SYSTEM ANALYZER

Rate My PC: Intel Core i9-13900KF + 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)

▼

90 Score

Top 10% Ranking

90 / 100

ULTIMATE READY

Apex Performer

Top 10% 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

96%

GPU

85%

PROCESSOR

Intel Core i9-13900KF

61,841 Benchmark Score

Top 4% 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

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

This is a desktop pairing of Intel’s 24-core Core i9-13900KF with the entry-level Intel Arc A310. The data shows an extreme performance disparity: the CPU sits at the 93rd percentile among all processors, while the GPU rests at the 40th percentile. No measured FPS rows exist for this exact combination in the FACT PACK, so all gaming frame rate figures below are estimates derived from the benchmark scores, not observed results.

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)

Since no measured FPS data is available for this pairing, all gaming performance figures presented here are estimates based on the GPU’s benchmark scores and its position relative to known rivals. The Arc A310’s PassMark G3D score of 5433 places it just 1% behind the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650, which has an average score of 7472. That delta is small enough to suggest the A310 will perform in a similar tier for 1080p gaming, but the A310’s 4 GB VRAM and 64-bit memory bus will constrain texture-heavy titles.

At 1080p with ultra settings, the estimated frame rates would likely fall into the low-to-mid 30s range for modern AAA games, given the GPU’s 2.688 TFLOPS FP32 throughput. The DirectX 12 score of 29 in PassMark is notably weak, underperforming even the DirectX 11 score of 33, which suggests the A310’s driver overhead in modern APIs may hinder performance more than raw hardware limits. For esports titles, the picture improves modestly: the DirectX 9 score of 69 indicates older or lighter games will run smoother, possibly reaching 60 FPS at 1080p with reduced settings.

At 1440p, the estimates become less favorable. The 4 GB frame buffer is insufficient for many contemporary games at that resolution, and the 124.0 GB/s bandwidth will bottleneck texture streaming. Expect sub-30 FPS averages in most demanding titles. At 4K, the pairing is effectively non-viable for gaming; the GPU’s 16 ROPs and 28.00 GPixel/s pixel rate cannot sustain playable frame rates. The CPU’s extraordinary power is irrelevant here, as the GPU becomes the sole limiting factor. The data strongly indicates this configuration is not intended for high-resolution gaming, despite the CPU’s capacity to drive such workloads.

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

The CPU’s average benchmark score is 61841, placing it in the 93rd percentile of all CPUs tested. Its nearest rival, the Intel Core Ultra 7 270HX Plus, scores 61834 — a negligible 0% delta — while the Intel Core i9-13900K trails by just 0.1% at 61766. The i9-13900T is 0.2% behind at 61723, and the Intel Xeon 636 is 0.8% back at 61360. This clustering shows the 13900KF is essentially at the top of its performance class, with no meaningful separation from its closest competitors.

The GPU’s average benchmark score is 7550, placing it in the 40th percentile. Its nearest rival, the AMD Radeon R7 250, scores 7557 (-0.1%), while the AMD Radeon Pro WX 3100 scores 7580 (-0.4%). The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 is 1% ahead at 7472, and the AMD Radeon HD 8850M is 1.4% behind at 7447. This places the A310 in the lower-midrange of GPUs, roughly comparable to a decade-old discrete card.

The combined percentile for this pairing is 67th, which reflects the GPU dragging the system down from the CPU’s near-top tier. The combined score masks the massive imbalance: the CPU can handle the most demanding multi-threaded workloads, while the GPU struggles to keep pace with entry-level expectations. The data shows a system that would excel in CPU-bound tasks like compilation or rendering, but disappoint in GPU-bound scenarios like gaming or GPU-accelerated machine learning.

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

The Intel Core i9-13900KF is a 24-core, 32-thread processor based on the Raptor Lake architecture, built on Intel’s 10 nm process with a 257 mm² die size. It has a base clock of 3.00 GHz and a boost clock of 5.80 GHz, with a 125 W TDP. The cache hierarchy includes 80 KB of L1 per core, 2 MB of L2 per core, and 36 MB of shared L3 cache. It supports both DDR4 and DDR5 memory in dual-channel mode, and offers PCIe Gen 5 with 20 lanes from the CPU. The multiplier is unlocked, which allows for overclocking beyond the stock 5.80 GHz boost.

Benchmark results confirm the CPU’s dominance in multi-threaded workloads. The Cinebench R23 multicore score of 48855 is exceptional, while the single-core score of 6897 shows strong but not class-leading performance. Geekbench multicore at 22486 and single-core at 2668 reinforce this pattern. The PassMark multithread score of 57729 and integer math score of 206859 indicate heavy computational lifting is handled with ease. The 3DMark max threads score of 15405 versus the 16-thread score of 11177 shows scaling continues well beyond 16 threads, though at a diminishing rate.

For real workloads, this means the CPU is ideal for video encoding, 3D rendering, software compilation, and scientific simulations that can utilize all 32 threads. The single-thread performance is sufficient for everyday tasks and lightly-threaded games, but the real value lies in multi-threaded throughput. The PassMark data compression score of 786218 and encryption score of 46186 further demonstrate its capability in data-intensive tasks. The extended instructions score of 46084 shows AVX-512 and similar instruction sets are well-supported, which is relevant for scientific computing. The CPU’s 93rd percentile ranking confirms it is a top-tier choice for professional workloads, though the 125 W TDP means adequate cooling is necessary to sustain boost clocks under load.

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 pairing targets users who prioritize CPU performance but have minimal GPU requirements. Given the GPU’s 40th percentile and the CPU’s 93rd percentile, the system is suited for developers who compile large codebases — the 48855 Cinebench R23 multicore score and 206859 PassMark integer math score will dramatically reduce build times. Content creators working with CPU-based rendering or video encoding will benefit from the 32 threads, even if GPU-accelerated effects are limited by the A310’s 2.688 TFLOPS.

Students in computer science or engineering fields who need to run simulations or parallel computations will find the CPU capable, but the system is not for gaming at 1440p or above. Small business workstations handling spreadsheets, databases, and office applications will see no benefit from the GPU, but the CPU’s single-thread score of 6897 in Cinebench R23 ensures snappy responsiveness. The PassMark single-thread score of 4584 confirms this.

For gamers, this build is only viable at 1080p with lower settings, and even then, the 4 GB VRAM limits texture quality. The GPU’s DirectX 12 score of 29 suggests poor performance in modern titles that rely on DX12 features. The system is better suited for developers who need a powerful CPU for compilation but only require basic display output, or for researchers running CPU-bound numerical simulations. The 93rd percentile CPU ranking makes it a strong choice for any workflow that is compute-bound rather than graphics-bound, but the 40th percentile GPU means any GPU-accelerated workload will be severely constrained.

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

The bottleneck analysis is stark: the GPU limits nearly all graphics-related workloads, while the CPU has no practical ceiling in most scenarios. The GPU’s 40th percentile versus the CPU’s 93rd percentile creates a massive imbalance. In gaming, the A310’s 4 GB VRAM and 124.0 GB/s bandwidth will cause texture thrashing and frame drops even at 1080p, long before the CPU’s 5.80 GHz boost clock is stressed. The DirectX 12 score of 29 and DirectX 11 score of 33 indicate the GPU is the primary constraint in any modern game.

In CPU-bound workloads, the GPU is irrelevant. The Cinebench R23 multicore score of 48855 and PassMark multithread score of 57729 show the CPU can handle extreme parallel loads without breaking a sweat. The only scenario where the CPU might become the bottleneck is in single-threaded applications with poor optimization, but even then, the 6897 single-core Cinebench R23 score is respectable. The data shows the GPU will be the limiting factor in any workload that uses graphics acceleration, including video encoding (if using the GPU) and 3D rendering with GPU-based renderers. For pure CPU computation, the system is exceptionally balanced, but for any GPU-accelerated task, the A310 will cap performance at roughly one-third the level of the GTX 1650.

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: Not viable. The GPU’s PassMark G3D score of 5433 and 2.688 TFLOPS FP32 cannot drive high frame rates even at 1080p. The DirectX 12 score of 29 confirms that modern titles will struggle to reach 60 FPS, let alone 144 Hz. The CPU’s 93rd percentile is irrelevant when the GPU is the bottleneck.

Streaming: The CPU can handle encoding with x264, given its 48855 Cinebench R23 multicore score, but the GPU’s lack of dedicated NVENC-equivalent hardware (the A310 has no tensor cores and minimal RT cores) means software encoding will consume CPU resources. This is feasible but not optimal, as the GPU contributes little to the streaming pipeline.

Video editing: CPU-based editing in Premiere Pro or DaVinci Resolve will see smooth timeline performance, but GPU-accelerated effects and color grading will be slow due to the A310’s 2157 PassMark GPU compute score. Export times will be dominated by CPU encoding, which is excellent, but preview rendering with GPU effects will lag.

3D rendering: CPU-based renderers like Blender’s Cycles (CPU mode) will excel with the 32 threads and 48855 Cinebench R23 score. GPU-based renderers will be severely limited by the A310’s 768 shading units and 2.688 TFLOPS, making GPU rendering impractical for anything but the simplest scenes.

Software development: This is the strongest use case. The 206859 PassMark integer math score and 786218 data compression score will accelerate code compilation and package management. The 32 threads handle parallel builds efficiently, and the single-thread performance of 4584 in PassMark ensures fast IDE responsiveness. The GPU is sufficient for basic display output.

Student and office work: Overkill for the CPU, but the system runs office applications with ease. The 2668 Geekbench single-core score ensures smooth multitasking, and the 4 GB VRAM is enough for spreadsheet and document rendering. The A310’s 625 PassMark G2D score is adequate for 2D desktop workloads, though not outstanding.

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

The Intel Arc A310 is a 6 nm TSMC chip with 7,200 million transistors on a 157 mm² die. It has 4 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 64-bit bus, yielding 124.0 GB/s of bandwidth. The base and boost clocks are both 1750 MHz, with memory running at 1937 MHz (15.5 Gbps effective). The GPU has 768 shading units, 32 TMUs, 16 ROPs, and 6 RT cores. There are no tensor cores listed, which limits AI-accelerated workloads. The TDP is 30 W, and the card is single-slot with no power connectors, requiring only a 200 W suggested PSU. It uses a PCIe 4.0 x8 interface and outputs four mini-DisplayPort 2.0 connectors.

Benchmark scores reveal a GPU that is severely constrained. The PassMark G3D score of 5433 places it in the 40th percentile, just 1% behind the GTX 1650. However, the DirectX 12 score of 29 and DirectX 11 score of 33 are abysmal, indicating driver or architecture issues that cripple modern API performance. The DirectX 9 score of 69 is higher, suggesting better performance in legacy titles. The GPU compute score of 2157 is low, limiting its use for compute offload.

For rendering, the 2.688 TFLOPS FP32 throughput is insufficient for real-time 3D rendering at any modern resolution. The 6 RT cores are present but will be underpowered for hardware ray tracing; the RT performance is not benchmarked, but given the overall scores, expect minimal benefit. The 16 ROPs and 28.00 GPixel/s pixel rate cap fill-rate-heavy workloads. The 64-bit memory bus is a major bottleneck, as the 124.0 GB/s bandwidth is less than half of what a GTX 1650 offers. The GPU is end-of-life, with the successor Battlemage already announced, suggesting Intel itself has moved on from this architecture. For any serious graphics work, this GPU is a limiting factor that cannot be overcome by the CPU’s immense power.

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

Q: What is the CPU’s percentile ranking and how does it compare to its nearest rival?

A: The Intel Core i9-13900KF is in the 93rd percentile of all CPUs, with an average benchmark score of 61841. Its nearest rival, the Intel Core Ultra 7 270HX Plus, scores 61834, a 0% delta, meaning they are effectively tied.

Q: What is the GPU’s memory configuration and how does it affect gaming?

A: The Arc A310 has 4 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 64-bit bus with 124.0 GB/s bandwidth. This is a severe constraint for modern games, as the small frame buffer and low bandwidth will cause texture streaming issues at 1080p and above.

Q: Does the build support overclocking?

A: Yes, the CPU has an unlocked multiplier, allowing overclocking beyond the 5.80 GHz boost clock. The GPU’s clocks are fixed at 1750 MHz for both base and boost, with no unlocked multiplier indicated.

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

A: The combined percentile is 67th, which is significantly lower than the CPU’s 93rd percentile due to the GPU’s 40th percentile dragging the system down.

Q: What is the GPU’s DirectX 12 performance score and what does it imply?

A: The PassMark DirectX 12 score is 29, which is lower than the DirectX 11 score of 33. This suggests the A310 performs poorly in modern DX12 titles, likely due to driver overhead or architectural limitations.

Q: How much power does the GPU require and what PSU is suggested?

A: The GPU has a 30 W TDP and requires no power connectors. The suggested PSU for the system is 200 W, which is modest given the CPU’s 125 W TDP.

Q: What is the GPU’s production status and who is its successor?

A: The Arc A310 is end-of-life, with its successor being Battlemage. This indicates Intel has phased out the Alchemist architecture in favor of a newer generation.

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, which supports the Raptor Lake architecture. The CPU supports both DDR4 and DDR5 memory in dual-channel mode, giving builders flexibility in memory choice. The PCIe Gen 5 interface with 20 lanes from the CPU is forward-looking, but the GPU uses only PCIe 4.0 x8, so there is ample bandwidth headroom. The CPU’s 125 W TDP and the GPU’s 30 W TDP mean the system is power-efficient overall, but the suggested PSU of 200 W leaves little room for upgrades.

A sensible next upgrade would be to replace the GPU with a higher-performing model, as the CPU is already near the top of its class. The 200 W PSU headroom is limiting, however, as a more powerful GPU would likely require a higher wattage PSU. The PCIe Gen 5 support on the CPU is ready for next-generation GPUs, but the current PSU would need to be upgraded to support a high-end card. The motherboard socket is mature, with no indication of future CPU support beyond Raptor Lake, so a CPU upgrade would require a new motherboard. The memory support for both DDR4 and DDR5 means the existing RAM can be carried over, though DDR5 would offer better bandwidth for the CPU’s 36 MB L3 cache. The GPU’s PCIe 4.0 x8 interface is compatible with the CPU’s PCIe Gen 5 lanes, but the bandwidth difference is not a bottleneck for the A310. For a balanced system, the GPU should be upgraded first, followed by the PSU to accommodate the new card’s power draw.

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

This is a desktop build, as indicated by the buildClass field. The pairing combines the 93rd percentile CPU with the 40th percentile GPU, resulting in a combined percentile of 67. This places the system in the upper-midrange tier overall, but the distribution is highly uneven. The CPU is a flagship-class processor that competes at the top of the desktop market, while the GPU is an entry-level component that barely reaches the lower-midrange. The system is best described as a CPU-centric workstation with a token GPU for basic display output. The 125 W CPU TDP and 30 W GPU TDP make it power-efficient, but the performance is heavily skewed toward compute workloads. The Arc A310’s end-of-life status suggests this is not a forward-looking GPU choice, while the CPU’s active production status indicates it remains a current product. For a user who needs extreme CPU processing power but only minimal graphics capability, this pairing makes sense. For anyone expecting balanced gaming or GPU-accelerated performance, the data clearly shows the GPU will be the limiting factor in every scenario.

Rate My PC: Intel Core i9-13900KF + Intel Arc A310

Apex Performer

System Balance Analysis

Intel Core i9-13900KF

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

Optimal Performance

4K Gaming Ready

Performance Tiers Explained

Ultimate

High-End

Mid-Range

Entry Level

Legacy

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)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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