With the release of its refreshed Arrow Lake processors, Intel didn’t just deliver some of its best chips in years; it also introduced a new software package called the Binary Optimization Tool, or BOT. Over the past week, we’ve thoroughly tested BOT to evaluate Intel’s claims and determine whether this tool will become increasingly important in the future or fade into obscurity as a novel but ultimately limited idea.
What is Intel BOT?
What exactly is BOT? Simply put, it’s analogous to how GPU manufacturers release drivers with specific game fixes or support, where certain shaders are replaced with optimized versions. Intel applies a similar principle: it reconfigures specific thread instructions from a game, enabling the CPU to process them more efficiently by maximizing the use of cache, core execution units, and other resources.
Currently, BOT is only supported on desktop and mobile 200S Plus chips, such as the Core Ultra 5 250K Plus and Core Ultra 7 270K Plus, as well as Panther Lake laptop processors. While there’s a possibility it could be extended to older processors, part of the Arrow Lake refresh involved an increased number of hardware hooks in the compute tile. These hooks provide Intel’s engineers with deeper insights into the processor’s internal workings, and without them, a BOT version for older CPUs might not deliver the same level of performance uplift, if any at all.
It’s crucial to note that Intel has only “BOT-ified” (optimized using BOT) 12 games so far. Given that the testing, optimization, and rewriting of instruction schedules is not a simple automated process, we shouldn’t expect regular BOT updates. Therefore, if you’re disappointed that the tool isn’t available for your 14th Gen Core processor, for example, you’re not missing out on anything if you don’t play any of the currently supported games.
The Binary Optimization Tool is integrated into the existing Intel Application Optimization Tool (APO). However, since they are entirely separate functionalities, they can be independently enabled in games that support both options.
Performance Testing: Real-World FPS Gains
Enough with the theory; let’s get to what truly matters: how much performance gain can you expect from using BOT? Before we look at the figures, it’s important to emphasize that the Binary Optimization Tool focuses on the CPU. Therefore, it won’t directly make games render faster, as that task is almost entirely handled by your gaming PC’s graphics card. However, the CPU still needs to process graphics instructions for the GPU to crunch through, and if these threads aren’t handled optimally for Intel’s Arrow Lake Refresh architecture, they might be causing performance bottlenecks.
Nevertheless, the rate at which a PC produces frames for display is governed by numerous factors, and the performance of the entire rendering pipeline is determined by its slowest stage. If that slowest stage isn’t the CPU, then no amount of BOT optimization will improve the frame rate.
The first game we tested was Shadow of the Tomb Raider (SOTTR), as Intel claimed to achieve the biggest performance improvement here. Our core hardware setup for all tests included a Core Ultra 7 270K Plus, 32 GB of Corsair Vengeance DDR5-6000 CL30, and a Zotac GeForce RTX 4070. While most tests of this nature often use top-tier GPUs, employing a mainstream GPU offers a more realistic view of what BOT can achieve in typical gaming scenarios.
SOTTR features an excellent built-in benchmark tool that separately tracks the speed at which the CPU processes the game’s main engine, rendering instructions, and how fast the GPU generates frames. For simplicity, we enabled APO and BOT together (APO doesn’t make a huge difference with Arrow Lake, as its E-cores are already very efficient), and the effect was quite dramatic. Together, these optimizations boosted the ‘CPU game’ performance by 35% on average, with the 1% low figure increasing by 41%. In some instances, SOTTR’s ‘CPU game’ performance improved by as much as 58%, which is quite incredible to witness. However, the overall average frame rate in the benchmark never gained more than 4-5% because, at 1080p High, SOTTR is relatively GPU-bound on an RTX 4070. Crucially, the optimization transformed the test from being 52% GPU-bound, on average, to 97% GPU-bound; this is precisely what you want from a game.
But that’s just a synthetic benchmark, right? It doesn’t represent actual gameplay. To that end, we tested Marvel’s Spider-Man Remastered, a game for which Intel only offers BOT support and which lacks a built-in benchmark, so the results reflect ‘pure’ gameplay. Over five minutes of swinging around the city, we recorded an 8% higher average frame rate and 7% better 1% lows with BOT enabled at 1080p High. These figures would naturally be lower at higher resolutions, but they would also be better with a more powerful graphics card than an RTX 4070.
Unfortunately, these were the highlights of our testing. Cyberpunk 2077 at 1080p High only improved by 2% on average, as did Borderlands 3 (also 1080p High), though the latter’s 1% lows actually decreased by 4%. In Assassin’s Creed Mirage and Hitman 3, we experienced almost no improvements with APO and BOT enabled. In the case of Mirage, the RTX 4070 was certainly the limiting factor, even at 1080p High. Dropping the graphics preset to Low and enabling DLSS Ultra Performance saw the combination of APO and BOT improve both average and 1% low frame rates by 3% each.
Summary of Benchmark Results:
| Benchmark | Settings | APO + BOT Disabled (Avg. FPS / 1% Low FPS) | APO + BOT Enabled (Avg. FPS / 1% Low FPS) | Performance Difference |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider – ‘CPU game’ test | 1080p, High | 293, 205 | 392, 290 | +35%, +41% |
| Marvel’s Spider-Man Remastered | 1080p, High | 201, 116 | 218, 214 | +8%, +7% |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1080p, High | 146, 118 | 149, 119 | +2%, +1% |
| Hitman 3 Dubai | 1080p, Medium | 144, 129 | 144, 131 | 0%, +2% |
| Borderlands 3 | 1080p, High | 206, 132 | 211, 127 | +2%, -4% |
| Assassin’s Creed Mirage | 1080p, High | 165, 132 | 166, 132 | +1%, 0% |
| Assassin’s Creed Mirage (Low + DLSS Ultra Performance) | 1080p, Low + DLSS Ultra Performance | 242, 196 | 250, 202 | +3%, +3% |
Conclusion: A Niche, But Promising Tool
So, what are we to make of all this? To start, Intel’s Binary Optimization Tool largely works as claimed. For games where CPU instructions are written in a way that Arrow Lake Refresh chips don’t handle optimally, BOT is literally a game-changer, pushing the performance limitation to where it should be: on the GPU. If your graphics card is solely responsible for the final frame rate, you gain full control over performance by adjusting graphics settings, using upscaling, and frame generation. However, if a game is already GPU-bound on your gaming PC, no amount of BOT tweaks will make a difference.
This was most evident in Cyberpunk 2077, Hitman 3, Borderlands 3, and Assassin’s Creed Mirage with an RTX 4070, whereas Spider-Man Remastered saw a decent performance increase with BOT. While an 8% gain isn’t overwhelming, the fact that it comes from a mere software override is quite impressive.
There is a category of games, however, that could genuinely benefit immensely from Intel’s BOT: esports titles, especially competitive shooters. Pro gamers typically combine the lowest graphics settings with 1080p resolution to achieve the maximum possible frame rate, which usually results in the game being almost entirely CPU-bound. Unfortunately, it’s unlikely that Counter-Strike 2, Valorant, or Overwatch will receive BOT support anytime soon. This is because Intel’s system has to inject itself into the game’s code to override instructions, and any software doing so in a competitive game will generally lead to a very swift ban for the player. Intel states it’s working with studios and developers to find a way to implement BOT without causing such issues, but we suspect some companies are wary that cheaters might find a way to exploit BOT for hacks.
Having invested significant time into developing the Binary Optimization Tool, Intel is certainly not going to abandon it even if esports publishers ultimately reject BOT. We anticipate that this feature will become even more prevalent when Nova Lake finally makes its appearance (currently slated for later this year, though timing can always shift).
Right now, however, you can only leverage it if you own a Core Ultra 200S Plus chip. While these are indeed very capable processors, this limits the tool’s reach to a very small pool of PC enthusiasts who will get to experience it. Current Arrow Lake owners might not be tempted to spend $200 or $300 on a new CPU just to use BOT, but you will see some pre-built PCs featuring 250K Plus or 270K Plus chips in the coming months. Still, this won’t lead to many gamers testing BOT and providing feedback to Intel about its usefulness, which is a shame, as the benefits are definitely present.
Installation and Cautionary Notes
If you do happen to purchase a new Arrow Lake Refresh chip, simply download the latest Intel Platform Performance Package (IPPP), install it, and you should be able to dive into “BOT-ifying” the small number of currently supported games.
A word of caution, though: when we first tested BOT on a PC with a fresh Windows installation and the motherboard handling automatic driver installation, we found that BOT actually made things significantly worse (up to 25% lower frame rates). After discussing these issues with Intel, we tried a new Windows installation, disabled the motherboard’s auto-driver feature, and only installed IPPP and the GPU drivers. This resulted in a perfectly functioning BOT. So, if you currently have an Arrow Lake PC and install a 200S Plus chip, you might find that the only way to get BOT working properly is by performing the same ‘fresh Windows + IPPP-only’ installation that we did.
Intel has faced a couple of challenging years recently, and while it’s not entirely out of the woods yet, innovations like the Binary Optimization Tool and the Core Ultra 200S Plus processors indicate that all the internal changes it has made (new personnel, restructured divisions, “listening to the customer”) are beginning to bear fruit. Let’s hope this “new Intel” continues on this promising path.
