SYSTEM ANALYZER

Rate My PC: Intel Core Ultra 5 125U + Intel Arc A370M

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

85%

GPU

93%

PROCESSOR

Intel Core Ultra 5 125U

20,826 Benchmark Score

Top 15% Market Ranking

View Full Specs →

GRAPHICS CARD

Intel Arc A370M

29,175 Benchmark Score

Top 7% 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 Ultra 5 125U and Intel Arc A370M form a laptop-class pairing that sits at the 74th percentile among all systems, indicating a configuration that comfortably outperforms the majority of mobile devices while remaining firmly in the territory of mainstream portability rather than extreme performance. The data reveals a balanced duo where a 12-core processor with a 4.30 GHz boost clock meets a discrete GPU with 4 GB of VRAM, creating a system that is far more capable than the 15 W TDP of the CPU might suggest. Because the FACT PACK contains no measured FPS data for this combination, all frame rate discussions in this analysis are estimates derived from raw benchmark scores and percentile positions, not direct gameplay measurements.

GPU Analysis

The Intel Arc A370M is a mobile GPU built on the Xe-HPG architecture with a 6 nm process from TSMC, featuring a DG2-128 chip that contains 7,200 million transistors on a 157 mm² die. Its memory configuration includes 4 GB of GDDR6 on a 64-bit bus, delivering 112.0 GB/s of bandwidth — a figure that is modest by desktop standards but adequate for the GPU’s intended 1080p class. The GPU operates at a base clock of 1550 MHz with a boost clock of 2050 MHz, and its memory runs at 1750 MHz with 14 Gbps effective speed. The shading complex includes 1024 shading units, 64 texture mapping units, and 32 raster output units, which produce a pixel rate of 65.60 GPixel/s and a texture rate of 131.2 GTexel/s. Floating-point performance is rated at 4.198 TFLOPS for FP32 and 8.397 TFLOPS for FP16, with the latter presented at a 2:1 ratio, indicating that the hardware supports accelerated half-precision workloads.

In terms of specialized hardware, the Arc A370M includes 8 RT cores, which provide hardware-accelerated ray tracing, though the modest shading count suggests ray-traced effects should be considered a feature rather than a performance highlight. The GPU lacks explicit tensor core data in the pack, but its support for DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4 ensures broad API compatibility for modern games and applications. Benchmark results show a Geekbench OpenCL score of 29,676 and a Geekbench Vulkan score of 28,673, which place the GPU at the 74th percentile of all GPUs. This percentile rank is notable because it positions the Arc A370M alongside the AMD Radeon RX Vega M GH (average score 29,197, deltaPct -0.1) and the AMD Radeon RX 470 (average score 28,996, deltaPct 0.6), while it sits slightly ahead of the AMD Radeon RX 6800M (average score 28,874, deltaPct 1). The near-identical scores with these rivals — all within 1% of each other — suggest that the Arc A370M occupies a well-defined performance tier, meaning its 4 GB VRAM and 112 GB/s bandwidth are practical limitations that align with its compute capabilities. For rendering tasks, the FP32 throughput of 4.198 TFLOPS places it in the range of entry-level discrete GPUs, sufficient for 1080p content creation but not for heavy 3D scene compilation.

Benchmark Performance

The combined percentile for this CPU+GPU pairing is 74, which reflects the system’s overall standing relative to other laptop configurations in the database. The CPU’s average benchmark score is 20,826, and it also sits at the 74th percentile among all CPUs, with nearest rivals including the Intel Xeon 6325P (average score 20,821, deltaPct 0), the AMD EPYC 7J13 (average score 20,845, deltaPct -0.1), the Intel Core i5-12490F (average score 20,802, deltaPct 0.1), and the Intel Core Ultra 7 268V (average score 20,897, deltaPct -0.3). These deltaPct values of 0, -0.1, 0.1, and -0.3 percent indicate that the Core Ultra 5 125U is effectively performance-identical to a Xeon server processor and an EPYC data-center chip in aggregate benchmarks, which is a striking result for a 15 W mobile part. The GPU’s average benchmark score is 29,175, and its nearest rivals are all AMD products, with the RX Vega M GH at 29,197 (-0.1%), the FirePro W8000 at 29,211 (-0.1%), the RX 470 at 28,996 (0.6%), and the RX 6800M at 28,874 (1%). The GPU is thus within 1% of its closest competitors, meaning the Arc A370M’s performance is highly consistent with those established parts.

Looking at specific CPU benchmarks, the Cinebench R23 multi-core score is 9,799, while the single-core score is 1,561, which suggests a strong multi-threaded showing relative to single-thread performance. The Geekbench multi-core score of 6,308 and single-core score of 1,493 reinforce this pattern, where the multi-core advantage is roughly 4.2x over single-core. PassMark results show a multi-thread score of 17,417, a single-thread score of 3,296, and a physics score of 1,082, which is notably lower than the multi-thread figure, indicating that the CPU’s performance in physics simulations may be limited by its architecture. The combined picture is one of a CPU that punches above its power envelope in multi-threaded workloads — matching server-class rivals — while the GPU delivers a consistent 74th-percentile experience that aligns with mid-range mobile graphics from a few generations ago. The pairing’s overall percentile of 74 suggests that neither component wildly outperforms the other, creating a coherent system profile where users get a balanced experience across CPU- and GPU-intensive tasks.

CPU Analysis

The Intel Core Ultra 5 125U is a 12-core, 14-thread processor from the Core Ultra Series 1, built on the Meteor Lake architecture using Intel’s 7 nm process. It has a base clock of 1300 MHz and a boost clock of 4.30 GHz, with a TDP of 15 W, which classifies it as an ultra-low-power mobile part. The cache hierarchy includes 112 KB of L1 per core, 2 MB of L2 per core, and 12 MB of shared L3, which is a modest amount for a 12-core design but appropriate for a low-power segment. Memory support is DDR5 with a dual-channel bus, providing a memory bandwidth of 89.6 GB/s, and the CPU is paired with integrated graphics in the form of Arc Xe-LPG 64EU, though this system also includes the discrete Arc A370M. The processor uses an Intel BGA 2049 socket, indicating it is soldered to the motherboard, and it supports PCIe Gen 4 with 12 lanes from the CPU. ECC memory is not supported, and the multiplier is unlocked, though this is irrelevant for a BGA mobile part.

The benchmark scores reveal a processor that excels in multi-threaded tasks relative to its power budget. The Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 9,799 and Geekbench multi-core score of 6,308 are strong for a 15 W part, while the PassMark multi-thread score of 17,417 and integer math score of 57,046 indicate solid number-crunching ability. Single-core performance is more modest, with Cinebench R23 single-core at 1,561 and Geekbench single-core at 1,493, which places it below many desktop parts but still respectable for mobile. The PassMark data compression score of 198,858 and data encryption score of 12,231 suggest that the CPU handles compression and encryption tasks well, while the floating-point math score of 41,331 and extended instructions score of 11,340 point to competent, if not exceptional, scientific and SIMD workloads. The find prime numbers score of 64 and random string sorting score of 21,872 are more specialized metrics, with the former being quite low, indicating that the CPU is not optimized for certain integer-heavy algorithms.

The 74th percentile ranking among all CPUs, with nearest rivals including the Xeon 6325P and EPYC 7J13, is the most telling statistic — it means this ultra-low-power chip delivers aggregate performance comparable to server processors in a fraction of the power envelope. For real workloads, this translates to a laptop that can handle compile times, video encoding, and multi-tasking without excessive strain, though the single-core scores suggest that lightly-threaded applications may not see the same benefit. The 12 MB of L3 cache is a potential bottleneck for workloads that require large working sets, but the dual-channel DDR5 bandwidth of 89.6 GB/s helps mitigate this by providing faster access to main memory than older DDR4 designs.

Balance and Bottleneck

The balance between the Core Ultra 5 125U and Arc A370M is characterized by a CPU that is proportionally stronger in multi-threaded tasks than the GPU is relative to its peers. The CPU sits at the 74th percentile among all CPUs, and the GPU also sits at the 74th percentile among all GPUs, which suggests a nominal balance. However, the specific benchmark scores tell a more nuanced story. The CPU’s Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 9,799 is competitive with desktop processors, while the GPU’s Geekbench OpenCL score of 29,676 places it near the RX 470, a desktop GPU from 2016. This means in CPU-bound workloads like physics simulation or data compression, the system performs at a high level, but in GPU-bound tasks like gaming at high resolutions, the GPU is likely the limiting factor.

The CPU’s single-thread score of 1,561 in Cinebench R23 is relatively weaker than its multi-thread score, which could bottleneck gaming scenarios where a single thread is the primary constraint, but the GPU’s modest compute power means the system will likely be GPU-bound in most modern games. The lack of measured FPS data prevents a direct assessment of FPS scaling, but the percentile positions suggest that the CPU can feed the GPU adequately at 1080p, while at higher resolutions, the GPU’s 4 GB VRAM and 64-bit memory bus will become the constraint. The CPU’s 89.6 GB/s memory bandwidth is higher than the GPU’s 112.0 GB/s, which is unusual for a laptop pairing, indicating that the CPU is not starved for data, but the GPU’s lower bandwidth relative to its compute might limit performance in texture-heavy scenes. The PassMark physics score of 1,082 is notably low compared to the multi-thread score of 17,417, suggesting that the CPU’s performance in physics simulations is a bottleneck that could affect game physics and certain professional workloads, though this is a minor concern given the GPU’s overall tier.

Usage Scenarios

For high-refresh gaming, the Arc A370M’s 74th-percentile standing and 4 GB of VRAM imply that it can handle esports titles at 1080p with high settings, but 144Hz gameplay in demanding titles is unlikely given the GPU’s compute throughput of 4.198 TFLOPS, which is in line with older desktop GPUs like the RX 470 (within 0.6% deltaPct). Streaming is a feasible scenario because the CPU’s 12 cores and strong multi-thread score of 9,799 in Cinebench R23 provide headroom for encoding while gaming, though the GPU’s lack of a dedicated NVENC-like encoder is not mentioned in the pack, so the CPU would handle encoding duties. Video editing is a strong use case, as the CPU’s PassMark multi-thread score of 17,417 and floating-point math score of 41,331 indicate capable handling of timeline operations and effects, while the GPU’s 4 GB VRAM is sufficient for 1080p editing but may struggle with 4K timelines.

3D rendering is a mixed scenario; the CPU’s multi-core performance is excellent for CPU-based renders, matching server chips like the Xeon 6325P (deltaPct 0), but the GPU’s FP32 performance of 4.198 TFLOPS is modest for GPU-accelerated rendering, making it suitable for small scenes or previews rather than final production renders. Software development is well-supported, given the CPU’s high integer math score of 57,046 and data compression score of 198,858, which help with compilation and code analysis, and the 12 cores allow for parallel builds. Student and office work is easily handled, as the CPU’s single-thread score of 3,296 in PassMark is more than adequate for web browsing and document editing, and the GPU’s Vulkan score of 28,673 ensures smooth UI rendering and hardware acceleration for web content.

Who Should Build It

The target user for this system is a mobile professional or student who needs a laptop that can handle a diverse range of tasks without the weight and power draw of a high-performance gaming rig. Gamers at 1080p with medium-to-high settings will find the Arc A370M adequate, as its performance is comparable to the AMD Radeon RX 470 (deltaPct 0.6), a known 1080p-capable GPU, but they should not expect to play the latest AAA titles at maximum settings with high frame rates. Content creators working with video editing or 2D graphics will benefit from the CPU’s strong multi-threaded performance, which is on par with server processors like the EPYC 7J13 (deltaPct -0.1), making it a capable workstation for tasks that are not GPU-intensive. Developers who compile large codebases will appreciate the 12 cores and high integer math score of 57,046, which speeds up build times, while the 14 threads allow for efficient parallel processing.

Students in STEM fields will find the CPU’s floating-point math score of 41,331 and extended instructions score of 11,340 useful for simulations and data analysis, and the laptop-class form factor means it can be carried to classes. Small business workstations that handle office productivity, spreadsheet analysis, and light database work are well-served, as the CPU’s data encryption score of 12,231 and compression score of 198,858 indicate reliable performance for financial or administrative tasks. The 74th-percentile combined standing means this system outperforms the majority of laptops, making it a sensible choice for users who want a single device for work and play, but those seeking high-end gaming or professional 3D rendering should look elsewhere, as the GPU’s 4 GB VRAM is a hard limit for modern textures.

Gaming Performance

No measured FPS data exists for this CPU+GPU combination in the FACT PACK, so all frame rate expectations here are estimates derived from the benchmark scores and percentile positions. The Arc A370M’s Geekbench Vulkan score of 28,673 and OpenCL score of 29,676, combined with its 74th-percentile rank, suggest that it can achieve playable frame rates at 1080p in esports and older titles, likely exceeding 60 FPS in games like CS:GO or League of Legends with medium settings. For modern AAA games at 1080p, the GPU’s 4.198 TFLOPS of FP32 performance and 112.0 GB/s memory bandwidth are the limiting factors, and estimates indicate that high settings would be needed to maintain 30-60 FPS, with ultra settings potentially dropping below 30 FPS in demanding scenes. The CPU’s single-thread score of 1,561 in Cinebench R23 is sufficient to avoid being a bottleneck at these frame rates, but the GPU’s 8 RT cores are too few for meaningful ray-traced performance, so ray tracing should be disabled for playable results. At 1440p, the 4 GB VRAM would likely be exceeded by modern game textures, causing stuttering, so 1080p remains the target resolution. The CPU’s PassMark physics score of 1,082 is low, which could affect physics-heavy games, but the overall GPU-bound nature of modern gaming means the Arc A370M is the primary determinant of the experience.

FAQ

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

A: The pairing sits at the 74th percentile among all systems, indicating it outperforms roughly three-quarters of the configurations in the database.

Q: How does the Intel Core Ultra 5 125U compare to its nearest CPU rival?

A: The CPU’s average benchmark score is 20,826, which is identical to the Intel Xeon 6325P (20,821, deltaPct 0) and within 0.3% of the Intel Core Ultra 7 268V (20,897, deltaPct -0.3).

Q: What is the GPU’s memory bandwidth and how does it affect performance?

A: The Arc A370M has 112.0 GB/s of memory bandwidth from 4 GB of GDDR6 on a 64-bit bus, which is adequate for 1080p gaming but may limit performance at higher resolutions.

Q: Does the CPU support ECC memory?

A: No, ECC memory is not supported for the Intel Core Ultra 5 125U, as indicated in the memory support specifications.

Q: What is the process node for the GPU and CPU?

A: The Arc A370M uses a 6 nm process from TSMC, while the Core Ultra 5 125U uses Intel’s 7 nm process, with both being modern nodes for their respective release periods.

Q: Is the CPU’s performance comparable to server processors?

A: Yes, the CPU’s average benchmark score of 20,826 matches the Intel Xeon 6325P (deltaPct 0) and the AMD EPYC 7J13 (deltaPct -0.1), despite the massive difference in TDP.

Q: What API support does the GPU offer?

A: The Arc A370M supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4, ensuring compatibility with modern games and applications.

Build Overview

This build is a laptop-class system (buildClass: "laptop") that pairs the Intel Core Ultra 5 125U, a 12-core Meteor Lake processor with a 15 W TDP, with the Intel Arc A370M, a 35 W mobile GPU based on the Xe-HPG architecture. The CPU’s 12 cores and 14 threads, combined with a boost clock of 4.30 GHz, deliver an average benchmark score of 20,826, while the GPU’s 1024 shading units and 4 GB of GDDR6 memory produce an average score of 29,175. Both components sit at the 74th percentile of their respective categories, and the combined system percentile is also 74, which places this build in the upper-midrange tier of laptop configurations. The CPU’s nearest rivals include server and desktop processors like the Xeon 6325P and Core i5-12490F, while the GPU’s nearest rivals are AMD parts like the RX Vega M GH and RX 470, showing that this pairing punches above its mobile-class weight. The system is best described as a balanced, mainstream mobile workstation that can handle a variety of tasks, but it is not designed for extreme performance, as evidenced by the GPU’s end-of-life production status.

Upgrade Path and Platform

The Intel Core Ultra 5 125U uses an Intel BGA 2049 socket, which is a soldered mobile platform, meaning the CPU cannot be upgraded without replacing the entire motherboard. The system supports DDR5 memory with a dual-channel bus and 89.6 GB/s of bandwidth, and the memory support is dependent on the motherboard, so users should verify compatibility before upgrading RAM. The CPU provides PCIe Gen 4 with 12 lanes, while the GPU uses a PCIe 4.0 x8 interface, which is sufficient for the Arc A370M’s bandwidth needs. The GPU has a TDP of 35 W, and the CPU has a TDP of 15 W, but no suggested PSU is provided in the pack, so power supply requirements are not specified; however, the low TDPs indicate that a standard laptop power adapter is sufficient. The GPU is marked as end-of-life, so an upgrade path would involve replacing the entire laptop or using an external GPU enclosure, though the CPU’s 12 PCIe lanes may limit eGPU bandwidth. A sensible next upgrade would be to a system with a higher-tier Arc or NVIDIA GPU with more VRAM, as the 4 GB capacity of the Arc A370M is the primary limitation for modern gaming, while the CPU’s performance is already competitive with server-class parts and would not need upgrading for most workloads.

Rate My PC: Intel Core Ultra 5 125U + Intel Arc A370M

Power Build

System Balance Analysis

Intel Core Ultra 5 125U

Intel Arc A370M

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

Benchmark Performance

CPU Analysis

Balance and Bottleneck

Usage Scenarios

Who Should Build It

Gaming Performance

FAQ

Build Overview

Upgrade Path and Platform

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