The Medium

The Intel Core Ultra 9 290K Plus paired with the Intel Arc B370 produces a deeply constrained gaming experience in The Medium, landing at rank 2681 out of 2911 tested combos. That places this configuration in the bottom 8% of all tested hardware pairings, a position driven almost entirely by the integrated graphics solution rather than the CPU. The processor itself is a top-tier part — its 96th percentile ranking among all CPUs confirms it — but in this title, the combo’s overall standing reflects a severe GPU bottleneck that no amount of CPU headroom can overcome. The data shows a system that can execute the game’s logic flawlessly while struggling to push pixels, resulting in a playable-at-best experience only at the lowest settings and resolutions.

How This Combo Ranks

The combo’s rank of 2681 out of 2911 tested combinations is a stark indicator of where this hardware sits relative to the broader ecosystem. Benchmark results place this pairing in the bottom tier, with only 230 tested combos performing worse in The Medium. This is not a case of a mid-tier setup falling slightly behind; it is a fundamental mismatch between the CPU’s capabilities and the GPU’s output limitations.

The Intel Core Ultra 9 290K Plus itself scores an average benchmark score of 84003 across all tested workloads, placing it in the 96th percentile of all CPUs. Its nearest rivals in CPU performance are the Intel Core Ultra 9 285K with an average score of 83807 (just 0.2% lower), the AMD EPYC 4584PX at 83090 (1.1% lower), and the AMD EPYC 9135 at 82980 (1.2% lower). The only rival that beats it is the AMD EPYC 7F72 at 85072, which is 1.3% ahead. This tells a clear story: the processor is among the fastest available, with a 24-core, 24-thread design running at a 3.70 GHz base clock and a 5.80 GHz boost clock.

However, the GPU component is a different story entirely. The Intel Arc B370 scores a mere 1184 on the 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 benchmark, placing it in the 5th percentile of all GPUs. Its nearest rivals are all older or lower-tier parts: the ATI Mobility Radeon HD 5570 at 1186 (0.2% ahead), the ATI Radeon HD 5770 at 1190 (0.5% ahead), and the AMD Radeon HD 7650M at 1192 (0.7% ahead). The only GPU it beats is the AMD FirePro M2000 at 1168, which is 1.4% slower. This places the Arc B370 in a performance class that predates modern gaming expectations, and the measured FPS in The Medium reflects that reality.

GPU Role

The Intel Arc B370 operates as an integrated graphics processor (IGP) with a 25 W TDP, which immediately signals its intended role as a basic display solution rather than a gaming workhorse. Its architecture is Xe3-LPG built on Intel’s 3 nm process, featuring 1280 shading units, 40 texture mapping units, and 20 raster operations units. The GPU also includes 10 ray tracing cores, though the measured performance suggests these are largely ceremonial in this title.

Clock speeds show a base of 300 MHz and a boost of 2400 MHz, with memory that is “System Shared” — meaning the GPU borrows from the system’s DDR5 memory pool rather than having dedicated VRAM. This shared memory arrangement has a bandwidth that is “System Dependent,” which in this configuration translates to the 115.2 GB/s dual-channel memory bandwidth of the CPU. The lack of dedicated video memory is a critical constraint in The Medium, a game that demands substantial texture and geometry data be readily accessible.

The GPU’s theoretical peak performance is 6.144 TFLOPS for FP32 and 12.29 TFLOPS for FP16, with a pixel rate of 48.00 GPixel/s and a texture rate of 96.00 GTexel/s. These numbers, while not trivial on paper, are undermined by the shared memory subsystem and the IGP form factor. In practical terms, the Arc B370’s benchmark score of 1184 and its 5th percentile ranking among all GPUs place it in the same league as graphics cards from over a decade ago, which is precisely where its nearest rivals sit.

Resolution Scaling

The measured FPS data reveals a clear pattern of performance collapse as resolution increases, confirming that the GPU is the limiting component in every scenario. At 1920x1080 with Low settings, the combo achieves an average of 46 FPS. Moving to 2560x1440 at Low settings drops that to 39 FPS, a 15.2% decrease. At 3840x2160 with Low settings, the average falls to 30 FPS, representing a 34.8% drop from 1080p and a 23.1% drop from 1440p.

The scaling pattern becomes more pronounced at higher settings. At Medium settings, the averages are 29 FPS at 1080p, 24 FPS at 1440p (a 17.2% drop), and 19 FPS at 4K (a 34.5% drop from 1080p). High settings show 21 FPS at 1080p, 17 FPS at 1440p (a 19.0% drop), and 14 FPS at 4K (a 33.3% drop from 1080p). Ultra settings are the most punishing: 16 FPS at 1080p, 14 FPS at 1440p (a 12.5% drop), and 11 FPS at 4K (a 31.3% drop from 1080p).

This behavior is textbook GPU-bound scaling. The CPU’s performance is essentially constant across these tests — it has ample headroom to feed frames — but the GPU’s fill rate and memory bandwidth cannot keep pace with increasing pixel counts. The fact that the percentage drop from 1440p to 4K is consistently larger than the drop from 1080p to 1440p at every settings level reinforces that the Arc B370 is hitting hard architectural limits rather than a gradual degradation.

Settings Recommendations

Given the measured data, the only truly playable configuration is 1920x1080 with Low settings, which delivers an average of 46 FPS. This is the sole settings/resolution combination that approaches a smooth experience, and even then, it falls short of high-refresh-rate expectations. The next closest option is 2560x1440 at Low settings with 39 FPS, which is borderline playable but dips into uncomfortable territory for action sequences.

At Medium settings, the best result is 29 FPS at 1080p, which is below the 30 FPS threshold generally considered the minimum for playable frame rates. The min FPS at this setting is 24, indicating that the experience will have noticeable stutters. High and Ultra settings are effectively unplayable at any resolution, with the best High result being 21 FPS at 1080p and the best Ultra result being 16 FPS at 1080p.

The data suggests that players should prioritize resolution over visual fidelity. Dropping to Low settings at 1080p yields 46 FPS, which is 58.6% higher than the Medium 1080p result of 29 FPS. The gap between Low and Ultra at 1080p is even more dramatic: 46 FPS versus 16 FPS, a 187.5% difference. For this combo, the trade-off is clear — accept the lowest visual preset to achieve a frame rate that is at least consistently above 30 FPS.

Measured FPS Breakdown

At 1920x1080, the combo produces its best results across all settings. Low settings deliver an average of 46 FPS with no recorded min or max values. Medium settings average 29 FPS with a min of 24 and a max of 33. High settings average 21 FPS, and Ultra settings average 16 FPS. The gap between Low and Medium is 17 FPS, while the gap between Medium and High is 8 FPS, and High to Ultra is 5 FPS. This shows diminishing returns in performance cost as settings increase, but also that the GPU struggles to maintain playable levels beyond Low.

At 2560x1440, the performance drops noticeably. Low settings average 39 FPS, which is 7 FPS lower than the 1080p Low result. Medium settings average 24 FPS with a min of 21 and a max of 28, representing a 5 FPS drop from 1080p Medium. High settings average 17 FPS, down 4 FPS from 1080p High. Ultra settings average 14 FPS, down 2 FPS from 1080p Ultra. The scaling here is roughly linear, with each settings tier costing between 2 and 7 FPS compared to the same tier at 1080p.

At 3840x2160, the results are largely unplayable. Low settings average 30 FPS, which is the only 4K result that breaks the 30 FPS barrier, and it does so barely. Medium settings average 19 FPS with a min of 16 and a max of 22. High settings average 14 FPS, and Ultra settings average 11 FPS. The drop from 1440p to 4K at each settings tier is consistent: Low drops by 9 FPS, Medium by 5 FPS, High by 3 FPS, and Ultra by 3 FPS. This indicates that the GPU is so saturated at 4K that even reducing settings yields minimal gains.

FAQ

*Q: What is the best resolution and settings combination for this hardware in The Medium?*

A: Based on the measured data, 1920x1080 with Low settings is the only configuration that achieves a playable average frame rate, producing 46 FPS. The next best option is 2560x1440 at Low settings with 39 FPS, but this is less consistent.

Q: How does the Intel Core Ultra 9 290K Plus compare to its nearest CPU rivals?

A: The CPU has an average benchmark score of 84003, which is 0.2% higher than the Intel Core Ultra 9 285K’s 83807, 1.1% higher than the AMD EPYC 4584PX’s 83090, and 1.2% higher than the AMD EPYC 9135’s 82980. It trails the AMD EPYC 7F72 by 1.3%, which scores 85072.

Q: Why does the combo rank so low despite having a high-end CPU?

A: The combo rank of 2681 out of 2911 is determined by overall gaming performance, and the Intel Arc B370 GPU scores just 1184 on the 3DMark Steel Nomad benchmark, placing it in the 5th percentile of all GPUs. The CPU is in the 96th percentile, but the GPU bottleneck dominates the gaming outcome.

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

A: At 1920x1080, Low settings produce an average of 46 FPS, while Ultra settings produce an average of 16 FPS. This is a 30 FPS difference, meaning Low settings deliver 187.5% higher frame rates than Ultra.

Q: Does the GPU have dedicated video memory?

A: No, the Intel Arc B370 uses System Shared memory, meaning it relies on the system’s DDR5 memory rather than having its own VRAM. The memory bus width and bandwidth are also listed as System Shared and System Dependent, respectively.

Q: How does the frame rate scale from 1080p to 4K at Medium settings?

A: At Medium settings, the average frame rate drops from 29 FPS at 1920x1080 to 24 FPS at 2560x1440, and then to 19 FPS at 3840x2160. The drop from 1080p to 4K is 34.5%, indicating significant GPU limitations at higher resolutions.