SYSTEM ANALYZER

Rate My PC: AMD Ryzen AI Max+ 388 + 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)

▼

93 Score

Top 7% Ranking

93 / 100

ULTIMATE READY

Apex Performer

Top 7% 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

94%

GPU

92%

PROCESSOR

AMD Ryzen AI Max+ 388

49,796 Benchmark Score

Top 6% 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

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

The Intel Arc A350M is a mobile GPU built on the Xe-HPG architecture, fabricated on a 6 nm TSMC process with 7,200 million transistors on a 157 mm² die. This is an entry-level Alchemist-generation part, positioned as an Arc 3 Mobile solution. Its memory subsystem is compact: 4 GB of GDDR6 on a 64-bit bus, delivering 112.0 GB/s of bandwidth. The GPU operates at a base clock of 1150 MHz and a boost clock of 2200 MHz, with memory running at 1750 MHz (14 Gbps effective).

The compute configuration is modest but complete: 768 shading units, 48 texture mapping units, and 24 raster output units. The GPU includes 6 ray tracing cores, providing hardware-accelerated ray tracing support, though the raw throughput is limited by the small die. Pixel rate is 52.80 GPixel/s, and texture rate is 105.6 GTexel/s. Floating-point performance is rated at 3.379 TFLOPS for FP32 and 6.758 TFLOPS for FP16 (at a 2:1 ratio). The bus interface is PCIe 4.0 x8, and the power envelope is just 25 W TDP, making it suitable for thin-and-light laptops.

In benchmark terms, the Arc A350M achieves a Geekbench OpenCL score of 24,546 and a Geekbench Vulkan score of 24,747. These scores place it in the 70th percentile among all GPUs, which is a strong showing for a low-power mobile part. Its average benchmark score of 24,647 sits within 0.5% of the AMD Radeon RX 590 (24,744) and NVIDIA RTX A5000 Mobile (24,763), and 0.8% ahead of the AMD Radeon RX 6600 XT (24,442). The nearest rival, the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1630, trails by 1.5% at 24,277. This indicates that the Arc A350M delivers performance comparable to desktop-class GPUs from a few generations back, despite its small memory footprint and low power draw.

For rendering workloads, the 4 GB VRAM is the primary constraint. The 112.0 GB/s bandwidth is sufficient for 1080p textures and moderate scene complexity, but large 3D scenes or high-resolution texture packs will exceed this capacity quickly. The ray tracing cores are present but limited; the 6 RT cores can handle basic ray-traced effects, but the low FP32 throughput will bottleneck complex ray-traced scenes. For real-time rendering in DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2) titles, the GPU supports all required features, but performance will be entry-level. The Geekbench OpenCL score of 24,546 suggests OpenCL-based renderers can expect performance around that of an RX 590, which is workable for light to medium 3D workloads but not for professional-grade rendering.

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

The AMD Ryzen AI Max+ 388 delivers a Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 18,759 and a single-core score of 1,960. In Cinebench R15, it scores 2,872 multi-core and 298 single-core. The PassMark suite shows a multithread score of 33,486, a single-thread score of 4,185, and an average benchmark score of 49,796. This places the CPU in the 90th percentile among all CPUs, a top-tier result. The nearest rival, the Intel Core 9 273PE, averages 49,845, a negligible 0.1% difference. The Intel Core i5-14600KF scores 49,394 (0.8% slower), the AMD Ryzen 9 7900 scores 49,228 (1.2% slower), and the AMD Ryzen 7 PRO 5755G scores 49,196 (1.2% slower). This places the Ryzen AI Max+ 388 in a very competitive position, essentially matching or slightly edging out several high-end desktop CPUs.

The GPU, as noted, sits at the 70th percentile with an average score of 24,647. The combined percentile for this CPU+GPU pairing is 80, indicating a system that is above average overall but with a notable imbalance: the CPU is exceptionally strong, while the GPU is merely competent.

The combined picture is one of a CPU-dominated system. The CPU's 90th-percentile ranking means it can handle the most demanding processing tasks — including heavy multi-threaded compilation, scientific computing, and video encoding — without breaking a sweat. The GPU's 70th-percentile ranking means it can handle mainstream gaming and light creative work, but it will lag behind in GPU-intensive workloads. This is a pairing where the CPU is the star, and the GPU is a supporting player. For users whose primary workloads are CPU-bound, this system will feel exceptionally fast; for those relying on GPU acceleration, the Arc A350M will be the limiting factor.

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

The AMD Ryzen AI Max+ 388 is an 8-core, 16-thread processor based on the Zen 5 architecture, codenamed Strix Halo. It is fabricated on TSMC's 4 nm process with a die size of 2x 70.6 mm². The base clock is 3.60 GHz, boosting up to 5.00 GHz. The TDP is 55 W, a modest figure for a high-performance mobile CPU. The cache hierarchy includes 80 KB of L1 per core, 1 MB of L2 per core, and 32 MB of shared L3 cache. Memory support is LPDDR5X in a quad-channel configuration, yielding a memory bandwidth of 256.0 GB/s — an exceptionally high figure for a mobile processor. ECC memory is supported, and the CPU provides PCIe Gen 4 with 16 lanes. The integrated graphics are Radeon 8060S, though the system also pairs this CPU with the discrete Arc A350M.

The benchmark data confirms the CPU's strength. The Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 18,759 is indicative of strong sustained multi-threaded performance, while the single-core score of 1,960 shows excellent per-thread efficiency. In PassMark, the integer math score of 109,588 and floating-point math score of 72,722 highlight robust ALU and FPU throughput. The data compression score of 400,887 and encryption score of 20,092 suggest strong performance in data-heavy workloads. The extended instructions score of 32,719 indicates good SIMD and vector processing capability.

The 90th-percentile ranking means this CPU outperforms the vast majority of all CPUs in the database. In real workloads, this translates to rapid code compilation, smooth 4K video editing, and fast 3D model processing. The high memory bandwidth (256.0 GB/s) is particularly beneficial for memory-bound tasks like large dataset manipulation and in-memory databases. The single-thread performance (4,185 in PassMark) ensures responsive day-to-day use and strong performance in lightly-threaded applications. The nearest rival comparisons show it is effectively tied with the Intel Core 9 273PE and slightly ahead of the Core i5-14600KF and Ryzen 9 7900, which are both desktop-class parts. This is a remarkable result for a 55 W mobile CPU.

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

The system exhibits a significant performance gap between CPU and GPU. The CPU sits at the 90th percentile, while the GPU sits at the 70th percentile. This 20-point gap indicates that the GPU will be the primary bottleneck in graphics-heavy workloads. The combined percentile of 80 reflects this imbalance — the system's overall performance is dragged down by the GPU's lower relative standing.

In gaming scenarios, the CPU has ample headroom. The Ryzen AI Max+ 388's single-core score of 4,185 (PassMark) is more than sufficient to feed frames to the GPU in most titles. The GPU, with an average score of 24,647, is the limiting factor. In CPU-bound games (e.g., strategy titles, simulation games), the CPU's high performance will shine, and the GPU may not be the bottleneck. In GPU-bound games (e.g., AAA shooters, open-world titles), the Arc A350M's 4 GB VRAM and modest compute will cap frame rates well below what the CPU could otherwise support.

For non-gaming workloads, the balance flips. The CPU's 90th-percentile score means it dominates tasks like video encoding, 3D rendering (CPU-based), and software compilation. The GPU's 70th-percentile score is adequate for GPU-accelerated effects in video editing or light 3D rendering, but the CPU will often wait on the GPU in these scenarios. The memory bandwidth of 256.0 GB/s on the CPU side further widens the gap, as the GPU's 112.0 GB/s is less than half the CPU's bandwidth.

The lack of measured FPS data for this exact combination means we cannot point to specific FPS scaling figures. However, the percentile data provides a clear inference: the GPU will bottleneck most gaming workloads, while the CPU will bottleneck only in rare cases where a game is extremely single-threaded and the GPU is underutilized. The 25 W TDP of the GPU versus the 55 W TDP of the CPU also suggests that in a laptop chassis, the GPU is a low-power part designed for efficiency, not peak performance. This pairing is best described as a CPU-first system with a competent but secondary GPU.

# 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 70th-percentile score (24,647 average) is not suited for high-refresh gaming at 1080p in demanding titles. The 4 GB VRAM and 112.0 GB/s bandwidth will limit texture quality and resolution. Expect 60 FPS in esports titles at medium settings, but high-refresh (144 Hz+) gaming will require reduced settings or older titles.

Streaming: The CPU's strong multi-threaded performance (18,759 in Cinebench R23) can handle x264 encoding at high presets without impacting game performance. The GPU lacks a dedicated encoder of note, so CPU-based streaming is the viable path. The 8 cores / 16 threads provide enough headroom for simultaneous gaming and encoding.

Video editing: The CPU's 90th-percentile score and 32,719 extended instructions score make it excellent for timeline editing and effects processing. The GPU's OpenCL score of 24,546 can accelerate previews and GPU-accelerated effects, but the 4 GB VRAM will limit the use of large effects stacks or 4K+ resolutions. For 1080p editing, this is a capable system; for 4K, the GPU will struggle.

3D rendering: CPU-based rendering (e.g., Blender Cycles CPU) will be fast, given the Cinebench R23 score of 18,759. GPU-based rendering with the Arc A350M will be limited by the 3.379 TFLOPS FP32 throughput and 4 GB VRAM. Small scenes render fine, but complex scenes will exceed VRAM or take long times.

Software development: The CPU's integer math score of 109,588 and data compression score of 400,887 make it ideal for compilation, testing, and running virtual machines. The 256.0 GB/s memory bandwidth speeds up build processes that are memory-bound. This is a top-tier developer laptop CPU.

Student and office work: The CPU's single-thread score of 4,185 ensures snappy application launches and responsive multitasking. The 55 W TDP and 25 W GPU TDP mean long battery life potential. The GPU is more than adequate for office tasks, spreadsheets, and web browsing. This is a very strong productivity machine.

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

This laptop is for users who prioritize CPU performance over GPU performance. The 90th-percentile CPU ranking means it excels in CPU-bound professional workloads. Software developers will benefit from the 109,588 integer math score and 400,887 data compression score, which accelerate compilation and data processing. Video editors working in 1080p will appreciate the CPU's 18,759 Cinebench R23 score for fast rendering and the GPU's OpenCL support for hardware acceleration.

Students in engineering or computer science programs will find the CPU's multi-threaded performance (33,486 PassMark multithread) ideal for simulations and large codebases. Small business workstations running accounting software, databases, or office suites will see excellent responsiveness from the 4,185 single-thread score. Content creators who work primarily in CPU-bound tasks (e.g., music production, photo batch processing) will benefit from the 72,722 floating-point math score.

The GPU's 70th-percentile score makes this a poor choice for gamers seeking high settings at 1080p or above. The 4 GB VRAM and 112.0 GB/s bandwidth are entry-level figures. Users who need GPU compute (e.g., machine learning training, GPU rendering) should look elsewhere. However, for a developer or professional who occasionally games, the Arc A350M provides a playable experience at medium settings. The combined 80th percentile makes this a well-above-average laptop overall, but the specific use case must align with CPU-heavy workloads.

# FAQ

Q: How does the AMD Ryzen AI Max+ 388 compare to the Intel Core 9 273PE?

A: The two CPUs are effectively tied. The Intel Core 9 273PE has an average score of 49,845, while the Ryzen AI Max+ 388 scores 49,796, a delta of just -0.1%. In practical terms, there is no measurable performance difference.

Q: Is the Intel Arc A350M suitable for 4K gaming?

A: No. The GPU has 4 GB of VRAM and a 64-bit memory bus delivering 112.0 GB/s. Its average benchmark score of 24,647 places it at the 70th percentile, which is too low for 4K gaming. It is better suited for 1080p at medium settings.

Q: Can the CPU handle video editing workloads?

A: Yes. The Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 18,759 and the PassMark multithread score of 33,486 indicate strong multi-threaded performance. The 256.0 GB/s memory bandwidth further aids in handling large video files. The GPU's OpenCL score of 24,546 can assist with effects, but 4K editing may strain the 4 GB VRAM.

Q: What memory type does the Ryzen AI Max+ 388 support?

A: The CPU supports LPDDR5X memory in a quad-channel configuration, yielding a memory bandwidth of 256.0 GB/s. ECC memory is also supported.

Q: What is the TDP of each component?

A: The CPU has a TDP of 55 W, and the GPU has a TDP of 25 W. This is a low-power combination suitable for a thin-and-light laptop.

Q: Does the GPU support ray tracing?

A: Yes, the Intel Arc A350M includes 6 ray tracing cores. It supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2) and Vulkan 1.4, which include ray tracing APIs. However, the low FP32 throughput (3.379 TFLOPS) means ray-traced performance will be limited.

Q: How does the GPU compare to the NVIDIA RTX A5000 Mobile?

A: The two are nearly identical in benchmark scores. The RTX A5000 Mobile averages 24,763, while the Arc A350M averages 24,647, a delta of -0.5%. Despite the different market positions, their measured performance is essentially the same.

# Build Overview

This is a laptop-class system (buildClass: "laptop") pairing the AMD Ryzen AI Max+ 388 with the Intel Arc A350M. The CPU is a Zen 5 (Strix Halo) processor with 8 cores and 16 threads, running at up to 5.00 GHz boost, with a 55 W TDP. The GPU is an Intel Arc 3 Mobile part with 4 GB GDDR6, based on the Xe-HPG architecture, with a 25 W TDP.

The combined percentile for this pairing is 80, indicating a system that outperforms 80% of all recorded configurations. The CPU's 90th-percentile ranking is exceptional for a mobile processor, matching or exceeding several desktop CPUs. The GPU's 70th-percentile ranking is solid for an entry-level mobile part. This is a system where the CPU defines the experience; the GPU is adequate but secondary.

# Upgrade Path and Platform

The CPU uses the AMD Socket FP11 and is based on the Zen 5 architecture (Strix Halo). It supports LPDDR5X memory in a quad-channel configuration, with ECC support. PCIe connectivity is Gen 4 with 16 lanes from the CPU. The GPU uses a PCIe 4.0 x8 interface. The production status of the CPU is "Active," while the GPU is "End-of-life."

Given the laptop form factor, upgrades are limited. The CPU's socket (FP11) and memory type (LPDDR5X) are typically soldered, not upgradeable. The GPU is integrated-level (slotWidth: "IGP") and not replaceable. The suggested PSU is not specified, but the combined TDP of 80 W (55 W CPU + 25 W GPU) indicates a low-power system that requires a modest power adapter.

For a sensible next upgrade, one would look at a different laptop entirely. The CPU's performance is already at the 90th percentile, so upgrading the GPU would provide the most benefit. A system with a higher-tier GPU (e.g., a 75th-percentile or higher part) would balance the CPU's capabilities. However, within this laptop, no component-level upgrades are feasible.

# Gaming Performance

No measured FPS data exists for this exact CPU+GPU combination. The FACT PACK contains no measuredFps entries for this pairing, so all frame rate figures below are estimates derived from the benchmark scores, not observed results.

Based on the GPU's average benchmark score of 24,647 (70th percentile), this system is best suited for 1080p gaming at medium settings. The 4 GB VRAM will limit texture quality in modern titles. The CPU's high single-thread score (4,185 in PassMark) ensures that the GPU will be the bottleneck in most games.

For esports titles (e.g., CS:GO, Valorant, League of Legends), the GPU's texture rate of 105.6 GTexel/s and pixel rate of 52.80 GPixel/s should deliver 60-100 FPS at 1080p with medium-to-high settings. For AAA games (e.g., Cyberpunk 2077, Starfield), expect 30-50 FPS at 1080p with low-to-medium settings. Ray tracing should be disabled or set to low, as the 6 RT cores are not sufficient for real-time ray-traced effects at playable frame rates.

At 1440p, the GPU will struggle significantly. The 112.0 GB/s bandwidth and 4 GB VRAM are insufficient for high-resolution textures, and frame rates will likely drop below 30 FPS in demanding titles. At 4K, the system is not viable for gaming. The CPU's performance is irrelevant in GPU-bound scenarios; the Arc A350M is the definitive limiting factor. These are estimates, and actual performance may vary, but the percentile data strongly supports this assessment.

Rate My PC: AMD Ryzen AI Max+ 388 + Intel Arc A350M

Apex Performer

System Balance Analysis

AMD Ryzen AI Max+ 388

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

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