SYSTEM ANALYZER

Rate My PC: Intel Core i3-14100F + NVIDIA RTX 4000 SFF Ada Generation

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)

▼

91 Score

Top 9% Ranking

91 / 100

ULTIMATE READY

Apex Performer

Top 9% 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

84%

GPU

99%

PROCESSOR

Intel Core i3-14100F

18,519 Benchmark Score

Top 16% Market Ranking

View Full Specs →

GRAPHICS CARD

NVIDIA RTX 4000 SFF Ada Generation

117,088 Benchmark Score

Top 1% 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 Intel Core i3-14100F paired with the NVIDIA RTX 4000 SFF Ada Generation is an unusual desktop combination: an entry-level, four-core Raptor Lake Refresh CPU mated to a 95th-percentile professional workstation GPU. The benchmark record shows a combined percentile of 84 across all tracked builds, but that figure conceals a stark internal imbalance — a 72nd-percentile processor feeding one of the stronger small-form-factor compute cards in the database. No measured FPS rows exist for this exact pairing in the database; every frame-rate statement below is an estimate derived from the component benchmark scores, not from direct game testing of this combination.

CPU Analysis

The Core i3-14100F is a 4-core, 8-thread part built on Intel's 10 nm process, using the Raptor Lake-R codename within the Raptor Lake architecture. Its base clock sits at 3.50 GHz with a 4.70 GHz boost, and it carries 12 MB of shared L3 cache on a 163 mm² die. The "F" suffix means integrated graphics are absent, which is functionally irrelevant here since the discrete GPU handles all display output. The processor has a locked multiplier, so frequency tuning is off the table as an upgrade lever.

Benchmark results indicate a processor that is modest in multi-threaded throughput but genuinely competitive in single-threaded work. The Cinebench R23 single-core score of 1847 and Geekbench single-core score of 2105 describe a chip whose per-core performance is fully modern — a direct benefit of that 4.70 GHz boost on Raptor Lake silicon. Multi-core results tell the expected story for a 4-core design: 13084 in Cinebench R23 multi-core, 5495 in R20 multi-core, 1318 in R15 multi-core, and 15420 in the PassMark multithread test.

Context matters when reading those numbers. The CPU's average benchmark score of 18519 places it at the 72nd percentile against all CPUs in the database, and its nearest rivals are revealing: the Intel Core i5-13420H (avgScore 18511, deltaPct 0), the AMD Ryzen 3 PRO 8300GE (18505, 0.1 percent behind), the Intel Core i3-13100 (18380, 0.8 percent ahead of it), and the Intel Core 7 360 (18374, 0.8 percent ahead). In other words, the i3-14100F performs essentially head-to-head with a mobile-class i5 and its own previous-generation sibling. That is a tightly packed neighborhood — the spread across all four rivals is under one percent — which means buyers are choosing on platform features and price, not on benchmark deltas within this tier.

For real workloads, the data maps cleanly. The PassMark single-thread score of 3778 and physics score of 1077 indicate solid responsiveness in lightly threaded applications: office software, web workloads, code compilation of small-to-medium projects, and game logic that leans on one strong core. The integer math (45357) and floating point (35370) scores are serviceable rather than strong, and the find-prime-numbers score of 61 confirms that sustained all-core compute is not this chip's role. Data compression at 176106 and encryption at 8922 are adequate for file management tasks but will feel slow during large archive or backup operations compared to higher-core-count processors.

FAQ

Q: How does the Core i3-14100F compare to its rivals in benchmark scores? A: Its average benchmark score of 18519 is statistically tied with the Intel Core i5-13420H (18511, 0 percent delta), 0.1 percent ahead of the AMD Ryzen 3 PRO 8300GE (18505), and 0.8 percent ahead of both the Intel Core i3-13100 (18380) and Intel Core 7 360 (18374).

Q: How strong is the RTX 4000 SFF Ada relative to other GPUs? A: It sits at the 95th percentile of all GPUs with an average benchmark score of 117088, within 0.3 percent of the NVIDIA GB10 (117393), 1.6 percent of the AMD Radeon PRO W7700 (118976), 2.4 percent ahead of the NVIDIA Tesla V100 SXM2 16 GB (114395), and 2.8 percent ahead of the NVIDIA RTX A5500 Mobile (113944).

Q: Is this build good for gaming? A: The database contains no measured FPS data for this exact pairing, so all frame-rate expectations are estimates. The 95th-percentile GPU should render games comfortably at 1440p and 4K in most titles, but the 72nd-percentile 4-core CPU will bottleneck CPU-heavy, high-refresh scenarios.

Q: What power supply does this build need? A: The GPU's suggested PSU is 250 W. The card itself draws 70 W with no external power connectors, and the CPU TDP is 58 W, so a 250 W unit provides comfortable headroom for the whole system.

Q: Can the CPU be overclocked? A: No. The multiplier is locked, so performance is limited to stock behavior with a 4.70 GHz maximum boost.

Q: Does the CPU have integrated graphics? A: No — the "F" suffix denotes a graphics-disabled variant, so the RTX 4000 SFF Ada or another discrete GPU is mandatory for display output.

Q: What memory does the platform support? A: The CPU supports both DDR4 and DDR5 on a dual-channel bus, and ECC memory is supported — a notable pairing with a workstation GPU.

Upgrade Path and Platform

The platform foundations are Socket 1700 (listed as Intel Socket 1700), supporting dual-channel DDR4 or DDR5 memory with ECC capability. The CPU exposes PCIe Gen 5 with 16 lanes from the CPU itself, though the GPU connects over PCIe 4.0 x16 — the card's bus interface — so the Gen 5 capability is headroom for future storage or a next-generation card rather than a benefit the current GPU exploits.

Power is the quiet strength of this pairing. The GPU has a 70 W TDP, no external power connectors, and a 250 W suggested PSU; the CPU adds just 58 W of TDP. The combined draw leaves a large safety margin inside a 250 W recommendation, which also makes the build attractive for compact or thermally constrained enclosures. The card itself is dual-slot, 168 mm long and 69 mm tall, so it fits chassis that exclude full-length consumer cards.

A sensible upgrade path is asymmetric: the GPU is already the strong half at the 95th percentile, so the meaningful next step is the processor. Moving within Socket 1700 to a higher-core-count Raptor Lake part would directly attack the multi-core ceiling visible in the 13084 Cinebench R23 multi-core score, without a platform change. That single upgrade would lift the combined 84th percentile substantially, because the GPU is already operating at a tier the CPU cannot fully feed in parallel workloads. The launch MSRP of the CPU is $109.

Gaming Performance

The database holds no measured FPS rows for this combination — dataIsMeasured is false and the measured FPS table is empty. All frame-rate discussion below is estimated from the benchmark scores, not measured on this pairing.

The estimate framework is straightforward: the GPU posts 124812 in Geekbench OpenCL and 109364 in Geekbench Vulkan, numbers consistent with a 95th-percentile card capable of high-frame-rate 1440p and viable 4K gaming in most modern titles. The CPU posts a PassMark physics score of 1077 and a single-thread score of 3778 — competent, but four cores and eight threads will cap performance in simulation-heavy and competitive titles where game logic scales across many threads.

The practical expectation, derived from these scores: at 4K and graphically intensive 1440p settings, the GPU does the dominant share of work and frame rates should be high and stable, because rendering load naturally shifts to the 19.17 TFLOPS of FP32 compute. At 1080p with high refresh targets, the CPU becomes the limiting factor — esports and open-world titles with heavy simulation threads will plateau below what the GPU could otherwise deliver. These are estimates, and game-specific engine behavior will vary, but the score gap between a 95th-percentile GPU and a 72nd-percentile CPU predicts GPU-bound play at high resolution and CPU-bound play at low resolution.

Balance and Bottleneck

This is one of the more lopsided pairings in the database, and the percentile spread proves it: 95th percentile GPU, 72nd percentile CPU, 84th percentile combined. The combined figure lands almost exactly between the two components, which is the arithmetic signature of a build where half the system is underutilized in parallel workloads.

The bottleneck direction depends entirely on workload class. In GPU-bound rendering — 3D viewport work, ray-traced scenes, GPU compute via OpenCL and Vulkan — the RTX 4000 SFF Ada's 6144 shading units, 48 RT cores, and 192 tensor cores operate at full utilization, and the 4-core CPU is adequate because submission overhead is light. In CPU-bound workloads — video encoding that uses CPU threads, code compilation, heavy multitasking, physics simulation — the 13084 Cinebench R23 multi-core score is the hard ceiling, and the GPU idles regardless of its capability.

The FPS scaling logic reinforces this. As resolution rises, the load shifts toward the GPU and the pairing becomes more balanced; as resolution and settings fall, the CPU ceiling arrives quickly. The rival comparison sharpens the point: the CPU trades blows with the i3-13100 and a mobile i5, while the GPU trades blows with the Tesla V100 SXM2 16 GB and the Radeon PRO W7700 — hardware from an entirely different performance and market class. Any workload that requires both halves to sprint simultaneously will be limited by the processor every time.

Who Should Build It

The measured data points to a specific user: a professional whose software leans on GPU compute more than CPU threads. 3D artists running viewport rendering and GPU-accelered renderers benefit directly from the 20 GB of GDDR6 and 48 RT cores; the CPU's strong single-core scores (1847 Cinebench R23 single, 2105 Geekbench single) keep viewport interaction smooth even though final CPU renders would be slow. Developers working with GPU compute, machine learning inference, or CUDA-adjacent tooling get the 192 tensor cores and the 109364 Vulkan score as their engine, with enough CPU headroom for everyday compilation.

Students and small-business workstation users are also well served, but with different reasoning: ECC memory support plus a card with no external power connectors and a 70 W TDP makes for a reliable, efficient professional machine. Gamers are a partial fit — high-resolution, visually intensive gaming is estimated to perform very well from the GPU scores, but competitive high-refresh gamers at 1080p will hit the four-core ceiling. Content creators who encode on the CPU rather than the GPU should look elsewhere; the multi-core scores are the binding constraint for that workflow.

Benchmark Performance

The exact scores, in full. CPU: Cinebench R15 multi-core 1318, single-core 186; Cinebench R20 multi-core 5495, single-core 775; Cinebench R23 multi-core 13084, single-core 1847; Geekbench multi-core 7598, single-core 2105. PassMark results: multithread 15420, single-thread 3778, physics 1077, integer math 45357, floating point math 35370, extended instructions 11984, data compression 176106, data encryption 8922, random string sorting 17596, find prime numbers 61. The CPU average benchmark score is 18519, at the 72nd percentile of all CPUs.

GPU: Geekbench OpenCL 124812, Geekbench Vulkan 109364, for an average benchmark score of 117088 at the 95th percentile of all GPUs. Against its nearest rivals, the RTX 4000 SFF Ada is 0.3 percent behind the NVIDIA GB10 (117393), 1.6 percent behind the AMD Radeon PRO W7700 (118976), 2.4 percent ahead of the NVIDIA Tesla V100 SXM2 16 GB (114395), and 2.8 percent ahead of the NVIDIA RTX A5500 Mobile (113944). That cluster — a professional data-center part, a current-generation workstation card, and a high-end mobile workstation GPU — defines the card's true competitive set.

The combined picture is a build at the 84th percentile with a pronounced internal split. The single-core CPU results are genuinely good; the multi-core results are entry-level; the GPU results are near the top of the professional stack. Any evaluation of this pairing has to weight workload mix: the closer the workload sits to pure GPU compute, the closer the whole system performs to its 95th-percentile card; the closer it sits to CPU threading, the closer it performs to its 72nd-percentile processor.

GPU Analysis

The RTX 4000 SFF Ada Generation is a workstation card on the AD104 die, built on TSMC's 5 nm process with 35,800 million transistors on a 294 mm² die — a transistor density of 121.8M per mm². It belongs to NVIDIA's workstation Ada line, succeeding Workstation Ampere hardware and slated for succession by the Blackwell PRO W family. It is not a consumer GeForce part despite the 40-series adjacency.

The specifications read as a mid-large Ada implementation: 6144 shading units, 192 TMUs, 64 ROPs, 48 RT cores, and 192 tensor cores. Clocks run from a 720 MHz base to a 1560 MHz boost, with memory at 1750 MHz (14 Gbps effective). The pixel rate is 99.84 GPixel/s and texture rate is 299.5 GTexel/s. FP32 compute reaches 19.17 TFLOPS, and FP16 operates at a 1:1 ratio for the same 19.17 TFLOPS — relevant for inference and half-precision rendering workloads.

Memory is the card's professional signature: 20 GB of GDDR6 on a 160-bit bus, delivering 280.0 GB/s of bandwidth. For rendering and compute workloads, that capacity matters more than raw bandwidth — large scenes, high-resolution textures, and substantial model weights fit where consumer-tier frame buffers would spill. The benchmark scores quantify the result: 124812 in OpenCL and 109364 in Vulkan place it ahead of a Tesla V100 SXM2 16 GB by 2.4 percent and an RTX A5500 Mobile by 2.8 percent on average, within 1.6 percent of the Radeon PRO W7700. For viewport rendering, GPU-accelerated path tracing via the 48 RT cores, and tensor-core-assisted denoising and AI upscaling in professional tools, the data indicates performance in the upper echelon of single-slot-power-class workstation hardware. Software support is current: DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4, with four mini-DisplayPort 1.4a outputs for multi-monitor professional setups.

Build Overview

This is a desktop build — buildClass is desktop — pairing an active-production Intel entry-level CPU (released January 2024) with an active-production NVIDIA workstation GPU (released March 2023). Its overall tier, judged by the combined 84th percentile, is upper-mid-range, but that single number is the least descriptive statistic on the page. The honest summary is a workstation-grade rendering engine bolted to an entry-class control system: a 95th-percentile GPU, a 72nd-percentile CPU, and a power envelope (70 W GPU, 58 W CPU TDP, 250 W suggested PSU) that makes the whole assembly remarkably efficient for its compute class.

Usage Scenarios

High-refresh gaming: Estimated, not measured. The GPU scores support high frame rates at 1440p and 4K, but the 4-core CPU's 1077 physics score and 15420 multithread result cap competitive 1080p high-refresh play. Choose this pairing for visual fidelity at resolution, not esports frame counts.

Streaming: A mixed verdict from the data. GPU-side encoding scenarios benefit from the card's compute headroom, but CPU-side encode-and-render simultaneously would collide with the 13084 Cinebench R23 multi-core ceiling. Single-stream, GPU-offloaded workflows are viable; heavy CPU encoding is not.

Video editing: Workable with conditions. Timeline scrubbing and GPU-accelerated effects ride the 280 GB/s of bandwidth and 20 GB frame buffer comfortably, while CPU-bound export stages proceed at entry-level pace per the 5495 Cinebench R20 multi-core score. Editing efficiency depends on how much of the pipeline the software places on the GPU.

3D rendering: The strongest scenario in the dataset. The 48 RT cores, 192 tensor cores, 124812 OpenCL score, and 2.4 percent lead over the Tesla V100 SXM2 16 GB indicate professional-class GPU rendering. Interactive viewport work also benefits from the CPU's 1847 single-core Cinebench R23 score. This is the workload the pairing was assembled for.

Software development: Adequate to good. The 2105 Geekbench single-core and 3778 PassMark single-thread scores keep editors, debuggers, and interpreted workloads snappy; full multi-module builds scale to only 7598 Geekbench multi-core. GPU-compute and ML-inference developers get disproportionate benefit from the 192 tensor cores.

Student and office work: Well covered. Document work, browsing, and light content consumption sit squarely on the strong single-thread scores, ECC support adds reliability for long-lived machines, and the low power draw (70 W GPU, no power connectors, 250 W suggested PSU) makes it practical for shared labs and small-office systems that also need occasional rendering or GPU compute capability.

Rate My PC: Intel Core i3-14100F + NVIDIA RTX 4000 SFF Ada Generation

Apex Performer

System Balance Analysis

Intel Core i3-14100F

NVIDIA RTX 4000 SFF Ada Generation

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

CPU Analysis

FAQ

Upgrade Path and Platform

Gaming Performance

Balance and Bottleneck

Who Should Build It

Benchmark Performance

GPU Analysis

Build Overview

Usage Scenarios

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