To The Core

The Intel Core i5-14600K paired with the Intel Arc B370 presents a fascinating case study in system bottlenecking within "To The Core." The data reveals a configuration where the integrated graphics solution is clearly the limiting factor, yet the robust 14-core processor ensures that frame pacing remains consistent even as graphical loads increase. This analysis breaks down the measured performance metrics to understand how this specific combination behaves across resolutions and settings.

Resolution Scaling — how FPS drops from 1080p to 4K and what it says about the limiting component

The measured FPS data shows a stark and predictable decline as resolution increases, which points directly to the integrated GPU as the primary constraint. At 1080p with Low settings, the system achieves 132 FPS, which drops to 89 FPS at 1440p and further to 51 FPS at 4K. This represents a 61% reduction in performance from 1080p to 4K at the lowest settings, indicating that the rendering pipeline is saturated by pixel throughput rather than CPU-bound logic.

The scaling pattern becomes even more telling when examining the High preset. At 1080p High, the combo produces 97 FPS, falling to 65 FPS at 1440p and 37 FPS at 4K. The percentage drops between each resolution step are nearly uniform, suggesting a linear relationship between pixel count and frame rate—a classic sign of a GPU-limited scenario. If the CPU were the bottleneck, we would expect to see diminishing FPS penalties as resolution increases, since higher resolutions shift more work onto the graphics hardware while the CPU waits for frames.

Interestingly, the Medium preset provides the only complete dataset with min and max FPS values. At 1080p Medium, the system averages 112 FPS with a minimum of 95 FPS and maximum of 129 FPS. At 1440p, that average falls to 75 FPS with a range of 64 to 87 FPS. At 4K, the average drops to 43 FPS with a minimum of 37 FPS and maximum of 50 FPS. The consistency of the min-to-max spread across resolutions—roughly 30% of the average—suggests that frame time variance is driven by the GPU's workload, not by CPU scheduling or thread contention.

The data implies that the Arc B370's 25 W TDP and "System Shared" memory configuration are the decisive factors. With no dedicated VRAM, the GPU must rely on system memory bandwidth, which degrades as resolution increases and memory access patterns become more demanding. The 1280 shading units and 20 ROPs are simply insufficient to maintain high fill rates at 4K, but they scale gracefully at 1080p where the pixel workload is a quarter of the 4K demand.

How This Combo Ranks — use comboRankInGame vs other tested combos

This specific combination of the Intel Core i5-14600K and Intel Arc B370 ranks 2750 out of 2991 tested combos in "To The Core," placing it in the 8th percentile of all configurations. This low ranking is almost entirely attributable to the GPU, as the processor itself sits in the 90th percentile when compared against all CPUs in the benchmark database. The stark contrast between the CPU's strong standalone position and the combo's poor in-game ranking highlights a severe imbalance in system capabilities.

To contextualize this rank, the Arc B370's average benchmark score is 1184, which places it in the 5th percentile among all GPUs. Its nearest rivals in synthetic benchmarks are the ATI Mobility Radeon HD 5570 (scoring 1186, just 0.2% higher) and the ATI Radeon HD 5770 (scoring 1190, 0.5% higher). These are legacy discrete graphics parts from over a decade ago, yet they perform comparably to Intel's integrated solution in the 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 test. This explains why the combo ranks so poorly: the GPU is competing with ancient hardware while being paired with a modern high-end CPU.

The rank of 2750 out of 2991 means that only 241 tested combinations perform worse in this specific game. Given the game's "Idle" genre, which typically involves minimal 3D rendering and more UI-based interactions, the fact that this combo still struggles at 4K Ultra (30 FPS) suggests that even simple graphical workloads overwhelm the integrated solution. The data indicates that users would need to significantly reduce resolution and settings to achieve playable frame rates, a conclusion reinforced by the 90th percentile CPU ranking that shows the processor is not the constraining factor.

GPU Role — VRAM, clocks, and how they relate to this game's results

The Intel Arc B370 operates with a base clock of 300 MHz and a boost clock of 2400 MHz, but its memory configuration is the most critical aspect for "To The Core" performance. The GPU uses "System Shared" memory with system-dependent bandwidth, meaning there is no dedicated VRAM pool. This architectural choice has profound implications for the measured FPS, as the GPU must compete with the CPU for memory bandwidth, particularly at higher resolutions where texture and framebuffer demands increase.

The GPU's 1280 shading units, 40 texture mapping units, and 20 render output units are modest by modern standards, but they are sufficient for 1080p gaming at reasonable settings. The measured data supports this: at 1080p Low, the system achieves 132 FPS, and at 1080p Medium, it maintains 112 FPS. However, the pixel rate of 48.00 GPixel/s and texture rate of 96.00 GTexel/s become limiting factors as resolution increases. At 4K, the GPU must process four times the pixels of 1080p, and the 20 ROPs simply cannot keep up, resulting in the 51 FPS Low and 37 FPS High averages.

The GPU's 6.144 TFLOPS of FP32 compute and 12.29 TFLOPS of FP16 (2:1 ratio) suggest reasonable compute capability, but "To The Core" appears to be more rasterization-bound than compute-bound. The 10 ray tracing cores and support for DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4 indicate modern API support, yet the game's idle genre likely does not heavily utilize these features. The 3nm process node and Xe3-LPG architecture from Panther Lake are efficient, but the 25 W TDP caps sustained performance, especially when the GPU shares system memory bandwidth with the CPU.

The comparison to ATI Mobility Radeon HD 5570 (1186 score) and ATI Radeon HD 5770 (1190 score) in the 3DMark Steel Nomad test underscores how far behind modern integrated graphics are from dedicated solutions. The delta percentages of -0.2% and -0.5% respectively show that the Arc B370 is essentially tied with these decade-old parts, which explains why 4K Ultra settings yield only 30 FPS. The GPU's percentile ranking of 5th among all GPUs reinforces that this is not a gaming-oriented part, despite its modern architecture.

FAQ — 4-6 Q&A pairs answerable from FACT PACK data

Q: What is the best resolution and settings combo for maintaining 60+ FPS?

A: The measured data shows that 1080p High achieves 97 FPS, 1080p Medium achieves 112 FPS, and 1080p Low achieves 132 FPS. All three 1080p settings maintain averages above 60 FPS. At 1440p, only the Low preset (89 FPS) exceeds 60 FPS, while Medium (75 FPS) also qualifies. The 4K resolution fails to reach 60 FPS at any setting, with the highest being Low at 51 FPS.

Q: How does the Arc B370 compare to its nearest GPU rivals in synthetic benchmarks?

A: The Arc B370 scores 1184 in 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12, which is 0.2% lower than the ATI Mobility Radeon HD 5570 (1186) and 0.5% lower than the ATI Radeon HD 5770 (1190). The AMD Radeon HD 7650M scores 1192 (0.7% higher), while the AMD FirePro M2000 scores 1168 (1.4% lower). This places the Arc B370 in the 5th percentile of all GPUs.

Q: Does the CPU limit performance in any tested configuration?

A: No, the data does not indicate CPU limitation. The Intel Core i5-14600K ranks in the 90th percentile of all CPUs with an average benchmark score of 48618. The FPS scaling from 1080p to 4K shows consistent drops proportional to pixel count, which is characteristic of GPU-bound scenarios. The CPU's 14 cores and 20 threads provide ample processing power for the game's idle genre mechanics.

Q: What is the FPS range for the Medium preset at different resolutions?

A: At 1080p Medium, the system averages 112 FPS with a minimum of 95 FPS and maximum of 129 FPS. At 1440p Medium, the average is 75 FPS with a range of 64 to 87 FPS. At 4K Medium, the average drops to 43 FPS with a minimum of 37 FPS and maximum of 50 FPS. The min-to-max spread remains consistent at roughly 30% of the average across all resolutions.

Q: How does the combo's in-game rank compare to the individual component rankings?

A: The combo ranks 2750 out of 2991 tested combos (8th percentile) in "To The Core." This is significantly lower than the CPU's individual 90th percentile ranking and the GPU's 5th percentile ranking. The discrepancy indicates that the GPU is the binding constraint, preventing the high-performing CPU from translating its capabilities into better in-game results.

Q: What are the FPS drops from 1080p to 4K for each settings preset?

A: For Low settings, FPS drops from 132 at 1080p to 89 at 1440p to 51 at 4K, a 61% total reduction. For Medium, it drops from 112 to 75 to 43, a 62% reduction. For High, it drops from 97 to 65 to 37, a 62% reduction. For Ultra, it drops from 78 to 53 to 30, also a 62% reduction. The uniformity across presets confirms GPU-bound scaling.

CPU Role — cores, clocks, and how they relate to this game's results

The Intel Core i5-14600K brings substantial processing power to this combo, with 14 cores (6 performance and 8 efficiency) and 20 threads. Its base clock of 3.50 GHz and boost clock of 5.30 GHz provide strong single-threaded performance, as evidenced by benchmark scores like 2064 in Cinebench R23 single-core and 4270 in Passmark single-thread tests. The 24 MB of shared L3 cache and 2 MB per-core L2 cache ensure that the CPU can handle the game's data structures without becoming a bottleneck.

The CPU's benchmark results reveal its capability: Cinebench R23 multicore score of 24491, Geekbench multicore score of 16673, and Passmark multithread score of 38682. These figures place it in the 90th percentile of all CPUs, with an average benchmark score of 48618. Its nearest rivals in synthetic benchmarks include the Intel Xeon Gold 5318H (48698, 0.2% higher) and the Intel Core Ultra 5 245 (48995, 0.8% higher), while the AMD EPYC 4345P (48470) and Intel Core Ultra 5 245HX (48287) score slightly lower.

However, in "To The Core," the CPU's role is largely secondary to the GPU. The measured FPS data shows no indication of CPU-bound frame rates, as the performance scales directly with pixel resolution. The game's "Idle" genre typically involves simple game logic, timers, and UI updates that do not heavily tax a modern 14-core processor. The CPU's 125 W TDP and support for DDR4 and DDR5 memory (dual-channel) provide adequate memory bandwidth for the system, but the GPU's shared memory usage may create contention.

The CPU's integrated graphics, UHD Graphics 770, are present but not used in this configuration since the Arc B370 is the active display adapter. The processor's PCIe Gen 5 support with 16 lanes (CPU only) provides ample bandwidth for any discrete GPU, but the Arc B370 uses an IGP bus interface, meaning it shares the system's memory and bus resources. This architecture limits the GPU's performance but also means the CPU does not need to manage dedicated VRAM transfers, allowing it to focus on game logic and rendering calls.

Settings Recommendations — which preset gives the best experience per the measured rows

Based on the measured FPS data, the optimal settings depend on the user's resolution and performance targets. At 1080p, all four presets deliver playable frame rates, with Low at 132 FPS, Medium at 112 FPS, High at 97 FPS, and Ultra at 78 FPS. The Medium preset offers the best balance between visual quality and performance, providing a 15 FPS improvement over High while maintaining a minimum of 95 FPS, which ensures smooth gameplay without stuttering. Users seeking maximum visual fidelity can still use Ultra, as 78 FPS is above the typical 60 FPS threshold.

At 1440p, the choices narrow significantly. Low settings achieve 89 FPS, which is ideal for competitive play or high refresh rate monitors. Medium settings provide 75 FPS with a minimum of 64 FPS, which remains playable but approaches the edge of 60 FPS consistency. High settings drop to 65 FPS, which is still acceptable, but the margin for error is slim. Ultra settings at 53 FPS are not recommended for most users, as they fall below the 60 FPS threshold and may introduce noticeable frame pacing issues. The Medium preset at 1440p is the recommended choice, offering 75 FPS average with a minimum of 64 FPS.

At 4K, no preset achieves 60 FPS. Low settings yield 51 FPS, Medium yields 43 FPS, High yields 37 FPS, and Ultra yields 30 FPS. For users who must play at 4K, Low settings provide the most playable experience at 51 FPS, though this still falls below the ideal 60 FPS target. The data suggests that 4K gaming is not viable for this combo in "To The Core," and users should either reduce resolution to 1440p or accept lower frame rates. The Medium preset at 4K offers a minimum of 37 FPS, which may cause stuttering in fast-paced scenes.

The measured data shows that the Medium preset consistently provides the most stable frame pacing, as evidenced by the min and max FPS values at all three resolutions. This suggests that Medium settings are the sweet spot for this hardware combination, offering a balance between GPU load and system memory bandwidth utilization.

Measured FPS Breakdown — resolution by resolution, settings by settings, exact numbers

The complete dataset provides exact FPS measurements for all combinations of resolution and settings. At 1920x1080, the system achieves the following average FPS: Low at 132 FPS, Medium at 112 FPS (with min 95 and max 129), High at 97 FPS, and Ultra at 78 FPS. The 1080p results show a clear progression where each settings tier reduces performance by roughly 15-20% from the previous tier, with the largest drop occurring from Low to Medium (20 FPS decrease, 15% reduction).

At 2560x1440, the average FPS values are: Low at 89 FPS, Medium at 75 FPS (with min 64 and max 87), High at 65 FPS, and Ultra at 53 FPS. The drop from 1080p to 1440p for each preset is consistent: Low drops by 43 FPS (33% reduction), Medium drops by 37 FPS (33% reduction), High drops by 32 FPS (33% reduction), and Ultra drops by 25 FPS (32% reduction). This uniform scaling confirms that the GPU's pixel throughput is the limiting factor.

At 3840x2160, the average FPS values are: Low at 51 FPS, Medium at 43 FPS (with min 37 and max 50), High at 37 FPS, and Ultra at 30 FPS. The transition from 1440p to 4K shows similar percentage reductions: Low drops by 38 FPS (43% reduction), Medium drops by 32 FPS (43% reduction), High drops by 28 FPS (43% reduction), and Ultra drops by 23 FPS (43% reduction). The larger percentage drop from 1440p to 4K compared to 1080p to 1440p (43% vs 33%) reflects the quadratically increasing pixel workload.

Within each resolution, the FPS differences between settings follow a predictable pattern. At 1080p, Low to Medium is a 20 FPS difference, Medium to High is a 15 FPS difference, and High to Ultra is a 19 FPS difference. At 1440p, the differences are 14 FPS (Low to Medium), 10 FPS (Medium to High), and 12 FPS (High to Ultra). At 4K, the differences are 8 FPS (Low to Medium), 6 FPS (Medium to High), and 7 FPS (High to Ultra). The narrowing differences at higher resolutions indicate that the GPU becomes increasingly saturated, with each settings tier having less headroom to improve performance.

The Medium preset's min and max FPS values provide insight into frame time variance. At 1080p, the range is 34 FPS (95 to 129), at 1440p the range is 23 FPS (64 to 87), and at 4K the range is 13 FPS (37 to 50). This decreasing absolute range, but consistent relative range (~30% of average), suggests that the GPU's frame pacing becomes more consistent at higher resolutions where it operates at peak capacity. The data indicates that users should expect the most stable performance at 1440p Medium, where the 75 FPS average with 64 FPS minimum provides a good balance of smoothness and visual quality.