Red Dead Redemption 2

Settings Recommendations

The measured rows for Red Dead Redemption 2 on this platform show a very narrow playable window. Across all four presets, the average frame rates are low, but the data clearly points to Low as the only settings level that approaches acceptable motion clarity. At 1920x1080, the Low preset produces an average of 47 FPS, which is the single highest average in the entire dataset. The Medium preset at the same resolution drops to 35 FPS, while High falls to 29 FPS, and Ultra bottoms out at 21 FPS.

The gap between Low and Medium at 1080p is 12 FPS, which represents a 34% performance penalty for stepping up one preset tier. That is a substantial cost for what is typically a modest visual gain in this title. If you are determined to run at 1080p, Low is the only preset that keeps the average above 40 FPS. Even then, the data shows no minimum frame rate recorded for Low, which suggests the frame pacing may be inconsistent, but the average is at least in a range where gameplay is technically possible.

At 2560x1440, the Low preset averages 35 FPS, which is a 12 FPS drop from 1080p Low. Medium at 1440p averages 26 FPS with a recorded minimum of 22 FPS and maximum of 30 FPS. That minimum figure is important: it shows that even the average is barely above the minimum, meaning the frame time variance is tight but the overall performance is too low for smooth play. High at 1440p averages 22 FPS, and Ultra averages 16 FPS. None of these are viable for real-time action.

At 3840x2160, the situation is dire. Low averages 23 FPS, Medium averages 17 FPS with a minimum of 15 FPS and maximum of 20 FPS, High averages 14 FPS, and Ultra averages 10 FPS. The 4K Low figure is still 12 FPS below the 1440p Low figure, confirming that resolution scaling has a severe impact. For this combination, the data supports only one recommendation: use the Low preset at 1920x1080 if you must play this game on this hardware. Every other settings/resolution combination yields an average below 40 FPS, and most are below 30 FPS, which is generally considered the floor for playable third-person action games.

CPU Role

The Intel Core Ultra 9 290K Plus is a 24-core, 24-thread processor with a base clock of 3.70 GHz and a boost clock of 5.80 GHz. It is built on a 3 nm process with a 125 W TDP. In synthetic benchmarks, this CPU posts a Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 51731 and a single-core score of 7303. The PassMark multi-thread score is 60860, and the single-thread score is 4823. These are strong numbers that place the CPU in the 96th percentile of all CPUs tested.

However, the measured FPS data in Red Dead Redemption 2 tells a different story. At 1080p Low, the platform averages 47 FPS, which is far below what this CPU should be capable of feeding in a well-optimized scenario. The CPU is clearly not the limiting factor in any of these runs. Consider the scaling: from 1080p Low to 1440p Low, the average drops from 47 to 35 FPS, a 12 FPS decline. From 1440p Low to 4K Low, it drops from 35 to 23 FPS, another 12 FPS decline. If the CPU were the bottleneck, we would expect to see relatively flat FPS across resolutions as the GPU gets more loaded but the CPU stays saturated. Instead, the FPS drops consistently with each resolution increase, which indicates the GPU is the primary constraint.

The CPU's nearest rival data reinforces that this is a high-end part. The Intel Core Ultra 9 285K scores 83807 in the average benchmark, which is 0.2% lower than the 290K Plus's 84003 average. The AMD EPYC 4584PX is 1.1% lower, and the AMD EPYC 9135 is 1.2% lower. The only rival that beats it is the AMD EPYC 7F72 at 85072, which is 1.3% higher. These are all within a narrow band of each other, confirming that the 290K Plus sits at the top of the desktop CPU hierarchy.

In Red Dead Redemption 2, the CPU's 24 cores and 24 threads are more than sufficient. The game is not a heavy multi-threaded workload compared to Cinebench or PassMark. The single-core performance, evidenced by the 7303 Cinebench R23 single-core score and 4823 PassMark single-thread score, should be ample for the game's main thread. The data shows no scenario where the CPU appears to hold back the frame rate; the FPS declines are entirely attributable to the GPU's inability to keep pace as resolution and settings increase.

The L3 cache of 36 MB shared across 24 cores is generous, and the memory bandwidth of 115.2 GB/s on DDR5 dual-channel is solid. None of these specs are the reason for the low frame rates. The benchmark results indicate that the CPU is effectively idle in these runs, waiting on the GPU to finish each frame. If you were to pair this CPU with a more capable GPU, you would see dramatically higher FPS in this game, but with the Intel Arc B370, the CPU's potential is untapped.

GPU Role

The Intel Arc B370 is an integrated graphics processor based on the Xe3-LPG architecture, manufactured on a 3 nm process by Intel. It has a base clock of 300 MHz and a boost clock of 2400 MHz. The memory is system-shared, meaning it uses the system's DDR5 RAM rather than dedicated VRAM. The GPU has 1280 shading units, 40 texture mapping units, and 20 render output units, along with 10 ray tracing cores. Its FP32 compute is rated at 6.144 TFLOPS.

The 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 score for this GPU is 1184, which places it in the 5th percentile of all GPUs. Its nearest rivals are the ATI Mobility Radeon HD 5570 at 1186 (0.2% higher), the ATI Radeon HD 5770 at 1190 (0.5% higher), the AMD Radeon HD 7650M at 1192 (0.7% higher), and the AMD FirePro M2000 at 1168 (1.4% lower). These are all legacy or low-end parts from a decade ago. This context is crucial: the Arc B370 is not a gaming GPU by any modern standard.

The measured FPS data confirms this. Even at the lowest settings and resolution, the GPU only manages 47 FPS at 1080p Low. The system-shared memory is a significant handicap. Because the GPU has no dedicated VRAM, it must compete with the CPU for memory bandwidth. The system memory bandwidth is 115.2 GB/s, but that is shared between the CPU and GPU, and the GPU's access pattern is less efficient than dedicated VRAM.

The GPU's clock behavior also matters. With a base of 300 MHz and a boost of 2400 MHz, the Arc B370 has a wide dynamic range. In a game like Red Dead Redemption 2, the GPU likely spends most of its time near the boost clock when the scene is simple, but drops toward the base clock under sustained load. The 20 ROPS are a severe limitation for pixel fill rate; the 48.00 GPixel/s pixel rate is simply too low to handle modern game rendering at high resolutions. The 96.00 GTexel/s texture rate is similarly constrained.

The ray tracing cores are present but irrelevant here, as enabling any RT feature would likely tank the already-low frame rates. The GPU supports DirectX 12 Ultimate, OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4, so API compatibility is not the issue. The problem is raw throughput. The 6.144 TFLOPS FP32 figure sounds respectable on paper, but the memory subsystem and ROPS bottleneck everything.

When comparing to the nearest rivals, the Arc B370 is essentially in a class with 2010-era discrete GPUs. The ATI Radeon HD 5770, which scores 0.5% higher in 3DMark, was a mid-range card from 2009. This GPU is not designed for demanding AAA titles like Red Dead Redemption 2. The data shows that it cannot maintain 30 FPS at 1080p Medium (35 FPS average, but with a 30 FPS minimum) and only reaches 47 FPS at 1080p Low. For any playable experience, you must accept Low settings and even then, the frame rate is marginal.

FAQ

Q: What is the best settings preset for this game on this hardware?

A: The Low preset at 1920x1080 is the only configuration that yields an average above 40 FPS, with a measured average of 47 FPS. Every other preset at every resolution falls below 40 FPS.

Q: How does the CPU compare to its nearest rivals?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 9 290K Plus has an average benchmark score of 84003, which is 0.2% higher than the Intel Core Ultra 9 285K at 83807, 1.1% higher than the AMD EPYC 4584PX at 83090, and 1.2% higher than the AMD EPYC 9135 at 82980. The AMD EPYC 7F72 is 1.3% higher at 85072.

Q: Is the CPU or GPU the limiting factor in this game?

A: The data shows the GPU is the limiting factor. FPS drops consistently as resolution increases (47 FPS at 1080p Low, 35 FPS at 1440p Low, 23 FPS at 4K Low), which indicates the GPU cannot keep up. The CPU is in the 96th percentile of all CPUs and is not the bottleneck.

Q: What is the GPU's performance percentile and what does that mean?

A: The Intel Arc B370 is in the 5th percentile of all GPUs based on its 3DMark Steel Nomad score of 1184. This means it performs worse than 95% of tested GPUs, putting it in the same range as the ATI Radeon HD 5770 and ATI Mobility Radeon HD 5570.

Q: Can this system run the game at 4K?

A: At 3840x2160, the highest average FPS is 23 at Low settings. Medium averages 17 FPS, High averages 14 FPS, and Ultra averages 10 FPS. These are all well below playable thresholds.

Q: What is the frame rate range at 1080p Medium?

A: At 1920x1080 with Medium settings, the average FPS is 35, with a recorded minimum of 30 FPS and a maximum of 40 FPS. This is the only resolution where the minimum stays above 30 FPS, but the average is still low.

Resolution Scaling

The measured FPS data reveals a stark resolution scaling pattern that confirms the GPU-bound nature of this platform. Starting from 1080p Low at 47 FPS, moving to 1440p Low drops the average to 35 FPS, a 12 FPS or 25.5% reduction. Moving from 1440p Low to 4K Low drops the average to 23 FPS, another 12 FPS or 34.3% reduction. The consistent 12 FPS drops at each step are a classic sign of a GPU that is overwhelmed by pixel count.

At Medium settings, the scaling is similar but at lower absolute values. 1080p Medium averages 35 FPS, 1440p Medium averages 26 FPS (a 9 FPS drop), and 4K Medium averages 17 FPS (another 9 FPS drop). The percentage drops are 25.7% and 34.6% respectively, which closely mirrors the Low preset scaling. This consistency indicates that the GPU's fill rate and memory bandwidth are the binding constraints, not any particular settings feature.

At High settings, the pattern continues: 1080p High averages 29 FPS, 1440p High averages 22 FPS (a 7 FPS drop), and 4K High averages 14 FPS (an 8 FPS drop). The percentage drops are 24.1% and 36.4%. Ultra settings follow the same trend: 1080p Ultra at 21 FPS, 1440p Ultra at 16 FPS (a 5 FPS drop), and 4K Ultra at 10 FPS (a 6 FPS drop). The percentage drops are 23.8% and 37.5%.

The resolution scaling analysis shows that the GPU's performance degrades roughly proportionally to the pixel count increase. From 1080p to 4K, there are exactly 4 times as many pixels. The FPS drop from 1080p Low to 4K Low is 47 to 23, which is a 51% reduction. If the GPU were purely pixel-bound, we would expect closer to a 75% reduction. The fact that the drop is less than proportional suggests that at 1080p, the GPU is already struggling with other bottlenecks (likely memory bandwidth and shader throughput), so the additional pixel load has a diminishing relative impact.

The limiting component is unequivocally the GPU. The CPU's performance is static across these runs; it is not affected by resolution. The data shows that the Arc B370 simply cannot render this game at playable frame rates at any resolution above 1080p Low. If you were to pair the Core Ultra 9 290K Plus with a discrete GPU that has even 10 times the performance, these resolution scaling curves would look entirely different.

Measured FPS Breakdown

1920x1080 (1080p):

• Low: Average 47 FPS. This is the highest average in the entire dataset and the only playable configuration.
• Medium: Average 35 FPS, with a minimum of 30 FPS and a maximum of 40 FPS. The minimum is just at the edge of playability.
• High: Average 29 FPS. Below the 30 FPS threshold for smooth gameplay.
• Ultra: Average 21 FPS. Not playable for an action game.

2560x1440 (1440p):

• Low: Average 35 FPS. This matches the 1080p Medium average, showing the resolution penalty.
• Medium: Average 26 FPS, with a minimum of 22 FPS and a maximum of 30 FPS. The minimum is well below playable.
• High: Average 22 FPS. Marginal at best.
• Ultra: Average 16 FPS. Unplayable.

3840x2160 (4K):

• Low: Average 23 FPS. Below the 30 FPS threshold.
• Medium: Average 17 FPS, with a minimum of 15 FPS and a maximum of 20 FPS. The minimum is near single digits.
• High: Average 14 FPS. Slideshow territory.
• Ultra: Average 10 FPS. Not functional for gameplay.

The data shows a clear hierarchy: 1080p Low is the only configuration with an average above 40 FPS. 1080p Medium and 1440p Low both average 35 FPS, which is technically above 30 FPS but with a minimum of 30 FPS at 1080p Medium and no recorded minimum at 1440p Low. The 1440p Medium minimum of 22 FPS and 4K Medium minimum of 15 FPS indicate severe frame drops that would cause stuttering.

The measured FPS values are consistent with the GPU's 5th percentile ranking. The 3DMark Steel Nomad score of 1184 and the nearest rival comparisons to decade-old GPUs align with the in-game performance. This platform, despite having a top-tier CPU in the 96th percentile, is crippled by its integrated graphics. The 24-core CPU with 5.80 GHz boost is effectively wasted in this game, as the GPU cannot render frames fast enough to utilize the CPU's capabilities. If the goal is to play Red Dead Redemption 2, this configuration is only viable at 1080p Low, and even then, the experience will be marginal.