SYSTEM ANALYZER

Rate My PC: Intel Core Ultra 5 125H + Intel Arc A350M

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

88%

GPU

92%

PROCESSOR

Intel Core Ultra 5 125H

27,507 Benchmark Score

Top 12% Market Ranking

View Full Specs →

GRAPHICS CARD

Intel Arc A350M

24,647 Benchmark Score

Top 8% 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

# Intel Core Ultra 5 125H + Intel Arc A350M: A Balanced Meteor Lake Mobile Platform

The Intel Core Ultra 5 125H paired with the Intel Arc A350M represents a mid-range mobile platform built around Intel's Meteor Lake architecture and Xe-HPG graphics. The CPU, with its 14 cores and 18 threads, delivers an average benchmark score of 27,507, placing it in the 79th percentile of all CPUs, while the Arc A350M GPU achieves an average score of 24,647, sitting in the 70th percentile of all GPUs. This combination yields a combined percentile of 75, indicating a system that is well-matched for mainstream productivity and entry-level gaming, though the GPU is the clear limiting factor for demanding graphical workloads. The data shows a platform where the CPU punches above its class, nearly matching desktop rivals, while the GPU offers modest but capable 1080p performance.

CPU Analysis

The Intel Core Ultra 5 125H is a 14-core, 18-thread processor based on the Meteor Lake architecture, manufactured on Intel's 7 nm process node. It operates with a base clock of 3.60 GHz and a boost clock of 4.50 GHz, with a thermal design power (TDP) of 28 W. This mobile processor features a hybrid cache layout: 112 KB of L1 per core, 2 MB of L2 per core, and 18 MB of shared L3 cache. Memory support is DDR5, dual-channel, with a memory bandwidth of 89.6 GB/s. The CPU integrates Arc Xe-LPG 96EU graphics and supports PCIe Gen 5.

Benchmark results indicate a strong multi-threaded performer. In Cinebench R23, the CPU scores 12,804.5 in multi-core and 1,647.5 in single-core. The R20 results show 7,161 multi-core and 1,010 single-core, while R15 scores are 2,021.5 multi-core and 241 single-core. These scores place the Ultra 5 125H in the 79th percentile of all CPUs, with an average benchmark score of 27,507. Compared to nearest rivals, the Ultra 5 125H is essentially tied with the AMD Ryzen 7 5800 (deltaPct: -0.1%), the Intel Core i5-12600K (deltaPct: -0.3%), and the AMD Ryzen 7 5700X (deltaPct: -0.3%). It is 0.5% ahead of the AMD Ryzen 3 PRO 5355G. This means the Ultra 5 125H delivers desktop-class multi-core performance in a 28 W mobile package.

PassMark results further illuminate its capabilities. The CPU scores 69,986 in integer math, 51,670 in floating-point math, and 23,6209 in data compression. Data encryption scores 14,251, extended instructions score 13,749, and random string sorting hits 27,435. Single-thread performance is 3,399, while multi-thread score is 21,100. The physics score is 1,439, and find prime numbers is 88. These numbers indicate a processor that handles both integer-heavy and floating-point-heavy workloads with ease, making it suitable for a wide range of productivity tasks, from office applications to software compilation and content creation.

Gaming Performance

Important Note: The FACT PACK contains no measured FPS data for this exact CPU+GPU combination. All gaming frame rates discussed below are estimates derived from the benchmark scores of the individual components and should be treated as approximations rather than measured results.

Based on the benchmark scores, the Intel Arc A350M GPU, with its average benchmark score of 24,647, is expected to deliver playable but not high-refresh gaming experiences. The GPU sits in the 70th percentile of all GPUs, and its nearest rivals include the AMD Radeon RX 590 (deltaPct: -0.4%), the NVIDIA RTX A5000 Mobile (deltaPct: -0.5%), the AMD Radeon RX 6600 XT (deltaPct: 0.8%), and the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1630 (deltaPct: 1.5%). Performance is within 1.5% of these cards, suggesting that the Arc A350M can handle esports titles and older AAA games at 1080p with medium-to-high settings, but it will struggle with modern AAA titles at ultra settings.

The CPU's strong multi-core performance (79th percentile) ensures that it will not be the bottleneck in most gaming scenarios, provided the game can utilize multiple cores. However, the GPU's 4 GB of VRAM and 64-bit memory bus (112.0 GB/s bandwidth) will limit texture quality and resolution. The FP32 performance of 3.379 TFLOPS suggests that the GPU is roughly comparable to a desktop GTX 1650-class part, which is adequate for 1080p medium settings in many games. For high-refresh gaming (144 Hz+), the GPU's 3.379 TFLOPS of FP32 compute and 52.80 GPixel/s pixel rate are insufficient for most modern titles, and users should expect frame rates in the 40-60 FPS range for AAA games at 1080p with reduced settings.

GPU Analysis

The Intel Arc A350M is built on the Xe-HPG architecture, codenamed Alchemist, and is manufactured on TSMC's 6 nm process node. The chip, designated DG2-128, contains 7,200 million transistors on a 157 mm² die, with a transistor density of 45.9M per mm². The GPU operates at a base clock of 1150 MHz and a boost clock of 2200 MHz, with memory running at 1750 MHz (14 Gbps effective). It features 4 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 64-bit bus, yielding a memory bandwidth of 112.0 GB/s.

In terms of compute resources, the Arc A350M has 768 shading units, 48 texture mapping units (TMUs), and 24 raster operation units (ROPs). It includes 6 ray tracing cores and supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The pixel rate is 52.80 GPixel/s, and the texture rate is 105.6 GTexel/s. FP32 performance is 3.379 TFLOPS, while FP16 performance is 6.758 TFLOPS (2:1 ratio). The GPU has a TDP of 25 W and uses a PCIe 4.0 x8 bus interface. Its production status is marked as end-of-life, with a release date of March 2022.

Benchmark scores for the Arc A350M include Geekbench OpenCL at 24,546 and Geekbench Vulkan at 24,747. These scores place the GPU in the 70th percentile of all GPUs, with an average benchmark score of 24,647. The data shows that this is a capable entry-level discrete GPU, but it is not designed for high-end gaming. The 4 GB VRAM is a notable limitation for modern games that increasingly require 6-8 GB for high-quality textures at 1080p. The 64-bit memory bus and 112.0 GB/s bandwidth are adequate for 1080p gaming but will bottleneck performance at higher resolutions. The 6 RT cores provide entry-level ray tracing capability, but the 3.379 TFLOPS of FP32 compute means that ray tracing workloads will be heavy, and users should expect to use upscaling or lower resolutions.

Balance and Bottleneck

The benchmark data indicates a system that is well-balanced for CPU-bound tasks but GPU-limited for gaming. The CPU's 79th percentile ranking and average score of 27,507 far exceed the GPU's 70th percentile and average score of 24,647. This disparity is evident when comparing their nearest rivals: the CPU is within 0.3% of desktop parts like the Ryzen 7 5800 and Core i5-12600K, while the GPU is within 1.5% of the GTX 1630 and RX 590, which are older, lower-tier desktop cards.

In gaming workloads, the GPU will be the limiting factor in almost all scenarios. The CPU's 18 threads and 3.60 GHz base clock are more than sufficient to feed the GPU, even in CPU-intensive titles. The PassMark multi-thread score of 21,100 and Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 12,804.5 confirm that the CPU will not bottleneck at 1080p. However, the GPU's 3.379 TFLOPS of FP32 performance and 112.0 GB/s memory bandwidth will cap frame rates. For productivity workloads, the CPU is the primary driver, and the GPU plays a supporting role in tasks like video encoding or GPU-accelerated rendering, where its 6.758 TFLOPS of FP16 performance can be utilized.

The combined percentile of 75 reflects this balance: the system is better than 75% of all tested configurations, but it is not tuned for extreme gaming performance. The 28 W CPU TDP and 25 W GPU TDP suggest a power-efficient platform, but the GPU's end-of-life status and 4 GB VRAM mean that it will become increasingly outdated for new game releases. The bottleneck analysis suggests that users should prioritize GPU upgrades if gaming is the primary use case, while the CPU has headroom for future applications.

Usage Scenarios

High-Refresh Gaming: This platform is not suited for high-refresh gaming at 1080p. The GPU's 3.379 TFLOPS of FP32 compute and 4 GB VRAM are insufficient for maintaining frame rates above 144 FPS in modern titles. Users can expect 60 FPS in esports titles at medium settings, but AAA games will require reduced settings to approach 60 FPS.

Streaming: The CPU's 14 cores and 18 threads, combined with a multi-thread score of 21,100, provide ample headroom for software encoding while gaming. The GPU's 6.758 TFLOPS of FP16 performance can assist with encoding tasks, but the 4 GB VRAM may limit simultaneous game capture and streaming at high quality.

Video Editing: The CPU's strong multi-core performance (Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 12,804.5) makes it well-suited for video editing, particularly for 1080p and 1440p timelines. The GPU's 3.379 TFLOPS of FP32 compute and 6.758 TFLOPS of FP16 performance can accelerate effects and rendering, but the 4 GB VRAM may be a constraint for complex projects with high-resolution assets.

3D Rendering: The CPU excels in 3D rendering workloads, with a PassMark floating-point math score of 51,670 and a multi-thread score of 21,100. The GPU can assist with real-time viewport rendering, but its 3.379 TFLOPS of FP32 compute is modest for final-frame rendering. Users should rely primarily on the CPU for rendering tasks.

Software Development: The CPU's 14 cores, 18 threads, and 18 MB of L3 cache provide excellent compile times and parallel build performance. The PassMark integer math score of 69,986 and data encryption score of 14,251 indicate strong performance for code compilation and cryptographic operations, making this a solid choice for developers who need a portable workstation.

Student and Office Work: This platform is overkill for basic office tasks but offers headroom for multitasking. The CPU's single-thread score of 3,399 and data compression score of 236,209 ensure snappy application launches and smooth spreadsheet performance, while the GPU is more than adequate for video playback and light photo editing.

Who Should Build It

This platform is best suited for users who need a balanced laptop for productivity and light gaming. The CPU's 79th percentile ranking makes it a strong choice for content creators, software developers, and students who run multi-threaded applications. The GPU's 70th percentile ranking means that gamers at 1080p with medium settings will find it acceptable, but users seeking high-refresh or high-detail gaming should look elsewhere.

The target audience includes:

Content creators who edit 1080p video or do light 3D work will benefit from the CPU's multi-core performance (Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 12,804.5) and the GPU's acceleration capabilities.
Developers who compile large codebases will appreciate the 14 cores and 18 threads, with PassMark integer math at 69,986.
Students who need a portable system for coursework and occasional gaming will find the performance sufficient, with the CPU's single-thread score of 3,399 ensuring responsive daily use.
Small business workstations that run productivity suites and database applications will leverage the CPU's data compression score of 236,209 and multi-thread score of 21,100.

Users who demand high-refresh gaming at 1080p or 1440p, or who need to run modern AAA games at ultra settings, should not choose this configuration. The GPU's 4 GB VRAM and 64-bit bus are clear limitations, and its end-of-life status means driver optimization will not improve over time.

Upgrade Path and Platform

The Intel Core Ultra 5 125H uses the Intel BGA 2049 socket, which means the CPU is soldered to the motherboard and is not upgradeable. Memory support is DDR5, dual-channel, with a memory bandwidth of 89.6 GB/s. The platform supports PCIe Gen 5, providing high-bandwidth connectivity for NVMe SSDs and future expansion.

The GPU's TDP is 25 W, and the CPU's TDP is 28 W, resulting in a combined 53 W TDP for the compute components. A sensible next upgrade for this platform, if the laptop chassis permits it, would be to increase memory capacity and speed, as the dual-channel DDR5 configuration with 89.6 GB/s bandwidth offers a modest but noticeable improvement over lower-speed memory. However, since the GPU is end-of-life and the CPU is not upgradeable, the most practical path is to use this system as-is and plan for a full platform replacement in the future.

For users considering this platform, the PCIe Gen 5 support ensures that storage upgrades will not be bottlenecked, and the 18 MB of L3 cache provides good memory latency performance. The lack of ECC memory support limits its use in mission-critical scientific computing, but for consumer workloads, the platform is solid. The integrated Arc Xe-LPG 96EU graphics provide a fallback if the discrete GPU fails, ensuring the system remains usable for basic tasks.

FAQ

Q: What is the CPU's benchmark percentile and how does it compare to rivals?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 5 125H is in the 79th percentile of all CPUs, with an average benchmark score of 27,507. It is within 0.3% of the AMD Ryzen 7 5800, Intel Core i5-12600K, and AMD Ryzen 7 5700X, and 0.5% ahead of the AMD Ryzen 3 PRO 5355G.

Q: What is the GPU's benchmark percentile and its closest competitors?

A: The Intel Arc A350M is in the 70th percentile of all GPUs, with an average benchmark score of 24,647. Its nearest rivals are the AMD Radeon RX 590 (0.4% faster), NVIDIA RTX A5000 Mobile (0.5% faster), AMD Radeon RX 6600 XT (0.8% slower), and NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1630 (1.5% slower).

Q: Is there measured FPS data for this CPU+GPU combination?

A: No, the FACT PACK contains no measured FPS rows for this exact combination. All gaming performance figures are estimated from the benchmark scores and should be treated as approximations.

Q: What are the CPU's Cinebench R23 scores?

A: The CPU scores 12,804.5 in Cinebench R23 multi-core and 1,647.5 in single-core, indicating strong multi-threaded performance for its 28 W TDP.

Q: How much VRAM does the GPU have and what is its memory bandwidth?

A: The Intel Arc A350M has 4 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 64-bit bus, with a memory bandwidth of 112.0 GB/s. This is a limiting factor for modern games at high textures.

Q: What is the GPU's architecture and manufacturing process?

A: The GPU uses the Xe-HPG architecture (Alchemist generation) and is manufactured on TSMC's 6 nm process node, with 7,200 million transistors on a 157 mm² die.

Q: What is the CPU's socket and is it upgradeable?

A: The CPU uses the Intel BGA 2049 socket, which is a soldered mobile socket. It is not upgradeable. Memory support is DDR5 dual-channel with 89.6 GB/s bandwidth.

Benchmark Performance

The combined benchmark picture shows a system that is CPU-dominant. The Intel Core Ultra 5 125H achieves an average benchmark score of 27,507, placing it in the 79th percentile of all CPUs. Its nearest rival, the AMD Ryzen 7 5800, scores 27,535 (deltaPct: -0.1%), meaning the Ultra 5 125H is essentially tied with a desktop-class processor. The Intel Core i5-12600K scores 27,578 (deltaPct: -0.3%), and the AMD Ryzen 7 5700X scores 27,578 (deltaPct: -0.3%). The AMD Ryzen 3 PRO 5355G scores 27,382 (deltaPct: 0.5%), and the Ultra 5 125H is slightly ahead.

The Intel Arc A350M GPU achieves an average benchmark score of 24,647, placing it in the 70th percentile of all GPUs. The AMD Radeon RX 590 scores 24,744 (deltaPct: -0.4%), the NVIDIA RTX A5000 Mobile scores 24,763 (deltaPct: -0.5%), the AMD Radeon RX 6600 XT scores 24,442 (deltaPct: 0.8%), and the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1630 scores 24,277 (deltaPct: 1.5%). The GPU's specific scores are 24,546 in Geekbench OpenCL and 24,747 in Geekbench Vulkan.

The combined percentile is 75, indicating that this platform outperforms 75% of all tested configurations. This is a strong result for a mobile platform, given that the CPU alone beats or matches desktop processors from the previous generation. The GPU, while not a high-end part, is competitive with mid-range desktop GPUs from several years ago. The data shows a cohesive system where the CPU provides exceptional multi-threaded performance for productivity, and the GPU offers adequate 1080p gaming at medium settings. The 4 GB VRAM and end-of-life status of the GPU are the primary concerns for longevity, but for users whose workloads are CPU-bound, this platform delivers outstanding value in its performance class.

Rate My PC: Intel Core Ultra 5 125H + Intel Arc A350M

Apex Performer

System Balance Analysis

Intel Core Ultra 5 125H

Intel Arc A350M

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

CPU Analysis

Gaming Performance

GPU Analysis

Balance and Bottleneck

Usage Scenarios

Who Should Build It

Upgrade Path and Platform

FAQ

Benchmark Performance

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