Road 96

Road 96 is an adventure title that, on the surface, does not demand extreme hardware, yet the benchmark data for the Intel Core i5-10400F paired with the Intel Arc B390 reveals a specific performance ceiling defined almost entirely by the graphics processor. The combo ranks at 2575 out of 2903 tested combinations, placing it in the bottom 12% of all systems tested for this game. This low standing is immediately explained by the GPU's own benchmark percentile, which sits at just 9th overall, indicating that the Arc B390 is the critical bottleneck in this pairing, even when the CPU offers a relatively robust foundation with its 6 cores and 12 threads.

FAQ

Q: What is the average frame rate at 1080p with High settings?

A: The measured data shows an average of 56 FPS at 1920x1080 with High settings. This is the highest quality preset that still achieves a playable frame rate above 55 FPS, though it falls short of the 60 FPS threshold that many users target for smooth gameplay.

Q: How does the Intel Core i5-10400F compare to its nearest rivals in synthetic benchmarks?

A: The CPU's average benchmark score of 14185 is nearly identical to its closest competitors. It is 0.2% ahead of the Intel Xeon 6756E, 0.5% ahead of the AMD EPYC 7552, and 0.3% behind the Intel Core 7 160UL, indicating that its processing power is well within the expected range for its class.

Q: Does the Intel Arc B390 have dedicated VRAM?

A: No. The GPU's memory configuration is listed as "System Shared," meaning it relies on the system's main memory rather than having its own dedicated video memory. This shared memory architecture is a key factor in its performance, as it uses a "System Dependent" bandwidth.

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

A: At 2560x1440, the average frame rate drops from 60 FPS on Low settings to 28 FPS on Ultra settings. This represents a 53% reduction in performance when moving from the lowest to the highest preset, showing a steep cost for graphical fidelity.

Q: Is the GPU's 3DMark score closer to modern cards or legacy ones?

A: The Arc B390's 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 score of 1482 places it in the 9th percentile of all GPUs. Its nearest rivals are the NVIDIA GeForce GT 520MX, GT 625 OEM, and GT 710, all of which are older, low-end models, indicating that its raw rendering power is comparable to that segment rather than current-generation hardware.

Q: What is the best case scenario for frame rates in this game?

A: The highest average frame rate recorded in the entire dataset is 94 FPS, achieved at 1920x1080 with Low settings. This is the only configuration that approaches high-refresh-rate territory, while all other tested settings result in averages below 70 FPS.

GPU Role

The Intel Arc B390 is unequivocally the limiting component in this configuration for Road 96. Its benchmark data shows a 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 score of 1482, which places it in the 9th percentile of all GPUs. This puts it in the company of the NVIDIA GeForce GT 710 and GT 625 OEM, with delta percentages of 2.7% and 2.5% respectively, highlighting its position as a very low-end graphics solution. The GPU's architecture is Xe3-LPG on a 3 nm process, featuring 1536 shading units, 48 texture mapping units, and 24 raster output units. It has a boost clock of 2500 MHz, but its memory configuration is the most telling detail: the memory size, type, and bus width are all listed as "System Shared," meaning it does not have dedicated VRAM. This system-dependent bandwidth is a severe drawback for a game like Road 96, which, while not graphically intense, still requires consistent memory throughput for texture streaming.

The performance scaling across settings confirms this bottleneck. At 1080p, dropping from High to Low settings increases the average frame rate from 56 FPS to 94 FPS, a 67% improvement. This dramatic jump indicates that the GPU is heavily taxed by the higher graphical presets, and reducing the workload directly translates to significant gains. The GPU's pixel rate of 60.00 GPixel/s and texture rate of 120.0 GTexel/s are modest figures, and its FP32 performance of 7.680 TFLOPS is not sufficient for high-fidelity rendering at higher resolutions. The data suggests that while the GPU can handle the game at lower presets, it lacks the raw throughput to maintain smooth performance at High or Ultra settings, especially as resolution increases. The 80 W TDP and IGP form factor further confirm this is a power-sipping, integrated-class solution not designed for demanding gaming loads.

CPU Role

The Intel Core i5-10400F provides a stark contrast to the GPU, serving as a competent mid-range processor that is not the primary constraint in this pairing. With 6 cores and 12 threads, it offers a solid multi-threaded foundation, and its benchmark scores reflect a balanced performance profile. Its average benchmark score is 14185, placing it in the 68th percentile of all CPUs, a significant step up from the GPU's 9th percentile. In Cinebench R23, it scores 10283 in multi-core and 1451 in single-core, while in Geekbench it scores 6257 multi-core and 1420 single-core. These numbers indicate that the CPU has ample processing power to feed the GPU in most scenarios, as its 12 threads can handle the game's logic and physics without breaking a sweat.

The CPU's clock speeds, with a base of 2.90 GHz and a boost of 4.30 GHz, are sufficient for gaming. However, the role of the CPU in this specific game appears to be secondary, as evidenced by the frame rate scaling. When comparing the FPS drops between resolutions, the CPU's influence is masked by the GPU's limitations. For instance, at Low settings, the average frame rate drops from 94 FPS at 1080p to 60 FPS at 1440p. This is a significant drop, but it is not a sign of CPU weakness; rather, it shows that the GPU is already at its limit. The CPU's nearest rivals, such as the Intel Xeon 6756E and AMD EPYC 7552, have nearly identical average scores (14163 and 14115, respectively), with deltas of 0.2% and 0.5%, confirming that the i5-10400F is performing exactly as expected for its tier. In a game like Road 96, which is not known for heavy CPU simulation, the 12 MB of shared L3 cache and dual-channel DDR4 memory support are more than adequate, meaning the processor is unlikely to cause any stutters or frame hitches that would be visible on top of the GPU's low frame output.

How This Combo Ranks

The combined performance of the Intel Core i5-10400F and Intel Arc B390 places this system at rank 2575 out of 2903 tested combos for Road 96. This ranking, which places it in the bottom 11% of all systems, is a direct reflection of the GPU's severe limitations. The CPU's 68th percentile ranking shows that the processor is not the issue; it is the graphics card that drags the entire combo down. This is a case where a capable CPU is paired with a severely underpowered GPU, resulting in a system that cannot leverage the processor's potential in this game.

The data implies that this combo is not suited for Road 96 at higher settings. The 2575th rank is a strong indicator that most other system configurations, including those with older or similarly priced CPUs but better GPUs, will outperform it. The gap between the CPU and GPU performance is a critical finding: the i5-10400F is a modern 10th Gen processor that can handle modern games, but the Arc B390's 3DMark score is on par with legacy NVIDIA cards like the GT 710. This mismatch means that the combo's overall rank is almost entirely determined by the GPU, and any upgrade path would involve replacing the graphics solution first. The benchmark results suggest that this pairing is unbalanced, and for Road 96 specifically, the experience will be defined by the GPU's inability to maintain high frame rates, regardless of the CPU's headroom.

Resolution Scaling

The frame rate scaling across resolutions reveals a clear pattern of GPU-bound behavior, with the most dramatic drops occurring when moving from 1080p to 1440p. At Medium settings, the average frame rate falls from 69 FPS at 1920x1080 to 44 FPS at 2560x1440, a 36% reduction, and then to 23 FPS at 3840x2160, a further 48% reduction. This linear-like scaling is a classic sign that the GPU is the primary constraint, as the rendering workload increases proportionally with the pixel count. The data shows that the GPU simply does not have the bandwidth or compute power to handle the increased resolution demands.

Looking at High settings, the drop from 56 FPS at 1080p to 35 FPS at 1440p is a 37.5% decrease, which is consistent with the scaling seen at Medium. At 4K, High settings produce just 19 FPS, which is unplayable. The pattern is consistent: each resolution jump incurs a significant performance penalty that the GPU cannot absorb. In contrast, if the CPU were the bottleneck, we would expect to see similar frame rates across resolutions at the same settings, since the CPU's workload does not change much with resolution. That is not the case here. The only scenario where the CPU might have a slight influence is at 1080p Low settings, where 94 FPS is achieved. While this is the highest score, it is still far from the CPU's theoretical limit, suggesting that even at the lowest settings, the GPU is still preventing the system from reaching much higher frame rates. The resolution scaling data confirms that the Arc B390 is the definitive limiting factor, and the system's performance will not improve by tweaking CPU settings.

Measured FPS Breakdown

The measured FPS data provides a comprehensive view of the system's capabilities across all combinations of resolution and settings. At 1920x1080, the results range from a low of 43 FPS on Ultra to a high of 94 FPS on Low. The Medium preset yields an average of 69 FPS, with a minimum of 59 FPS and a maximum of 79 FPS, showing some variance but remaining generally playable. High settings produce 56 FPS, which is borderline acceptable for a slower-paced adventure game. At 2560x1440, the performance drops noticeably: Low settings achieve 60 FPS, which is the only playable option at this resolution. Medium settings fall to 44 FPS (with a range of 37 to 50 FPS), High settings drop to 35 FPS, and Ultra settings plummet to 28 FPS. None of these sub-60 FPS averages are ideal, but they are at least consistent.

At 3840x2160, the system struggles to maintain playable frame rates across all presets. Low settings manage 32 FPS, Medium settings drop to 23 FPS (with a minimum of 20 FPS), High settings produce a meager 19 FPS, and Ultra settings bottom out at 15 FPS. The data shows that 4K is not a viable resolution for this combo in Road 96, as even the lowest settings fail to reach 60 FPS. The min and max FPS values are only provided for Medium settings, but they show a spread of 7 FPS at 1080p and 13 FPS at 1440p, indicating some frame pacing inconsistency. Overall, the measured FPS breakdown indicates that the system is best suited for 1080p gaming, with a hard ceiling of 94 FPS at the lowest settings, and that any attempt to play at higher resolutions will result in a significantly degraded experience.

Settings Recommendations

Based on the measured rows, the best experience for this combo is achieved at 1920x1080 with Medium settings. This configuration delivers an average frame rate of 69 FPS, with a minimum of 59 FPS, ensuring that the game remains smooth and above the critical 60 FPS threshold for the majority of the time. The Medium preset provides a balance between visual quality and performance, as it offers a significant improvement over Low settings while still maintaining playable frame rates. While High settings at 1080p are close, the 56 FPS average is below the 60 FPS target and may result in occasional dips that could be noticeable.

For users who prioritize frame rate stability above all else, the Low preset at 1080p is the only option that approaches high-refresh-rate play, hitting 94 FPS. However, the visual sacrifice is substantial. At 1440p, the only acceptable setting is Low, which yields 60 FPS, but this is a marginal result that offers no headroom. All other presets at 1440p and all presets at 4K are not recommended, as they fall below the 45 FPS threshold that is generally considered the minimum for a playable experience. The data strongly suggests that users should stick to 1080p and choose between Medium for a balanced experience or Low for maximum smoothness. The Ultra preset is not advisable at any resolution, as it results in frame rates below 43 FPS even at 1080p, indicating that the GPU is overwhelmed by the highest graphical demands. Therefore, the optimal configuration is 1080p with Medium settings, which provides the best compromise between visual fidelity and playability according to the measured data.