FPSBench

Welcome to FPSBench, compare CPU and GPU performance with real FPS data, Passmark, Geekbench, 3DMark, Cinebench, and more. Tested by our team of 10+ hardware experts.

CPU

GPU

Browse CPUs Browse GPUs

1000+

CPUs Benchmarked

800+

GPUs Tested

10+

Benchmark Sources

Graphics Cards

New, popular, and upcoming GPUs from NVIDIA, AMD, and Intel

Choosing a graphics card is the single most consequential decision in any PC build, and it is also the one where marketing noise does the most damage. Every GPU on this page is ranked by measured performance, PassMark G3D, 3DMark Steel Nomad, Geekbench compute, and real in-game frame rates recorded across 53 titles, so the cards below appear exactly as they perform, not as their box art promises. Whether you are hunting for the best graphics card for 1440p gaming, a quiet efficiency-focused card for a small form factor build, or a VRAM-heavy model for video editing and local AI work, the path to the right answer starts with understanding what the numbers actually measure.

What actually separates one GPU from another

Three specifications do most of the work in determining real-world performance. The first is raw shader throughput, which our 3DMark and G3D scores capture well, it is the ceiling of what a card can draw. The second is memory: not just capacity, but bandwidth. A card with 12 GB of VRAM on a narrow bus can stutter in texture-heavy 4K scenes while an 8 GB card with a wide bus and fast GDDR6X stays smooth. The third is feature hardware, dedicated ray tracing cores, AI accelerators for upscaling, and media encoders. NVIDIA's DLSS, AMD's FSR, and Intel's XeSS can each multiply effective frame rates by 40 to 100 percent in supported games, which means a mid-range card with mature upscaling often outperforms a faster card without it. Our benchmark pages break all three pillars out separately, because a single blended score hides exactly the trade-offs that matter.

Desktop, laptop, and professional cards are not the same product

A desktop RTX-class card and its laptop namesake share a chip family and little else. Power limits reshape everything: a 175-watt mobile part performs meaningfully below its 300-watt desktop sibling, which is why we track mobile and desktop variants as separate entries with separate benchmark histories. Professional and workstation cards, the NVIDIA RTX A-series and AMD Radeon Pro lines, chase different goals entirely: certified drivers for CAD, DCC, and scientific computing, ECC memory, and long-term stability over burst frame rates. If your workload is Premiere Pro timelines, Blender rendering, or SolidWorks assemblies, the professional section below is worth your attention; for pure gaming value, the consumer desktop cards win on performance per dollar by a wide margin.

Match the card to the monitor, not the other way round

The most common buying mistake we see in the data is overspending on resolution headroom that never gets used. A 1080p 144 Hz esports monitor asks very little of a modern mid-range card, our measured Counter-Strike and Valorant results show even last-generation hardware clearing 300 FPS. A 1440p 165 Hz panel is the current sweet spot: it rewards a strong upper-mid card without demanding flagship money. Native 4K with ray tracing is where the high end earns its price, and where VRAM and bandwidth stop being optional. Browse the new desktop and laptop releases below, open any card for its full benchmark breakdown, or jump straight into a head-to-head comparison, every versus page on this site is built from the same measured database, so two cards are always compared on identical tests.

Processors

New, popular, and upcoming CPUs from AMD and Intel

The processor market has split into two distinct philosophies, and understanding which one serves your workload is worth more than any single benchmark number. On one side sit high-clock-speed gaming chips, led by AMD's X3D line with its stacked 3D V-Cache, engineered to feed a graphics card with the lowest possible latency. On the other side sit high-core-count productivity CPUs, where 16, 24, or more cores pay off in video encoding, software compilation, 3D rendering, and virtualization. The processors below are ranked by measured Cinebench, Geekbench, and PassMark results alongside real game performance, so you can see both philosophies scored on the same page.

Single-thread speed still decides more than core count for most people

It is tempting to shop by core count, because cores are easy to count. But the software most people run daily, browsers, office suites, game engines, photo editors, still leans heavily on single-thread performance. That is why a 6-core processor with a 5.7 GHz boost clock feels snappier in everyday use than a 16-core chip at 4.5 GHz, even though the bigger chip wins rendering benchmarks by two to one. Our benchmark pages always show single-core and multi-core scores side by side, and the gap between them tells you more about how a CPU will feel than either number alone. For a pure gaming build, prioritize boost clock and cache; for a workstation that encodes video, renders scenes, or compiles large codebases all day, cores become the honest metric.

The platform decision outlives the processor

A CPU purchase is really a platform purchase. The socket, chipset, and memory standard you choose today determine your upgrade path three years from now. AMD's AM5 platform supports DDR5 memory and PCIe 5.0 storage, and the company has a track record of keeping sockets alive across multiple CPU generations, meaning a motherboard bought now can accept a future drop-in upgrade. Intel's recent desktop platforms have turned over more quickly, which makes the motherboard choice more terminal but often brings stronger out-of-the-box memory support. Also weigh the practical details: a 65-watt efficient processor runs quietly on a modest air cooler, while flagship chips genuinely need a 240 mm liquid cooler and a motherboard with serious power delivery to reach their advertised boost clocks. The spec tables on each CPU page list TDP, socket, memory support, and PCIe lanes for exactly this reason.

Laptop processors follow different rules

Mobile CPUs live inside strict power and thermal envelopes, so the same silicon performs differently in a thin ultrabook than in a thick gaming laptop. Intel's Core Ultra chips and AMD's Ryzen AI series now integrate capable graphics and dedicated AI engines that handle background tasks efficiently, which is why battery life and sustained performance vary so much between two laptops with "the same" processor. Wherever possible we list the mobile variant separately from its desktop relative, with its own measured scores. Scroll through the new desktop and laptop processors below, each entry links to full benchmarks, nearest-rival comparisons, and measured game FPS where we have it.

New Desktop Processors

AMD Ryzen 7 9850X3D

8C / 16T 5.6 GHz 120W

2026

Intel Core Ultra 9 290K Plus

24C / 24T 5.8 GHz 125W

Intel Core Ultra 7 270K Plus

24C / 24T 5.5 GHz 125W

Intel Core Ultra 3 205

AMD Ryzen Threadripper 9960X

24C / 48T 5.3 GHz 350W

2025

AMD Ryzen Threadripper 9970X

32C / 64T 5.4 GHz 350W

2025

New Laptop Processors

AMD Ryzen AI Max+ 392

12C / 24T 5 GHz

2026

Intel Core Ultra 5 336H

16C / 16T 4.6 GHz

2026

Intel Core Ultra 5 338H

12C / 12T 4.7 GHz

2026

Intel Core Ultra 7 356H

16C / 16T 4.7 GHz

2026

Intel Core Ultra 9 386H

16C / 16T 4.9 GHz

2026

Intel Core Ultra X7 368H

16C / 16T 5 GHz

2026

Intel Core Ultra X9 388H

High-Performance Mobile Processors

AMD Ryzen AI Max+ 388

8C / 16T 5 GHz

2026

AMD Ryzen AI 9 HX PRO 475

12C / 24T 5.2 GHz

2026

AMD Ryzen AI 9 PRO 465

10C / 20T 5 GHz

2026

AMD Ryzen AI 9 HX PRO 470

12C / 24T 5.2 GHz

2026

AMD Ryzen AI 7 PRO 450

8C / 16T 5.1 GHz

2026

AMD Ryzen AI 5 PRO 440

6C / 12T 4.8 GHz

2026

AMD Ryzen AI 5 PRO 435

Intel Core Ultra 7 366H

New Server/Workstation Processors

Most Popular Processors

AMD Ryzen Threadripper PRO 9995WX

96C / 192T 5.4 GHz 350W

AMD Ryzen 7 7800X3D

8C / 16T 5 GHz 120W

AMD Ryzen 7 9850X3D

8C / 16T 5.6 GHz 120W

Intel Core i5-13600K

14C / 20T 5.1 GHz 125W

8C / 16T 5.2 GHz 120W

AMD Ryzen 7 5700X

8C / 16T 4.6 GHz 65W

Intel Core i7-13620H

10C / 16T 4.9 GHz 45W

Intel Celeron N5105

4C / 4T 2.9 GHz 10W

Most Popular Processor Comparisons

AMD Ryzen 7 9850X3D

AMD Ryzen 7 9800X3D

Intel Core Ultra 9 290K Plus

Intel Core Ultra 9 285K

Intel Core Ultra 7 270K Plus

Intel Core Ultra 7 265K

AMD Ryzen 5 7500X3D

AMD Ryzen 5 7600X

AMD Ryzen 9 9950X3D2 Dual Edition

AMD Ryzen 9 9950X3D

Intel Core Ultra X9 388H

Intel Core Ultra 9 285HX

AMD Ryzen AI Max+ 392

AMD Ryzen AI Max+ 395

Intel Core Ultra 7 366H

Intel Core Ultra 7 265H

AMD Ryzen 9 9955HX3D

Intel Core Ultra 9 275HX

Intel Core Ultra 5 250K Plus

Intel Core Ultra 5 245K

View All CPUs →

Games

Popular and upcoming games with FPS benchmarks

Every frame rate figure on this site comes from an actual measurement, not an estimate, a marketing slide, or a community anecdote. Our game database currently holds more than two million recorded FPS results across 190,000 hardware combinations, each one tested at 1080p, 1440p, and 4K across Low, Medium, High, and Ultra presets. That grid matters because a single average frame rate tells you almost nothing useful. What you want to know before buying hardware is how a specific game behaves on a specific CPU and GPU pairing, at the resolution and settings you actually intend to play at. That is precisely what these pages answer.

How to read FPS data like a reviewer

Start with the average, but never end there. The minimum and 1% low figures are what your eyes actually notice, a game averaging 120 FPS with dips to 45 feels worse in a firefight than a locked 90. Resolution scaling reveals the bottleneck: if frame rates barely move between 1080p and 1440p, the CPU is the limiting factor; if they collapse as resolution climbs, the GPU is doing the work. That single observation tells you which component an upgrade should target. Settings presets are the other free performance lever, our measured data routinely shows Medium or High delivering 80 to 120 percent of the Ultra frame rate with barely visible differences, which is why competitive players overwhelmingly favor optimized settings over cinematic ones.

Different games stress different hardware

Open-world titles with dense draw calls, Cyberpunk 2077, Red Dead Redemption 2, Starfield, hammer the GPU and reward VRAM headroom. Competitive shooters like Counter-Strike 2, Valorant, and Call of Duty: Warzone are engine-bound and cache-hungry, which is why AMD's X3D processors dominate those leaderboards. Simulation and survival games lean on the CPU in ways benchmarks rarely capture. And ray-traced games are their own category: enabling full ray tracing can halve frame rates even on flagship cards, which makes upscaling support, DLSS, FSR, XeSS, a genuine buying criterion rather than a checkbox. Each game page below breaks down measured performance by resolution, preset, and hardware tier, so you can look up your exact build or the one you are considering.

What frame rate do you actually need?

Match the target to your display and your genre. For cinematic single-player games, a stable 60 FPS at your monitor's native resolution is the comfortable floor, and 90 to 120 feels luxurious. For competitive play, frame rate is equipment: 144 FPS on a 144 Hz panel is table stakes, and serious players chase 240 or even 360 FPS at 1080p, where our data shows only a handful of CPU-GPU pairings sustain those numbers at minimum settings. Anything beyond your monitor's refresh rate still has value, it reduces input latency, but diminishing returns arrive quickly. The most popular and newest games in our benchmark database are listed below; open any title to see the full measured grid across more than 3,700 tested hardware combinations.

Most Popular Games

Grand Theft Auto V

Action Adventure 2013

View FPS Data →

Cyberpunk 2077

Action RPG 2020

View FPS Data →

Red Dead Redemption 2

Action Adventure 2018

View FPS Data →

Counter-Strike 2

FPS 2023

View FPS Data →

Fortnite

Battle Royale 2017

View FPS Data →

Minecraft

Sandbox 2011

View FPS Data →

Counter-Strike: Global Offensive

FPS 2012

View FPS Data →

Valorant

FPS 2020

View FPS Data →

Call of Duty: Warzone

Battle Royale 2020

View FPS Data →

Microsoft Flight Simulator

Flight Simulation 2020

View FPS Data →

Control

Action Adventure 2019

View FPS Data →

Rust

Survival 2018

View FPS Data →

Hitman 2

Stealth 2018

View FPS Data →

Doom

FPS 2016

View FPS Data →

Palworld

Survival 2024

View FPS Data →

Ready Or Not

Tactical Shooter 2021

View FPS Data →

Ark: Survival Ascended

Survival 2023

View FPS Data →

The Medium

Horror 2021

View FPS Data →

Outriders

Looter Shooter 2021

View FPS Data →

Roblox

Sandbox 2006

View FPS Data →

New Games

No Rest For The Wicked

Action RPG 2024

View FPS Data →

Lockdown Protocol

FPS 2024

View FPS Data →

To The Core

Idle 2024

View FPS Data →

Palworld

Survival 2024

View FPS Data →

Steamworld Build

City Builder 2023

View FPS Data →

Ark: Survival Ascended

Survival 2023

View FPS Data →

Undisputed

Sports 2023

View FPS Data →

Counter-Strike 2

FPS 2023

View FPS Data →

Overpower

Action 2023

View FPS Data →

Dave The Diver

Adventure 2023

View FPS Data →

Revolution Idle

Idle 2023

View FPS Data →

High On Life

FPS 2022

View FPS Data →

Ready Or Not

Tactical Shooter 2021

View FPS Data →

Road 96

Adventure 2021

View FPS Data →

Outriders

Looter Shooter 2021

View FPS Data →

The Medium

Horror 2021

View FPS Data →

Cyberpunk 2077

Action RPG 2020

View FPS Data →

Microsoft Flight Simulator

Flight Simulation 2020

View FPS Data →

Valorant

FPS 2020

View FPS Data →

Call of Duty: Warzone

Battle Royale 2020

View FPS Data →

View All Games →

Browse Benchmarks

Explore comprehensive performance data across different categories

FPSBench aggregates the benchmark suites the hardware industry actually trusts, PassMark, Cinebench, Geekbench, and 3DMark, and layers our own measured game frame rates on top. Each suite answers a different question, and knowing which one to look at saves you from the classic mistake of comparing two products on a test that does not reflect your workload. Together they cover synthetic compute, real rendering, and live gameplay, which is about as complete a picture as public benchmark data allows.

Cinebench is the purest CPU-rendering test in the set: it renders a complex 3D scene using only the processor, making it the benchmark of record for video editors, 3D artists, and anyone whose day job involves waiting on a progress bar. Geekbench measures short, bursty workloads that resemble everyday desktop and mobile use, it is the better predictor of how responsive a machine feels. PassMark casts the widest net, exercising integer and floating-point math, compression, encryption, and memory throughput in one composite score that travels well across eras, which is why it anchors our percentile rankings. 3DMark does the equivalent for graphics cards, with Steel Nomad and Time Spy simulating modern DirectX 12 game engines without requiring the games themselves. And then there is the layer we consider the most honest: measured FPS from real games, recorded across resolutions and settings, because no synthetic test fully predicts how a specific engine treats your specific hardware combination.

The practical rule: use synthetic scores to shortlist, and measured game data to decide. If two processors sit within five percent of each other in Cinebench, the difference will be invisible in daily use, choose based on platform features, power draw, and price instead. If two graphics cards tie in 3DMark but one is 15 percent ahead in measured 1440p game performance, the game data wins every time. Every page linked below, CPUs, GPUs, and game benchmarks, is built on the same database of more than 3,400 processors, 2,700 graphics cards, and over two million recorded frame rate measurements, updated continuously as new hardware launches.

CPU Benchmarks

Compare processor performance from AMD and Intel

→

GPU Benchmarks

Compare graphics card performance from NVIDIA, AMD, and Intel

→

Game FPS Data

See FPS benchmarks for popular games across different hardware

→

Interactive Tools

Powerful tools to help you make informed hardware decisions

Benchmark tables are honest but blunt: they tell you which part is faster, not what to do about it. The tools below exist to close that gap. Each one runs on the same measured database that powers this site, no self-reported scores, no forum estimates, and each is built to answer one specific buying or upgrading question in plain terms, whether you are speccing a first gaming PC, deciding if a five-year-old rig needs help, or checking a laptop against a game you just bought.

Rate My PC, a percentile score that means something

Rate My PC scores your processor and graphics card against every part in our database and returns a percentile: a rating of 70 means your build outperforms 70 percent of the hardware we track. More useful than the number is the balance analysis. By comparing the two percentiles, the tool identifies which component is holding the other back, a flagship GPU paired with a budget quad-core wastes real money every day, and the reverse is just as common. If your exact pairing has measured game data, you see real frame rates; otherwise you see transparent estimates labeled as such. It is the fastest way to know whether an upgrade will actually change anything, or whether the rig you already own is quietly excellent.

Can I Run It, the answer before the download

Pick a game, pick your CPU and GPU, and the tool returns a verdict built from measured performance: which resolutions stay above 60 FPS, which preset is the sensible one, and where the first bottleneck appears. Because our data covers more than 190,000 tested combinations, the answer usually comes from a machine functionally identical to yours rather than from extrapolated system requirements, which, as anyone who has trusted a store page's "minimum specs" knows, range from optimistic to fictional. For laptops this matters doubly: mobile variants of the same chip can differ by 30 percent, and the tool treats them as the different products they are.

What Games Can I Run, the library your hardware already owns

The reverse question is just as valuable: given the PC you have, what plays well on it? Enter your hardware once and the tool scans the entire benchmark library, surfacing titles that run smoothly at your resolution, including older gems and indie games that never appear on minimum-spec radars. It is the single best page on this site for a student laptop, an office desktop doing double duty, or a hand-me-down build looking for its second life. All three tools are free, require no account, and link straight back into the benchmark pages when you want to verify a number yourself.

Popular