Road 96

# FAQ

Q: What is the overall performance rank of this CPU and GPU combination in Road 96?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 9 290K Plus paired with the Intel Arc B370 ranks 2680th out of 2903 tested combos in Road 96. This places it in the lower percentile of all tested configurations, indicating that while the CPU is exceptionally powerful, the GPU severely limits the overall experience.

Q: How does the Intel Arc B370 compare to its closest rivals in synthetic benchmarks?

A: The Arc B370's only recorded benchmark, 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12, scores 1184 points. This is nearly identical to the ATI Mobility Radeon HD 5570 (1186 points, 0.2% faster), the ATI Radeon HD 5770 (1190 points, 0.5% faster), and the AMD Radeon HD 7650M (1192 points, 0.7% faster). The AMD FirePro M2000 trails at 1168 points, which is 1.4% slower.

Q: What is the best playable setting at 1080p based on measured data?

A: At 1920x1080, the Low preset delivers 85 FPS average, which is the highest measured. Medium follows at 62 FPS, High at 50 FPS, and Ultra drops to 39 FPS. For smooth gameplay, Low offers the largest margin above typical 60 FPS thresholds.

Q: How much faster is the Intel Core Ultra 9 290K Plus compared to its nearest CPU rival?

A: The 290K Plus has an average benchmark score of 84,003, which is only 0.2% higher than the Intel Core Ultra 9 285K's 83,807. It also edges out the AMD EPYC 4584PX (83,090, 1.1% slower) and the AMD EPYC 9135 (82,980, 1.2% slower), while trailing the AMD EPYC 7F72 (85,072, 1.3% faster).

Q: Does the Arc B370 have dedicated VRAM, and how does that affect performance?

A: No, the Arc B370 uses System Shared memory across all aspects — memory size, type, bus width, and bandwidth are all labeled "System Shared" or "System Dependent." This means the GPU relies on the host system's DDR5 memory, which introduces latency and bandwidth constraints compared to dedicated VRAM, likely contributing to low frame rates.

Q: What is the FPS drop from 1080p Low to 4K Low?

A: At Low settings, the average FPS drops from 85 at 1920x1080 to 54 at 2560x1440, and further to 29 at 3840x2160. This represents a 65.9% reduction from 1080p to 4K, indicating a severe GPU-bound scenario at higher resolutions.

# GPU Role

The Intel Arc B370 is a 25 W integrated graphics solution based on the Xe3-LPG architecture, fabricated on Intel's 3 nm process. Its base clock runs at 300 MHz, boosting up to 2400 MHz, with 1280 shading units, 40 texture mapping units, and 20 raster output units. The GPU also includes 10 ray tracing cores and supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4.

The most critical limitation is memory: the Arc B370 has no dedicated VRAM. Instead, it uses System Shared memory, with bandwidth described as "System Dependent." This means performance scales with the host platform's memory subsystem, but for this integrated part, the practical ceiling is low. The GPU's pixel rate is 48.00 GPixel/s and texture rate is 96.00 GTexel/s, with FP32 performance at 6.144 TFLOPS. These figures are modest, and the GPU's percentile ranking among all GPUs is just 5th, placing it below nearly all discrete solutions.

In Road 96, the GPU's role is dominant in limiting frame rates. At 1080p Low, the combo achieves 85 FPS, which is playable. However, as resolution increases, the lack of dedicated memory bandwidth becomes evident. The measured data shows that even at 1080p Ultra, the average FPS drops to 39, which is below the 60 FPS threshold. At 4K, all settings yield averages between 13 and 29 FPS, rendering the game effectively unplayable at higher resolutions.

The GPU's nearest rivals in synthetic benchmarks — the ATI Mobility Radeon HD 5570 and ATI Radeon HD 5770 — are both over a decade old, confirming that this integrated solution performs at a legacy discrete level. Despite supporting modern APIs, the Arc B370's raw throughput is insufficient for demanding workloads. The 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 score of 1184 is a single data point, but it aligns with the in-game FPS results, which consistently show sub-60 performance at any resolution above 1080p.

# Settings Recommendations

Based on the measured FPS data, the Low preset is the only setting that provides a comfortable frame rate at 1080p, with an average of 85 FPS. Medium follows at 62 FPS, which is still acceptable for most players, but it carries a 27% performance penalty compared to Low. High drops to 50 FPS, and Ultra falls to 39 FPS.

At 1440p, the situation becomes more constrained. Low yields 54 FPS, which is borderline playable, but Medium drops to 40 FPS, High to 32 FPS, and Ultra to 25 FPS. Given that the game is an adventure title, where pacing and narrative matter more than twitch reflexes, 40 FPS at Medium might be tolerable, but Low is the safer recommendation.

At 4K, no preset achieves a playable frame rate. Low averages 29 FPS, Medium 21 FPS, High 17 FPS, and Ultra 13 FPS. These figures are all below 30 FPS, which is generally considered the minimum for playability. The data suggests that 4K should be avoided entirely on this combo.

The best experience per the measured rows is 1080p Low, which offers the highest average FPS (85) and avoids any dips below 60 FPS. For players prioritizing visual fidelity, 1080p Medium at 62 FPS is the maximum setting that stays above 60 FPS. At 1440p, Low is the only preset that remains above 50 FPS, but it still falls short of 60. The minimum FPS data points at Medium (53 FPS at 1080p, 34 FPS at 1440p, 18 FPS at 4K) indicate that even the "stable" settings have noticeable drops.

The recommendation is clear: 1080p Low for smooth gameplay, with 1080p Medium as a visual upgrade for those willing to accept occasional dips. Higher resolutions are not viable.

# How This Combo Ranks

The Intel Core Ultra 9 290K Plus + Intel Arc B370 combination ranks 2680th out of 2903 tested combos in Road 96, placing it in the bottom 8% of all configurations. This is a stark result given the CPU's pedigree. The 290K Plus is a 24-core, 24-thread processor based on Arrow Lake Refresh, with a boost clock of 5.80 GHz. Its average benchmark score of 84,003 places it in the 96th percentile among all CPUs, meaning it outperforms 96% of all processors tested.

The GPU, however, is the bottleneck. The Arc B370's 5th percentile ranking among all GPUs means it performs worse than 95% of graphics solutions. This massive discrepancy between CPU and GPU capability explains the low combo rank. The CPU is a top-tier desktop part, while the GPU is an integrated solution designed for low-power devices.

Looking at the nearest CPU rivals, the 290K Plus is virtually tied with the Core Ultra 9 285K (0.2% faster), which suggests that the CPU's performance is not the limiting factor. The GPU's nearest rivals are all legacy parts from over a decade ago, confirming that the Arc B370 is the weak link.

In Road 96, the combo's rank reflects a system that is severely imbalanced. The CPU could easily drive frame rates much higher if paired with a capable discrete GPU, but the integrated Arc B370 cannot deliver the necessary fill rate or memory bandwidth. The rank of 2680/2903 indicates that most other tested combos, even those with mid-range CPUs and GPUs, outperform this pairing.

This rank also suggests that the 290K Plus is overkill for this GPU. The CPU's multi-threaded scores — 51,731 in Cinebench R23 and 60,860 in Passmark Multithread — are massive, but Road 96 is not a CPU-intensive title at these settings. The GPU saturates well before the CPU can contribute meaningfully.

# CPU Role

The Intel Core Ultra 9 290K Plus is a 24-core, 24-thread processor from the Core Ultra Series 2, based on the Arrow Lake Refresh architecture. It has a base clock of 3.70 GHz and a boost clock of 5.80 GHz, with a TDP of 125 W. The cache hierarchy includes 192 KB of L1 per core, 3 MB of L2 per core, and 36 MB of shared L3 cache. It supports DDR5 memory in a dual-channel configuration, with a theoretical bandwidth of 115.2 GB/s.

In synthetic benchmarks, the 290K Plus excels. Cinebench R23 scores are 51,731 multi-core and 7,303 single-core. Passmark tests show 214,760 in floating point math, 166,194 in integer math, and 60,860 in multithread. Its average benchmark score of 84,003 places it in the 96th percentile of all CPUs, with nearest rivals being the Core Ultra 9 285K (0.2% slower) and various EPYC server parts.

In Road 96, the CPU's role is to feed the GPU with draw calls and game logic. Given the GPU's limitations, the CPU is never the bottleneck. This is evident from the FPS scaling: at 1080p Low, the combo hits 85 FPS, but at 4K Low, it drops to 29 FPS. If the CPU were the limiting factor, the FPS would remain relatively constant across resolutions. Instead, the sharp decline indicates a GPU-bound scenario.

The CPU's high single-thread performance (7,303 in Cinebench R23 single-core) is beneficial for game logic, but Road 96's simple adventure gameplay does not demand heavy multi-threading. The 24 cores are largely idle, and the game likely uses only a few threads. The Passmark data compression score of 698,346 and encryption score of 52,563 are impressive, but irrelevant to gaming performance.

The CPU's 3 nm process node (TSMC foundry) and 17,800 million transistors on a 243 mm² die indicate a modern, efficient design. However, in this combo, the CPU's capabilities are wasted. The measured FPS at 1080p Low (85 FPS) could likely be doubled or tripled with a discrete GPU, as the CPU has ample headroom.

# Measured FPS Breakdown

At 1920x1080, the measured average FPS across settings is as follows:

• Low: 85 FPS
• Medium: 62 FPS (min 53, max 72)
• High: 50 FPS
• Ultra: 39 FPS

At 2560x1440, the averages drop:

• Low: 54 FPS
• Medium: 40 FPS (min 34, max 46)
• High: 32 FPS
• Ultra: 25 FPS

At 3840x2160, the averages fall further:

• Low: 29 FPS
• Medium: 21 FPS (min 18, max 24)
• High: 17 FPS
• Ultra: 13 FPS

The data reveals a clear pattern: each resolution step up reduces FPS by roughly 35-45%. From 1080p Low to 1440p Low, the drop is from 85 to 54 FPS (a 36.5% reduction). From 1440p Low to 4K Low, the drop is from 54 to 29 FPS (a 46.3% reduction). The full 1080p Low to 4K Low transition loses 56 FPS, or 65.9%.

The Medium preset at each resolution shows the variation range: at 1080p, the range is 53-72 FPS (a 19 FPS spread); at 1440p, it's 34-46 FPS (a 12 FPS spread); and at 4K, it's 18-24 FPS (a 6 FPS spread). This narrowing range at higher resolutions suggests that the GPU is consistently saturated, leaving less headroom for variation.

Ultra settings at 1080p (39 FPS) are slower than Low at 1440p (54 FPS), indicating that the GPU struggles more with settings than with resolution. This is typical for a GPU with limited shading units and memory bandwidth. The 20 ROPs and 40 TMUs are insufficient for high-detail rendering, even at lower resolutions.

# Resolution Scaling

The FPS drop from 1080p to 4K is dramatic and reveals a GPU-bound system. At Low settings, the scaling is: 85 FPS (1080p) → 54 FPS (1440p) → 29 FPS (4K). The pixel count increases by 1.78x from 1080p to 1440p, and by 2.25x from 1440p to 4K. If the GPU were perfectly scaling, we would expect FPS to drop inversely to pixel count. Instead, FPS drops by 36.5% from 1080p to 1440p (where pixel count increases 77.8%), and by 46.3% from 1440p to 4K (where pixel count increases 125%).

This suggests that the GPU is not purely pixel-bound; other bottlenecks, such as memory bandwidth, come into play. The System Shared memory architecture means that as resolution increases, the demand on system memory bandwidth grows, but the integrated GPU cannot access dedicated high-speed VRAM. This explains the disproportionate FPS drops at higher resolutions.

At Medium settings, the same pattern emerges: 62 FPS (1080p) → 40 FPS (1440p) → 21 FPS (4K). The drop from 1440p to 4K is 47.5%, nearly half. At High settings, the drop is 32 → 17 FPS (46.9% reduction). At Ultra, it's 39 → 25 → 13 FPS, with the 1440p to 4K drop being 48%.

The consistent ~46-48% reduction from 1440p to 4K across all settings indicates that the GPU is thoroughly overwhelmed at 4K. The 13-29 FPS range at 4K is unplayable, and even the 25 FPS at 1440p Ultra is marginal.

The limiting component is clearly the GPU. The CPU's performance is constant across resolutions, and its benchmark scores show massive headroom. The Arc B370's 6.144 TFLOPS FP32 performance and 48.00 GPixel/s pixel rate are simply too low for 4K workloads. The data implies that this combo is best suited for 1080p gaming at Low or Medium settings, with 1440p Low being a stretch goal for playability.