Undisputed

# Undisputed with Intel Core Ultra 7 270K Plus + Intel Arc B370

The Intel Core Ultra 7 270K Plus paired with the Intel Arc B370 produces a decidedly mixed experience in Undisputed, a boxing title that proves far more demanding on the integrated graphics solution than the processor's raw compute strength would suggest. The data shows a system capable of smooth 1080p play at medium settings, but one that quickly buckles under the weight of higher resolutions and quality presets, ultimately landing near the bottom of the tested combo rankings due to the GPU's severe performance bottleneck.

Resolution Scaling

The FPS data reveals a steep and consistent performance cliff as resolution climbs, confirming that the Intel Arc B370's integrated graphics are the primary limiting factor in this configuration. At 1080p with Low settings, the combo delivers 115 FPS average, which drops to 83 FPS at 1440p and further to 52 FPS at 4K. This represents a 55% performance loss from 1080p to 4K at Low settings, a scaling pattern that clearly shows the GPU struggling to fill increasingly larger frame buffers.

The scaling becomes even more punishing at higher quality presets. With High settings, the average frame rate falls from 68 FPS at 1080p to 49 FPS at 1440p, then to 31 FPS at 4K — a total drop of 54% from the baseline. Ultra settings tell an even more sobering story: 44 FPS at 1080p, 32 FPS at 1440p, and just 20 FPS at 4K. The latter figure is effectively unplayable, and the 4K Ultra result shows the GPU is utterly overwhelmed.

What's notable is that the resolution penalty is relatively consistent across presets, suggesting a pure fill-rate bottleneck rather than any memory bandwidth constraint. The Arc B370 relies on system shared memory with bandwidth described as "System Dependent," and the fact that performance degrades proportionally with pixel count points to the shading units and ROPs being saturated. With just 20 ROPs and a 48.00 GPixel/s pixel rate, the GPU simply cannot sustain high-resolution rendering.

The data also shows that moving from Low to Medium at any given resolution costs roughly 28-31% of the frame rate, while the jump from Medium to High costs another 24-28%. The Ultra preset exacts the heaviest toll, cutting frame rates by 35-47% compared to High. For players targeting 1440p, only Low settings exceed 60 FPS (83 FPS), while Medium dips to exactly 60 FPS and High falls to 49 FPS. At 4K, even Low settings fail to maintain 60 FPS, underscoring that this combo is fundamentally a 1080p solution.

How This Combo Ranks

The comboRankInGame data places this configuration at rank 2592 out of 2813 tested combos, putting it in the bottom 8% of all pairings tested for Undisputed. This is a remarkably poor showing that highlights the massive imbalance between the CPU and GPU in this system.

To contextualize this ranking, the Intel Core Ultra 7 270K Plus is an exceptionally powerful processor on its own merits. Its Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 44,253 and single-core score of 2,439 place it in the 96th percentile against all CPUs, with an average benchmark score of 93,785. The nearest rival, the Intel Xeon 6520P, scores 93,786 (0% delta), while the AMD EPYC 4564P sits 1.5% higher at 95,183. These are workstation and server-class chips, underscoring that the 270K Plus is a top-tier compute part.

However, the Intel Arc B370 is a completely different story. Its 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 score of 1,184 places it in just the 5th percentile against all GPUs, with an average benchmark score of 1,184. Its nearest rivals are legacy parts: the ATI Mobility Radeon HD 5570 (1,186, -0.2% delta), ATI Radeon HD 5770 (1,190, -0.5%), and AMD Radeon HD 7650M (1,192, -0.7%). The AMD FirePro M2000 trails at 1,168, which is 1.4% behind. This GPU is competing with hardware from over a decade ago, and its performance class is entirely mismatched with the 270K Plus.

The consequence is a combo that ranks in the bottom 8% despite having a CPU in the top 4%. The benchmark results indicate that the Arc B370 holds the entire system back to the point where the processor's capabilities are almost entirely irrelevant in gaming workloads. This is a textbook case of a severe GPU bottleneck, where upgrading the graphics solution would yield dramatically better results without touching the CPU.

GPU Role

The Intel Arc B370 is built on Intel's 3 nm process and uses the Xe3-LPG architecture with a Panther Lake chip. It is an integrated graphics solution (IGP) with a 25 W TDP and no power connectors, drawing power directly from the CPU package. The GPU operates with a 300 MHz base clock and 2,400 MHz boost clock, and its memory configuration is "System Shared," meaning it uses the host system's DDR5 RAM rather than dedicated VRAM.

With 1,280 shading units, 40 texture mapping units, and just 20 ROPs, the B370's raw throughput is limited. The data shows a pixel rate of 48.00 GPixel/s and a texture rate of 96.00 GTexel/s, with FP32 performance of 6.144 TFLOPS. These specifications explain why the GPU struggles so severely at higher resolutions — the ROP count is simply too low to handle 4K output efficiently, and the shared memory bandwidth is dependent on the system's memory configuration.

The GPU's 10 ray tracing cores and support for DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4 mean it is feature-complete for modern titles, but feature support does not translate to performance. In Undisputed, the ray tracing hardware is likely unused or minimally utilized, yet the GPU still falls short. The 3DMark Steel Nomad score of 1,184, which places it at the 5th percentile, confirms that this is an entry-level part by any modern standard.

Notably, the GPU's nearest rivals in benchmark scores are all mobile or low-end desktop parts from the early 2010s. The ATI Mobility Radeon HD 5570 and ATI Radeon HD 5770 are both over a decade old, and the AMD Radeon HD 7650M and AMD FirePro M2000 are similarly dated. The B370's performance parity with these legacy GPUs is telling — it offers modern features and efficiency but raw performance that belongs to a bygone era.

The shared memory architecture also means that frame pacing can be affected by what else the system is doing with its RAM. The "System Dependent" bandwidth designation is a critical caveat, as the GPU's performance may vary based on memory speed and load. In a best-case scenario with fast DDR5, the B370 can achieve the measured results, but any memory contention could degrade performance further.

Settings Recommendations

Based on the measured FPS data, the optimal experience for this combo is 1080p with Medium settings. The average frame rate of 83 FPS with minimums of 70 FPS and maximums of 95 FPS provides a solid, consistent experience that stays well above the 60 FPS threshold for smooth gameplay. This is the highest settings preset that maintains an average above 60 FPS at any resolution, and the minimum frame rate of 70 FPS ensures no noticeable stutters.

For players who prioritize frame rate over visual fidelity, 1080p Low settings deliver 115 FPS average, which is the smoothest experience available with this hardware. This preset is ideal for competitive play or for players with high-refresh-rate displays, though the visual downgrade may be noticeable. The 1440p Low setting at 83 FPS is also viable, offering a resolution upgrade at the same frame rate as 1080p Medium, but the image quality difference between Low and Medium may not justify the resolution increase for most players.

High settings at 1080p (68 FPS) are acceptable but borderline, with no minimum frame rate data available to assess consistency. The 1440p Medium setting at exactly 60 FPS is technically playable but leaves no headroom for demanding scenes, and the 51 FPS minimum is concerning. Ultra settings should be avoided entirely — the 44 FPS at 1080p and 20 FPS at 4K are both poor experiences, and the lack of minimum frame rate data for most Ultra runs suggests instability.

The 4K resolution is effectively unusable with this combo. Even at Low settings, the 52 FPS average is below the ideal threshold, and the Medium preset drops to 38 FPS with a 32 FPS minimum. For 4K gaming, this combination simply does not have the GPU horsepower. Players with 4K displays should run the game at 1080p and rely on display scaling, or consider a different GPU entirely.

Measured FPS Breakdown

At 1920x1080, the combo delivers its best results. Low settings produce an average of 115 FPS, which is the highest frame rate recorded for this configuration. Medium settings yield 83 FPS average with a minimum of 70 FPS and maximum of 95 FPS, providing a well-bounded frame time distribution. High settings drop to 68 FPS average, while Ultra settings fall to 44 FPS. The progression from Low to Ultra represents a 62% performance reduction, illustrating the heavy cost of the Ultra preset's visual features.

At 2560x1440, performance degrades noticeably. Low settings still manage 83 FPS, which matches the 1080p Medium result. Medium settings produce exactly 60 FPS average with a 51 FPS minimum and 69 FPS maximum — technically playable but with concerning frame dips. High settings drop to 49 FPS, and Ultra falls to 32 FPS. The 1440p results show that this resolution is only viable with Low or Medium settings, and even then, the frame rate is not consistently high.

At 3840x2160, the GPU is overwhelmed. Low settings produce 52 FPS average, which is below the 60 FPS target. Medium settings drop to 38 FPS with a 32 FPS minimum and 43 FPS maximum, showing significant frame pacing issues. High settings fall to 31 FPS, and Ultra settings bottom out at 20 FPS. None of the 4K results are acceptable for smooth gameplay, and even the best case (Low at 52 FPS) would result in noticeable judder during fast-paced boxing action.

The frame time consistency, where measured, shows that Medium settings at 1080p and 1440p have relatively tight ranges (25 FPS spread at 1080p, 18 FPS at 1440p). This suggests that the GPU's frame delivery is stable when it isn't completely overloaded, but the sparse minimum and maximum data for other presets makes it difficult to assess their consistency. The overall pattern is clear: this combo is a 1080p Medium system, with 1440p Low as a secondary option.

FAQ

Q: Can this combo run Undisputed at 4K?

A: Not at a playable level. Even at Low settings, the 4K average is 52 FPS, which is below the 60 FPS threshold. Medium drops to 38 FPS, High to 31 FPS, and Ultra to just 20 FPS. The GPU's limited ROP count and shared memory architecture prevent it from handling 4K output effectively.

Q: What is the best settings preset for 1080p?

A: Medium settings at 1920x1080 provide the best balance, with 83 FPS average and a 70 FPS minimum. This keeps gameplay smooth while offering better visuals than Low. For maximum frame rate, Low at 115 FPS is the choice, but the visual trade-off may not be worth it.

Q: How does the Intel Arc B370 compare to other GPUs?

A: The B370's 3DMark Steel Nomad score of 1,184 places it in the 5th percentile of all GPUs. Its nearest rivals are the ATI Mobility Radeon HD 5570 (1,186, 0.2% faster), ATI Radeon HD 5770 (1,190, 0.5% faster), and AMD Radeon HD 7650M (1,192, 0.7% faster). It is 1.4% faster than the AMD FirePro M2000 (1,168).

Q: Is the CPU or GPU the bottleneck in this game?

A: The GPU is overwhelmingly the bottleneck. The Intel Core Ultra 7 270K Plus ranks in the 96th percentile of all CPUs with an average benchmark score of 93,785, while the Arc B370 ranks in the 5th percentile. The combo ranks 2,592 out of 2,813 tested, indicating that the processor's power is wasted due to the graphics limitation.

Q: What frame rate can I expect at 1440p?

A: At 2560x1440, Low settings deliver 83 FPS average, while Medium produces exactly 60 FPS with a 51 FPS minimum. High settings fall to 49 FPS and Ultra to 32 FPS. For consistent 60+ FPS, Low is the only reliable choice at this resolution.

Q: Does the Ultra preset provide a better experience than High?

A: No. At every resolution, Ultra delivers substantially lower frame rates than High — 44 FPS versus 68 FPS at 1080p, 32 FPS versus 49 FPS at 1440p, and 20 FPS versus 31 FPS at 4K. The visual improvement does not justify the 35-47% performance penalty, making Ultra unsuitable for this hardware.