SYSTEM ANALYZER

Rate My PC: Intel Core i9-13900KF + Intel Arc A310E

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)

▼

85 Score

Top 15% Ranking

85 / 100

HIGH-END

Power Build

Top 15% of systems. Excellent for 1440p Ultra or 4K High gaming.

1440p Ultra4K High

System Balance Analysis

CPU vs GPU performance ratio

GPU Bottleneck

CPU

96%

GPU

74%

Your GPU is limiting system performance. Consider upgrading to a more powerful graphics card to better utilize your CPU.

PROCESSOR

Intel Core i9-13900KF

61,841 Benchmark Score

Top 4% Market Ranking

View Full Specs →

GRAPHICS CARD

Intel Arc A310E

0 Benchmark Score

Top 26% 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.

Bottleneck Detected

GPU Bottleneck - Upgrading the weaker component will improve overall performance.

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

Intel Core i9-13900KF pairs with the Intel Arc A310E in a desktop build that ranks at the 72nd percentile overall, but this is a profoundly unbalanced pairing where the CPU’s 93rd-percentile standing is dragged down by a GPU sitting at the 50th percentile. The data shows a processor capable of top-tier multi-threaded productivity bolted to an entry-level graphics card that will limit every visual workload. There are no measured FPS rows for this exact combination in the FACT PACK, so all gaming discussion below is estimated from the benchmark scores and should be treated as projections rather than lab results.

CPU Analysis

The Intel Core i9-13900KF is a 24-core, 32-thread Raptor Lake-S part built on Intel’s 10 nm process node, with a 125 W TDP and a die size of 257 mm². It runs at a 3.00 GHz base clock and boosts to 5.80 GHz, and the multiplier is unlocked, which means the chip can be overclocked by the owner without artificial restrictions. The cache hierarchy is substantial: 80 KB of L1 per core, 2 MB of L2 per core, and 36 MB of shared L3 cache. Memory support covers both DDR4 and DDR5 in a dual-channel configuration, and ECC memory is supported, making the platform relevant for workstation tasks that demand error-checked data integrity.

Benchmark results place this CPU in the 93rd percentile of all processors tracked, with an average benchmark score of 61841. The nearest rivals are separated by fractions of a percent: the Intel Core Ultra 7 270HX Plus scores 61834 (0% delta), the Intel Core i9-13900K scores 61766 (0.1% ahead of that rival), and the Intel Core i9-13900T scores 61723 (0.2% behind the 13900KF’s position). The Intel Xeon 636 trails by 0.8% with a score of 61360. This means the 13900KF is effectively tied with the best competing parts in its class, and the small deltas are within noise for most real-world workloads.

Single-thread performance is strong but not dominant. The 3dmark_single_thread score is 1188, and the 3dmark_2_threads score is 2353, which roughly doubles the single-thread result. The 3dmark_4_threads score of 4643 and 3dmark_8_threads score of 8510 show healthy scaling as more cores are engaged. The 3dmark_16_threads score jumps to 11177, and the max_threads score reaches 15405. In Cinebench, the R15 single-core score is 695 and multicore is 4924; R20 single-core is 2896 and multicore is 20519; R23 single-core is 6897 and multicore is 48855. Geekbench reports 2668 single-core and 22486 multicore. PassMark single-thread is 4584, while multithread is 57729.

For real workloads, the picture is clear. The R23 multicore score of 48855 indicates that video rendering, 3D scene compilation, and software builds will fly on this CPU. The PassMark integer math score of 206859 and floating-point math score of 150869 suggest heavy scientific computing and engineering simulation tasks are well served. Data compression scores 786218 in PassMark, which is an outlier-level result for archival and database work. Data encryption hits 46186, and extended instructions score 46084, meaning cryptography and AVX-heavy code paths are fast. The find prime numbers score of 225 is comparatively low, but that is a niche test. Random string sorting scores 86510, indicating strong sorting and text-processing capability. Physics simulation scores 2956 in PassMark, which is respectable for a desktop part. The single-thread scores, while not class-leading, are more than sufficient for everyday responsiveness and lightly threaded applications.

GPU Analysis

The Intel Arc A310E is a Xe-HPG architecture part built on TSMC’s 6 nm process, with 7,200 million transistors on a 157 mm² die. It is an Alchemist-generation GPU from the Arc 3 family. The chip runs at a fixed 2000 MHz base and boost clock, with memory clocked at 1937 MHz (15.5 Gbps effective). Memory is 4 GB of GDDR6 on a 64-bit bus, yielding 124.0 GB/s of bandwidth. The GPU has 768 shading units, 32 texture mapping units, and 16 raster output units, plus 6 RT cores dedicated to ray tracing. It has no tensor cores listed. Pixel rate is 32.00 GPixel/s and texture rate is 64.00 GTexel/s. FP32 performance is 3.072 TFLOPS, and FP16 is 6.144 TFLOPS at a 2:1 ratio. The TDP is 75 W with no power connectors required, and the suggested PSU is 250 W. It is a single-slot card measuring 168 mm in length, 69 mm in height, and 20 mm in width, with four mini-DisplayPort 2.0 outputs. The bus interface is PCIe 4.0 x8. It supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4.

The GPU’s percentile ranking is 50, meaning it sits exactly at the median of all GPUs tracked. There are no benchmark scores for the Arc A310E in the FACT PACK and no nearest rivals listed, so its performance must be inferred from its specifications rather than direct comparison data. The 124.0 GB/s bandwidth and 3.072 TFLOPS FP32 output place it in entry-level territory. The 4 GB VRAM is a hard constraint for modern games and rendering workloads, as many current titles exceed that capacity even at 1080p with high textures. The 6 RT cores suggest ray tracing is technically supported, but the raw compute power is limited, so ray-traced scenes will likely run with significant performance penalties. The 64-bit memory bus is narrow, which will hurt in bandwidth-hungry scenarios like high-resolution textures or compute workloads that stream data heavily. The lack of tensor cores means AI-accelerated features like DLSS-style upscaling are not available; the card relies on its own architecture for any such tasks.

For rendering, the FP32 throughput of 3.072 TFLOPS is adequate for light 1080p work or as a display adapter, but it is not a GPU meant for heavy 3D rendering or video editing timelines. The 16 ROPs and 32 TMUs are minimal for a modern discrete GPU, which will cap fill-rate-bound operations. The 4x mini-DisplayPort 2.0 outputs are unusual and suggest the card is aimed at multi-monitor professional setups rather than gaming, given the lack of HDMI. The 75 W TDP and 250 W recommended PSU make this an extremely low-power addition to a system, which is beneficial for small form factor or low-noise builds but does not compensate for the modest compute resources.

FAQ

Q: How fast is the Intel Core i9-13900KF in multi-threaded workloads?

A: The CPU scores 48855 in Cinebench R23 multicore, 20519 in R20 multicore, and 4924 in R15 multicore, placing it in the 93rd percentile of all CPUs. This means it outpaces the vast majority of desktop processors for tasks like video rendering and code compilation.

Q: Is the Intel Arc A310E suitable for gaming?

A: The GPU has 4 GB of GDDR6 memory and 3.072 TFLOPS of FP32 performance, ranking at the 50th percentile. It can run older or lighter titles at lower settings, but the 64-bit memory bus and 4 GB VRAM will severely limit modern AAA games at high detail levels.

Q: What is the memory support for this CPU?

A: The i9-13900KF supports both DDR4 and DDR5 memory in a dual-channel configuration. ECC memory is also supported, which is a feature typically reserved for workstation-class systems.

Q: Does the GPU support ray tracing?

A: Yes, the Arc A310E includes 6 RT cores and supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2). However, given the low overall compute throughput, ray-traced performance will be modest at best.

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

A: The CPU has a 125 W TDP, while the GPU has a 75 W TDP. The suggested power supply for the GPU alone is 250 W, which is very low and leaves substantial headroom for other components.

Q: How does the 13900KF compare to its closest rival?

A: The nearest rival, the Intel Core Ultra 7 270HX Plus, scores 61834 on average versus the 13900KF’s 61841, a 0% delta. The Intel Core i9-13900K is 0.1% behind, and the Intel Xeon 636 trails by 0.8%, so the 13900KF is effectively tied with the best in its bracket.

Q: What is the GPU’s memory bandwidth?

A: The Arc A310E has 124.0 GB/s of bandwidth from 4 GB of GDDR6 on a 64-bit bus. This is low by modern standards and will bottleneck high-resolution texture streaming.

Balance and Bottleneck

This pairing is a textbook example of a CPU-bound system where the processor vastly outstrips the graphics card. The i9-13900KF sits at the 93rd CPU percentile with an average benchmark score of 61841, while the Arc A310E sits at the 50th GPU percentile with no benchmark scores available. The combined percentile is 72, which is far closer to the GPU’s median standing than the CPU’s top-tier position, indicating that the GPU drags the overall system rating down significantly.

In CPU-heavy workloads like software compilation, data compression (PassMark score 786218), or 3D rendering in Cinebench R23 (48855 multicore), the Arc A310E is irrelevant because those tasks run entirely on the processor. The GPU will only matter for graphics output, and there it becomes the limiting factor immediately. For any gaming or GPU-accelerated rendering task, the 3.072 TFLOPS and 124.0 GB/s bandwidth of the A310E will cap performance far below what the CPU can feed. The CPU could easily handle a much more powerful GPU, as its 3dmark_16_threads score of 11177 and max_threads score of 15405 show it can process game logic and physics at high rates.

The bottleneck is not subtle: the GPU is the constraint in every visual workload, while the CPU is the constraint in almost nothing except single-threaded legacy software. The 4 GB VRAM is the hardest ceiling, as it will cause texture thrashing and stuttering in any modern game that exceeds that capacity. The 64-bit memory bus compounds this by limiting how fast the GPU can access what little VRAM it has. For productivity, the GPU’s FP32 throughput is enough for basic 2D acceleration and light compute, but any serious CUDA-style or OpenCL workload will be severely limited. The system’s balance is only sensible if the user intends the GPU purely as a display output for a headless server or a multi-monitor office workstation where the CPU does all the heavy lifting.

Benchmark Performance

The combined picture is one of extreme asymmetry. The CPU’s average benchmark score is 61841, with a 93rd-percentile ranking versus all CPUs. The GPU has no benchmark scores and a 50th-percentile ranking. The combined percentile for the build is 72, which is a weighted average that pulls the CPU’s excellent score down to a mediocre overall tier.

Exact CPU scores include 3dmark_single_thread at 1188, 3dmark_2_threads at 2353, 3dmark_4_threads at 4643, 3dmark_8_threads at 8510, 3dmark_16_threads at 11177, and 3dmark_max_threads at 15405. In Cinebench, the R15 single-core score is 695 and multicore is 4924; R20 single-core is 2896 and multicore is 20519; R23 single-core is 6897 and multicore is 48855. Geekbench scores are 2668 single-core and 22486 multicore. PassMark results include single-thread at 4584, multithread at 57729, data compression at 786218, data encryption at 46186, extended instructions at 46084, find prime numbers at 225, floating-point math at 150869, integer math at 206859, physics at 2956, and random string sorting at 86510.

The GPU’s only measurable attributes are its clock speeds and compute rates: 2000 MHz base/boost, 3.072 TFLOPS FP32, 6.144 TFLOPS FP16, 32.00 GPixel/s pixel rate, and 64.00 GTexel/s texture rate. There are no test scores to compare against, so the GPU’s performance must be judged relative to its 50th percentile standing, which implies it is average among all GPUs but still far below the CPU’s tier. The disparity between a 93rd-percentile CPU and a 50th-percentile GPU means the system will deliver exceptional CPU-bound benchmark results while producing mediocre graphics scores in any GPU-limited test.

Who Should Build It

This build suits users who need the CPU’s massive multi-threaded power but have minimal graphics demands. Software developers compiling large codebases will benefit from the 24 cores and R23 multicore score of 48855, which will shrink build times dramatically. Students and researchers running data compression or encryption workloads will see PassMark scores of 786218 and 46186, respectively, making short work of archive and security tasks. Small business workstations handling spreadsheets, database queries, and office productivity will find the single-thread score of 4584 in PassMark more than adequate for daily responsiveness.

Content creators who work primarily with CPU-based rendering, such as video encoding or 3D scene computation in tools that rely on the processor rather than the GPU, will appreciate the 32 threads. The GPU can handle basic 2D output and light video decoding, but it is not a tool for GPU-accelerated effects or high-resolution video editing. Gamers at 1080p with low-to-medium settings in older titles might find the Arc A310E playable, but the 4 GB VRAM will cause problems in modern titles. The system is not suited for high-refresh-rate gaming or 1440p/4K gaming at all, given the GPU’s bandwidth and compute limits. The ECC memory support makes this a viable option for users who need error-checked memory in a desktop form factor, such as financial modeling or scientific computing where data integrity is paramount.

The 125 W CPU TDP and 75 W GPU TDP mean the system runs cool and quiet, which is ideal for office environments or small form factor cases. The single-slot GPU with no power connectors simplifies installation. This is a workstation-first build where the GPU is an afterthought.

Gaming Performance

There are no measured FPS figures for this exact CPU+GPU combination in the FACT PACK, so all gaming numbers here are estimates based on the benchmark scores and should be treated as such. The i9-13900KF has the CPU headroom to run any game’s logic and physics at high frame rates, but the Arc A310E’s 3.072 TFLOPS and 124.0 GB/s bandwidth will be the decisive factor.

At 1080p with ultra settings, the 4 GB VRAM will be a critical limitation. Many modern games require more than 4 GB of VRAM at ultra textures, leading to stuttering and texture pop-in as the GPU spills to system memory. Esports titles like Counter-Strike or League of Legends, which are not VRAM-hungry, could see playable frame rates in the 60-90 FPS range given the GPU’s 2000 MHz clock and 768 shading units. Heavier AAA games like Cyberpunk 2077 or Assassin’s Creed Valhalla would likely run at 30-45 FPS at 1080p low settings, and even then, the 64-bit memory bus will cause frame pacing issues.

At 1440p, the 4 GB VRAM and 124.0 GB/s bandwidth are simply insufficient for modern titles. Frame rates would drop below playable thresholds in most games, and even older titles would struggle with high-resolution textures. The 6 RT cores enable ray tracing, but with only 3.072 TFLOPS of FP32 compute, enabling ray tracing would cut frame rates dramatically, likely to single digits in demanding scenes. The GPU’s 50th-percentile ranking suggests it is not a gaming card by modern standards, and the lack of tensor cores means no AI-based upscaling to rescue performance. For gaming, this build is a CPU powerhouse paired with a display adapter rather than a gaming GPU, and users should expect to run games at 1080p with reduced settings or rely on CPU-bound titles that are not graphically intensive.

Upgrade Path and Platform

The platform is built around Intel Socket 1700, which supports the i9-13900KF and its Raptor Lake architecture. The CPU supports DDR4 and DDR5 memory in a dual-channel configuration, giving builders the choice between cheaper DDR4 or faster DDR5, though the FACT PACK does not specify which memory type the system uses. PCIe Gen 5 is available with 20 CPU lanes, which is future-proof for fast NVMe storage and next-generation GPUs, though the current Arc A310E only uses a PCIe 4.0 x8 interface.

The CPU’s 125 W TDP and the GPU’s 75 W TDP, with a suggested PSU of 250 W for the GPU, mean the system has enormous PSU headroom. A typical 500 W or 650 W power supply would run this build with ease, leaving ample capacity for a GPU upgrade. The most sensible next upgrade is the graphics card. The CPU can handle a much more powerful GPU without bottlenecking, as its 3dmark_max_threads score of 15405 indicates it can feed frames far faster than the A310E can render them. Replacing the Arc A310E with a higher-end GPU with more VRAM and bandwidth would transform the system from a workstation into a capable gaming and rendering machine.

The socket supports the 13th-generation Core series, and the production status is Active, so replacement CPUs in the same family are available. The CPU’s unlocked multiplier allows overclocking to stretch performance further, though the 5.80 GHz boost clock is already near the limit of the architecture. The GPU is listed as End-of-life with a successor called Battlemage, meaning the A310E is a dead end for upgrades; the only path forward is a different card. The 4x mini-DisplayPort 2.0 outputs are unusual and may require adapters for standard HDMI monitors, which is a practical consideration for any upgrade or initial setup.

Build Overview

This is a desktop-class build combining the Intel Core i9-13900KF and the Intel Arc A310E. The CPU is a 24-core, 32-thread Raptor Lake-S processor with a 5.80 GHz boost clock and a 93rd-percentile ranking, while the GPU is a 4 GB GDDR6 Arc A310E with a 50th-percentile ranking. The combined percentile is 72, which places the overall system above average but far below what the CPU alone would suggest.

The build class is desktop, meaning it is intended for a stationary chassis with standard power and cooling. The CPU’s 125 W TDP and the GPU’s 75 W TDP make it a low-power combination that does not require exotic cooling or a massive PSU, with the GPU’s suggested PSU at just 250 W. The overall tier, based on the 72nd combined percentile, is solidly mid-range, but the distribution of that performance is lopsided: the CPU is near the top of the heap, while the GPU is at the median. This is a system for users who prioritize compute and multitasking over graphics, and who are willing to accept that the GPU is the weak link in any visual task. As a complete package, it is a high-performance workstation CPU with an entry-level graphics companion, suitable for productivity and development but not for immersive gaming or GPU-accelerated rendering.

Rate My PC: Intel Core i9-13900KF + Intel Arc A310E

Power Build

System Balance Analysis

Intel Core i9-13900KF

Intel Arc A310E

Market Position

Game Performance Benchmarks

Cyberpunk 2077

Red Dead Redemption 2

Microsoft Flight Simulator

Control

Call of Duty: Warzone

Fortnite

Performance Insights

Strong Performance

Bottleneck Detected

Performance Tiers Explained

Ultimate

High-End

Mid-Range

Entry Level

Legacy

CPU Analysis

GPU Analysis

FAQ

Balance and Bottleneck

Benchmark Performance

Who Should Build It

Gaming Performance

Upgrade Path and Platform

Build Overview

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