SYSTEM ANALYZER

Rate My PC: AMD Ryzen 5 8400F + Intel Arc A310

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)

▼

86 Score

Top 14% Ranking

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

86%

GPU

85%

PROCESSOR

AMD Ryzen 5 8400F

25,005 Benchmark Score

Top 14% Market Ranking

View Full Specs →

GRAPHICS CARD

Intel Arc A310

7,550 Benchmark Score

Top 15% 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

# Balance and Bottleneck

The AMD Ryzen 5 8400F paired with the Intel Arc A310 presents one of the most lopsided CPU-to-GPU ratios in the benchmark database. The CPU sits at the 77th percentile among all processors, while the GPU languishes at the 40th percentile among all graphics cards. This 37-percentile-point gap indicates that the processor is dramatically more capable than the graphics solution, making the Arc A310 the definitive bottleneck in virtually every graphics-bound workload.

The CPU's multi-threaded benchmark scores reinforce this imbalance. In 3DMark, the Ryzen 5 8400F scores 6,165 at max threads and 6,091 at 16 threads, showing near-perfect scaling as thread counts increase. The single-thread score of 951 and 2-thread score of 1,874 suggest that even lightly threaded workloads will not stress this processor. Meanwhile, the Arc A310's PassMark G3D score of 5,433 places it in direct competition with the AMD Radeon R7 250 (deltaPct of -0.1%) and the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 (deltaPct of 1%). These are entry-level GPUs from previous generations, and the data shows the CPU will be waiting on the GPU in almost every scenario.

The FPS scaling picture is entirely absent from the measured data — no measured FPS rows exist for this combination. However, the benchmark scores tell a clear story: the GPU's PassMark DirectX 12 score of 29 and DirectX 11 score of 33 are extraordinarily low, indicating that modern graphics APIs will be severely limited by the Arc A310. The CPU's Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 20,851 versus the GPU's compute score of 2,157 in PassMark further demonstrates that compute-heavy tasks will also be GPU-bound.

For CPU-bound workloads, the bottleneck reverses. The Ryzen 5 8400F's PassMark single-thread score of 3,685 and multi-thread score of 24,389 show a processor capable of handling substantial parallel workloads. The Cinebench R20 multi-core score of 8,757 and R15 multi-core score of 2,101 indicate strong rendering performance that the Arc A310 cannot complement in GPU-accelerated rendering tasks. The data suggests that any workload leveraging the GPU will be limited to roughly 40th-percentile performance, while CPU-only workloads will operate at 77th-percentile levels.

# Benchmark Performance

The Ryzen 5 8400F achieves an average benchmark score of 25,005, placing it at the 77th percentile among all CPUs. Its nearest rivals include the AMD Ryzen 5 7500F with an average score of 24,964 (0.2% ahead of the 8400F) and the Intel Core i7-13620H at 24,911 (0.4% ahead). The AMD EPYC 9474F sits 0.4% ahead at 25,103, making the competitive field remarkably tight — the 8400F is effectively tied with these processors, with deltas under half a percentage point.

In individual CPU benchmarks, the 8400F shows consistent strength. Cinebench R23 multi-core delivers 20,851 points, while single-core reaches 2,943. Cinebench R20 scores are 8,757 multi-core and 1,236 single-core. The 3DMark suite shows scaling from 951 single-thread to 6,165 max-threads, with 4-thread at 3,563 and 8-thread at 5,275. PassMark results include 24,389 multi-thread, 3,685 single-thread, 74,021 integer math, 46,217 floating-point math, and 288,158 data compression.

The Intel Arc A310 presents a starkly different picture. Its average benchmark score of 7,550 places it at the 40th percentile among all GPUs. The nearest rival is the AMD Radeon R7 250 at 7,557 (0.1% ahead of the A310), followed by the AMD Radeon Pro WX 3100 at 7,580 (0.4% ahead). The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 trails at 7,472, putting the A310 1% ahead of that card. The AMD Radeon HD 8850M sits 1.4% behind at 7,447.

GPU-specific benchmarks reveal significant weaknesses. PassMark G3D scores 5,433, while DirectX 11 and DirectX 12 scores are 33 and 29 respectively. DirectX 10 scores 31 and DirectX 9 scores 69 — the higher legacy DirectX 9 result suggests the architecture performs relatively better on older APIs. Geekbench OpenCL scores 30,607 and Vulkan scores 28,964, showing compute potential that exceeds the graphics scores. PassMark GPU compute is 2,157 and G2D is 625.

The combined percentile for this pairing is 59, reflecting the substantial gap between the high-performing CPU and the entry-level GPU. The data indicates that system-level performance will be dictated almost entirely by the Arc A310 in graphics tasks, while pure CPU workloads will run at near-top-tier levels.

# CPU Analysis

The AMD Ryzen 5 8400F is a 6-core, 12-thread processor built on the Zen 4 architecture with the Phoenix codename. It uses TSMC's 4 nm process node and contains 25,000 million transistors on a 178 mm² die. The base clock is 4.20 GHz with a boost clock of 4.70 GHz, and the TDP is rated at 65 watts. The multiplier is unlocked, allowing overclocking headroom for users who want to push beyond stock frequencies.

Cache configuration includes 64 KB of L1 per core, 1 MB of L2 per core, and 16 MB of shared L3. This is a modest L3 allocation compared to some desktop parts, but the 4 nm process and high clocks compensate. Memory support is DDR5 with dual-channel configuration, delivering 83.2 GB/s of bandwidth. ECC memory is not supported, which may matter for certain workstation scenarios.

The benchmark scores paint a picture of a processor that excels at both single-threaded and multi-threaded workloads. The Cinebench R23 single-core score of 2,943 is strong for a 6-core part, and the multi-core score of 20,851 shows excellent scaling. The 3DMark results demonstrate consistent performance growth from 951 single-thread to 6,165 max-threads, with the 16-thread score of 6,091 nearly matching the max-thread result — indicating the processor is fully utilized with 12 threads.

PassMark results add depth to the analysis. The data compression score of 288,158 is exceptionally high, suggesting strong memory subsystem performance. Data encryption scores 16,646, extended instructions score 22,175, and prime number finding scores 89. Floating-point math at 46,217 and integer math at 74,021 show balanced ALU and FPU performance. Physics scores 1,332 and random string sorting scores 34,604 — the latter indicating strong memory access patterns.

The nearest rival comparison shows the 8400F is essentially indistinguishable from the Ryzen 5 7500F (0.2% delta) and the Intel Core i7-11850H (0.3% delta). This places the 8400F in a crowded performance tier where architectural differences are negligible in aggregate benchmarks. The 0.4% delta against the EPYC 9474F is notable — a desktop chip matching a server processor in average score suggests the 8400F punches above its class in synthetic workloads.

# Upgrade Path and Platform

The Ryzen 5 8400F uses the AMD Socket AM5 platform, which provides a clear upgrade path within the same socket generation. The platform supports DDR5 memory with dual-channel configuration and 83.2 GB/s bandwidth. PCIe Gen 4 is available with 20 lanes from the CPU, providing adequate bandwidth for modern storage and expansion cards.

The Intel Arc A310 connects via PCIe 4.0 x8, which is sufficient for its 4 GB GDDR6 memory and 124.0 GB/s bandwidth. The GPU has a TDP of just 30 watts and requires no power connectors, drawing power solely from the PCIe slot. The suggested PSU is 200 watts, which is minimal for a desktop build — the 65-watt CPU and 30-watt GPU together demand very little from a power supply.

The GPU is marked as end-of-life with the predecessor being Xe Graphics and the successor being Battlemage. This means the A310 is a legacy product, and users looking for GPU upgrades will need to consider newer Intel offerings or competing brands. The single-slot design and lack of power connectors make it easy to install, but the 4 GB VRAM and 64-bit memory bus will limit future-proofing.

For a sensible next upgrade, the data suggests focusing on the GPU first. The CPU's 77th-percentile ranking with an average score of 25,005 leaves substantial room for a more powerful graphics card. The 200-watt PSU recommendation means a GPU upgrade would likely require a PSU upgrade as well — moving to a card with higher power demands would exceed the current suggested supply. The AM5 socket and DDR5 memory support ensure the platform can accommodate a stronger GPU without CPU replacement.

The CPU's 65-watt TDP and the GPU's 30-watt TDP create a low-power platform that runs cool and quiet. The lack of integrated graphics on the CPU (marked N/A) means the discrete GPU is mandatory for display output, making the A310's four mini-DisplayPort 2.0 outputs the only video connectivity. This is a functional but limited setup for multi-monitor configurations.

# FAQ

Q: What is the performance difference between the Ryzen 5 8400F and the Ryzen 5 7500F?

A: The Ryzen 5 7500F has an average benchmark score of 24,964, which is 0.2% ahead of the 8400F's 25,005. This delta is negligible, placing the two processors in the same performance tier.

Q: How does the Arc A310 compare to the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650?

A: The Arc A310 has an average benchmark score of 7,550, which is 1% ahead of the GTX 1650's 7,472. Both cards sit near the 40th percentile among all GPUs.

Q: What memory type does the Ryzen 5 8400F support?

A: The CPU supports DDR5 memory with dual-channel configuration, providing 83.2 GB/s of memory bandwidth. ECC memory is not supported.

Q: Does the Arc A310 require external power connectors?

A: No, the GPU has no power connectors and draws all its power from the PCIe slot. The suggested PSU is 200 watts.

Q: What is the CPU's TDP and does it have an unlocked multiplier?

A: The Ryzen 5 8400F has a TDP of 65 watts and features an unlocked multiplier, allowing overclocking.

Q: How many display outputs does the Arc A310 have?

A: The GPU provides 4x mini-DisplayPort 2.0 outputs, which are the only display outputs since the CPU has no integrated graphics.

Q: What is the production status of the Arc A310?

A: The GPU is marked as end-of-life, with its predecessor being Xe Graphics and its successor being Battlemage.

# GPU Analysis

The Intel Arc A310 is built on the Xe-HPG architecture with the DG2-128 chip, part of the Alchemist generation (Arc 3). The 6 nm TSMC process packs 7,200 million transistors onto a 157 mm² die, with a transistor density of 45.9 million per square millimeter. The base clock is 1750 MHz with a boost clock of 1750 MHz — these are identical, indicating no dynamic clock headroom.

Memory configuration is 4 GB of GDDR6 on a 64-bit bus, delivering 124.0 GB/s of bandwidth. The memory clock is 1937 MHz with 15.5 Gbps effective speed. This is a narrow memory bus that will limit performance in bandwidth-intensive scenarios. The shading units number 768, with 32 TMUs and 16 ROPs. Pixel rate is 28.00 GPixel/s and texture rate is 56.00 GTexel/s. The FP32 performance is 2.688 TFLOPS, with FP16 at 5.376 TFLOPS (2:1 ratio). There are 6 ray tracing cores, though tensor cores are not listed.

The benchmark data reveals a GPU that struggles with modern graphics APIs. PassMark DirectX 12 scores 29, DirectX 11 scores 33, and DirectX 10 scores 31. The DirectX 9 score of 69 is more than double the DirectX 12 score, suggesting the hardware performs better on legacy APIs. PassMark G3D scores 5,433, placing the card at the 40th percentile. Geekbench OpenCL at 30,607 and Vulkan at 28,964 show compute capabilities that outpace the graphics scores — the GPU can handle compute workloads better than rasterization.

The passmark GPU compute score of 2,157 is notably low, indicating limited compute throughput despite the OpenCL and Vulkan numbers. The G2D score of 625 suggests basic 2D desktop workloads are handled adequately. The nearest rivals — Radeon R7 250 (0.1% ahead), Radeon Pro WX 3100 (0.4% ahead), GTX 1650 (1% behind), and Radeon HD 8850M (1.4% behind) — all sit within a narrow band, confirming the A310's entry-level positioning.

For rendering workloads, the 2.688 TFLOPS FP32 performance and 6 RT cores provide nominal ray tracing support, but the DirectX 12 score of 29 suggests real-time ray tracing will be severely limited. The 4 GB VRAM is adequate for 1080p gaming at low-to-medium settings but will struggle with high-resolution textures or modern game requirements. The 124.0 GB/s bandwidth is a bottleneck for data-heavy workloads.

# Who Should Build It

The data points to specific user profiles for this CPU+GPU combination. The Ryzen 5 8400F's 77th-percentile CPU performance with a Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 20,851 suits content creators who rely on CPU rendering, video encoding, or software development workflows. The PassMark integer math score of 74,021 and floating-point math of 46,217 indicate strong number-crunching capabilities for scientific or engineering applications.

However, the Arc A310's 40th-percentile GPU performance means gamers are limited to 1080p gaming at lower settings. The DirectX 12 score of 29 suggests modern games will run at reduced frame rates. Students building a budget desktop for coursework, office productivity, and light gaming could find this pairing functional, though the lack of integrated graphics makes the GPU mandatory.

Small business workstations handling spreadsheets, documents, and database applications would benefit from the CPU's PassMark data compression score of 288,158 and encryption score of 16,646. The 65-watt CPU TDP and 30-watt GPU TDP create a low-power system suitable for always-on office environments. Software developers compiling code would see strong performance from the 3DMark 16-thread score of 6,091 and Cinebench R20 multi-core of 8,757.

Users seeking a platform with upgrade potential should note the AM5 socket and DDR5 memory support — the CPU can be replaced with a higher-end AM5 part without changing the motherboard. The GPU's end-of-life status and 200-watt PSU suggestion mean a future GPU upgrade would likely require a PSU replacement. This build suits users prioritizing CPU performance with modest graphics needs, such as CPU-based rendering or virtualization workloads.

# Build Overview

This desktop build combines the AMD Ryzen 5 8400F, a 6-core/12-thread Zen 4 processor on the AM5 socket, with the Intel Arc A310, a 4 GB GDDR6 entry-level GPU from the Alchemist generation. The CPU's average benchmark score of 25,005 places it at the 77th percentile among all CPUs, while the GPU's 7,550 average score places it at the 40th percentile. The combined percentile is 59.

The CPU launched with an MSRP of $170 and remains in active production. The GPU is marked end-of-life with no launch MSRP listed. The pairing represents a CPU-heavy configuration where the processor dominates system performance — the 8400F's nearest rivals include the Ryzen 5 7500F (0.2% delta) and the Intel Core i7-13620H (0.4% delta), while the A310's rivals include the Radeon R7 250 (0.1% delta) and the GTX 1650 (1% delta).

The data shows a system that excels at CPU-bound tasks while being severely limited in GPU-bound scenarios. The 65-watt CPU TDP and 30-watt GPU TDP create a low-power desktop suitable for productivity workloads. The AM5 platform provides DDR5 memory support and PCIe Gen 4 with 20 lanes, ensuring the CPU can handle future GPU upgrades even though the current GPU is the bottleneck. This is a desktop-class build, confirmed by the buildClass field, targeting users who need strong multi-threaded CPU performance without demanding graphics capabilities.

# Gaming Performance

No measured FPS data exists for this exact CPU+GPU combination. The FACT PACK contains no measured FPS rows, so all gaming performance figures are estimated from the benchmark scores. The data should be interpreted as qualitative guidance rather than precise frame rate expectations.

The Arc A310's PassMark DirectX 12 score of 29 and DirectX 11 score of 33 indicate very low graphics throughput for modern APIs. The 4 GB VRAM and 124.0 GB/s bandwidth suggest 1080p gaming at low-to-medium settings is the realistic ceiling. DirectX 9 performance at 69 is more than double the DirectX 12 score, suggesting older games or games using legacy APIs will perform better.

The CPU's strong single-thread performance (Cinebench R23 single-core of 2,943, 3DMark single-thread of 951) means the processor will not bottleneck frame rates in most games. The GPU will be the limiting factor, with the 2.688 TFLOPS FP32 performance and 16 ROPs constraining pixel throughput. The 28.00 GPixel/s pixel rate and 56.00 GTexel/s texture rate are entry-level figures.

Based on the GPU's 40th-percentile ranking and comparison to the GTX 1650 (1% delta), users can expect frame rates roughly comparable to that card at 1080p. The DirectX 12 score of 29 suggests esports titles and older games will be playable, while modern AAA titles will require significant settings reductions. The 6 RT cores provide nominal ray tracing capability, but performance will be minimal. For CPU-bound games at low resolutions, the 8400F's 77th-percentile performance will shine, but the GPU's limitations will cap overall gaming experience.

# Usage Scenarios

High-refresh gaming: Not recommended based on the data. The Arc A310's DirectX 12 score of 29 and 40th-percentile GPU ranking cannot sustain high frame rates at 1080p, let alone 144Hz or 240Hz refresh rates. The CPU's single-thread score of 951 in 3DMark is sufficient, but the GPU is the hard limit.

Streaming: The CPU's 6 cores and 12 threads with a Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 20,851 provide enough headroom for software encoding while gaming. However, the GPU's limited graphics performance means the game itself will run at low settings, reducing stream quality. The 4 GB VRAM may be insufficient for simultaneous gaming and encoding buffers.

Video editing: The CPU's PassMark multi-thread score of 24,389 and Cinebench R20 multi-core of 8,757 handle CPU-based video encoding well. The GPU's OpenCL score of 30,607 provides some acceleration, but the DirectX 12 score of 29 suggests GPU-accelerated effects will be slow. This scenario favors CPU-heavy workflows.

3D rendering: CPU rendering with Cinebench R23 multi-core of 20,851 is strong, making this build suitable for CPU-based renderers. GPU rendering is limited by the 2.688 TFLOPS FP32 and PassMark GPU compute score of 2,157 — expect very slow GPU-accelerated renders.

Software development: The CPU's integer math score of 74,021 and data compression of 288,158 support compilation and data processing tasks. The 12 threads handle parallel builds effectively, and the low 65-watt TDP keeps power costs down during long compile sessions.

Student and office work: The CPU's PassMark single-thread score of 3,685 ensures responsive productivity applications. The GPU's G2D score of 625 handles basic 2D desktop workloads. The 200-watt PSU suggestion and low overall power draw make this an economical system for daily academic or office tasks, though the lack of integrated graphics means the GPU is always active.

Rate My PC: AMD Ryzen 5 8400F + Intel Arc A310

Power Build

System Balance Analysis

AMD Ryzen 5 8400F

Intel Arc A310

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

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