Road 96

Road 96 is an adventure title from 2021 that, on this hardware pairing of an Intel Core Ultra 5 245 and an NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2060, shows a clear GPU-bound profile at higher resolutions, yet remains surprisingly playable at 1080p. The measured data places this combination at rank 2292 out of 2903 tested combos, indicating that while it is not a top-tier performer for this specific game, it sits comfortably in the mid-upper range of configurations. The RTX 2060, a Turing-architecture card that has been end-of-life for some time, is clearly the limiting factor when pushing beyond Full HD, while the 14-core Arrow Lake processor demonstrates it has ample headroom. The following analysis breaks down exactly how this pairing behaves across the measured settings and resolutions, using only the benchmark rows provided.

Resolution Scaling

The measured FPS data reveals a steep and predictable drop in performance as the resolution increases from 1920x1080 to 3840x2160. At the "Low" preset, the average frame rate falls from 155 FPS at 1080p to 98 FPS at 1440p, a decline of 57 FPS. Pushing further to 4K at "Low" yields just 52 FPS, meaning the transition from 1080p to 4K costs this combination 103 FPS, or roughly two-thirds of its initial performance. This pattern strongly indicates that the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2060 is the primary bottleneck; the 6 GB GDDR6 memory and 336.0 GB/s bandwidth are being saturated as pixel count quadruples from Full HD to Ultra HD.

The scaling from 1440p to 4K is particularly harsh across all settings. At "Medium", the average FPS drops from 72 to 38, a 34 FPS loss. At "High", the drop is from 58 to 31 FPS, a 27 FPS loss. Even at "Low", where the GPU is least stressed, the 4K result of 52 FPS is only 53% of the 1440p result of 98 FPS. This non-linear degradation is typical of a GPU that runs out of shading units and memory bandwidth; the RTX 2060's 1920 shading units and 48 ROPs are simply overwhelmed by the 8.3 million pixels of a 4K frame. The data suggests that 4K gaming is only viable at the lowest preset, and even then, it barely reaches playable territory.

Conversely, the scaling from 1080p to 1440p is much more moderate. At "High", the drop is from 91 to 58 FPS, a 33 FPS reduction. At "Ultra", it falls from 71 to 45 FPS, a 26 FPS loss. This indicates that at 1080p, the CPU is still contributing to overall throughput, but the GPU is already starting to struggle as resolution climbs. The fact that 1440p "High" (58 FPS) is barely above 4K "Low" (52 FPS) highlights how quickly the RTX 2060's performance collapses under resolution pressure. The 3.50 GHz base and 5.10 GHz boost clock of the Core Ultra 5 245 are not the limiting factor here; the data shows a GPU-bound scenario at every resolution above 1080p.

FAQ

Q: What is the best resolution to play Road 96 with this hardware?

A: Based on the measured data, 1920x1080 is the only resolution where all presets achieve an average FPS above 60. At 1440p, only "Low" (98 FPS) and "Medium" (72 FPS) cross that threshold, while 4K only reaches 52 FPS at "Low" and 31 FPS at "High".

Q: How does the RTX 2060 compare to its nearest rivals in general benchmarks?

A: The RTX 2060 has an average benchmark score of 15290, which places it just 0.1% ahead of the AMD Radeon 680M and 0.8% ahead of the AMD Radeon RX 7600. It is essentially tied with the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 580, which shows a 0% delta, and sits 0.6% behind the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3050 OEM.

Q: Is the Intel Core Ultra 5 245 a strong processor relative to other CPUs?

A: The processor holds a percentile rank of 90 against all CPUs, with an average benchmark score of 48995. It performs nearly identically to the AMD Ryzen 7 PRO 5755G, which is only 0.4% faster, and the AMD Ryzen 9 7900, which is 0.5% faster. It is 0.8% faster than the Intel Core i5-14600K.

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

A: Only at the "Low" preset, where it averages 52 FPS. At "Medium" it drops to 38 FPS, at "High" to 31 FPS, and at "Ultra" to 24 FPS. The "Ultra" preset at 4K is effectively unplayable, while "High" and "Medium" are marginal at best.

Q: What is the frame time consistency at 1080p?

A: The only preset with min/max data at 1080p is "Medium", which shows a minimum of 96 FPS and a maximum of 130 FPS, for an average of 113 FPS. This indicates a relatively stable experience, with a 34 FPS spread between minimum and maximum.

Q: How much of a performance gap exists between "Low" and "Ultra" at 1440p?

A: The gap is substantial. "Low" averages 98 FPS, while "Ultra" averages 45 FPS. That is a 53 FPS difference, representing a 54% performance reduction when moving from the lowest to the highest preset at 2560x1440.

Settings Recommendations

For this combination of the Intel Core Ultra 5 245 and the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2060, the "Medium" preset at 1920x1080 offers the best balance of visual fidelity and performance, based strictly on the measured rows. At 1080p, "Medium" delivers an average of 113 FPS with a minimum of 96 FPS and a maximum of 130 FPS. This is comfortably above the 60 FPS threshold and provides a 22 FPS buffer over the "High" preset's 91 FPS average, while still being significantly more demanding visually than "Low". The "Ultra" preset at 1080p drops to 71 FPS, which is playable but leaves less headroom for demanding scenes, and the data shows no min/max values for that setting.

At 2560x1440, the "Medium" preset is again the recommended choice, as it averages 72 FPS with a minimum of 61 FPS. This is the only 1440p setting other than "Low" that maintains an average above 60 FPS, and the minimum of 61 FPS indicates that it rarely dips below playable levels. The "High" preset at 1440p falls to 58 FPS, which is borderline, and "Ultra" drops to 45 FPS, which is too low for smooth gameplay in an adventure title that relies on atmospheric pacing. For 4K, the "Low" preset at 52 FPS is the only viable option, but users should expect occasional stutters given the lack of min/max data and the heavy GPU load.

The data suggests that "Medium" is the sweet spot for this GPU across all resolutions, as it consistently provides the highest frame rates above 60 FPS where possible. At 1080p, the 113 FPS average is 31% higher than "High" and 59% higher than "Ultra", making it the clear winner for smoothness. The 96 FPS minimum at 1080p "Medium" also ensures that even the most complex scenes remain fluid, whereas the "High" preset's lack of min/max data leaves its stability unverified. For users prioritizing frame rate over visual detail, "Low" at 1440p (98 FPS) is a strong alternative, but "Medium" is the best overall compromise between image quality and performance.

Measured FPS Breakdown

At 1920x1080, the data shows a complete progression across all four presets. "Low" achieves the highest average at 155 FPS, followed by "Medium" at 113 FPS with a minimum of 96 FPS and a maximum of 130 FPS. "High" averages 91 FPS, and "Ultra" drops to 71 FPS. The drop from "Low" to "Ultra" is 84 FPS, indicating that the graphical settings have a massive impact on performance at this resolution. The 24 FPS gap between "Medium" and "High" is notable, while the 20 FPS gap between "High" and "Ultra" shows diminishing returns at the top end.

At 2560x1440, the pattern continues but with lower absolute numbers. "Low" averages 98 FPS, "Medium" averages 72 FPS with a minimum of 61 FPS and a maximum of 83 FPS, "High" averages 58 FPS, and "Ultra" averages 45 FPS. The gap between "Low" and "Ultra" is 53 FPS, which is proportionally similar to the 1080p results. The "Medium" preset's minimum of 61 FPS is critical, as it shows that even the lowest recorded frame rate stays above the 60 FPS target at this resolution.

At 3840x2160, performance drops significantly. "Low" averages 52 FPS, "Medium" averages 38 FPS with a minimum of 32 FPS and a maximum of 44 FPS, "High" averages 31 FPS, and "Ultra" averages 24 FPS. The "Medium" preset's minimum of 32 FPS highlights the severe strain on the GPU, as frame times would be highly inconsistent. The delta between "Low" and "Ultra" at 4K is 28 FPS, which is the smallest absolute difference across all resolutions, but the relative impact is similar. No resolution shows a "High" or "Ultra" setting with min/max data, so the stability of those presets remains unmeasured.

GPU Role

The NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2060 is the definitive performance limiter in this configuration for Road 96, as evidenced by the sharp FPS declines at higher resolutions. The GPU's 6 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 192-bit bus provides 336.0 GB/s of bandwidth, but the measured results show this is insufficient for 4K at higher presets. The "Ultra" preset at 4K yields only 24 FPS, which is a direct consequence of the GPU's 1920 shading units and 48 ROPs being unable to process the frame data quickly enough. The 12 nm Turing chip, with a base clock of 1365 MHz and a boost clock of 1680 MHz, reaches its compute ceiling when pixel count increases.

The GPU's general benchmark scores put it in the 58th percentile of all GPUs, with an average score of 15290. Its nearest rival, the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 580, is exactly tied at 0% delta, while the AMD Radeon 680M is 0.1% slower. This places the RTX 2060 in a performance class where 1080p gaming is strong, but 1440p and 4K require significant setting reductions. The 14 Gbps effective memory clock and 80.64 GPixel/s pixel rate are sufficient for 1080p "Ultra" at 71 FPS, but the 24 FPS at 4K "Ultra" shows a clear saturation point. The 6 GB VRAM is also a concern at 4K, as the "Low" preset's 52 FPS average suggests the GPU is swapping or compressing textures to fit within memory limits.

The measured data shows that the RTX 2060 performs admirably at 1080p, where it can handle even "Ultra" settings above 60 FPS. However, the transition to 1440p immediately exposes its limitations, with "High" dropping below 60 FPS. The 201.6 GTexel/s texture rate and 6.451 TFLOPS of FP32 performance are adequate for an adventure game like Road 96, but the architecture is clearly designed for 1080p-class workloads. The GPU's 160 W TDP and dual-slot design are irrelevant to in-game performance, but the benchmark results confirm that this is a last-generation card struggling to maintain playability at modern resolutions.

CPU Role

The Intel Core Ultra 5 245 is far from being a bottleneck in Road 96, as the data shows the GPU is the limiting factor at every resolution above 1080p. The processor's 14 cores and 14 threads, with a base clock of 3.50 GHz and a boost clock of 5.10 GHz, provide ample computational headroom for an adventure game that does not heavily utilize multi-threading. The 24 MB of shared L3 cache and 102.4 GB/s of dual-channel DDR5 memory bandwidth ensure that the CPU can feed the GPU at 1080p, where the "Low" preset achieves 155 FPS. This high frame rate at low settings suggests that the CPU is capable of far more than the GPU can deliver at higher resolutions.

The CPU's benchmark scores reinforce its strength. With a Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 32924 and a single-core score of 4648, the Core Ultra 5 245 sits in the 90th percentile of all CPUs. Its average benchmark score of 48995 is nearly identical to the AMD Ryzen 7 PRO 5755G, which is 0.4% faster, and the AMD Ryzen 9 7900, which is 0.5% faster. The 14-core design, based on the Arrow Lake architecture on a 3 nm process, provides the kind of raw throughput that ensures frame rates in Road 96 are not CPU-limited until the GPU is fully saturated. The 3.50 GHz base clock is low, but the 5.10 GHz boost clock handles single-threaded tasks well, as shown by the 468-point Cinebench R15 single-core score.

The fact that the FPS drops from 155 at 1080p "Low" to 98 at 1440p "Low" is almost entirely due to the GPU, not the CPU. If the processor were the bottleneck, the FPS would remain relatively stable across resolutions. Instead, the steep declines mirror the GPU's workload, confirming that the Core Ultra 5 245 has significant headroom. The 17,800 million transistors and 24 MB of L3 cache are more than sufficient for this game's logic, and the 65 W TDP suggests efficient operation. The data indicates that even at 4K "Ultra" (24 FPS), the CPU is not the constraint; rather, the RTX 2060's 6 GB VRAM and 192-bit bus are the primary limitations.