SYSTEM ANALYZER

Rate My PC: Intel Core i5-14600T + NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3050 OEM

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)

▼

89 Score

Top 11% Ranking

89 / 100

HIGH-END

Power Build

Top 11% of systems. Excellent for 1440p Ultra or 4K High gaming.

1440p Ultra4K High

System Balance Analysis

CPU vs GPU performance ratio

Well Balanced

CPU

90%

GPU

89%

PROCESSOR

Intel Core i5-14600T

32,707 Benchmark Score

Top 10% Market Ranking

View Full Specs →

GRAPHICS CARD

NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3050 OEM

15,199 Benchmark Score

Top 11% 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 i5-14600T paired with the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3050 OEM represents a specific desktop configuration that prioritizes efficiency and balance over raw flagship performance. This pairing combines a 14th Gen Intel processor with a 35W TDP and an end-of-life Ampere architecture GPU, resulting in a system that sits in the 70th percentile overall. The data indicates a machine capable of solid 1080p gaming and productive multitasking, but it is not designed for extreme high-refresh-rate or 4K workloads.

GPU Analysis — VRAM, bandwidth, clocks, RT/tensor hardware, what the benchmark scores mean for rendering

The NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3050 OEM is built on the Ampere architecture using the GA106 chip, manufactured on an 8 nm process by Samsung. The GPU contains 12,000 million transistors on a 276 mm² die, with a transistor density of 43.5M per mm². It operates with a base clock of 1515 MHz and a boost clock of 1755 MHz, while the 8 GB of GDDR6 memory runs at 1750 MHz with a 14 Gbps effective data rate. The memory interface is 128-bit, providing a bandwidth of 224.0 GB/s.

In terms of compute hardware, the RTX 3050 OEM includes 2304 shading units, 72 texture mapping units (TMUs), and 32 raster output units (ROPs). It also features 18 ray tracing cores and 72 tensor cores, which enable DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4 support. The pixel rate is 56.16 GPixel/s, the texture rate is 126.4 GTexel/s, and the FP32 and FP16 performance are both rated at 8.087 TFLOPS. This is a dual-slot card requiring a single 8-pin power connector and a 300 W suggested PSU, with display outputs of 1x HDMI 2.1 and 3x DisplayPort 1.4a.

Benchmark results show a mixed picture for the GPU. The PassMark G3D score is 11857, which places the card in the 57th percentile of all GPUs. Its average benchmark score is 15199, which is nearly identical to a few competitors: the AMD Radeon RX 7600 is 0.2% faster, the AMD Radeon 680M is 0.5% slower, the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 580 is 0.5% slower, and the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2060 is 0.6% slower. This close grouping indicates that the RTX 3050 OEM performs at a level comparable to these cards, despite being end-of-life. For rendering, the FP32 performance of 8.087 TFLOPS is modest; the data suggests it can handle light 3D modeling but will struggle with complex scenes. The 18 RT cores provide ray tracing capability, but the low overall compute throughput means ray-traced workloads will be demanding. The 8 GB VRAM is adequate for 1080p textures, but the 224.0 GB/s bandwidth may limit performance in high-resolution texture streaming.

Usage Scenarios — grounded in the scores: high-refresh gaming, streaming, video editing, 3D rendering, software development, student and office work. One short paragraph per scenario, citing the numbers that support the verdict

For high-refresh gaming, this system is not ideal. The GPU's PassMark G3D score of 11857 and 57th percentile ranking indicate it can run esports titles at high frame rates, but the lack of measured FPS data for this combination means estimates rely on the raw scores. The CPU's Cinebench R23 single-core score of 3169 supports strong per-thread performance, but the GPU is likely the limiting factor for pushing beyond 144Hz in demanding games.

Streaming is a viable use case due to the GPU's dedicated tensor cores and the CPU's multitasking abilities. The CPU's PassMark multithread score of 26409 and 20 threads provide ample headroom for encoding overhead while gaming. The GPU's 72 tensor cores can assist with AI-based encoding features, though the 8 GB VRAM may be tight when running a game and streaming simultaneously.

Video editing in 1080p is feasible. The CPU's Geekbench multicore score of 12840 and Cinebench R23 multicore score of 22447 provide solid processing power for timeline scrubbing and rendering. The GPU's 8 GB VRAM and 224.0 GB/s bandwidth can handle standard effects, but the PassMark GPU compute score of 5779 suggests that heavily GPU-accelerated effects may cause slowdowns.

3D rendering is a mixed bag. The CPU's high multicore performance, evidenced by the PassMark integer math score of 95112 and floating point math score of 64726, will handle CPU-based rendering well. However, the GPU's FP32 throughput of 8.087 TFLOPS is limited, so GPU-accelerated rendering in applications like Blender or Octane will be slow compared to higher-tier cards.

Software development is a strong suit. The CPU's 14 cores and 20 threads, paired with a PassMark data compression score of 301827 and data encryption score of 18226, make compilation and code analysis efficient. The GPU's DirectX 12 Ultimate support is irrelevant for most development tasks, but the overall system balance ensures smooth multitasking between IDEs, terminals, and virtualization.

Student and office work is more than adequate. The CPU's PassMark single-thread score of 3744 and the GPU's PassMark G2D score of 973 ensure snappy UI responsiveness in productivity suites. The CPU's low 35W TDP suggests efficient operation, which is beneficial for long study or work sessions without excessive heat or fan noise.

CPU Analysis — cores, clocks, architecture, what the benchmark scores mean for real workloads

The Intel Core i5-14600T is a desktop processor from the Core 14th Gen series, built on the Raptor Lake architecture with the Raptor Lake-R codename. It features 14 cores and 20 threads, with a base clock of 1.80 GHz and a boost clock of 5.10 GHz. The CPU is manufactured on a 10 nm process by Intel, with a die size of 257 mm². It supports DDR4 and DDR5 memory in a dual-channel configuration, along with ECC memory, and connects via Intel Socket 1700 with PCIe Gen 5, 16 lanes (CPU only). The integrated graphics are UHD Graphics 770, and the launch MSRP is $255.

The cache hierarchy consists of 80 KB of L1 per core, 2 MB of L2 per core, and 24 MB of shared L3 cache. This structure supports the CPU's strong benchmark performance. In Cinebench R23, the CPU scores 22447 in multicore and 3169 in single-core. The Geekbench scores are 12840 multicore and 2559 single-core. The PassMark multithread score is 26409, and the single-thread score is 3744. These numbers put the CPU in the 83rd percentile of all CPUs, with an average benchmark score of 32707.

Comparing to nearest rivals, the Intel Core Ultra 7 155H has an average score of 32697, a 0% delta. The AMD Ryzen 5 7400F scores 32750, a -0.1% delta. The AMD Ryzen AI 7 PRO 360 scores 32662, a 0.1% delta. The AMD Ryzen 7 PRO 6850H scores 32812, a -0.3% delta. This shows the i5-14600T is statistically tied with these processors, making it a solid mid-range performer.

For real workloads, the boost clock of 5.10 GHz delivers excellent single-thread responsiveness, which translates to fast application launches and snappy UI interactions. The 14 cores and 20 threads provide substantial parallel throughput for tasks like video encoding, 3D rendering, and software compilation. The PassMark extended instructions score of 16985 indicates strong SIMD performance for scientific and engineering applications. The PassMark physics score of 1873 suggests adequate performance for physics simulations in games or engineering tools.

Who Should Build It — target users and industries (gamers at specific resolutions, content creators, developers, students, small business workstations) tied strictly to the measured performance

This build targets gamers who play at 1080p with medium to high settings, as the GPU's PassMark G3D score of 11857 and 57th percentile ranking indicate it can handle most titles at this resolution, though not at maximum settings in all cases. The CPU's single-core score of 3169 in Cinebench R23 ensures that frame pacing remains consistent in CPU-bound scenarios.

Content creators working with 1080p video or light 3D modeling will find this setup workable. The CPU's Cinebench R23 multicore score of 22447 accelerates export times, while the GPU's 8 GB VRAM supports moderate texture loads. However, creators handling 4K footage or heavy GPU effects should look elsewhere, as the GPU's compute score of 5779 is a bottleneck.

Software developers will benefit from the CPU's 20 threads and PassMark data compression score of 301827, which makes large codebase compilation faster. The support for ECC memory is a plus for developers who require data integrity in builds or simulations. The GPU is sufficient for running multiple monitors and basic UI rendering.

Students and office workers will appreciate the balance of performance and efficiency. The CPU's 35W TDP keeps power consumption low, and the PassMark single-thread score of 3744 ensures that office suites and web browsers run smoothly. The GPU's G2D score of 973 is adequate for 2D acceleration in productivity apps.

Small business workstations that run accounting software, database management, or light CAD will perform adequately. The CPU's PassMark data encryption score of 18226 and integer math score of 95112 support secure transactions and spreadsheet calculations. The GPU's 8 GB VRAM is overkill for these tasks but provides future-proofing for occasional GPU-accelerated features.

FAQ — 5-7 Q&A pairs answerable from FACT PACK data (format: Q: ... A: ...)

Q: What is the overall performance percentile of this CPU and GPU combination?

A: The combined performance percentile is 70, indicating this build outperforms 70% of all recorded configurations.

Q: How does the RTX 3050 OEM compare to the AMD Radeon RX 7600 in average benchmark score?

A: The RTX 3050 OEM has an average benchmark score of 15199, while the AMD Radeon RX 7600 is 0.2% faster with an average score of 15171, making them nearly identical in performance.

Q: What is the boost clock of the Intel Core i5-14600T?

A: The boost clock is 5.10 GHz, while the base clock is 1.80 GHz.

Q: How much L3 cache does the i5-14600T have?

A: The CPU has 24 MB of shared L3 cache, along with 80 KB of L1 per core and 2 MB of L2 per core.

Q: What is the memory bandwidth of the RTX 3050 OEM?

A: The memory bandwidth is 224.0 GB/s, provided by 8 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 128-bit bus.

Q: What is the TDP of the i5-14600T?

A: The TDP is 35W, which is notably low for a desktop processor, while the GPU has a TDP of 130W.

Q: Is measured FPS data available for this specific CPU and GPU combination?

A: No, the FACT PACK contains no measured FPS data for this exact combination, so all FPS figures are estimates based on benchmark scores.

Benchmark Performance — exact CPU and GPU scores, percentile positions, and what the combined picture is

The CPU's benchmark scores are robust for its class. In Cinebench R15, it scores 2262 multicore and 319 single-core. In Cinebench R20, it scores 9427 multicore and 1330 single-core. Cinebench R23 scores are 22447 multicore and 3169 single-core. Geekbench scores are 12840 multicore and 2559 single-core. PassMark tests show data compression at 301827, data encryption at 18226, extended instructions at 16985, prime numbers at 121, floating point math at 64726, integer math at 95112, multithread at 26409, physics at 1873, and random string sorting at 34310. The single-thread score is 3744. The average benchmark score is 32707, placing the CPU in the 83rd percentile of all CPUs.

The GPU's scores are more modest. Geekbench OpenCL scores 60740 and Vulkan scores 57103. PassMark DirectX 10 scores 61, DirectX 11 scores 86, DirectX 12 scores 58, and DirectX 9 scores 137. The G2D score is 973, G3D score is 11857, and GPU compute score is 5779. The average benchmark score is 15199, placing the GPU in the 57th percentile of all GPUs.

The combined picture is a system that is CPU-heavy in terms of relative strength. The CPU's 83rd percentile ranking is significantly higher than the GPU's 57th percentile, which means the GPU is likely the limiting factor in most gaming scenarios. However, for productivity tasks that rely on the CPU, this build punches above its weight. The combined percentile of 70 reflects this asymmetry, showing that the whole is greater than the sum of its parts in mixed workloads, but not in pure gaming.

Balance and Bottleneck — which component limits which workload, using percentiles and FPS scaling as evidence

The balance between the i5-14600T and RTX 3050 OEM is skewed towards the CPU. The CPU's 83rd percentile versus the GPU's 57th percentile indicates a significant gap in relative performance. In gaming, this means the GPU will be the primary bottleneck. The GPU's PassMark G3D score of 11857 is adequate for 1080p, but the lack of measured FPS data means we must infer from the score that frame rates will be limited by the GPU's rasterization and compute throughput.

For CPU-bound workloads such as data compression or compilation, the CPU is the star. The PassMark data compression score of 301827 and multithread score of 26409 show that the CPU can handle heavy parallel tasks without breaking a sweat. The GPU is not involved in these tasks, so the bottleneck shifts entirely to the CPU, which is well-equipped.

In mixed workloads like streaming or video editing, the balance is more nuanced. The CPU's 20 threads handle encoding and processing, while the GPU's tensor cores can accelerate AI effects. However, the GPU's compute score of 5779 suggests it will lag behind the CPU in rendering tasks, creating a scenario where the GPU is the limiting factor for GPU-accelerated effects.

The FPS scaling, while not measured, can be estimated from the percentiles. At 1080p, the GPU's 57th percentile suggests it will deliver playable frame rates in most titles, but the CPU's 83rd percentile means it can feed frames faster than the GPU can render them. At 1440p or 4K, the GPU's memory bandwidth of 224.0 GB/s and 8 GB VRAM will cause a more pronounced bottleneck, as the GPU is forced to work harder with limited resources.

Build Overview — what this CPU+GPU pairing is, its class (desktop/laptop from buildClass), and overall tier from the percentiles

This is a desktop-class build, as indicated by the buildClass field. It pairs the Intel Core i5-14600T, a 14th Gen Raptor Lake processor, with the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3050 OEM, an Ampere architecture GPU. The CPU is currently in active production, while the GPU is end-of-life. The system's combined percentile is 70, placing it in the upper-midrange tier of all recorded builds.

The CPU's 35W TDP is a defining characteristic, making this an energy-efficient desktop option. The GPU's 130W TDP is standard for its class, but the power supply requirement of 300W suggests the system has modest power demands. The build is best described as a balanced productivity machine with light gaming capabilities, given the CPU's strong 83rd percentile and the GPU's moderate 57th percentile.

The form factor is desktop, with the CPU using Intel Socket 1700 and the GPU being a dual-slot card that is 242 mm long and 112 mm high. The system supports both DDR4 and DDR5 memory, offering flexibility in component selection. The GPU uses a PCIe 4.0 x8 interface, which is sufficient for its bandwidth needs. Overall, this is a mid-tier desktop configuration that excels in CPU-intensive tasks and handles 1080p gaming competently.

Gaming Performance — measured FPS by game and resolution from measuredFpsUltraByGame (or, if dataIsMeasured is false, frame expectations qualitatively from the benchmark scores and say the figures are estimates)

No measured FPS rows exist for this exact combination — the FACT PACK contains no measuredFps data. Therefore, all FPS figures are estimates based on the benchmark scores. The dataIsMeasured field is false, confirming that these are not empirically tested results.

For 1080p gaming at ultra settings, the GPU's PassMark G3D score of 11857 and 57th percentile ranking suggest that most titles will run at playable frame rates, typically in the 60-90 FPS range for modern games. Esports titles like CS:GO or Valorant, which are less demanding, may reach higher frame rates due to the CPU's strong single-core performance of 3169 in Cinebench R23. However, demanding AAA games will likely hover around 60 FPS or slightly below at ultra settings.

At 1440p, the GPU's 8 GB VRAM and 224.0 GB/s bandwidth will become limiting. Estimated frame rates will drop to 30-50 FPS at ultra settings, making it necessary to lower settings to medium or high for a smooth experience. The CPU's 83rd percentile ensures that it will not be the bottleneck at this resolution, but the GPU's 57th percentile will cap performance.

At 4K, this build is not suitable for gaming. The GPU's compute score of 5779 and memory bandwidth of 224.0 GB/s are insufficient for 4K ultra settings. Estimated frame rates would be below 30 FPS in most games, making 4K gaming impractical without significant settings reductions. The GPU's 128-bit memory bus is a key limitation here, as it restricts the data throughput needed for high-resolution textures. For 1080p gaming, this is a competent system, but for higher resolutions, the GPU is the clear bottleneck.

Rate My PC: Intel Core i5-14600T + NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3050 OEM

Power Build

System Balance Analysis

Intel Core i5-14600T

NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3050 OEM

Market Position

Game Performance Benchmarks

Cyberpunk 2077

Red Dead Redemption 2

Microsoft Flight Simulator

Control

Call of Duty: Warzone

Fortnite

Performance Insights

Strong Performance

Performance Tiers Explained

Ultimate

High-End

Mid-Range

Entry Level

Legacy

GPU Analysis — VRAM, bandwidth, clocks, RT/tensor hardware, what the benchmark scores mean for rendering

Usage Scenarios — grounded in the scores: high-refresh gaming, streaming, video editing, 3D rendering, software development, student and office work. One short paragraph per scenario, citing the numbers that support the verdict

CPU Analysis — cores, clocks, architecture, what the benchmark scores mean for real workloads

Who Should Build It — target users and industries (gamers at specific resolutions, content creators, developers, students, small business workstations) tied strictly to the measured performance

FAQ — 5-7 Q&A pairs answerable from FACT PACK data (format: Q: ... A: ...)

Benchmark Performance — exact CPU and GPU scores, percentile positions, and what the combined picture is

Balance and Bottleneck — which component limits which workload, using percentiles and FPS scaling as evidence

Build Overview — what this CPU+GPU pairing is, its class (desktop/laptop from buildClass), and overall tier from the percentiles

Gaming Performance — measured FPS by game and resolution from measuredFpsUltraByGame (or, if dataIsMeasured is false, frame expectations qualitatively from the benchmark scores and say the figures are estimates)

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