SYSTEM ANALYZER

Rate My PC: AMD Ryzen AI Max+ 392 + 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

98%

GPU

92%

PROCESSOR

AMD Ryzen AI Max+ 392

90,541 Benchmark Score

Top 2% 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

The AMD Ryzen AI Max+ 392 and Intel Arc A350M represent a stark contrast in mobile computing priorities. The CPU is a 12-core, 24-thread Zen 5 powerhouse built for heavy parallel workloads, while the GPU is a low-power Intel Alchemist part designed for efficiency. The benchmark data shows a system with a massive processing advantage for the CPU but a modest, mid-range graphics solution. This pairing creates a unique profile: exceptional compute performance for productivity and development, with gaming and graphics capabilities that are adequate but far from the system's primary strength.

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

The Intel Arc A350M is a compact graphics processor built on the Xe-HPG architecture, fabricated on TSMC's 6 nm process. The chip, designated DG2-128, contains 7,200 million transistors on a 157 mm² die. The GPU operates with a base clock of 1150 MHz and a boost clock of 2200 MHz. Its memory subsystem is a significant limitation: 4 GB of GDDR6 on a 64-bit bus, yielding 112.0 GB/s of bandwidth. This is a narrow configuration that will restrict texture loading and high-resolution frame buffers.

The A350M's compute resources are 768 shading units, 48 texture mapping units, and 24 raster output units. It features 6 dedicated ray tracing cores, though no tensor core count is listed. Pixel and texture rates are 52.80 GPixel/s and 105.6 GTexel/s respectively. The FP32 throughput is 3.379 TFLOPS, with FP16 performance listed at 6.758 TFLOPS (2:1). The GPU supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4, ensuring modern API compatibility.

Benchmark results place the A350M at the 70th percentile among all GPUs, with an average benchmark score of 24647 across Geekbench OpenCL and Vulkan tests. The nearest rivals are tightly clustered: the AMD Radeon RX 590 scores 24744 (0.4% higher), the NVIDIA RTX A5000 Mobile scores 24763 (0.5% higher), the AMD Radeon RX 6600 XT scores 24442 (0.8% lower), and the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1630 scores 24277 (1.5% lower). The data shows that the A350M sits in a performance band equivalent to older desktop mid-range cards or entry-level mobile workstation parts.

For rendering, the data implies that the A350M can handle light 3D workloads and hardware-accelerated ray tracing, but the 4 GB VRAM and 112 GB/s bandwidth will be the primary bottlenecks. The FP32 and FP16 numbers suggest basic compute capability for shader effects, but the low pixel rate and narrow memory bus mean that high-detail scenes or 1440p+ resolutions will struggle. The ray tracing cores exist but are only 6 in number, offering minimal acceleration for RT effects. The overall picture is of a GPU that is competent for 1080p gaming at medium settings, but not a serious rendering or high-fidelity graphics engine.

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

The combined system percentile is 83, indicating that this pairing outperforms the vast majority of laptop configurations in the database. The CPU's average benchmark score is 90541, placing it at the 96th percentile among all CPUs. The GPU's average benchmark score is 24647, placing it at the 70th percentile among all GPUs. The CPU is clearly the dominant component, with a score that is 3.67 times higher than the GPU's.

The CPU's nearest rivals show its competitive positioning. The Intel Xeon 654 scores 90717, which is 0.2% higher than the Ryzen AI Max+ 392. The AMD Ryzen 9 9955HX scores 91199, 0.7% higher. The Intel Xeon w7-2575X scores 88172, which is 2.7% lower, and the Intel Xeon 6736P scores 87864, 3.0% lower. This indicates that the Ryzen AI Max+ 392 is performing at near-Xeon workstation levels, trading blows with high-core-count server and enthusiast processors.

The GPU's nearest rivals, as noted, are all within 1.5% of the A350M's score. This clustering suggests that the A350M is a solid mid-tier performer, but with no significant advantage over its immediate competition. The combined picture is a system where the CPU is in the top 4% of all processors, while the GPU is in the top 30% of all graphics cards. The data indicates that the CPU will rarely be the bottleneck in any workload, while the GPU will limit frame rates in graphically intensive tasks. The system is built for compute, not necessarily for high-end gaming.

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

The AMD Ryzen AI Max+ 392 is a mobile processor built on the Zen 5 architecture, codenamed Strix Halo. It features 12 cores and 24 threads, with a base clock of 3.20 GHz and a boost clock of 5.00 GHz. The chip is manufactured on TSMC's 4 nm process, with a die size listed as 2x 70.6 mm². The TDP is 55 W, which is modest for a 12-core part, indicating efficient power management. The CPU supports LPDDR5X memory via a quad-channel bus, providing 256.0 GB/s of bandwidth. It also supports ECC memory, a feature typically found in workstation-class parts. The socket is AMD Socket FP11, and the CPU uses PCIe Gen 4 with 16 lanes.

Cache configuration includes 80 KB of L1 per core, 1 MB of L2 per core, and 64 MB of shared L3 cache. This large shared L3 cache is beneficial for workloads that require frequent data sharing between cores. The CPU's benchmark scores are impressive across the board. In Passmark tests, it scores 554760 in data compression, 27784 in data encryption, 45666 in extended instructions, 152414 in integer math, and 99548 in floating point math. The multithread score is 45231, and the single-thread score is 3927. The physics score is 2887, and random string sorting is 59487. The find prime numbers score is 320.

These numbers indicate exceptional performance in diverse workloads. The data compression score of 554760 is extremely high, suggesting that the CPU excels at archiving, file compression, and database operations. The encryption score of 27784 indicates strong AES and cryptographic performance, useful for VPNs and secure file storage. The integer and floating-point math scores of 152414 and 99548 respectively show high throughput for general-purpose computing and scientific calculations. The single-thread score of 3927 is solid for a mobile chip, meaning that everyday applications and lightly threaded tasks will run smoothly. The multithread score of 45231, combined with the 96th percentile ranking, confirms that this CPU is a multi-core monster, suitable for video editing, 3D rendering, and software compilation, where all 24 threads can be utilized effectively.

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

For high-refresh gaming at 1080p, the Arc A350M's 3.379 TFLOPS of FP32 compute and 112 GB/s of memory bandwidth will be the limiting factor. The GPU's 70th percentile score and its proximity to the RX 590 and GTX 1630 suggest it can handle esports titles at high frame rates, but the 4 GB VRAM will restrict texture quality in modern AAA games, making high-refresh at max settings unrealistic.

Streaming is a mixed bag. The CPU's 24 threads and high multithread score of 45231 can handle software encoding without breaking a sweat, while the 96th percentile CPU performance ensures that game logic and streaming overhead are separate. However, the GPU's modest 70th percentile score means that the encoding load will need to be offloaded to the CPU or a hardware encoder, which is a viable strategy given the CPU's headroom.

Video editing is a strong suit. The CPU's 99548 floating-point math score and 152414 integer math score accelerate codecs and effects, while the 64 MB L3 cache helps with timeline scrubbing. The GPU's 4 GB VRAM is enough for 1080p editing but may struggle with 4K previews or complex color grading. The 554760 data compression score speeds up export and media management tasks.

3D rendering benefits massively from the CPU. The 24 threads and 45231 multithread score will crush CPU-based render engines, and the 27784 encryption score is irrelevant here. The GPU's 6 RT cores and 3.379 TFLOPS are only suitable for light, GPU-accelerated previews; final renders will be CPU-bound and fast.

Software development is excellent. The 152414 integer math score and 554760 data compression score speed up compilation and code analysis, while the 96th percentile CPU performance means build times are short. The GPU is irrelevant for most development tasks, except for occasional shader compilation or UI rendering.

Student and office work is overkill but smooth. The 3927 single-thread score handles spreadsheets and web apps instantly, and the 55 W TDP means the laptop runs cool and quiet. The GPU's 70th percentile score is more than enough for video streaming and presentation graphics. The 256 GB/s memory bandwidth ensures fast multitasking.

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

The system is fundamentally CPU-balanced, with a massive performance gap between the two components. The CPU's 96th percentile ranking versus the GPU's 70th percentile ranking creates a clear hierarchy. In CPU-intensive workloads like data compression, encryption, and multithreaded rendering, the CPU is the performance driver, and the GPU is largely idle. The CPU's 90541 average score is 3.67 times the GPU's 24647, indicating that the CPU is never the bottleneck in graphics tasks.

For gaming, the GPU is the primary bottleneck. The A350M's score of 24647, while respectable, is far below what is needed to push high frame rates at high resolutions. The nearest rival data shows the GPU is only 0.4% faster than the much older RX 590, which is a desktop card from 2018. This means that in any game, the GPU will limit frame rates, regardless of the CPU's capabilities. The CPU's high single-thread score of 3927 ensures that it can feed the GPU with frames, but the A350M's 112 GB/s bandwidth and 4 GB VRAM will cap performance at 1080p medium settings.

For productivity, the CPU is the bottleneck only in the sense that it is the component doing the work. The data shows no scenario where the GPU accelerates CPU tasks significantly. The 6 RT cores and 3.379 TFLOPS are too weak to offload heavy compute. Therefore, the bottleneck is the GPU for any graphics-accelerated workload, while the CPU is the bottleneck for all other tasks, but at a very high performance level. This is a lopsided pairing where the CPU is a flagship part and the GPU is a budget part.

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

The platform is built on AMD Socket FP11, which is a mobile-only socket, meaning the CPU is not upgradeable in a traditional desktop sense. The CPU supports LPDDR5X memory via a quad-channel bus, providing 256.0 GB/s of bandwidth, which is soldered or integrated, limiting user upgrades. The CPU provides PCIe Gen 4 with 16 lanes, which is sufficient for a single GPU or a couple of NVMe drives. The GPU is an IGP (integrated graphics processor) with a 25 W TDP, and the CPU has a TDP of 55 W, giving a combined thermal envelope of 80 W. No suggested PSU figure is provided, but the low TDPs suggest that a standard laptop power brick is sufficient.

The upgrade path is constrained by the laptop form factor. The GPU is listed as "IGP," meaning it is integrated into the motherboard, so there is no option to swap the Arc A350M. The CPU is also soldered (Socket FP11 is a BGA-style socket). Therefore, a sensible next upgrade is not a component swap but a full system replacement. Given the CPU's 96th percentile performance, the user would need to move to a desktop platform with a similar high-end CPU to see meaningful CPU gains, but the GPU is the weak link. A future upgrade should prioritize a laptop with a discrete GPU that has a higher percentile than 70, such as a mid-range or high-end mobile GPU with more VRAM and bandwidth.

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 system is for users who prioritize CPU compute above all else. Gamers at 1080p who play esports titles will find the A350M's 70th percentile score sufficient for medium settings, but the 4 GB VRAM and 112 GB/s bandwidth will limit them. Gamers at 1440p or higher should look elsewhere, as the GPU's performance is not adequate for those resolutions.

Content creators, specifically video editors and 3D animators, will benefit from the CPU's 45231 multithread score and 99548 floating-point math score. The 24 threads and 64 MB L3 cache make rendering and export times short. The GPU is a secondary asset, useful for previews but not final renders.

Software developers will find the CPU's 152414 integer math score and 554760 data compression score ideal for compilation and code analysis. The 96th percentile CPU performance ensures that builds are fast, and the 55 W TDP means the laptop is portable enough for on-the-go work.

Students and office workers are over-served by this hardware. The 3927 single-thread score handles all productivity apps, and the 96th percentile CPU is far more than needed for web browsing, document editing, and spreadsheets. The GPU is sufficient for video playback and basic graphics. Small business workstations that run database queries, data analysis, or virtualization will benefit from the CPU's 27784 encryption score and 554760 data compression score, making this a capable server replacement in a laptop form factor.

FAQ

Q: What is the CPU's percentile ranking compared to all other processors?

A: The AMD Ryzen AI Max+ 392 is at the 96th percentile among all CPUs.

Q: How does the GPU's benchmark score compare to the AMD Radeon RX 590?

A: The Intel Arc A350M scores 24647, which is 0.4% lower than the AMD Radeon RX 590's score of 24744.

Q: What is the CPU's multithread benchmark score?

A: The CPU scores 45231 in the Passmark multithread test.

Q: What is the GPU's memory bus width and bandwidth?

A: The GPU has a 64-bit memory bus and a bandwidth of 112.0 GB/s.

Q: What is the combined system percentile for this laptop build?

A: The combined system percentile is 83.

Q: What is the CPU's TDP and the GPU's TDP?

A: The CPU has a TDP of 55 W, and the GPU has a TDP of 25 W.

Q: Does the GPU have ray tracing cores?

A: Yes, the Intel Arc A350M has 6 ray tracing cores.

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 data exists for this exact CPU and GPU combination. The system's dataIsMeasured flag is false, and the measuredFpsUltraByGame field is empty. Therefore, all frame rate discussions are estimates based on the benchmark scores and are not empirical results.

Based on the GPU's 70th percentile score of 24647, which is comparable to the AMD Radeon RX 590 and NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1630, the estimated gaming performance is as follows. At 1080p with ultra settings, the A350M is expected to deliver playable frame rates in older or esports titles, likely in the 60-90 FPS range for games like CS:GO or League of Legends. For modern AAA games, the 4 GB VRAM and 112 GB/s bandwidth will likely cause the GPU to run out of memory, dropping frame rates to 30-50 FPS at medium settings. At 1440p, the GPU is expected to struggle, with frame rates dropping below 30 FPS in most demanding titles due to the limited memory bandwidth and pixel rate of 52.80 GPixel/s. High-refresh gaming at 1440p is not feasible. These figures are estimates, derived from the GPU's relative performance to the RX 590 and GTX 1630, and actual results will vary by game and driver optimization.

Rate My PC: AMD Ryzen AI Max+ 392 + Intel Arc A350M

Apex Performer

System Balance Analysis

AMD Ryzen AI Max+ 392

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

FAQ

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)

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