Road 96

# Road 96 CPU/GPU Performance Analysis

CPU Role — cores, clocks, and how they relate to this game's results

The Intel Core i5-12400 is a 6-core, 12-thread desktop processor from Intel's Core 12th Gen series, built on the Alder Lake-S architecture using a 10 nm process. It operates with a base clock of 2.50 GHz and a boost clock of 4.40 GHz, drawing a 65 W TDP. The processor features 80 KB of L1 cache per core, 1.25 MB of L2 cache per core, and 18 MB of shared L3 cache. This configuration places the i5-12400 in the 72nd percentile among all CPUs tested in the database, with an average benchmark score of 18683.

In the context of Road 96, an adventure game that is not typically demanding on CPU resources, the i5-12400's specifications are more than sufficient for the game's logic, AI, and scene management. The processor's multi-threaded capabilities are evidenced by its Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 15989, while its single-core performance reaches 2257 in the same test. These scores indicate strong performance across both lightly-threaded and heavily-threaded workloads, which matters for maintaining consistent frame pacing in a game that mixes exploration with narrative-driven sequences.

The i5-12400's nearest rivals in the CPU benchmark database include the AMD EPYC 7643, which scores 18697 (a -0.1% delta), the Intel Core i7-1355U at 18730 (-0.3%), the AMD Ryzen AI 5 330 at 18811 (-0.7%), and the Intel Core i3-14100F at 18519 (+0.9%). These deltas are all within 1% of the i5-12400's average score, meaning that the processor sits in a tightly contested performance band. For Road 96, the CPU is unlikely to be the primary bottleneck at most settings, as even the lower-tier i3-14100F, which trails by just 0.9%, would handle the game's CPU demands without issue.

The processor's boost clock of 4.40 GHz is particularly relevant for adventure games where draw calls and scene transitions can create brief single-thread spikes. The single-thread benchmark scores — 910 in 3DMark, 947 in Cinebench R20, and 3456 in PassMark — demonstrate that the i5-12400 provides responsive single-core performance. This translates to smooth gameplay in Road 96's more CPU-bound moments, such as loading new areas or handling multiple NPC interactions simultaneously.

GPU Role — VRAM, clocks, and how they relate to this game's results

The Intel Arc B370 is an integrated graphics processor built on the Xe3-LPG architecture, manufactured on a 3 nm process by Intel. It features 1280 shading units, 40 texture mapping units, and 20 raster output units, along with 10 ray tracing cores. The GPU operates at a base clock of 300 MHz and a boost clock of 2400 MHz, with a thermal design power of just 25 W. Its memory configuration is entirely system-shared, meaning the GPU draws from the host system's RAM rather than having dedicated VRAM.

This integrated GPU's performance profile places it in the 5th percentile among all GPUs in the database, with an average benchmark score of 1184 based on the 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 test. Its nearest rivals include the ATI Mobility Radeon HD 5570 (scoring 1186, -0.2% delta), the ATI Radeon HD 5770 (1190, -0.5%), the AMD Radeon HD 7650M (1192, -0.7%), and the AMD FirePro M2000 (1168, +1.4%). These comparisons show the Arc B370 performing at a level similar to decade-old discrete graphics solutions, which contextualizes its modest frame rates in Road 96.

For Road 96, the GPU's role is critical because the game, while not graphically intensive by modern standards, still requires adequate pixel throughput and fill rates. The Arc B370's pixel rate of 48.00 GPixel/s and texture rate of 96.00 GTexel/s provide a baseline for how many pixels and texels the GPU can process per second. Its FP32 performance of 6.144 TFLOPS determines the raw compute available for shader workloads. These specifications, combined with system-shared memory bandwidth that is dependent on the host platform, explain why the GPU struggles at higher resolutions and settings.

The system-shared memory architecture is particularly relevant for Road 96, as the game's textures and geometry must be accessed through the same memory bus as the CPU. This creates a potential bottleneck when memory bandwidth is constrained, especially at 4K resolution where the GPU must fetch significantly more data per frame. The boost clock of 2400 MHz helps mitigate some of these limitations by keeping the execution units fed at a high rate, but the integrated nature of the GPU ultimately caps its performance ceiling.

How This Combo Ranks

The combination of the Intel Core i5-12400 with the Intel Arc B370 ranks 2680 out of 2903 tested combos in Road 96. This places the pairing in the bottom 8% of all tested configurations, indicating that while the CPU is capable, the GPU severely limits overall gaming performance. The data shows that the combo outperforms only 223 of the 2903 tested combinations, which is consistent with the Arc B370's 5th percentile standing among all GPUs.

To contextualize this rank, consider that the i5-12400 alone sits in the 72nd percentile among CPUs, demonstrating strong processing capability. However, the GPU's 5th percentile performance drags the entire combo down. This mismatch between CPU and GPU capability is a classic example of GPU-bound system behavior, where the processor's potential is left largely untapped because the graphics subsystem cannot keep pace.

In practical terms, this rank means that most other CPU-GPU pairings in the database deliver higher frame rates in Road 96. The combo's position at 2680 out of 2903 suggests that users would need to significantly lower graphical settings or resolution to achieve playable performance, and even then, the experience may fall short of what higher-ranked combinations offer. The data confirms that this pairing is suited for very light gaming scenarios or non-gaming workloads rather than a smooth Road 96 experience.

Measured FPS Breakdown

The measured FPS data for Road 96 with this combo covers three resolutions (1920x1080, 2560x1440, and 3840x2160) across four settings presets (Low, Medium, High, and Ultra). The results reveal a consistent pattern of performance degradation as resolution and settings increase.

At 1920x1080, the combo achieves its best results. The Low preset delivers an average of 85 FPS, which is the highest frame rate recorded in any configuration. The Medium preset drops to 62 FPS average, with minimum and maximum values of 53 and 72 FPS respectively. High settings yield 50 FPS average, while Ultra settings produce 39 FPS average. These numbers indicate that 1080p is playable across all settings, though Ultra dips below the 60 FPS threshold that many players consider ideal.

Moving to 2560x1440, performance drops notably. Low settings average 54 FPS, Medium averages 40 FPS (with min/max of 34/46), High averages 32 FPS, and Ultra averages 25 FPS. At this resolution, only the Low preset maintains a frame rate above 50 FPS, while Ultra falls below 30 FPS, creating a stuttery experience. The Medium preset's minimum of 34 FPS indicates occasional dips that could be noticeable during fast-paced scenes.

At 3840x2160, the results are substantially lower. Low settings average 29 FPS, Medium averages 21 FPS (with min/max of 18/24), High averages 17 FPS, and Ultra averages 13 FPS. None of these frame rates approach playable levels for a smooth experience, and the Ultra preset's 13 FPS average is barely above a slideshow. The minimum FPS of 18 at Medium settings further confirms that 4K is not viable with this combo.

The data also shows that the gap between Low and Ultra settings widens as resolution increases. At 1080p, the difference between Low (85 FPS) and Ultra (39 FPS) is 46 FPS. At 1440p, this gap narrows to 29 FPS (54 vs 25), and at 4K it further narrows to 16 FPS (29 vs 13). This pattern indicates that resolution scaling has a more significant impact on performance than settings changes at higher resolutions, likely due to the GPU's limited fill rate and memory bandwidth.

FAQ

Q: What is the highest playable frame rate achievable with this combo?

A: The highest average FPS recorded is 85 at 1920x1080 with Low settings. The only other configuration exceeding 60 FPS is 1080p Medium at 62 FPS average.

Q: Is 4K gaming possible with the Intel Core i5-12400 and Intel Arc B370?

A: No. At 3840x2160, even the Low preset only achieves 29 FPS average, while Ultra drops to 13 FPS. None of the 4K configurations reach playable frame rates.

Q: How does the i5-12400 compare to its nearest CPU rivals?

A: The i5-12400's average benchmark score of 18683 is within 1% of the AMD EPYC 7643 (18697, -0.1%), Intel Core i7-1355U (18730, -0.3%), AMD Ryzen AI 5 330 (18811, -0.7%), and Intel Core i3-14100F (18519, +0.9%).

Q: What is the best resolution-to-settings combination for smooth gameplay?

A: Based on the measured data, 1920x1080 with Medium settings provides 62 FPS average, which is the highest frame rate above 60 FPS with non-Low settings. This offers a good balance between visual quality and performance.

Q: How does the Arc B370's performance compare to its nearest GPU rivals?

A: The Arc B370 scores 1184 in 3DMark Steel Nomad, which is nearly identical to the ATI Mobility Radeon HD 5570 (1186, -0.2%), ATI Radeon HD 5770 (1190, -0.5%), AMD Radeon HD 7650M (1192, -0.7%), and AMD FirePro M2000 (1168, +1.4%).

Q: Does the CPU or GPU limit performance more in this game?

A: The data indicates the GPU is the primary limiter. The i5-12400 ranks in the 72nd percentile among CPUs, while the Arc B370 sits in the 5th percentile among GPUs. The combo's rank of 2680 out of 2903 reflects this GPU bottleneck.

Settings Recommendations

Based on the measured FPS data, the optimal settings depend on the user's target frame rate and resolution. For players seeking the smoothest experience, 1920x1080 with Low settings delivers 85 FPS average, which provides ample headroom above the 60 FPS standard. However, Low settings sacrifice visual fidelity, which may detract from Road 96's stylized presentation.

The best balance of visual quality and performance appears at 1920x1080 with Medium settings, yielding 62 FPS average with a minimum of 53 FPS. This configuration stays above 60 FPS on average while offering improved textures and effects over Low. The minimum FPS of 53 indicates occasional dips but nothing severe enough to disrupt gameplay significantly.

For those who prioritize visual quality over frame rate, 1920x1080 with High settings provides 50 FPS average, which remains playable for an adventure game where twitch reactions are less critical. Ultra settings at 1080p drop to 39 FPS, which is below the threshold for smooth motion but may be acceptable for screenshot purposes or slower-paced sections.

At 2560x1440, only Low settings (54 FPS average) approach playable frame rates. Medium at this resolution averages 40 FPS, which is borderline, while High (32 FPS) and Ultra (25 FPS) are too low for comfortable gameplay. The data suggests that 1440p users should stick to Low settings if they want a responsive experience.

At 3840x2160, no settings preset achieves a playable frame rate. The best result is 29 FPS at Low, which is insufficient for smooth gameplay. Users with 4K displays should consider lowering the resolution to 1080p or 1440p rather than compromising settings further.

Resolution Scaling

The FPS data shows a clear pattern of performance degradation as resolution increases from 1920x1080 to 3840x2160. At Low settings, the average FPS drops from 85 at 1080p to 54 at 1440p (a 36% decrease) and then to 29 at 4K (a 66% decrease from 1080p). This scaling behavior indicates that the GPU's fill rate and memory bandwidth are significant limiting factors.

At Medium settings, the progression is 62 FPS at 1080p, 40 FPS at 1440p, and 21 FPS at 4K. The drop from 1080p to 1440p is 22 FPS (35%), while the drop from 1440p to 4K is 19 FPS (48%). The percentage decrease from 1080p to 4K is 66%, which is slightly less than the 66% observed at Low settings, suggesting that Medium settings are more heavily influenced by other GPU constraints.

High settings show a similar pattern: 50 FPS at 1080p, 32 FPS at 1440p, and 17 FPS at 4K. This represents a 36% drop from 1080p to 1440p and a 47% drop from 1440p to 4K, totaling a 66% reduction from 1080p to 4K. Ultra settings follow the same trend: 39 FPS at 1080p, 25 FPS at 1440p, and 13 FPS at 4K, with a 36% drop and then a 48% drop.

The consistency of these percentage drops across settings presets is notable. Regardless of whether the game runs at Low or Ultra, the resolution scaling penalty remains roughly the same in relative terms. This suggests that the limiting component — the Arc B370's integrated GPU — is constrained by fundamental architectural limits such as pixel throughput and memory bandwidth rather than by specific settings-dependent features.

The interpretation of this scaling data points to the GPU as the dominant bottleneck. The i5-12400's strong CPU performance would allow it to feed frames at much higher rates if the GPU could keep up. The fact that FPS scales so steeply with resolution indicates that the GPU's 48.00 GPixel/s pixel rate is the primary constraint, as higher resolutions require proportionally more pixel processing. For users of this combo, the data recommends staying at 1080p to maximize playability, as the GPU's architectural limits make higher resolutions increasingly prohibitive.