SYSTEM ANALYZER

Rate My PC: AMD Ryzen 7 8700F + Intel Arc A310

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

87 / 100
HIGH-END

Power Build

Top 13% of systems. Excellent for 1440p Ultra or 4K High gaming.

1440p Ultra4K High

System Balance Analysis

CPU vs GPU performance ratio
Well Balanced
CPU
89%
VS
GPU
85%
PROCESSOR

AMD Ryzen 7 8700F

30,746 Benchmark Score
Top 11% 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

The AMD Ryzen 7 8700F and Intel Arc A310 pairing represents a stark contrast in component tiers, combining a high-end 8-core desktop processor with an entry-level discrete graphics card. This combination creates a desktop build where the CPU is the dominant component, with benchmark data showing the processor performing at the 82nd percentile while the GPU sits at just the 40th percentile. The result is a system that excels in CPU-intensive tasks but delivers only modest graphics performance, making it a niche pairing for specific professional workloads rather than a balanced gaming machine.

CPU Analysis

The AMD Ryzen 7 8700F is built on the Zen 4 architecture using TSMC’s 4nm process node, featuring 8 cores and 16 threads with a base clock of 4.10 GHz and a boost clock of 5.00 GHz. This processor belongs to AMD’s 8000 series and carries the codename Phoenix, with a die size of 178 mm² containing 25,000 million transistors. The cache hierarchy includes 64 KB of L1 cache per core, 1 MB of L2 cache per core, and 16 MB of shared L3 cache. The TDP is rated at 65 watts, and the chip is unlocked for overclocking.

Benchmark results position this CPU firmly in the upper tier of desktop processors. The Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 26,646 and single-core score of 3,761 indicate strong performance across both heavily threaded and lightly threaded workloads. In Geekbench, the processor achieves 13,523 multi-core and 2,290 single-core. The 3DMark 16-thread score of 7,883, which drops only slightly to 7,861 at max threads, suggests the scaling efficiency of the 8-core design—the minimal difference between 16 and max threads confirms the processor is fully utilizing its available resources without significant thermal or power throttling.

The PassMark suite provides a more granular view of workload-specific performance. The multi-thread score of 30,893 is particularly strong, while the integer math score of 100,371 and floating-point math score of 62,629 show balanced ALU and FPU capabilities. Data compression scores of 378,160 in PassMark indicate excellent throughput for archiving and storage-related tasks. The extended instructions score of 28,474 suggests robust SIMD performance, benefiting workloads that leverage AVX-512 or similar instruction sets. However, the find prime numbers score of just 98 is notably low, indicating that this specific benchmark workload does not align well with the Zen 4 architecture’s strengths.

Compared to its nearest rivals, the 8700F sits within a tight performance band. The AMD Ryzen 5 PRO 8645HS scores 0.4% higher on average, while the Intel Core i7-13700TE leads by 0.9%. The Intel Core i5-13600H trails by 0.6%, and the Intel Core Ultra 5 225T lags by 0.9%. These margins are minimal, suggesting that within this performance class, the 8700F is competitive but not dominant. The processor holds the 82nd percentile position among all CPUs, putting it ahead of roughly eight out of ten processors in the benchmark database.

Benchmark Performance

The available benchmark data for this exact CPU-GPU combination does not include any measured FPS rows—the fact pack contains no measuredFps data for this pairing. Consequently, all gaming performance discussion must be framed as estimates derived from the individual CPU and GPU benchmark scores rather than direct measurements.

The CPU’s average benchmark score is 30,746, placing it at the 82nd percentile. The GPU’s average benchmark score is 7,550, placing it at the 40th percentile. The combined system percentile is 61, reflecting a configuration where the processor substantially outperforms the graphics card. This disparity is the defining characteristic of this build—the CPU is operating in a high-performance tier while the GPU operates in the lower-middle tier.

In synthetic GPU benchmarks, the Arc A310 scores 30,607 in Geekbench OpenCL and 28,964 in Geekbench Vulkan. The PassMark G3D score of 5,433 and G2D score of 625 provide additional context. The DirectX scores are notably low across the board: 31 in DirectX 10, 33 in DirectX 11, 29 in DirectX 12, and 69 in DirectX 9. These DirectX scores suggest that the GPU struggles with modern graphics APIs, although the DirectX 12 score of 29 being lower than DirectX 9’s 69 is unusual and may indicate driver overhead or architectural inefficiencies with newer API features.

The GPU compute score of 2,157 in PassMark is modest, aligning with the card’s entry-level positioning. The combined picture shows a system that will handle CPU-bound tasks such as compilation, rendering, and productivity applications with ease, but will fall short in GPU-accelerated workloads like gaming at high settings or GPU-based renderers. The 61st combined percentile reflects this average positioning, dragged down significantly by the GPU’s lower standing.

GPU Analysis

The Intel Arc A310 is built on the Xe-HPG architecture with the DG2-128 chip, fabricated on TSMC’s 6nm process with 7,200 million transistors on a 157 mm² die. The GPU features 768 shading units, 32 texture mapping units, and 16 raster output units. Clock speeds are fixed at 1,750 MHz for both base and boost, with memory running at 1,937 MHz (15.5 Gbps effective).

Memory configuration consists of 4 GB of GDDR6 on a 64-bit bus, providing 124.0 GB/s of bandwidth. This is a significant limitation for modern gaming, as 4 GB of VRAM is insufficient for high-resolution textures and detailed environments in contemporary titles. The 64-bit memory bus further constrains performance by limiting the data throughput available to the GPU cores.

The compute capabilities are modest: 2.688 TFLOPS of FP32 performance and 5.376 TFLOPS of FP16 with a 2:1 ratio. The card includes 6 ray tracing cores, enabling hardware-accelerated ray tracing, though the low overall compute throughput means ray-traced workloads will run at reduced performance relative to higher-tier cards. The pixel rate is 28.00 GPixel/s and texture rate is 56.00 GTexel/s, both figures consistent with an entry-level GPU.

The 30-watt TDP is exceptionally low, and the card requires no power connectors, drawing all power from the PCIe slot. The suggested PSU is 200 watts, making this an extremely power-efficient graphics solution. Display output is provided through four mini-DisplayPort 2.0 connections, supporting modern high-refresh monitors. The card supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4, ensuring API compatibility with current software.

Benchmark comparisons place the Arc A310 in a tight cluster with older, lower-tier cards. It scores 1% ahead of the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 and 1.4% ahead of the AMD Radeon HD 8850M, while trailing the AMD Radeon R7 250 by 0.1% and the AMD Radeon Pro WX 3100 by 0.4%. This positioning confirms the card performs at roughly the level of a GTX 1650, which is several generations old. The GPU is marked as end-of-life with Battlemage as its successor, indicating this is a legacy product.

Who Should Build It

This pairing targets users who prioritize CPU performance above all else and require only basic graphics capability. The Ryzen 7 8700F’s 82nd percentile CPU ranking makes this system well-suited for developers who compile large codebases, data analysts running multi-threaded computations, or researchers executing simulations that rely heavily on processor throughput. The integer math score of 100,371 and floating-point score of 62,629 in PassMark support these use cases.

Students in computer science or engineering programs would benefit from the CPU’s strong multi-core performance for compiling and running virtual machines, while the modest GPU is sufficient for daily productivity, web browsing, and office applications. Small business workstations that run database queries, spreadsheet calculations, or light server duties would also find the CPU performance more relevant than graphics capability.

Content creators working with audio processing or CPU-based video encoding would see strong results from the 8-core processor. The Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 26,646 indicates efficient rendering in CPU-based workflows, though GPU-accelerated rendering in applications like Blender or DaVinci Resolve would be severely limited by the Arc A310’s 40th percentile GPU standing.

Gamers at 1080p with low graphical settings might find acceptable performance for esports titles, but the DirectX 12 score of 29 and 4 GB VRAM limit will constrain modern game performance. This is not a system for gamers seeking high-fidelity visuals or high refresh rates in demanding titles.

Usage Scenarios

High-refresh gaming: The CPU’s 3DMark 2-thread score of 1,989 and single-thread score of 1,008 indicate strong per-core performance that could drive high frame rates in CPU-bound scenarios. However, the GPU’s DirectX 11 score of 33 and DirectX 12 score of 29 suggest the Arc A310 will bottleneck significantly, limiting frame rates in most games to low or medium settings at 1080p.

Streaming: The 8-core processor with 16 threads provides ample headroom for encoding and streaming simultaneously, as the PassMark multi-thread score of 30,893 confirms. The GPU’s low compute capabilities mean software encoding through the CPU is the preferred method, which the processor can handle without severe performance degradation in game performance.

Video editing: CPU-based editing workflows would perform well given the Cinebench R20 multi-core score of 11,191 and Geekbench multi-core score of 13,523. However, GPU-accelerated effects and color grading would suffer due to the GPU’s limited compute performance of 2,157 in PassMark GPU compute.

3D rendering: CPU rendering in applications like Blender’s Cycles engine would benefit from the processor’s 16 MB L3 cache and 8-core design, with the Cinebench R23 score of 26,646 indicating solid performance. GPU rendering would be impractical due to the Arc A310’s 2.688 TFLOPS FP32 performance, which is insufficient for complex scenes.

Software development: The combination of high single-thread performance (Geekbench single-core 2,290) and strong multi-thread capability makes this ideal for compiling, running tests, and managing containers. The data encryption score of 22,117 in PassMark supports secure development practices, and the 65-watt TDP keeps power consumption manageable during extended build sessions.

Student and office work: This system is overkill for document processing and web browsing, where the GPU’s PassMark G2D score of 625 is sufficient. The CPU’s performance ensures smooth multitasking and rapid application launches, making this a responsive workstation for academic or administrative tasks.

Upgrade Path and Platform

The AMD Socket AM5 platform provides a clear upgrade path. The Ryzen 7 8700F supports DDR5 memory with dual-channel configuration and 83.2 GB/s of memory bandwidth, ensuring compatibility with current high-speed memory modules. The CPU provides PCIe Gen 4 with 20 lanes, limiting expansion to PCIe 4.0 devices rather than the newer PCIe 5.0 standard found on some platforms.

The power supply requirement is minimal: the CPU’s 65-watt TDP combined with the GPU’s 30-watt TDP and the suggested PSU of 200 watts means this system can run on a modest power supply. This leaves substantial headroom for upgrading the GPU to a more powerful model without necessarily requiring a PSU change—a 200-watt supply can accommodate a wider range of graphics cards, though high-end models would still require an upgrade.

The most sensible next upgrade is the graphics card, given the significant performance disparity between the CPU and GPU. Replacing the Arc A310 with a mid-range GPU would dramatically improve gaming and GPU-accelerated workloads while the CPU continues to perform at the 82nd percentile. The platform’s PCIe Gen 4 support ensures compatibility with current graphics cards, though the 20-lane limit means a GPU using x16 lanes leaves only 4 lanes for other devices.

Memory expansion is also possible, as the dual-channel DDR5 controller supports additional capacity. The CPU’s 16 MB L3 cache and 25,000 million transistors indicate a modern design that will remain relevant for several years, so the upgrade path focuses on the GPU and potentially storage or memory rather than a CPU replacement in the near term.

Balance and Bottleneck

The balance in this system is heavily skewed toward the CPU. The processor’s 82nd percentile ranking versus the GPU’s 40th percentile creates a situation where the GPU is the bottleneck for graphics-intensive workloads. In gaming, the Arc A310’s low DirectX 12 score of 29 and limited 124.0 GB/s bandwidth will constrain frame rates regardless of the CPU’s capability.

For CPU-bound workloads, the bottleneck shifts. Applications that heavily use integer math, as indicated by the 100,371 PassMark score, or multithreaded tasks perform without GPU involvement. However, any workload that offloads computation to the GPU, such as physics simulation with GPU acceleration or machine learning inference, will be limited by the GPU’s 2,157 PassMark compute score.

The FPS scaling in gaming, estimated from these benchmark scores rather than measured, would show significant CPU headroom. The 3DMark 2-thread score of 1,989 and 4-thread score of 3,839 indicate the CPU can maintain high thread utilization, but the GPU’s 40th percentile position caps overall frame rates. Games that are CPU-bound at low resolutions might show less disparity, while GPU-bound scenarios at higher resolutions would exhibit severe bottlenecking.

The combined percentile of 61 reflects this imbalance—a system that scores in the upper-middle range overall but would be much higher if the GPU matched the CPU’s tier. The power consumption profile, with a 65-watt CPU and 30-watt GPU, is efficient, but the performance asymmetry means users with GPU-intensive needs will not extract the full value from the processor.

Build Overview

This desktop build pairs the AMD Ryzen 7 8700F, an 8-core Zen 4 processor, with the Intel Arc A310, a 4 GB entry-level GPU. The CPU is a current-generation part released in March 2024 with a launch MSRP of $270, while the GPU is an end-of-life product released in October 2022 with no listed launch MSRP. The production status of the CPU is active, whereas the GPU has been discontinued.

The system occupies a desktop class and achieves a combined percentile of 61, placing it in the middle-upper range of all systems in the database. This tier is primarily driven by the CPU’s strong performance, with the GPU acting as a limiting factor. The 8-core, 16-thread processor with 5.00 GHz boost clock delivers exceptional multi-threaded performance for productivity and development workloads, while the GPU provides only basic display output and light graphics acceleration.

The overall positioning is that of a workstation-class CPU paired with a display adapter. Users who require CPU-intensive computing with minimal graphics demands will find this system well-suited, while those expecting balanced gaming or GPU-accelerated creation will be disappointed. The 61st combined percentile accurately reflects this mixed-tier configuration, where the processor’s high standing is offset by the graphics card’s modest capabilities.

FAQ

Q: What is the most significant performance difference between the CPU and GPU in this build?

A: The CPU holds the 82nd percentile among all processors with an average benchmark score of 30,746, while the GPU sits at the 40th percentile with an average score of 7,550, creating a substantial gap in component tiers.

Q: Can this system handle modern gaming?

A: Gaming performance is limited by the GPU’s low DirectX 12 score of 29 and 4 GB VRAM capacity, so modern titles would require low settings at 1080p, and no measured FPS data exists for this combination to confirm real-world results.

Q: What are the upgrade options for this platform?

A: The AMD Socket AM5 platform supports DDR5 memory and PCIe Gen 4 with 20 CPU lanes, and the 200-watt suggested PSU leaves room for a GPU upgrade, which would be the most impactful change given the CPU’s higher performance tier.

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

A: The Ryzen 7 8700F trails the AMD Ryzen 5 PRO 8645HS by 0.4% and the Intel Core i7-13700TE by 0.9%, while leading the Intel Core i5-13600H by 0.6% and the Intel Core Ultra 5 225T by 0.9% in average benchmark scores.

Q: What is the power consumption profile of this build?

A: The CPU has a 65-watt TDP and the GPU has a 30-watt TDP, with a suggested PSU of 200 watts, making this a highly power-efficient desktop configuration.

Q: Is the GPU suitable for ray tracing?

A: The Arc A310 includes 6 ray tracing cores and supports DirectX 12 Ultimate, but its 2.688 TFLOPS FP32 performance means ray-traced workloads will run at low frame rates due to limited compute throughput.

Q: What workloads benefit most from this CPU-GPU pairing?

A: CPU-bound tasks such as software compilation, data compression (PassMark score of 378,160), and integer math processing (score of 100,371) benefit most, while GPU-accelerated workloads are constrained by the 40th percentile graphics card.