SYSTEM ANALYZER

Rate My PC: AMD Ryzen 5 7640HS + Intel Arc A370M

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)

▼

91 Score

Top 9% Ranking

91 / 100

ULTIMATE READY

Apex Performer

Top 9% of systems. Capable of 4K Ultra gaming and advanced rendering.

4K 60+ FPSVR ReadyRay Tracing

System Balance Analysis

CPU vs GPU performance ratio

Well Balanced

CPU

89%

GPU

93%

PROCESSOR

AMD Ryzen 5 7640HS

30,390 Benchmark Score

Top 11% Market Ranking

View Full Specs →

GRAPHICS CARD

Intel Arc A370M

29,175 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

Optimal Performance

Your system is in the top tier. You can run any modern game at maximum settings.

4K Gaming Ready

Consider a 4K 144Hz monitor to fully utilize your hardware capabilities.

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 pairing of AMD's Ryzen 5 7640HS with Intel's Arc A370M is a laptop-class combination that sits comfortably in the upper-middle tier of the performance landscape: the CPU ranks in the 81st percentile against all CPUs, the GPU lands in the 74th percentile against all GPUs, and the combined build sits at the 78th percentile. No measured frame-rate data exists for this exact combination — the FACT PACK contains no measured FPS rows — so all gaming discussion below is estimated from benchmark scores rather than recorded playtests. The headline verdict from the data: this is a modern, efficient six-core Zen 4 processor attached to a modest discrete GPU, and the balance between the two components strongly favors the CPU.

Gaming Performance

No measured FPS results are available for this specific CPU+GPU pairing, so the gaming expectations here are estimates derived from the benchmark scores rather than figures recorded in playtesting. That caveat matters, and it should shape how the following analysis is read.

The GPU is the clear frame-rate limiter of this build. With an average benchmark score of 29175 and a percentile position of 74 versus all GPUs, the Arc A370M sits almost exactly alongside the AMD Radeon RX Vega M GH (29197, deltaPct of -0.1), the AMD FirePro W8000 (29211, deltaPct of -0.1), and the AMD Radeon RX 470 (28996, deltaPct of 0.6). Those equivalencies frame the realistic gaming envelope: a GPU in this bracket is a 1080p-class part at conventional settings, and at ultra presets the expectation is that modern AAA titles will need resolution or quality reductions to stay smooth.

The structural reasons follow directly from the specifications. The A370M carries 1024 shading units, 64 TMUs, 32 ROPs, and 8 RT cores, producing 4.198 TFLOPS of FP32 compute, a pixel rate of 65.60 GPixel/s, and a texture rate of 131.2 GTexel/s. More constraining than raw compute is the memory subsystem: 4 GB of GDDR6 on a 64-bit bus yields only 112.0 GB/s of bandwidth. At 1080p and below, texture bandwidth demand stays within reach of that figure; at 1440p and 4K it does not. Additionally, a 4 GB framebuffer is a hard ceiling in modern titles with high-resolution texture packs — once VRAM saturates, frame pacing degrades regardless of the GPU's shading throughput.

Ray tracing deserves a specific note: 8 RT cores exist on the die, but the GPU's overall throughput tier means enabling ray tracing at ultra settings is not a realistic expectation for this class of hardware. DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2) support means the features are exposed, not that they are performant.

Because the CPU is far stronger relative to its peers — 81st percentile versus the GPU's 74th, and a 5.00 GHz boost clock on a Zen 4 core — the processor will rarely be the reason frames drop. Esports-style and lighter titles should run well, since their demands align with the A370M's compute profile rather than its limited VRAM pool. Heavy open-world titles will be GPU-bound first and VRAM-bound second.

Benchmark Performance

The CPU's benchmark record is consistent and easy to interpret. Cinebench R23 returns 12554 multi-core and 1715.5 single-core; Cinebench R15 returns 1978 multi-core and 269.5 single-core; Geekbench posts 10389 multi-core and 2093 single-core. PassMark rounds out the picture with 22979 multithread, 3654 single-thread, 1155 physics, 73284 integer math, 45220 floating point math, 269524 data compression, 15867 data encryption, 20556 extended instructions, 31654 random string sorting, and 77 on find prime numbers. The average benchmark score across the suite is 30390.

Context comes from the nearest rivals, and it is remarkably tight. The Ryzen 7 7736U averages 30364 — a deltaPct of just 0.1, effectively identical. The Intel Core i9-11980HK averages 30422 (deltaPct of -0.1), the Intel Core Ultra 5 225T averages 30468 (deltaPct of -0.3), and the Ryzen 5 PRO 8640U averages 30254 (deltaPct of 0.4). The interpretation: the 7640HS delivers flagship-tier performance from a previous mobile generation (the i9-11980HK comparison) while drawing a fraction of the power envelope implied by that class — its TDP is 35 W — and matches both a newer Ryzen PRO part and a current Intel Core Ultra desktop chip within a fraction of a percent.

The GPU side is thinner but directionally clear. Geekbench OpenCL scores 29676 and Geekbench Vulkan scores 28673, averaging 29175. Against its nearest rivals — RX Vega M GH, FirePro W8000, RX 470, and the Radeon RX 6800M at 28874 (deltaPct of 1) — the A370M holds its position in a tightly clustered band. The combined picture: a strong processor percentile (81), a moderate GPU percentile (74), and a combined build percentile of 78. This is a build where the CPU carries the classification.

CPU Analysis

The Ryzen 5 7640HS is a Zen 4 "Phoenix" part built on TSMC's 4 nm process, carrying 25,000 million transistors on a 178 mm² die. It is a 6-core, 12-thread design with a 4.30 GHz base clock and a 5.00 GHz boost clock, a 35 W TDP, and a mobile market segment on Socket FP8.

The cache hierarchy is well-provisioned for a six-core mobile chip: 64 KB of L1 per core, 1 MB of L2 per core, and 16 MB of shared L3. That L3 pool is what keeps the six cores fed in threaded workloads, and it shows in the Cinebench R23 multi-core result of 12554 — a figure that, per the rival clustering, matches a previous-generation mobile flagship i9 within a tenth of a percent on average score.

Single-thread performance is the standout. A Geekbench single-core score of 2093, Cinebench R23 single-core of 1715.5, and PassMark single-thread of 3654 put the 5.00 GHz Zen 4 cores in genuinely strong territory — the 81st percentile across all CPUs is earned as much by per-core speed as by thread count. For real workloads this means snappy desktop responsiveness, fast code compilation on single-threaded paths, and strong per-core performance in applications that don't scale.

The PassMark subtests map cleanly to practical use. Data compression at 269524 and encryption at 15867 indicate capable file-handling throughput. Integer math at 73284 and floating point at 73284-adjacent 45220 reflect solid general compute. Extended instructions at 20556 confirm the AVX-era vector capability of Zen 4 is being exercised. The multiplier is locked, so there is no tuning upside — performance is as-shipped. ECC memory support is present, which is notable for workstation-adjacent use in a mobile part.

Memory support is DDR5 on a dual-channel bus with 89.6 GB/s of bandwidth, and PCIe connectivity is Gen 4 with 20 CPU lanes. Integrated Radeon 760M graphics are on-die, meaning this build's discrete A370M sits alongside — not instead of — an iGPU.

FAQ

Q: How does the Ryzen 5 7640HS compare to its closest rivals?

A: Its average benchmark score of 30390 is statistically tied with the Ryzen 7 7736U (30364, deltaPct 0.1), the Core i9-11980HK (30422, deltaPct -0.1), the Core Ultra 5 225T (30468, deltaPct -0.3), and the Ryzen 5 PRO 8640U (30254, deltaPct 0.4). All four sit within half a percent of each other.

Q: How much VRAM does the Arc A370M have, and why does it matter?

A: 4 GB of GDDR6 on a 64-bit bus with 112.0 GB/s of bandwidth. That capacity is the primary constraint for modern AAA gaming at high texture quality; it is adequate at 1080p with moderate settings but becomes a hard limit as texture resolution rises.

Q: Are there measured FPS numbers for this combination?

A: No. The database contains no measured FPS rows for this exact pairing, and the data is flagged as not measured. All gaming expectations are estimates inferred from the CPU and GPU benchmark scores.

Q: Can this CPU be overclocked?

A: No. The multiplier is unlocked: false. Performance is fixed at the 4.30 GHz base and 5.00 GHz boost clocks.

Q: Does this build support ray tracing?

A: The Arc A370M has 8 RT cores and supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), Vulkan 1.4, and OpenGL 4.6, so ray tracing is available — but the GPU's performance tier means it is not a practical option at ultra settings.

Q: What memory does the platform support?

A: DDR5, dual-channel, with 89.6 GB/s of memory bandwidth, plus ECC support.

Q: Is the Arc A370M still in production?

A: No. Its production status is End-of-life. The Ryzen 5 7640HS remains Active.

GPU Analysis

The Arc A370M is Intel's Alchemist-generation Xe-HPG part, the DG2-128 die, manufactured on TSMC's 6 nm process with 7200 million transistors across a 157 mm² die at a density of 45.9M per mm². It boosts to 2050 MHz from a 1550 MHz base, with memory running at 1750 MHz (14 Gbps effective).

The hardware inventory: 1024 shading units, 64 TMUs, 32 ROPs, 8 RT cores, and no tensor cores listed. FP32 throughput is 4.198 TFLOPS, with FP16 at 8.397 TFLOPS in a 2:1 relationship. Pixel rate is 65.60 GPixel/s and texture rate is 131.2 GTexel/s. The bus interface is PCIe 4.0 x8, and the TDP is 35 W.

For rendering and GPU-compute workloads, the Geekbench OpenCL score of 29676 and Vulkan score of 28673 place it in the 74th percentile — respectable for a small mobile discrete die. Against the Radeon RX 470 (28996, deltaPct 0.6) and RX 6800M (28874, deltaPct 1), the A370M holds a marginal edge in average score, though the RX 6800M's presence in the rival list is a function of average clustering rather than a claim of equivalence in gaming.

The practical rendering takeaway: 4.198 TFLOPS of FP32 and 112.0 GB/s of bandwidth are workable for light GPU compute, video encode-adjacent tasks, and entry-level 3D work, but the 4 GB framebuffer is the binding constraint for any professional rendering workload. Scenes that fit in 4 GB will render; scenes that don't will spill to system memory across a 64-bit bus. For content creators, the Vulkan 1.4 and OpenCL support keeps the door open to accelerated workflows, within that capacity ceiling.

Who Should Build It

This pairing suits users whose workloads are CPU-forward. The 81st-percentile processor with 12 threads, strong single-core scores, and ECC-capable DDR5 makes it a fit for developers compiling code — the Geekbench multi-core score of 10389 and PassMark multithread of 22979 indicate fast parallel builds. Students and general productivity users get responsive everyday performance from the 2093 Geekbench single-core result, and the 35 W CPU TDP implies efficient sustained operation in a laptop chassis.

Content creators working with moderate projects benefit from the six Zen 4 cores and the A370M's compute assist, though the 4 GB VRAM ceiling rules out heavy 3D scenes. Small-business workstation use is plausible given ECC support. Gamers are the partial fit: esports and lighter titles align with the GPU's throughput tier, while AAA gaming at ultra settings exceeds what the A370M's percentile band realistically delivers. This is not a build for enthusiasts chasing 1440p or 4K ultra gameplay.

Upgrade Path and Platform

The CPU sits on AMD Socket FP8 — a mobile, soldered platform, so the upgrade path is the laptop itself rather than the chip. The same applies to the A370M, which is an integrated-platform part (slotWidth listed as IGP) with no power connectors and no suggested PSU figure; both components carry 35 W TDPs, and total system power demands are correspondingly modest for a laptop design.

Memory is DDR5 dual-channel at 89.6 GB/s — populating both channels matters, since bandwidth-starved configurations directly hurt both CPU throughput and iGPU fallback performance. PCIe is Gen 4 with 20 CPU lanes, sufficient for the A370M's PCIe 4.0 x8 link plus fast NVMe storage. Note that the GPU is End-of-life while the CPU is Active, so a future platform refresh would naturally move to a current-generation discrete solution. The sensible next step for a user outgrowing this machine is a newer laptop platform rather than any component swap; the Radeon 760M integrated graphics already provide a fallback display path if the discrete GPU is ever disabled.

Build Overview

This is a laptop-class build, and the combined percentile of 78 places it in the upper-middle tier of all combinations in the database. The composition is asymmetric by design: a modern, efficient Zen 4 hexacore at the 81st percentile paired with an entry-tier discrete GPU at the 74th percentile, itself now End-of-life since its 2022-03-29 release date. Neither component has a listed launch MSRP. The build reads as a productivity-first laptop with light discrete graphics capability — a classification the rival data supports, given the CPU matches a previous mobile flagship i9 on average score while the GPU clusters with mid-tier parts of older generations.

Balance and Bottleneck

The bottleneck in this pairing is unambiguous: the GPU. The evidence is threefold. First, the percentile gap — CPU at 81, GPU at 74 — favors the processor. Second, the benchmark scores show a CPU whose average of 30390 rivals flagship and next-generation parts, against a GPU whose average of 29175 clusters with significantly older hardware. Third, with no measured FPS rows for this combination, the scaling inference is straightforward: every frame-rate-limiting specification on the GPU side (4 GB VRAM, 64-bit bus, 112.0 GB/s bandwidth) constrains output long before the 5.00 GHz Zen 4 cores saturate.

In CPU-bound scenarios — compilation, compression, encryption, general compute — the 7640HS delivers near-flagship performance. In GPU-bound scenarios, the A370M defines the ceiling. For gaming, the practical consequence is that lowering resolution and texture quality frees the system to run at the GPU's maximum rather than hitting processor limits. The build is CPU-rich and GPU-modest, and any workload mix should be evaluated against that asymmetry.

Rate My PC: AMD Ryzen 5 7640HS + Intel Arc A370M

Apex Performer

System Balance Analysis

AMD Ryzen 5 7640HS

Intel Arc A370M

Market Position

Game Performance Benchmarks

Cyberpunk 2077

Red Dead Redemption 2

Microsoft Flight Simulator

Control

Call of Duty: Warzone

Fortnite

Performance Insights

Optimal Performance

4K Gaming Ready

Performance Tiers Explained

Ultimate

High-End

Mid-Range

Entry Level

Legacy

Gaming Performance

Benchmark Performance

CPU Analysis

FAQ

GPU Analysis

Who Should Build It

Upgrade Path and Platform

Build Overview

Balance and Bottleneck

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