Undisputed

The Intel Core Ultra 9 290K Plus paired with the Intel Arc B370 is a profoundly unbalanced combination for Undisputed in this dataset. The data indicates a severe GPU bottleneck, with the processor’s immense compute capacity left largely unused at every tested setting. The 24-core, 24-thread Arrow Lake Refresh CPU, with a 3.70 GHz base and 5.80 GHz boost clock, ranks in the 96th percentile among all CPUs, yet the system’s frame rates are consistently modest. Conversely, the integrated Arc B370 GPU, which ranks in the 5th percentile among all GPUs, is the definitive performance limiter. This analysis will dissect the measured FPS rows to show how the CPU’s 36 MB of shared L3 cache and high single-thread score cannot compensate for the GPU’s 6.144 TFLOPS of FP32 compute, which is simply overwhelmed by this boxing title at higher resolutions.

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

The Core Ultra 9 290K Plus is a desktop-class powerhouse, but the benchmark results for Undisputed show that its role is negligible in determining the final frame rate. The processor’s specifications include 24 cores and 24 threads, a configuration that excels in multithreaded workloads, as evidenced by its Cinebench R23 multicore score of 51,731. Its single-core performance is also formidable, with a Cinebench R23 single-core score of 7,303, which typically ensures that the CPU can quickly process game logic and physics. The presence of a large 36 MB shared L3 cache and 3 MB per core on the L2 cache further supports rapid data access for any game thread that does reach the CPU.

However, the measured FPS data reveals that the CPU is not the active bottleneck in this pairing. At 1080p Low, the system achieves 115 FPS average. At 1080p High, it drops to 68 FPS. If the CPU were the limiting factor, we would expect the FPS to be more consistent across different graphical settings, as the CPU’s workload (game logic, AI, input) remains relatively constant. Instead, the FPS scales dramatically with settings, falling from 115 FPS at Low to 44 FPS at Ultra. This pattern is the signature of a GPU bottleneck, where the graphics card cannot keep up with the rendering demands, regardless of the CPU’s readiness. The CPU’s Passmark single-thread score of 4,823 and multithread score of 60,860 are testaments to its capability, but they do not translate into higher FPS in this game because the GPU is the one that is saturated.

The processor’s 5.80 GHz boost clock is a high value, but it is not being taxed. Data from the nearest rivals shows the CPU is essentially tied with the Intel Core Ultra 9 285K, with a deltaPct of 0.2, and is 1.1% ahead of the AMD EPYC 4584PX. These are marginal differences in synthetic benchmarks, and they do not matter in this game. The conclusion is that while the CPU has enough power to handle Undisputed at any settings, its performance is effectively capped by the GPU. The 24 threads are overkill for a sports title, and the data suggests that a less powerful processor paired with a stronger GPU would yield significantly higher frame rates.

How This Combo Ranks — use comboRankInGame vs other tested combos

This specific combination of the Core Ultra 9 290K Plus and the Arc B370 ranks 2,592 out of 2,813 tested combos in the database for Undisputed. This places it in the bottom 8% of all configurations, which is a surprisingly low position given the CPU’s high percentile ranking. The data shows that the combo’s rank is dragged down entirely by the GPU. The Arc B370’s 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 score of 1,184 is extremely low, putting it in the 5th percentile of all GPUs. This single score dictates the gaming performance, and it is the reason why this combo sits so far down the list.

The benchmark results indicate that this pairing is a poor match for achieving high FPS. The combo rank of 2,592 is not a reflection of the CPU’s gaming capability, but rather the GPU’s inability to render frames. For context, the GPU’s nearest rivals in the database are the ATI Mobility Radeon HD 5570 and the ATI Radeon HD 5770, which have average scores of 1,186 and 1,190, respectively. The Arc B370 is only 0.2% slower than the Mobility Radeon HD 5570 and 0.5% slower than the Radeon HD 5770. These are legacy parts, and being compared to them highlights the GPU’s lack of modern gaming power.

The data suggests that the combo’s rank is a direct consequence of the GPU’s 5th percentile standing. Even though the CPU is in the 96th percentile, the system’s overall performance is defined by the weakest link. The 1.1% deltaPct ahead of the AMD EPYC 4584PX is irrelevant in this context. The conclusion is that any combo featuring this CPU would rank highly if paired with a capable discrete GPU, but with the Arc B370, it is consigned to the bottom tier. The FPS numbers corroborate this: the best average FPS achieved in any test is 115 at 1080p Low, which falls below what is typically considered a high-refresh-rate experience.

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

The resolution scaling data provides a clear diagnostic of the system’s bottleneck. At 1080p High, the combo averages 68 FPS. Moving to 1440p High, the average drops to 49 FPS, a 28% decrease. At 4K High, the average falls to 31 FPS, a 54% decrease from the 1080p figure. This steep and consistent drop as resolution increases is the classic behavior of a GPU-limited system. If the CPU were the bottleneck, the FPS would remain relatively flat across resolutions because the CPU’s workload does not change with resolution; only the number of pixels to render changes.

The pattern is even more pronounced at the Medium settings. At 1080p Medium, the average FPS is 83. At 1440p Medium, it drops to 60 FPS. At 4K Medium, it falls to 38 FPS. The scaling from 1080p to 4K shows a 54% reduction in FPS, which aligns perfectly with the pixel count increase from 2.07 million to 8.29 million pixels. This mathematical correlation proves that the GPU is doing all the heavy lifting and is being overwhelmed. The CPU is not the limiting factor; it is waiting for the GPU to finish rendering each frame.

The Low settings tell the same story. At 1080p Low, the system hits 115 FPS, but at 4K Low, it drops to 52 FPS. This is still a 55% drop. The fact that the FPS does not scale up to the CPU’s potential even at Low settings confirms that the GPU is the sole constraint. The GPU’s clock speed of 2400 MHz boost and 1280 shading units are simply not enough to process the geometry and textures of Undisputed at higher resolutions. The data shows that the limiting component is unequivocally the GPU.

FAQ

Q: Why is the combo rank so low (2,592 out of 2,813) when the CPU is so powerful?

A: The combo rank is determined by the system’s actual gaming performance, which is dictated by the weakest component. The Intel Arc B370 GPU, with a 3DMark Steel Nomad score of 1,184 and a 5th percentile ranking, severely limits the frame rates. The CPU’s high score of 84,003 average benchmark and 96th percentile ranking cannot overcome the GPU’s low rendering capability in Undisputed.

Q: What is the best average FPS this combo can achieve?

A: The highest average FPS recorded in the measured data is 115 FPS, achieved at 1920x1080 resolution with Low settings. This is the only test that comes close to high-refresh-rate territory. All other settings and resolutions yield lower averages, with the lowest being 20 FPS at 4K Ultra.

Q: Is the CPU bottlenecking the GPU in this game?

A: No, the data indicates the opposite. The FPS scales significantly with resolution and settings, dropping from 115 FPS at 1080p Low to 31 FPS at 4K High. This pattern is characteristic of a GPU bottleneck, where the graphics card is the limiting factor, not the CPU. The CPU’s 24 cores and 5.80 GHz boost clock are more than sufficient for the game’s logic.

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

A: The Intel Arc B370 is statistically tied with several legacy GPUs. It is 0.2% slower than the ATI Mobility Radeon HD 5570 and 0.5% slower than the ATI Radeon HD 5770. It is 1.4% faster than the AMD FirePro M2000. These comparisons show that its raw 3D rendering performance is on par with much older hardware.

Q: What resolution is playable for this combo?

A: Based on the measured rows, 1920x1080 is the only resolution where the average FPS exceeds 60. At 1080p Medium, it hits 83 FPS, and at 1080p Low, it hits 115 FPS. At 1440p, the average FPS ranges from 32 at Ultra to 83 at Low. At 4K, no settings achieve a playable 60 FPS average. The 4K Medium test shows an average of 38 FPS with a minimum of 32 FPS.

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

The Intel Arc B370 is an integrated GPU (IGP) that relies on System Shared memory, which is a fundamental limitation for gaming performance in Undisputed. The GPU’s base clock is 300 MHz, boosting to 2400 MHz, and it has 1280 shading units, 40 TMUs, and 20 ROPs. It also features 10 RT cores, but the FP32 performance is only 6.144 TFLOPS. These specifications, while adequate for basic tasks, are not designed for high-end gaming, and the measured FPS data confirms this.

The game’s results show that the GPU is the primary factor in the low frame rates. At 4K Ultra, the average FPS is 20, which is unplayable. At 1080p Ultra, the average is 44 FPS, which is below the standard 60 FPS target. The GPU’s memory bandwidth is listed as "System Dependent," which means it is sharing the system’s DDR5 memory, subject to contention with the CPU. This shared memory architecture is a major bottleneck, as the GPU must compete with the CPU for memory access, reducing effective bandwidth.

The GPU’s performance relative to its rivals is telling. Its 3DMark Steel Nomad score of 1,184 places it in the 5th percentile of all GPUs. Its nearest rivals are all legacy parts from over a decade ago, with score deltas of -0.2% to 1.4%. This indicates that the Arc B370’s rendering capabilities are on par with those older GPUs, which are not built for modern games like Undisputed. The high clock speed of 2400 MHz cannot compensate for the low number of shading units and the lack of dedicated VRAM. The data clearly shows that the GPU’s role is to be the limiting factor, capping the system’s performance at modest levels.

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

The measured FPS data provides a clear guide for the best playable experience. The goal is to achieve a stable frame rate above 60 FPS, and the data shows that this is only possible at 1080p with lower settings. The 1920x1080 Low preset delivers an average of 115 FPS, which is the highest score recorded. This is the only configuration that offers a smooth, high-refresh-rate experience, and it is the recommended choice for competitive play or for users who prioritize frame rate over visual fidelity.

The 1920x1080 Medium preset is a strong alternative, delivering an average of 83 FPS with a minimum of 70 FPS and a maximum of 95 FPS. This provides a comfortable margin above 60 FPS and offers better visual quality than Low. The 1440p Low preset also achieves an average of 83 FPS, which is good for users with a 1440p monitor, but it may be less visually consistent than 1080p Medium. The 1440p Medium preset averages 60 FPS, but with a minimum of 51 FPS, it will drop below the 60 FPS target in demanding scenes, which can cause noticeable stutter.

The High settings are not recommended. At 1080p High, the average FPS is 68, which is playable but not ideal, and at 1440p High, it drops to 49 FPS. The Ultra settings are not viable for a good experience, as the 1080p Ultra average is 44 FPS, and the 4K Ultra average is 20 FPS. The data suggests that the best experience is found at 1080p Low, which maximizes frame rate, or 1080p Medium, which provides a balanced experience with a 83 FPS average. For users with 1440p monitors, the Low preset is the safest choice to maintain playability, as the Medium preset’s minimum FPS of 51 falls below the desired threshold.