Road 96

# Road 96 Performance Analysis: Intel Core Ultra 5 225 + Intel Arc B390

The Intel Core Ultra 5 225 paired with the Intel Arc B390 integrated graphics presents a fascinating case study in how a modern CPU with strong synthetic benchmarks can be completely bottlenecked by an entry-level GPU in a real-world gaming scenario. The measured frame rates across Road 96 reveal a system that is decisively GPU-limited at every resolution and settings combination, with the Arc B390's 9th percentile ranking among all GPUs proving to be the dominant factor in the experience.

Resolution Scaling

The FPS drop from 1080p to 4K in Road 96 is dramatic and tells a clear story about where the performance ceiling lies. At High settings, the average frame rate falls from 56 FPS at 1920x1080 to 35 FPS at 2560x1440, representing a 37.5% decrease when moving to 1440p. The decline continues to 19 FPS at 3840x2160, which is a further 45.7% drop from the 1440p figure. This scaling pattern—where each resolution step costs roughly 40% of the remaining performance—is characteristic of a system where the GPU is operating at its absolute limits, with no headroom for the resolution increase.

The Low settings row provides an even starker illustration of this bottleneck. At 1080p Low, the system achieves 94 FPS, which is the highest measured result in the entire dataset. However, this falls to 60 FPS at 1440p (a 36.2% reduction) and then to 32 FPS at 4K (a 46.7% reduction). The consistency of these percentage drops across different settings levels suggests that the Arc B390's rendering pipeline is saturated regardless of the graphical workload, and the resolution scaling is purely a function of pixel fill rate limitations.

What makes this particularly interesting is the comparison between the 1080p to 1440p transition versus the 1440p to 4K transition. For High settings, the 1080p to 1440p drop is 21 FPS, while the 1440p to 4K drop is 16 FPS. For Low settings, the corresponding drops are 34 FPS and 28 FPS. The slightly smaller absolute drops at higher resolutions indicate that the GPU is already so constrained that the additional pixel count has diminishing marginal impact—it is not as though the system has spare capacity that gets consumed gradually.

The data implies that this combination is fundamentally unsuited for 4K gaming in Road 96. Even at Low settings, the 32 FPS average at 3840x2160 falls below the threshold generally considered playable for a smooth experience. The Ultra preset at 4K produces just 15 FPS, which is effectively a slideshow. The resolution scaling analysis strongly suggests that users should consider 1080p as the practical ceiling for this hardware pairing, with 1440p viable only at the lowest settings.

Settings Recommendations

Examining the measured rows, the optimal settings for this combination depend heavily on the target resolution and the user's tolerance for frame rate fluctuations. At 1920x1080, the Medium preset delivers 69 FPS average with a minimum of 59 FPS and a maximum of 79 FPS. This is the only settings level at 1080p that provides both a comfortable average frame rate and a minimum that does not dip below 60 FPS. The High preset at 1080p achieves 56 FPS, which is playable but leaves less margin for demanding scenes, and the minimum frame rate was not recorded in the data.

The Low preset at 1080p produces 94 FPS, which is the highest average in the entire dataset. However, the jump from Low to Medium only costs 25 FPS (from 94 to 69), a relatively modest penalty for what is likely a significant visual improvement. The Ultra preset at 1080p drops to 43 FPS, which represents a 37.7% reduction from the Medium setting. Given that Medium provides a better balance of visual quality and performance than either Low or High, it emerges as the recommended preset for 1080p gaming.

At 2560x1440, the situation becomes more constrained. The Low preset achieves 60 FPS exactly, which is the only settings level at this resolution that reaches the 60 FPS mark. Medium drops to 44 FPS (with a minimum of 37 FPS), High falls to 35 FPS, and Ultra bottoms out at 28 FPS. The data suggests that 1440p gaming is only truly viable at Low settings, and even then, the 60 FPS average offers no headroom for frame time spikes. Users prioritizing visual fidelity over frame rate might consider Medium at 1440p, accepting the 44 FPS average as a trade-off.

For 4K, none of the settings provide a playable experience. The best result is 32 FPS at Low, followed by 23 FPS at Medium, 19 FPS at High, and 15 FPS at Ultra. The game is technically running, but the experience would be characterized by significant stutter and input lag. The measured data does not support any settings recommendation at 3840x2160 for this hardware combination.

GPU Role

The Intel Arc B390 is the clear performance limiter in this system, and its specifications explain why. The GPU features 1536 shading units, 48 texture mapping units, and 24 render output units, with a boost clock of 2500 MHz and a base clock of 300 MHz. The pixel rate is listed at 60.00 GPixel/s and the texture rate at 120.0 GTexel/s, with FP32 performance of 7.680 TFLOPS. These figures place it in the 9th percentile of all GPUs according to the benchmark database, with an average benchmark score of 1482.

The nearest rival comparisons are particularly revealing. The Arc B390 sits just 1.3% ahead of the NVIDIA GeForce GT 520MX, which is a GPU from an entirely different era of mobile computing. It is also only 1.5% ahead of the NVIDIA GeForce 800M and 2.5% ahead of the NVIDIA GeForce GT 625 OEM. These deltas of 1.3%, 1.5%, and 2.5% respectively indicate that the Arc B390's performance class is at the absolute entry level of the GPU hierarchy, despite its modern Xe3-LPG architecture and 3 nm process node.

The VRAM situation is another critical factor. The Arc B390 uses "System Shared" memory, meaning it relies on the system's DDR5 RAM rather than dedicated VRAM. The memory bandwidth is listed as "System Dependent," which in this configuration with the Intel Core Ultra 5 225's dual-channel memory bus translates to 102.4 GB/s of available bandwidth. This shared memory architecture means the GPU competes with the CPU for memory access, potentially creating additional latency and bandwidth contention in memory-intensive scenes.

The GPU's 12 ray tracing cores and support for DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4 indicate modern API support, but the raw processing power is insufficient to leverage these features meaningfully in Road 96 at higher resolutions. The 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 score of 1482 confirms the GPU's position at the bottom of the performance spectrum, and the measured game FPS aligns with this assessment.

How This Combo Ranks

The Intel Core Ultra 5 225 + Intel Arc B390 combination ranks 2575 out of 2903 tested combos in Road 96, placing it in the bottom 11.3% of all tested configurations. This ranking reflects the severe GPU bottleneck, as the CPU component of this pairing is far more capable than the GPU. The combo rank of 2575 out of 2903 suggests that the vast majority of tested systems deliver better performance in this game, with only 328 combinations performing worse.

This ranking is particularly notable given the CPU's benchmark credentials. The Intel Core Ultra 5 225 achieves an average benchmark score of 36938, placing it in the 85th percentile of all CPUs. Its nearest rivals include the AMD Ryzen 5 5600F with a delta of 0%, the AMD Ryzen 5 5500X3D at -0.2%, the AMD Ryzen AI 7 PRO 450 at -0.4%, and the Intel Core i9-12900T at -0.5%. These tiny deltas indicate that the CPU is well within the performance envelope of its competition, yet the combo ranking demonstrates that this CPU strength is entirely wasted in this pairing.

The disparity between the CPU's 85th percentile ranking and the GPU's 9th percentile ranking creates an extreme imbalance. The combo rank of 2575 out of 2903 suggests that even systems with significantly weaker CPUs but stronger GPUs would likely outperform this configuration in Road 96. The data implies that the Arc B390 is the sole determinant of gaming performance here, and the CPU's capabilities are irrelevant to the measured frame rates.

CPU Role

The Intel Core Ultra 5 225 features 10 cores and 10 threads, with a base clock of 3.30 GHz and a boost clock of 4.90 GHz. The CPU's cache hierarchy includes 192 KB of L1 cache per core, 3 MB of L2 cache per core, and 20 MB of shared L3 cache. The 65W TDP and Arrow Lake architecture on a 3 nm TSMC process node represent a modern, efficient design. The CPU supports DDR5 memory with a dual-channel bus providing 102.4 GB/s of bandwidth.

The CPU's synthetic benchmarks demonstrate substantial processing power. In Cinebench R23, it scores 25891 in multi-core and 3655 in single-core tests. The PassMark multi-thread score is 30459, with a single-thread score of 4412. These figures place the CPU well above average, with its 85th percentile ranking confirming its position in the upper tier of desktop processors. The nearest rival deltas of 0%, -0.2%, -0.4%, and -0.5% against the Ryzen 5 5600F, Ryzen 5 5500X3D, Ryzen AI 7 PRO 450, and Core i9-12900T respectively show that the Ultra 5 225 is competitive with established mid-range and previous-generation high-end CPUs.

However, in Road 96, the CPU's role is almost entirely passive. The game's performance is bottlenecked by the GPU at every measured configuration, meaning the CPU's 10 cores and 4.90 GHz boost clock are never fully utilized. The fact that the system achieves 94 FPS at 1080p Low suggests that the CPU can feed the GPU with enough data to reach that frame rate, but the GPU cannot render frames any faster regardless of CPU headroom. The CPU's strong single-thread performance of 3655 in Cinebench R23 single-core would typically benefit games that rely on a few fast threads, but this advantage is nullified by the GPU constraint.

The launch MSRP of $246 for the CPU, combined with the integrated Arc B390 GPU, creates an interesting question about the intended use case. The CPU's integrated graphics are clearly not designed for demanding 3D gaming, yet the system can run Road 96 at playable frame rates at 1080p with medium settings. The data shows that the CPU has substantial headroom for more capable discrete GPUs, should a user choose to add one, but as configured, the CPU's potential is largely unrealized in this gaming scenario.

FAQ

Q: What is the best resolution for this system in Road 96?

A: Based on the measured data, 1920x1080 is the only resolution where the system achieves consistently playable frame rates across multiple settings. At 1080p, the system reaches 94 FPS at Low, 69 FPS at Medium, 56 FPS at High, and 43 FPS at Ultra settings.

Q: Can this system handle 4K gaming in Road 96?

A: No, the data shows that 4K performance is severely limited. The best result at 3840x2160 is 32 FPS at Low settings, with Medium at 23 FPS, High at 19 FPS, and Ultra at 15 FPS. None of these frame rates provide a smooth gaming experience.

Q: How does the Intel Arc B390 compare to its nearest GPU rivals?

A: The Arc B390 scores 1482 in 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12, placing it 1.3% ahead of the NVIDIA GeForce GT 520MX, 1.5% ahead of the NVIDIA GeForce 800M, 2.5% ahead of the NVIDIA GeForce GT 625 OEM, and 2.7% ahead of the NVIDIA GeForce GT 710.

Q: What settings preset provides the best experience at 1080p?

A: The Medium preset at 1920x1080 delivers 69 FPS average with a minimum of 59 FPS and a maximum of 79 FPS. This provides the best balance of visual quality and performance, as the Low preset only increases FPS to 94 while the High preset drops to 56 FPS.

Q: Is the CPU or GPU the limiting factor in this system?

A: The GPU is entirely the limiting factor. The Intel Arc B390 ranks in the 9th percentile of all GPUs, while the Intel Core Ultra 5 225 ranks in the 85th percentile of all CPUs. The measured frame rates are consistently low regardless of CPU-intensive workloads, indicating GPU saturation.

Q: How does this combo rank against other tested combinations?

A: This combination ranks 2575 out of 2903 tested combos in Road 96, placing it in the bottom 11.3% of all tested systems. This low ranking is primarily due to the GPU's limited performance despite the CPU's strong benchmark results.

Measured FPS Breakdown

The complete dataset of measured frame rates reveals a consistent pattern of GPU-limited performance across all configurations. At 1920x1080, the system achieves its best results: 94 FPS at Low settings, 69 FPS at Medium (with a minimum of 59 FPS and maximum of 79 FPS), 56 FPS at High, and 43 FPS at Ultra. The progression from Low to Ultra shows a steady decline of 25 FPS from Low to Medium, 13 FPS from Medium to High, and 13 FPS from High to Ultra.

At 2560x1440, performance drops significantly across all settings. The Low preset achieves 60 FPS, which is exactly the threshold for smooth gameplay, but this is the only setting that reaches that level. Medium produces 44 FPS (minimum 37 FPS, maximum 50 FPS), High produces 35 FPS, and Ultra produces 28 FPS. The gap between Low and Medium at 1440p is 16 FPS, while the gap between High and Ultra is 7 FPS, showing a compression of performance differences as the GPU becomes more saturated.

At 3840x2160, the system struggles to maintain playable frame rates at any setting. Low produces 32 FPS, Medium produces 23 FPS (minimum 20 FPS, maximum 27 FPS), High produces 19 FPS, and Ultra produces 15 FPS. The difference between Low and Ultra at 4K is only 17 FPS, compared to 51 FPS at 1080p, demonstrating how the GPU's pixel fill rate limits become the dominant constraint at higher resolutions.

Comparing across resolutions at the same settings, the 1080p to 1440p transition costs 34 FPS at Low, 25 FPS at Medium, 21 FPS at High, and 15 FPS at Ultra. The 1440p to 4K transition costs 28 FPS at Low, 21 FPS at Medium, 16 FPS at High, and 13 FPS at Ultra. The diminishing absolute drops at higher resolutions and settings indicate that the GPU is increasingly unable to process the additional pixels, resulting in a performance curve that flattens as resolution increases.