The Long Drive

# How This Combo Ranks

The Intel Core Ultra 5 245 paired with the Intel Arc B390 lands at rank 2594 out of 2934 tested combos in The Long Drive. That places this configuration in the bottom 12% of all tested systems, a position that reflects the GPU's severe limitations rather than any fault of the processor. The Arc B390 sits at the 9th percentile among all GPUs in the database, with an average benchmark score of 1482 in 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12. Its nearest rivals in that test are the NVIDIA GeForce GT 520MX (1463, 1.3% ahead), the NVIDIA GeForce 800M (1460, 1.5% ahead), the NVIDIA GeForce GT 625 OEM (1446, 2.5% ahead), and the NVIDIA GeForce GT 710 (1443, 2.7% ahead). These are all entry-level or legacy parts, and the Arc B390's margin over them is razor-thin—between 1.3% and 2.7%—indicating that this integrated GPU performs at a tier that struggles with modern gaming workloads.

The CPU, by contrast, is a strong performer. The Intel Core Ultra 5 245 sits at the 90th percentile among all CPUs, with an average benchmark score of 48995. Its nearest rivals include the AMD Ryzen 7 PRO 5755G (49196, 0.4% ahead), the AMD Ryzen 9 7900 (49228, 0.5% ahead), the Intel Xeon Gold 5318H (48698, 0.6% behind), and the Intel Core i5-14600K (48618, 0.8% behind). The deltas here are tiny—under 1% in every case—meaning the Core Ultra 5 245 is effectively neck-and-neck with a broad range of desktop and workstation chips. In multi-threaded workloads, the Cinebench R23 score of 32924 shows substantial capability, while the single-core score of 4648 indicates strong per-thread performance. This is a processor that can feed a discrete GPU without bottlenecking, but in this combo, it is paired with an integrated solution that cannot translate that CPU headroom into frame rate.

The ranking disparity between the two components tells the story: the CPU is near the top of the heap, while the GPU is near the bottom. In The Long Drive, a driving simulation where rendering load scales with resolution and detail, the combo rank of 2594 out of 2934 reflects the GPU's inability to keep pace with even modest settings at higher resolutions. The data shows a system where the processor is overqualified for the graphics workload it is being asked to handle, and the result is a bottleneck that manifests as low frame rates across most tested configurations.

GPU Role

The Intel Arc B390 is an integrated graphics processor based on the Xe3-LPG architecture, built on Intel's 3 nm process node. It operates with a base clock of 300 MHz and a boost clock of 2500 MHz, and it draws up to 80 W of power. The GPU features 1536 shading units, 48 texture mapping units, 24 raster output units, and 12 ray tracing cores. Its pixel rate is 60.00 GPixel/s, and its texture rate is 120.0 GTexel/s. Floating point performance is rated at 7.680 TFLOPS for FP32 and 15.36 TFLOPS for FP16 (at 2:1 ratio).

The critical limitation here is memory. The Arc B390 uses system-shared memory, with no dedicated VRAM of its own. Memory type, bus width, and bandwidth are all listed as "System Shared" or "System Dependent," meaning the GPU borrows from the CPU's DDR5 memory pool. The Core Ultra 5 245 supports dual-channel DDR5 with a memory bandwidth of 102.4 GB/s, but that bandwidth is shared between the CPU and GPU. In gaming, this shared memory arrangement often leads to contention, especially at higher resolutions where the GPU needs more data per frame. The benchmark data reflects this: at 4K Ultra, the combo manages just 12 FPS, a figure that suggests the memory subsystem is overwhelmed by the demands of rendering at that resolution with maximum detail.

The GPU's API support includes DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4, so it is feature-complete on the software side. However, feature support does not translate into performance when the underlying hardware is this limited. The 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 score of 1482 places it at the 9th percentile, and its nearest rivals are all legacy NVIDIA parts from over a decade ago. The Arc B390's boost clock of 2500 MHz is respectable for an integrated solution, but with only 24 ROPs and 48 TMUs, the fill rate and texture throughput are simply too low for demanding driving simulations like The Long Drive.

In practical terms, the GPU role in this combo is to provide a baseline level of playability at low settings and lower resolutions. The data shows that at 1080p Low, the system achieves 95 FPS, which is smooth. But as resolution and settings increase, the GPU becomes the limiting factor almost immediately. The integrated nature of the Arc B390 means it shares power and thermal budget with the CPU, and its performance is tied to the system's memory configuration. There is no dedicated VRAM to fall back on, so every frame rendered must compete with CPU workloads for memory access.

FAQ

Q: How does the Intel Core Ultra 5 245 compare to its nearest CPU rivals in overall benchmark scores?

A: The Core Ultra 5 245 has an average benchmark score of 48995, placing it at the 90th percentile among all CPUs. It trails the AMD Ryzen 7 PRO 5755G by 0.4% (49196) and the AMD Ryzen 9 7900 by 0.5% (49228), while leading the Intel Xeon Gold 5318H by 0.6% (48698) and the Intel Core i5-14600K by 0.8% (48618). All deltas are under 1%, indicating near-identical overall performance.

Q: What is the Arc B390's performance standing relative to other GPUs?

A: The Arc B390 ranks at the 9th percentile among all GPUs, with a 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 score of 1482. Its nearest rival, the NVIDIA GeForce GT 520MX, scores 1463 (1.3% behind), while the GeForce 800M scores 1460 (1.5% behind), the GeForce GT 625 OEM scores 1446 (2.5% behind), and the GeForce GT 710 scores 1443 (2.7% behind). The GPU is competitive only with legacy entry-level parts.

Q: How does the combo rank within The Long Drive's tested systems?

A: This CPU-GPU combination ranks 2594 out of 2934 tested combos in The Long Drive. This places it in the bottom 12% of all tested configurations, a position driven primarily by the GPU's limited rendering capability rather than CPU performance.

Q: What frame rates can be expected at 1080p across different settings?

A: At 1920x1080, the measured average FPS ranges from 95 at Low settings to 34 at Ultra settings. Medium settings deliver 78 FPS, and High settings deliver 49 FPS. The Medium preset shows a minimum of 66 FPS and a maximum of 90 FPS, indicating playable performance at that setting.

Q: Does the Arc B390 have dedicated video memory?

A: No. The Arc B390 uses system-shared memory, with its memory size, type, and bus width all listed as "System Shared." Memory bandwidth is "System Dependent," meaning it relies on the host CPU's DDR5 memory subsystem, which in this case is dual-channel with 102.4 GB/s bandwidth.

Q: What is the CPU's multi-threaded performance in Cinebench R23?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 5 245 scores 32924 in Cinebench R23 multicore and 4648 in single-core. These scores reflect a 14-core, 14-thread processor with a base clock of 3.50 GHz and a boost clock of 5.10 GHz, built on the Arrow Lake architecture.

Measured FPS Breakdown

The measured FPS data covers three resolutions and four settings presets. At 1920x1080, the system delivers its best performance. Low settings produce an average of 95 FPS, which is the highest figure recorded across all tested configurations. Medium settings drop to 78 FPS, with a minimum of 66 FPS and a maximum of 90 FPS. High settings yield 49 FPS, and Ultra settings fall to 34 FPS. The spread from Low to Ultra at 1080p is 61 FPS, showing a steep performance penalty for higher detail levels.

Moving to 2560x1440, the frame rates decline noticeably. Low settings average 63 FPS, which is still playable but represents a 33.7% drop from the 1080p Low result. Medium settings average 51 FPS, with a minimum of 44 FPS and a maximum of 59 FPS. High settings produce 32 FPS, and Ultra settings drop to 22 FPS. The gap between Low and Ultra at 1440p is 41 FPS, narrower than at 1080p because the GPU is already struggling to maintain higher frame rates.

At 3840x2160, the system's limitations become stark. Low settings average 35 FPS, which is below the 60 FPS threshold typically considered smooth. Medium settings average 29 FPS, with a minimum of 24 FPS and a maximum of 33 FPS. High settings drop to 18 FPS, and Ultra settings fall to 12 FPS. The range from Low to Ultra at 4K is just 23 FPS, indicating that even the lowest settings cannot compensate for the resolution's rendering demands.

The Medium preset is the only one that reports both minimum and maximum FPS values across all three resolutions. At 1080p, the range is 66 to 90 FPS; at 1440p, it is 44 to 59 FPS; and at 4K, it is 24 to 33 FPS. These ranges show consistent frame pacing, with no dramatic spikes or drops, but the overall level declines sharply with resolution.

Resolution Scaling

The frame rate scaling from 1080p to 4K reveals the GPU's critical role as the limiting component. At Low settings, the system drops from 95 FPS at 1080p to 63 FPS at 1440p, a 33.7% reduction, and then to 35 FPS at 4K, a further 44.4% reduction from the 1440p figure. The total drop from 1080p to 4K at Low settings is 63.2%. This pattern is consistent with a GPU that is overwhelmed by pixel count rather than a CPU bottleneck, since the CPU would show less degradation as resolution increases.

At Medium settings, the progression is 78 FPS at 1080p, 51 FPS at 1440p, and 29 FPS at 4K. The drop from 1080p to 1440p is 34.6%, and from 1440p to 4K is 43.1%. The total reduction from 1080p to 4K is 62.8%. High settings show 49 FPS at 1080p, 32 FPS at 1440p, and 18 FPS at 4K, with drops of 34.7% and 43.8% respectively, totaling 63.3% from 1080p to 4K.

Ultra settings follow the same trend: 34 FPS at 1080p, 22 FPS at 1440p, and 12 FPS at 4K. The drop from 1080p to 1440p is 35.3%, and from 1440p to 4K is 45.5%, with a total reduction of 64.7% from 1080p to 4K. The consistency of these percentage drops across all settings presets—ranging from 62.8% to 64.7%—indicates that resolution scaling is uniform regardless of detail level. This uniformity suggests the GPU is the bottleneck at every setting, because if the CPU were limiting, the percentage drops would compress at higher resolutions where the CPU has more time per frame.

The fact that frame rates at 4K Ultra are 12 FPS and at 4K High are 18 FPS indicates that the GPU cannot handle the pixel throughput required at 2160p, regardless of settings. Even at 4K Low, the system only achieves 35 FPS, which is below playable thresholds for most users. The data strongly suggests that the Arc B390's system-shared memory arrangement and limited ROP count (24) are the primary constraints, as the fill rate of 60.00 GPixel/s is insufficient for 4K rendering at acceptable frame rates.

Settings Recommendations

The measured data provides clear guidance for users of this combo. For a playable experience, the Low preset is the only setting that delivers consistently smooth frame rates across all resolutions. At 1080p Low, the system averages 95 FPS, which is excellent. At 1440p Low, it drops to 63 FPS, which remains playable for most users. Even at 4K Low, the 35 FPS average is marginally above the threshold often cited as minimum for playability, though it may feel stuttery in fast-paced driving sections.

The Medium preset offers a compromise between visual quality and performance. At 1080p, the 78 FPS average with a minimum of 66 FPS is well within smooth territory. At 1440p, the 51 FPS average with a minimum of 44 FPS is acceptable, though it may dip noticeably in complex scenes. At 4K, the 29 FPS average with a minimum of 24 FPS is below the smooth threshold, so Medium at 4K is not recommended.

High and Ultra settings are only viable at 1080p, and even then, the frame rates are marginal. High at 1080p produces 49 FPS, which is playable but not smooth by modern standards. Ultra at 1080p drops to 34 FPS, which is at the edge of playability. At 1440p and above, High and Ultra produce frame rates below 32 FPS, making them unsuitable for a driving simulation where smooth motion is essential.

For the best balance of visual fidelity and performance, the Medium preset at 1080p is the recommended configuration. It delivers 78 FPS average with a 66 FPS minimum, which provides headroom for occasional dips without falling into unplayable territory. Users with higher refresh rate displays may prefer Low at 1080p for the 95 FPS average, while those prioritizing visuals over smoothness could consider High at 1080p, though the 49 FPS average is a noticeable compromise.

At 1440p, the only recommended setting is Low, which produces 63 FPS. Medium at 1440p is borderline at 51 FPS, and users willing to accept occasional stutter may find it acceptable. At 4K, no setting provides a truly smooth experience, but Low at 35 FPS is the most playable option. The data shows that this combo is best suited for 1080p gaming, with 1440p possible only at the lowest settings and 4K reserved for users who prioritize resolution over frame rate.