SYSTEM ANALYZER

Rate My PC: AMD Ryzen 9 8940HX + Intel Arc A350M

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)

▼

95 Score

Top 5% Ranking

95 / 100

ULTIMATE READY

Apex Performer

Top 5% 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

97%

GPU

92%

PROCESSOR

AMD Ryzen 9 8940HX

81,103 Benchmark Score

Top 3% Market Ranking

View Full Specs →

GRAPHICS CARD

Intel Arc A350M

24,647 Benchmark Score

Top 8% 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 combines AMD’s top-tier mobile processor with Intel’s entry-level discrete graphics, creating a system with extreme CPU compute capability and modest GPU throughput. The data shows a laptop-class build where the processor dominates the performance envelope, while the graphics solution provides adequate, but not exceptional, 1080p-class rendering. The following analysis is based entirely on the provided benchmark scores and specifications.

GPU Analysis — VRAM, bandwidth, clocks, RT/tensor hardware, what the benchmark scores mean for rendering

The Intel Arc A350M is built on the Xe-HPG architecture, specifically the Alchemist generation for mobile. It is a 6 nm TSMC chip with 7,200 million transistors on a 157 mm² die. The GPU operates at a base clock of 1150 MHz and a boost clock of 2200 MHz. Memory is a 4 GB GDDR6 configuration on a 64-bit bus, yielding a bandwidth of 112.0 GB/s. This memory subsystem is the primary constraint for the GPU; the 64-bit interface limits data throughput in ways that higher-end Arc parts avoid.

The shading hardware includes 768 shading units, 48 texture mapping units, and 24 raster output units. The chip includes 6 dedicated ray tracing cores, which enables DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2) feature support, along with OpenGL 4.6 and Vulkan 1.4. The pixel rate is 52.80 GPixel/s, and the texture rate is 105.6 GTexel/s. Compute throughput is rated at 3.379 TFLOPS for FP32 and 6.758 TFLOPS for FP16 (2:1 ratio). This is a low-power part, with a TDP of just 25 W, and it uses a PCIe 4.0 x8 bus interface.

Benchmark results place the Arc A350M at the 70th percentile among all GPUs, with an average benchmark score of 24647. In Geekbench OpenCL, it scores 24546, and in Geekbench Vulkan, it scores 24747. These scores are nearly identical, suggesting that the GPU’s performance is consistent across different compute APIs. The nearest rivals show a tight cluster: the AMD Radeon RX 590 scores 24744 (0.4% faster), the NVIDIA RTX A5000 Mobile scores 24763 (0.5% faster), the AMD Radeon RX 6600 XT scores 24442 (0.8% slower), and the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1630 scores 24277 (1.5% slower). This indicates that the Arc A350M sits in a performance band roughly equivalent to older desktop mid-range GPUs and professional mobile parts from a previous generation. For rendering, these scores suggest the GPU can handle 1080p gaming at medium to high settings, but the 4 GB VRAM and 64-bit bus will be limiting factors for high-resolution textures or heavy compute workloads.

Balance and Bottleneck — which component limits which workload, using percentiles and FPS scaling as evidence

The fundamental imbalance here is stark. The CPU is a 16-core, 32-thread processor that scores in the 95th percentile of all CPUs, while the GPU is in the 70th percentile of all GPUs. The combined percentile for this build is 83. This means that for most gaming scenarios, the Arc A350M will be the bottleneck. The CPU can feed frames far faster than the GPU can render them, so in CPU-bound games at low resolutions, the GPU will cap the frame rate.

There is no measured FPS data for this exact combination, so FPS scaling cannot be quantified directly. However, the benchmark scores imply that the CPU will rarely be the limiting factor. The GPU’s average score of 24647 is comparable to the Radeon RX 590 and GTX 1630, parts that are typically paired with mid-range CPUs from several generations ago. In contrast, the Ryzen 9 8940HX’s average score of 81103 puts it in the same league as the Intel Core i9-14900KS and Intel Xeon w5-3535X, which are desktop-class heavyweights. This pairing is akin to putting a racing engine in a commuter car; the CPU has enormous headroom that the GPU cannot exploit.

For non-gaming workloads, the balance shifts. In tasks like data compression, encryption, or multi-threaded rendering, the CPU is the primary workhorse, and the GPU’s role is secondary or negligible. Here, the CPU’s 95th percentile ranking means it will be the dominant contributor to performance. The bottleneck in those scenarios is likely to be memory bandwidth (83.2 GB/s for the CPU) or storage, not the GPU. In summary, the GPU is the bottleneck for graphics workloads, while the CPU is the star for compute workloads.

CPU Analysis — cores, clocks, architecture, what the benchmark scores mean for real workloads

The AMD Ryzen 9 8940HX is a 16-core, 32-thread processor from the 8000 series, based on the Zen 4 architecture with the Dragon Range codename. It is manufactured on a 5 nm TSMC process with 13,140 million transistors across a 2x 71 mm² die. The base clock is 2.40 GHz with a boost clock of 5.30 GHz. The TDP is 55 W, which is modest for a 16-core part, indicating efficient power management. It uses the AMD Socket FL1 and supports dual-channel DDR5 memory with a bandwidth of 83.2 GB/s. ECC memory is not supported. The CPU provides PCIe Gen 5 with 28 lanes.

Cache is substantial: 64 KB of L1 per core, 1 MB of L2 per core, and 64 MB of L3 cache. This large L3 pool is crucial for workloads that share data across cores. The processor also includes integrated Radeon 610M graphics, which are not the primary focus but provide a fallback display output. The multiplier is unlocked, allowing for overclocking on supported platforms.

Benchmark results are exceptional. In Cinebench R23, the CPU scores 32521 in multi-core and 1917 in single-core. The multi-core score is high, reflecting the 16-core design, while the single-core score is strong, indicating good per-thread performance from the Zen 4 architecture. Cinebench R15 scores are 5355 (multi-core) and 292 (single-core). PassMark results show a multi-thread score of 49731, a single-thread score of 3874, and a physics score of 2104. Data compression scores 650984, encryption 39318, extended instructions 47802, and integer math 189221. Floating-point math scores 113921, and random string sorting scores 75381. The find prime numbers score is 251.

These numbers place the CPU at the 95th percentile of all CPUs, with an average score of 81103. The nearest rivals include the Intel Xeon w5-3535X (score 81115, 0% delta), Intel Core i9-14900KS (score 81127, 0% delta), AMD Ryzen AI Max+ PRO 395 (score 80762, 0.4% slower), and Intel Xeon 638 (score 80723, 0.5% slower). This means the 8940HX performs on par with flagship desktop processors, making it a top-tier mobile CPU. For real workloads, this translates to rapid video encoding, fast compilation, and smooth multitasking. The 64 MB L3 cache helps with gaming by reducing memory latency.

Who Should Build It — target users and industries (gamers at specific resolutions, content creators, developers, students, small business workstations) tied strictly to the measured performance

This build is for users who need maximum CPU performance in a laptop form factor but are willing to accept entry-level GPU performance. The target user is a developer or researcher who runs CPU-intensive code, such as parallel simulations, data analysis, or software builds, and occasionally games at 1080p. The 95th percentile CPU score means that heavy multi-threaded workloads will fly, while the 70th percentile GPU score means that gaming will be limited to lighter titles or lower settings.

Content creators who work with video editing or 3D rendering will benefit from the CPU’s 32521 Cinebench R23 multi-core score, which accelerates export times and rendering. However, the GPU’s 3.379 TFLOPS FP32 performance is modest, so GPU-accelerated effects will be slow. Students in engineering or computer science fields will appreciate the CPU for compiling code and running virtual machines, but the 4 GB GPU VRAM may not be enough for advanced machine learning work.

Small business workstations that handle spreadsheets, databases, and office applications will see extreme responsiveness from the CPU’s single-thread score of 3874 (PassMark) and 1917 (Cinebench R23). The GPU is more than adequate for office tasks. Gamers at 1080p will find that the Arc A350M can run esports titles at high frame rates, but demanding AAA games will require medium settings. For 1440p or 4K gaming, this GPU is not suitable, as its 64-bit memory bus and 4 GB VRAM will be severe limitations.

Benchmark Performance — exact CPU and GPU scores, percentile positions, and what the combined picture is

The CPU’s average benchmark score is 81103, placing it in the 95th percentile of all CPUs. The GPU’s average benchmark score is 24647, placing it in the 70th percentile of all GPUs. The combined build percentile is 83. These numbers indicate a system that is far more capable on the CPU side than the GPU side.

The CPU’s nearest rivals are all within 0.5% of its score, confirming that it is a top-tier part. The GPU’s nearest rivals are also within 1.5%, but they represent a much lower performance tier. The deltaPct values show that the GPU is essentially tied with older desktop cards like the RX 590 and GTX 1630. This means that while the CPU is competitive with the best desktop processors, the GPU is competitive with mid-range parts from 2019.

The combined picture is one of a workstation-class CPU paired with an entry-level GPU. The CPU can handle any workload thrown at it, but the GPU will hold back graphics performance. For tasks that do not rely on the GPU, this system is excellent. For tasks that do rely on the GPU, it is adequate for 1080p gaming at medium settings. The lack of measured FPS data means that exact frame rates cannot be stated, but the benchmark scores provide a reliable basis for estimates.

Usage Scenarios — grounded in the scores: high-refresh gaming, streaming, video editing, 3D rendering, software development, student and office work. One short paragraph per scenario, citing the numbers that support the verdict

High-refresh gaming: The Arc A350M’s Vulkan score of 24747 and OpenCL score of 24546 suggest that esports titles can run at high frame rates at 1080p. However, the 4 GB VRAM and 64-bit bus will limit the ability to maintain high frame rates in modern AAA games. The CPU’s single-thread score of 1917 (Cinebench R23) ensures that the processor will not bottleneck the GPU in games that are CPU-bound.

Streaming: The CPU’s 16 cores and 32 threads, with a PassMark multi-thread score of 49731, can handle both game encoding and streaming software simultaneously. The GPU’s 6 RT cores and 768 shading units can assist with video encoding, but the 25 W TDP limits sustained performance. The CPU’s 64 MB L3 cache helps reduce stutter during streaming.

Video editing: The Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 32521 will accelerate timeline scrubbing and export times in CPU-based editors. The GPU’s 3.379 TFLOPS FP32 performance can handle basic effects, but complex GPU-accelerated filters will be slow. The 83.2 GB/s memory bandwidth of the CPU is sufficient for 4K video editing.

3D rendering: The CPU’s 16 cores will render scenes quickly in CPU-based renderers, as evidenced by the Cinebench R15 multi-core score of 5355. The GPU’s 6 RT cores can accelerate ray tracing in supported software, but the 4 GB VRAM limits scene complexity. The CPU is the primary rendering engine here.

Software development: The PassMark integer math score of 189221 and data compression score of 650984 indicate fast compilation and code execution. The 32 threads allow parallel builds, and the single-thread score of 3874 ensures responsive UI interactions. The GPU is sufficient for IDE rendering and basic graphics.

Student and office work: The PassMark single-thread score of 3874 provides snappy performance in office applications. The CPU’s 55 W TDP ensures reasonable battery life for a high-end part. The GPU handles web browsing and document rendering effortlessly.

Gaming Performance — measured FPS by game and resolution from measuredFpsUltraByGame (or, if dataIsMeasured is false, frame expectations qualitatively from the benchmark scores and say the figures are estimates)

The FACT PACK contains no measured FPS data for this exact CPU+GPU combination. Therefore, all frame rate figures below are estimates based on the benchmark scores and should be treated as approximations, not measured results.

Based on the GPU’s average score of 24647, which is comparable to the AMD Radeon RX 590 and NVIDIA GTX 1630, the Arc A350M is expected to deliver playable frame rates at 1080p with medium to high settings in most games. For esports titles like Counter-Strike or Valorant, the 768 shading units and 2200 MHz boost clock should provide frame rates well above 60 FPS at 1080p. For AAA titles, the 4 GB VRAM will be a limiting factor, and players may need to reduce texture quality to maintain stable frame rates. The GPU’s 52.80 GPixel/s pixel rate suggests that fill-rate-bound scenes will perform adequately, but the 105.6 GTexel/s texture rate may be a bottleneck in texture-heavy scenes.

At 1440p, the GPU’s 64-bit memory bus and 112.0 GB/s bandwidth will likely cause frame rates to drop significantly, making 1440p gaming impractical for demanding titles. The CPU’s high single-thread performance will ensure that frame times remain consistent, but the GPU will be the limiting factor. For 4K, the 4 GB VRAM is insufficient, and the GPU will likely fail to maintain playable frame rates. In summary, this system is a 1080p gaming machine, with performance that scales well with CPU-bound titles but struggles with GPU-bound titles at higher resolutions.

Upgrade Path and Platform — socket, memory support, PCIe, PSU headroom from suggestedPsu/tdp, what a sensible next upgrade looks like

The CPU is built on the AMD Socket FL1, which is specific to mobile platforms. This means the CPU is not upgradeable in a traditional desktop sense; it is soldered to the motherboard. The memory support is dual-channel DDR5, with a bandwidth of 83.2 GB/s, and ECC is not supported. The CPU provides PCIe Gen 5 with 28 lanes, which is more than enough for the GPU’s PCIe 4.0 x8 interface. The GPU is also a mobile part, soldered to the motherboard, so it cannot be replaced either. As such, the upgrade path for this laptop is limited to external GPUs over Thunderbolt or USB4, if the laptop supports it.

The GPU has a TDP of 25 W, and the CPU has a TDP of 55 W, so the total system power draw is modest. There is no suggested PSU value in the data, but the low TDPs suggest that a standard laptop power adapter is sufficient. The GPU is end-of-life, meaning that driver updates may eventually cease, but the hardware will continue to function. The CPU is active, indicating ongoing support.

A sensible next upgrade would be an external GPU enclosure with a higher-end desktop GPU, as the CPU’s PCIe Gen 5 lanes can accommodate the bandwidth. The CPU’s 95th percentile score means it will not bottleneck an external GPU for years to come. Alternatively, upgrading the laptop’s memory to the maximum supported DDR5 capacity would improve performance in memory-intensive workloads.

FAQ

Q: What is the CPU’s architecture and how does it perform in multi-threaded workloads?

A: The CPU is based on Zen 4 architecture (Dragon Range). Its Cinebench R23 multi-core score is 32521, placing it at the 95th percentile of all CPUs, which is 0% slower than the Intel Core i9-14900KS.

Q: How much VRAM does the GPU have, and does it support ray tracing?

A: The GPU has 4 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 64-bit bus. It includes 6 dedicated ray tracing cores and supports DirectX 12 Ultimate, so it can run ray-traced games, but the 4 GB VRAM limits the complexity of ray-traced scenes.

Q: What is the combined performance tier of this build?

A: The combined percentile is 83. The CPU is in the 95th percentile, and the GPU is in the 70th percentile, making this a CPU-dominant build.

Q: Is there measured FPS data for gaming performance?

A: No, there is no measured FPS data for this exact combination. All gaming performance figures are estimates based on benchmark scores, such as the GPU’s Geekbench Vulkan score of 24747.

Q: What is the memory bandwidth of the CPU?

A: The CPU supports dual-channel DDR5 memory with a bandwidth of 83.2 GB/s. The GPU has a separate memory bandwidth of 112.0 GB/s from its 4 GB GDDR6 configuration.

Q: What is the TDP of the CPU and GPU?

A: The CPU has a TDP of 55 W, and the GPU has a TDP of 25 W. This low combined power draw is suitable for a laptop form factor.

Q: What are the nearest rivals to the CPU and GPU?

A: The CPU’s nearest rival is the Intel Xeon w5-3535X, with a delta of 0%. The GPU’s nearest rival is the AMD Radeon RX 590, with a delta of -0.4%, meaning the RX 590 is 0.4% faster.

Build Overview — what this CPU+GPU pairing is, its class (desktop/laptop from buildClass), and overall tier from the percentiles

This is a laptop-class build (buildClass: laptop) that pairs the AMD Ryzen 9 8940HX, a 16-core, 32-thread Zen 4 processor, with the Intel Arc A350M, a 4 GB entry-level discrete GPU. The CPU is a flagship mobile part, scoring in the 95th percentile of all CPUs, with an average score of 81103 that matches desktop processors like the Intel Core i9-14900KS and Intel Xeon w5-3535X. The GPU is a mid-range mobile part, scoring in the 70th percentile of all GPUs, with an average score of 24647 that is comparable to the AMD Radeon RX 590 and NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1630.

The combined percentile for this build is 83, indicating that it is better than the majority of systems in the database, but the distribution is heavily skewed toward CPU performance. This pairing is best suited for users who prioritize compute-heavy tasks like software development, video encoding, and 3D rendering over gaming. The GPU is capable of 1080p gaming at medium settings, but it is not a high-performance gaming solution. The CPU’s 55 W TDP and the GPU’s 25 W TDP make this an efficient laptop configuration, despite the CPU’s high core count. Overall, this is a workstation-class CPU paired with an entry-level gaming GPU, resulting in a system that excels at productivity workloads while offering modest graphics capabilities.

Rate My PC: AMD Ryzen 9 8940HX + Intel Arc A350M

Apex Performer

System Balance Analysis

AMD Ryzen 9 8940HX

Intel Arc A350M

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

GPU Analysis — VRAM, bandwidth, clocks, RT/tensor hardware, what the benchmark scores mean for rendering

Balance and Bottleneck — which component limits which workload, using percentiles and FPS scaling as evidence

CPU Analysis — cores, clocks, architecture, what the benchmark scores mean for real workloads

Who Should Build It — target users and industries (gamers at specific resolutions, content creators, developers, students, small business workstations) tied strictly to the measured performance

Benchmark Performance — exact CPU and GPU scores, percentile positions, and what the combined picture is

Usage Scenarios — grounded in the scores: high-refresh gaming, streaming, video editing, 3D rendering, software development, student and office work. One short paragraph per scenario, citing the numbers that support the verdict

Gaming Performance — measured FPS by game and resolution from measuredFpsUltraByGame (or, if dataIsMeasured is false, frame expectations qualitatively from the benchmark scores and say the figures are estimates)

Upgrade Path and Platform — socket, memory support, PCIe, PSU headroom from suggestedPsu/tdp, what a sensible next upgrade looks like

FAQ

Build Overview — what this CPU+GPU pairing is, its class (desktop/laptop from buildClass), and overall tier from the percentiles

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