SYSTEM ANALYZER

Rate My PC: Intel Core i7-13700F + Intel Arc A380

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

92%

GPU

86%

PROCESSOR

Intel Core i7-13700F

39,009 Benchmark Score

Top 8% Market Ranking

View Full Specs →

GRAPHICS CARD

Intel Arc A380

8,558 Benchmark Score

Top 14% 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 i7-13700F paired with the Intel Arc A380 represents a stark dichotomy in desktop computing: a high-end, 16-core processor designed for demanding productivity workloads, paired with an entry-level discrete graphics card aimed at basic rendering and lightweight gaming. The benchmark data confirms this split, with the CPU ranking in the 86th percentile among all processors and the GPU sitting in the 44th percentile. This is a pairing defined by its imbalance, where the processor vastly outperforms the graphics subsystem in raw computational power, making the system’s capabilities heavily dependent on the specific task at hand. The combined percentile of 65 reflects this compromise, positioning the overall build as a mid-tier desktop solution rather than a high-performance gaming or rendering workstation.

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

The Intel Arc A380 is a modest entry-point into Intel’s discrete GPU lineup, built on the Xe-HPG architecture and the DG2-128 chip. Fabricated on a 6 nm process at TSMC, the GPU contains 7,200 million transistors on a 157 mm² die. Its memory subsystem consists of 6 GB of GDDR6 on a 96-bit bus, delivering a bandwidth of 186.0 GB/s. The memory clock is listed at 1937 MHz, with an effective data rate of 15.5 Gbps. This configuration is sufficient for 1080p textures and light 3D workloads, but the narrow bus width will limit performance in memory-intensive scenarios. The GPU operates at a base clock of 2000 MHz and a boost clock of 2050 MHz, which is a relatively narrow frequency range, indicating limited thermal headroom and a fixed power envelope.

In terms of compute resources, the Arc A380 packs 1024 shading units, 64 texture mapping units, and 32 render output units. It also includes 8 dedicated ray tracing cores. The pixel rate is 65.60 GPixel/s, and the texture rate is 131.2 GTexel/s. Floating-point performance is rated at 4.198 TFLOPS for FP32 and 8.397 TFLOPS for FP16, with the FP16 figure achieved via a 2:1 ratio. These specifications place it in the entry-level segment, suitable for casual gaming and basic GPU-accelerated tasks. The GPU supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4, ensuring compatibility with modern graphics APIs, though its raw throughput limits the practical benefits of these features.

Benchmark scores for the GPU illustrate its mid-low standing. In 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12, the GPU scores 808 points. Geekbench OpenCL and Vulkan scores are 38224 and 36736, respectively. PassMark results show a G3D score of 6252, with DirectX 11 and DirectX 12 scores of 38 and 35, respectively. The GPU’s average benchmark score is 8558, placing it in the 44th percentile of all GPUs. Its nearest rivals, based on average score, include the AMD FirePro W5170M (8595, -0.4% delta), the AMD Radeon HD 8870M (8462, +1.1% delta), the NVIDIA GeForce MX330 (8458, +1.2% delta), and the AMD Radeon 880M (8436, +1.4% delta). The data shows the Arc A380 is essentially on par with these older or integrated-class solutions, meaning it is not a meaningful step up from a modern iGPU in many scenarios. For rendering, the ray tracing cores are present but limited in number, and the low FP32 throughput suggests that complex 3D rendering or heavy compute workloads will be slow. The GPU is better suited for light video encoding, basic image editing, and older game titles rather than professional-grade rendering tasks.

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

The balance between the Intel Core i7-13700F and the Intel Arc A380 is heavily skewed toward the CPU. The processor’s average benchmark score is 39009, while the GPU’s is 8558, a difference of over 4.5x. In CPU-bound workloads such as physics calculations, data compression, and multi-threaded productivity, the i7-13700F will operate at its full potential, with the GPU playing a minimal role. Conversely, in graphics-bound workloads such as gaming at high resolutions or 3D rendering, the Arc A380 becomes the limiting factor, preventing the system from utilizing the CPU’s full capabilities. The CPU’s percentile of 86 versus the GPU’s 44 demonstrates that the GPU is the clear bottleneck in any scenario where graphics processing is required.

FPS scaling, though no measured data exists for this exact combination, can be inferred from the benchmark scores. The GPU’s PassMark G3D score of 6252 and 3DMark Steel Nomad score of 808 indicate low graphical throughput. When paired with a CPU that can produce high frame rates in CPU-bound scenarios, the GPU will cap the output. For example, at 1080p with low graphical settings, the CPU might be able to generate high FPS, but the GPU’s rendering limits will reduce the final output to whatever the Arc A380 can physically produce. The data suggests that in games, the performance will be similar to that of an NVIDIA GeForce MX330, meaning it is suitable for e-sports titles at 1080p but not for modern AAA games at high settings. The CPU’s multi-threaded scores, such as a Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 32101, will never be fully exercised in gaming because the GPU cannot keep up with the frame production. This creates a scenario where the CPU sits idle waiting for the GPU to finish rendering, wasting most of its potential in gaming workloads.

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

The Intel Core i7-13700F is a 16-core, 24-thread processor based on the Raptor Lake architecture, specifically the Raptor Lake-S die. It operates with a base clock of 2.10 GHz and a boost clock of 5.20 GHz, allowing for significant single-thread performance when needed. The processor is manufactured on Intel’s 10 nm process node, with a die size of 257 mm². The cache hierarchy includes 80 KB of L1 per core, 2 MB of L2 per core, and a shared 30 MB of L3 cache. This configuration provides substantial on-die storage for frequently accessed data, benefiting workloads with large working sets.

Benchmark results confirm the CPU’s high performance across various tests. In Cinebench R23, the multi-core score is 32101, while the single-core score is 4532. Geekbench scores are 15058 for multi-core and 2225 for single-core. PassMark multi-thread score is 38369, with a single-thread score of 4121. The 3DMark tests show a max-thread score of 10716, an 8-thread score of 7136, a 4-thread score of 4258, a 2-thread score of 2178, and a single-thread score of 1092. These numbers indicate a processor that excels in both multi-threaded and single-threaded tasks, making it suitable for software compilation, video editing, 3D modeling, and scientific computations. The PassMark data shows strong performance in integer math (141370) and floating-point math (100422), as well as data compression (471838) and encryption (26956). The processor’s average benchmark score is 39009, placing it in the 86th percentile of all CPUs. Its nearest rivals, with deltas under 1.5%, include the AMD EPYC 4245P (39215, -0.5%), the AMD Ryzen 7 PRO 8845HS (39325, -0.8%), the Intel Core Ultra 5 235T (38561, +1.2%), and the AMD Ryzen AI 7 450 (39485, -1.2%). This places the i7-13700F in the upper mid-range of desktop processors, ahead of many mobile parts and older server chips, but slightly behind the latest mainstream offerings. The launch MSRP is $359.

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 is a mismatch for most users, but it can serve specific niches where the CPU is the primary requirement and the GPU is merely a display adapter. For software developers, the i7-13700F’s multi-threaded performance is a strong asset. A Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 32101 and a Geekbench multi-core score of 15058 indicate rapid code compilation and test execution. The GPU becomes irrelevant for command-line tools, version control, and text editors, making this pairing viable for developers who do not game or render 3D graphics. Similarly, students in computer science or engineering fields who run virtual machines, simulations, or data analysis scripts will benefit from the CPU’s 16 cores and 24 threads, while the Arc A380 handles basic desktop compositing without issue.

For small business workstations handling spreadsheets, databases, and office documents, the CPU’s PassMark data compression score of 471838 and integer math score of 141370 show strong performance in data manipulation tasks. The GPU’s low scores, such as a PassMark G2D score of 610, are still sufficient for 2D desktop work and video playback. Content creators, however, should avoid this pairing. Video editing software like Premiere Pro or DaVinci Resolve relies heavily on GPU acceleration, and the Arc A380’s 4.198 TFLOPS FP32 performance and 186.0 GB/s memory bandwidth are too low for smooth 4K timeline scrubbing or effects rendering. 3D artists using Blender or Maya will find the GPU’s 8 ray tracing cores insufficient for viewport rendering. Gamers are the least suited audience. At 1080p with low settings, the GPU can handle older or less demanding titles, but the CPU’s potential is wasted. The data shows the GPU is on par with the NVIDIA GeForce MX330, which is not a gaming chip. This build is only recommended for users who prioritize CPU compute over all forms of GPU-accelerated work.

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

The combined picture of this system is one of extreme imbalance, with the CPU performing at a high level and the GPU performing at a low level. The CPU’s average benchmark score is 39009, placing it in the 86th percentile of all CPUs. The GPU’s average benchmark score is 8558, placing it in the 44th percentile of all GPUs. The combined percentile for the build is 65, which reflects the average standing of the two components when considered together. In 3DMark tests, the CPU scores 10716 in max threads and 8994 in 16 threads, while the GPU scores 808 in 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12. This disparity is stark: the CPU’s 16-thread score is over 11 times higher than the GPU’s primary 3D benchmark result.

In Cinebench, the CPU’s R23 multi-core score of 32101 is a strong indicator of professional rendering performance, but the GPU’s PassMark G3D score of 6252 does not complement this. For a balanced system, one would expect the GPU to contribute a significant portion of the total benchmark output, but here the GPU contributes less than 20% of the CPU’s average score. The Geekbench results show the CPU at 15058 multi-core and 2225 single-core, while the GPU achieves 38224 in OpenCL and 36736 in Vulkan. While the OpenCL score is higher than the CPU’s multi-core score, it is still low in absolute terms for GPU compute. The nearest rivals to the GPU, such as the AMD Radeon 880M with a delta of 1.4%, indicate that the Arc A380 is comparable to a high-end integrated GPU. This means the system’s overall performance is effectively that of a powerful CPU with a weak integrated graphics solution, despite having a discrete GPU. The data suggests that the i7-13700F is the sole driver of the system’s high combined percentile, and any workload that relies on the GPU will drag the system down to the 44th percentile level.

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 data exists for this exact CPU and GPU combination, as the data set contains no entries for measured frames per second. All gaming performance figures discussed here are estimates derived from the benchmark scores and should be treated as approximations. The Intel Arc A380’s benchmark scores, including a PassMark G3D score of 6252 and a 3DMark Steel Nomad score of 808, suggest that it can handle light gaming loads. For popular e-sports titles like Counter-Strike 2 or League of Legends at 1080p with low or medium settings, the GPU’s texture rate of 131.2 GTexel/s and pixel rate of 65.60 GPixel/s are adequate to produce smooth frame rates, likely above 60 FPS. The 6 GB of VRAM is sufficient for these titles, and the 186.0 GB/s bandwidth prevents major bottlenecking.

For more demanding AAA games at 1080p, the estimate worsens. Titles like Cyberpunk 2077 or Starfield require higher memory bandwidth and more shading units. The Arc A380’s 1024 shading units and 32 ROPs are too few to maintain high frame rates at ultra settings. The benchmark scores indicate that the GPU would struggle to maintain 30 FPS at 1080p with high settings, and would drop below that at 1440p. The ray tracing cores, while present, are too few to enable playable ray-traced frame rates; a 3DMark Steel Nomad score of 808 is far below what is needed for such effects. The CPU, with a boost clock of 5.20 GHz, will not be the limiting factor in these games; the GPU will cap performance. Therefore, the estimated gaming experience is limited to 1080p low-to-medium settings for older or less demanding games, and the system is not recommended for modern competitive gaming at high refresh rates or for AAA titles at high detail.

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

High-refresh gaming: This scenario is not viable with the Arc A380. The GPU’s PassMark DirectX 11 score of 38 and DirectX 12 score of 35 indicate extremely low rendering throughput. Even with the CPU’s single-thread score of 4532 in Cinebench R23, the GPU cannot produce the frames needed for a 144Hz or 240Hz monitor. Estimated FPS in modern titles at 1080p will be below 60, making this a poor choice for competitive esports players seeking high refresh rates.

Streaming: The CPU can handle software encoding without issue. A PassMark multi-thread score of 38369 and Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 32101 provide ample headroom for encoding video at high bitrates using x264 or x265 while simultaneously playing a game. However, the GPU’s low performance means the game itself will run poorly, making the stream content suffer. The GPU’s 4.198 TFLOPS FP32 performance is too low to offload encoding to the GPU effectively, so the CPU would be the primary encoder.

Video editing: The CPU is strong, but the GPU is a bottleneck. In Premiere Pro, the Mercury Playback Engine uses the GPU for effects and rendering. The Arc A380’s 186.0 GB/s bandwidth and 1024 shading units are insufficient for 4K timeline playback or heavy color grading. The CPU’s Geekbench multi-core score of 15058 helps with decoding and export, but the overall editing experience will be sluggish during previews of complex sequences.

3D rendering: CPU-based rendering will be fast, but GPU-based rendering will be slow. In Blender Cycles, the CPU’s Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 32101 will produce good render times for final frames. However, viewport interaction and interactive rendering using the GPU will be poor, as the Arc A380’s 8 ray tracing cores and 4.198 TFLOPS FP32 performance are too low for real-time feedback. This scenario is better suited to a system with a stronger GPU.

Software development: This is the strongest scenario. The CPU’s PassMark integer math score of 141370 and data compression score of 471838 indicate rapid code compilation and data processing. The GPU is irrelevant for writing code, running tests, or using IDEs. The 16 cores and 24 threads allow for parallel builds, and the 5.20 GHz boost clock ensures responsive UI interactions.

Student and office work: The CPU is overkill, but the system is functional. For word processing, spreadsheets, and web browsing, the GPU’s PassMark G2D score of 610 is sufficient for 2D desktop rendering. The CPU’s single-thread score of 4121 in PassMark ensures snappy application launches. The 65W TDP keeps power consumption low, making it an efficient, if unbalanced, office machine.

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

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

A: The combined percentile for the build is 65, based on the CPU’s 86th percentile and the GPU’s 44th percentile.

Q: How does the Intel Arc A380 compare to the NVIDIA GeForce MX330 in benchmark scores?

A: The Arc A380 has an average benchmark score of 8558, while the GeForce MX330 has an average score of 8458. The delta percentage is 1.2%, indicating the Arc A380 is slightly faster.

Q: What is the boost clock of the Intel Core i7-13700F?

A: The boost clock is 5.20 GHz, with a base clock of 2.10 GHz.

Q: Does the Intel Arc A380 support hardware ray tracing?

A: Yes, it includes 8 dedicated ray tracing cores, but its overall performance is low, as indicated by a 3DMark Steel Nomad score of 808.

Q: What is the memory bandwidth of the Arc A380?

A: The GPU has 6 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 96-bit bus, providing a bandwidth of 186.0 GB/s.

Q: What is the TDP of the Intel Core i7-13700F?

A: The TDP is 65 watts, and the suggested power supply for the GPU is 250 W.

Q: What is the launch MSRP of the Intel Core i7-13700F?

A: The launch MSRP is $359.

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. The pairing consists of an Intel Core i7-13700F processor and an Intel Arc A380 graphics card. The overall tier of the system, based on the combined percentile of 65, is mid-range. The CPU is a high-tier component, ranking in the 86th percentile of all CPUs, which places it in the upper echelon of desktop processors. The GPU is a low-tier component, ranking in the 44th percentile of all GPUs, which puts it in the bottom half of discrete graphics cards. The combination results in a system that is neither a high-end gaming rig nor a professional workstation. Instead, it is a productivity-focused machine with the CPU doing the heavy lifting. The Arc A380 is an end-of-life product, with its successor being Battlemage, and its predecessor being Xe Graphics. The i7-13700F is an active production part, with a production status of Active. This pairing is best described as a CPU-centric desktop for users who need processing power but have minimal graphics requirements.

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

The Intel Core i7-13700F uses the Intel Socket 1700 and is based on the Raptor Lake architecture. The platform supports both DDR4 and DDR5 memory, with a dual-channel memory bus. The CPU provides PCIe Gen 5 with 16 lanes from the CPU. This socket is shared with other 12th, 13th, and 14th generation Intel processors, offering a clear upgrade path within the same platform. For instance, a user could upgrade to a higher-core-count Raptor Lake or Raptor Lake Refresh processor without changing the motherboard. The Arc A380 uses a PCIe 4.0 x8 interface, which is compatible with the CPU’s PCIe Gen 5 lanes, though it will run at Gen 4 speeds.

The TDP of the CPU is 65 watts, and the GPU’s TDP is 75 watts. The suggested PSU for the GPU is 250 W, which is a very low requirement. This leaves significant headroom for a more powerful graphics card upgrade. A sensible next upgrade would be to replace the Arc A380 with a higher-tier GPU, such as an Intel Arc A770 or a comparable NVIDIA or AMD offering, to balance the system. The CPU’s high multi-threaded scores, such as a Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 32101, would then be complemented by a GPU that can handle modern games and rendering workloads. The motherboard must support PCIe Gen 4 or Gen 5 to take full advantage of a new GPU. The power supply would need to be upgraded from the 250 W suggestion if a more power-hungry GPU is installed. The memory support for both DDR4 and DDR5 means the user can choose a platform based on existing memory or performance needs. The CPU’s 16 cores and 24 threads are sufficient for most tasks, so the upgrade path focuses on the GPU. The data suggests that the current GPU is the primary bottleneck, and addressing that would transform the system from a CPU-heavy workstation into a balanced desktop capable of gaming and GPU-accelerated work.

Rate My PC: Intel Core i7-13700F + Intel Arc A380

Power Build

System Balance Analysis

Intel Core i7-13700F

Intel Arc A380

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

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

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

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

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)

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

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

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

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

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