Red Dead Redemption 2

The Intel Core i5-12400F paired with the Intel Arc B390 is a severely constrained configuration for Red Dead Redemption 2, ranking in the bottom 12% of all tested combos. The data indicates that this system is fundamentally GPU-limited, with the processor’s six cores and twelve threads providing ample headroom that the integrated graphics cannot utilize. The benchmark results show a consistent pattern where the Arc B390, positioned at the 9th percentile of all GPUs, becomes the definitive bottleneck at every resolution and setting level.

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

The Intel Core i5-12400F is a six-core, twelve-thread processor from the Alder Lake-S architecture, operating at a base clock of 2.50 GHz and a boost clock of 4.40 GHz. This CPU is a capable performer in its own right, with benchmark scores that place it in the 73rd percentile of all processors. Its threading capabilities are demonstrated by a 3DMark max-thread score of 5912, which is only marginally higher than its 8-thread score of 4779, indicating efficient scaling across its physical and logical cores. The processor’s 18 MB of shared L3 cache and support for dual-channel DDR4/DDR5 memory provide a solid foundation for gaming workloads.

However, the measured performance in Red Dead Redemption 2 reveals that the CPU is not the limiting factor. At 1080p with Low settings, the configuration achieves 51 FPS, while at 1080p with Ultra settings, it drops to 23 FPS. This dramatic swing in performance—a reduction of 28 FPS—occurs despite the CPU’s clock speed and core count remaining constant. The data strongly suggests that the game’s rendering load is being shouldered almost entirely by the graphics subsystem. The i5-12400F’s single-thread performance, evidenced by a Geekbench single-core score of 1964 and a Cinebench R23 single-core score of 1680, is more than sufficient to feed the Arc B390’s modest processing capacity.

In this game’s context, the CPU’s role is reduced to maintaining a stable frame delivery pipeline for the GPU. The processor’s 3DMark 16-thread score of 5895 and Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 12380 show that it can handle complex simulation and draw-call tasks without breaking a sweat. Yet, the FPS numbers tell a different story: the system’s ceiling is defined by the GPU. For example, the jump from 1080p Low to 1080p Medium only yields a 12 FPS difference (51 to 39), whereas the jump from Medium to High yields a 7 FPS difference (39 to 32). These increments are characteristic of a GPU bottleneck, where the CPU is waiting idle for the graphics unit to complete its work. The i5-12400F is a strong mid-range processor, but it is effectively wasted in this pairing for this specific title, as it cannot compensate for the GPU’s limitations.

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

Examining the measured FPS rows, the most playable experience is found at 1080p with Low settings, which delivers an average of 51 FPS. This is the only configuration in the entire dataset that approaches a smooth 60 FPS target, and it offers a 12 FPS advantage over the Medium preset at the same resolution. The data shows a clear pattern: as settings increase, the average frame rate drops precipitously, with each tier costing roughly 7-12 FPS at 1080p. At 1440p, the Low preset still manages a respectable 38 FPS, but the High and Ultra presets fall to 24 FPS and 17 FPS respectively, which are below the threshold for comfortable gameplay.

The Medium preset at 1080p, with an average of 39 FPS and a minimum of 33 FPS, represents the highest visual quality that remains marginally playable. However, the data suggests that the performance cost of moving from Low to Medium is significant relative to the visual gains in a game like this. At 4K, all settings are effectively unplayable, with the Low preset achieving only 25 FPS and the Ultra preset dropping to 11 FPS. The verdict from the benchmark results is unequivocal: Low settings at 1080p is the only viable choice for this hardware combination. The gap between Low and Medium at 1080p (12 FPS) is larger than the gap between Medium and High (7 FPS), indicating diminishing returns that favor the lowest preset for maintaining frame rate stability.

For users who prioritize visual fidelity over performance, the Medium preset at 1080p offers a minimum of 33 FPS, which may be tolerable for slower-paced exploration segments. Yet, the measured max FPS of 44 at Medium shows that the system cannot sustain high frame rates even in less demanding scenes. The Ultra preset, with an average of 23 FPS at 1080p, is a demonstration of the GPU’s limitations rather than a practical gaming mode. Based on the measured data, Low at 1080p is the recommended preset, as it provides the best balance of playability and consistency, with no other preset coming close to its 51 FPS average.

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

The resolution scaling data paints a stark picture of the system’s performance envelope. At Low settings, the average FPS drops from 51 at 1080p to 38 at 1440p, a 25% reduction, and then to 25 at 4K, a further 34% reduction from 1440p. This scaling behavior is classic evidence of a GPU-bound system, where the rendering resolution directly impacts the pixel fill rate and shading workload. The Arc B390’s 24 ROPs and 48 TMUs are simply overwhelmed as the pixel count increases from roughly 2 million at 1080p to over 8 million at 4K.

At Medium settings, the FPS falls from 39 at 1080p to 29 at 1440p and 19 at 4K. The proportional drop from 1080p to 1440p (10 FPS) is larger than the drop from 1440p to 4K (10 FPS in absolute terms, but a smaller percentage), suggesting that the GPU is hitting a memory bandwidth or compute ceiling. The Arc B390 uses System Shared memory, and its bandwidth is dependent on the system’s DRAM configuration, which is a known bottleneck for integrated graphics. At High settings, the 1080p result of 32 FPS drops to 24 FPS at 1440p and 16 FPS at 4K, with the 4K figure representing a 50% reduction from the 1080p baseline.

The limiting component is unambiguously the GPU. The CPU’s performance is invariant to resolution changes, as its workload is primarily dependent on game logic and draw calls, not pixel count. If the CPU were the bottleneck, the FPS would remain relatively constant across resolutions. Instead, the data shows a consistent decline in FPS as resolution increases, with the 4K Ultra preset bottoming out at 11 FPS. This pattern indicates that the i5-12400F is waiting for the Arc B390 to finish its frame rendering, and the GPU’s 7.680 TFLOPS of FP32 compute is insufficient for the demands of 4K rendering in this title. The system is designed for 1080p gaming at best, and the resolution scaling data confirms that any move beyond that is a futile exercise in this configuration.

How This Combo Ranks — use comboRankInGame vs other tested combos

This specific combination of the Intel Core i5-12400F and Intel Arc B390 ranks 2568 out of 2902 tested combos in Red Dead Redemption 2, placing it in the bottom 11.5% of all systems. This ranking is a direct consequence of the GPU’s abysmal performance, as the Arc B390 sits at the 9th percentile of all GPUs. The GPU’s nearest rivals in synthetic benchmarks include the NVIDIA GeForce GT 520MX, which is only 1.3% slower, and the GeForce 800M, which is 1.5% slower. These are legacy mobile graphics parts from over a decade ago, underscoring how far behind the Arc B390 is in raw compute capability.

In contrast, the CPU’s nearest rivals are far more competitive. The AMD Ryzen 5 7535HS scores within 0% of the i5-12400F, and the Intel Core i5-1335U is only 0.3% faster. This disparity between the CPU and GPU performance tiers is the root cause of the combo’s low ranking. The i5-12400F is a 73rd percentile processor, but it is paired with a 9th percentile GPU, creating a massive imbalance. The combo rank of 2568 reflects this mismatch, as the system’s overall gaming capability is dragged down by the graphics unit.

Benchmark results show that the GPU’s sole 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 score of 1482 is a fraction of what modern discrete GPUs achieve, and its percentile ranking places it in the company of entry-level integrated solutions. In Red Dead Redemption 2, this translates to a system that cannot deliver playable frame rates at any setting above Low at 1080p. The combo’s rank, when compared to the 2902 total tested combos, suggests that there are only 334 configurations that perform worse, and these are likely to feature even older or more underpowered components. The data is clear: this pairing is a poor match for a demanding title like Red Dead Redemption 2, and the CPU’s strength is entirely negated by the GPU’s weakness.

FAQ

Q: Is the Intel Core i5-12400F the reason for the low frame rates in Red Dead Redemption 2?

A: No, the data indicates the CPU is not the bottleneck. The i5-12400F has a 73rd percentile ranking and a Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 12380, which is more than sufficient. The frame rates are limited by the Intel Arc B390, which ranks at the 9th percentile of all GPUs.

Q: What is the best resolution and settings combination for this system?

A: According to the measured FPS rows, the best experience is at 1920x1080 with Low settings, which achieves an average of 51 FPS. This is the only configuration that approaches playable frame rates, as all other settings and resolutions fall below 40 FPS.

Q: How does the Intel Arc B390 compare to its nearest rivals in benchmark scores?

A: The Arc B390’s 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 score is 1482. Its nearest rival, the NVIDIA GeForce GT 520MX, scores 1463, which is 1.3% slower. The GeForce 800M is 1.5% slower, and the GeForce GT 625 OEM is 2.5% slower.

Q: Can this system run Red Dead Redemption 2 at 4K?

A: Technically, it can, but the results are unplayable. At 4K with Low settings, the average FPS is 25, and at Ultra settings, it drops to 11 FPS. The data shows that 4K is not a viable option for this hardware.

Q: What does the combo’s ranking of 2568 out of 2902 indicate?

A: It indicates that this system performs worse than 2567 other tested configurations, placing it in the bottom 11.5% of all combos. This is primarily due to the GPU’s limited performance, as the CPU is a mid-range part.

Q: Is there a significant performance difference between the Medium and High presets at 1080p?

A: Yes, the data shows a 7 FPS difference, with Medium averaging 39 FPS and High averaging 32 FPS. However, the jump from Low to Medium is larger, at 12 FPS (51 to 39), suggesting that the Low preset offers the best performance-per-setting trade-off.

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

The following data is derived directly from the measured FPS rows, providing a comprehensive look at the system’s performance across all tested configurations.

At 3840x2160 (4K) , the system delivers its lowest performance across the board. With Low settings, the average FPS is 25, which is the highest achievable at this resolution. Medium settings drop the average to 19 FPS, with a minimum of 16 FPS and a maximum of 22 FPS. High settings reduce the average to 16 FPS, and Ultra settings bottom out at 11 FPS. No other frame time data is provided for the Low, High, or Ultra presets at this resolution, but the averages indicate a uniformly poor experience.

At 2560x1440 (1440p) , the performance improves but remains marginal. Low settings yield an average of 38 FPS, which is the only 1440p preset above 30 FPS. Medium settings produce an average of 29 FPS, with a minimum of 24 FPS and a maximum of 33 FPS. High settings average 24 FPS, and Ultra settings average 17 FPS. The data shows that even at the lowest settings, 1440p is not a smooth experience, with a 13 FPS deficit compared to the 1080p Low result.

At 1920x1080 (1080p) , the system achieves its best results. Low settings deliver an average of 51 FPS, which is the highest average in the entire dataset. Medium settings average 39 FPS, with a minimum of 33 FPS and a maximum of 44 FPS. High settings average 32 FPS, and Ultra settings average 23 FPS. This resolution is the only one where the system can approach playable frame rates, and only at the Low preset. The progression from Low to Ultra at 1080p shows a consistent decline, with each setting tier costing between 7 and 12 FPS.

The full dataset reveals a clear hierarchy: 1080p Low (51 FPS) > 1080p Medium (39 FPS) > 1440p Low (38 FPS) > 1080p High (32 FPS) > 1440p Medium (29 FPS) > 4K Low (25 FPS) > 1080p Ultra (23 FPS) > 1440p High (24 FPS) > 4K Medium (19 FPS) > 1440p Ultra (17 FPS) > 4K High (16 FPS) > 4K Ultra (11 FPS). This ordering demonstrates that resolution has a more significant impact on performance than settings, further confirming the GPU-bound nature of this configuration. The minimum FPS data, available for Medium presets, shows that 1080p Medium has a minimum of 33 FPS, which is higher than the average of 1440p Medium (29 FPS), indicating that even the frame time consistency degrades at higher resolutions.