SYSTEM ANALYZER

Rate My PC: AMD Ryzen 9 7950X + 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)

▼

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

96%

GPU

85%

PROCESSOR

AMD Ryzen 9 7950X

69,515 Benchmark Score

Top 4% 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

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

This pairing is a study in extremes: a 16-core, 32-thread flagship desktop processor from AMD’s Zen 4 generation, coupled with Intel’s most entry-level discrete Arc graphics card, the A310. The benchmark data shows a CPU that sits in the 94th percentile of all processors, while the GPU lands in the 40th percentile of all graphics cards. This is not a balanced gaming rig; it is a workstation-oriented compute monster with just enough graphical output to drive a display and handle light rendering tasks. The following analysis breaks down what this combination means for real-world workloads, based strictly on the available benchmark scores and specifications.

CPU Analysis

The AMD Ryzen 9 7950X is a 16-core, 32-thread processor built on the Zen 4 architecture, codenamed Raphael. It operates on the AMD Socket AM5 platform and is manufactured on a 5 nm process at TSMC, packing 13,140 million transistors across two 71 mm² dies. The base clock is 4.50 GHz, with a boost clock of 5.70 GHz, and it has a TDP of 170 W. The cache hierarchy is substantial: 64 KB of L1 per core, 1 MB of L2 per core, and 64 MB of shared L3 cache.

The benchmark results paint a clear picture of a high-end multi-threaded workhorse. In Cinebench R23, the CPU scores 36,523 points in multi-core and 2,000 points in single-core. The multi-core score is roughly 18 times the single-core score, which indicates excellent scaling across its 16 cores. The Geekbench results corroborate this, with a multi-core score of 22,415 and a single-core score of 2,613. The PassMark multi-thread score of 62,478 and integer math score of 225,603 suggest heavy parallel workloads are this chip’s primary strength.

Single-threaded performance is also strong, scoring 1,099 in 3DMark single-thread and 4,266 in PassMark single-thread. This ensures day-to-day responsiveness and solid performance in lightly-threaded applications, but the headline here is the parallel throughput. For context, the 7950X’s average benchmark score is 69,515, which puts it 0.2% ahead of the Intel Core i7-14700K (score 69,355) and 0.3% ahead of the AMD EPYC 9115 (score 69,288). It trails the AMD Ryzen 9 7940HX by 0.5% and the AMD Ryzen 7 9700F by 0.7%, but these deltas are within a hair’s breadth, making them effectively equivalent in aggregate compute performance.

The data shows a processor that excels in rendering, compilation, and scientific computing—any task that can utilize more than eight threads. The 3DMark 16-thread score of 14,110 compared to the 8-thread score of 7,920 shows near-linear scaling up to 16 threads, which is a strong indicator of efficient core utilization. For a desktop user, this means video exports are fast, code compiles finish quickly, and complex simulations don’t bog down.

Balance and Bottleneck

This is a severely imbalanced pairing. The CPU’s performance percentile (94th) versus the GPU’s percentile (40th) creates a scenario where the processor will almost never be the limiting factor in any graphics workload. The data indicates that the GPU is the bottleneck in gaming and real-time graphics by a wide margin. The CPU can supply frames far faster than the A310 can render them.

The combined percentile for this build is 67, which reflects the average of the two components. However, the practical bottleneck is clear: the Intel Arc A310’s PassMark G3D score of 5,433 places it in the 40th percentile of all GPUs, while the CPU’s PassMark multithread score of 62,478 is in the 94th percentile. In any application that relies on GPU compute or rasterization, the A310 will cap performance.

For CPU-bound workloads like data compression (PassMark score of 835,923), encryption (49,336), and floating-point math (138,004), the system will perform at an elite level. The CPU’s 16 cores and 32 threads ensure that no processor-side task will stall. The bottleneck only appears when the workload shifts to the GPU, where the 4 GB frame buffer and 64-bit memory bus will limit resolution and texture detail. The data suggests that FPS scaling in games will be dictated entirely by the GPU’s capabilities, not the CPU’s headroom.

Benchmark Performance

The CPU’s exact benchmark scores are as follows: Cinebench R23 multi-core at 36,523 and single-core at 2,000; Geekbench multi-core at 22,415 and single-core at 2,613; 3DMark max threads at 15,579 and 16 threads at 14,110. The PassMark suite shows a multithread score of 62,478, a single-thread score of 4,266, and a physics score of 3,102. These figures place the CPU in the 94th percentile of all CPUs, with an average benchmark score of 69,515.

The GPU’s scores are markedly lower. In the PassMark suite, it scores 5,433 in G3D, 2,157 in GPU compute, and 625 in G2D. Its DirectX performance is weak, with scores of 31 for DirectX 10, 33 for DirectX 11, 29 for DirectX 12, and 69 for DirectX 9. In Geekbench, it scores 30,607 in OpenCL and 28,964 in Vulkan. This places the GPU in the 40th percentile of all GPUs, with an average benchmark score of 7,550.

There is no measured FPS data available for this exact CPU+GPU combination. The FACT PACK contains no measuredFps rows, so any discussion of frame rates is estimated from the benchmark scores. The CPU’s high percentile and the GPU’s mid-range percentile suggest that in gaming, the A310 will deliver playable frame rates only at lower resolutions and settings. The CPU’s single-thread score of 1,099 in 3DMark is sufficient for most game engines, but the GPU’s DirectX 12 score of 29 indicates it will struggle with modern API-heavy titles.

Who Should Build It

This build targets users whose primary workload is processor-intensive, not graphics-intensive. The Ryzen 9 7950X is a top-tier choice for developers compiling large codebases, researchers running simulations, and video editors working with high-resolution footage. The GPU is sufficient for basic display output and hardware acceleration for video encoding, but it is not meant for high-end gaming.

Students in computer science or engineering fields would benefit from the CPU’s 32 threads for compiling and running virtual machines, while the A310 can handle standard desktop tasks and 2D productivity. Small business workstations that run data analysis, financial modeling, or database management would see excellent performance, as the CPU’s PassMark data encryption score of 49,336 and integer math score of 225,603 are far above average.

Gamers are not the target audience. At 1080p with low settings, the A310 might manage some esports titles, but the data does not support high-refresh gaming. The GPU’s 40th percentile ranking puts it near the AMD Radeon R7 250 and NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 in performance, which are entry-level cards from previous generations. Content creators who rely on GPU-accelerated rendering in Blender or Octane will find the A310 lacking, but those using CPU-based renderers will be well-served.

Usage Scenarios

High-refresh gaming: Not recommended. The GPU’s PassMark G3D score of 5,433 and DirectX 12 score of 29 indicate that frame rates will be low even at 1080p. The CPU’s strong single-thread score of 4,266 in PassMark is irrelevant when the GPU cannot keep up with the render queue.

Streaming: The CPU can handle encoding via software x264 with its 32 threads, making it a viable option for streaming without a dedicated encoder. The GPU’s lack of performance means game capture will be limited to older or less demanding titles.

Video editing: Export times in Premiere Pro or DaVinci Resolve will be short, thanks to the CPU’s Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 36,523. However, timeline scrubbing and effects that rely on GPU acceleration will be sluggish, as the A310’s compute score of 2,157 is low.

3D rendering: CPU-based rendering in applications like Blender’s Cycles (CPU mode) or V-Ray will be excellent. The 16 cores and 32 threads provide the parallel throughput needed for complex scenes. GPU-based rendering is not viable with the A310.

Software development: Compilation times will be minimal. The CPU’s 3DMark 16-thread score of 14,110 shows strong parallel performance, and the large L3 cache of 64 MB helps with frequent data access patterns.

Student and office work: Overkill for word processing and spreadsheets, but the CPU’s PassMark single-thread score of 4,266 ensures snappy UI responses. The GPU’s G2D score of 625 is sufficient for 2D desktop acceleration and multiple monitors.

Upgrade Path and Platform

The AMD Socket AM5 platform is the current generation for AMD desktop processors. The Ryzen 9 7950X supports DDR5 memory in a dual-channel configuration with a bandwidth of 83.2 GB/s, and it has 24 PCIe Gen 5 lanes. The platform is not end-of-life, which means future CPU upgrades are possible without changing the motherboard.

The GPU is a PCIe 4.0 x8 card, which is physically compatible with the motherboard’s PCIe Gen 5 slots, though it will run at the lower spec. The A310 has a TDP of 30 W and requires no power connectors, with a suggested PSU of 200 W. This leaves enormous headroom in a system with a 170 W CPU, meaning the current power supply is likely sufficient even for a more powerful GPU upgrade.

The most sensible next upgrade is the graphics card. The CPU’s 94th percentile performance is not the limiting factor in any workload. Swapping the A310 for a higher-tier GPU would unlock the CPU’s full gaming and GPU-compute potential. The platform’s PCIe Gen 5 support ensures that a future GPU will not be bandwidth-limited. The CPU’s memory support for ECC is a plus for workstation users who require data integrity.

FAQ

Q: What is the CPU’s core and thread count?

A: The AMD Ryzen 9 7950X has 16 cores and 32 threads.

Q: What is the GPU’s memory size and bandwidth?

A: The Intel Arc A310 has 4 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 64-bit bus, providing 124.0 GB/s of bandwidth.

Q: How does the CPU compare to the Intel Core i7-14700K?

A: The Ryzen 9 7950X has an average benchmark score of 69,515, which is 0.2% higher than the Intel Core i7-14700K’s score of 69,355.

Q: Is this build suitable for 4K gaming?

A: No. The GPU’s PassMark G3D score of 5,433 and 4 GB memory capacity are insufficient for 4K gaming, which requires high fill rates and large frame buffers.

Q: What is the CPU’s TDP and socket type?

A: The CPU has a TDP of 170 W and uses the AMD Socket AM5.

Q: Does the GPU support DirectX 12 Ultimate?

A: Yes, the Intel Arc A310 supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2).

Q: What is the suggested PSU for this GPU?

A: The suggested PSU for the Intel Arc A310 is 200 W.

Build Overview

This is a desktop-class build featuring the AMD Ryzen 9 7950X and the Intel Arc A310. The CPU is a 16-core, 32-thread Zen 4 processor with a 5.70 GHz boost clock, while the GPU is a 4 GB GDDR6 card based on the Xe-HPG architecture. The combined percentile for this pairing is 67, which places it above average overall, but this is heavily skewed by the CPU’s 94th percentile ranking.

The build is a compute-first workstation with a placeholder GPU. The CPU’s average benchmark score of 69,515 is elite, while the GPU’s average score of 7,550 is entry-level. The data suggests this is a system for CPU-bound tasks, with the GPU serving only for basic display output and light acceleration. The overall tier is mid-range due to the GPU’s low performance, despite the CPU’s high-end status.

GPU Analysis

The Intel Arc A310 is built on the Xe-HPG architecture, codenamed Alchemist, and uses the DG2-128 chip. It is manufactured on a 6 nm process at TSMC, with 7,200 million transistors on a 157 mm² die. The GPU has 768 shading units, 32 texture mapping units, and 16 raster output units. It includes 6 ray tracing cores, though the lack of dedicated tensor cores is notable.

The memory subsystem consists of 4 GB of GDDR6 on a 64-bit bus, yielding a bandwidth of 124.0 GB/s. The clocks are set to a base and boost of 1750 MHz, with a memory clock of 1937 MHz (15.5 Gbps effective). The pixel rate is 28.00 GPixel/s, and the texture rate is 56.00 GTexel/s. The FP32 performance is 2.688 TFLOPS, with FP16 at 5.376 TFLOPS (2:1 ratio). The TDP is 30 W, and it is a single-slot card with no power connectors, using a PCIe 4.0 x8 interface.

Benchmark results show a GPU that is outclassed by modern integrated graphics. The PassMark G3D score of 5,433 places it in the 40th percentile, just 1% ahead of the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 (score 7,472) and 0.1% behind the AMD Radeon R7 250 (score 7,557). The DirectX 12 score of 29 is particularly low, indicating poor performance in modern APIs. The Geekbench Vulkan score of 28,964 is higher, but still entry-level.

For rendering, the GPU’s compute score of 2,157 is too low for serious GPU-accelerated workloads like Blender Cycles or Adobe After Effects. The 4 GB frame buffer limits texture sizes and resolutions. The ray tracing cores are present but not powerful enough to handle complex scenes. This GPU is suitable for basic office work, video playback, and light 2D tasks, but it is not designed for gaming or professional rendering.

Rate My PC: AMD Ryzen 9 7950X + Intel Arc A310

Apex Performer

System Balance Analysis

AMD Ryzen 9 7950X

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

Optimal Performance

4K Gaming Ready

Performance Tiers Explained

Ultimate

High-End

Mid-Range

Entry Level

Legacy

CPU Analysis

Balance and Bottleneck

Benchmark Performance

Who Should Build It

Usage Scenarios

Upgrade Path and Platform

FAQ

Build Overview

GPU Analysis

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