Road 96

The AMD Ryzen 5 7400F paired with the Intel Arc B370 produces a highly constrained gaming experience in Road 96, a 2021 adventure title. This combination ranks at 2680 out of 2903 tested combos, placing it in the bottom 8% of all system pairings. The measured frame rates across all resolutions and settings presets indicate that this is not a configuration designed for smooth, high-fidelity gameplay, but rather one that requires significant compromises to achieve playable performance. The data shows a system where the integrated-class GPU is the primary bottleneck, with the CPU’s substantial multi-core capabilities largely left underutilized in this particular title.

How This Combo Ranks

The comboRankInGame metric places this specific CPU-GPU pairing at position 2680 out of 2903 total tested combinations. This rank reflects a percentile position of roughly 92.3%, meaning that approximately 92% of all tested system configurations outperform this one in Road 96. The ranking is unambiguous: this is a low-performing combination for this game, and the measured FPS data confirms that interpretation. For context, the average benchmark score of the AMD Ryzen 5 7400F is 32750, which places it in the 83rd percentile against all CPUs. However, the GPU’s average benchmark score is only 1184, placing it in the 5th percentile against all GPUs. This massive disparity between CPU and GPU capability is the defining characteristic of this combo’s ranking.

The system’s position in the bottom percentile of tested combos is driven almost entirely by the GPU. The Intel Arc B370 has a 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 score of 1184, and its nearest rivals—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%)—are all legacy or low-power parts. The performance delta between the Arc B370 and these rivals is negligible, ranging from -0.7% to 1.4%. This places the GPU in a performance tier that is fundamentally inadequate for modern gaming at standard resolutions, despite the game’s relatively modest graphical demands.

The ranking also reflects that the CPU’s high percentile standing does not translate into gaming performance when paired with such a weak graphics solution. The Ryzen 5 7400F’s nearest CPU rivals include the Intel Core i5-14600T (avg score 32707, delta 0.1%), Intel Core Ultra 7 155H (avg score 32697, delta 0.2%), AMD Ryzen 7 PRO 6850H (avg score 32812, delta -0.2%), and AMD Ryzen AI 7 PRO 360 (avg score 32662, delta 0.3%). These deltas are all within 0.3%, indicating that the CPU is competitive with other mid-range processors. Yet, in Road 96, the combo’s rank is dragged down by the GPU’s inability to deliver adequate frame rates, even at the lowest settings. The data suggests that if the same CPU were paired with a significantly stronger GPU, the combo rank would improve dramatically, but with the Arc B370, the system remains firmly in the lower echelon.

GPU Role

The Intel Arc B370 is the decisive factor in this combo’s performance. This GPU features a base clock of 300 MHz and a boost clock of 2400 MHz, with 1280 shading units, 40 texture mapping units, and 20 render output units. It also includes 10 ray tracing cores. The memory configuration is entirely system-shared, meaning there is no dedicated VRAM; the GPU uses system memory for all graphics data, with bandwidth described as "System Dependent." This architecture choice has profound implications for gaming performance, as shared memory introduces latency and bandwidth bottlenecks that dedicated VRAM avoids.

In Road 96, the GPU’s limitations are clearly visible across all measured resolutions. At 1920x1080 with Low settings, the average FPS is 85, which is the highest score achieved by this combo in any configuration. However, this drops to 62 FPS at Medium settings, 50 FPS at High settings, and 39 FPS at Ultra settings. The pattern is consistent at 2560x1440: Low yields 54 FPS, Medium 40 FPS, High 32 FPS, and Ultra 25 FPS. At 3840x2160, the GPU struggles to maintain playable frame rates, with Low averaging 29 FPS, Medium 21 FPS, High 17 FPS, and Ultra just 13 FPS. The 3DMark Steel Nomad score of 1184, combined with the 5th percentile ranking, confirms that this GPU is designed for basic tasks, not gaming.

The GPU’s FP32 performance of 6.144 TFLOPS and pixel rate of 48.00 GPixel/s are theoretically sufficient for older or less demanding titles, but Road 96 requires more consistent frame delivery than the Arc B370 can provide at higher settings. The texture rate of 96.00 GTexel/s and the 20 ROPs are particularly limiting at higher resolutions, where fill-rate demands increase. The boost clock of 2400 MHz is relatively high, but the low core count and shared memory system negate any advantage. The GPU’s TDP of 25 W also indicates that it is designed for power efficiency rather than performance, further confirming its role as the primary bottleneck in this combo.

FAQ

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

A: The highest average FPS recorded is 85, achieved at 1920x1080 resolution with Low settings. This is the only configuration where the combo approaches smooth gameplay, and it comes with significant visual compromises.

Q: How does the combo perform at 4K resolution?

A: At 3840x2160, the best average FPS is 29 with Low settings. Medium settings produce 21 FPS, High produces 17 FPS, and Ultra produces 13 FPS. None of these are playable for a smooth experience, and even Low settings fall below the 30 FPS threshold commonly considered the minimum for playable frame rates.

Q: Is the CPU or GPU more responsible for the low performance?

A: The GPU is the primary limiting factor. The AMD Ryzen 5 7400F has an average benchmark score of 32750, placing it in the 83rd percentile of all CPUs, while the Intel Arc B370 has an average score of 1184, placing it in the 5th percentile of all GPUs. The GPU’s performance tier is far below the CPU’s, making it the clear bottleneck.

Q: What are the nearest rival GPUs to the Arc B370, and how do they compare?

A: The nearest 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%). All of these are within 1.4% of the Arc B370’s score, indicating that the GPU performs at a level comparable to decade-old hardware.

Q: Does the combo provide consistent frame times at any setting?

A: The data includes min and max FPS only for Medium settings. At 1920x1080 Medium, the range is 53 to 72 FPS. At 2560x1440 Medium, the range is 34 to 46 FPS. At 3840x2160 Medium, the range is 18 to 24 FPS. These ranges suggest frame time inconsistency, particularly at higher resolutions, which can lead to stuttering.

Q: What is the combo’s overall ranking among all tested configurations?

A: The combo ranks 2680 out of 2903 tested combos for Road 96. This places it in the bottom 8% of all system pairings, meaning the vast majority of tested configurations deliver better performance in this game.

Measured FPS Breakdown

The measured FPS data provides a complete picture of the combo’s performance across three resolutions and four settings presets. Each measurement represents an average FPS, with min and max values recorded only for Medium settings.

At 1920x1080, the combo achieves its best results. Low settings produce an average of 85 FPS, which is the only configuration that provides a consistently smooth experience. Medium settings drop to 62 FPS on average, with a range of 53 to 72 FPS. High settings yield 50 FPS average, while Ultra settings produce 39 FPS average. The 46 FPS gap between Low and Ultra settings at this resolution highlights the GPU’s sensitivity to graphical fidelity. At 1080p, the combo can provide a playable experience, but only at the cost of visual quality.

At 2560x1440, performance degrades significantly. Low settings average 54 FPS, which is playable but not ideal. Medium settings average 40 FPS, with a range of 34 to 46 FPS. High settings drop to 32 FPS average, and Ultra settings fall to 25 FPS average. The transition from 1080p to 1440p results in a substantial FPS loss across all settings, with the Low preset dropping from 85 to 54 FPS, a 36% reduction. Medium drops from 62 to 40 FPS, High from 50 to 32 FPS, and Ultra from 39 to 25 FPS. These reductions indicate that the GPU is severely stressed by the increased pixel count.

At 3840x2160, performance becomes largely unplayable. Low settings average 29 FPS, which is below the 30 FPS threshold for smooth gameplay. Medium settings average 21 FPS, with a range of 18 to 24 FPS. High settings produce 17 FPS average, and Ultra settings fall to 13 FPS average. The 4K resolution overwhelms the GPU, and even the lowest settings cannot maintain a playable frame rate. The measured data shows that this combo is not viable for 4K gaming in Road 96, regardless of settings.

The Medium settings data points provide additional insight into frame time consistency. At 1080p, the 53-72 FPS range indicates a 19 FPS spread, which is noticeable but manageable. At 1440p, the 34-46 FPS range shows a 12 FPS spread, which can cause visible stuttering during fast-paced scenes. At 4K, the 18-24 FPS range represents a 6 FPS spread, but at such low absolute values, any variation is highly noticeable. The data suggests that even at Medium settings, the combo cannot provide a stable experience at higher resolutions.

CPU Role

The AMD Ryzen 5 7400F is a 6-core, 12-thread processor based on the Zen 4 architecture, codenamed Raphael. It operates on the AMD Socket AM5 platform with a base clock of 3.70 GHz and a boost clock of 4.70 GHz. The CPU has a TDP of 65 W and is manufactured on a 5 nm process by TSMC, with 6,570 million transistors on a 71 mm² die. The cache hierarchy includes 64 KB of L1 cache per core, 1 MB of L2 cache per core, and 32 MB of shared L3 cache. Memory support is limited to DDR5, with dual-channel configuration and a bandwidth of 83.2 GB/s. The CPU also supports ECC memory and has 24 PCIe Gen 5 lanes.

In terms of raw computational performance, the Ryzen 5 7400F is a capable processor. Its Cinebench R23 multi-core score is 21765, and single-core score is 3072. PassMark tests show a multi-thread score of 25645 and a single-thread score of 3689. The average benchmark score of 32750 places it in the 83rd percentile against all CPUs. These numbers indicate that the CPU is well-suited for multi-threaded workloads and general productivity tasks. However, in Road 96, the CPU’s role is largely secondary to the GPU. The game is not particularly CPU-intensive, and the measured FPS data shows that the GPU is the limiting factor in almost all configurations.

The CPU’s nearest rivals include the Intel Core i5-14600T (avg score 32707, delta 0.1%), Intel Core Ultra 7 155H (avg score 32697, delta 0.2%), AMD Ryzen 7 PRO 6850H (avg score 32812, delta -0.2%), and AMD Ryzen AI 7 PRO 360 (avg score 32662, delta 0.3%). These deltas are all within 0.3%, demonstrating that the Ryzen 5 7400F is competitive with other mid-range processors. However, this competitiveness does not translate to gaming performance when the GPU is as weak as the Arc B370. The CPU’s high core count and clock speeds are wasted in this configuration, as the GPU cannot deliver enough frames to utilize the CPU’s processing power. In a system with a stronger GPU, the Ryzen 5 7400F would likely perform admirably, but in this combo, its capabilities are overshadowed by the GPU’s limitations.

Settings Recommendations

Based on the measured FPS data, the optimal settings for this combo depend heavily on the target resolution and the user’s tolerance for frame rate fluctuations. At 1920x1080, the Low preset provides an average of 85 FPS, which is the only configuration that delivers a consistently smooth experience. The Medium preset at 62 FPS is also playable, but the 53-72 FPS range indicates occasional dips that may be noticeable. The High preset at 50 FPS is acceptable for less demanding players, but the Ultra preset at 39 FPS is borderline, with potential for noticeable stuttering during complex scenes.

For users prioritizing visual quality over frame rate, the Medium preset at 1080p represents the best balance. It provides a 62 FPS average, which is above the 60 FPS threshold often considered ideal for smooth gameplay, while offering better graphical fidelity than Low. The 53 FPS minimum is still playable, though it may dip below the ideal threshold in demanding moments. The High preset at 50 FPS is a reasonable alternative for those who want better visuals, but the 12 FPS reduction from Medium is substantial. The Ultra preset should be avoided at 1080p, as the 39 FPS average is below the 60 FPS target and offers diminishing returns over High.

At 2560x1440, the Low preset is the only viable option for smooth gameplay, with an average of 54 FPS. The Medium preset at 40 FPS is playable but may feel less responsive, and the High preset at 32 FPS is marginal. The Ultra preset at 25 FPS is not recommended for any gameplay scenario. At 3840x2160, no settings preset provides a playable experience. The Low preset at 29 FPS is below the 30 FPS minimum, and all other presets are significantly worse. Users should either reduce the resolution to 1440p or 1080p or accept that this combo cannot handle 4K gaming in Road 96.

The data suggests that the best overall experience is achieved at 1920x1080 with Medium settings. This configuration provides a 62 FPS average with a 53-72 FPS range, balancing visual fidelity with playable frame rates. For users who prioritize frame rate above all else, the Low preset at 1080p offers 85 FPS average, but the visual compromise may not be worth the performance gain. The Medium preset at 1080p is the recommended choice for most users, as it provides a playable experience without excessive visual degradation.

Resolution Scaling

The measured FPS data reveals a clear pattern of performance degradation as resolution increases. At 1920x1080, the combo achieves an average of 85 FPS on Low settings. This drops to 54 FPS at 2560x1440, a 36.5% reduction. At 3840x2160, the average falls to 29 FPS, which is a 65.9% reduction from 1080p. The same trend is visible across all settings presets. For Medium settings, the drop is from 62 FPS at 1080p to 40 FPS at 1440p (35.5% reduction) and 21 FPS at 4K (66.1% reduction). High settings show a drop from 50 FPS at 1080p to 32 FPS at 1440p (36% reduction) and 17 FPS at 4K (66% reduction). Ultra settings drop from 39 FPS at 1080p to 25 FPS at 1440p (35.9% reduction) and 13 FPS at 4K (66.7% reduction).

The consistency of these percentage reductions across all settings presets is notable. The FPS drops by approximately 36% when moving from 1080p to 1440p, and by an additional 47% when moving from 1440p to 4K. This pattern is characteristic of a GPU-bound scenario, where the rendering workload scales with pixel count. The number of pixels at 1440p is 1.78 times that of 1080p, and at 4K it is 4 times that of 1080p. If the GPU were the only limiting factor, the FPS would be expected to drop by these same ratios. However, the measured drops are less severe than the pixel count increases, suggesting that other factors, such as memory bandwidth or CPU overhead, may be mitigating the impact.

The resolution scaling analysis indicates that the GPU is the primary limiting component. If the CPU were the bottleneck, the FPS would remain relatively constant across resolutions, as the CPU workload does not scale with pixel count. Instead, the data shows a clear inverse relationship between resolution and FPS, with the most severe drops occurring at 4K. This confirms that the Intel Arc B370’s limited pixel fill rate and memory bandwidth are the main constraints. The 20 ROPs and system-shared memory are particularly problematic at high resolutions, where the GPU must process more pixels with the same resources. For users considering this combo, the data suggests that 1080p is the maximum viable resolution, with 1440p requiring Low settings for playable frame rates and 4K being entirely unsuitable.