The Medium

The Intel Core Ultra 7 265 paired with the Intel Arc B390 delivers a severely GPU-bound experience in The Medium, with frame rates collapsing under higher resolution and quality loads. Benchmark data shows this configuration ranks 2581st out of 2911 tested combinations, placing it in the bottom tier of systems for this title. The Arc B390, scoring in the 9th percentile of all GPUs, is the clear bottleneck; the Core Ultra 7 265, sitting in the 93rd percentile of CPUs, is effectively idle waiting on graphics work. The result is a playable experience only at 1080p with Low settings, and a slideshow at 4K Ultra.

Resolution Scaling

The frame rate drop from 1080p to 4K is dramatic and linear, confirming that pixel throughput is the dominant constraint. At Low settings, the average frame rate falls from 51 FPS at 1920x1080 to 43 FPS at 2560x1440, a 15.7% reduction, and then to 34 FPS at 3840x2160, a 33.3% reduction from the 1440p figure. This scaling pattern is typical of a GPU that is completely saturated; halving the pixel count roughly doubles the headroom, and the data reflects that the Arc B390 simply cannot sustain high fill rates.

Moving to Medium settings, the averages drop to 32 FPS at 1080p, 27 FPS at 1440p, and 21 FPS at 4K. The gap between 1080p and 4K here is 11 FPS, or 34.4% of the 1080p score. At High settings, the numbers compress further: 23 FPS at 1080p, 19 FPS at 1440p, and 15 FPS at 4K. The percentage loss from 1080p to 4K at High is 34.8%, nearly identical to the Low setting loss, which indicates the bottleneck is purely resolution-driven rather than settings-driven.

Ultra settings produce the worst scaling, with 18 FPS at 1080p, 15 FPS at 1440p, and 12 FPS at 4K. The 6 FPS spread across all three resolutions shows that the GPU is so overwhelmed by the Ultra preset that even reducing resolution cannot free up meaningful performance. The data suggests that the limiting component is exclusively the graphics processor; a stronger CPU would not improve these numbers, as the Core Ultra 7 265’s 20 cores and 5.30 GHz boost clock are never the constraining factor in any measured row.

CPU Role

The Intel Core Ultra 7 265 is a high-end desktop processor with 20 cores and 20 threads, a base clock of 2.40 GHz, and a boost clock of 5.30 GHz. Its benchmark scores are strong: 42,216 in Cinebench R23 multi-core and 5,960 in single-core, with a PassMark multithread score of 49,682. In the broader CPU landscape, it ranks in the 93rd percentile, and its average benchmark score of 64,640 is within 0.7% of the AMD EPYC 7343 and 0.3% of the Intel Core Ultra 7 265F.

However, none of this CPU horsepower translates into frame rate in The Medium. The measured FPS data shows no scenario where the CPU is the limiting factor. At 1080p Low, the system hits 51 FPS, which is the highest average across all tested configurations, but this is still a modest figure for a processor of this caliber. The game’s fixed-camera horror presentation and pre-rendered environments place minimal strain on the CPU; the workload is heavily graphics-centric.

The Core Ultra 7 265’s memory bandwidth of 102.4 GB/s over dual-channel DDR5 is ample for feeding the Arc B390, which uses System Shared memory. Even so, the shared memory architecture means the CPU and GPU compete for the same bandwidth, but the data shows no CPU-side stalls. The Cinebench R15 multi-core score of 4,255 and single-core score of 600 further confirm that this is a top-tier processor, yet the game’s frame rates are uniformly low across all settings and resolutions, which is the signature of a GPU-limited configuration. The nearest CPU rival, the AMD EPYC 4464P, scores 64,823 on average, just 0.3% higher, and would perform identically in this game given the same GPU bottleneck.

GPU Role

The Intel Arc B390 is an integrated graphics solution based on the Xe3-LPG architecture, with 1,536 shading units, 48 texture mapping units, and 24 raster operation pipelines. Its 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 score of 1,482 places it in the 9th percentile of all GPUs, and its nearest rivals are legacy NVIDIA parts: the GeForce GT 520MX (1,463), GeForce 800M (1,460), and GeForce GT 625 OEM (1,446). The Arc B390 outperforms these by 1.3% to 2.7%, but that is a meaningless margin in real-world gaming.

The GPU’s clock speeds are 300 MHz base and 2,500 MHz boost, with a pixel rate of 60.00 GPixel/s and a texture rate of 120.0 GTexel/s. The FP32 throughput is 7.680 TFLOPS, which sounds respectable on paper, but the memory configuration is the fatal flaw: System Shared memory with System Dependent bandwidth. This means the GPU has no dedicated VRAM, and its performance is tied to the system’s memory bandwidth, which is shared with the CPU.

The measured FPS data reflects this severe limitation. At 1080p Low, the Arc B390 manages 51 FPS, but that is the absolute ceiling. At 1080p Ultra, it falls to 18 FPS. The 4K Ultra result of 12 FPS is effectively unplayable. The 12 RT cores and DirectX 12 Ultimate support are irrelevant when the GPU cannot sustain basic rasterization at modern resolutions. The 3DMark score of 1,482 is consistent with the in-game results: this is a GPU designed for low-power mobile or entry-level desktop use, not for a horror title with fixed camera angles but heavy lighting and post-processing effects. The boost clock of 2,500 MHz cannot compensate for the lack of dedicated memory bandwidth, and the data shows that no setting combination rescues this GPU from being the primary performance limiter.

Settings Recommendations

The measured rows provide a clear hierarchy for playability. The only configuration that achieves a consistently smooth frame rate is 1920x1080 with Low settings, delivering an average of 51 FPS. This is the recommended preset for any playable experience. At 1080p Medium, the average drops to 32 FPS, which is borderline for a horror game where precise timing is less critical but still risks noticeable stutter. The minimum FPS at 1080p Medium is 27, which is below the 30 FPS threshold for smooth motion.

At 1440p, Low settings yield 43 FPS, which is acceptable for slower-paced horror gameplay, but the drop to Medium reduces the average to 27 FPS with a minimum of 23 FPS, which is too low for comfort. High settings at 1440p produce 19 FPS, and Ultra produces 15 FPS, both unplayable. At 4K, even Low settings only reach 34 FPS, and Medium falls to 21 FPS with a minimum of 18 FPS. High and Ultra at 4K are 15 FPS and 12 FPS respectively, which are slideshow-level results.

The data indicates that the Arc B390 is only viable for 1080p Low. Users who prioritize visual fidelity over frame rate might accept 1080p Medium at 32 FPS, but the 27 FPS minimum is risky. There is no measured configuration that provides both high visual quality and smooth frame rates; the GPU simply lacks the resources. The recommendation is unambiguous: run at 1920x1080 with Low settings to get the best measured experience, and avoid any preset above Medium at any resolution. The 51 FPS at 1080p Low is the only data point that approaches standard display refresh rates.

FAQ

*Q: Can this system run The Medium at 4K?*

A: Only at Low settings, where it averages 34 FPS. Medium settings drop to 21 FPS, High to 15 FPS, and Ultra to 12 FPS. The 4K Ultra result is unplayable.

Q: What is the best settings preset for this hardware?

A: The data shows 1920x1080 with Low settings yields 51 FPS average, the highest measured frame rate. This is the only configuration that provides a consistently smooth experience.

Q: How does the Intel Arc B390 compare to its nearest GPU rivals?

A: The Arc B390 scores 1,482 in 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12. It is 1.3% ahead of the NVIDIA GeForce GT 520MX, 1.5% ahead of the GeForce 800M, and 2.7% ahead of the GeForce GT 625 OEM. It ranks in the 9th percentile of all GPUs.

Q: Is the Intel Core Ultra 7 265 a bottleneck in this game?

A: No. The CPU ranks in the 93rd percentile with an average benchmark score of 64,640, but the measured FPS is consistently low across all settings, indicating the GPU is the sole limiting factor. The CPU has 20 cores and a 5.30 GHz boost clock, which is more than sufficient.

Q: What is the frame rate difference between Low and Ultra settings at 1080p?

A: At 1920x1080, Low settings average 51 FPS. Ultra settings average 18 FPS. This is a 33 FPS difference, or a 64.7% reduction in performance when moving from the lowest to the highest quality preset.

Q: Does the system have enough memory bandwidth for this game?

A: The CPU supports dual-channel DDR5 with 102.4 GB/s bandwidth. The GPU uses System Shared memory, meaning its bandwidth is System Dependent. The data shows that the shared memory configuration severely limits GPU performance, as evidenced by the low frame rates even at 1080p.

Measured FPS Breakdown

The following table presents the exact measured average frame rates for each resolution and settings combination, along with the minimum and maximum FPS where recorded.

1920x1080:

• Low: 51 FPS average
• Medium: 32 FPS average, 27 FPS minimum, 37 FPS maximum
• High: 23 FPS average
• Ultra: 18 FPS average

2560x1440:

• Low: 43 FPS average
• Medium: 27 FPS average, 23 FPS minimum, 31 FPS maximum
• High: 19 FPS average
• Ultra: 15 FPS average

3840x2160:

• Low: 34 FPS average
• Medium: 21 FPS average, 18 FPS minimum, 24 FPS maximum
• High: 15 FPS average
• Ultra: 12 FPS average

The data shows a monotonic decrease in performance as both resolution and settings increase. The minimum FPS values, where recorded, are consistently 4-5 FPS below the average, indicating frame time variance that could cause perceptible stutter. The maximum FPS values are 5-6 FPS above the average, suggesting occasional brief periods of smoother performance. Overall, this configuration is only suitable for 1080p Low, with all other settings and resolutions falling below the 30 FPS playability threshold. The system’s overall rank of 2581st out of 2911 combinations underscores its position in the bottom percentile of tested hardware for The Medium.