To The Core

The AMD Ryzen 9 7900X paired with the Intel Arc B370 in To The Core delivers a combination that ranks 2750 out of 2991 tested combos, placing it in the lower 8th percentile of all configurations evaluated. This is a striking result for a CPU that sits in the 91st percentile among all processors, suggesting that the graphics solution—which itself ranks in the 5th percentile among all GPUs—is the dominant constraint in this pairing. The data shows a system where a flagship-class 12-core CPU is effectively hamstrung by an integrated graphics unit, producing playable but far from impressive frame rates across most settings and resolutions.

How This Combo Ranks

The combo rank of 2750 out of 2991 places this configuration near the bottom of the tested pool, ahead of only roughly 241 other combinations. This is a remarkably low position for a system built around a Ryzen 9 7900X, which individually outperforms 91% of all CPUs in the database. The discrepancy between the CPU’s strong standalone standing and the combo’s poor ranking highlights a severe bottleneck: the Intel Arc B370, with a GPU percentile of just 5, drags the entire system down to near-entry-level performance territory.

Benchmark results indicate that the CPU’s compute potential is largely untapped in this pairing. The Ryzen 9 7900X scores 29,300 in Cinebench R23 multi-core and 2,016.5 in single-core, while its 3DMark scores range from 1,093 for a single thread to 12,536 with all threads active. These are robust numbers that would normally support high-refresh gaming, but the Arc B370’s 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 score of 1,184 is the only GPU benchmark available, and it sits near the bottom of the GPU hierarchy. The GPU’s nearest rivals—ATI Mobility Radeon HD 5570 (deltaPct -0.2), ATI Radeon HD 5770 (deltaPct -0.5), AMD Radeon HD 7650M (deltaPct -0.7), and AMD FirePro M2000 (deltaPct 1.4)—are all legacy or low-power parts, confirming that the Arc B370 is competing in a very modest performance class.

What the data implies is that the combo ranking reflects the weakest link principle. The CPU’s 12 cores and 24 threads are capable of far more than what the GPU can deliver, yet in To The Core, the measured FPS values are dictated almost entirely by the graphics processor. This is not a balanced system; it is a high-end CPU paired with an integrated GPU, and the combo rank correctly captures that imbalance.

FAQ

Q: Why does this combo rank so low despite having a powerful CPU?

A: The combo rank of 2750 out of 2991 is driven by the GPU’s performance, not the CPU’s. The Intel Arc B370 ranks in the 5th percentile among all GPUs, with a 3DMark Steel Nomad score of 1,184, while the Ryzen 9 7900X ranks in the 91st percentile among CPUs. In To The Core, the measured FPS values are limited by the graphics solution, making the combo’s overall position near the bottom.

Q: How does the Arc B370 compare to its closest GPU rivals?

A: The Arc B370’s nearest rivals in the GPU database are ATI Mobility Radeon HD 5570 (deltaPct -0.2), ATI Radeon HD 5770 (deltaPct -0.5), AMD Radeon HD 7650M (deltaPct -0.7), and AMD FirePro M2000 (deltaPct 1.4). These deltas are all within 1.4%, meaning the Arc B370 performs essentially on par with these older or low-power graphics parts.

*Q: What is the best FPS this combo can achieve in To The Core?*

A: The highest average FPS recorded is 132, achieved at 1920x1080 with Low settings. At the same resolution, Ultra settings drop the average to 78 FPS, while 4K Ultra yields only 30 FPS average.

Q: Is the CPU or GPU the limiting factor at 4K resolution?

A: At 3840x2160, the GPU is clearly the limiting factor. The average FPS ranges from 30 at Ultra to 51 at Low, and the CPU’s high multi-threaded performance (29,300 in Cinebench R23) cannot compensate for the Arc B370’s low throughput. The GPU’s 5th percentile ranking aligns with these sub-60 FPS results.

Q: Does the CPU’s boost clock help in this game?

A: The Ryzen 9 7900X has a boost clock of 5.60 GHz, which contributes to its single-thread performance (2,016.5 in Cinebench R23 single-core). However, in To The Core, the measured FPS values at all settings suggest that the GPU’s limitations dominate, so the CPU’s clock speed has minimal impact on the final frame rates.

Q: Are there any settings where this combo delivers consistently smooth gameplay?

A: At 1920x1080 with Low settings, the average FPS is 132, which is smooth for most displays. Medium at 1080p averages 112 FPS, and High averages 97 FPS. At 1440p, Low averages 89 FPS, but higher settings fall below 75 FPS. At 4K, no setting exceeds 51 FPS average.

GPU Role

The Intel Arc B370 is an integrated graphics solution 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 2400 MHz, with memory that is system shared—meaning it draws from the same DDR5 pool as the CPU rather than having dedicated VRAM. The GPU has 1,280 shading units, 40 texture mapping units, and 20 raster operation units, along with 10 ray tracing cores. Its compute capabilities are modest: 6.144 TFLOPS for FP32 and 12.29 TFLOPS for FP16 (2:1), with a pixel rate of 48.00 GPixel/s and a texture rate of 96.00 GTexel/s.

In To The Core, the GPU’s role is pivotal, but not in a positive sense. The measured FPS data shows that the Arc B370 struggles to maintain high frame rates even at lower resolutions. At 1920x1080, the average FPS ranges from 78 at Ultra to 132 at Low, which indicates that the GPU is the primary bottleneck across all presets. The system-shared memory architecture means that memory bandwidth is system dependent, and with the CPU’s dual-channel DDR5 providing 83.2 GB/s, the GPU’s effective bandwidth is constrained by the same memory controller used for CPU tasks. This shared resource can lead to contention, although the CPU’s strong multi-threaded performance (12,536 in 3DMark max threads) may mitigate some of that pressure.

The GPU’s 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 score of 1,184 places it in the 5th percentile among all GPUs, and its nearest rivals are all much older or lower-tier parts. This confirms that the Arc B370 is not designed for demanding gaming workloads. In To The Core, which is an Idle genre game—likely with minimal graphical complexity—the GPU still cannot deliver high frame rates at higher settings, suggesting that even light games expose its limitations. The GPU’s TDP of 25 W and IGP slot width further emphasize its intended role as a basic integrated solution rather than a gaming powerhouse.

Measured FPS Breakdown

The measured FPS data for To The Core covers three resolutions and four settings presets, providing a clear picture of the combo’s performance envelope.

At 1920x1080, the combo delivers its best results. Low settings produce an average of 132 FPS, which is the highest figure recorded in the entire dataset. Medium settings average 112 FPS, with a minimum of 95 and a maximum of 129. High settings average 97 FPS, while Ultra settings drop to 78 FPS. These numbers show that at 1080p, the combo can handle the game smoothly at Low and Medium, and even High is playable, but Ultra pushes the GPU to its limits.

Moving to 2560x1440, the frame rates decline significantly. Low settings average 89 FPS, which is still respectable, but Medium drops to 75 FPS (min 64, max 87), High falls to 65 FPS, and Ultra averages just 53 FPS. The gap between 1080p and 1440p is substantial, with the average FPS dropping by roughly 32% when moving from 1080p Low to 1440p Low (132 to 89 FPS). This suggests that the GPU’s fill rate and memory bandwidth are being taxed more heavily at the higher resolution.

At 3840x2160, the combo struggles to maintain playable frame rates. Low settings average 51 FPS, Medium averages 43 FPS (min 37, max 50), High averages 37 FPS, and Ultra averages just 30 FPS. None of these figures reach the 60 FPS threshold commonly associated with smooth gameplay, and even Low settings at 4K are marginal. The data shows a clear pattern: as resolution increases, the Arc B370’s limitations become more pronounced, with the GPU’s 20 ROPs and 6.144 TFLOPS of FP32 compute insufficient for 4K workloads.

Notably, the minimum FPS values are only provided for Medium settings: 95 at 1080p, 64 at 1440p, and 37 at 4K. These minima are all below their respective averages, indicating some frame pacing inconsistency, but not catastrophic drops. The maximum FPS values at Medium (129 at 1080p, 87 at 1440p, 50 at 4K) show that the GPU can occasionally reach higher frame rates, but sustained performance is limited.

Resolution Scaling

The resolution scaling behavior reveals how the combo’s bottleneck shifts as pixel count increases. From 1920x1080 to 2560x1440, the average FPS drops by approximately 32-33% across all settings: Low goes from 132 to 89 (a 32.6% drop), Medium from 112 to 75 (33.0%), High from 97 to 65 (33.0%), and Ultra from 78 to 53 (32.1%). This consistent drop suggests that the GPU is the limiting factor, as the pixel count increases by 77% (from 2.07 million to 3.69 million pixels) but the frame rate decreases by only about a third, indicating that the GPU is not fully saturated at 1080p.

When moving from 1440p to 4K, the pixel count increases by 125% (from 3.69 million to 8.29 million pixels), but the frame rate drops more modestly: Low goes from 89 to 51 (a 42.7% drop), Medium from 75 to 43 (42.7%), High from 65 to 37 (43.1%), and Ultra from 53 to 30 (43.4%). This steeper drop at 4K indicates that the GPU is becoming more heavily constrained, but the fact that the frame rates do not halve suggests that there are other bottlenecks, possibly memory bandwidth or CPU overhead, that prevent a linear scaling.

The data implies that the limiting component is overwhelmingly the GPU. The CPU’s strong performance—12 cores, 24 threads, and a boost clock of 5.60 GHz—means that it is unlikely to be the bottleneck at any resolution. The GPU’s system-shared memory and 25 W TDP underscore its limited capacity, and the resolution scaling patterns are consistent with a GPU that is running out of fill rate and compute resources as resolution increases. If the CPU were the bottleneck, we would expect to see frame rates that remain relatively flat across resolutions, but instead we see significant drops, indicating that the GPU is the primary constraint.

Settings Recommendations

Based on the measured FPS values, the optimal settings for this combo depend heavily on the target resolution and desired frame rate. At 1920x1080, Low settings deliver the highest average FPS at 132, which is ideal for competitive or fast-paced gameplay. Medium settings at 112 FPS (min 95, max 129) offer a good balance between visual quality and performance, and even High at 97 FPS is smooth for most users. Ultra at 78 FPS is still playable, but the visual gains may not justify the 41% drop from Low to Ultra.

At 2560x1440, the recommendation shifts. Low settings at 89 FPS are the only preset that consistently exceeds 60 FPS. Medium at 75 FPS is also acceptable, but High at 65 FPS and Ultra at 53 FPS fall below the 60 FPS threshold, which may cause noticeable stuttering in fast-moving scenes. For a smoother experience at 1440p, Low or Medium settings are recommended, with Low being the safest choice for maintaining high frame rates.

At 3840x2160, none of the settings presets achieve 60 FPS. Low at 51 FPS is the best option, but even this is marginal. Medium at 43 FPS (min 37) and High at 37 FPS are playable but may feel sluggish, while Ultra at 30 FPS is only suitable for slower, turn-based gameplay. If 4K is a requirement, Low settings are the only viable choice, and even then, users should expect frame rates in the 40-50 range.

The data suggests that the best experience for this combo is at 1080p with Medium or High settings, which delivers average FPS between 97 and 112 with minimums above 95. This provides a good visual experience without sacrificing smoothness. For users prioritizing frame rate above all else, 1080p Low at 132 FPS is the clear winner. At higher resolutions, the combo’s limitations become too pronounced, and even Low settings at 4K cannot guarantee a consistently smooth experience.

CPU Role

The AMD Ryzen 9 7900X is a 12-core, 24-thread processor based on the Zen 4 architecture, codenamed Raphael, built on TSMC’s 5 nm process node. It has a base clock of 4.70 GHz and a boost clock of 5.60 GHz, with a TDP of 170 W. The CPU features 64 KB of L1 cache per core, 1 MB of L2 cache per core, and 64 MB of shared L3 cache, providing substantial cache capacity for workloads that benefit from it. The CPU supports DDR5 memory in a dual-channel configuration with a bandwidth of 83.2 GB/s, and it connects via PCIe Gen 5 with 24 lanes.

In benchmark tests, the Ryzen 9 7900X demonstrates strong multi-threaded and single-threaded performance. It scores 29,300 in Cinebench R23 multi-core and 2,016.5 in single-core, while Geekbench scores are 19,267 multi-core and 2,617 single-core. PassMark scores include 51,406 in multi-thread and 4,238 in single-thread, with specialized tests like integer math (169,273), floating point math (103,952), and data compression (632,505) showing robust compute capabilities. The CPU’s average benchmark score is 53,288, placing it in the 91st percentile among all CPUs, with nearest rivals including AMD EPYC 7313P (deltaPct 0.2), Intel Xeon Phi 7290 (deltaPct -0.3), Intel Xeon 634 (deltaPct 0.6), and Intel Core i7-14700F (deltaPct -0.6).

In To The Core, the CPU’s role is largely supportive, as the game’s Idle genre likely does not demand extensive multi-threading. The measured FPS values are consistently limited by the GPU, and the CPU’s high clock speeds and core count do not translate into higher frame rates. The 3DMark scores are telling: the CPU achieves 1,093 in single-thread and 12,536 in max threads, but these only matter if the GPU can keep up. With the Arc B370’s 6.144 TFLOPS of FP32 compute, the CPU is rarely, if ever, the bottleneck.

The data implies that the Ryzen 9 7900X is overkill for this pairing in To The Core. Its 12 cores and 24 threads are far more than what the game requires, and its 5.60 GHz boost clock does not help when the GPU is the limiting factor. The CPU’s memory support for DDR5 and 83.2 GB/s bandwidth provide ample headroom, but the GPU’s system-shared memory means that the CPU and GPU share the same memory bus, potentially introducing contention that neither component can fully resolve. Overall, the CPU contributes stability and ensures that frame rates are never CPU-limited, but it cannot compensate for the GPU’s low performance.