Road 96

The AMD Ryzen 5 8400F paired with the Intel Arc B370 ranks 2680th out of 2903 tested combinations for Road 96, placing it in the bottom 8% of all tested hardware pairings. This is a profoundly weak result for a game that is not graphically demanding by modern standards, and the data indicates that the Intel Arc B370’s integrated-class performance is the overwhelming bottleneck. The combo achieves playable frame rates only at 1080p with Low settings, and even then, it barely crosses the 60 FPS threshold. For a narrative adventure like Road 96, where smoothness matters for immersion, this pairing demands significant settings compromises. Below is a detailed breakdown of how this combination performs, what the numbers reveal about the GPU and CPU roles, and which settings offer the best experience.

How This Combo Ranks

The combo’s rank of 2680 out of 2903 tested combinations places it in the 92nd percentile from the bottom, meaning only 223 tested combos perform worse in Road 96. This ranking is consistent with the GPU’s standalone position: the Intel Arc B370 sits in the 5th percentile among all GPUs, with an average benchmark score of 1184. The GPU’s nearest rivals in raw compute—ATI Mobility Radeon HD 5570 (score 1186, delta -0.2%), ATI Radeon HD 5770 (score 1190, delta -0.5%), and AMD Radeon HD 7650M (score 1192, delta -0.7%)—are all over a decade old, yet they score comparably or slightly higher. The only rival the Arc B370 beats is the AMD FirePro M2000 (score 1168, delta 1.4%). This is not a matter of the CPU holding back the GPU; rather, the GPU is fundamentally underpowered for even modest 3D workloads.

Comparing the CPU side, the AMD Ryzen 5 8400F ranks in the 77th percentile among all CPUs, with an average benchmark score of 25005. Its nearest rivals are the AMD Ryzen 5 7500F (score 24964, delta 0.2%), Intel Core i7-11850H (score 24935, delta 0.3%), and Intel Core i7-13620H (score 24911, delta 0.4%), all of which are within 0.4% of the 8400F’s score. The AMD EPYC 9474F scores 25103, a delta of -0.4%, meaning the 8400F is slightly behind that server chip. The CPU is clearly not the limiting factor here; it is a competent mid-range desktop processor. The fact that this combo ranks so low in Road 96, a game that is not known for heavy CPU demands, points exclusively to the GPU. The data shows that the GPU’s 5th percentile standing drags the entire combo down to near-bottom-tier performance, regardless of the CPU’s strength.

GPU Role

The Intel Arc B370 is an integrated graphics solution based on the Xe3-LPG architecture, fabricated on Intel’s 3 nm process. Its base clock is 300 MHz, boosting to 2400 MHz, and it carries 1280 shading units, 40 texture mapping units, and 20 raster output units. The GPU also includes 10 ray tracing cores, though Road 96 does not leverage ray tracing, so that hardware remains idle in this title. The pixel rate is 48.00 GPixel/s and the texture rate is 96.00 GTexel/s, with FP32 performance of 6.144 TFLOPS. These specifications are modest, but the real constraint is memory: the Arc B370 has no dedicated VRAM, using “System Shared” memory with system-dependent bandwidth. This means the GPU competes with the CPU for memory access, which is catastrophic for frame pacing and average frame rates.

In Road 96, the GPU’s lack of dedicated VRAM becomes evident in the scaling from Low to Ultra settings. At 1080p, the average FPS drops from 85 at Low to 50 at High and 39 at Ultra, a 54% reduction from Low to Ultra. At 1440p, the same settings spread yields 54 FPS at Low, 32 FPS at High, and 25 FPS at Ultra, a 54% drop as well. At 4K, the numbers collapse: 29 FPS at Low, 21 FPS at Medium, 17 FPS at High, and 13 FPS at Ultra. The GPU’s 6.144 TFLOPS of compute is insufficient for high-resolution rendering, and the shared memory bandwidth creates a hard ceiling. The data shows that the Arc B370’s performance in Road 96 is roughly half of what would be needed for a smooth 60 FPS experience at 1080p with Medium settings, as the measured average at those settings is 62 FPS, but the minimum FPS of 53 indicates instability.

The GPU’s nearest rivals in benchmark scores—all of which are older integrated or entry-level discrete parts—suggest that the Arc B370 is not a gaming GPU. It is designed for basic display output and light 2D workloads, not for a 3D adventure game like Road 96. The 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 score of 1184 is the only GPU benchmark available, and it reinforces this conclusion. For Road 96, the GPU is the sole determinant of performance; the CPU’s role is minimal, as explained in the CPU section below.

Settings Recommendations

Given the measured data, the only settings preset that provides a playable experience is 1080p with Low settings, which averages 85 FPS. This is the only configuration that clears the 60 FPS threshold comfortably, and it does so by a wide margin. The next closest is 1080p Medium, averaging 62 FPS, but with a minimum FPS of 53, which means frame drops below 60 will occur during scenes with more geometry or particle effects. If a player is willing to tolerate occasional dips, 1080p Medium is a viable choice, as the 53 FPS minimum is still above 30 FPS, which is acceptable for a narrative-driven game. However, the 1080p High preset at 50 FPS average is less appealing because it lacks the smoothness of the Medium setting and does not offer a proportional visual improvement for a 12 FPS loss.

At 1440p, no settings preset delivers a consistently smooth experience. The Low preset averages 54 FPS, which is below 60, and the Medium preset averages 40 FPS with a minimum of 34 FPS. The High preset at 32 FPS and Ultra at 25 FPS are not recommended for any player, as they fall into the stutter-prone range. At 4K, all presets are effectively unplayable, with the highest average being 29 FPS at Low settings. The data suggests that 1080p Low is the best experience this combo can offer, and 1080p Medium is a secondary option for those who prioritize visual fidelity over absolute smoothness.

For players who insist on higher resolutions, the only option is to lower the internal resolution or use upscaling, but the FACT PACK does not provide data on upscaling performance. Based on the measured rows, the recommendation is clear: stick to 1080p and choose between Low (85 FPS) and Medium (62 FPS). The Ultra preset at 1080p, averaging 39 FPS, is a poor trade-off because the visual difference between High and Ultra in a stylized adventure game is often minimal, yet the performance cost is a 22% reduction from High. The Medium preset at 1080p offers the best balance of frame rate and visual quality, provided the player can accept occasional dips to 53 FPS.

Measured FPS Breakdown

The measured FPS data provides a complete picture of this combo’s capabilities across three resolutions and four settings presets. At 1920x1080, the performance ranges from 85 FPS at Low to 39 FPS at Ultra. The Medium preset measures 62 FPS average with a minimum of 53 FPS and a maximum of 72 FPS, showing that the frame time variance is moderate. The High preset averages 50 FPS with no recorded minimum or maximum, indicating a stable but sub-60 experience. The Low preset’s 85 FPS average is the only result that exceeds 60 FPS with headroom, and it suggests that the GPU is not fully saturated at this setting, leaving room for higher frame rates if the CPU could keep up—but the CPU is not the bottleneck.

At 2560x1440, the performance drops significantly. The Low preset averages 54 FPS, which is a 36% reduction from 1080p Low. The Medium preset averages 40 FPS with a minimum of 34 FPS and a maximum of 46 FPS, a 35% drop from 1080p Medium. The High preset averages 32 FPS, a 36% drop from 1080p High, and the Ultra preset averages 25 FPS, a 36% drop from 1080p Ultra. This consistent ~36% reduction across all settings indicates that the GPU is the limiting factor, as the resolution scaling is uniform regardless of the settings preset. The 1440p results are all below 60 FPS, and only the Low preset approaches a playable range, but even it is below the 60 FPS threshold.

At 3840x2160, the performance collapses. The Low preset averages 29 FPS, which is a 66% reduction from 1080p Low. The Medium preset averages 21 FPS with a minimum of 18 FPS and a maximum of 24 FPS, a 66% reduction from 1080p Medium. The High preset averages 17 FPS, a 66% reduction from 1080p High, and the Ultra preset averages 13 FPS, a 67% reduction from 1080p Ultra. The 4K results are uniformly unplayable, with even the Low preset failing to reach 30 FPS. The 66% drop from 1080p to 4K is far larger than the 36% drop from 1080p to 1440p, indicating that the GPU’s memory bandwidth and compute resources are exhausted at higher resolutions. The data shows that this combo is only suitable for 1080p gaming, and even then, only at Low or Medium settings.

Resolution Scaling

The resolution scaling from 1080p to 4K reveals a GPU-bound scenario with no ambiguity. From 1080p Low (85 FPS) to 1440p Low (54 FPS), the frame rate drops by 36%. From 1080p Low to 4K Low (29 FPS), the drop is 66%. For Medium settings, the progression is 62 FPS at 1080p, 40 FPS at 1440p, and 21 FPS at 4K, representing a 35% drop from 1080p to 1440p and a 66% drop from 1080p to 4K. High settings follow the same pattern: 50 FPS at 1080p, 32 FPS at 1440p, and 17 FPS at 4K, with drops of 36% and 66%, respectively. Ultra settings show 39 FPS at 1080p, 25 FPS at 1440p, and 13 FPS at 4K, with drops of 36% and 67%.

This uniform scaling—36% for the first resolution step and 66% for the second—is a classic sign of a GPU that is limited by its fill rate and memory bandwidth. The pixel count from 1080p to 1440p increases by 78% (from 2.07 million to 3.69 million), and from 1080p to 4K it increases by 300% (to 8.29 million). The observed FPS drops are smaller than the pixel count increases, which suggests that the GPU is not purely pixel-bound; rather, it is limited by a combination of shading, texture, and memory throughput. The 66% drop from 1080p to 4K, while less than the 300% pixel increase, still indicates that the GPU’s resources are severely strained. The CPU, as a 6-core, 12-thread processor with a boost clock of 4.70 GHz, is unlikely to be the bottleneck at any resolution, especially in a game like Road 96 that does not demand high thread counts.

The resolution scaling data also shows that the DeltaPct between settings presets is consistent across resolutions. For example, the difference between Low and Medium at 1080p is 27% (85 vs 62 FPS), at 1440p it is 26% (54 vs 40 FPS), and at 4K it is 28% (29 vs 21 FPS). This consistency suggests that the GPU’s performance scales linearly with the workload, and there is no thermal or power throttling in play. The GPU’s TDP is 25 W, which is low, but the shared memory architecture is the true bottleneck. The data indicates that the limiting component is the GPU, not the CPU, and that no amount of CPU tuning would improve frame rates.

CPU Role

The AMD Ryzen 5 8400F is a 6-core, 12-thread processor based on the Zen 4 (Phoenix) architecture, manufactured on TSMC’s 4 nm process. Its base clock is 4.20 GHz, boosting to 4.70 GHz, with a 65 W TDP. The CPU has 64 KB of L1 cache per core, 1 MB of L2 cache per core, and 16 MB of shared L3 cache. It supports DDR5 memory with a dual-channel bus and a memory bandwidth of 83.2 GB/s. The CPU’s benchmark scores are solid: Cinebench R23 multicore scores 20851, single-core scores 2943, and 3DMark single-thread scores 951. These scores place it in the 77th percentile among all CPUs, with an average benchmark score of 25005.

In Road 96, the CPU’s role is minimal because the game is not CPU-intensive. The measured FPS data shows that the GPU is the bottleneck at all resolutions and settings. For example, at 1080p Low, the combo achieves 85 FPS, which is likely near the GPU’s maximum output. If the CPU were the bottleneck, we would expect to see a plateau in FPS across lower resolutions, but the FPS continues to rise as resolution decreases, confirming that the GPU is saturated. The CPU’s 12 threads are more than sufficient for Road 96, which is a narrative adventure with simple scenes and limited on-screen characters. The CPU’s single-thread performance, as measured by 3DMark single-thread score of 951, is adequate for the game’s logic and AI, and its multicore performance, with a PassMark multithread score of 24389, is overkill for this title.

The CPU’s nearest rivals in benchmark scores—AMD Ryzen 5 7500F (delta 0.2%), Intel Core i7-11850H (delta 0.3%), and Intel Core i7-13620H (delta 0.4%)—all show that the 8400F is a capable processor, but this capability is wasted in this combo because the GPU cannot keep up. The CPU’s 16 MB of L3 cache and 83.2 GB/s memory bandwidth are more than enough for Road 96’s data requirements. The CPU’s TDP of 65 W and 4 nm process node indicate efficient operation, but this efficiency does not translate to higher frame rates when the GPU is the limiting factor. In summary, the CPU is a non-factor in this pairing; its performance is more than adequate, and the GPU’s 5th percentile standing is the sole reason for the combo’s low rank. If the GPU were replaced with a more powerful part, the CPU would likely be able to support much higher frame rates, but with the Arc B370, the CPU idles while the GPU struggles.