SYSTEM ANALYZER

Rate My PC: AMD Ryzen AI 5 PRO 435G + 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)

▼

89 Score

Top 11% Ranking

89 / 100

HIGH-END

Power Build

Top 11% of systems. Excellent for 1440p Ultra or 4K High gaming.

1440p Ultra4K High

System Balance Analysis

CPU vs GPU performance ratio

Well Balanced

CPU

92%

GPU

85%

PROCESSOR

AMD Ryzen AI 5 PRO 435G

40,718 Benchmark Score

Top 8% 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

# AMD Ryzen AI 5 PRO 435G + Intel Arc A310

This pairing combines a 6-core, 12-thread AMD desktop processor built on the 4nm "Gorgon Point" architecture with a 30W Intel Arc A310 entry-level graphics card using the Xe-HPG "Alchemist" architecture. The CPU sits at the 87th percentile among all CPUs, while the GPU ranks at the 40th percentile, giving the overall build a 64th percentile combined standing. No measured FPS rows exist for this exact combination — the FACT PACK contains no measuredFps data. All FPS discussion below is therefore estimated from the benchmark scores, not direct gameplay measurements.

Usage Scenarios

High-refresh gaming: This is not a high-refresh gaming platform. The Arc A310's PassMark G3D score of 5433 places it at the 40th percentile, roughly on par with a GTX 1650 (1% delta), which is a 1080p entry-level card. The CPU's single-thread score of 3829 is strong, but the GPU will cap frame rates well below 144Hz in most modern titles. Expect 1080p medium-to-low settings to reach playable 60fps in less demanding games, but high-refresh 144Hz+ gaming is unrealistic given the GPU's compute throughput of 2.688 TFLOPS FP32.

Streaming: The CPU's 6 cores and 12 threads with a multithread score of 20285 (87th percentile) provide enough headroom for software encoding at 1080p60 in less CPU-intensive games, but the GPU's modest 2157 PassMark compute score limits hardware encoding assistance. The Xe-HPG architecture includes dedicated media engines, but with only 6 RT cores and no tensor core count listed, the A310 is not built for heavy simultaneous gaming and encoding workloads. Streaming at 720p with lighter games is viable; 1080p streaming alongside AAA titles will strain the system.

Video editing: The CPU excels here relative to the GPU. Its AVG benchmark score of 40718 places it within 0.5% of the Intel Core Ultra X7 368H, and the 43494 floating-point math score indicates solid number crunching for video codec work. The GPU's 5433 G3D score and 124.0 GB/s memory bandwidth are sufficient for basic timeline scrubbing and effects previews at 1080p, but 4K multi-track editing with heavy color grading will expose the 4GB VRAM limit. The CPU's 89.6 GB/s dual-channel DDR5 memory bandwidth helps feed the GPU, but the A310's 64-bit memory bus (124.0 GB/s) becomes a bottleneck for high-resolution video.

3D rendering: This workload favors the CPU heavily. The 63707 integer math score and 20285 multithread score suggest capable CPU-based rendering in Blender Cycles or similar software, but GPU-accelerated rendering will be slow. The A310's 2.688 TFLOPS FP32 and 5.376 TFLOPS FP16 (2:1) are entry-level figures, and its 40th percentile G3D rank confirms it is not a rendering workhorse. Small scenes and preview renders are feasible; production-scale GPU rendering is not.

Software development: The CPU is well-suited for compilation workloads. Its 253484 data compression score and 12111 data encryption score indicate strong throughput for build pipelines and package management. The 12 threads handle parallel compilation efficiently, and the 87th CPU percentile means this processor outperforms the majority of installed CPUs. The GPU is largely irrelevant for development tasks, though its 625 G2D score covers basic 2D desktop acceleration and multi-monitor output via four mini-DisplayPort 2.0 connectors.

Student and office work: This is where the build shines relative to its cost profile. The CPU's 3829 single-thread score delivers responsive application loading, and the 12 threads handle multitasking across browsers, office suites, and communication tools without strain. The GPU's 40th percentile is more than adequate for spreadsheets, documents, and video conferencing. The 4GB VRAM is irrelevant for these workloads, and the 30W GPU TDP keeps power consumption low for dorm-room or small-office environments. The CPU's ECC memory support adds reliability for long-running academic computations.

Gaming Performance

There is no measured FPS data for this CPU+GPU combination, so all frame rates discussed here are estimates derived from the Arc A310's benchmark scores and its position relative to known rivals. The GPU's PassMark G3D score of 5433 places it 1% ahead of the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650, which historically delivers around 60fps at 1080p low settings in AAA titles and higher in esports titles. Given the A310's 64-bit memory bus and 124.0 GB/s bandwidth, the estimates below assume 1080p resolution.

At 1080p ultra settings, the A310 would likely struggle to maintain 30fps in modern AAA games. The GPU's DirectX 12 score of 29 and DirectX 11 score of 33 (PassMark) indicate that newer API titles will perform near the bottom of the GPU percentile range. The 2.688 TFLOPS FP32 throughput is roughly a quarter of what mid-range GPUs deliver, so polygon-heavy scenes with high texture quality will overwhelm the 4GB VRAM quickly. Older titles from 2015-2018 might reach 40-50fps at ultra, but the 40th percentile ranking suggests most games will need medium or low settings for playable frame rates.

At 1080p medium settings, the A310 could plausibly deliver 45-60fps in esports titles like CS:GO or Valorant, where the CPU's strong single-thread performance (3829) helps maintain high frame pacing. The 56.00 GTexel/s texture rate and 28.00 GPixel/s pixel rate are enough for mid-detail scenes. For AAA games at medium, expect 30-45fps depending on the title — the 6 RT cores provide some hardware ray tracing capability, but the 2.688 TFLOPS compute means RT effects will cut frame rates significantly.

At 1080p low settings, the A310 becomes more viable for 60fps gaming in many titles. The 1750 MHz boost clock and 768 shading units can handle lower-detail geometry and reduced texture loads. The GPU's 5433 G3D score at the 40th percentile confirms it sits above the bottom quartile of GPUs, so low-settings gaming at 1080p is the realistic ceiling. The CPU's 87th percentile ensures it will never be the bottleneck in this scenario — the GPU will always be the limiting factor for frame rate.

Benchmark Performance

The CPU's average benchmark score is 40718, placing it at the 87th percentile of all CPUs. It sits within 0.2% of the Intel Xeon 6357P (40630), 0.3% of the Intel Core 5 223PE (40585), 0.4% of the Intel Core 7 253PE (40557), and 0.5% of the Intel Core Ultra X7 368H (40518). This cluster of rivals within a 0.5% window indicates the Ryzen AI 5 PRO 435G is positioned exactly at a performance plateau — these four chips are effectively interchangeable in average throughput, and any real-world difference would come from workload-specific strengths.

The CPU's individual PassMark scores reveal its character. The single-thread score of 3829 is competitive for a 4.50 GHz boost clock, while the multithread score of 20285 benefits from 6 cores and 12 threads. The data compression score of 253484 is notably strong, suggesting excellent memory subsystem performance and cache efficiency. The floating-point math score of 43494 and integer math score of 63707 show balanced ALU/FPU throughput. The extended instructions score of 18697 indicates solid SIMD performance for AVX-class workloads. The physics score of 999 and prime number finding score of 55 are lower, reflecting the CPU's 4MB L3 cache — small by modern standards — which limits certain latency-sensitive workloads.

The GPU's average benchmark score is 7550, placing it at the 40th percentile. It trails the AMD Radeon R7 250 by 0.1% (7557), the AMD Radeon Pro WX 3100 by 0.4% (7580), and leads the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 by 1% (7472) and the AMD Radeon HD 8850M by 1.4% (7447). The 1% gap to the GTX 1650 is notable — that NVIDIA card is a well-known 1080p entry-level GPU, so the A310's performance class is firmly established. The DirectX 9 score of 69 versus DirectX 11 score of 33 and DirectX 12 score of 29 shows the architecture favors older APIs, a common trait for entry-level GPUs with limited driver maturity.

The combined picture is a CPU that outperforms 87% of all CPUs paired with a GPU that outperforms only 40% of all GPUs. The combined 64th percentile reflects this imbalance — the system is far stronger at CPU-bound tasks than GPU-bound ones. The GPU's compute score of 2157 versus its G3D score of 5433 shows the A310 is better at graphics rasterization than general-purpose compute, which further limits its utility beyond gaming.

Balance and Bottleneck

The data clearly identifies the GPU as the limiting component for gaming and graphics workloads. The CPU's 87th percentile versus the GPU's 40th percentile creates a 47-point gap, meaning the CPU is roughly twice as powerful relative to its peers as the GPU is relative to its peers. In gaming, this means the A310 will be at 100% utilization while the CPU idles — the CPU's 3829 single-thread score can feed frame data faster than the GPU can render it.

In CPU-bound workloads like compilation, data compression, and encryption, the balance flips. The GPU's 2157 compute score and 625 G2D score become irrelevant, and the CPU's 253484 compression score and 12111 encryption score take over. Here the GPU is idle, and the system behaves like a strong 6-core productivity machine with an underutilized graphics card attached.

The FPS scaling evidence supports this imbalance. With no measured FPS data, the GPU's DirectX 12 score of 29 versus DirectX 9 score of 69 shows that newer, more demanding graphics APIs will exacerbate the bottleneck. The GPU's 4GB VRAM and 64-bit bus will cap texture quality and resolution regardless of the CPU's capability. The CPU's 89.6 GB/s memory bandwidth is more than double the GPU's 124.0 GB/s, but the GPU's bandwidth is the binding constraint for graphics data.

For mixed workloads — gaming while streaming, or rendering while browsing — the CPU has headroom to handle background tasks. The 12 threads and 20285 multithread score mean the CPU can maintain gameplay frame pacing on the GPU while simultaneously encoding video or running development tools. However, the GPU's 30W TDP and single-slot design indicate it has no thermal or power headroom for overclocking or sustained boost behavior, so it will consistently be the performance ceiling.

GPU Analysis

The Intel Arc A310 is built on the DG2-128 chip using the Xe-HPG "Alchemist" architecture at TSMC's 6nm process. The die contains 7,200 million transistors across a 157 mm² area, yielding a transistor density of 45.9M per mm². The GPU operates at a fixed 1750 MHz base and boost clock, with memory running at 1937 MHz (15.5 Gbps effective) across a 64-bit bus, producing 124.0 GB/s of bandwidth. The 4GB GDDR6 frame buffer is the primary limitation for modern gaming — 4GB is below the 6GB minimum recommended for current AAA titles at 1080p high settings.

The 768 shading units, 32 TMUs, and 16 ROPs produce a pixel rate of 28.00 GPixel/s and texture rate of 56.00 GTexel/s. The FP32 throughput of 2.688 TFLOPS and FP16 of 5.376 TFLOPS (2:1 ratio) position this as an entry-level compute device. The 6 RT cores provide hardware ray tracing support, but with only 2.688 TFLOPS of raster compute, the RT performance will be minimal — expect single-digit FPS with ray tracing enabled in any modern title. The lack of a tensor core count in the data means no AI-accelerated features like DLSS (though Intel's XeSS could run on the shading units, it will be slow).

The benchmark scores confirm the hardware profile. The Geekbench OpenCL score of 30607 and Vulkan score of 28964 show reasonable compute capability for a 30W part, but the PassMark G3D score of 5433 at the 40th percentile is the definitive ranking. The DirectX 12 score of 29 versus DirectX 11 score of 33 shows the architecture performs better on older APIs, which is typical for entry-level GPUs where driver optimization focuses on legacy compatibility. The GPU compute score of 2157 indicates that non-graphics workloads like OpenCL rendering or CUDA-style compute will be slow — this is not a GPU for Blender Cycles or Folding@Home.

For rendering, the 4GB VRAM and 124.0 GB/s bandwidth will limit texture sizes and scene complexity. The 56.00 GTexel/s texture rate can handle basic material sampling, but large scenes with high-resolution textures will exceed VRAM capacity, forcing texture streaming from system memory over the PCIe 4.0 x8 interface. The GPU's 30W TDP and lack of power connectors mean it draws all power from the PCIe slot, making it an efficient but low-performance option for render farms or secondary compute tasks.

Who Should Build It

1080p gamers on a strict budget: The A310's performance class (1% ahead of the GTX 1650) supports 1080p low-to-medium settings in most games. This build targets gamers who prioritize CPU responsiveness and are willing to dial down graphics settings for playable frame rates. The 30W GPU keeps power costs minimal, and the 200W suggested PSU means any existing desktop power supply will suffice.

Content creators working primarily in CPU-bound applications: Video editors using software encoders, audio producers running plugin chains, and photo editors with large batches will benefit from the CPU's 87th percentile performance. The 6-core/12-thread configuration with a 43494 floating-point score handles RAW processing and multi-track timelines. The GPU provides basic acceleration for previews but is not the primary driver.

Software developers and data analysts: The CPU's 253484 compression score and 12111 encryption score make this ideal for build servers, CI/CD pipelines, and database workloads. The 12 threads handle parallel compilation, and ECC memory support ensures data integrity for long-running analyses. The GPU is sufficient for multi-monitor code editing and data visualization.

Students in engineering or computer science: The CPU's 87th percentile covers MATLAB, simulation, and IDE workloads. The 3829 single-thread score ensures fast application startup and responsive UI. The GPU handles 2D CAD and basic 3D modeling, though complex simulations will rely on the CPU's 20285 multithread score.

Small business workstations: Office productivity, accounting software, and light database work are well-served. The 625 G2D score handles desktop compositing across multiple 4K displays (via four mini-DisplayPort 2.0 outputs). The 65W CPU TDP plus 30W GPU TDP keeps total system power low, reducing cooling requirements and electricity costs. The AM5 socket and DDR5 memory support future upgrades without a platform change.

Upgrade Path and Platform

The AMD Socket AM5 platform provides a clear upgrade path. The CPU uses DDR5 memory in dual-channel configuration with 89.6 GB/s bandwidth, and ECC memory support is available for error-sensitive workloads. The PCIe Gen 4 interface with 10 CPU lanes connects to the GPU at x8, which is sufficient for the A310 but will also support faster GPUs — a future upgrade to a higher-end card will not be limited by the slot. The CPU is locked (multiplier not unlocked), so overclocking is not an option, but the 4.50 GHz boost clock already provides strong single-thread performance.

The GPU is end-of-life, with its successor (Battlemage) already announced. The 200W suggested PSU means any current system power supply can handle a GPU upgrade — even a mid-range card with a 150-200W TDP would fit within a 400-500W PSU. The 30W A310 draws all power from the PCIe slot with no external connectors, so upgrading to a card that requires 8-pin or 6-pin power will require a PSU check. The single-slot design and lack of power connectors make the A310 easy to remove and replace.

A sensible next upgrade would be a faster GPU, as the CPU has significant headroom. The 87th CPU percentile versus 40th GPU percentile means the CPU can support a GPU two or three tiers higher before becoming the bottleneck. Specifically, a GPU in the 60-70th percentile range would balance the system, utilizing the CPU's 12 threads and 89.6 GB/s memory bandwidth more fully. The CPU's 4MB L3 cache is small, but the 2.00 GHz base clock and 4.50 GHz boost provide enough single-thread throughput for gaming.

Memory upgrades are also viable — if the system has 8GB or 16GB of DDR5, expanding to 32GB would benefit content creation and development workloads. The 89.6 GB/s bandwidth is dual-channel, so populating all slots (if available) maintains bandwidth. The ECC support is a differentiator for workstation use but requires ECC DDR5 modules, which are more expensive than standard DDR5.

FAQ

Q: Is this build capable of 1440p gaming?

A: No. The GPU's 4GB VRAM and 124.0 GB/s bandwidth (40th percentile) are well below what 1440p gaming requires. The PassMark G3D score of 5433 is 1% ahead of a GTX 1650, which is a 1080p card. Expect 1080p low-to-medium settings as the realistic gaming ceiling.

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

A: The CPU's average score of 40718 is within 0.5% of four rivals: Intel Xeon 6357P (40630), Intel Core 5 223PE (40585), Intel Core 7 253PE (40557), and Intel Core Ultra X7 368H (40518). This means the Ryzen AI 5 PRO 435G is effectively tied with these chips in average throughput, at the 87th percentile of all CPUs.

Q: Can this system handle video editing?

A: Yes, for 1080p projects. The CPU's 43494 floating-point score and 20285 multithread score handle encoding and effects, while the GPU's 5433 G3D score accelerates previews. The 4GB VRAM limits 4K editing and heavy color grading, so stick to 1080p timelines for smooth performance.

Q: What power supply do I need?

A: The suggested PSU is 200W. The CPU has a 65W TDP and the GPU has a 30W TDP, so total system power is low. Any standard desktop PSU from the last decade will suffice, and there is headroom for a modest GPU upgrade without changing the PSU.

Q: Does the GPU support ray tracing?

A: Yes, the Arc A310 has 6 RT cores with DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2) support. However, with only 2.688 TFLOPS FP32 compute, ray tracing performance will be very low — expect significant frame rate drops in any RT-enabled title.

Q: Is this a laptop or desktop build?

A: Desktop. The build class is "desktop," the CPU uses AMD Socket AM5, and the GPU is single-slot with four mini-DisplayPort 2.0 outputs for desktop monitors. The 65W CPU and 30W GPU are low-power for desktop parts.

Q: What is the upgrade path?

A: The AM5 socket supports future AMD CPUs, and the PCIe 4.0 x8 slot can accept faster GPUs. The CPU is the stronger component (87th percentile), so a GPU upgrade is the recommended first step — a card in the 60-70th GPU percentile would balance the system. The 200W PSU may need upgrading for a more power-hungry GPU.

CPU Analysis

The AMD Ryzen AI 5 PRO 435G is a 6-core, 12-thread desktop processor from the Ryzen AI PRO 400 generation, codenamed "Gorgon Point." It uses a hybrid architecture combining Zen 5 and Zen 5c cores, manufactured at TSMC's 4nm process. The base clock is 2.00 GHz with a boost clock of 4.50 GHz — a wide boost range that allows the chip to idle efficiently and burst to high single-thread performance when needed. The TDP is 65W, which is moderate for a desktop part and pairs well with the 30W GPU.

The cache hierarchy is notable for its asymmetry: 80 KB L1 per core, 1 MB L2 per core, but only 4 MB L3 total. This small L3 cache is a potential bottleneck for workloads that rely on shared data across cores, as evidenced by the physics score of 999 and prime number finding score of 55 — both lower than the CPU's other scores. However, the data compression score of 253484 suggests the memory subsystem handles streaming data well, likely due to the dual-channel DDR5 interface with 89.6 GB/s bandwidth.

The benchmark scores paint a picture of a balanced mid-range CPU. The single-thread score of 3829 is solid for a 4.50 GHz boost clock, and the multithread score of 20285 benefits from 12 threads. The integer math score of 63707 and floating-point math score of 43494 show strong ALU and FPU throughput, while the extended instructions score of 18697 indicates capable SIMD for AVX-512-like workloads. The encryption score of 12111 is respectable for a 6-core chip, and the random string sorting score of 27407 shows good memory latency handling.

The 87th percentile ranking means this CPU outperforms the majority of installed desktop processors. Its nearest rivals are a mix of Xeon workstation chips and Core 5/7 Ultra mobile parts, all within 0.5% — this is a CPU that straddles the boundary between desktop and mobile performance tiers. The 4nm process and 65W TDP make it efficient, and the ECC memory support is a workstation-grade feature rarely found in consumer CPUs. For real workloads, this CPU will handle web development, software compilation, office productivity, and light server tasks with ease. The 12 threads provide enough parallelism for modern multithreaded applications, and the 4.50 GHz boost ensures responsive single-threaded interactions.

Build Overview

This desktop build pairs the AMD Ryzen AI 5 PRO 435G (87th CPU percentile) with the Intel Arc A310 (40th GPU percentile), resulting in a combined percentile of 64. The CPU is a 6-core, 12-thread AM5 processor with a 4.50 GHz boost clock and 65W TDP, while the GPU is a 30W entry-level card with 4GB GDDR6, 124.0 GB/s bandwidth, and 2.688 TFLOPS FP32. This is a CPU-first build — the processor is clearly the stronger component, and the GPU is an entry-level addition for basic graphics and light gaming.

The system's class is desktop, confirmed by the AM5 socket, desktop market segment for the CPU, and single-slot PCIe GPU with four mini-DisplayPort 2.0 outputs. The 200W suggested PSU and 30W GPU TDP make this a low-power desktop that can run on a modest power supply with minimal cooling. The 64th combined percentile places it in the upper-middle range of all builds, driven almost entirely by the CPU's strong showing.

In practical terms, this build is a productivity-focused desktop with light gaming capability. It will excel at software development, office work, content creation in CPU-bound applications, and any workload that leverages 12 threads and 4.50 GHz single-thread performance. The GPU is sufficient for 1080p low-settings gaming, basic video playback, and multi-monitor productivity. The imbalance between CPU and GPU is significant — a 47-percentile-point gap — which means users who prioritize gaming should consider a stronger GPU, while users who prioritize CPU-bound tasks will find excellent value in this pairing. The AM5 platform and DDR5 memory support provide a clear upgrade path for the GPU, making this a sensible foundation for a system that can grow over time.

Rate My PC: AMD Ryzen AI 5 PRO 435G + Intel Arc A310

Power Build

System Balance Analysis

AMD Ryzen AI 5 PRO 435G

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

Usage Scenarios

Gaming Performance

Benchmark Performance

Balance and Bottleneck

GPU Analysis

Who Should Build It

Upgrade Path and Platform

FAQ

CPU Analysis

Build Overview

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