Valorant

The Intel Core Ultra 9 290K Plus paired with the Intel Arc B370 integrated graphics produces a highly unusual set of results in Valorant. The CPU is a flagship desktop part with a 96th percentile ranking among all processors, while the GPU is an integrated solution that sits at the 5th percentile among all graphics cards. This massive gap defines every benchmark number in this data set. The combination ranks 2645th out of 2883 tested combos in this game, placing it in the bottom 8 percent of all systems tested, yet the measured frame rates are unexpectedly high for such a low-ranked GPU. This page breaks down what those numbers mean across resolutions, settings, and scaling behavior.

FAQ

Q: What is the average FPS at 1080p with Low settings?

A: The measured average frame rate is 299 FPS at 1920x1080 with Low settings. This is the highest average FPS recorded across all tested configurations for this combo.

Q: How does the Intel Arc B370 compare to its nearest rival in GPU benchmarks?

A: The Intel Arc B370 scores 1184 in the 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 test. Its nearest rival, the ATI Mobility Radeon HD 5570, scores 1186, which is 0.2 percent higher. The AMD Radeon HD 7650M scores 1192, which is 0.7 percent higher, while the AMD FirePro M2000 scores 1168, which is 1.4 percent lower.

Q: What is the difference between the Ultra and Low presets at 1440p?

A: At 2560x1440, the Low preset averages 255 FPS, while the Ultra preset averages 152 FPS. That is a difference of 103 FPS, or roughly 40 percent lower performance when moving from Low to Ultra.

Q: Does the combo maintain playable frame rates at 4K?

A: Yes, at 3840x2160, the average FPS ranges from 122 on Ultra to 204 on Low. The Medium preset shows an average of 134 FPS with a minimum of 114 FPS and a maximum of 154 FPS.

Q: What is the CPU’s benchmark percentile compared to other processors?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 9 290K Plus ranks in the 96th percentile among all CPUs. Its average benchmark score is 84003, which is 0.2 percent higher than the Intel Core Ultra 9 285K at 83807.

Q: Is the GPU’s memory dedicated or shared?

A: The Intel Arc B370 uses System Shared memory. The memory size, type, bus width, and bandwidth are all listed as System Shared or System Dependent, meaning it draws from the system’s DDR5 memory rather than having its own dedicated VRAM.

GPU Role

The Intel Arc B370 is an integrated graphics processor built on the Xe3-LPG architecture with a Panther Lake chip. Its base clock is 300 MHz and its boost clock reaches 2400 MHz. The GPU has 1280 shading units, 40 texture mapping units, and 20 render output units, along with 10 ray tracing cores. The pixel rate is 48.00 GPixel/s and the texture rate is 96.00 GTexel/s, with FP32 performance rated at 6.144 TFLOPS. The GPU runs at a 25 W TDP and uses no power connectors, confirming its integrated nature.

Crucially, the memory configuration is entirely system-dependent. The memory size is listed as System Shared, the type is System Shared, the bus width is System Shared, and the bandwidth is System Dependent. This means the GPU relies on the same DDR5 memory pool as the CPU, which uses a dual-channel memory bus with a bandwidth of 115.2 GB/s. This shared setup has direct implications for Valorant’s performance. The game is not particularly demanding on raw GPU compute, but it does respond to memory bandwidth and latency. The measured FPS numbers suggest that the Arc B370 is capable enough to push high frame rates at lower settings, but the lack of dedicated VRAM likely contributes to the performance drop when settings are raised.

The GPU’s benchmark results reinforce its low-end positioning. The 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 score is 1184, which places it at the 5th percentile among all GPUs. Its nearest rivals are all older or mobile parts: the ATI Mobility Radeon HD 5570 at 1186, the ATI Radeon HD 5770 at 1190, the AMD Radeon HD 7650M at 1192, and the AMD FirePro M2000 at 1168. The delta percentages are tiny, ranging from -0.7 to 1.4 percent, meaning the Arc B370 performs essentially identically to those legacy parts in synthetic benchmarks. However, the actual Valorant frame rates are far higher than what those scores might suggest, indicating that the game’s engine is not heavily GPU-bound at lower settings.

The boost clock of 2400 MHz is the key variable here. The GPU’s base clock is a low 300 MHz, but under load it boosts to a much higher frequency. For an integrated part, this allows it to handle the relatively light rendering loads of Valorant at 1080p and even 1440p. The data shows that the GPU is the limiting factor at higher settings, but the CPU’s massive headroom allows the integrated graphics to run at its maximum potential.

How This Combo Ranks

This specific combination of the Intel Core Ultra 9 290K Plus and the Intel Arc B370 ranks 2645th out of 2883 tested combos in Valorant. That places it in the bottom 8.3 percent of all systems tested, which is a poor overall position. However, this ranking must be interpreted with context. The combo rank is driven almost entirely by the GPU, which sits at the 5th percentile among all graphics cards. The CPU, by contrast, sits at the 96th percentile among all processors.

The CPU’s average benchmark score is 84003, and its nearest rivals are all high-end desktop or server parts. The Intel Core Ultra 9 285K scores 83807, which is 0.2 percent lower. The AMD EPYC 4584PX scores 83090, which is 1.1 percent lower. The AMD EPYC 9135 scores 82980, which is 1.2 percent lower. The AMD EPYC 7F72 scores 85072, which is 1.3 percent higher. This puts the 290K Plus in elite company on the CPU side.

The GPU’s average benchmark score is 1184, and its nearest rivals are all older or less capable parts. The delta percentages range from -0.7 to 1.4 percent, meaning the GPU is statistically indistinguishable from those parts in synthetic tests. This is a massive mismatch. The CPU is a top-tier part, while the GPU is effectively a legacy integrated solution.

The combo rank of 2645 out of 2883 reflects this mismatch. Most tested combos pair a similar CPU with a discrete GPU, which would rank far higher. The data indicates that the integrated GPU is the bottleneck in this system, and the ranking correctly reflects that. However, the measured FPS numbers show that this bottleneck is not as severe as the percentile ranking might imply. The combo still achieves playable frame rates at all tested resolutions and settings, which is notable for a GPU that ranks at the 5th percentile.

Measured FPS Breakdown

The measured FPS data covers three resolutions (1920x1080, 2560x1440, and 3840x2160) and four settings presets (Low, Medium, High, and Ultra). All numbers are average FPS unless otherwise noted.

At 1920x1080, the Low preset averages 299 FPS. The Medium preset averages 197 FPS with a minimum of 167 FPS and a maximum of 226 FPS. The High preset averages 187 FPS. The Ultra preset averages 178 FPS. This shows a clear progression: Low is the fastest, Medium drops to 197, High drops to 187, and Ultra drops to 178. The gap between Low and Ultra is 121 FPS, which is a 40 percent reduction. The Medium preset’s minimum of 167 FPS is still well above the refresh rate of most monitors.

At 2560x1440, the Low preset averages 255 FPS. The Medium preset averages 168 FPS with a minimum of 143 FPS and a maximum of 193 FPS. The High preset averages 160 FPS. The Ultra preset averages 152 FPS. The pattern is similar to 1080p, but the absolute numbers are lower. The gap between Low and Ultra is 103 FPS, which is also a 40 percent reduction. The Medium preset’s minimum of 143 FPS means the system can hold above 140 FPS in most scenes.

At 3840x2160, the Low preset averages 204 FPS. The Medium preset averages 134 FPS with a minimum of 114 FPS and a maximum of 154 FPS. The High preset averages 128 FPS. The Ultra preset averages 122 FPS. The gap between Low and Ultra is 82 FPS, which is a 40 percent reduction. The Medium preset’s minimum of 114 FPS is still playable, though it is approaching the threshold where frame drops become noticeable on high-refresh displays.

The data shows a consistent relationship between settings and performance. Across all three resolutions, the Low preset is the fastest, followed by Medium, then High, and then Ultra. The percentage drop from Low to Ultra is consistently around 40 percent, regardless of resolution. This suggests that the GPU is scaling linearly with the settings load, and that the CPU is not introducing additional bottlenecks at lower settings.

The Medium preset is the only one with reported minimum and maximum FPS values. At 1080p, the minimum is 167 FPS and the maximum is 226 FPS. At 1440p, the minimum is 143 FPS and the maximum is 193 FPS. At 4K, the minimum is 114 FPS and the maximum is 154 FPS. This spread of roughly 35-40 FPS between minimum and maximum indicates that the frame pacing is stable, with no severe stutters or drops.

Resolution Scaling

The resolution scaling behavior reveals where the bottleneck lies in this system. Moving from 1920x1080 to 2560x1440, the average FPS drops by a consistent percentage across settings. At Low, 299 FPS drops to 255 FPS, which is a 14.7 percent reduction. At Medium, 197 FPS drops to 168 FPS, which is a 14.7 percent reduction. At High, 187 FPS drops to 160 FPS, which is a 14.4 percent reduction. At Ultra, 178 FPS drops to 152 FPS, which is a 14.6 percent reduction.

Moving from 2560x1440 to 3840x2160, the drops are larger. At Low, 255 FPS drops to 204 FPS, which is a 20 percent reduction. At Medium, 168 FPS drops to 134 FPS, which is a 20.2 percent reduction. At High, 160 FPS drops to 128 FPS, which is a 20 percent reduction. At Ultra, 152 FPS drops to 122 FPS, which is a 19.7 percent reduction.

The overall scaling from 1080p to 4K is as follows: Low drops from 299 to 204 FPS, a 31.8 percent reduction. Medium drops from 197 to 134 FPS, a 32 percent reduction. High drops from 187 to 128 FPS, a 31.6 percent reduction. Ultra drops from 178 to 122 FPS, a 31.5 percent reduction.

The consistent percentage drops across all settings indicate that the GPU is the limiting factor. If the CPU were the bottleneck, the FPS would remain flat as resolution increases, because the CPU workload would not change. Instead, the FPS drops by roughly 32 percent from 1080p to 4K, which is exactly what you would expect from a GPU that is being pushed harder at higher resolutions. The fact that the drop is nearly identical across Low, Medium, High, and Ultra settings further confirms this. The GPU’s render load scales with resolution, while the CPU’s game logic load stays constant.

However, the absolute FPS numbers are still high even at 4K. The Low preset averages 204 FPS at 4K, which is far above what most discrete GPUs in the 5th percentile could achieve. This suggests that Valorant’s engine is very efficient at low settings, and the integrated GPU’s boost clock of 2400 MHz is sufficient to handle the load. The bottleneck is the GPU’s raw compute and memory bandwidth, but the game’s light requirements mean that even a low-end GPU can produce high frame rates.

The CPU’s role is evident in the high minimum FPS values. The Medium preset at 4K has a minimum of 114 FPS, which is only 20 FPS below the average. At 1080p, the minimum is 167 FPS, which is 30 FPS below the average. This tight distribution suggests that the CPU is delivering consistent frame times, with no major hitches or stalls. The 24 cores and 24 threads of the 290K Plus, running at a boost clock of 5.80 GHz, provide ample headroom for the game’s single-threaded and lightly threaded workloads.

Settings Recommendations

The measured data provides clear guidance for choosing settings in Valorant with this combo. The Low preset delivers the highest frame rates at every resolution, but the Medium preset offers a better balance of visual quality and performance. The High and Ultra presets provide diminishing returns, with only small FPS differences between them.

At 1920x1080, the Low preset averages 299 FPS, which is effectively at the top end of what most monitors can display. The Medium preset averages 197 FPS, which is still exceptionally high and provides better visual fidelity. The High preset averages 187 FPS, and the Ultra preset averages 178 FPS. The difference between Medium and High is only 10 FPS, while the difference between High and Ultra is only 9 FPS. For competitive play, the Low preset is the best choice because it maximizes frame rate and minimizes input latency. For a better visual experience, the Medium preset is recommended, as it still maintains an average above 190 FPS with a minimum of 167 FPS.

At 2560x1440, the Low preset averages 255 FPS, while the Medium preset averages 168 FPS. The High preset averages 160 FPS, and the Ultra preset averages 152 FPS. The drop from Medium to High is only 8 FPS, and the drop from High to Ultra is also 8 FPS. The Medium preset’s minimum of 143 FPS is adequate for high-refresh gaming. The Low preset is the best for pure performance, but the Medium preset offers a good balance. Given that the difference between Medium and Ultra is only 16 FPS, players with 144Hz monitors can comfortably use the Medium preset.

At 3840x2160, the Low preset averages 204 FPS, while the Medium preset averages 134 FPS. The High preset averages 128 FPS, and the Ultra preset averages 122 FPS. The Medium preset’s minimum of 114 FPS is the lowest reported value across all tests, but it is still above 60 FPS and is playable on a standard 60Hz display. The difference between Medium and High is only 6 FPS, and the difference between High and Ultra is also 6 FPS. For 4K, the Low preset is recommended for competitive play, as it maintains an average above 200 FPS. The Medium preset is acceptable for casual play, but the framerate dips to 114 FPS on the minimum, which may be noticeable on a 144Hz monitor.

The best overall recommendation is the Medium preset at 1080p or 1440p. It provides a significant visual upgrade over Low while maintaining average FPS above 160 in both cases. The minimum FPS of 167 at 1080p and 143 at 1440p ensures that the game stays smooth even in intense firefights. The Ultra preset offers no meaningful benefit over High, with only a 9-10 FPS difference, so it should be avoided. The Low preset is the best for esports-focused players who prioritize frame rate above all else. The data shows that this combo is capable of running Valorant at high frame rates across all tested settings, but the Medium preset at 1080p or 1440p is the sweet spot for most users.