SYSTEM ANALYZER

Rate My PC: Intel Core i7-14700T + 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)

▼

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

93%

GPU

85%

PROCESSOR

Intel Core i7-14700T

41,914 Benchmark Score

Top 7% 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 i7-14700T and Intel Arc A310 pairing represents a desktop configuration built around a highly efficient, high-core-count processor and a modest, entry-level discrete graphics solution. The data indicates a significant imbalance in capability between the two components, with the CPU operating in the 88th percentile of all CPUs while the GPU sits in the 40th percentile of all GPUs. Benchmark results show a processor capable of substantial multi-threaded throughput and a graphics card designed for basic rendering tasks, making this a system where the workload determines the overall experience.

CPU Analysis

The Intel Core i7-14700T is a 20-core, 28-thread processor based on the Raptor Lake architecture, manufactured on Intel's 10 nm process node. It features a base clock of 1.30 GHz and a boost clock of 5.20 GHz, a combination that allows for significant performance scaling under load while maintaining a 35 W TDP. The processor supports DDR4 and DDR5 memory in a dual-channel configuration, with ECC memory support included. Its cache hierarchy consists of 80 KB of L1 cache per core, 2 MB of L2 cache per core, and 33 MB of shared L3 cache.

The CPU's benchmark scores illustrate its strengths. In Cinebench R23, the processor scores 25,980 in multi-core and 3,667 in single-core tests. The multi-core score is particularly strong, placing the chip in the 88th percentile of all CPUs, with an average benchmark score of 41,914. This places it in close competition with the AMD Ryzen 9 PRO 8945HS, which scores 41,963 (a delta of -0.1%), and the AMD Ryzen 5 7400, which scores 42,055 (a delta of -0.3%). It also slightly edges out the Intel Core i7-12850HX, which scores 41,779 (a delta of 0.3%). The PassMark multithread score of 30,571 reinforces this multi-core capability, while the single-thread score of 3,905 indicates strong per-core performance for everyday tasks.

The 5.20 GHz boost clock is critical for the single-core performance, which is reflected in the Cinebench R20 single-core score of 1,540. This suggests responsiveness in lightly-threaded applications such as web browsing, office suites, and general system navigation. The PassMark integer math score of 113,854 and floating-point math score of 79,042 further indicate robust computational abilities for a wide range of tasks. The processor’s 35 W TDP is a defining characteristic, suggesting that sustained performance may be limited by thermal and power constraints, but also that it is an extremely power-efficient part suitable for compact or thermally constrained builds.

Benchmark Performance

The combined system percentile is 64, reflecting the substantial gap between the CPU and GPU performance tiers. The CPU’s average benchmark score of 41,914 is a clear indicator of its high-end status, while the GPU’s average benchmark score of 7,550 is characteristic of entry-level hardware. In the PassMark G3D test, the Arc A310 scores 5,433, placing it in the 40th percentile of all GPUs. Its nearest rivals include the AMD Radeon R7 250 (score 7,557, delta -0.1%) and the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 (score 7,472, delta 1%), which shows the A310 is in a similar performance class to these older or lower-tier cards.

The GPU’s compute performance is less impressive, with a PassMark GPU compute score of 2,157. In Geekbench, it scores 30,607 in OpenCL and 28,964 in Vulkan, which are moderate scores for entry-level hardware. The CPU, by contrast, shows dominance in its own benchmarks. The PassMark data compression score of 354,216 and data encryption score of 21,277 suggest the CPU can handle data-intensive tasks efficiently. The combined picture is one of a system where the CPU can feed the GPU with data far faster than the GPU can process it for rendering tasks, leading to a CPU-bottleneck in reverse: the GPU will be the limiting factor in any graphics-intensive workload. For non-graphics workloads, the system performs at a high level, with the CPU’s performance being the primary driver.

Usage Scenarios

High-Refresh Gaming: This scenario is not viable. The Arc A310’s 40th percentile performance and low PassMark G3D score of 5,433 indicate it cannot produce the frame rates required for high-refresh monitors (e.g., 144Hz or higher). The GPU will be the limiting factor, and expectations for high-refresh gaming should be set to low resolutions and low graphical settings.

Streaming: The CPU’s 20 cores and strong multi-threaded score of 25,980 in Cinebench R23 make it well-suited for software encoding. The 28 threads can handle game capture and encoding overhead simultaneously, though the GPU’s gaming limitations will cap the quality and resolution of the gameplay itself.

Video Editing: The CPU excels in this workload. The multi-core performance will accelerate timeline rendering and video exports, with the PassMark multithread score of 30,571 indicating strong parallel processing. The GPU can assist with effects and transitions, but its 4 GB VRAM and 40th percentile score will limit its contribution to complex GPU-accelerated effects.

3D Rendering: This is a CPU-dominated task. The Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 25,980 is a strong indicator of performance in CPU-based renderers. The GPU’s 2.688 TFLOPS FP32 performance is too low to make a significant impact on GPU-accelerated rendering, so expect CPU-only rendering to be the primary pathway.

Software Development: The CPU’s high single-thread score of 3,905 in PassMark provides snappy compilation for smaller projects, while the multi-thread score accelerates build times for larger codebases. The system’s overall balance is less relevant here; this is a strong development machine.

Student and Office Work: The system is overqualified for these tasks. The CPU’s single-core performance ensures smooth operation of office suites and web applications, while the power-efficient 35 W TDP means the system will run cool and quiet. The GPU is more than sufficient for standard 2D desktop rendering and video playback.

Balance and Bottleneck

Benchmark results indicate a stark imbalance. The CPU’s 88th percentile ranking versus the GPU’s 40th percentile ranking creates a scenario where the GPU is the definitive bottleneck in any graphics-related task. The CPU’s high scores in data compression (354,216) and encryption (21,277) mean it can process and prepare data much faster than the GPU can render it, leading to a situation where the GPU is constantly saturated and the CPU is waiting. In gaming, the FPS will be entirely limited by the GPU’s rendering capability.

Conversely, in CPU-intensive workloads like video encoding, 3D rendering, or software compilation, the GPU is largely irrelevant, and the CPU’s high multi-core scores will be fully utilized. The system can be considered balanced only in that both components are low-power; the actual performance balance is heavily skewed. The GPU’s low PassMark DirectX 12 score of 29 and DirectX 11 score of 33 further confirm that its 3D rendering capabilities are minimal, ensuring that it will be the limiting factor in any modern 3D application.

Gaming Performance

No measured FPS data exists for this specific CPU and GPU combination. The FACT PACK contains no measuredFps records, so all frame rate figures here are estimates based solely on the benchmark scores. The Arc A310’s 40th percentile ranking and its PassMark G3D score of 5,433, which is comparable to the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650, suggest that gaming performance will be modest. The GPU has 4 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 64-bit bus, yielding 124.0 GB/s of bandwidth, which is restrictive for modern game textures.

For 1080p gaming, the GPU could manage 30-60 FPS in less demanding esports titles at low or medium settings. For AAA titles, the expectation should be lower, with 30 FPS or less at low settings. At 1440p or higher resolutions, the GPU will struggle significantly, and the 4 GB VRAM will likely be exceeded, causing stuttering or texture pop-in. The CPU’s high single-core performance ensures it will not be a limiting factor in gaming, but the GPU’s low compute throughput (2.688 TFLOPS) and limited memory bandwidth will cap the experience at entry-level. These figures are estimates and should not be taken as measured results.

Who Should Build It

This build targets users who prioritize CPU performance and power efficiency above all else, and who have minimal to no 3D graphics requirements. It is well-suited for software developers who need fast compile times (multi-core) and responsive code editing (single-core). Students and office workers will find the system more than capable for all productivity tasks, with the low 35 W TDP of the CPU and 30 W TDP of the GPU ensuring low operating costs.

Content creators focusing on CPU-based video editing or 3D rendering will benefit from the high multi-core score, but they must be aware that the GPU will not accelerate these workloads effectively. It is not a system for gamers, as the GPU’s 40th percentile performance is inadequate for modern gaming at playable settings. Small business workstations that run database, virtualization, or data processing software will perform well, as these are CPU-bound tasks. The system’s strength lies in its CPU throughput, making it a logical choice for users who run heavy CPU calculations and only need basic display output.

FAQ

Q: What is the CPU's performance percentile compared to all other CPUs?

A: The Intel Core i7-14700T is in the 88th percentile of all CPUs, with an average benchmark score of 41,914.

Q: How does the GPU compare to the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650?

A: The Intel Arc A310 has an average benchmark score of 7,550, which is 1% higher than the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650's score of 7,472.

Q: What is the CPU's boost clock speed?

A: The CPU has a boost clock of 5.20 GHz and a base clock of 1.30 GHz.

Q: Is the GPU's performance sufficient for modern 3D gaming?

A: The GPU is in the 40th percentile of all GPUs with a PassMark G3D score of 5,433, indicating it is entry-level and not suited for demanding 3D gaming.

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

A: The combined system percentile is 64, reflecting the high CPU performance and low GPU performance.

Q: Does the CPU support ECC memory?

A: Yes, the Intel Core i7-14700T supports ECC memory.

Q: What is the memory bandwidth of the GPU?

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

Upgrade Path and Platform

The build is based on the Intel Socket 1700 platform, which supports DDR4 and DDR5 memory. The CPU provides PCIe Gen 5 with 16 lanes, while the GPU uses a PCIe 4.0 x8 interface. The first logical upgrade for this system would be the graphics card, as the CPU has significant headroom. The CPU’s high multi-core scores suggest it can support a much more powerful GPU without becoming a bottleneck. A user could move to a GPU in a higher performance percentile to enable gaming or GPU-accelerated workloads.

The system’s power requirements are very low. The CPU has a 35 W TDP, and the GPU has a 30 W TDP, with a suggested PSU of 200 W. This means the existing power supply is unlikely to need an upgrade for a more powerful GPU, provided the new GPU’s power requirements are within the PSU’s capacity. The platform supports up to 33 MB of L3 cache and dual-channel memory, so a memory upgrade to faster DDR5 modules could improve system responsiveness. Given the CPU's performance, the most sensible next upgrade is to replace the Arc A310 with a more capable GPU to balance the system and unlock its full potential for graphics-intensive tasks.

Build Overview

This is a desktop build featuring the Intel Core i7-14700T processor and the Intel Arc A310 graphics card. The CPU is a high-performance part, ranking in the 88th percentile of all CPUs, while the GPU is an entry-level part in the 40th percentile. The combined system percentile is 64, which places the overall system in the mid-range tier of performance. This pairing is notable for its power efficiency, with the CPU's 35 W TDP and GPU's 30 W TDP allowing for a compact and quiet system. It is a configuration that prioritizes CPU compute power over graphics capability, making it a specialized tool for CPU-intensive workloads rather than a general-purpose gaming or high-end graphics machine.

GPU Analysis

The Intel Arc A310 is based on the Xe-HPG architecture and the DG2-128 chip, manufactured on a 6 nm process by TSMC. It has 768 shading units, 32 TMUs, and 16 ROPs, along with 6 ray tracing cores. The GPU has a base and boost clock of 1750 MHz, with memory running at 1937 MHz (15.5 Gbps effective). It has 4 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 64-bit bus, providing 124.0 GB/s of bandwidth. The card supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4, and has a TDP of 30 W.

Benchmark results show the GPU’s performance is limited. Its PassMark G3D score of 5,433 places it in the 40th percentile, near the AMD Radeon R7 250 and NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650. The pixel rate is 28.00 GPixel/s and the texture rate is 56.00 GTexel/s, indicating modest fill rates. The FP32 performance is 2.688 TFLOPS, which is low for modern rendering. The PassMark DirectX 9 score of 69 is the highest among its DirectX tests, while DirectX 10, 11, and 12 scores are all in the low 30s, suggesting weaker performance in newer APIs. The 6 ray tracing cores are present, but the overall compute power is insufficient for meaningful ray tracing workloads. For rendering tasks, the GPU’s 4 GB VRAM and 124.0 GB/s bandwidth will limit texture sizes and complex scene loading. It is a capable card for basic 2D acceleration, video decode, and light 3D tasks, but its benchmark scores indicate it is not suited for high-end rendering or modern gaming.

Rate My PC: Intel Core i7-14700T + Intel Arc A310

Power Build

System Balance Analysis

Intel Core i7-14700T

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

CPU Analysis

Benchmark Performance

Usage Scenarios

Balance and Bottleneck

Gaming Performance

Who Should Build It

FAQ

Upgrade Path and Platform

Build Overview

GPU Analysis

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