SYSTEM ANALYZER

Rate My PC: Intel Core i5-13500HX + AMD Radeon 860M

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

89%

GPU

93%

PROCESSOR

Intel Core i5-13500HX

29,270 Benchmark Score

Top 11% Market Ranking

View Full Specs →

GRAPHICS CARD

AMD Radeon 860M

26,401 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 Intel Core i5-13500HX paired with the AMD Radeon 860M is an unusual combination: a 14-core Raptor Lake-HX mobile processor sitting at the 81st percentile of all CPUs, matched with a Krackan Point RDNA 3.5 integrated GPU that lands at the 72nd percentile. Together the build ranks at the 77th percentile, which immediately raises a question — is this a balanced laptop platform, or a compute-heavy chip attached to a modest graphics solution? The benchmark data suggests the former, and unpacking why reveals a lot about what this pairing can and cannot do.

Before diving in, one important caveat: the database contains no measured FPS rows for this exact combination. All frame-rate discussion below is therefore estimated from the benchmark scores, not measured gameplay data.

GPU Analysis

The Radeon 860M is an integrated GPU built on TSMC's 4 nm process, part of AMD's RDNA 3.5 architecture and the Navi III IGP family associated with Strix Point mobile silicon. Its configuration is modest but coherent: 512 shading units, 32 texture mapping units, 16 render output units, and 8 ray tracing cores. There are no tensor cores listed, which tells you something important — this is not a GPU designed around AI acceleration workloads in the way discrete parts increasingly are.

The clock structure spans from a 600 MHz base to a 3000 MHz boost, an unusually wide range that reflects the power-constrained nature of integrated graphics. With a 15 W TDP, the GPU must ride that boost curve aggressively when thermals allow and fall back hard when they don't. The rated outputs follow from the clocks: 48.00 GPixel/s of pixel fill and 96.00 GTexel/s of texture fill, with FP32 compute at 3.072 TFLOPS and FP16 at the same 3.072 TFLOPS in a 1:1 ratio. For rendering, that compute figure is the headline — it sits firmly in entry-level territory for modern GPUs, enough for rasterization at reduced settings but not for heavy ray tracing despite the 8 RT cores.

Memory is system shared, which means bandwidth is entirely dependent on the host platform's RAM configuration. There is no dedicated VRAM, no fixed bus width, and no intrinsic bandwidth figure — the GPU borrows from the same dual-channel memory the CPU uses. On the platform side, that raises the question of whether system memory can feed 512 shaders at 3000 MHz. In practice, integrated GPUs with shared memory are bandwidth-limited before they are shader-limited, and the 860M is unlikely to be an exception.

The API support is modern: DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. That matters for compatibility — recent titles that mandate DirectX 12 Ultimate features will at least run, even if the 3.072 TFLOPS of compute means they run at low settings and modest resolutions.

The benchmark picture is defined by two compute scores: 22759 in Geekbench OpenCL and 30043 in Geekbench Vulkan. The Vulkan figure notably outpaces the OpenCL one, which hints that the driver stack extracts more from the hardware through the graphics-oriented API than through general-purpose compute. Against its nearest rivals, the 860M's average score of 26401 lands within a fraction of a percent of the NVIDIA GeForce MX550 (26421, deltaPct -0.1) and the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5060 (26331, deltaPct 0.3), and within one percent of the AMD Radeon RX 5700 XT 50th Anniversary (26553, deltaPct -0.6) and NVIDIA RTX A4000 (26683, deltaPct -1.1). What that means: by aggregate benchmark score, the 860M trades blows with a mix of entry-level discrete cards and older mid-range parts — a strong result for a 15 W integrated solution.

Benchmark Performance

The CPU's numbers are extensive and tell a consistent story of strong multi-core throughput and respectable single-core speed. In Cinebench R23, the i5-13500HX scores 18334 multi-core and 1730.5 single-core. Scaling down the stack, Cinebench R20 gives 9792 multi-core and 1382 single-core, while R15 records 2863 multi-core and 252 single-core. The 3DMark CPU profile runs from 972 single-thread up through 1899 at 2 threads, 3607 at 4 threads, 5712 at 8 threads, 7307 at 16 threads, and 7885 at max threads.

The thread scaling curve is worth reading closely. Going from 1 to 4 threads nearly quadruples the score; going from 4 to 8 threads adds another substantial jump; but from 8 threads (5712) to max threads (7885), the gain flattens considerably. That shape reflects a hybrid architecture doing exactly what hybrid architectures do — the fast cores saturate early, and additional efficiency-oriented threads contribute diminishing returns. Workloads that parallelize perfectly will still benefit from all 20 threads, but workloads with mixed thread demands will favor the strong per-core performance.

On the PassMark side, the multithreaded score is 27753 and single-thread is 3582, with granular results including 331896 in data compression, 19267 in encryption, 20200 in extended instructions, 98 in finding prime numbers, 70885 in floating point math, 96195 in integer math, 1634 in physics, and 36373 in string sorting. The integer-vs-floating-point spread (96195 versus 70885) indicates the chip leans toward integer and general-purpose work, while still holding its own in FP-heavy tasks.

Percentiles frame the combined picture. The CPU sits at the 81st percentile versus all CPUs, the GPU at the 72nd percentile versus all GPUs, and the pairing at a combined 77th percentile. The i5-13500HX's average benchmark score of 29270 places it nearly dead even with a curious rival set: the Intel Xeon Phi 7210 (29245, deltaPct 0.1), AMD EPYC 9654 (29409, deltaPct -0.5), AMD Ryzen 7 5800X (29123, deltaPct 0.5), and Ryzen 7 3800X (29447, deltaPct -0.6). Landing within one percent of desktop Ryzen 7 parts and server-class EPYC silicon by aggregate score is an impressive showing for a mobile chip — though it is worth remembering aggregate averaging can obscure differences in per-test behavior.

CPU Analysis

The Core i5-13500HX is a 14-core, 20-thread processor built on Intel's 10 nm process, using the Raptor Lake architecture under the Raptor Lake-HX codename. It clocks from a 2.50 GHz base to a 4.70 GHz boost, with a 55 W TDP and an unlocked multiplier — a rarity in mobile parts that suggests Intel expected enthusiasts and OEMs to push it. The die measures 257 mm².

Cache hierarchy is well-provisioned: 80 KB of L1 per core, 2 MB of L2 per core, and 24 MB of shared L3. That last figure matters most for real workloads — 24 MB of shared L3 is generous for a mobile i5 and helps explain the strong Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 18334, since rendering loops benefit directly from large shared cache.

The platform features are forward-looking. Memory support covers both DDR4 and DDR5 on a dual-channel bus, and ECC memory is supported — a workstation-grade feature that hints the chip can anchor serious business machines. PCIe is Gen 5 with 20 CPU-direct lanes, meaning fast NVMe storage and discrete GPU links are well served. The integrated UHD Graphics 710 exists but is functionally redundant in this pairing since the 860M handles graphics duties.

For real workloads, the data maps cleanly. The 1730.5 R23 single-core score and 3582 PassMark single-thread score indicate snappy responsiveness in lightly threaded applications — the vast majority of everyday software. The 18334 R23 multi-core score and 27753 PassMark multithreaded score put sustained, parallel workloads like code compilation and video encoding firmly in comfortable territory. The physics score of 1634 and the 3DMark max-threads result of 7885 confirm strong game-simulation throughput for CPU-bound gaming scenarios.

What the 55 W TDP implies is sustained-performance headroom that lower-power mobile chips lack, provided the laptop chassis can dissipate it. And that is the open question the benchmarks can't answer: how well any given implementation feeds this chip thermally.

Usage Scenarios

High-refresh gaming. The CPU is more than capable — 7885 at max threads and 1634 in physics is excellent simulation performance. But the GPU's 3.072 TFLOPS and 72nd percentile standing mean the 860M itself will limit frame rates well before the processor does. High-refresh play is realistic only in lighter titles at reduced settings.

Streaming. The 20 threads and 27753 multithreaded PassMark score leave ample headroom to encode a stream while gaming, and the Geekbench Vulkan score of 30043 suggests the graphics pipeline holds up. The constraint is raw GPU rendering headroom, not CPU encode capacity.

Video editing. With 18334 in Cinebench R23 multi-core and 331896 in data compression, timeline scrubbing, transcoding, and export on modest projects is comfortably within reach. Heavy multi-cam or high-resolution raw workflows would push the 3.072 TFLOPS GPU and shared memory harder than advisable.

3D rendering. The CPU alone can render credibly — the Cinebench lineage of this database exists precisely because Cinebench measures rendering, and 18334 is a solid result. GPU-path rendering, however, is limited by the 512 shading units and lack of listed tensor cores; CPU rendering is the stronger path here.

Software development. This is arguably the pairing's sweet spot. Compiling is embarrassingly parallel, and the near-linear thread scaling from 972 to 7885 in 3DMark plus 27753 multithreaded means builds complete quickly. The 1730.5 single-core score keeps IDEs and debuggers responsive.

Student and office work. Everything from documents to browser-heavy multitasking is trivial for an 81st-percentile CPU. Dual-channel DDR5 support, 24 MB of L3, and strong single-thread performance make this platform feel fast for years of coursework and productivity use.

Who Should Build It

Given the buildClass of laptop, this is an OEM-machine conversation rather than a DIY one. The natural buyers are students and developers who want strong CPU throughput in a portable chassis and can accept entry-level graphics — the 81st-percentile processor with 20 threads handles coursework, compilation, and multitasking far better than typical ultrabook chips. Content creators doing light-to-moderate video work will find the 18334 R23 multi-core score sufficient, provided projects stay reasonable. Casual gamers at lower resolutions and settings get playable experiences from a GPU that benchmarks alongside the MX550 and RTX 5060 by aggregate score. Small businesses benefit from ECC support and Gen 5 storage lanes, making this credible as a mobile workstation for field engineering and finance. What no one should expect is high-refresh AAA gaming at high settings — the 15 W integrated GPU is not built for that.

Gaming Performance

To repeat the caveat stated earlier: no measured FPS data exists in the database for this combination, so all frame-rate discussion is estimation from benchmark scores, not measurement.

With that established, what can be inferred? The GPU's aggregate score of 26401 sits within a percent of the MX550, RTX 5060, RX 5700 XT 50th Anniversary, and RTX A4000 by the database's averaging method, and its Geekbench Vulkan score of 30043 versus 22759 in OpenCL suggests the graphics driver path is the stronger one. Games running Vulkan or modern DirectX 12 Ultimate paths should fare relatively better than older APIs. Esports and lighter titles at 1080p with reduced settings are the realistic target; demanding AAA releases at ultra settings are not, given 3.072 TFLOPS of compute, 512 shaders, and system-shared memory with no dedicated bandwidth. Meanwhile, the CPU side of gaming — physics at 1634, max-threads at 7885 — will essentially never be the limiter. Any frame-rate ceiling here belongs to the GPU.

Upgrade Path and Platform

The CPU uses Intel BGA 1964 — a ball-grid socket, meaning it is soldered. There is no CPU upgrade path; the chip chosen at purchase is the chip forever. That concentrates all upgrade thinking on the platform's other vectors. Memory support spans DDR4 and DDR5 in dual-channel, and maximizing DDR5 capacity and speed is the single most impactful "upgrade" since the 860M's graphics performance scales directly with system memory bandwidth — its VRAM is literally system shared. PCIe Gen 5 with 20 CPU-direct lanes enables fast NVMe storage additions, and the bus interface of PCIe 4.0 x8 means an external or OEM discrete GPU, if the chassis supports one, connects at respectable bandwidth.

Power headroom comes from the stated TDPs: 55 W for the CPU and 15 W for the GPU. Since the GPU lists no suggested PSU (it is an IGP with no power connectors), the practical takeaway is that cooling capacity in the chassis — not the silicon — determines how much of the 4.70 GHz boost and 3000 MHz GPU boost are sustained. The unlocked multiplier is interesting in this light: whether it can be exploited depends entirely on the laptop's thermal design.

FAQ

Q: Is this a desktop or laptop build?

A: It is a laptop build — buildClass is laptop, and both components are mobile-segment parts: a BGA-soldered Raptor Lake-HX CPU and a 15 W integrated GPU.

Q: Can the CPU be upgraded later?

A: No. The Intel BGA 1964 socket is soldered to the motherboard, so the processor is fixed at purchase. Memory and storage are the practical upgrade vectors.

Q: How does the CPU compare to its rivals?

A: Its average score of 29270 lands within one percent of the Intel Xeon Phi 7210 (deltaPct 0.1), AMD EPYC 9654 (deltaPct -0.5), Ryzen 7 5800X (deltaPct 0.5), and Ryzen 7 3800X (deltaPct -0.6).

Q: Is the Radeon 860M good for gaming?

A: It is an entry-level integrated solution: 512 shading units, 3.072 TFLOPS FP32, 8 RT cores, and system-shared memory, benchmarking at the 72nd percentile with a Vulkan score of 30043. Lighter titles at reduced settings are realistic; demanding AAA games at ultra settings are not.

Q: Does the build have measured FPS data?

A: No. The database contains no measured FPS rows for this combination, so all frame-rate expectations here are estimates derived from benchmark scores.

Q: Does the platform support fast storage?

A: Yes — the CPU provides PCIe Gen 5 with 20 CPU-direct lanes, supporting current-generation NVMe speeds.

Q: What was the CPU's launch MSRP?

A: The launch MSRP was $326.

Balance and Bottleneck

The data makes the imbalance explicit: 81st-percentile CPU versus 72nd-percentile GPU, a combined 77th percentile that splits the difference. This is a CPU-forward pairing by a clear margin. In any graphically demanding workload, the 860M is the bottleneck — its 15 W envelope, shared memory, and 3.072 TFLOPS of compute cannot exploit the throughput the i5-13500HX offers. The CPU's thread scaling, from 972 single-thread to 7885 at max threads, plus a physics score of 1634, indicates enormous simulation and logic headroom that the GPU will rarely let the system use in games.

Flip the workload, though, and the picture inverts. In compilation, rendering, compression (331896 PassMark), encryption (19267), and general productivity, the GPU is mostly idle and the CPU's strengths dominate. That asymmetry — GPU-limited in games, CPU-dominant in work — is the defining characteristic of the build. One structural aggravator deserves mention: both components draw from the same dual-channel system memory, so memory bandwidth contention between the CPU and the shared-memory GPU is a built-in limit under mixed loads.

Build Overview

This is a laptop-class pairing: Intel's 14-core, 20-thread Raptor Lake-HX i5-13500HX — 55 W, 10 nm, DDR5-capable, ECC-capable, PCIe Gen 5, unlocked multiplier — joined with AMD's Krackan Point Radeon 860M integrated GPU on 4 nm RDNA 3.5 silicon. Overall tier, judged strictly by percentiles, is upper-mid-range: 81st percentile CPU, 72nd percentile GPU, 77th percentile combined. The honest summary the data supports is a strong mobile compute platform with entry-level graphics — ideal for developers, students, and professional work on the move, and serviceable for light gaming, but not a machine for graphically demanding play. The 860M holding within a percent of discrete cards like the MX550 and RTX 5060 in aggregate benchmark scoring is respectable for integrated silicon, yet the absence of measured FPS data for this exact pairing means the final word on real-world gaming belongs to testing that has not yet been recorded.

Rate My PC: Intel Core i5-13500HX + AMD Radeon 860M

Apex Performer

System Balance Analysis

Intel Core i5-13500HX

AMD Radeon 860M

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

Benchmark Performance

CPU Analysis

Usage Scenarios

Who Should Build It

Gaming Performance

Upgrade Path and Platform

FAQ

Balance and Bottleneck

Build Overview

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