecture, manufactured on a 5 nm process at TSMC. Its 3.80 GHz base clock and 5.10 GHz boost clock provide substantial single-thread headroom, and the 32 MB of shared L3 cache helps feed the cores with game data. In synthetic benchmarks, this CPU scores 999 in 3DMark single-thread and 6503 in 3DMark max-threads, with a Cinebench R23 multicore score of 12735 and single-core score of 1852. These figures place the processor in the 78th percentile of all CPUs, with an average benchmark score of 26324 that sits within 0.5% of rivals like the AMD Ryzen 9 6900HX (26274, 0.2% slower), AMD Ryzen 7 7435HS (26402, 0.3% faster), Intel Core i9-11900KF (26212, 0.4% slower), and AMD Ryzen 5 8540U (26187, 0.5% slower).

For Red Dead Redemption 2, the CPU's role is to feed draw calls, manage the open-world simulation, and handle physics and AI across the game's sprawling environments. The 6-core configuration with 12 threads is generally sufficient for this 2018 title, and the high boost clock ensures that single-threaded tasks—often the bottleneck in older game engines—are handled capably. However, the measured FPS data reveals that CPU performance is essentially irrelevant here; the frame rates are uniformly low regardless of resolution, which is the hallmark of a GPU-bound scenario. At 1080p Low, the combo reaches 47 FPS, while at 4K Ultra it drops to 10 FPS. The CPU's 3DMark 16-thread score of 6499 and PassMark multithread score of 27058 indicate it has ample compute headroom, but the Arc B370 simply cannot translate that headroom into rendered frames. The fact that the same CPU would likely produce far higher frame rates with a discrete GPU underscores that the Ryzen 5 7600 is not the limiting factor in this pairing.

How This Combo Ranks — use comboRankInGame vs other tested combos

The combination of the AMD Ryzen 5 7600 and Intel Arc B370 ranks 2670th out of 2902 tested combos in Red Dead Redemption 2. This places it in the bottom 8% of all tested pairings, a position that reflects the GPU's extreme performance limitations rather than any deficiency in the processor. To contextualize this rank, the Arc B370's GPU benchmark score of 1184 in 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 places it in the 5th percentile of all GPUs, with nearest rivals including the ATI Mobility Radeon HD 5570 (1186, 0.2% faster), ATI Radeon HD 5770 (1190, 0.5% faster), AMD Radeon HD 7650M (1192, 0.7% faster), and AMD FirePro M2000 (1168, 1.4% slower).

This ranking means that virtually any modern discrete GPU, even entry-level models, would outperform this pairing. The data indicates that the combo's rank is driven almost entirely by the GPU, as the CPU's own percentile ranking (78th) is far higher than the combo's overall game rank. When interpreting this rank, it is important to note that the combo sits just 232 positions from the bottom of the entire database, which includes legacy and integrated graphics configurations. The practical implication is that players seeking to run Red Dead Redemption 2 at acceptable frame rates would need to drastically lower expectations or upgrade the GPU component. The gap between the CPU's capability and the GPU's delivery is stark: the Ryzen 5 7600 can process game logic and geometry with ease, but the Arc B370 cannot rasterize the frames quickly enough to exploit that capability.

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

The resolution scaling behavior of this combo reveals a classic GPU-bound pattern, but with an unusual twist: the frame rate deltas are smaller than expected across resolutions, indicating that the GPU is so weak that even at 1080p it is operating at its absolute limit. At Low settings, the average FPS moves from 47 at 1080p to 35 at 1440p to 23 at 4K. This represents a 25.5% drop from 1080p to 1440p and a 51.1% drop from 1080p to 4K. For comparison, at High settings the progression is 29 FPS at 1080p, 22 FPS at 1440p, and 14 FPS at 4K, with corresponding drops of 24.1% and 51.7%.

The fact that the 1080p-to-1440p drop is roughly 25% and the 1080p-to-4K drop is roughly 50% is consistent with pixel-count scaling, where 4K has four times the pixels of 1080p. This pattern typically indicates that the GPU is the primary bottleneck, as a CPU-bound scenario would show much smaller frame rate differences between resolutions—the CPU would saturate at 1080p and the FPS would remain flat at higher resolutions. Here, the frame rates continue to fall as resolution increases, confirming that the Arc B370's rendering throughput is the limiting factor at every setting level.

However, the absolute numbers are so low that resolution scaling analysis becomes somewhat academic. A 47 FPS result at 1080p Low is already borderline, and the 35 FPS at 1440p Low and 23 FPS at 4K Low are all below playable thresholds. The GPU's 6.144 TFLOPS FP32 performance and 48.00 GPixel/s pixel rate are simply inadequate for a game as demanding as Red Dead Redemption 2. The data suggests that even at 1080p, the GPU is working at near-maximum capacity, and the modest frame rate improvements at lower resolutions reflect the GPU's inability to fully utilize its fill rate due to other bottlenecks in its architecture.

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

At 1920x1080, the measured average frame rates span from 21 FPS at Ultra settings to 47 FPS at Low settings, with Medium at 35 FPS and High at 29 FPS. The Medium preset shows a minimum of 30 FPS and maximum of 40 FPS, providing the only data point with full min/max information at this resolution. The spread from Low to Ultra is 26 FPS, indicating that settings have a significant impact on performance, but even the best case of 47 FPS falls short of the 60 FPS target most players expect. The Ultra preset's 21 FPS average is barely playable in slow scenes and would stutter badly in action sequences.

At 2560x1440, the average frame rates drop to 35 FPS at Low, 26 FPS at Medium (with a minimum of 22 FPS and maximum of 30 FPS), 22 FPS at High, and 16 FPS at Ultra. The 1440p results show a similar settings scaling pattern to 1080p, with Low providing roughly 2.2 times the performance of Ultra. The Medium preset's min/max range of 22 to 30 FPS illustrates the frame time variance that would be perceptible as stuttering during gameplay. None of these results are comfortably playable; even the best case of 35 FPS at Low would feel choppy on a typical 60 Hz display.

At 3840x2160, the average frame rates fall to 23 FPS at Low, 17 FPS at Medium (with a minimum of 15 FPS and maximum of 20 FPS), 14 FPS at High, and 10 FPS at Ultra. The 4K results are uniformly below playability thresholds, with even the Low preset failing to reach 24 FPS—the traditional minimum for smooth motion. The Medium preset's min/max of 15 to 20 FPS indicates that the game would operate in a slideshow-like state, making the 4K resolution essentially unusable with this hardware combination. The data shows that the Arc B370 cannot deliver acceptable performance at any resolution above 1080p, and even at 1080p, only the Low preset approaches a playable frame rate.

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

The Intel Arc B370 is an integrated-class GPU based on the Xe3-LPG architecture, built on Intel's 3 nm process. It operates with a base clock of 300 MHz and a boost clock of 2400 MHz, with memory bandwidth described as "System Dependent" and memory size listed as "System Shared." This means the GPU relies on system RAM rather than dedicated VRAM, which introduces additional latency and bandwidth constraints. The GPU's 1280 shading units, 40 TMUs, and 20 ROPs produce a pixel rate of 48.00 GPixel/s and a texture rate of 96.00 GTexel/s, with FP32 performance rated at 6.144 TFLOPS.

In Red Dead Redemption 2, these specifications translate to the measured FPS results. The game is known for its heavy texture streaming, detailed character models, and complex lighting, all of which place demands on GPU memory bandwidth and fill rate. The shared memory architecture means that the GPU competes with the CPU for system memory bandwidth, which is particularly problematic at higher resolutions where more texture data must be fetched. The GPU's 25 W TDP indicates it is designed for power efficiency rather than raw performance, and the benchmark results reflect this positioning.

The GPU's benchmark score of 1184 in 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12, placing it in the 5th percentile of all GPUs, is consistent with the game performance observed. The nearest rivals—ATI Mobility Radeon HD 5570, ATI Radeon HD 5770, AMD Radeon HD 7650M, and AMD FirePro M2000—are all legacy or low-power parts from over a decade ago. This places the Arc B370 in the same performance tier as those older integrated and entry-level discrete GPUs, which explains why Red Dead Redemption 2 runs at sub-30 FPS in most configurations. The GPU's DirectX 12 Ultimate support and 10 RT cores are technically advanced features, but they do not compensate for the fundamental lack of shading and rasterization throughput needed for this demanding title.

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

The measured data provides a clear hierarchy of settings presets across all three resolutions, and the recommendation depends heavily on the user's resolution target. At 1080p, the Low preset delivers 47 FPS average, which is the only configuration in the entire dataset that approaches playable frame rates. The Medium preset at 1080p drops to 35 FPS, which is still technically playable but with noticeable stutter, as evidenced by the 30-40 FPS min/max range. The High preset at 29 FPS and Ultra at 21 FPS are both below acceptable thresholds for smooth gameplay, with Ultra being particularly problematic.

At 1440p, the Low preset at 35 FPS is the only option that reaches 30+ FPS, but even this is marginal for a game with fast-paced action sequences. The Medium preset at 26 FPS with a 22 FPS minimum would cause perceptible hitches during intense moments, and the High and Ultra presets at 22 FPS and 16 FPS respectively are not recommended for any gameplay scenario. At 4K, all four presets—23 FPS at Low, 17 FPS at Medium, 14 FPS at High, and 10 FPS at Ultra—are below playable thresholds, and no settings adjustment can rescue the experience at this resolution.

The best experience per the measured rows is clearly at 1080p with the Low preset, which provides 47 FPS average. This is the only configuration that allows for reasonably smooth gameplay, though it will require significant visual compromises. The Medium preset at 1080p offers a 35 FPS average with better visual quality, and for players who prioritize image fidelity over frame rate, this may be acceptable despite the 30 FPS minimum. For any resolution above 1080p, the data suggests that the game is not playable with this hardware, and users should consider either reducing resolution to 1080p or accepting that the experience will be severely compromised. The Ultra preset should be avoided entirely at all resolutions, as it provides the lowest frame rates with diminishing visual returns on this GPU.