SYSTEM ANALYZER

Rate My PC: AMD Ryzen 5 7400 + NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5080 SUPER

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

86 / 100
HIGH-END

Power Build

Top 14% of systems. Excellent for 1440p Ultra or 4K High gaming.

1440p Ultra4K High

System Balance Analysis

CPU vs GPU performance ratio
Well Balanced
CPU
93%
VS
GPU
79%
PROCESSOR

AMD Ryzen 5 7400

42,055 Benchmark Score
Top 7% Market Ranking
View Full Specs →
GRAPHICS CARD

NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5080 SUPER

3,075 Benchmark Score
Top 21% 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

# CPU Analysis

The AMD Ryzen 5 7400 is a 6-core, 12-thread desktop processor built on the Zen 4 architecture, codenamed Raphael, and fabricated on TSMC's 5 nm process. It operates with a base clock of 3.30 GHz and a boost clock of 4.30 GHz, drawing a 65 W TDP. The chip integrates 6,570 million transistors on a 71 mm² die, with a cache hierarchy of 64 KB L1 per core, 1 MB L2 per core, and 16 MB shared L3. Memory support is dual-channel DDR5 with a bandwidth of 83.2 GB/s, and ECC memory is supported. The processor also includes Radeon Graphics as integrated graphics, though its primary workload focus is clearly CPU-bound tasks given the dedicated GPU pairing in this build.

Benchmark results place this CPU at the 88th percentile among all CPUs, with an average benchmark score of 42,055. The multithread score of 21,712 and single-thread score of 3,248 indicate a balanced performer. In integer math, the chip scores 64,733, while floating-point math reaches 40,784. Data compression scores 261,749, and data encryption hits 14,865. Extended instructions score 19,924, prime number finding scores 79, and random string sorting scores 31,110. The physics score is 1,150.

Relative to its nearest rivals, the Ryzen 5 7400 sits within a tight cluster. It is 0.2% ahead of the AMD Ryzen 9 PRO 8945HS, 0.3% ahead of the Intel Core i7-14700T, and 0.7% ahead of the Intel Core i7-12850HX. Against the Intel Core i9-12900K, it trails by 0.7%. These sub-1% deltas show that the Ryzen 5 7400 is effectively performance-equivalent to a broad set of high-end laptop and desktop parts from both AMD and Intel, making its 88th percentile ranking a reflection of consistent, well-rounded throughput rather than a single standout metric.

For real workloads, the data implies a processor that handles multi-threaded productivity tasks like video encoding, compilation, and 3D rendering competently, while the single-thread score of 3,248 suggests strong responsiveness in lightly threaded applications such as web browsing, office suites, and legacy software. The 65 W TDP is modest, especially compared to the 415 W GPU in this build, indicating the CPU is not the primary power draw. The 5 nm process and 16 MB L3 cache contribute to efficient data reuse, though the 83.2 GB/s memory bandwidth could be a limiting factor in bandwidth-sensitive tasks, a point worth examining against the GPU's 1.02 TB/s capability.

FAQ

Q: How does the Ryzen 5 7400 compare to the Intel Core i9-12900K in average benchmark score?

A: The Ryzen 5 7400 trails the Core i9-12900K by 0.7%, with average scores of 42,055 and 42,335 respectively. This is a marginal difference, well within run-to-run variance, indicating near-identical overall throughput.

Q: What is the CPU's percentile ranking among all processors?

A: The Ryzen 5 7400 sits at the 88th percentile, meaning it outperforms 88% of all CPUs in the benchmark database. This places it firmly in the upper tier of desktop processors.

Q: Does the CPU support ECC memory?

A: Yes, the Ryzen 5 7400 supports ECC memory, which is notable for workstation or small server builds where data integrity is critical. It pairs with dual-channel DDR5 memory at 83.2 GB/s bandwidth.

Q: What is the single-thread performance score, and why does it matter?

A: The single-thread score is 3,248, which reflects performance in tasks that rely on one core, such as gaming logic, spreadsheet calculations, or general desktop responsiveness. This score is solid for a 6-core part and complements the multithread score.

Q: How does the CPU's data encryption score compare to its compression score?

A: The data encryption score is 14,865, while data compression is 261,749. The compression score is over 17 times higher, indicating the chip is far more efficient at compression workloads, which are common in file archiving and database operations.

Q: What is the CPU's TDP, and how does it affect system cooling?

A: The TDP is 65 W, which is low for a desktop CPU. This means a modest air cooler suffices, and the system's thermal load is dominated by the GPU, which has a 415 W TDP.

Q: Which rival is closest in performance to the Ryzen 5 7400?

A: The AMD Ryzen 9 PRO 8945HS is the closest rival, with a delta of 0.2% ahead of the Ryzen 5 7400. The Intel Core i7-14700T is also close at 0.3% ahead.

Gaming Performance

No measured FPS rows exist for this exact CPU+GPU combination. The FACT PACK contains no measuredFps data, so all frame rate discussion below is estimated from the benchmark scores. The GPU's sole 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 score is 3,075, which is low — the GPU sits at the 19th percentile among all GPUs. This is a surprising result for a card named RTX 5080 SUPER, and it suggests the benchmark score may not reflect typical gaming performance, or the card is mispositioned in the database.

Given the CPU's 88th percentile ranking and the GPU's 19th percentile, the estimated gaming performance would be GPU-limited in most scenarios. The CPU's 3,248 single-thread score is strong enough to feed frames at high refresh rates, but the GPU's low 3DMark score implies modest frame rates. For 1080p ultra settings, one might estimate 60-80 FPS in demanding titles, based on the GPU score relative to rivals like the NVIDIA Quadro P1000 (3,163, 2.8% faster) and GeForce 820A (2,983, 3.1% slower). At 1440p, frame rates would drop to 40-60 FPS, and at 4K, 30-45 FPS. These are estimates; actual performance depends on game optimization and driver maturity.

The CPU's multithread score of 21,712 ensures that background tasks like streaming overlays or Discord won't bottleneck the GPU in most cases. However, the GPU's low percentile suggests that this pairing is not ideal for high-refresh 1440p or 4K gaming. The 24 GB VRAM and 1.02 TB/s bandwidth are high-end specs, but the benchmark score contradicts those specs, implying the card may be thermal-throttled, driver-limited, or the benchmark is not representative of gaming workloads.

Balance and Bottleneck

The data shows a clear imbalance. The CPU is at the 88th percentile, while the GPU is at the 19th percentile. In gaming, this means the GPU is almost certainly the bottleneck, limiting frame rates well below what the CPU could drive. The CPU's 6 cores and 12 threads handle modern game physics and AI, with a physics score of 1,150, but the GPU's low 3DMark score of 3,075 caps output.

In CPU-bound workloads like software compilation or data compression (score 261,749), the CPU shines, and the GPU's role is minimal. Conversely, in GPU-bound tasks like 3D rendering or video encoding with CUDA, the GPU's 56.28 TFLOPS FP32 performance suggests high throughput, but the 3DMark score indicates otherwise. This discrepancy could mean the GPU is underperforming due to a specific bottleneck in the benchmark, such as ray tracing or mesh shading, where the 84 RT cores and 336 tensor cores might not be utilized effectively.

The FPS scaling evidence is absent since no measured FPS data exists, but from the percentile gap, one can infer that increasing resolution from 1080p to 4K will further strain the GPU, while the CPU will remain underutilized. Conversely, lowering graphics settings will not yield proportional FPS gains because the CPU is not the limiter. For a balanced build, the GPU would need to score closer to the CPU's percentile, or the CPU would need to be paired with a lower-end GPU.

Upgrade Path and Platform

The Ryzen 5 7400 uses AMD Socket AM5, which supports DDR5 memory and PCIe Gen 5 with 24 lanes from the CPU. The GPU uses PCIe 5.0 x16, so the platform fully supports the interface. The CPU's memory bandwidth is 83.2 GB/s, while the GPU's is 1.02 TB/s — this gap is typical, as the GPU has its own dedicated VRAM.

The CPU is unlocked (multiplier unlocked), allowing overclocking, though the 65 W TDP limits headroom without adequate cooling. The GPU has a 415 W TDP and requires a 1x 16-pin power connector. The suggested PSU is not provided in the data, but given the combined TDP of 480 W (65 W CPU + 415 W GPU), a capable power supply is necessary, likely 750 W or higher, though this is qualitative since no PSU figure is listed.

A sensible next upgrade would be a higher-tier AM5 CPU, such as a Ryzen 9 or Ryzen 7 with more cores, to better match the GPU's potential in multi-threaded workloads. Alternatively, if gaming is the priority, upgrading the GPU to one with a higher benchmark percentile would resolve the bottleneck. The platform's support for PCIe Gen 5 ensures future GPUs and NVMe drives are compatible. The CPU's release date is 2025-09-15, and the GPU's is 2025-12-31, so both are current-generation parts with active production status.

Who Should Build It

This build targets users who need strong CPU performance for productivity but are willing to accept modest GPU gaming performance. Content creators working with data compression (score 261,749) or integer math (64,733) will find the CPU capable, but 3D renderers relying on the GPU may be disappointed given the 19th percentile GPU score. Software developers compiling large codebases will benefit from the 6-core/12-thread configuration and 88th percentile CPU ranking.

Students and small business workstations that prioritize office tasks, web development, or database management will find the CPU's single-thread score of 3,248 more than adequate. Gamers at 1080p with lower graphics settings could achieve playable frame rates, but those seeking high-refresh 1440p or 4K should look elsewhere. The 24 GB VRAM is unusual for a GPU with such a low benchmark score, so AI or machine learning workloads that fit within VRAM might still benefit, despite the low 3DMark result.

Benchmark Performance

The CPU's average benchmark score is 42,055, placing it at the 88th percentile. Its best sub-scores include data compression at 261,749, integer math at 64,733, floating-point math at 40,784, and random string sorting at 31,110. The multithread score is 21,712, and the single-thread score is 3,248. The GPU's 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 score is 3,075, placing it at the 19th percentile. The GPU's nearest rivals are the NVIDIA Quadro P1000 (3,163, 2.8% faster), Intel Arc Pro B60 (3,182, 3.4% faster), NVIDIA GeForce 820A (2,983, 3.1% slower), and NVIDIA GeForce GTX 860M (2,967, 3.6% slower).

The combined picture is one of stark contrast: the CPU is a top-tier performer, while the GPU is a bottom-quintile performer. The combined percentile for the build is 54, reflecting the GPU's drag on the overall score. This suggests that the build is only average in overall system performance, despite the CPU's excellence. The GPU's 56.28 TFLOPS FP32 and 1.02 TB/s bandwidth are high-end specs, but the 3DMark score indicates real-world rendering is poor, possibly due to a driver issue or thermal throttling.

Build Overview

This is a desktop build pairing the AMD Ryzen 5 7400 with the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5080 SUPER. The CPU is a 6-core Zen 4 part from the 7000 series, while the GPU is a Blackwell 2.0 architecture card with 24 GB GDDR7 memory. The build class is desktop. The combined percentile is 54, meaning the whole system sits roughly in the middle of all benchmarked configurations. The CPU's 88th percentile is excellent, but the GPU's 19th percentile is very low, pulling the overall tier down.

The pairing is unusual: a high-end CPU with a GPU that benchmarks like a low-end card. This could be a data anomaly, as the RTX 5080 SUPER's specs (10,752 shading units, 84 RT cores, 336 tensor cores) suggest far higher performance than a 19th percentile score implies. However, based on the data available, this build is CPU-dominant, and the GPU is the weak link in terms of measured benchmark performance.

Usage Scenarios

High-refresh gaming: The CPU's single-thread score of 3,248 is sufficient for 1080p high-refresh gaming, but the GPU's 3DMark score of 3,075 limits frame rates. Estimated FPS at 1080p ultra would be 60-80, which is below the 144 Hz threshold for true high-refresh gaming. At 1440p, expect 40-60 FPS.

Streaming: The CPU's 6 cores and 12 threads, with a multithread score of 21,712, can handle x264 encoding at reasonable presets while gaming. However, the GPU's low score means using NVENC (which relies on the GPU's tensor cores) might not yield better results than CPU encoding, given the GPU's poor benchmark showing.

Video editing: The CPU's floating-point math score of 40,784 supports smooth timeline editing, and the GPU's 24 GB VRAM can hold large project files. But export times may be GPU-limited, as the 3DMark score suggests weak compute performance in DX12 workloads.

3D rendering: The GPU's 56.28 TFLOPS FP32 is theoretically strong, but the 3DMark score of 3,075 indicates poor DX12 rendering. CPU-based rendering (e.g., Blender Cycles) would use the CPU's 21,712 multithread score, which is decent for a 6-core part but not competitive with higher-core processors.

Software development: The CPU's integer math score of 64,733 and data compression score of 261,749 are excellent for compiling code and managing repos. The GPU is largely irrelevant here, so this scenario favors the build.

Student and office work: The single-thread score of 3,248 ensures snappy document editing, spreadsheets, and web browsing. The 65 W CPU TDP keeps power draw low, and the integrated Radeon Graphics provides a fallback if the GPU is idle or disabled.

GPU Analysis

The NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5080 SUPER is built on the Blackwell 2.0 architecture with the GB203 chip, fabricated on TSMC's 5 nm process with 45,600 million transistors on a 378 mm² die. It has 24 GB of GDDR7 memory on a 256-bit bus, yielding a bandwidth of 1.02 TB/s. The memory clock is 2000 MHz (32 Gbps effective). The GPU has 10,752 shading units, 336 TMUs, and 112 ROPs. It features 84 RT cores and 336 tensor cores, with a base clock of 2295 MHz and boost clock of 2617 MHz. Pixel rate is 293.1 GPixel/s, texture rate is 879.3 GTexel/s, and FP32 performance is 56.28 TFLOPS (with FP16 at 56.28 TFLOPS 1:1).

The GPU's sole benchmark score is 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 at 3,075, placing it at the 19th percentile. This is extraordinarily low for a card with these specs. The nearest rivals are the NVIDIA Quadro P1000 (3,163, 2.8% faster), Intel Arc Pro B60 (3,182, 3.4% faster), NVIDIA GeForce 820A (2,983, 3.1% slower), and NVIDIA GeForce GTX 860M (2,967, 3.6% slower). These rivals are all low-end or older mobile/desktop parts, suggesting the RTX 5080 SUPER is severely underperforming in this benchmark, likely due to a driver issue, thermal throttling, or a data entry error.

For rendering, the 24 GB VRAM is generous, and the 1.02 TB/s bandwidth is high, but the 3DMark score implies the card cannot effectively use this memory in DX12 workloads. The RT cores and tensor cores are present (84 and 336, respectively), but their performance is not reflected in the score. The GPU supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4, with display outputs including 1x HDMI 2.1b and 3x DisplayPort 2.1b. The dual-slot design and 415 W TDP require a substantial cooling solution and a 1x 16-pin power connector. The launch MSRP is 999 USD. Given the low benchmark score, this GPU would need a driver update or a different benchmark to validate its actual capability, but based on the data, it is a bottleneck in this build.