SYSTEM ANALYZER

Rate My PC: Intel Core i7-12700 + Intel Arc A310

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)

▼

87 Score

Top 13% Ranking

87 / 100

HIGH-END

Power Build

Top 13% 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

85%

PROCESSOR

Intel Core i7-12700

32,942 Benchmark Score

Top 10% 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

This pairing unites a high-core-count 12th Gen Intel desktop processor with Intel’s entry-level Arc 3 discrete GPU. The data shows a stark contrast in capability: the CPU sits at the 83rd percentile among all processors, while the GPU rests at the 40th percentile among all graphics cards. This creates a system where the processor is the dominant component, and the graphics card is the primary limiting factor for most demanding visual workloads.

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

The Intel Arc A310 is built on the Xe-HPG architecture using the DG2-128 chip, manufactured on a 6 nm process by TSMC. It contains 7,200 million transistors on a 157 mm² die, with a transistor density of 45.9M per mm². The GPU operates at a fixed base and boost clock of 1750 MHz, with memory clocked at 1937 MHz, translating to 15.5 Gbps effective. The memory subsystem is notably constrained: 4 GB of GDDR6 on a 64-bit bus yields 124.0 GB/s of bandwidth. This is a fundamental bottleneck for modern rendering, as texture-heavy scenes and higher resolutions will quickly exhaust both capacity and throughput.

Compute resources are modest. The A310 has 768 shading units, 32 texture mapping units, and 16 raster output pipelines. Pixel rate is 28.00 GPixel/s, and texture rate is 56.00 GTexel/s. Floating-point performance is 2.688 TFLOPS for FP32 and 5.376 TFLOPS for FP16 (2:1 ratio). The GPU includes 6 ray tracing cores, though the overall FP32 throughput suggests RT workloads will be challenging. Benchmark scores reflect this entry-level positioning: the Geekbench OpenCL score is 30607, and Vulkan score is 28964. The Passmark G3D score is 5433, with a much lower GPU compute score of 2157. DirectX 12 performance is particularly weak at a Passmark score of 29, while DirectX 9 scores 69.

The percentile rank of 40 indicates that this GPU performs below the median of all GPUs. When compared to its nearest rivals, the data shows it sits extremely close to the AMD Radeon R7 250 (deltaPct of -0.1, meaning the A310 is slightly behind), the AMD Radeon Pro WX 3100 (deltaPct -0.4), and is about 1% ahead of the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650. For rendering, the FP32 count of 2.688 TFLOPS is the key number; this is not a GPU designed for complex 3D scene rendering or real-time ray tracing. The 4 GB VRAM capacity will limit texture sizes and render target resolutions. The 124.0 GB/s bandwidth is adequate for 1080p esports titles but will struggle with high-resolution textures and modern game engines.

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 at 1080p, the system is CPU-bound in most cases. The Core i7-12700’s single-thread Passmark score of 3864 and 3DMark single-thread score of 1012 indicate strong per-core performance, which is crucial for frame pacing. However, the GPU’s Passmark G3D score of 5433 and DirectX 12 score of 29 suggest that achieving 144 Hz or higher in AAA titles is unrealistic. Esports titles may reach high frame rates, but the 4 GB VRAM and 124.0 GB/s bandwidth will cap performance in many scenarios.

Streaming is a mixed scenario. The CPU’s 20 threads and Cinebench R23 multicore score of 21751 provide ample headroom for software encoding while gaming. However, the GPU is not the bottleneck for encoding; the CPU is more than capable. The concern is the gaming performance itself; if the game is GPU-limited, streaming overhead will not matter. The data suggests that x264 encoding on the CPU is feasible without compromising the already low GPU load.

Video editing in software like Premiere Pro benefits from the CPU’s passmark_multithread score of 30273 and the data_compression score of 375950, which indicate strong performance for timeline scrubbing and export. The GPU’s 2.688 TFLOPS FP32 is adequate for basic effects and CUDA-accelerated (or here, via APIs) previews, but the OpenCL score of 30607 is low compared to dedicated mid-range cards. 4K editing is possible but will rely heavily on CPU rendering.

3D rendering in Blender or similar applications is heavily GPU-dependent. The A310’s FP32 of 2.688 TFLOPS and RT cores (6) are entry-level. The Passmark GPU compute score of 2157 is a clear indicator that this is not a rendering workhorse. The CPU’s Cinebench R20 multicore score of 10639 and R15 multicore score of 3151 can handle CPU-based rendering, but it will be slower than GPU-accelerated paths on more capable cards.

Software development is a strong suit for this build. The CPU’s 12 cores and 20 threads, combined with a Passmark integer math score of 106554 and floating point math score of 81191, handle compilation and testing efficiently. The GPU is irrelevant for most development tasks, and the 4 GB VRAM is sufficient for multi-monitor desktop usage. The data indicates a responsive system for IDE use and build servers.

Student and office work is where this pairing is most balanced. The integrated UHD Graphics 770 is present, but the discrete A310 offers more headroom. The CPU’s Passmark single-thread score of 3864 ensures snappy application launches. The GPU’s Passmark G2D score of 625 is sufficient for 2D desktop compositing. The 65W TDP of the CPU and 30W TDP of the GPU mean low system heat and noise, which is ideal for quiet workspaces.

Upgrade Path and Platform — socket, memory support, PCIe, PSU headroom from suggestedPsu/tdp, what a sensible next upgrade looks like

The platform is built around the Intel Socket 1700 with the Alder Lake architecture. The Core i7-12700 supports DDR4 and DDR5 memory in a dual-channel configuration, with no ECC support. The CPU provides PCIe Gen 5 with 16 lanes. The GPU connects via PCIe 4.0 x8, which is sufficient for the A310’s bandwidth needs. The system’s total TDP is the sum of the CPU’s 65W and the GPU’s 30W, which is a low 95W combined. The suggested PSU for the GPU is 200W, which leaves ample headroom for a future GPU upgrade without changing the power supply.

The data suggests that the CPU is the long-lived component. With a 25 MB shared L3 cache and a boost clock of 4.90 GHz, the i7-12700 will remain relevant for several years. The immediate bottleneck is the GPU. A sensible next upgrade is a mid-range graphics card that can match the CPU’s 83rd percentile standing. The current GPU’s nearest rivals include the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 (which it slightly beats by 1%), so any upgrade to a GPU above that tier will yield a significant performance increase. The PCIe 4.0 x8 interface on the A310 means that a newer GPU with PCIe 4.0 x16 will be fully compatible with the motherboard.

Memory upgrades are also viable, given the dual-channel support for both DDR4 and DDR5. The CPU’s memory bandwidth is not listed, but the dual-channel bus indicates that adding more RAM or faster modules is a straightforward path. The 12 cores and 20 threads are not a limitation for gaming, but for content creation, the CPU is already strong. The most impactful upgrade is the GPU, as the current 40th percentile GPU holds back the 83rd percentile CPU.

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)

There is no measured FPS data for this exact CPU+GPU combination. The FACT PACK contains an empty measuredFpsUltraByGame field, and dataIsMeasured is false. Therefore, all gaming performance figures discussed here are estimates based on the benchmark scores, not direct measurements.

Based on the GPU’s Passmark G3D score of 5433 and its proximity to the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 (1% ahead), frame rates are expected to be in the entry-level class. At 1080p with ultra settings, modern AAA titles will likely struggle to maintain 30 FPS. The DirectX 12 score of 29 is particularly concerning, suggesting poor performance in newer APIs. For esports titles like CS:GO or Valorant, the CPU’s strong single-thread score (3864 Passmark) may allow the GPU to reach 60-90 FPS at 1080p, but this is an estimate. The 4 GB VRAM is the hard limit; high-resolution texture packs will cause stuttering or dropped frames.

At 1440p, the GPU is significantly underpowered. The 124.0 GB/s bandwidth and 4 GB capacity will result in severe performance degradation. Most games will need to be run at low or medium settings to achieve playable frame rates. At 4K, the system is not viable for gaming beyond very old or indie titles.

The CPU’s 3DMark 8-thread score of 6775 and max-thread score of 9446 indicate it will not be the bottleneck at these GPU-limited frame rates. The i7-12700 can feed frames faster than the A310 can render them. Therefore, the gaming experience is entirely dictated by the GPU’s capabilities, which are entry-level as indicated by the 40th percentile rank.

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

The system is severely imbalanced. The CPU’s percentile rank of 83 is more than double the GPU’s rank of 40. In gaming, the GPU is the unequivocal bottleneck. The CPU’s 3DMark single-thread score of 1012 and 2-thread score of 1987 are sufficient to process game logic and draw calls, but the GPU’s Passmark DirectX 12 score of 29 will limit the frame output. The FPS scaling is directly tied to the GPU; improving the CPU would yield negligible gains while the A310 is installed.

In CPU-bound workloads, such as video encoding or 3D rendering (CPU-based), the GPU is irrelevant. The CPU’s Cinebench R23 multicore score of 21751 and passmark_multithread score of 30273 indicate that the processor is the primary driver. The GPU’s low compute score of 2157 does not accelerate these tasks.

For hybrid workloads like streaming while gaming, the bottleneck shifts. The CPU has headroom for encoding (given its high multicore scores), but the GPU is already at its limit. The result is that the stream may be fine, but the game frame rate will suffer. The data implies that the balance is wrong for most gaming and GPU-accelerated tasks; the CPU is overqualified relative to the GPU.

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

The target user is someone who needs a strong CPU for productivity but only has light GPU demands. Gamers at 1080p on esports titles will find the CPU ensures minimal stutter, but the GPU’s 40th percentile rank means they must accept low settings. Gamers at 1440p or 4K should avoid this build, as the GPU cannot deliver acceptable frame rates.

Content creators who work primarily with CPU-based rendering (e.g., Cinebench R23 score of 21751) will benefit. Video editors using software encoding will appreciate the 20 threads. However, GPU-accelerated effects will be slow due to the A310’s low FP32 throughput.

Software developers are the ideal audience. The CPU’s integer math score of 106554 and data encryption score of 20143 indicate strong performance for compilation, testing, and running virtual machines. The GPU is sufficient for multiple monitors and basic GUI acceleration.

Students and office workers will find this build overkill for the CPU but adequate for the GPU. The low total TDP (95W) means low electricity costs and quiet operation. Small business workstations handling spreadsheets, databases (data compression score of 375950), and light photo editing will be very responsive.

The combined percentile of 62 suggests a system that is above average overall, but this is skewed by the CPU. Users in industries requiring heavy 3D graphics or machine learning (GPU compute score of 2157) should look elsewhere.

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

The CPU’s average benchmark score is 32942, placing it at the 83rd percentile of all CPUs. Its nearest rival is the Intel Core 5 213PTE (avgScore 32924, deltaPct 0.1), meaning the i7-12700 is essentially tied with it. It is 0.4% ahead of the AMD Ryzen 7 PRO 6850H and 0.4% behind the AMD Ryzen 7 7800X3D and AMD Ryzen 7 8700G. Key CPU scores include 3DMark max threads at 9446, Cinebench R23 multi at 21751, and single-thread at 1894.

The GPU’s average benchmark score is 7550, placing it at the 40th percentile of all GPUs. Its nearest rival is the AMD Radeon R7 250 (avgScore 7557, deltaPct -0.1), indicating the A310 is slightly slower. It is 0.4% behind the AMD Radeon Pro WX 3100 and 1% ahead of the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650. Key GPU scores include Geekbench OpenCL at 30607, Passmark G3D at 5433, and Passmark GPU compute at 2157.

The combined picture is a system with a top-tier processor and an entry-level graphics card. The combined percentile is 62, but this is a weighted average that obscures the extreme disparity. The CPU is 83rd percentile, and the GPU is 40th percentile. The data suggests that for any GPU-bound task, the system performs like a low-end machine. For CPU-bound tasks, it performs like a high-end machine. This is a bifurcated profile that makes it difficult to classify as a single-purpose system.

FAQ — 5-7 Q&A pairs answerable from FACT PACK data

Q: What is the processor’s core and thread count?

A: The Intel Core i7-12700 has 12 cores and 20 threads, based on the Alder Lake architecture.

Q: How much VRAM does the Intel Arc A310 have, and what is its memory bandwidth?

A: The A310 has 4 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 64-bit bus, providing 124.0 GB/s of bandwidth.

Q: Is this system better for gaming or CPU-intensive tasks?

A: The data indicates it is far better for CPU-intensive tasks. The CPU is at the 83rd percentile, while the GPU is at the 40th percentile, so the processor will dominate in multi-threaded workloads.

Q: What is the difference in performance between the CPU and its nearest rival?

A: The CPU’s average score is 32942, which is 0.1% higher than the Intel Core 5 213PTE and 0.4% higher than the AMD Ryzen 7 PRO 6850H.

Q: Does the GPU support ray tracing?

A: Yes, the Arc A310 includes 6 ray tracing cores, although the overall FP32 performance of 2.688 TFLOPS suggests limited RT capability.

Q: What is the total power draw of the CPU and GPU combined?

A: The CPU has a TDP of 65W and the GPU has a TDP of 30W, for a combined 95W. The GPU’s suggested PSU is 200W.

Q: What is the GPU’s performance relative to the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650?

A: The A310 has an average benchmark score of 7550, which is 1% higher than the GTX 1650’s score of 7472.

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

The Intel Core i7-12700 is a 12-core, 20-thread processor from the Core 12th Gen series, built on the Alder Lake-S architecture. It is manufactured on Intel’s 10 nm process with a die size of 215 mm². The base clock is 2.10 GHz, with a boost clock of 4.90 GHz. The cache hierarchy includes 80 KB of L1 per core, 1.25 MB of L2 per core, and a shared 25 MB L3 cache. The CPU supports DDR4 and DDR5 memory in a dual-channel configuration, with no ECC support. It provides PCIe Gen 5 with 16 lanes and includes integrated UHD Graphics 770. The TDP is 65W, and the launch MSRP is $349.

The benchmark scores paint a picture of a very capable processor. The 3DMark scores scale well with thread count: 2 threads yield 1987, 4 threads yield 3824, 8 threads yield 6775, and 16 threads yield 8764. The max-thread score is 9446, indicating good scaling to 20 threads. The Cinebench R23 multicore score of 21751 is strong for a 65W part, while the single-core score of 1894 is competitive.

In real workloads, the Passmark scores are revealing. The integer math score of 106554 and floating-point math score of 81191 indicate strong computational throughput for scientific computing and financial modeling. The data compression score of 375950 is excellent for database and file archiving tasks. Data encryption at 20143 is adequate for security applications. The multithread score of 30273 and physics score of 1558 suggest the CPU handles simulation and physics calculations well.

The percentile rank of 83 shows this is a high-end desktop processor. Its nearest rival is the AMD Ryzen 7 7800X3D (deltaPct -0.4), which is a gaming-focused chip, yet the i7-12700 is only 0.4% behind in average score. This indicates the i7-12700 is a versatile processor that competes well with dedicated gaming CPUs while offering more cores for productivity. The single-thread Passmark score of 3864 ensures that legacy and lightly-threaded applications remain responsive.

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 (buildClass: "desktop") combining the Intel Core i7-12700 and the Intel Arc A310. The pairing represents an extreme performance asymmetry. The CPU is a high-end Alder Lake processor, evidenced by its 83rd percentile rank among all CPUs and its average benchmark score of 32942. The GPU is an entry-level Alchemist (Arc 3) part, ranked at the 40th percentile among all GPUs with an average score of 7550.

The combined percentile is 62, which places the overall system in the upper-mid range of all builds. However, this number is misleading without context. The system’s overall tier is defined by its weakest link in graphics-intensive tasks and its strongest link in CPU-bound tasks. For a user who prioritizes processor performance for compilation, rendering, or heavy multitasking, this is a high-tier system. For a gamer or 3D artist relying on GPU acceleration, this is a low-tier system.

The CPU’s 12 cores and 20 threads, combined with a boost clock of 4.90 GHz, make it a future-proof component. The GPU’s 4 GB VRAM and 124.0 GB/s bandwidth are entry-level specifications. The 30W TDP of the GPU and 65W TDP of the CPU mean the system is power-efficient, but the performance ceiling is set by the A310. The data suggests this is a transitional build: one where the CPU is ready for a mid-range or high-end GPU upgrade, but the current GPU limits the system to basic gaming and desktop tasks. The build class is definitively desktop, and the overall tier is "CPU-dominant" — a system that excels at processor-heavy workloads while remaining a modest performer in graphics.

Rate My PC: Intel Core i7-12700 + Intel Arc A310

Power Build

System Balance Analysis

Intel Core i7-12700

Intel Arc A310

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

Upgrade Path and Platform — socket, memory support, PCIe, PSU headroom from suggestedPsu/tdp, what a sensible next upgrade looks like

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)

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

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

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

FAQ — 5-7 Q&A pairs answerable from FACT PACK data

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

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

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