SYSTEM ANALYZER

Rate My PC: AMD Ryzen 3 7335U + AMD Radeon 860M

Get a comprehensive performance analysis of your gaming rig with detailed benchmarks, bottleneck detection, and upgrade recommendations

Build Configuration

Select your components

PROCESSOR (CPU)

▼

GRAPHICS CARD (GPU)

▼

88 Score

Top 12% Ranking

88 / 100

HIGH-END

Power Build

Top 12% of systems. Excellent for 1440p Ultra or 4K High gaming.

1440p Ultra4K High

System Balance Analysis

CPU vs GPU performance ratio

Well Balanced

CPU

82%

GPU

93%

PROCESSOR

AMD Ryzen 3 7335U

16,827 Benchmark Score

Top 18% Market Ranking

View Full Specs →

GRAPHICS CARD

AMD Radeon 860M

26,401 Benchmark Score

Top 7% Market Ranking

View Full Specs →

Market Position

How your build compares to others

Budget

0-30

Mid-Range

30-60

High-End

60-85

Enthusiast

85-100

Your Build

Game Performance Benchmarks

Real-world 4K FPS in popular titles

View All Games →

Performance Insights

Tips to maximize your system

Strong Performance

Excellent for 1440p gaming. Most games will run at high/ultra settings smoothly.

Compatible Games See what you can play Compare CPUs Find upgrades Compare GPUs Find upgrades

Performance Tiers Explained

90-100

Ultimate

4K Ultra gaming, VR ready, ray tracing enabled, professional workloads

4K 60+ FPS VR Ready

70-89

High-End

1440p Ultra or 4K High settings, excellent for modern AAA titles

1440p Ultra 4K High

50-69

Mid-Range

1080p Ultra or 1440p Medium, great value for most gamers

1080p Ultra 1440p Med

30-49

Entry Level

1080p Medium settings, suitable for eSports and older titles

1080p Med eSports

0-29

Legacy

Basic gaming, older titles, consider upgrading for modern games

720p-1080p Low Older Games

The AMD Ryzen 3 7335U paired with the AMD Radeon 860M is an unusual entry in the database: a mobile CPU and an integrated GPU that belong to different platform generations, recorded here as a single laptop-class pairing. The CPU is a Zen 3+ quad-core from 2023, while the GPU is a 2025 RDNA 3.5 integrated design — a combination that raises interesting questions about which component actually gates performance. One important caveat up front: the FACT PACK contains no measured FPS rows for this pairing, so every frame-rate figure in this analysis is an estimate derived from the benchmark scores, not from direct game testing.

Gaming Performance

There are no measured FPS results in the database for this exact CPU+GPU combination, so all gaming discussion here is an estimate extrapolated from the benchmark scores rather than recorded data. What the scores do establish is the rough performance envelope.

The Radeon 860M posts a Geekbench OpenCL score of 22759 and a Vulkan score of 30043, averaging 26401 across the recorded tests. That places it at the 72nd percentile of all GPUs in the database — a strong showing for an integrated design, and one that puts it in the immediate company of the NVIDIA GeForce MX550 (avgScore 26421, deltaPct -0.1), the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5060 (avgScore 26331, deltaPct 0.3), the AMD Radeon RX 5700 XT 50th Anniversary (avgScore 26553, deltaPct -0.6), and the NVIDIA RTX A4000 (avgScore 26683, deltaPct -1.1). Those deltas are small — the 860M sits within roughly one percent of all four rivals on average score — which suggests competitive-class graphics throughput rather than a distinct advantage over any of them.

What does that imply for estimated frame rates? With 512 shading units, a 3000 MHz boost clock, and 3.072 TFLOPS of FP32 compute, the 860M has the raw specification set of a capable integrated GPU, but not one that targets Ultra settings at high resolution in modern AAA titles. Estimated from the score profile, the realistic expectation is 1080p gaming at reduced settings — Medium or Low presets with upscaling — in most current games, with older or lighter titles likely running comfortably at 1080p at higher settings. At 1440p or 4K, the estimate drops sharply: 16 ROPs and a 48.00 GPixel/s pixel fill rate are modest, and a system-shared memory subsystem with no dedicated bandwidth means resolution scaling punishes this GPU harder than a discrete card.

One more wrinkle matters for the estimate. This is a system-shared-memory GPU with bandwidth described only as "System Dependent," so estimated frame rates hinge entirely on the host laptop's memory configuration. Fast dual-channel DDR5 will pull the estimate upward; single-channel memory would undercut it severely. Any FPS number quoted for this pairing should be read as conditional on that memory setup.

Balance and Bottleneck

The combined percentile for this pairing is 71, with the CPU at the 70th percentile and the GPU at the 72nd percentile — a strikingly even split on paper. But percentiles compare each component against its own category, and the more telling question is which part limits which workload inside this specific laptop.

The CPU evidence points to a clear multi-core ceiling. Four cores and eight threads produce a Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 10703 against a single-core score of 1511 — a multi-thread ratio of roughly seven, which is consistent with eight threads, but the absolute multi-core number is what caps sustained workloads. In PassMark the gap is starker: 12592 multithread versus 3053 single-thread. Games that lean on one or two fast threads will fare better than games or creative applications that scale across many cores. With only four cores, background tasks — a browser, a stream encoder, a compiler — compete directly with the foreground workload.

The GPU side is bandwidth-bound by construction. "System Shared" memory type, "System Shared" bus width, and "System Dependent" bandwidth mean the 860M draws every texture and frame buffer from the same dual-channel DDR5 pipe that feeds the CPU, rated at 76.8 GB/s on the CPU side. GPU-heavy games therefore stress the memory subsystem twice: once for the graphics data, once for whatever the four Zen 3+ cores are doing. That is the most probable bottleneck in this build — not raw shader count, but shared memory bandwidth at higher resolutions and quality presets.

The inference is that this pairing is reasonably balanced for light gaming, with neither part dramatically overshooting the other, but both sit in the same modest tier. Neither component can rescue the other.

Benchmark Performance

The CPU's benchmark record is thorough. Cinebench R15: 1078 multi-core, 152 single-core. Cinebench R20: 4495 multi-core, 634 single-core. Cinebench R23: 10703 multi-core, 1511 single-core. PassMark covers a wider spread: 12592 multithread, 3053 single-thread, 24298 floating point math, 42493 integer math, 146309 data compression, 9335 data encryption, 10314 extended instructions, 36 find-prime-numbers, 647 physics, and 15361 random string sorting. The average benchmark score is 16827, placing the 7335U at the 70th percentile of all CPUs.

The nearest-rival table is unusually tight. The Intel Core i3-12100E averages 16853 (the 7335U trails by 0.2 percent), the Intel Core i5-1235U averages 16770 (the AMD leads by 0.3 percent), the Intel Core Ultra 5 115U averages 16753 (AMD ahead by 0.4 percent), and the AMD Ryzen 5 7235HS averages 16902 (AMD behind by 0.4 percent). Every rival is within half a percent. In practical terms, the 7335U is statistically indistinguishable from these chips in aggregate benchmark output — a quad-core that holds its own against some higher-core-count mobile designs, likely on the strength of that 1511-point R23 single-core result and the 4.30 GHz boost clock behind it.

The GPU record is shorter but consistent: Geekbench OpenCL 22759, Geekbench Vulkan 30043, average 26401, 72nd percentile. The Vulkan result exceeding the OpenCL result by a wide margin hints that the RDNA 3.5 architecture's Vulkan path is its stronger suit — relevant because most modern game engines route through Vulkan or DirectX 12, and the GPU supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (feature level 12_2) and Vulkan 1.4.

The combined picture: a 71st-percentile laptop pairing whose two halves score within two percentile points of each other, with an average combined benchmark output in the same band as mainstream thin-and-light mobile hardware. It is coherent, balanced, and modest.

Usage Scenarios

High-refresh gaming. The estimates here are cautious. With no measured FPS data and a GPU whose average score sits alongside the MX550, high-refresh play at 1080p is realistic only in esports and older titles. The 3000 MHz boost clock and RDNA 3.5 shaders can push high frame rates in light engines, but 16 ROPs and shared memory bandwidth argue against sustained triple-digit frame rates in demanding modern games.

Streaming. This is where the four-core count bites. A Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 10703 leaves little headroom to run a game and an encoder simultaneously. Single-device streaming is feasible at modest settings, but the PassMark multithread score of 12592 suggests the CPU will saturate quickly when games and encoding software contend for the same eight threads.

Video editing. Timeline scrubbing and playback will work for 1080p projects, helped by the 76.8 GB/s dual-channel DDR5 bandwidth and the GPU's 8 RT cores enabling hardware-accelerated effects where supported. Final exports, however, are CPU-bound, and the R23 multi-core score of 10703 puts render times well behind higher-core mobile chips.

3D rendering. The OpenCL score of 22759 indicates the GPU can participate in GPU-accelerated viewport work and some render backends, but 512 shading units and 3.072 TFLOPS FP32 define a preview-tier machine, not a render node. CPU-based rendering is capped by the same four-core envelope.

Software development. This is a stronger fit than gaming. A single-thread PassMark score of 3053 and an R23 single-core score of 1511 mean responsive editors and fast single-file compiles. Large parallel builds — 42493 integer math notwithstanding — will feel the four-core limit, but the data compression score of 146309 and encryption score of 9335 indicate snappy version-control and file operations.

Student and office work. The best-matched scenario. Documents, browsing, video calls, and multitasking all lean on single-thread responsiveness and memory bandwidth, both of which this pairing supplies adequately. The 28 W TDP also implies a fan profile suited to sustained office loads.

CPU Analysis

The Ryzen 3 7335U is a Zen 3+ (Rembrandt-R) design on TSMC's 6 nm node, with a 208 mm² die, launched on 2023-01-03. Four cores, eight threads, a 3.00 GHz base clock, and a 4.30 GHz boost clock define the topology. The cache hierarchy is 64 KB L1 and 512 KB L2 per core, with 8 MB of shared L3 — a compact but functional layout for a mobile quad-core.

Interpreting the scores: the single-core results (R15 152, R20 634, R23 1511, PassMark 3053) are the strength of this chip. They explain why the 7335U matches the Core i5-1235U and Core Ultra 5 115U on aggregate despite those rivals' presumably broader thread resources — latency-sensitive work simply doesn't care about core count, and a 4.30 GHz boost on Zen 3+ delivers competitive per-thread throughput. The multi-core results (R15 1078, R20 4495, R23 10703) are respectable per-core but capped at four cores, which is precisely the profile of a chip that feels quick in everyday use and slow under heavy parallel load.

The platform details reinforce the mobile positioning: Socket FP7, a 28 W TDP, a locked multiplier, and an integrated Radeon 660M on the CPU side — note that this pairing's designated GPU is the newer 860M, not the 660M baked into the CPU's own die, which is worth flagging as a database curiosity. ECC memory support is listed as true, unusual for a consumer mobile part. PCIe 4.0 with 20 CPU lanes gives the platform reasonable expansion headroom for a laptop.

One number invites scrutiny: passmark_find_prime_numbers at 36. That is a very low absolute value and, next to the much larger integer and compression scores, suggests the prime-finding workload scales with core count more than clock speed — another data point showing where this quad-core runs out of room.

FAQ

Q: Is this a desktop or laptop build?

A: Laptop. The buildClass field lists this pairing as a laptop, and the CPU's FP7 socket, 28 W TDP, and Mobile market segment confirm it.

Q: How does the CPU compare to its closest rivals?

A: It is essentially tied with all of them. It trails the Intel Core i3-12100E by 0.2 percent, leads the Intel Core i5-1235U by 0.3 percent, leads the Intel Core Ultra 5 115U by 0.4 percent, and trails the AMD Ryzen 5 7235HS by 0.4 percent on average benchmark score.

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

A: Similarly tight. The Radeon 860M sits within 1.1 percent of the NVIDIA GeForce MX550, NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5060, AMD Radeon RX 5700 XT 50th Anniversary, and NVIDIA RTX A4000 on average benchmark score, sitting at the 72nd percentile of all GPUs.

Q: Are there measured game FPS numbers for this pairing?

A: No. The database contains no measured FPS rows for this CPU+GPU combination, so any frame-rate expectations are estimates derived from the benchmark scores.

Q: How much VRAM does the Radeon 860M have?

A: None of its own. Memory size, type, and bus width are all listed as System Shared, meaning it uses the laptop's system memory, and its bandwidth is system dependent.

Q: Can this pairing handle streaming while gaming?

A: Only marginally. With four cores, eight threads, and a PassMark multithread score of 12592, simultaneous game and encode workloads will contend heavily for the same threads.

Q: Is the CPU multiplier unlocked for overclocking?

A: No. The multiplierUnlocked field is false, which is expected for a 28 W mobile part on Socket FP7.

Who Should Build It

Since this is a laptop-class pairing rather than a self-built system, "who should build it" translates to who should buy a machine built around it. The data points first at students and general office users: single-core scores of 3053 (PassMark) and 1511 (R23) deliver the responsiveness those workloads need, and the balanced 71st-percentile combined rating is more than sufficient for productivity software.

Light-to-moderate gamers at 1080p with adjusted settings are the second group — the 860M's 72nd-percentile GPU standing and 3.072 TFLOPS FP32 output support that use case, provided the laptop uses fast dual-channel DDR5 to feed the shared-memory design. Developers working on small-to-medium projects fit third, given the strong single-thread results and the 146309 data-compression score, though parallel build-heavy teams should look at the four-core limit honestly.

Content creators should calibrate expectations carefully: 1080p video editing and viewport preview work are within reach, but the 10703 R23 multi-core score defines a hard ceiling on export and render times. This is not a machine for professional 3D rendering, high-refresh AAA gaming, or multi-app streaming — the benchmark data does not support those verdicts.

Build Overview

This entry is a laptop-class pairing: AMD's Ryzen 3 7335U, a 2023 Zen 3+ mobile quad-core, matched with the AMD Radeon 860M, a 2025 RDNA 3.5 integrated GPU from the Krackan Point chip family built on TSMC's 4 nm process. The two components come from different generations, which makes this a cross-generation database pairing rather than a single-silicon design.

By tier, the combined percentile of 71 places the pairing solidly in the upper-middle band of the database — respectable, but with both halves individually rated at 70 (CPU) and 72 (GPU), neither component pushes the combination into enthusiast territory. The build is best characterized as a balanced mainstream mobile platform: adequate everywhere, exceptional nowhere. The average benchmark scores — 16827 for the CPU and 26401 for the GPU — reinforce that reading, as both figures land in the same competitive band as their respective rival sets.

GPU Analysis

The Radeon 860M is an RDNA 3.5 integrated GPU on TSMC's 4 nm node, part of the Navi III IGP (Strix Point Mobile) generation, released on 2025-02-28 as the successor to Navi II IGP. Its specification sheet reads: 512 shading units, 32 TMUs, 16 ROPs, and 8 RT cores, with a 600 MHz base clock and a 3000 MHz boost clock. Peak rates are 48.00 GPixel/s pixel fill, 96.00 GTexel/s texture fill, and 3.072 TFLOPS FP32, with FP16 running at a 1:1 ratio for the same 3.072 TFLOPS. The bus interface is PCIe 4.0 x8, power delivery is integrated (15 W TDP, no power connectors, IGP slot width), and API support covers DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. Tensor cores are not listed.

For rendering workloads, the numbers tell a two-sided story. The compute side is decent for an IGP: 3.072 TFLOPS FP32, spread across 512 shaders at a 3000 MHz boost, produces the 22759 OpenCL and 30043 Vulkan Geekbench results. GPU-accelerated encoders, composited video effects, and viewport shading will all run, and the 8 RT cores mean ray-traced features are at least addressable through DirectX 12 Ultimate support, even if the 72nd-percentile overall standing implies they should be toggled sparingly.

The output side is the constraint. Sixteen ROPs and 48 GPixel/s of fill rate cap high-resolution rendering, and the system-shared memory — with bandwidth explicitly listed as System Dependent — removes the one lever discrete GPUs use to compensate. Texture-heavy scenes at 1440p or above will strain both fill rate and shared bandwidth simultaneously. The practical rendering conclusion: capable at 1080p-class output, stretched beyond it, and entirely dependent on the host system's memory configuration for its final performance figure.

Upgrade Path and Platform

The CPU platform is Socket FP7 with DDR5 memory support on a dual-channel bus, 76.8 GB/s of memory bandwidth, ECC support, and PCIe 4.0 with 20 CPU lanes. Because the socket is a mobile BGA-style interface and the multiplier is locked, there is no conventional CPU upgrade path — the realistic "upgrade" is replacing the laptop, and the nearestRivals data provides a preview of what a lateral move looks like: the Ryzen 5 7235HS sits 0.4 percent ahead on average score, while Intel's i3-12100E, i5-1235U, and Core Ultra 5 115U all sit within 0.4 percent in either direction. Meaningful gains require stepping outside this rival band entirely.

On the GPU side, the 860M is integrated, drawing a 15 W TDP with no power connectors and no suggested PSU — the CPU's 28 W TDP defines the whole platform's power envelope. The bus interface of PCIe 4.0 x8 is worth noting for one specific upgrade scenario: in a laptop with a Thunderbolt-class external-GPU enclosure, that interface would be the link rate feeding an external card, though the four-core CPU would then become the evident limit for many games.

What does a sensible next step look like? The data suggests memory first: since GPU bandwidth is System Dependent, ensuring dual-channel DDR5 at the platform's rated speed is the cheapest effective upgrade for both gaming and creative work. Beyond that, the benchmark profile — a 70th-percentile CPU and 72nd-percentile GPU locked into a 71st-percentile pairing — indicates that this platform's ceiling is structural. Users who outgrow it need a higher-core-count mobile CPU and a discrete GPU with dedicated memory, not incremental tweaks to this one.

Rate My PC: AMD Ryzen 3 7335U + AMD Radeon 860M

Power Build

System Balance Analysis

AMD Ryzen 3 7335U

AMD Radeon 860M

Market Position

Game Performance Benchmarks

Cyberpunk 2077

Red Dead Redemption 2

Microsoft Flight Simulator

Control

Call of Duty: Warzone

Fortnite

Performance Insights

Strong Performance

Performance Tiers Explained

Ultimate

High-End

Mid-Range

Entry Level

Legacy

Gaming Performance

Balance and Bottleneck

Benchmark Performance

Usage Scenarios

CPU Analysis

FAQ

Who Should Build It

Build Overview

GPU Analysis

Upgrade Path and Platform

4K Gaming Performance

Cyberpunk 2077

Red Dead Redemption 2

Microsoft Flight Simulator

Control

Call of Duty: Warzone

Fortnite

1440p Gaming Performance

Cyberpunk 2077

Red Dead Redemption 2

Microsoft Flight Simulator

Control

Call of Duty: Warzone

Fortnite

1080p Gaming Performance

Cyberpunk 2077

Red Dead Redemption 2

Microsoft Flight Simulator

Control

Call of Duty: Warzone

Fortnite

Related Processors

Related Graphics Cards

Compare Your CPU

Compare Your GPU

Related PC Builds

Same CPU with Different GPUs

Same GPU with Different CPUs

Other Popular Builds