SYSTEM ANALYZER

Rate My PC: AMD Ryzen AI 5 435 + 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

88%

GPU

93%

PROCESSOR

AMD Ryzen AI 5 435

28,128 Benchmark Score

Top 12% 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 AMD Ryzen AI 5 435 and Intel Arc A370M pairing represents a mid-range mobile computing solution, with the CPU landing in the 80th percentile of all processors and the GPU in the 74th percentile. This combination targets portable systems where balanced performance for both productivity and light gaming is the primary objective, rather than absolute high-end capability.

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

The Intel Arc A370M is built on the Xe-HPG architecture, specifically the DG2-128 chip manufactured on a 6 nm process at TSMC. The GPU contains 7,200 million transistors on a 157 mm² die, with a transistor density of 45.9M per mm². This is a mobile-class discrete GPU with a 35 W TDP, positioning it as an efficiency-oriented part rather than a performance flagship.

Memory configuration is a notable constraint. The A370M comes with 4 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 64-bit bus, yielding a bandwidth of 112.0 GB/s. Memory operates at 1750 MHz, with 14 Gbps effective data rate. For modern game textures and render targets, 4 GB is a limiting factor at higher resolutions, though the bandwidth is adequate for the GPU's computational throughput. The 64-bit bus is narrow, which means memory-bound workloads will feel the constraint more than compute-bound ones.

Clock speeds are set at a base of 1550 MHz with a boost of 2050 MHz. The GPU delivers a pixel rate of 65.60 GPixel/s and a texture rate of 131.2 GTexel/s. Shading units number 1024, with 64 texture mapping units and 32 render output units. The FP32 throughput is 4.198 TFLOPS, while FP16 performance reaches 8.397 TFLOPS via a 2:1 ratio. These figures place the A370M in a performance tier comparable to older desktop mid-range cards, as evidenced by its nearest rivals.

Ray tracing hardware is present in the form of 8 dedicated RT cores. This allows the GPU to handle DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2) workloads, which include ray-traced effects. However, with only 4.198 TFLOPS of FP32 compute, the RT cores have limited shader throughput to work with, so ray-traced scenes will require significant compromises in resolution or detail settings. The API support is comprehensive, including Vulkan 1.4 and OpenGL 4.6, making it suitable for a wide range of applications.

Benchmark results show a Geekbench OpenCL score of 29676 and a Vulkan score of 28673. These scores place the GPU at the 74th percentile of all GPUs, with an average benchmark score of 29175. The nearest rival is the AMD Radeon RX Vega M GH with an average score of 29197, a delta of -0.1%, indicating near-identical performance. The AMD FirePro W8000 is also within 0.1%, while the AMD Radeon RX 470 trails by 0.6%. The AMD Radeon RX 6800M is 1% behind, which is surprising given its higher tier in the mobile lineup, but the data shows the A370M matching it in these synthetic tests.

For rendering workloads, the 4.198 TFLOPS FP32 figure means the A370M can handle basic 3D rendering and GPU-accelerated effects, but it is not suited for professional-grade render farms. The 8 RT cores provide entry-level ray tracing capability, and the 4 GB VRAM will restrict texture sizes and scene complexity. OpenCL performance is solid for compute tasks, but users with heavy rendering needs will find the GPU the limiting component.

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)

No measured FPS rows exist for this exact combination — the FACT PACK contains no measuredFps data. Therefore, all FPS discussion is estimated from the benchmark scores, and these figures should be treated as approximations rather than verified results.

The GPU's average benchmark score of 29175, placing it at the 74th percentile, suggests it can handle 1080p gaming at medium to high settings in most titles. The near-parity with the AMD Radeon RX Vega M GH (-0.1% delta) and the AMD Radeon RX 470 (+0.6% delta) provides a reference point: these are cards that historically delivered playable frame rates at 1080p in esports titles and older AAA games, but struggled with modern AAA releases at high settings.

At 1080p resolution, the A370M's 4 GB VRAM and 112.0 GB/s bandwidth will support 60 FPS in competitive shooters and lighter titles. The 1024 shading units and 4.198 TFLOPS FP32 compute are sufficient for these workloads. However, for demanding AAA games, the 4 GB memory capacity will force texture quality reductions, and the 64-bit bus will limit performance in memory-heavy scenes. Users should expect 30-50 FPS at medium settings in recent AAA titles, with drops below 30 FPS when ray tracing is enabled.

At 1440p, the A370M is not well-suited. The 4 GB VRAM is insufficient for high-resolution textures, and the 65.60 GPixel/s pixel rate will struggle to fill the additional pixels. Estimated frame rates would drop to 20-35 FPS in most games, making 1440p viable only in esports titles with reduced settings. The 112.0 GB/s bandwidth becomes a severe bottleneck at this resolution.

The CPU side contributes to gaming performance. The Ryzen AI 5 435's single-thread score of 1816 in Cinebench R23 indicates strong per-core performance, which is critical for frame pacing. The 6 cores and 12 threads ensure the CPU will not be the primary bottleneck in most gaming scenarios. The combination of a capable CPU and a mid-range GPU suggests that 1080p gaming is the target use case, with the GPU limiting performance in graphically intensive titles.

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

The AMD Ryzen AI 5 435 is a 6-core, 12-thread processor built on the Zen 5 architecture, codenamed Gorgon Point. This is part of the Ryzen AI 400 generation, which combines Zen 5 and Zen 5c cores, though the specific core configuration is not detailed in the data. The process node is 4 nm at TSMC, which contributes to efficiency and clock headroom.

Clocks are set at a base of 2.00 GHz with a boost of 4.50 GHz. The TDP is 28 W, a low figure that indicates this is designed for thin-and-light laptops. The socket is AMD Socket FP8, which is a mobile platform, and the market segment is confirmed as Mobile. The CPU is currently Active in production, with a release date of January 4, 2026.

Cache hierarchy is substantial: 80 KB of L1 per core, 1 MB of L2 per core, and 4 MB of L3 cache. The L3 is relatively small for a modern processor, but the per-core L1 and L2 are generous, which helps with latency-sensitive workloads. Memory support includes DDR5 and LPDDR5X in dual-channel configuration, providing a memory bandwidth of 89.6 GB/s. ECC memory is supported, which is a professional feature uncommon in mobile processors. PCIe is Gen 4 with 14 lanes from the CPU, sufficient for a discrete GPU and NVMe storage.

Benchmark scores paint a clear picture of the CPU's capabilities. In Cinebench R23, the multi-core score is 11333 and the single-core score is 1816. The single-core score is strong, indicating excellent per-thread performance for tasks like web browsing, office applications, and lightly-threaded games. The multi-core score is solid but not exceptional, reflecting the 6-core configuration and 28 W power limit.

PassMark scores provide additional detail. The multi-thread score is 19000, with single-thread at 3734. Integer math scores 61026, floating-point math 40627, and extended instructions 16197. Data compression scores 225374, data encryption 11110, and random string sorting 24891. Physics scores 1075, and find prime numbers scores 58. These figures indicate a balanced processor that handles a wide range of workloads competently, with particularly strong integer and floating-point performance for its power class.

The average benchmark score is 28128, placing the CPU at the 80th percentile of all CPUs. Its nearest rivals are remarkably close: the Intel Core i5-13490F scores 28185 (-0.2% delta), the Intel Core i5-14500T scores 28065 (+0.2%), the AMD Ryzen 5 PRO 8500GE scores 28054 (+0.3%), and the AMD Ryzen 5 PRO 5655G scores 28032 (+0.3%). This means the Ryzen AI 5 435 is statistically tied with these desktop and mobile parts, despite its lower TDP, which speaks to the efficiency of the Zen 5 architecture.

For real-world workloads, the 4.50 GHz boost clock and strong single-core score make this CPU excellent for office productivity, software development, and general desktop responsiveness. The multi-core performance, while not class-leading, is sufficient for video editing, 3D modeling, and compilation tasks. The 28 W TDP means sustained loads will be limited by thermal and power constraints, but burst workloads will benefit from the high boost clock.

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

The system's combined percentile is 77, which sits between the CPU's 80th percentile and the GPU's 74th percentile. This indicates a reasonably balanced pairing, though the GPU is the weaker component and will be the limiting factor in graphics-intensive workloads.

For gaming, the GPU is clearly the bottleneck. The A370M's 74th percentile and 4 GB VRAM will cap performance in modern titles, while the CPU's 80th percentile and strong single-core score ensure it can feed the GPU adequately. In CPU-light games, the GPU will be the constraint at 1080p. In CPU-heavy games, the Ryzen AI 5 435's 1816 single-core score in Cinebench R23 provides enough headroom to avoid being the primary limiter.

For productivity workloads, the balance shifts. The CPU's 11333 multi-core score in Cinebench R23 and 19000 in PassMark multi-thread indicate it can handle multi-threaded tasks like video encoding and 3D rendering. However, the GPU's 4.198 TFLOPS FP32 and 8 RT cores can accelerate certain rendering tasks via OpenCL, but the 4 GB VRAM will limit scene complexity. In GPU-accelerated workloads, the GPU becomes the bottleneck; in CPU-bound tasks, the processor handles the load.

The FPS scaling evidence is indirect since no measured FPS data exists. However, the percentile gap of 6 points (80 vs 74) is small, suggesting neither component vastly outstrips the other. The GPU's 112.0 GB/s bandwidth and 64-bit bus are the most likely constraint in gaming, while the CPU's 28 W TDP will limit sustained multi-core performance in long render sessions.

Memory bandwidth is another consideration. The CPU's 89.6 GB/s is higher than the GPU's 112.0 GB/s in raw terms, but the GPU's bandwidth is dedicated to graphics, while the CPU shares system memory. In integrated graphics scenarios, the Radeon 840M would use system memory, but with the discrete A370M present, the CPU's memory bandwidth is used for general tasks. This separation prevents a direct bottleneck between the two components.

FAQ — 5-7 Q&A pairs answerable from FACT PACK data

Q: What are the core and thread counts for the AMD Ryzen AI 5 435?

A: The CPU has 6 cores and 12 threads, based on the Zen 5 architecture.

Q: How much VRAM does the Intel Arc A370M have, and what is its memory bandwidth?

A: The GPU has 4 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 64-bit bus, providing a bandwidth of 112.0 GB/s.

Q: What is the performance difference between the Ryzen AI 5 435 and the Intel Core i5-13490F?

A: The Ryzen AI 5 435 scores 28128 on average, while the Core i5-13490F scores 28185, a delta of -0.2%, making them effectively equal.

Q: Does the Intel Arc A370M support ray tracing?

A: Yes, it has 8 dedicated RT cores and supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), which includes ray tracing features.

Q: What is the TDP of each component?

A: The CPU has a TDP of 28 W, and the GPU has a TDP of 35 W.

Q: What memory types does the Ryzen AI 5 435 support?

A: It supports DDR5 and LPDDR5X in dual-channel configuration, with a memory bandwidth of 89.6 GB/s.

Q: How does the Arc A370M compare to the AMD Radeon RX 470?

A: The Arc A370M scores 29175 on average, while the RX 470 scores 28996, putting the Arc A370M 0.6% ahead.

Who Should Build It — target users and industries tied strictly to the measured performance

This pairing is suited for users who need a balanced mobile system for both productivity and light gaming. The CPU's 80th percentile ranking and the GPU's 74th percentile ranking indicate a system that performs well above average for its class.

Gamers at 1080p resolution will find this system capable. The GPU's performance, matching the AMD Radeon RX Vega M GH and RX 470, supports 1080p gaming at medium to high settings in most titles. The CPU's 1816 single-core score in Cinebench R23 ensures smooth frame pacing. This is not a high-refresh-rate gaming machine for AAA titles, but esports and older games will run well.

Content creators working with video or images will benefit from the CPU's multi-threaded performance. The 11333 multi-core score in Cinebench R23 and 19000 in PassMark multi-thread indicate solid video encoding and editing capability. The GPU's OpenCL score of 29676 can accelerate certain effects and exports.

Software developers will appreciate the CPU's strong single-thread performance and 12 threads. Compilation tasks will be handled efficiently, and the 89.6 GB/s memory bandwidth supports large codebases. The ECC memory support is a professional feature that adds reliability.

Students and small business users will find this system more than adequate for office applications, web browsing, and spreadsheet work. The CPU's single-thread score of 3734 in PassMark ensures responsive performance in everyday tasks.

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

The CPU's average benchmark score is 28128, placing it at the 80th percentile of all CPUs. Key scores include Cinebench R23 multi-core at 11333 and single-core at 1816, Cinebench R15 multi-core at 1686 and single-core at 260, and PassMark multi-thread at 19000 with single-thread at 3734. The nearest rival is the Intel Core i5-13490F at 28185, with a delta of -0.2%, indicating the Ryzen AI 5 435 is statistically tied with this desktop processor.

The GPU's average benchmark score is 29175, placing it at the 74th percentile of all GPUs. It scores 29676 in Geekbench OpenCL and 28673 in Geekbench Vulkan. The nearest rival is the AMD Radeon RX Vega M GH at 29197, with a delta of -0.1%. The AMD Radeon RX 470 trails by 0.6%, while the AMD Radeon RX 6800M is 1% behind, which is notable given the RX 6800M's higher tier in the mobile lineup.

The combined percentile is 77, which is between the CPU's 80th and the GPU's 74th. This indicates the GPU is the weaker link, but the gap is small enough that neither component dramatically bottlenecks the other. The CPU's average score of 28128 is higher than the GPU's 29175 in raw terms, but these are different benchmark suites and not directly comparable.

The combined picture is a system that performs consistently in the upper-mid range. The CPU is a strong performer at the 80th percentile, while the GPU is slightly behind at the 74th. For a laptop class build, this is a well-matched pairing that avoids severe imbalances.

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

The platform is based on the AMD Socket FP8, which is a mobile socket. The CPU is from the Ryzen AI 400 generation, codenamed Gorgon Point, built on Zen 5 / Zen 5c architecture. This socket is specific to mobile platforms, so upgrades are limited to other FP8 processors within the same generation. The production status is Active, indicating ongoing availability.

Memory support includes DDR5 and LPDDR5X in dual-channel configuration, with a bandwidth of 89.6 GB/s. ECC memory is supported, which is a professional feature. The memory bus is dual-channel, and upgrading memory capacity or speed is possible within these standards.

PCIe support is Gen 4 with 14 lanes from the CPU. The GPU uses a PCIe 4.0 x8 interface, which leaves additional lanes for storage and other devices. This allows for fast NVMe SSDs and potentially other expansion cards, though the mobile form factor limits physical expansion.

Power requirements are modest. The CPU has a TDP of 28 W, and the GPU has a TDP of 35 W, for a combined 63 W of component power. The suggested PSU is not specified, but the low TDPs indicate a standard laptop power adapter is sufficient. There is no PSU headroom concern in a mobile context.

A sensible next upgrade would be to increase memory capacity or speed, as the dual-channel DDR5/LPDDR5X support allows for faster kits. Storage upgrades to Gen 4 NVMe drives are also viable. The GPU is soldered in a mobile form factor, so it cannot be upgraded independently. A future upgrade would involve replacing the entire laptop with a newer platform.

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

This is a laptop-class build, as indicated by the buildClass field. The pairing of the AMD Ryzen AI 5 435 and Intel Arc A370M represents a mid-range mobile solution. The CPU is at the 80th percentile of all CPUs, and the GPU is at the 74th percentile of all GPUs, with a combined percentile of 77.

The CPU is a 6-core, 12-thread Zen 5 processor with a 28 W TDP, designed for thin-and-light laptops. The GPU is an Intel Arc A370M with 4 GB GDDR6 memory and a 35 W TDP, built on the Xe-HPG architecture. Both components are from the mobile market segment, with the CPU released in January 2026 and the GPU released in March 2022, the latter being end-of-life.

The overall tier is upper-mid range. The 77th combined percentile indicates this system outperforms 77% of all CPU+GPU combinations, making it a capable machine for most tasks. It is not a high-end gaming or workstation system, but it offers solid performance for its power envelope.

The GPU's performance is notable for its class, matching desktop parts like the Radeon RX 470 and RX Vega M GH. The CPU's performance is also strong, matching desktop processors like the Core i5-13490F. This pairing delivers desktop-like performance in a mobile form factor.

Usage Scenarios — grounded in the scores: high-refresh gaming, streaming, video editing, 3D rendering, software development, student and office work

High-refresh gaming: The GPU's 74th percentile and average score of 29175, matching the RX 470, supports 1080p gaming at medium to high settings. The CPU's 1816 single-core score in Cinebench R23 ensures frames are delivered smoothly. High-refresh gaming at 144 Hz is achievable in esports titles, but demanding AAA games will be limited to lower frame rates.

Streaming: The CPU's 12 threads and 11333 multi-core score in Cinebench R23 provide headroom for encoding while gaming. The GPU's 8 RT cores and 4.198 TFLOPS FP32 can handle lighter encoding tasks, though the 4 GB VRAM limits simultaneous game and encode workloads.

Video editing: The CPU's 19000 PassMark multi-thread score and 40627 floating-point math score handle video encoding and effects well. The GPU's OpenCL score of 29676 accelerates exports and previews. The 4 GB VRAM limits the complexity of effects and timelines.

3D rendering: The CPU's 11333 multi-core score in Cinebench R23 provides solid CPU rendering capability. The GPU's 4.198 TFLOPS FP32 and 8 RT cores offer entry-level GPU rendering, but 4 GB VRAM restricts scene size. This is suitable for hobbyist rendering, not professional production.

Software development: The CPU's 3734 PassMark single-thread score and 12 threads handle compilation and IDE tasks efficiently. The 89.6 GB/s memory bandwidth supports large projects. ECC memory support adds reliability for long development sessions.

Student and office work: The CPU's 80th percentile and strong single-core performance make this system highly responsive for word processing, spreadsheets, and web browsing. The GPU's 74th percentile is more than sufficient for productivity applications and video conferencing. The 28 W CPU TDP ensures long battery life for on-the-go use.

Rate My PC: AMD Ryzen AI 5 435 + Intel Arc A370M

Apex Performer

System Balance Analysis

AMD Ryzen AI 5 435

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

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

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)

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

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

FAQ — 5-7 Q&A pairs answerable from FACT PACK data

Who Should Build It — target users and industries tied strictly to the measured performance

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

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

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

Usage Scenarios — grounded in the scores: high-refresh gaming, streaming, video editing, 3D rendering, software development, student and office work

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