SYSTEM ANALYZER

Rate My PC: AMD Ryzen AI Max+ PRO 395 + 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)

▼

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

97%

GPU

93%

PROCESSOR

AMD Ryzen AI Max+ PRO 395

80,762 Benchmark Score

Top 3% 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 Max+ PRO 395 and Intel Arc A370M form an unconventional laptop pairing, combining a top-tier 16-core CPU with a modest entry-level mobile GPU. The processor’s benchmark scores place it in the 95th percentile among all CPUs, while the graphics solution sits in the 74th percentile. This creates a significant performance gulf that defines the system’s character. The following analysis examines the implications of this combination across various usage scenarios, based exclusively on the provided benchmark data.

Usage Scenarios

For high-refresh gaming, this pairing presents a clear limitation. The Intel Arc A370M, with its 4 GB of GDDR6 memory and 112.0 GB/s bandwidth, is not positioned to drive high frame rates at demanding settings. The GPU’s Geekbench OpenCL score of 29676 places it near the AMD Radeon RX 470, a card from a much older generation. While the CPU’s Cinebench R23 single-core score of 2012.5 ensures game logic and physics won’t bottleneck, the GPU will cap frame rates well below what a high-refresh display can utilize in most modern titles.

Streaming presents a more complex picture. The CPU’s Passmark multithread score of 51502 provides substantial headroom for software encoding, which could offload the GPU entirely. The 16 cores and 32 threads can handle both game encoding and streaming overhead simultaneously. However, the GPU’s limited VRAM and bandwidth mean the game being streamed will still run at lower graphical settings to maintain playable frame rates, undermining the visual quality of the stream.

Video editing workflows benefit enormously from the CPU’s computational power. The Cinebench R23 multicore score of 35061 indicates rapid rendering and export times, while the Passmark floating point math score of 120533 suggests strong performance in effects and color grading tasks. The GPU’s role is limited here, as most video editing operations rely more heavily on CPU cores and system memory bandwidth, which the CPU’s 256.0 GB/s quad-channel LPDDR5X support provides in abundance.

3D rendering is a mixed scenario. CPU-based rendering will perform exceptionally well, with the multicore scores rivaling workstation-class processors like the Intel Xeon w5-2565X, which has an average score of 80671 versus the Ryzen’s 80762. However, GPU-accelerated rendering will be constrained by the Arc A370M’s 4.198 TFLOPS FP32 performance. The 8 ray tracing cores and 1024 shading units are present, but the 64-bit memory bus and 4 GB capacity will cause significant slowdowns in complex scenes.

Software development benefits from both components. The Passmark data compression score of 639356 and data encryption score of 32840 indicate rapid build times and secure compilation environments. The single-thread performance, with a Passmark single-thread score of 4078, ensures responsive IDE interactions and fast code navigation. The GPU is largely irrelevant for most development tasks, making this a strong pairing for programmers.

Student and office work is where this system excels. The CPU’s 95th percentile ranking means document processing, spreadsheet calculations, and web browsing are instantaneous. The Passmark integer math score of 190720 handles office workloads with ease. The GPU’s capabilities are more than sufficient for standard productivity applications, and the 4 GB VRAM is adequate for multiple displays and basic graphical interfaces.

GPU Analysis

The Intel Arc A370M is built on the Xe-HPG architecture with the DG2-128 chip, manufactured on a 6 nm process by TSMC. The GPU contains 7,200 million transistors on a 157 mm² die, with a transistor density of 45.9M per mm². Clock speeds range from a 1550 MHz base to a 2050 MHz boost, with memory running at 1750 MHz or 14 Gbps effective. The memory subsystem consists of 4 GB GDDR6 on a 64-bit bus, delivering 112.0 GB/s of bandwidth.

The rendering hardware includes 1024 shading units, 64 texture mapping units, and 32 raster output units. The pixel rate of 65.60 GPixel/s and texture rate of 131.2 GTexel/s are modest figures that reflect the entry-level positioning. The 8 ray tracing cores provide hardware-accelerated ray tracing, while the FP32 performance of 4.198 TFLOPS and FP16 performance of 8.397 TFLOPS (2:1) indicate the GPU’s compute capabilities.

Benchmark results place this GPU in the 74th percentile of all GPUs, with an average benchmark score of 29175. The nearest rivals include the AMD Radeon RX Vega M GH with an average score of 29197 and a delta of -0.1%, the AMD FirePro W8000 at 29211 with a -0.1% delta, the AMD Radeon RX 470 at 28996 with a 0.6% delta, and the AMD Radeon RX 6800M at 28874 with a 1% delta. These comparisons show the Arc A370M performing near the level of older desktop GPUs, which explains its limitations in modern rendering tasks.

Benchmark Performance

The CPU’s benchmark scores are exceptional across the board. Cinebench R15 multicore hits 5247, while single-core reaches 306. In Cinebench R23, the multicore score of 35061 and single-core score of 2012.5 demonstrate strong scaling across the 16 cores. Passmark tests show a multithread score of 51502, with floating point math at 120533, integer math at 190720, and extended instructions at 52067. The average benchmark score of 80762 places the CPU in the 95th percentile of all CPUs.

The GPU’s Geekbench OpenCL score of 29676 and Vulkan score of 28673 yield an average benchmark score of 29175, placing it in the 74th percentile of all GPUs. This creates a combined percentile of 85 for the system, reflecting the disparity between the two components.

The combined picture shows a system where the CPU operates at near-workstation levels, rivaling the Intel Xeon 638 with an average score of 80723 and a 0% delta, and the Intel Xeon w5-2565X at 80671 with a 0.1% delta. The GPU, however, operates at a much lower tier, comparable to the AMD Radeon RX 470 with a 0.6% delta. This imbalance means the system’s overall performance is heavily dependent on the workload’s CPU versus GPU intensity.

Who Should Build It

Gamers at 1080p with low to medium settings will find the Arc A370M adequate for esports titles and older games. The GPU’s 74th percentile ranking and 4 GB VRAM support this use case, provided expectations remain modest. The CPU’s high single-core performance ensures no frame pacing issues from the processor side.

Content creators working primarily with CPU-bound tasks will benefit most. Video editors using software encoders, 3D artists using CPU renderers, and developers compiling large codebases will see exceptional performance. The Cinebench R23 multicore score of 35061 and Passmark multithread score of 51502 directly translate to faster render times and compilation speeds.

Students and small business professionals require reliable multitasking and productivity performance. The CPU’s 95th percentile ranking ensures smooth operation across office suites, browser tabs, and communication tools. The GPU’s capabilities are sufficient for presentations, video conferencing, and basic graphical work.

Developers building AI and machine learning applications will appreciate the CPU’s Passmark extended instructions score of 52067, which supports vectorized operations. The GPU’s 1024 shading units can handle small model inference tasks, though the 4 GB VRAM limits larger workloads.

Balance and Bottleneck

The system exhibits a pronounced CPU-heavy bias. In CPU-intensive workloads like data compression with a Passmark score of 639356 or encryption with 32840, the GPU remains idle, and the system performs at the 95th percentile level. The CPU’s nearest rivals include the Intel Xeon w5-3535X with an average score of 81115 and a -0.4% delta, showing the processor outperforms some workstation chips.

For gaming and GPU-accelerated tasks, the bottleneck shifts entirely to the GPU. The Arc A370M’s 64-bit memory bus and 4 GB VRAM limit texture loading and high-resolution rendering. The CPU’s capabilities are largely wasted in these scenarios, as frame rates will be constrained by the GPU’s compute throughput and memory bandwidth.

The 35 W TDP of the GPU versus the 55 W TDP of the CPU indicates the power budget favors the processor. This suggests the laptop’s cooling system is designed for CPU performance, potentially limiting GPU boost clocks under sustained load. The CPU’s quad-channel memory support with 256.0 GB/s bandwidth far exceeds the GPU’s 112.0 GB/s, creating a memory bandwidth disparity that affects data transfer between components.

Gaming Performance

No measured FPS data exists for this exact CPU and GPU combination. The FACT PACK contains no measured FPS rows, so all frame rate discussions are estimates based on the benchmark scores. The GPU’s nearest rival, the AMD Radeon RX 470 with a 0.6% delta, provides a reference point for expected performance levels.

At 1080p ultra settings, the Arc A370M is expected to deliver playable frame rates in esports titles but will struggle with modern AAA games. The 4 GB VRAM will cause texture pop-in and stuttering in games exceeding this capacity. The GPU’s 4.198 TFLOPS FP32 performance suggests frame rates below 60 FPS in demanding titles at high settings.

Lowering to medium settings could yield 60 FPS in many titles, as the GPU’s 32 ROPs and 64 TMUs provide adequate pixel throughput for reduced resolutions. The 2050 MHz boost clock helps maintain responsive frame pacing. The CPU’s performance ensures no bottleneck in game logic, physics calculations, or asset streaming from the 64 MB L3 cache.

Ray tracing performance will be limited by the 8 dedicated RT cores. The Geekbench Vulkan score of 28673 indicates the GPU can handle some ray-traced effects at reduced resolutions and settings, but the 4 GB VRAM and 112.0 GB/s bandwidth will be significant constraints.

FAQ

Q: What is the CPU’s percentile ranking among all processors?

A: The AMD Ryzen AI Max+ PRO 395 ranks in the 95th percentile of all CPUs, with an average benchmark score of 80762.

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

A: The Intel Arc A370M has an average benchmark score of 29175, placing it near the AMD Radeon RX Vega M GH with a -0.1% delta, the AMD FirePro W8000 with a -0.1% delta, and the AMD Radeon RX 470 with a 0.6% delta.

Q: What is the combined performance percentile of this system?

A: The combined percentile for the CPU and GPU pairing is 85, reflecting the strong CPU performance and weaker GPU performance.

Q: What memory type and bandwidth does the CPU support?

A: The CPU supports LPDDR5X memory with a quad-channel bus, providing 256.0 GB/s of memory bandwidth. It also supports ECC memory.

Q: What are the CPU’s core and thread counts?

A: The CPU has 16 cores and 32 threads, based on the Zen 5 architecture with the Strix Halo codename.

Q: What is the GPU’s VRAM capacity and type?

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

Q: What is the production status of the GPU?

A: The Intel Arc A370M is listed as end-of-life, while the CPU is listed as active in production.

Build Overview

This is a laptop-class system (buildClass: laptop) that pairs a 16-core Zen 5 processor with an entry-level Alchemist mobile GPU. The CPU, part of the Ryzen AI Max+ PRO series, represents the top of AMD’s mobile lineup with a 95th percentile CPU ranking. The GPU, from Intel’s Arc 3 Mobile generation, sits in the 74th percentile of all GPUs.

The overall tier, indicated by the 85th combined percentile, places this system above the majority of laptops but with a clear performance asymmetry. The CPU’s average benchmark score of 80762 is nearly three times the GPU’s average score of 29175, making this a processor-first design where graphics capability is secondary.

CPU Analysis

The AMD Ryzen AI Max+ PRO 395 utilizes the Zen 5 architecture on a 4 nm process from TSMC, with the codename Strix Halo. It features 16 cores and 32 threads, with a base clock of 3.00 GHz and a boost clock of 5.10 GHz. The cache hierarchy includes 80 KB of L1 per core, 1 MB of L2 per core, and 64 MB of shared L3 cache.

The CPU’s benchmark performance is exceptional. The Cinebench R23 multicore score of 35061 demonstrates strong multi-threaded capability, while the single-core score of 2012.5 indicates excellent per-thread performance. Passmark tests reveal specialized strengths: data compression at 639356, data encryption at 32840, extended instructions at 52067, and prime number finding at 284. The floating point math score of 120533 and integer math score of 190720 show balanced compute performance.

The CPU’s market segment is mobile, and its 55 W TDP allows for sustained performance in laptop chassis. The socket is AMD Socket FP11, and the CPU supports PCIe Gen 4 with 16 lanes. The integrated Radeon 8060S graphics provide a fallback display output, though the system pairs with the discrete Arc A370M. The CPU’s release date is January 5, 2025, and it is currently in active production.

Upgrade Path and Platform

The CPU uses the AMD Socket FP11, a mobile-specific socket that typically does not support processor upgrades in the traditional sense. The 55 W TDP indicates a power-efficient design, and the system’s suggested PSU is not specified in the FACT PACK. The GPU’s 35 W TDP and IGP slot width suggest an integrated or soldered design, limiting upgrade potential.

The platform supports LPDDR5X memory with quad-channel configuration, providing 256.0 GB/s of bandwidth. This is a fixed memory design, as LPDDR5X is typically soldered to the motherboard. The CPU supports ECC memory, which is unusual for a mobile processor and indicates a workstation-oriented design philosophy.

The PCIe Gen 4 interface with 16 lanes from the CPU provides adequate bandwidth for storage and expansion. The GPU uses a PCIe 4.0 x8 interface, which is sufficient for its 4.198 TFLOPS performance. A sensible next upgrade would focus on the GPU, as the CPU’s 95th percentile ranking leaves minimal headroom for improvement. However, the end-of-life status of the Arc A370M suggests a future system replacement rather than component upgrades. The CPU’s active production status and recent release date indicate platform longevity, but the mobile form factor limits user-serviceable components.

Rate My PC: AMD Ryzen AI Max+ PRO 395 + Intel Arc A370M

Apex Performer

System Balance Analysis

AMD Ryzen AI Max+ PRO 395

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

Usage Scenarios

GPU Analysis

Benchmark Performance

Who Should Build It

Balance and Bottleneck

Gaming Performance

FAQ

Build Overview

CPU Analysis

Upgrade Path and Platform

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