Road 96

Road 96 is an adventure title built around a stylized, story-driven road trip, and the measured performance of the Intel Core i5-11400F paired with the Intel Arc B390 shows a system that is heavily constrained by the graphics solution at every resolution and settings level. The data indicates a combo that can deliver playable frame rates at 1080p with lower presets, but it falls apart quickly as resolution and graphical fidelity increase, making it a setup best suited for modest expectations or older, less demanding titles. This analysis uses only the provided benchmark figures to explain exactly what this pairing does in Road 96, how it stacks up against other tested combinations, and what settings a user should realistically choose.

Resolution Scaling

The measured FPS data for Road 96 shows a dramatic and consistent drop in performance as resolution increases, which is the clearest indicator that the Intel Arc B390 is the primary limiting component in this pairing. At 1080p with Low settings, the combo achieves an average of 94 FPS, which is a very playable frame rate for an adventure game. Moving up to 1440p Low drops that average to 60 FPS, a 36% reduction from 1080p, while 4K Low falls to 32 FPS, which is a 66% reduction from the 1080p baseline. This scaling pattern is typical of a GPU that is running out of pixel throughput and memory bandwidth (the Arc B390 uses System Shared memory, with bandwidth described as System Dependent), rather than a CPU bottleneck.

The trend continues across all settings presets. At Medium settings, the averages are 69 FPS at 1080p, 44 FPS at 1440p, and 23 FPS at 4K. The 4K Medium result also shows a minimum FPS of 20 and a maximum of 27, indicating that even the frame time variance worsens at higher resolutions. At High settings, the figures are 56 FPS at 1080p, 35 FPS at 1440p, and just 19 FPS at 4K. The Ultra preset is the most punishing: 43 FPS at 1080p, 28 FPS at 1440p, and a nearly unplayable 15 FPS at 4K. The relative gaps between resolutions are fairly consistent across presets, which suggests that the game’s rendering load scales predictably with pixel count, and the Arc B390 simply does not have the raw fill rate (60.00 GPixel/s pixel rate, 120.0 GTexel/s texture rate) to cope with 4K.

The fact that the CPU, a 6-core, 12-thread Rocket Lake part with a boost clock of 4.40 GHz, is not the bottleneck is evident from the 1080p results. If the i5-11400F were the limiting factor, we would expect to see a smaller gap between 1080p and 1440p at low settings, because the CPU would be holding back the frame rate. Instead, the 94 FPS at 1080p Low is far higher than the 60 FPS at 1440p Low, showing that the GPU is the one that cannot keep up with the increased pixel workload. The 1440p to 4K transition is even more severe, with the 4K Low result (32 FPS) being barely half of the 1440p Low result (60 FPS), further confirming that the Arc B390’s limited compute (7.680 TFLOPS FP32) and memory subsystem are the binding constraints. For a user targeting 4K, this combo is not viable, as even the lowest preset yields an average below 33 FPS. For 1440p, the data shows that only the Low preset reaches a 60 FPS average, while Medium and High fall below 45 FPS. The only resolution where this pairing delivers a consistently smooth experience is 1080p, and even then, only with Low or Medium settings.

FAQ

Q: What is the best resolution to play Road 96 with this CPU and GPU combo?

A: The data clearly shows 1920x1080 as the only resolution where the combo achieves consistently playable frame rates. At 1080p, the average FPS ranges from 43 (Ultra) to 94 (Low), with Medium at 69 FPS. At 1440p, only the Low preset hits 60 FPS, and at 4K, no preset reaches even 33 FPS.

Q: Is the Intel Core i5-11400F holding back the Intel Arc B390 in this game?

A: No, the benchmark data indicates the opposite. The CPU has a 3DMark max threads score of 5652 and a Cinebench R23 multicore score of 14340, which are strong numbers. The FPS scaling from 1080p to 4K is heavily negative (e.g., 94 to 32 FPS at Low), which is a classic sign of a GPU bottleneck, not a CPU one.

Q: How does the Intel Arc B390 compare to its nearest GPU rivals in terms of overall benchmark score?

A: The Arc B390 has an average benchmark score of 1482, which places it in the 9th percentile of all GPUs. Its nearest rival, the NVIDIA GeForce GT 520MX, scores 1463, which is 1.3% lower. Other close rivals include the GeForce 800M (1460, 1.5% lower), the GT 625 OEM (1446, 2.5% lower), and the GT 710 (1443, 2.7% lower).

Q: What is the difference between Low and Ultra settings at 1080p in terms of average FPS?

A: At 1080p, the Low preset achieves an average of 94 FPS, while the Ultra preset drops to 43 FPS. That is a 51 FPS difference, or a 54% reduction in performance, which is a significant trade-off for higher visual fidelity in Road 96.

Q: Can this combo run Road 96 at 4K with playable frame rates?

A: No. The highest average FPS at 4K is 32 FPS with the Low preset. Medium yields 23 FPS, High yields 19 FPS, and Ultra yields 15 FPS. None of these results reach a consistent 30 FPS threshold, and the Medium preset shows a minimum FPS of 20, indicating stutter.

Q: How does this combo rank among all tested combinations for Road 96?

A: The combo ranks 2575 out of 2903 tested combinations, placing it in the lower 11% of all configurations. This indicates that while it is not the worst possible setup, it is significantly outperformed by the majority of other CPU and GPU pairings tested for this game.

Settings Recommendations

Given the measured FPS data, the recommended settings for this combo depend almost entirely on the target resolution and the user’s tolerance for frame rate dips. For a 1080p display, the Medium preset at 69 FPS average is the clear sweet spot. It provides a 35 FPS improvement over High (56 FPS) and a 25 FPS improvement over Ultra (43 FPS), while still offering more visual detail than the Low preset (94 FPS). The Medium preset also shows a minimum FPS of 59, which means it rarely drops below the 60 FPS V-sync threshold, making it the most stable option for a smooth experience. If a user prioritizes maximum frame rate and competitive responsiveness, the Low preset at 94 FPS is available, but the visual quality loss is substantial for a story-driven adventure game.

For 1440p, the choices are more limited. The Low preset is the only one that reaches a 60 FPS average, making it the only playable option for those who want a fluid experience. The Medium preset drops to 44 FPS (with a minimum of 37), which is still playable for a slow-paced adventure game, but it may feel less smooth. High (35 FPS) and Ultra (28 FPS) are borderline at best, and the data suggests they should be avoided if frame pacing is a concern. For 4K, no preset is truly playable, but if a user has no other option, Low (32 FPS) is the only one that approaches a playable level, while Medium (23 FPS), High (19 FPS), and Ultra (15 FPS) are all too low for a comfortable experience.

The data also reveals that the performance cost of each settings tier is not linear. At 1080p, moving from Low to Medium costs 25 FPS (94 to 69), while moving from Medium to High costs 13 FPS (69 to 56), and from High to Ultra costs another 13 FPS (56 to 43). This suggests that the Medium preset is a more efficient point on the performance curve, offering a good balance of visual quality and speed. At 1440p, the same pattern holds, but the absolute numbers are lower, and at 4K, the differences between presets are smaller in FPS terms (e.g., 32 to 23 FPS), showing that the GPU is so overwhelmed that reducing settings has diminishing returns. The practical advice from this data is: play at 1080p, use Medium settings for the best overall experience, or drop to Low if you demand 90+ FPS. For 1440p, use Low or Medium, and avoid 4K entirely.

Measured FPS Breakdown

The measured FPS data provides a complete picture of how this combo performs across all resolutions and settings. At 1920x1080, the Low preset delivers an average of 94 FPS, which is the highest score in the entire dataset. The Medium preset at 1080p yields an average of 69 FPS, with a minimum of 59 FPS and a maximum of 79 FPS, indicating tight frame times. The High preset at 1080p drops to an average of 56 FPS, while the Ultra preset falls further to 43 FPS. Notably, the 1080p Medium result is the only one in the entire dataset that provides a minimum FPS above 55, making it the most consistent experience available.

At 2560x1440, the Low preset achieves an average of 60 FPS, which is exactly half of the 1080p Low result, showing the resolution penalty. The Medium preset at 1440p averages 44 FPS, with a minimum of 37 and a maximum of 50, meaning that while the average is playable, the frame times are less stable than at 1080p. The High preset at 1440p averages 35 FPS, and the Ultra preset averages 28 FPS. None of the 1440p results, except for Low, reach a 60 FPS average, and the Ultra preset is below 30 FPS, which is generally considered the minimum for a playable experience.

At 3840x2160, the results are uniformly poor. The Low preset averages 32 FPS, which is the best 4K score. The Medium preset averages 23 FPS, with a minimum of 20 and a maximum of 27, showing that the GPU is struggling to maintain even a 30 FPS floor. The High preset averages 19 FPS, and the Ultra preset averages 15 FPS. The 4K results clearly demonstrate that the Intel Arc B390’s 24 ROPs and System Shared memory configuration are insufficient for high-resolution rendering in this game. The pattern across all data points is consistent: the GPU is the limiting factor, and its performance degrades severely as pixel count increases. For a user with a 1080p monitor, the Low and Medium presets are the only ones that offer both high averages and acceptable minimums, while for 1440p and above, only the lowest preset is viable, and even then, 4K is not recommended.

How This Combo Ranks

In the global ranking of tested CPU and GPU combinations for Road 96, this pairing of the Intel Core i5-11400F and Intel Arc B390 sits at rank 2575 out of 2903 total combinations. This places the combo in the bottom 11% of all tested systems, which is a clear indication that it is not a high-performance configuration for this game. The rank is driven almost entirely by the GPU’s low benchmark standing, as the Arc B390 only has a 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 score of 1482, putting it in the 9th percentile of all GPUs. In contrast, the CPU is far more capable, with an average benchmark score of 17177 and a percentile rank of 71 among all CPUs.

The nearest GPU rivals to the Arc B390 are all older, low-end NVIDIA parts. The GeForce GT 520MX scores 1463 (1.3% slower), the GeForce 800M scores 1460 (1.5% slower), the GT 625 OEM scores 1446 (2.5% slower), and the GT 710 scores 1443 (2.7% slower). This means that while the Arc B390 is marginally faster than these ancient GPUs, it is still in the same performance class, which explains why it ranks so poorly in a modern game like Road 96. The combo’s rank of 2575 suggests that the vast majority of other tested systems, even those with mid-range GPUs from a few generations ago, will outperform it. For context, a combo ranked in the top 50% would be around rank 1450, and this pairing is over 1100 positions below that mark. The data indicates that this is a low-end gaming setup, suitable for 1080p at reduced settings, but not for higher resolutions or demanding graphical presets.

The CPU’s nearest rivals in the benchmark database are the AMD EPYC 7H12 (17120 score, 0.3% faster), the Intel Core i5-12450H (17239 score, 0.4% slower), the AMD Ryzen 3 PRO 8300G (17278 score, 0.6% slower), and the Intel Core Ultra 7 164U (17074 score, 0.6% faster). These rivals show that the i5-11400F is a solidly mid-range CPU, with performance very close to newer mobile and desktop parts, but its GPU pairing holds the overall combo back. The ranking data reinforces the conclusion that the Arc B390 is the weak link, as a stronger GPU on the same CPU would likely move the combo into a much higher percentile for Road 96.

CPU Role

The Intel Core i5-11400F is a 6-core, 12-thread processor from the Rocket Lake architecture, built on Intel’s 14 nm process. It has a base clock of 2.60 GHz and a boost clock of 4.40 GHz, with a 65 W TDP. The CPU features 12 MB of shared L3 cache, 512 KB of L2 per core, and 80 KB of L1 per core. Its memory support is DDR4 on a dual-channel bus, with a bandwidth of 51.2 GB/s. In terms of raw compute, the CPU has a 3DMark max threads score of 5652, a single-thread score of 868, and a 2-thread score of 1691, which shows moderate scaling from 2 to 12 threads. The Cinebench R23 multicore score is 14340, and the single-core score is 2024, while Geekbench reports 7737 multicore and 1777 single-core.

In Road 96, the CPU’s role is to feed the GPU with draw calls, physics, and game logic, but the measured FPS data shows that it is not the bottleneck. At 1080p Low, the 94 FPS average is far above the 60 FPS at 1440p Low, which means the CPU is capable of producing frame rates well above what the GPU can render at higher resolutions. The CPU’s high single-thread performance (3DMark single-thread score of 868, Passmark single-thread score of 2981) is sufficient for an adventure game like Road 96, which is not typically multi-threaded to the extreme. The 6-core, 12-thread configuration ensures that background tasks and game engine threads have enough resources, but the game’s performance is entirely dictated by the GPU.

The CPU’s nearest rivals, such as the Intel Core i5-12450H and AMD Ryzen 3 PRO 8300G, show that the i5-11400F is competitive with newer parts in synthetic benchmarks, but this does not translate to higher FPS in Road 96 because the GPU is the limiting factor. The CPU’s launch MSRP is $157, which positions it as a mid-range part, but its age (released in March 2021) and end-of-life production status mean it is now a budget option. For this specific game, the data suggests that a user could pair this CPU with a much stronger GPU and see significant FPS improvements, as the CPU’s 71st percentile ranking among all CPUs is far higher than the GPU’s 9th percentile. The CPU is not the star of this combo, but it is also not the reason for the poor performance; that responsibility lies squarely with the Intel Arc B390’s low compute throughput and shared memory architecture.