The Long Drive

# FAQ

Q: What is the overall performance ranking of the Intel Core i9-14900K with the Intel Arc B370 in The Long Drive?

A: This combination ranks 2700 out of 2934 tested combos in the game, placing it in the bottom 8% of all configurations. The data indicates a severe bottleneck, with the GPU's performance ceiling limiting the experience despite the high-end CPU.

Q: How does the Intel Arc B370 compare to its closest GPU rivals in raw benchmark scores?

A: The Arc B370 scores 1184 in 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12, placing it just 0.2% behind the ATI Mobility Radeon HD 5570 (1186) and 0.5% behind the ATI Radeon HD 5770 (1190). It sits 1.4% ahead of the AMD FirePro M2000 (1168), showing it is in the same performance tier as decade-old discrete GPUs.

Q: What is the best playable settings combination for smooth gameplay?

A: At 1920x1080 with Low settings, the combo achieves 86 average FPS, which is the only configuration in the measured data that exceeds 60 FPS. Medium settings at the same resolution deliver 71 average FPS, which is playable but falls short of the Low preset's headroom.

Q: Does the Intel Core i9-14900K provide enough CPU power for this game?

A: The CPU is not the limiting factor. With 24 cores, 32 threads, and a boost clock of 6.00 GHz, the i9-14900K ranks in the 95th percentile of all CPUs. Its nearest rival, the Intel Core i9-14900KF, scores only 0.3% higher on average, confirming the processor is far more capable than the GPU demands.

Q: How does the Arc B370's integrated design affect performance?

A: The Arc B370 is an IGP (Integrated Graphics Processor) with system-shared memory, meaning its bandwidth and memory size are "System Dependent." Its 25 W TDP and 300 MHz base clock rising to 2400 MHz boost illustrate a power-constrained design that cannot deliver desktop-class frame rates in this driving simulation.

Q: What resolution offers the best balance between visual quality and playability?

A: The 2560x1440 Low preset yields 56 average FPS, which is marginally below the 60 FPS threshold but acceptable for a driving sim. The 1920x1080 Medium preset at 71 average FPS provides better visual fidelity while maintaining playable frame rates, though Low at 1080p remains the only preset to clear 60 FPS comfortably.

# GPU Role

The Intel Arc B370 is the decisive factor in this combo's performance, and the data shows it is severely underpowered for The Long Drive's demands. The GPU's 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 score of 1184 places it in the 5th percentile of all GPUs, with nearest rivals being the ATI Mobility Radeon HD 5570 and ATI Radeon HD 5770 — both are over a decade old. This is not a subtle gap; the Arc B370 is competing with legacy hardware, and the measured FPS results reflect that reality.

The GPU's memory configuration is "System Shared," meaning there is no dedicated VRAM. The bus width and bandwidth are also "System Shared" and "System Dependent," respectively. This architectural choice means the GPU relies on the system's main memory, which introduces latency and bandwidth limitations that are particularly damaging in a driving simulation where texture streaming and draw distances are constant. The 300 MHz base clock is exceedingly low, though the boost clock reaches 2400 MHz — a wide delta that suggests the GPU can ramp up under load but is still constrained by its integrated nature.

The Arc B370's compute specifications further explain the poor frame rates. With 1280 shading units, 40 texture mapping units, and 20 raster output units, the GPU delivers a pixel rate of 48.00 GPixel/s and a texture rate of 96.00 GTexel/s. The FP32 performance is 6.144 TFLOPS, while FP16 reaches 12.29 TFLOPS (2:1). For a game like The Long Drive, which features vast open landscapes and dynamic lighting, these figures translate directly into the measured FPS drops. At 3840x2160 Ultra, the combo manages only 11 average FPS — a slide-show experience. Even at 1920x1080 Ultra, the average is 31 FPS, which is borderline unplayable for a driving sim requiring smooth steering inputs.

The GPU's 10 ray tracing cores and DirectX 12 Ultimate support are technically present, but the raw throughput is insufficient to leverage these features meaningfully. The 25 W TDP is telling — this is a power envelope designed for mobile or entry-level integrated graphics, not for driving a simulation at high resolutions. In practical terms, the GPU's role in this combo is to cap the experience at low-to-medium settings at 1080p, and the measured data confirms that anything beyond that is a compromise.

# Settings Recommendations

The measured FPS data provides a clear hierarchy for settings optimization. At 1920x1080, the Low preset delivers 86 average FPS, which is the only measured configuration that provides comfortable headroom above the 60 FPS standard. Medium at the same resolution yields 71 average FPS with a minimum of 60 and maximum of 81 — this is the sweet spot for visual quality without sacrificing playability. High drops to 44 average FPS, and Ultra falls to 31, both of which are too inconsistent for a driving sim where frame pacing matters.

At 2560x1440, Low produces 56 average FPS, which is close to acceptable but not quite there. Medium at 1440p averages 46 FPS with a range of 40 to 53, and High falls to 29. Ultra at 20 FPS is unplayable. For users with 1440p monitors, the Low preset is the only viable option, and it still falls short of the 60 FPS target.

At 3840x2160, the situation is dire. Low averages 31 FPS, Medium averages 26 FPS with a minimum of 22 and maximum of 30, High averages 16, and Ultra averages 11. None of these are recommendable for actual gameplay. The data suggests that 4K is simply not a target for this GPU in this title.

The recommendation is unambiguous: 1920x1080 Medium is the best experience per the measured rows. It offers 71 average FPS, which is above the playability threshold, with a minimum of 60 FPS ensuring no major drops. The 1080p Low preset at 86 FPS is the safer choice for users who prioritize frame rate stability over visual fidelity, but Medium provides a meaningful upgrade in visual quality for a modest FPS cost of 15 frames. At 1440p, users should accept the Low preset's 56 FPS as the ceiling, and 4K should be avoided entirely.

# Measured FPS Breakdown

The measured FPS data spans three resolutions and four settings presets, providing a comprehensive view of this combo's capabilities.

At 3840x2160, the results are uniformly poor. Low settings average 31 FPS, Medium averages 26 FPS with a minimum of 22 and maximum of 30, High averages 16 FPS, and Ultra averages 11 FPS. The delta between Low and Ultra is 20 FPS, which is a steep drop for a settings change, indicating that the GPU is overwhelmed by the additional shading and texture work at higher presets. The Medium preset's minimum of 22 FPS shows that even mid-range settings produce inconsistent frame delivery, with drops that would cause noticeable stutter in a driving sim.

At 2560x1440, the picture improves but remains constrained. Low settings average 56 FPS, which is just under the 60 FPS target. Medium averages 46 FPS with a minimum of 40 and maximum of 53, High averages 29 FPS, and Ultra averages 20 FPS. The progression from Low to Medium is a 10 FPS drop, while Medium to High is a 17 FPS drop — the latter is a severe cliff that suggests the High preset introduces effects that the GPU cannot handle efficiently. The Medium preset's minimum of 40 FPS is still playable but leaves little headroom.

At 1920x1080, the data shows the only playable configurations. Low averages 86 FPS, Medium averages 71 FPS with a minimum of 60 and maximum of 81, High averages 44 FPS, and Ultra averages 31 FPS. The Low to Medium delta is 15 FPS, which is a reasonable cost for improved visuals. The Medium preset's minimum of 60 FPS is exactly at the playability threshold, making it the highest settings preset that maintains a consistent frame rate. High and Ultra are not recommendable, as their averages fall below the 60 FPS mark and their minimums would likely dip further.

The data pattern across all resolutions shows that the GPU's performance scales poorly with resolution. At Low settings, 1080p averages 86 FPS, 1440p averages 56 FPS (a 35% drop), and 4K averages 31 FPS (a 64% drop from 1080p). This is consistent with a GPU that has limited memory bandwidth and fill rate, as the "System Shared" memory configuration becomes a bottleneck as pixel count increases.

# How This Combo Ranks

The Intel Core i9-14900K and Intel Arc B370 combination ranks 2700 out of 2934 tested combos in The Long Drive. This places it in the bottom 8% of all configurations, a striking result given the CPU's high-end status. The rank is driven almost entirely by the GPU, as the measured FPS data shows the CPU is never the limiting factor — the i9-14900K's 95th percentile CPU ranking versus the Arc B370's 5th percentile GPU ranking tells the story.

The GPU's nearest rivals in benchmark scores are the ATI Mobility Radeon HD 5570 (0.2% ahead), ATI Radeon HD 5770 (0.5% ahead), and AMD Radeon HD 7650M (0.7% ahead). These are legacy parts from an era when integrated graphics were barely capable of desktop productivity, let alone gaming. The Arc B370's 1.4% lead over the AMD FirePro M2000 does little to change the picture — this is a GPU that is competing with hardware from over a decade ago.

The combo's rank of 2700 out of 2934 means there are only 234 tested combinations that perform worse. Given that the measured FPS at 4K Ultra is 11 FPS and even 1080p Ultra is 31 FPS, the low rank is not surprising. The data indicates that this combo is suited only for low-resolution, low-settings gaming, and even then, the experience is marginal.

In the context of the tested combos, the i9-14900K's CPU performance is wasted in this pairing. The CPU's nearest rivals — the i9-14900KF at -0.3%, the Core Ultra 9 290HX Plus at -0.6%, and the EPYC 7413 at -1.2% — all perform nearly identically, with the Ryzen AI Max+ 395 at 1.7% ahead. None of these differences would manifest in The Long Drive, as the GPU caps the frame rate so low that the CPU is never stressed to its limits.

# CPU Role

The Intel Core i9-14900K is a 24-core, 32-thread processor based on the Raptor Lake architecture, manufactured on Intel's 10 nm process. Its base clock is 3.20 GHz, boosting to 6.00 GHz, and it has a 125 W TDP. The cache hierarchy includes 80 KB of L1 per core, 2 MB of L2 per core, and 36 MB of shared L3 cache. This is a desktop-class CPU with a 95th percentile ranking among all CPUs, and its benchmark scores reflect that — Cinebench R23 multi-core hits 39399.5, single-core 2262.5, and Geekbench multi-core reaches 21697.

In The Long Drive, the CPU's role is minimal. The game is a driving simulation that primarily stresses the GPU for rendering large open environments, and the measured FPS data shows that the GPU is the bottleneck at every resolution and settings combination. The i9-14900K's 24 cores and 32 threads are far more than this game requires — even a mid-range CPU would likely deliver identical FPS figures when paired with the Arc B370.

The CPU's single-thread performance, as measured by Cinebench R15 (324.5), R20 (2935), and R23 (2262.5), is strong but irrelevant here. The game's frame rate is dictated by the GPU's 6.144 TFLOPS FP32 throughput and 48.00 GPixel/s pixel rate, not by the CPU's ability to process game logic or physics. The PassMark single-thread score of 4697 and multi-thread score of 58674 further confirm that the CPU is operating far below its potential in this pairing.

The i9-14900K's memory support for DDR4 and DDR5, along with its dual-channel memory bus, could theoretically help the Arc B370's "System Shared" memory configuration, but the data shows no such benefit. The GPU's memory bandwidth is "System Dependent," and the measured FPS at 4K Ultra (11 FPS) suggests that shared memory access is not providing adequate throughput for high-resolution rendering.

The CPU's 36 MB of L3 cache is ample for gaming workloads, but again, this does not translate into higher frame rates when the GPU is the limiting factor. The CPU's nearest rivals — the i9-14900KF, Core Ultra 9 290HX Plus, EPYC 7413, and Ryzen AI Max+ 395 — all show deltaPct values within 1.7% of each other, indicating that CPU choice among high-end parts has negligible impact on this game's performance. The i9-14900K's 6.00 GHz boost clock is a headline feature, but it cannot overcome the GPU's fundamental throughput limitations.