The Medium

# FAQ

Q: What is the overall ranking of this combo in The Medium?

A: This combo ranks 2681 out of 2911 tested combinations in The Medium. That places it in the bottom portion of the database, reflecting a system that struggles to deliver playable frame rates across most settings and resolutions.

Q: What is the best average FPS this combo can achieve in The Medium?

A: The highest average frame rate recorded is 46 FPS, achieved at 1920x1080 with Low settings. At the same resolution, Medium settings drop to 29 FPS, High to 21 FPS, and Ultra to 16 FPS.

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

A: The Arc B370 scores 1184 in the 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 benchmark. Its closest rival, the ATI Mobility Radeon HD 5570, scores 1186, putting the Arc B370 0.2% behind. The ATI Radeon HD 5770 scores 1190, which is 0.5% higher, while the AMD Radeon HD 7650M scores 1192, 0.7% higher. The AMD FirePro M2000 scores 1168, which is 1.4% lower.

Q: What are the core and clock specifications of the Intel Core Ultra 5 235?

A: The CPU has 14 cores and 14 threads, with a base clock of 3.40 GHz and a boost clock of 5.00 GHz. It features 24 MB of shared L3 cache, with 192 KB of L1 cache per core and 3 MB of L2 cache per core.

Q: Does the Arc B370 have dedicated VRAM?

A: No. The Intel Arc B370 uses System Shared memory, meaning its memory size, type, and bus width are all listed as "System Shared," and bandwidth is "System Dependent." This is a critical factor in The Medium, where frame rates drop sharply as resolution increases.

Q: How does the CPU's multi-core performance compare to its nearest rivals?

A: The Core Ultra 5 235 has an average benchmark score of 46062. The AMD Ryzen AI 9 HX 375 scores 46030, which is 0.1% lower, while the Intel Core i9-13900HX scores 46098, 0.1% higher. Both the AMD EPYC 4364P and the AMD EPYC 7303 score 45970 and 45960 respectively, placing them 0.2% below.

# Settings Recommendations

The measured data presents a clear picture: this combo is heavily GPU-limited, and the only way to achieve remotely playable frame rates is to aggressively reduce both resolution and graphical presets. At 1920x1080, the Low preset delivers an average of 46 FPS, which is the sole configuration in the entire dataset that approaches standard playability for a horror title like The Medium.

The Medium setting at 1080p yields 29 FPS on average, with a minimum of 24 and a maximum of 33 FPS. While this is smoother than the High preset's 21 FPS or Ultra's 16 FPS, the drop from 46 to 29 FPS represents a 37% performance penalty for moving from Low to Medium. Given that The Medium is a slow-paced horror game, the 29 FPS average might be tolerable for some, but the minimum of 24 FPS risks noticeable stutter during intense scenes.

High settings at 1080p produce 21 FPS, which is a marginal 8 FPS improvement over Ultra but still far below the 30 FPS threshold generally considered the floor for acceptable gameplay. The data strongly suggests that Low settings at 1080p is the only viable option for a consistent experience. Moving to 2560x1440, even Low settings drops to 39 FPS, and Medium falls to 24 FPS. At 4K, no setting reaches even 30 FPS; Low manages 30 FPS exactly, but Medium drops to 19 FPS.

The recommendation is clear: if the goal is to play The Medium with this hardware, select 1920x1080 with Low settings. This yields the highest average frame rate and avoids the sub-30 FPS territory that dominates every other configuration. For users who prioritize visual fidelity over smoothness, 1440p Medium at 24 FPS is the highest-quality setting that remains technically playable, but the frame pacing issues implied by the 21 FPS minimum make it a risky choice. Ultra settings are effectively unplayable at any resolution, with 16 FPS at 1080p being the best Ultra result.

# CPU Role

The Intel Core Ultra 5 235 is a 14-core, 14-thread processor based on Arrow Lake architecture, manufactured on a 3 nm process. It has a base clock of 3.40 GHz and a boost clock of 5.00 GHz, with 24 MB of shared L3 cache. In synthetic benchmarks, this CPU performs admirably: it scores 14,769 in Cinebench R23 multi-core and 2,085 in single-core, with a Passmark multi-thread score of 37,816 and a single-thread score of 4,516.

The CPU's 89th percentile ranking among all CPUs indicates strong general-purpose performance, and its nearest rivals in average benchmark score are the AMD Ryzen AI 9 HX 375 (0.1% lower), Intel Core i9-13900HX (0.1% higher), and two AMD EPYC server chips (0.2% higher). In a vacuum, this processor is more than capable of feeding a modern GPU in a game like The Medium.

However, the measured FPS data tells a different story. At 1080p Low, the combo achieves 46 FPS; at 1080p Ultra, it drops to 16 FPS. If the CPU were the bottleneck, we would expect to see frame rates remain relatively stable across different graphics settings, since the CPU workload is largely independent of resolution and preset. Instead, the frame rate collapses as settings increase, indicating that the GPU—not the CPU—is the limiting factor.

The CPU's role in this combo is therefore one of headroom. The data implies that the Core Ultra 5 235 is not constraining performance in The Medium; it has ample compute resources (14 cores, 5.00 GHz boost) to handle the game's logic, AI, and rendering calls. The bottleneck lies downstream, with the integrated graphics solution. This is consistent with the fact that the CPU's integrated graphics, the Arc Xe-LPG with 24 execution units, is far weaker than any discrete GPU the processor could theoretically pair with.

For context, the CPU's Cinebench R20 multi-core score of 6,202 and single-core score of 875 show healthy performance, but these numbers have little bearing on the gameplay experience here. The CPU is waiting on the GPU, and no amount of CPU headroom can compensate for the graphics subsystem's inability to render The Medium at higher presets. The conclusion is that users should not seek CPU upgrades to improve performance in this game; the bottleneck is firmly elsewhere.

# How This Combo Ranks

The combo's rank of 2681 out of 2911 tested combinations places it in the 8th percentile of all systems tested in The Medium. This is a poor showing, and it aligns with the GPU's overall percentile ranking of 5th percentile among all GPUs. The GPU is the clear anchor on this system's performance.

Looking at the GPU's nearest rivals in synthetic benchmarks, the Arc B370 scores 1184 in 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12, which is nearly identical to the ATI Mobility Radeon HD 5570 (1186), ATI Radeon HD 5770 (1190), AMD Radeon HD 7650M (1192), and AMD FirePro M2000 (1168). These are all older, lower-tier mobile or entry-level desktop parts. The delta percentages range from -0.7% to +1.4%, meaning the Arc B370 is essentially performance-equivalent to these decade-old GPUs.

This is a damning comparison. The Medium was released in 2021, and these rival GPUs predate it by several years. The fact that the Arc B370, a 3 nm Intel part with 1,280 shading units and a 2,400 MHz boost clock, cannot outperform these legacy parts in a synthetic benchmark explains why its in-game performance is so poor. The combo's rank of 2681 reflects a GPU that is fundamentally mismatched for the game's requirements.

The CPU's strong benchmark scores do not rescue the combo. The Core Ultra 5 235's 89th percentile ranking is irrelevant when the GPU cannot translate that processing power into frames. In the context of The Medium, this combo ranks near the bottom because the GPU's 6.144 TFLOPS of FP32 performance and 48.00 GPixel/s pixel rate are insufficient for the game's rendering demands at any resolution above 1080p Low.

# GPU Role

The Intel Arc B370 is an integrated GPU based on the Xe3-LPG architecture, using the Panther Lake chip. It has 1,280 shading units, 40 texture mapping units, and 20 raster output units, along with 10 ray tracing cores. Its base clock is 300 MHz, boosting to 2,400 MHz, and it delivers 6.144 TFLOPS of FP32 performance. Critically, it uses System Shared memory, meaning there is no dedicated VRAM; the GPU borrows from system DDR5 memory, with bandwidth that is "System Dependent."

This lack of dedicated VRAM is almost certainly a primary factor in the game's poor performance. The Medium is a horror game known for its dual-world rendering, which requires significant memory bandwidth and capacity. With shared memory, the GPU must compete with the CPU for memory access, and the effective bandwidth is far lower than what a discrete GPU with dedicated GDDR6 or GDDR6X would provide.

The GPU's benchmark results confirm its low standing. Its 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 score of 1184 places it in the 5th percentile of all GPUs, and its nearest rivals are all ATI/AMD parts from over a decade ago. The performance deltas are negligible (ranging from -0.7% to +1.4%), indicating that the Arc B370 is essentially a modern-day equivalent of a 2010-era midrange GPU.

In The Medium, this translates directly to sub-30 FPS performance at nearly every setting. The only configuration that breaks 40 FPS is 1080p Low at 46 FPS. At 1440p, the best is 39 FPS on Low, and at 4K, the best is 30 FPS on Low. The GPU's 25 W TDP and IGP slot width further underscore its design intent: this is a power-efficient integrated solution for light workloads, not a gaming part.

The ray tracing cores (10 of them) are present, but at these performance levels, enabling any ray-traced effects would be futile. The data shows that even without ray tracing, the GPU struggles to maintain playable frame rates. The GPU's role in this combo is the limiting factor; its low shading unit count (1,280) and shared memory architecture create a hard ceiling on performance that no CPU or settings tweak can overcome.

# Measured FPS Breakdown

At 1920x1080, the combo delivers its best results. Low settings average 46 FPS, which is the highest frame rate in the entire dataset. Medium settings drop to 29 FPS, with a minimum of 24 and a maximum of 33 FPS. High settings average 21 FPS, and Ultra settings average 16 FPS. The progression from Low to Ultra shows a steep decline of 30 FPS, a 65% reduction.

Moving to 2560x1440, the numbers fall further. Low settings average 39 FPS, a 7 FPS drop from 1080p. Medium settings average 24 FPS, with a minimum of 21 and a maximum of 28 FPS. High settings average 17 FPS, and Ultra settings average 14 FPS. The gap between Low and Ultra is 25 FPS, a 64% reduction, showing that the resolution increase disproportionately hurts the higher presets.

At 3840x2160, performance becomes largely unplayable. Low settings average 30 FPS, exactly at the threshold of acceptable playability. Medium settings average 19 FPS, with a minimum of 16 and a maximum of 22 FPS. High settings average 14 FPS, and Ultra settings average 11 FPS. The difference between Low and Ultra is 19 FPS, a 63% reduction, indicating that the GPU's memory bandwidth is severely constrained at 4K.

The Medium settings at each resolution provide the most complete data, with minimum and maximum values. At 1080p Medium, the range is 24-33 FPS; at 1440p Medium, it is 21-28 FPS; and at 4K Medium, it is 16-22 FPS. These ranges show that frame pacing becomes more erratic as resolution increases, with the minimum FPS dropping by 8 FPS from 1080p to 4K while the maximum drops by 11 FPS. The narrowing range at 4K (6 FPS spread) versus 1080p (9 FPS spread) suggests the GPU is hitting a hard performance wall.

# Resolution Scaling

The data reveals how severely resolution scaling impacts this combo. From 1080p Low (46 FPS) to 1440p Low (39 FPS), the frame rate drops by 15.2%. From 1440p Low to 4K Low (30 FPS), it drops another 23.1%. Overall, moving from 1080p to 4K on Low settings results in a 34.8% reduction in average FPS.

The scaling pattern is similar for Medium settings: 1080p (29 FPS) to 1440p (24 FPS) is a 17.2% drop, and 1440p to 4K (19 FPS) is a 20.8% drop. For High settings, 1080p (21 FPS) to 1440p (17 FPS) is a 19.0% drop, and 1440p to 4K (14 FPS) is a 17.6% drop. Ultra settings show 1080p (16 FPS) to 1440p (14 FPS) as a 12.5% drop, and 1440p to 4K (11 FPS) as a 21.4% drop.

These percentage drops are relatively modest compared to what one might expect from a discrete GPU, where 4K typically demands 2.25x the pixel throughput of 1080p. If the GPU were the sole bottleneck, we would expect frame rates to drop by roughly 50-60% when going from 1080p to 4K. Instead, the drops are in the 13-35% range, which indicates that the bottleneck is not purely pixel-throughput-bound.

This suggests that the shared memory architecture is a significant limiting factor. As resolution increases, the amount of memory required for framebuffers and textures grows, but the system's shared memory bandwidth does not scale proportionally. The GPU is likely stalling on memory access, which prevents it from fully utilizing its shading units even as pixel count rises. The result is that frame rates are low at 1080p (46 FPS max) and remain low at 4K (30 FPS max), but the relative drop is compressed because the GPU was already memory-starved at lower resolutions.

The data implies that the CPU has no role in this scaling behavior. If the CPU were limiting, we would see frame rates remain flat across resolutions. Instead, they decline, confirming the GPU is the bottleneck. However, the shallow decline curve (from 46 to 30 FPS across a 4x pixel increase) suggests that the GPU's shared memory, not its compute units, is the primary constraint. This is a critical insight for users: upgrading to faster system memory might yield some improvement, but the fundamental limitation is the integrated design.