Road 96

Road 96 on the AMD Ryzen 5 5600X and Intel Arc B370 combination presents a challenging performance profile. The measured data reveals a system that is heavily constrained by the graphics processor, with frame rates that fall short of smooth gameplay at most settings. The combination ranks at 2680 out of 2903 tested configurations, placing it in the bottom 8% of all combos for this title, a position that is consistent with the GPU's low standing in the overall benchmark hierarchy.

Resolution Scaling

The FPS drop from 1080p to 4K is dramatic and reveals a clear bottleneck. At 1080p with Low settings, the combo achieves an average of 85 FPS. Moving to 1440p drops that figure to 54 FPS, a 36% reduction. The jump to 4K further reduces the average to 29 FPS, another 46% decrease. This scaling pattern indicates that the Intel Arc B370 is the limiting component, as the performance penalty for each resolution increase is severe and consistent with a GPU that is running out of pixel throughput.

The trend holds across all settings presets. For High settings, the frame rate falls from 50 FPS at 1080p to 32 FPS at 1440p, and then to 17 FPS at 4K. Ultra settings show an even steeper decline, from 39 FPS at 1080p to 25 FPS at 1440p, and a nearly unplayable 13 FPS at 4K. The data suggests that the CPU is not the primary constraint here. If the Ryzen 5 5600X were the limiting factor, we would expect to see more consistent frame rates across resolutions, as the CPU workload for a given frame would not change as drastically. Instead, the proportional drop in performance with each resolution increase points squarely at the GPU's fill rate and memory bandwidth limitations.

Interestingly, the relative performance gap between settings widens at higher resolutions. At 1080p, the difference between Low and Ultra is 46 FPS (85 vs. 39). At 4K, that difference shrinks to 16 FPS (29 vs. 13). This compression suggests that at 4K, the GPU is so saturated that even reducing the graphical load from Ultra to Low yields diminishing returns, as the fundamental pixel processing cost dominates the frame time. The 4K Low setting still only manages 29 FPS, which is below the threshold for comfortable play, indicating that the resolution itself is simply too demanding for this hardware.

GPU Role

The Intel Arc B370 is an integrated graphics processor based on the Xe3-LPG architecture, built on a 3 nm process. Its performance percentile is a mere 5th, meaning it outperforms only 5% of all GPUs in the database. This is a stark indicator of its capabilities, and the Road 96 results align perfectly with this classification. The GPU's boost clock is rated at 2400 MHz with a base clock of 300 MHz, and it features 1280 shading units, 40 texture mapping units, and 20 raster output pipelines.

The memory configuration is "System Shared", which means the GPU relies on the system's main memory rather than dedicated VRAM. The bandwidth is listed as "System Dependent", which in this configuration with a dual-channel DDR4 memory bus on the Ryzen 5 5600X translates to a maximum of 51.2 GB/s. This shared memory architecture is a significant disadvantage for gaming, as the GPU must compete with the CPU for memory access. The 10 ray tracing cores and 6.144 TFLOPS of FP32 compute are present, but the data shows that raw pixel throughput is the limiting factor.

The GPU's nearest rivals in the benchmark database are all older, low-end parts: the ATI Mobility Radeon HD 5570, ATI Radeon HD 5770, AMD Radeon HD 7650M, and AMD FirePro M2000. The deltaPct values are all within 1.4% of the Arc B370's score, placing it in a performance class that is decades old. This is not a GPU designed for modern gaming at high resolutions. The Road 96 results confirm this, with the card struggling to maintain 30 FPS at 1080p on anything above Medium settings. The pixel rate of 48.00 GPixel/s and texture rate of 96.00 GTexel/s are simply inadequate for the demands of a 4K framebuffer.

CPU Role

The AMD Ryzen 5 5600X is a far more capable component than the GPU it is paired with. It is a 6-core, 12-thread processor based on the Zen 3 architecture, running on the AM4 socket. Its boost clock is 4.60 GHz with a base clock of 3.70 GHz. In the CPU benchmark hierarchy, it sits at the 75th percentile, a stark contrast to the GPU's 5th percentile. The CPU's average benchmark score is 21771, and its nearest rivals include the AMD Ryzen 7 4800H and the Intel Core i7-11700, with deltaPct values of 0.1% and -0.5%, respectively. This places the 5600X in a solid mid-range position for processing power.

In the context of Road 96, the CPU's role is likely to be underutilized. The game is an adventure title that is not known for demanding complex AI or physics simulations. The 6 cores and 12 threads are more than sufficient for this workload. The Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 11838 and single-core score of 1541 indicate strong processing capability. The single-thread performance, as evidenced by the Geekbench single-core score of 1989 and Passmark single-thread score of 3364, is particularly relevant for games that rely heavily on a primary rendering thread.

The data suggests that the CPU is not the bottleneck. If the CPU were limiting performance, we would see frame rates that plateau or even drop at lower resolutions, where the GPU has more headroom to render frames quickly. Instead, the FPS scales directly with resolution, indicating the GPU is saturated first. The CPU's 32 MB of L3 cache and 51.2 GB/s memory bandwidth are sufficient to feed the GPU's demands, but the GPU's own memory limitations (being System Shared) create a secondary bottleneck that prevents the CPU from ever being the primary constraint. In this pairing, the Ryzen 5 5600X is effectively waiting for the Arc B370 to catch up.

How This Combo Ranks

The combination of the Ryzen 5 5600X and Intel Arc B370 ranks 2680 out of 2903 tested combos for Road 96. This places it in the bottom 7.7% of all systems tested, a position that is almost entirely attributable to the GPU. The CPU's 75th percentile ranking would normally place a system in a much higher tier, but the GPU's 5th percentile performance drags the entire combination down.

This disparity creates an interesting dynamic. The data shows a significant imbalance in the system's components. The CPU is capable of handling far more demanding workloads, as evidenced by its Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 11838. The GPU, on the other hand, is a bottleneck that limits the entire system to frame rates that are comparable to hardware from over a decade ago. The nearest GPU rivals, such as the ATI Radeon HD 5770, were not considered high-performance parts even when they were current.

The combo rank of 2680 means there are 223 other tested combinations that perform even worse in this game. This suggests that while the Arc B370 is weak, there are still less capable GPUs in the database. However, the pairing is severely mismatched. The Ryzen 5 5600X has the processing power to drive a much faster GPU, and the result is a system that is held back by its weakest link. For a game like Road 96, which is an adventure title with a stylized aesthetic, the low frame rates are particularly disappointing, as the game's visual style does not appear to be exceptionally demanding from a technical standpoint.

FAQ

Q: What is the best average FPS this combo can achieve in Road 96 at 1080p?

A: The highest average FPS recorded is 85, which is achieved at 1080p with Low settings.

Q: Is this combo capable of playing Road 96 at 4K?

A: The data suggests it is not. At 4K, the highest average FPS is 29 on Low settings, which is below the threshold for smooth gameplay. Ultra settings at 4K yield only 13 FPS.

Q: How does the Intel Arc B370 compare to its closest rivals in the GPU benchmark database?

A: The Arc B370 has an average benchmark score of 1184. Its closest rivals are the ATI Mobility Radeon HD 5570 (score 1186, delta -0.2%), ATI Radeon HD 5770 (score 1190, delta -0.5%), AMD Radeon HD 7650M (score 1192, delta -0.7%), and AMD FirePro M2000 (score 1168, delta 1.4%).

Q: What is the performance difference between Low and Ultra settings at 1440p?

A: At 1440p, Low settings produce an average of 54 FPS, while Ultra settings produce an average of 25 FPS. This represents a 54% reduction in performance from Low to Ultra.

Q: Is the CPU or GPU the limiting factor in this system for Road 96?

A: The data indicates the GPU is the limiting factor. The CPU ranks in the 75th percentile, while the GPU ranks in the 5th percentile. The frame rates drop significantly with resolution increases, which is characteristic of a GPU bottleneck.

Q: What is the combo's overall rank among all tested systems in Road 96?

A: This combination ranks 2680 out of 2903 total tested combos, placing it in the bottom 8% of systems.

Settings Recommendations

Based on the measured FPS data, the only viable settings for a playable experience are at 1080p with Low or Medium settings. At 1080p Low, the average is 85 FPS, which provides a very smooth experience. Moving to Medium drops the average to 62 FPS, which is still acceptable for most players. High settings at 1080p yield 50 FPS, which is playable but may have noticeable stutters in more demanding scenes.

For 1440p, Low settings are the only option that approaches playability, with an average of 54 FPS. Medium at 1440p drops to 40 FPS, which is borderline, and High drops to 32 FPS. 4K is not recommended for any setting, as even Low produces only 29 FPS. The data suggests that the "best experience" in terms of balancing visual quality and frame rate is 1080p Medium, which offers a 62 FPS average with min and max FPS of 53 and 72 respectively, providing a relatively stable frame pacing.

Ultra settings should be avoided entirely. At 1080p Ultra, the average is just 39 FPS, which is below the standard for a smooth experience. The performance cost of Ultra over High is significant (39 vs. 50 FPS at 1080p), and the visual improvement in this game is unlikely to justify the frame rate penalty. The data shows a clear sweet spot at 1080p Medium, which provides a 31% improvement over High settings while still maintaining a solid visual presentation.

Measured FPS Breakdown

The following table outlines the exact measured average FPS for each resolution and settings combination:

| Resolution | Settings | Avg FPS | Min FPS | Max FPS |

|------------|----------|---------|---------|---------|

| 3840x2160 | High | 17 | - | - |

| 3840x2160 | Low | 29 | - | - |

| 3840x2160 | Medium | 21 | 18 | 24 |

| 3840x2160 | Ultra | 13 | - | - |

| 2560x1440 | High | 32 | - | - |

| 2560x1440 | Low | 54 | - | - |

| 2560x1440 | Medium | 40 | 34 | 46 |

| 2560x1440 | Ultra | 25 | - | - |

| 1920x1080 | High | 50 | - | - |

| 1920x1080 | Low | 85 | - | - |

| 1920x1080 | Medium | 62 | 53 | 72 |

| 1920x1080 | Ultra | 39 | - | - |

The data shows a consistent pattern. The best performance is at 1080p Low (85 FPS), and the worst is at 4K Ultra (13 FPS). The Medium settings are the only ones that provide min and max FPS data, indicating that the other settings may have produced frame times too erratic to record stable minimums and maximums. At 1440p, the frame rates are halved compared to 1080p for most settings, and at 4K, they are roughly halved again from 1440p. This linear scaling with pixel count confirms the GPU-bound nature of this configuration. The jump from 1080p to 1440p represents a 1.78x increase in pixels, and the FPS drops by roughly 1.6x to 1.7x, which is close to the expected scaling for a fill-rate limited scenario. The jump from 1440p to 4K is a 2.25x increase in pixels, and the FPS drops by roughly 1.7x to 1.9x, showing that the GPU is becoming even more saturated at the highest resolution.