SYSTEM ANALYZER

Rate My PC: Intel Core i5-13400F + Intel Arc A310

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

86 / 100
HIGH-END

Power Build

Top 14% of systems. Excellent for 1440p Ultra or 4K High gaming.

1440p Ultra4K High

System Balance Analysis

CPU vs GPU performance ratio
Well Balanced
CPU
87%
VS
GPU
85%
PROCESSOR

Intel Core i5-13400F

25,292 Benchmark Score
Top 13% Market Ranking
View Full Specs →
GRAPHICS CARD

Intel Arc A310

7,550 Benchmark Score
Top 15% 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

Strong Performance

Excellent for 1440p gaming. Most games will run at high/ultra settings smoothly.

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 i5-13400F and Intel Arc A310 pairing represents a desktop build with a significant performance disparity between its two primary components. The CPU is a 10-core, 16-thread Raptor Lake-S processor with a base clock of 2.50 GHz and a boost clock of 4.60 GHz, while the GPU is a modest entry-level Alchemist part. Benchmark data confirms this imbalance: the processor sits at the 77th percentile among all CPUs, while the graphics card rests at only the 40th percentile. This means the system's overall capability is heavily constrained by its graphics component, a pattern that will be examined in detail across the following sections.

CPU Analysis

The Core i5-13400F belongs to Intel's 13th-generation Raptor Lake family, built on a 10 nm process node with a 215 mm² die size. Its hybrid architecture combines 10 physical cores and 16 threads, a configuration that delivers strong multi-threaded performance for a mainstream desktop part. The core configuration includes a 20 MB shared L3 cache, 1.25 MB of L2 per core, and 80 KB of L1 per core. The processor supports both DDR4 and DDR5 memory in a dual-channel configuration, though it does not support ECC memory. With a 65 W TDP and an unlocked multiplier set to false, this is a power-efficient, non-overclockable chip designed for broad compatibility.

In synthetic benchmarks, the CPU demonstrates its multi-threaded strength. In Cinebench R23, it scores 22,604 points in multi-core and 3,191 in single-core. The Cinebench R20 results show 8,892 multi-core and 1,255 single-core, while the R15 test yields 2,278 multi-core and 321 single-core. Geekbench results are equally robust, with 11,068 in multi-core and 1,996 in single-core. The 3DMark suite shows a clear scaling pattern: 1,880 points with 2 threads, 3,459 with 4 threads, 5,591 with 8 threads, and 7,314 with 16 threads, with maximum threads scoring 7,307. This scaling indicates excellent multi-threading efficiency, as performance nearly quadruples from 2 to 8 threads and continues to climb steadily through 16 threads.

The processor's PassMark scores provide insight into varied workloads. Integer math reaches 79,942, while floating-point math hits 60,539. Data compression scores 311,364, and data encryption achieves 16,608. Extended instruction performance is 19,847, and random string sorting reaches 32,076. The single-thread PassMark score is 3,634, while multi-threaded performance is 25,032. Physics simulation scores 1,437, and prime number finding is 83. These figures suggest a processor that handles number-crunching, data manipulation, and scientific computations with ease.

The CPU's average benchmark score of 25,292 places it at the 77th percentile. Its nearest rivals are tightly clustered: the AMD Ryzen 9 6900HS scores 25,284 (0% delta), the Intel Core 5 120 scores 25,362 (-0.3% delta), the AMD Ryzen 5 5600X3D scores 25,365 (-0.3% delta), and the AMD Ryzen 7 6800H scores 25,201 (0.4% delta). This indicates the i5-13400F is essentially performance-equivalent to a range of premium laptop and desktop chips from both AMD and Intel, sitting at a performance plateau where differences are negligible.

Usage Scenarios

High-refresh gaming: The CPU is fully capable of feeding high-refresh displays, given its strong single-thread score of 960 in 3DMark and 3,191 in Cinebench R23 single-core. However, the Arc A310's 40th percentile GPU ranking and modest PassMark G3D score of 5,433 will be the limiting factor, so achieving high frame rates at competitive settings will depend heavily on game optimization and resolution.

Streaming: The 16 threads provide ample headroom for encoding and broadcasting simultaneously. The CPU's multi-threaded scores, particularly the 22,604 Cinebench R23 multi-core result, suggest it can handle game capture, encoding, and overlay software without significant performance degradation, though the GPU's compute capabilities are limited.

Video editing: The combination of strong multi-threaded CPU performance and a GPU with limited compute resources means timeline scrubbing and export tasks will be CPU-bound. The PassMark floating-point math score of 60,539 and integer math of 79,942 indicate fast processing of video codecs and effects, while the GPU's 2,157 PassMark compute score offers only modest acceleration for GPU-accelerated effects.

3D rendering: The CPU excels here, with Cinebench R23 multi-core of 22,604 indicating strong performance in CPU-based renderers. The GPU's 2.688 TFLOPS FP32 performance and 5.376 TFLOPS FP16 (2:1 ratio) are low for GPU rendering, so expect CPU-driven rendering workflows to dominate and GPU rendering to be a secondary, slower option.

Software development: Compilation and build tasks benefit from 16 threads and the 20 MB L3 cache, with the Geekbench multi-core score of 11,068 supporting fast parallel compilation. The PassMark extended instructions score of 19,847 suggests strong SIMD performance for modern code, and data encryption at 16,608 indicates secure operations are handled efficiently.

Student and office work: This pairing is overkill for typical productivity tasks. The CPU's single-thread performance is more than sufficient for document editing, spreadsheet calculations, and web browsing, while the GPU's 625 PassMark G2D score handles 2D desktop rendering adequately. The 65 W TDP keeps power consumption and heat low for quiet operation in shared spaces.

FAQ

Q: What is the performance difference between the Intel Core i5-13400F and its nearest rival, the AMD Ryzen 9 6900HS?

A: The average benchmark scores are nearly identical, with the i5-13400F at 25,292 and the Ryzen 9 6900HS at 25,284, representing a 0% delta. The Intel Core 5 120 is 0.3% higher, and the AMD Ryzen 5 5600X3D is also 0.3% higher.

Q: How does the Intel Arc A310 compare to the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650?

A: The Arc A310 has an average benchmark score of 7,550, while the GTX 1650 scores 7,472, giving the Arc A310 a 1% advantage. The Arc A310 sits at the 40th percentile among all GPUs.

Q: What memory types does the Intel Core i5-13400F support?

A: The processor supports both DDR4 and DDR5 memory in a dual-channel configuration, but does not support ECC memory.

Q: Is the Intel Arc A310 still in production?

A: No, the production status is listed as end-of-life, with the successor being Battlemage. The predecessor is Xe Graphics.

Q: What is the combined performance percentile of this CPU+GPU pairing?

A: The combined percentile is 59, indicating the system performs better than 59% of all tracked configurations.

Q: What is the TDP of the Intel Arc A310 and what power supply is suggested?

A: The GPU has a TDP of 30 W, and the suggested PSU rating is 200 W. The CPU has a 65 W TDP, meaning total system draw remains manageable.

Q: Does the Intel Arc A310 have ray tracing capabilities?

A: Yes, it includes 6 ray tracing cores and supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), indicating hardware-accelerated ray tracing support.

Gaming Performance

No measured FPS rows exist for this exact combination — the FACT PACK contains no measuredFps data. All frame rate discussions below are estimated from the benchmark scores and should be treated as approximations rather than verified results.

The Intel Arc A310's 40th percentile GPU ranking and PassMark G3D score of 5,433 indicate entry-level gaming performance. In DirectX 11 tests, the GPU scores 33, while DirectX 12 scores 29, and DirectX 10 scores 31. DirectX 9 is notably higher at 69, suggesting better optimization for older titles. The 4 GB GDDR6 memory on a 64-bit bus with 124.0 GB/s bandwidth will limit texture loading and resolution scaling, making 1080p the practical ceiling for most games.

For esports and older titles, the performance may be adequate at medium settings, given the DirectX 9 score of 69 relative to other tests. However, the CPU's excellent single-thread performance, evidenced by the 960 3DMark single-thread score, will not be fully utilized because the GPU will likely bottleneck in most scenarios. Modern AAA games at 1080p ultra settings will be challenging, as the low FP32 throughput of 2.688 TFLOPS and limited 16 ROPs will struggle with fill-rate demands. The 28.00 GPixel/s pixel rate and 56.00 GTexel/s texture rate provide a baseline for what the GPU can output, but these are modest figures for contemporary gaming.

Balance and Bottleneck

The data reveals a pronounced bottleneck: the CPU operates at the 77th percentile while the GPU sits at the 40th percentile, a 37-point gap. In gaming workloads, this means the GPU will almost always be the limiting factor, capping frame rates well below what the CPU could theoretically support. The CPU's multi-threaded performance, demonstrated by the 22,604 Cinebench R23 multi-core score, is far beyond what the Arc A310 can utilize in most games.

In compute-heavy workloads like 3D rendering or video encoding, the balance shifts. The CPU's PassMark multi-thread score of 25,032 and Geekbench multi-core of 11,068 will dominate, while the GPU's PassMark compute score of 2,157 offers only marginal acceleration. This means CPU-bound tasks will benefit from the processor's strength, but any workload that relies on GPU compute will be severely constrained.

The FPS scaling pattern from the 3DMark CPU tests highlights the CPU's capability: from 1,880 at 2 threads to 7,314 at 16 threads. This scaling efficiency means the processor can handle increasing thread counts without significant overhead, but in gaming, the GPU cannot translate this into higher frame rates. The system's combined percentile of 59 reflects this imbalance — it is neither a high-end gaming machine nor a compute workstation, but rather a system where the CPU outclasses the GPU by a wide margin.

Who Should Build It

This system is a suitable choice for users who prioritize CPU-intensive tasks over gaming performance. Software developers compiling large codebases will benefit from the 16-thread processor and 20 MB L3 cache, with Geekbench multi-core of 11,068 indicating fast build times. Students and office workers performing standard productivity tasks will find the CPU more than capable, though the GPU is far more than needed for basic 2D work.

Content creators working with CPU-based rendering engines will appreciate the Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 22,604, which shortens render times significantly. Video editors using software encoding will see smooth performance in timeline editing, thanks to the high integer and floating-point math scores. However, creators who rely heavily on GPU-accelerated effects or rendering will be disappointed by the Arc A310's limited compute power.

Gamers should approach this build cautiously. At 1080p with lower settings, the system can handle esports titles and older games, but the 40th percentile GPU ranking means modern AAA games will require significant settings reductions. The 4 GB VRAM is also a limitation for texture-heavy games. This system is not recommended for 1440p or 4K gaming, as the GPU's 64-bit memory bus and 124.0 GB/s bandwidth will bottleneck high-resolution textures.

Small business workstations handling data processing, spreadsheet analysis, and database tasks will find the CPU's PassMark data compression score of 311,364 and encryption score of 16,608 valuable. The 65 W CPU TDP and 30 W GPU TDP keep power consumption low, reducing cooling requirements and operational costs.

Benchmark Performance

The CPU's average benchmark score is 25,292, placing it at the 77th percentile among all CPUs. Its nearest rivals are tightly clustered, with deltas of only 0.4% or less, indicating a highly competitive performance tier. The GPU's average score is 7,550, placing it at the 40th percentile, with nearest rivals including the AMD Radeon R7 250 at 7,557 (-0.1% delta) and the AMD Radeon Pro WX 3100 at 7,580 (-0.4% delta).

The combined system percentile is 59, reflecting the drag from the GPU on an otherwise strong CPU. In DirectX benchmarks, the GPU shows variable results: 69 in DirectX 9, 33 in DirectX 11, 31 in DirectX 10, and 29 in DirectX 12. The Geekbench OpenCL score is 30,607, and the Vulkan score is 28,964, indicating better performance in compute APIs than in traditional graphics APIs.

The CPU's benchmark profile is uniformly strong across all tests. The 3DMark multi-threaded scores show excellent scaling, and the Cinebench results are consistent with a high-performance 10-core part. The PassMark single-thread score of 3,634 and multi-thread score of 25,032 confirm that both single- and multi-threaded workloads are handled well. The GPU's PassMark G3D score of 5,433 and G2D score of 625, combined with the compute score of 2,157, paint a picture of a GPU that is adequate for basic graphics but not for demanding workloads.

Build Overview

This is a desktop-class system pairing Intel's Core i5-13400F with the Intel Arc A310. The CPU is a 10-core, 16-thread Raptor Lake-S part on the Intel Socket 1700 platform, while the GPU is an Alchemist-based DG2-128 chip manufactured on TSMC's 6 nm process. The system's combined percentile of 59 places it in the middle of the performance distribution, but this figure obscures the wide gap between components.

The CPU is a high performer at the 77th percentile, while the GPU is an entry-level part at the 40th percentile. This creates a system that is much stronger for CPU-bound tasks than for graphics-intensive workloads. The build class is desktop, indicating a traditional tower or SFF configuration with discrete components. The CPU has a 65 W TDP, and the GPU has a 30 W TDP, making this a low-power system overall. The suggested PSU of 200 W confirms the modest power requirements.

GPU Analysis

The Intel Arc A310 is based on the DG2-128 chip using the Xe-HPG architecture, built on TSMC's 6 nm process with 7,200 million transistors on a 157 mm² die. The GPU has 768 shading units, 32 texture mapping units, and 16 raster output units, along with 6 ray tracing cores. The base and boost clocks are both 1750 MHz, with memory running at 1937 MHz, translating to 15.5 Gbps effective. The 4 GB GDDR6 memory on a 64-bit bus provides 124.0 GB/s of bandwidth.

The GPU's FP32 performance is 2.688 TFLOPS, with FP16 at 5.376 TFLOPS (2:1 ratio). The pixel rate is 28.00 GPixel/s, and the texture rate is 56.00 GTexel/s. These figures indicate an entry-level part designed for basic gaming and display output rather than heavy compute workloads. The DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2) support with hardware ray tracing is notable for the price class, though the 6 RT cores are limited in number.

In benchmarks, the GPU scores 30,607 in Geekbench OpenCL and 28,964 in Vulkan, suggesting better compute performance than the DirectX tests would indicate. The PassMark G3D score of 5,433 and G2D score of 625 place it at the 40th percentile. The nearest rival, AMD Radeon R7 250, scores 7,557, a -0.1% delta, making the A310 essentially equivalent to that older part. The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 scores 7,472, putting the A310 1% ahead. This is a GPU that competes with older entry-level parts but lags modern budget offerings.

Upgrade Path and Platform

The Intel Core i5-13400F uses the Intel Socket 1700 platform, which supports DDR4 and DDR5 memory in dual-channel configurations. The CPU provides PCIe Gen 5 with 16 lanes, while the GPU uses PCIe 4.0 x8. This means the CPU has headroom for faster storage and expansion cards, but the GPU's x8 interface is sufficient for its bandwidth needs.

With a 65 W CPU TDP and 30 W GPU TDP, the system has significant PSU headroom with the suggested 200 W power supply. This leaves room for a more powerful GPU upgrade without changing the power supply, though a higher-wattage unit would be advisable for a substantial GPU upgrade. The CPU's 16 PCIe Gen 5 lanes are more than adequate for any current GPU, including high-end models.

The most sensible upgrade path is to replace the Arc A310 with a more powerful graphics card. The CPU's 77th percentile performance ensures it will not bottleneck most GPUs, and the 16 threads provide ample processing power for gaming and productivity. The upgrade would dramatically improve gaming performance, as the system's combined percentile of 59 is held back almost entirely by the GPU. The motherboard and memory setup, supporting both DDR4 and DDR5, offers flexibility in choosing the optimal configuration for the upgraded system. The CPU's production status is active, meaning it remains a viable current-generation choice, while the GPU is end-of-life, reinforcing the case for upgrading the graphics component.