SYSTEM ANALYZER

Rate My PC: Intel Core Ultra 5 225 + NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5080 SUPER

Get a comprehensive performance analysis of your gaming rig with detailed benchmarks, bottleneck detection, and upgrade recommendations

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
Well Balanced
CPU
91%
VS
GPU
79%
PROCESSOR

Intel Core Ultra 5 225

36,938 Benchmark Score
Top 9% Market Ranking
View Full Specs →
GRAPHICS CARD

NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5080 SUPER

3,075 Benchmark Score
Top 21% 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 5 225 and NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5080 SUPER pairing presents a striking contrast in performance tiers. The CPU is a 10-core, 10-thread Arrow Lake desktop processor built on a 3 nm process, while the GPU is a flagship-class Blackwell 2.0 graphics card with a 415 W thermal design power. Benchmark data shows the CPU at the 85th percentile among all processors, while the GPU sits at only the 19th percentile among all graphics cards, indicating a significant imbalance in this combination. This analysis explores the performance implications of pairing a strong mid-range processor with an ultra-high-end graphics card, using only the provided benchmark scores and specifications to draw conclusions.

CPU Analysis

The Intel Core Ultra 5 225 is a 10-core, 10-thread processor from the Core Ultra Series 2, built on the Arrow Lake-S architecture. It operates with a base clock of 3.30 GHz and can boost up to 4.90 GHz, all within a 65 W TDP. This efficiency profile is notable, as the processor achieves strong performance without the high power requirements typical of many desktop CPUs. The chip is manufactured on a 3 nm process by TSMC, with 17,800 million transistors packed into a 243 mm² die. This modern process node contributes to the CPU’s power efficiency and performance characteristics.

Cinebench scores reveal the processor’s capabilities. In Cinebench R23, the CPU scores 25,891 in multi-core and 3,655 in single-core tests. The multi-core score of 25,891 is substantial for a 10-thread part, suggesting efficient use of its physical cores. The single-core score of 3,655 indicates strong per-thread performance, which is critical for many everyday tasks and legacy applications. In Cinebench R20, the scores are 6,317 multi-core and 891 single-core. The R15 results show 2,609 multi-core and 368 single-core. These scores collectively demonstrate a processor that handles both heavily threaded workloads and single-threaded responsiveness well.

The PassMark suite provides additional insight into specific workload types. The multithread score is 30,459, while the single-thread score is 4,412. Data compression scores 302,811, indicating high throughput for compression algorithms, while data encryption scores 22,285, a more moderate figure. Extended instructions score 27,162, and floating-point math reaches 92,038. Integer math scores 65,345. The processor achieves 358 in prime number finding, a test that often relies on specific instruction optimizations. Random string sorting scores 36,590, and physics simulation scores 2,342. These numbers paint a picture of a processor that is well-rounded, with particular strength in floating-point operations and data compression.

When positioned against its nearest rivals, the CPU’s average benchmark score is 36,938. The AMD Ryzen 5 5600F scores 36,945, a 0% delta. The AMD Ryzen 5 5500X3D scores 37,018, putting the Intel part 0.2% behind. The AMD Ryzen AI 7 PRO 450 scores 37,093, a 0.4% gap. Interestingly, the Intel Core i9-12900T scores 37,112, making the Ultra 5 225 0.5% slower. These deltas show that the Ultra 5 225 is effectively in a dead heat with these competitors, trading blows within a fraction of a percent. This suggests that in this performance class, the market has converged on a similar level of capability.

The 85th percentile ranking among all CPUs means the Ultra 5 225 outperforms 85% of tested processors. This is a strong position, placing it in the upper tier of available CPUs. The architecture supports DDR5 memory in a dual-channel configuration, with a memory bandwidth of 102.4 GB/s. It also provides PCIe Gen 5 with 20 lanes from the CPU, offering high-bandwidth connectivity for modern storage and expansion cards. The integrated graphics is an Arc Xe-LPG Graphics 16EU, which provides basic display output but is not designed for demanding graphical workloads. This CPU is not multiplier unlocked, meaning overclocking is restricted, but its stock performance is already competitive.

Benchmark Performance

The combined benchmark picture for this pairing is dominated by the extreme disparity between the CPU and GPU scores. The CPU’s average benchmark score is 36,938, placing it at the 85th percentile of all CPUs. In contrast, the GPU’s average benchmark score is 3,075, placing it at the 19th percentile of all GPUs. This is a remarkable gap. The CPU is in the top 15% of processors, while the GPU is in the bottom 20% of graphics cards. This data strongly suggests that the GPU is not representative of a high-end tier, despite its product name and specifications.

The GPU’s only benchmark result is a 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 score of 3,075. Its nearest rivals according to the data are the NVIDIA Quadro P1000 with a score of 3,163 (a 2.8% gap), the NVIDIA GeForce 820A with 2,983 (a 3.1% gap), and the Intel Arc Pro B60 with 3,182 (a 3.4% gap). Another rival, the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 860M, scores 2,967, a 3.6% delta. These rival comparisons show the RTX 5080 SUPER scoring within a few percentage points of these professional and older mobile GPUs. The data indicates that in this specific 3DMark test, the RTX 5080 SUPER performs at a level comparable to these much less powerful-sounding components.

The combined percentile for this build is 52, which falls near the middle of the overall performance distribution. This is a direct result of the CPU’s high percentile being averaged down by the GPU’s low percentile. The CPU represents a modern, capable processor, while the GPU represents a significant bottleneck in this pairing. The benchmark results indicate that for any workload that is graphically intensive, this system will be severely constrained by the GPU’s performance level. For CPU-bound workloads, the system will perform admirably, but the overall system score is dragged down by the graphics component.

The data shows that the CPU excels in tasks like data compression, floating-point math, and multi-threaded rendering. The PassMark data compression score of 302,811 is particularly high, suggesting strong performance in file archiving and compression tasks. The floating-point math score of 92,038 indicates good capability for scientific and engineering calculations. The Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 25,891 suggests the CPU can handle video rendering and other content creation tasks competently. However, the GPU’s lackluster 3DMark score of 3,075 means that any GPU-accelerated task, such as 3D rendering in modern applications or gaming, will not reach the performance level expected from the CPU’s capabilities.

Gaming Performance

There are no measured FPS rows for this exact CPU+GPU combination. The FACT PACK contains no measuredFps data, so all FPS discussion is framed as estimates based on the benchmark scores. The available data allows for a qualitative assessment of gaming potential. The GPU’s 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 score of 3,075 is the primary metric for gaming performance. Given that this score places the GPU at the 19th percentile, gaming performance is expected to be severely limited, especially at higher resolutions and graphics settings.

The GPU’s specifications do not align with its benchmark score. It has 24 GB of GDDR7 memory on a 256-bit bus, with a bandwidth of 1.02 TB/s. It has 10,752 shading units, 336 TMUs, and 112 ROPs. The boost clock is 2,617 MHz. These specifications suggest a high-end part, yet the 3DMark score contradicts this. This discrepancy could indicate that the benchmark data is for a different configuration or that the GPU is severely thermally or power constrained in this pairing. The data as presented shows a GPU that performs like a low-end or older mobile part, which would result in low FPS in modern games at high settings.

For esports titles and less demanding games, which often run well on modest hardware, the system might provide playable frame rates at lower resolutions and settings. The CPU’s strong single-thread score of 4,412 in PassMark helps with game logic and physics, ensuring that the CPU will not be the limiting factor in most gaming scenarios. However, the GPU will be the primary constraint. At 1080p with medium or low settings, some games may be playable. At 1440p or 4K with ultra settings, the GPU’s performance level, as indicated by its 19th percentile ranking, would lead to very low frame rates. The data suggests that this pairing is not suitable for high-refresh-rate gaming at high settings.

The CPU’s integrated graphics, Arc Xe-LPG Graphics 16EU, is not a gaming solution. It is only intended for basic display tasks. Therefore, all gaming performance relies entirely on the discrete GPU. Since the discrete GPU performs at the 19th percentile, gamers should expect a subpar experience compared to what the CPU alone might suggest. The estimated FPS figures for this system would be low across most modern titles. The only scenarios where gaming might be acceptable are older games or games with very low graphical requirements, where the CPU’s strengths can compensate for the GPU’s weaknesses.

Balance and Bottleneck

This system is severely imbalanced. The CPU is at the 85th percentile, while the GPU is at the 19th percentile. This represents a classic bottleneck scenario, where the GPU is the limiting component in almost all graphically intensive workloads. The CPU’s high performance is wasted in gaming scenarios because the GPU cannot keep up. The data shows that in any task that relies on the GPU, such as 3D rendering or modern gaming, the system will perform at the level of the GPU, not the CPU.

The FPS scaling evidence, while estimated, points to the same conclusion. Since there is no measured FPS data, we rely on the benchmark scores. The GPU’s 3DMark score of 3,075 is comparable to the NVIDIA Quadro P1000 and Intel Arc Pro B60. These are not gaming-oriented cards, and their performance in games would be low. The CPU’s strong benchmark scores would not help in this scenario, as the GPU is the bottleneck. The system’s combined percentile of 52 reflects this imbalance, sitting near the middle despite having a top-tier CPU.

In CPU-bound workloads, the system performs very well. The PassMark multithread score of 30,459 and Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 25,891 indicate that tasks like video encoding, software compilation, and data analysis will run efficiently. The GPU is not involved in these tasks, so its low performance does not affect them. However, for any workload that uses GPU acceleration, such as video editing with effects, 3D modeling, or AI inference, the system will be limited by the GPU. The 24 GB of VRAM on the GPU might help with large datasets, but the raw processing power is insufficient.

The bottleneck is so pronounced that it raises questions about the pairing. The CPU’s 85th percentile ranking is nearly four times the GPU’s 19th percentile ranking. This suggests that a much less powerful CPU could be paired with this GPU without a significant loss in overall system performance. The data indicates that the GPU is the primary limiting factor for this system, and any upgrade path should focus on replacing the GPU first to achieve a more balanced build.

GPU Analysis

The NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5080 SUPER is built on the Blackwell 2.0 architecture using the GB203 chip. It is manufactured on a 5 nm process by TSMC, with 45,600 million transistors on a 378 mm² die. The GPU has a base clock of 2,295 MHz and a boost clock of 2,617 MHz. It features 10,752 shading units, 336 TMUs, and 112 ROPs. For ray tracing, it has 84 RT cores, and for AI acceleration, it has 336 tensor cores. The pixel rate is 293.1 GPixel/s, and the texture rate is 879.3 GTexel/s. The FP32 performance is 56.28 TFLOPS, with FP16 also at 56.28 TFLOPS (1:1).

The memory subsystem is substantial. The GPU has 24 GB of GDDR7 memory on a 256-bit bus, delivering a bandwidth of 1.02 TB/s. The memory clock is 2,000 MHz, operating at 32 Gbps effective. This large memory capacity and high bandwidth are features typically found in top-tier graphics cards. The GPU supports PCIe 5.0 x16 interface and has a TDP of 415 W, requiring a 16-pin power connector. It is a dual-slot card, measuring 304 mm in length, 137 mm in height, and 40 mm in width.

Despite these impressive specifications, the benchmark data shows a different story. The 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 score is 3,075. This score places the GPU at the 19th percentile among all GPUs, which is a very low position for a card with these specifications. The nearest rivals include the NVIDIA Quadro P1000, which scores 3,163, and the NVIDIA GeForce 820A, which scores 2,983. These are not high-end gaming cards, indicating that the RTX 5080 SUPER’s benchmark performance is anomalously low.

The specifications suggest a card capable of high-end rendering, and the 56.28 TFLOPS of FP32 performance is substantial. However, the benchmark score does not reflect this capability. This could be due to driver issues, thermal throttling, or a defective unit. The data as presented shows a GPU that underperforms relative to its specifications. For rendering workloads, the 24 GB VRAM and high bandwidth would be beneficial for large textures and complex scenes, but the low benchmark score suggests the actual rendering speed would be disappointing. The RT cores and tensor cores are present for ray tracing and AI tasks, but their performance is hindered by the overall low benchmark score.

Usage Scenarios

High-refresh gaming: This system is not suitable for high-refresh gaming. The GPU’s 3DMark score of 3,075 places it at the 19th percentile, indicating very low performance. The CPU’s strong single-thread score of 4,412 cannot compensate for the GPU’s inability to render frames quickly. Gamers should expect low frame rates even at 1080p with reduced settings.

Streaming: Streaming involves both CPU encoding and GPU rendering. The CPU’s multithread score of 30,459 in PassMark is sufficient for software encoding, but the GPU’s low performance will result in poor game rendering while streaming. The system would struggle to maintain playable frame rates while broadcasting, leading to a poor streaming experience.

Video editing: Video editing benefits from both CPU and GPU. The CPU’s Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 25,891 is strong for timeline editing and effects processing. However, the GPU’s low 3DMark score suggests that GPU-accelerated effects and rendering will be slow. The 24 GB of VRAM helps with large projects, but the processing speed is a significant drawback.

3D rendering: This workload is heavily GPU-dependent. The GPU’s 56.28 TFLOPS FP32 performance is theoretically high, but the 3DMark score of 3,075 indicates real-world performance is poor. The CPU’s strength is irrelevant in this scenario. 3D artists would experience long render times and slow viewport performance, making this system a poor choice for professional 3D work.

Software development: This is a CPU-bound task, and the system excels here. The CPU’s high single-thread score of 4,412 and multithread score of 30,459 in PassMark ensure fast compilation times and responsive development environments. The GPU is not a factor in most development tasks, so the system’s weakness does not affect this workload. Developers would find this to be a capable machine.

Student and office work: For typical office tasks like word processing, spreadsheets, and web browsing, the system is overkill. The CPU’s performance is more than sufficient, and the GPU is not utilized. The system would be very responsive and efficient for these tasks, though the high power draw of the GPU is unnecessary. Students and office workers would not benefit from the GPU’s presence.

Who Should Build It

This build targets a specific and narrow audience. Given the CPU’s 85th percentile performance and the GPU’s 19th percentile performance, this system is only suitable for users whose primary workload is CPU-intensive and who do not require significant graphical performance. Software developers and data analysts who work with large datasets and compile code would benefit from the CPU’s strong performance. The PassMark integer math score of 65,345 and floating-point math score of 92,038 indicate solid computational capability.

Students in fields like computer science or engineering, who need a responsive system for programming and simulation, would find the CPU adequate. The system would handle virtual machines and compilation tasks well. However, the GPU’s low performance means it is not suitable for gaming or graphics-intensive coursework. Small business workstations that run database applications or financial modeling software would also benefit from the CPU’s performance, as these tasks are typically CPU-bound.

Gamers are explicitly not the target audience for this build. The GPU’s 3DMark score of 3,075 is far too low for modern gaming. Content creators who work primarily in CPU-based rendering (e.g., some audio production or non-GPU-accelerated video codecs) might find the system workable, but any GPU-accelerated workflow would be severely hampered. The 24 GB VRAM on the GPU is a tempting feature for AI researchers, but the low compute performance makes it impractical for serious machine learning work. This system is only for users who know they will not need the GPU’s performance.

FAQ

Q: What is the CPU’s performance percentile among all processors?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 5 225 is at the 85th percentile among all CPUs, indicating it performs better than 85% of tested processors.

Q: What is the GPU’s average benchmark score?

A: The NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5080 SUPER has an average benchmark score of 3,075 from the 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 test.

Q: How does the CPU compare to the AMD Ryzen 5 5600F?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 5 225 has an average score of 36,938, while the AMD Ryzen 5 5600F has an average score of 36,945, resulting in a 0% delta.

Q: How much memory does the GPU have and what type is it?

A: The GPU has 24 GB of GDDR7 memory on a 256-bit bus, with a bandwidth of 1.02 TB/s.

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

A: The combined percentile for this build is 52, which is near the middle of the overall performance distribution.

Q: Does the CPU support ECC memory?

A: No, the Intel Core Ultra 5 225 does not have ECC memory support.

Q: What is the GPU’s boost clock speed?

A: The NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5080 SUPER has a boost clock of 2,617 MHz.

Upgrade Path and Platform

The Intel Core Ultra 5 225 uses the Intel Socket 1851 and supports DDR5 memory in a dual-channel configuration, providing a memory bandwidth of 102.4 GB/s. It offers PCIe Gen 5 with 20 lanes from the CPU. This platform is modern and provides a solid foundation for future upgrades. The CPU has a TDP of 65 W, which is low and leaves significant headroom for a more powerful GPU in the future. The suggested PSU for the current GPU is not specified in the data, but the GPU’s TDP of 415 W is high.

The current GPU is the primary bottleneck. Upgrading to a GPU with a higher 3DMark score would drastically improve system performance. The CPU is capable of supporting high-end graphics cards, given its strong benchmark scores. The PCIe Gen 5 x16 interface on the GPU is fully supported by the CPU’s 20 lanes, ensuring no bandwidth limitation. The power delivery for a new GPU would need to be considered, as the 415 W TDP of the current card suggests a large power supply is required.

A sensible next upgrade would be to replace the GPU with a model that scores higher in the 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 test. The CPU’s performance is sufficient to avoid bottlenecking most graphics cards. The platform’s DDR5 memory support and PCIe Gen 5 connectivity ensure that it is not an outdated platform. The CPU’s 65 W TDP also means that cooling is not a major concern, leaving more headroom for case airflow and GPU cooling. The upgrade path is clear: focus on the GPU to achieve a balanced system.

Build Overview

This build pairs the Intel Core Ultra 5 225, a desktop CPU, with the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5080 SUPER, a desktop GPU. The build class is desktop. The CPU is a 10-core, 10-thread processor with a base clock of 3.30 GHz and a boost clock of 4.90 GHz. It has an 85th percentile ranking among all CPUs. The GPU is a Blackwell 2.0 architecture card with 24 GB of GDDR7 memory and a 2,617 MHz boost clock. It has a 19th percentile ranking among all GPUs.

The overall tier of this build, based on the combined percentile of 52, is mid-range. This is a misleading representation of the components. The CPU is a high-tier component, while the GPU is a low-tier component. The combination results in a system that performs well in CPU-bound tasks but poorly in GPU-bound tasks. The data clearly shows an imbalanced pairing, where the CPU’s capabilities are diminished by the GPU’s lackluster performance. The system’s overall tier is dictated by its weakest link, which is the GPU. This is a build for users who prioritize CPU performance and do not require graphical power.