SYSTEM ANALYZER

Rate My PC: AMD Ryzen AI Max+ PRO 395 + Intel Arc A350M

Get a comprehensive performance analysis of your gaming rig with detailed benchmarks, bottleneck detection, and upgrade recommendations

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%
VS
GPU
92%
PROCESSOR

AMD Ryzen AI Max+ PRO 395

80,762 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

The AMD Ryzen AI Max+ PRO 395 and Intel Arc A350M represent an unusual pairing: a top-tier 16-core mobile processor designed for maximum compute throughput, paired with an entry-level dedicated graphics solution. The data indicates a system with a profound performance asymmetry. The CPU sits at the 95th percentile among all CPUs, while the GPU rests at the 70th percentile, creating a scenario where the processor is the dominant partner. The combined system percentile of 83 reflects this high-end CPU pulling up a mid-pack GPU.

Balance and Bottleneck

The performance data reveals a classic bottleneck scenario, but with an inverted hierarchy compared to typical gaming laptops. In this pairing, the GPU is the limiting factor for graphics-intensive workloads. The CPU's average benchmark score of 80,762 places it in the 95th percentile, while the GPU's average score of 24,647 places it in the 70th percentile. This 25-percentile gap is substantial and indicates that in any workload that relies primarily on the GPU—such as gaming at high resolutions or 3D rendering—the Arc A350M will be the constraining component.

The CPU's immense single-threaded and multi-threaded capabilities, evidenced by a Cinebench R23 single-core score of 2,012.5 and multi-core score of 35,061, mean it can feed frames to the GPU far faster than the GPU can render them. For gaming, this implies the Arc A350M will be the primary bottleneck, especially at 1080p where the CPU's frame generation headroom will be wasted. The benchmark scores suggest that the CPU's processing power will remain largely underutilized in games, waiting for the GPU to catch up.

Conversely, the bottleneck shifts entirely in CPU-bound workloads. For tasks like software compilation, data compression (PassMark score of 639,356), or physics calculations (PassMark score of 3,189), the GPU is irrelevant, and the Ryzen AI Max+ PRO 395's full potential is unleashed. In these scenarios, the system operates as a high-performance workstation, with the GPU essentially idle. The data implies that this is a system designed for productivity first, with gaming as a secondary, less optimized capability.

The FPS scaling between resolutions would be unusual if measured. A lower resolution like 1080p would not yield significantly higher frame rates compared to 1440p because the GPU is already saturated. The bottleneck is so firmly in the GPU that reducing the resolution would not relieve the pressure; the GPU would still be operating at its maximum capacity. The system's performance in games is therefore dictated by the Arc A350M's absolute capabilities, not the CPU's potential.

Gaming Performance

The FACT PACK contains no measured FPS data for this exact CPU+GPU combination. Consequently, all frame rate discussions are estimates based on the GPU's benchmark scores and its position relative to other graphics cards. The Arc A350M's average benchmark score of 24,647 places it in the 70th percentile, directly between the AMD Radeon RX 590 (score 24,744) and the AMD Radeon RX 6600 XT (score 24,442). This suggests the A350M's raw compute performance is roughly comparable to these desktop cards, though its 4 GB VRAM and 64-bit memory bus will limit its effectiveness at higher resolutions and with high-texture settings.

Given the GPU's 3.379 TFLOPS of FP32 performance and 112.0 GB/s of memory bandwidth, frame rates are expected to be modest. In esports titles like Counter-Strike 2 or Valorant, which are not graphically demanding, the system might achieve playable frame rates at 1080p with medium settings. However, for AAA titles like Cyberpunk 2077 or Starfield, the data suggests that 1080p with low-to-medium settings would be necessary to maintain 30-60 FPS. The 4 GB VRAM is a significant constraint, likely causing texture pop-in or requiring reduced texture quality in modern games.

The GPU's support for DirectX 12 Ultimate and hardware ray tracing (6 RT cores) is noteworthy, but the raw performance is insufficient for meaningful ray-traced gaming. Enabling ray tracing would likely halve frame rates, making it impractical. The A350M's 70th percentile ranking indicates it is not a high-performance gaming chip; it is designed for basic gaming and content creation acceleration. Users should expect a 1080p gaming experience with conservative settings, and 1440p gaming is likely out of reach for most modern titles.

CPU Analysis

The AMD Ryzen AI Max+ PRO 395 is a 16-core, 32-thread processor based on the Zen 5 architecture, codenamed Strix Halo. It operates at a base clock of 3.00 GHz and boosts up to 5.10 GHz, built on TSMC's 4 nm process. This is a mobile-class processor with a 55W TDP, yet its benchmark scores rival workstation-class chips. The Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 35,061 is exceptional, placing it in the 95th percentile of all CPUs. Its nearest rivals include the Intel Xeon 638 (score 80,723) and the AMD Ryzen 9 8940HX (score 81,103), with the Ryzen AI Max+ PRO 395 scoring slightly below both by 0.4%.

The 64 MB of shared L3 cache is a massive pool for a mobile processor, and the quad-channel LPDDR5X memory support with 256.0 GB/s bandwidth provides the memory throughput necessary to feed 16 cores. This configuration is ideal for heavily multi-threaded workloads. The PassMark multi-thread score of 51,502 and integer math score of 190,720 demonstrate immense parallel processing capability, suitable for video encoding, 3D rendering, and scientific simulations. The single-thread score of 4,078 is also strong, ensuring snappy responsiveness in everyday tasks and gaming.

The CPU's integrated Radeon 8060S graphics is a notable feature. While the discrete Arc A350M is present, the iGPU's existence means the system could potentially run with the discrete GPU disabled for power savings. However, the benchmark data focuses on the discrete GPU. The CPU's 95th percentile ranking signifies that it is a top-tier processor, outperforming the vast majority of desktop and mobile CPUs. For real-world workloads, this translates to exceptional compile times, faster rendering, and seamless multitasking with dozens of applications open.

FAQ

Q: Is the AMD Ryzen AI Max+ PRO 395 faster than the Intel Xeon 638?

A: The data shows they are effectively tied. The Ryzen AI Max+ PRO 395 has an average benchmark score of 80,762, while the Intel Xeon 638 has a score of 80,723, a delta of 0%. They are statistically identical in performance.

Q: What is the primary bottleneck for gaming in this system?

A: The Intel Arc A350M GPU is the primary bottleneck for gaming. The CPU is in the 95th percentile, while the GPU is in the 70th percentile. The GPU's 4 GB VRAM and 112.0 GB/s bandwidth will limit frame rates and texture quality in modern games.

Q: Does this CPU support ECC memory?

A: Yes, the FACT PACK indicates that the AMD Ryzen AI Max+ PRO 395 supports ECC memory, alongside its LPDDR5X memory support.

Q: What is the GPU's performance relative to an NVIDIA RTX A5000 Mobile?

A: The Intel Arc A350M has an average benchmark score of 24,647, while the NVIDIA RTX A5000 Mobile has a score of 24,763. The A350M is 0.5% slower, placing them in the same performance class.

Q: Can this system handle 4K gaming?

A: No, the data does not support 4K gaming. The GPU's 4 GB VRAM and 64-bit memory bus are insufficient for 4K textures and rendering. The estimated performance is limited to 1080p gaming with conservative settings.

Q: What is the production status of the Intel Arc A350M?

A: The Intel Arc A350M is marked as "End-of-life" in the data, while the CPU is marked as "Active." This suggests the GPU is an older component, released in March 2022, while the CPU is a newer release from January 2025.

Q: How much memory bandwidth does the CPU have?

A: The CPU supports quad-channel LPDDR5X memory with a total bandwidth of 256.0 GB/s. This is a very high figure for a mobile platform, aiding in CPU-intensive tasks.

Upgrade Path and Platform

The AMD Ryzen AI Max+ PRO 395 uses the AMD Socket FP11, which is a mobile-specific socket. This means the CPU is likely soldered to the motherboard, and a traditional desktop-style CPU upgrade is not possible. The platform is designed for laptops, so the upgrade path is limited to the entire system. The CPU supports PCIe Gen 4 with 16 lanes, which is sufficient for the current GPU and fast NVMe storage.

The Intel Arc A350M is also a mobile component, listed as "IGP" for slot width, meaning it is an integrated graphics package on the motherboard. The GPU's bus interface is PCIe 4.0 x8. Upgrading the GPU independently is not feasible in a laptop form factor. The system's power requirements are modest, with a 55W CPU TDP and a 25W GPU TDP. The suggested PSU is null, but the combined 80W TDP means a standard laptop power adapter is sufficient, and a high-wattage PSU is not necessary.

A sensible next upgrade for this system would be a new laptop entirely, as neither component is user-serviceable. If this were a desktop, the upgrade path would be to replace the Arc A350M with a higher-tier GPU to balance the system. However, given the mobile class, the data suggests that users are locked into this configuration. The platform's strengths—high memory bandwidth and 16 fast cores—make it a capable workstation, but the GPU limits its gaming ceiling. For future upgrades, focusing on a system with a more powerful GPU would be the logical step to unlock the CPU's full gaming potential.

GPU Analysis

The Intel Arc A350M is a mobile graphics chip based on the Xe-HPG architecture, codenamed Alchemist. It is built on a 6 nm process at TSMC, with 7,200 million transistors on a 157 mm² die. The GPU has 768 shading units, 48 TMUs, and 24 ROPs, with 6 dedicated ray tracing cores. It operates at a base clock of 1150 MHz and boosts to 2200 MHz. The memory subsystem is a significant limitation: 4 GB of GDDR6 on a 64-bit bus, yielding 112.0 GB/s of bandwidth. This is the weakest aspect of the GPU, as modern games require more VRAM and bandwidth for high-texture settings.

The GPU's FP32 performance is 3.379 TFLOPS, and it supports FP16 at 6.758 TFLOPS with a 2:1 ratio. It is DirectX 12 Ultimate capable (12_2), supports OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The Geekbench scores are 24,546 for OpenCL and 24,747 for Vulkan, placing it in the 70th percentile of all GPUs. Its nearest rival is the AMD Radeon RX 590, which scores 24,744, a 0.4% difference. This places the A350M in the performance tier of a mid-range desktop GPU from several generations ago.

The 6 RT cores provide ray tracing hardware, but the low overall compute power means ray-traced effects will be costly. The 52.80 GPixel/s pixel rate and 105.6 GTexel/s texture rate are adequate for 1080p rendering. For rendering workloads, the GPU offers 3.379 TFLOPS of FP32 compute, which is modest for 3D rendering or video editing acceleration. It will accelerate these tasks compared to a CPU-only solution, but it is not a workstation-class GPU. The 4 GB VRAM is the critical constraint, causing potential crashes or performance drops in texture-heavy applications.

Who Should Build It

This system is for users who prioritize CPU-intensive productivity over gaming. The Ryzen AI Max+ PRO 395's 95th percentile ranking makes it a monster for software development, data analysis, and content creation. Software developers will benefit from the 16 cores and 32 threads, which dramatically reduce compile times. The PassMark data compression score of 639,356 and encryption score of 32,840 indicate strong performance for database management and security workloads.

Content creators working with video editing or 3D rendering will see excellent CPU performance, though the GPU will be a limiting factor in GPU-accelerated effects. The system is also suitable for students and small business workstations where multi-threaded productivity applications are the primary use case. The 70th percentile GPU means it can handle light gaming and general graphics acceleration, but it is not a gamer's machine. For gamers at 1080p with low-to-medium settings, it will suffice, but enthusiasts should look elsewhere.

The platform's laptop class means it targets mobile professionals who need a powerful CPU on the go. The 55W TDP is efficient for a 16-core chip, making it suitable for portable workstations. The combination is not balanced for gaming, but it is a powerful tool for computation-heavy tasks in a mobile form factor. Users who need to run complex simulations, compile large codebases, or render videos while away from a desk will find this system compelling, despite the GPU's modest capabilities.

Build Overview

This build combines the AMD Ryzen AI Max+ PRO 395, a 16-core Zen 5 mobile processor, with the Intel Arc A350M, an entry-level dedicated GPU. The system is classified as a laptop, and the combined percentile is 83, indicating an overall high-performance system relative to all other laptop builds. The CPU's 95th percentile and the GPU's 70th percentile create a lopsided configuration. The CPU is a top-tier part, while the GPU is a mid-pack component.

The pairing is unusual because the CPU is capable of workstation-level performance, while the GPU is suited for casual gaming and basic media tasks. The data implies this is a productivity-first laptop, where the GPU is an addition for basic graphics needs rather than a gaming focus. The combined 83rd percentile reflects the CPU's dominance, pulling the overall score up despite the GPU's lower standing. This is a system for compute-intensive tasks that require a powerful processor, with the GPU serving as a secondary feature.

Benchmark Performance

The CPU's average benchmark score is 80,762, placing it in the 95th percentile. Its Cinebench R23 scores are 35,061 multi-core and 2,012.5 single-core. The PassMark multi-thread score is 51,502, and the single-thread score is 4,078. The GPU's average benchmark score is 24,647, which puts it in the 70th percentile. Its Geekbench scores are 24,546 (OpenCL) and 24,747 (Vulkan).

The combined picture is one of extreme CPU performance and moderate GPU performance. The CPU's nearest rival, the Intel Xeon 638, has a score of 80,723, a 0% delta, meaning the Ryzen chip is essentially tied with a server-class Xeon. The GPU's nearest rival, the AMD Radeon RX 590, has a score of 24,744, a -0.4% delta, meaning the A350M is slightly slower than a desktop GPU from 2018. The system's combined percentile of 83 highlights the CPU's contribution; without the powerful CPU, the system would be much lower-ranked.

Usage Scenarios

High-Refresh Gaming: This system is not suited for high-refresh gaming. The GPU's 70th percentile and 4 GB VRAM will cap frame rates well below 144 Hz in most titles. Estimated performance suggests 1080p gaming at 60-90 FPS in esports titles with low settings, but this is not a high-refresh gaming machine.

Streaming: The CPU's 16 cores and high multi-thread score of 51,502 can handle game capture and encoding simultaneously without a significant performance hit. The GPU's encoder is also available, making this a decent system for streaming, though the game itself may run at lower frame rates due to the GPU's limitations.

Video Editing: The CPU excels in video editing, with Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 35,061 providing fast export times. The GPU's 3.379 TFLOPS can accelerate effects and rendering in supported applications, but the 4 GB VRAM will limit the complexity of projects and the use of high-resolution footage.

3D Rendering: CPU-based rendering will be very fast, leveraging all 16 cores. However, GPU-based renderers will be bottlenecked by the Arc A350M's compute power and VRAM. The data suggests CPU rendering is the preferred method for this system.

Software Development: This is a premier development machine. The high multi-thread and integer math scores (190,720) will drastically reduce build times. The 95th percentile CPU ranking ensures smooth performance with virtual machines, containers, and large codebases.

Student and Office Work: The system is overkill for basic office tasks, but the fast single-thread score of 4,078 ensures snappy application launches and spreadsheet calculations. The CPU's efficiency at 55W TDP means good battery life for a productivity-focused laptop, making it suitable for all-day academic or office use.