SYSTEM ANALYZER

Rate My PC: Intel Core Ultra 5 228V + AMD Radeon 860M

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

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%
VS
GPU
93%
PROCESSOR

Intel Core Ultra 5 228V

21,440 Benchmark Score
Top 15% Market Ranking
View Full Specs →
GRAPHICS CARD

AMD Radeon 860M

26,401 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 228V is a mobile processor from the Core Ultra Series 2, built on the Lunar Lake architecture using a 3 nm process. It pairs 8 cores with 8 threads, a configuration that omits simultaneous multithreading. The base clock sits at 2.10 GHz, with a boost clock reaching 4.50 GHz. The chip carries a 17 W TDP, making it a low-power part designed for thin-and-light laptops. Its cache hierarchy includes 192 KB of L1 per core, 2.5 MB of L2 per core, and 8 MB of shared L3 cache.

The architecture relies on a dual-channel memory bus, though the exact memory type is dependent on the motherboard. The processor exposes PCIe Gen 5 with 4 lanes available from the CPU. It does not support ECC memory, and the multiplier is locked, so overclocking is not an option. The integrated graphics are handled by an Arc 130V unit, which is relevant for systems that do not include a discrete GPU. The socket is Intel BGA 2833, confirming it is soldered to the motherboard rather than upgradeable. The production status is active, with a release date of September 2024.

Benchmark data for the CPU places it in the 75th percentile among all CPUs tested, which is a solid position for a mobile chip. The average benchmark score is 21440. Looking at the nearest rivals, the AMD Ryzen 5 2600 scores 21484, which is 0.2% higher, making the Intel part effectively tied with that older desktop processor. The Intel Core i9-11900H scores 21367, putting the Ultra 5 228V 0.3% ahead. Against the Intel Xeon D-1746TER, which scores 21635, the Ultra 5 trails by 0.9%. The AMD EPYC 9454 scores 21223, meaning the Ultra 5 is 1% ahead. These deltas are all within a narrow band, indicating that the 228V offers performance comparable to a mix of desktop and server chips from previous generations, despite its low power envelope.

In Cinebench tests, the multicore scores show a clear trend. The R15 multicore result is 1502.5, the R20 multicore result is 6491, and the R23 multicore result is 9932. The single-core scores are 267 in R15, 916 in R20, and 1758 in R23. The Passmark suite provides additional context. The multithread score is 18227, while the single-thread score is 3836. Integer math scores 39679, floating-point math scores 53310, and extended instructions score 14801. Data compression scores 173924, data encryption scores 13032, and random string sorting scores 21254. The find prime numbers test scores 168, and physics scores 1538.

These numbers indicate a processor that excels in bursty, single-threaded workloads due to the high boost clock and efficient Lunar Lake cores. The multicore scores are respectable for a 17 W part, but the lack of SMT means that heavily threaded workloads will not see the scaling that a similar core count with hyperthreading would provide. For everyday tasks, the single-thread performance will make the system feel responsive, while the multicore results are sufficient for occasional content creation or compilation tasks, though not for sustained heavy rendering.

Benchmark Performance

The overall benchmark picture combines the CPU and GPU scores. The CPU average benchmark score is 21440, and the GPU average benchmark score is 26401. For the GPU, the Geekbench OpenCL score is 22759, and the Geekbench Vulkan score is 30043. This places the Radeon 860M in the 72nd percentile among all GPUs, a strong showing for an integrated graphics solution.

The combined percentile for the CPU and GPU pairing is 74. This indicates that the system as a whole sits above the majority of tested hardware. The CPU is at the 75th percentile, and the GPU is at the 72nd percentile, so neither component drags the other down significantly. The pair rank by FPS is not available, and there are no measured FPS rows for this exact combination. The data shows that the system is balanced in terms of percentile rankings, with both components landing in a similar tier.

The GPU's nearest rivals provide a useful reference. The NVIDIA GeForce MX550 scores 26421, which is 0.1% higher than the Radeon 860M. The NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5060 scores 26331, putting the AMD part 0.3% ahead. The AMD Radeon RX 5700 XT 50th Anniversary scores 26553, meaning the 860M trails by 0.6%. The NVIDIA RTX A4000 scores 26683, putting the 860M 1.1% behind. These comparisons show that the integrated GPU is competitive with entry-level discrete GPUs and even trades blows with a desktop card from a previous generation. The RTX 5060 comparison is notable, as it suggests that the 860M can approach the performance of a modern entry-level discrete GPU in certain compute tasks.

The CPU and GPU scores together paint a picture of a system that is capable of handling a broad range of tasks. The CPU's single-thread performance ensures snappy response in applications that are not heavily threaded, while the GPU's compute scores indicate that it can handle light to moderate graphics workloads. The combined percentile of 74 reinforces that this is a mid-to-upper-tier mobile configuration.

GPU Analysis

The AMD Radeon 860M is built on the RDNA 3.5 architecture, codenamed Krackan Point, and manufactured on a 4 nm process at TSMC. The chip is part of the Navi III IGP generation for Strix Point Mobile. The GPU has a base clock of 600 MHz and a boost clock of 3000 MHz. The memory is system shared, meaning the GPU uses the same memory as the CPU, with the bandwidth being system dependent. The bus width is also system shared, so performance will vary based on the laptop's memory configuration.

The shading units number 512, with 32 texture mapping units and 16 render output units. The GPU includes 8 ray tracing cores. The pixel rate is 48.00 GPixel/s, and the texture rate is 96.00 GTexel/s. The FP32 performance is 3.072 TFLOPS, with FP16 performance also at 3.072 TFLOPS, indicating a 1:1 ratio. The TDP is 15 W, which is low even for an integrated GPU. The bus interface is PCIe 4.0 x8, and the display outputs are dependent on the portable device. The API support includes DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4.

The Geekbench Vulkan score of 30043 is significantly higher than the OpenCL score of 22759, suggesting that the RDNA 3.5 architecture is well-optimized for Vulkan workloads. The ray tracing cores, while only 8 in number, provide hardware acceleration for RT effects, which is a feature not commonly found in integrated GPUs. The 3.072 TFLOPS of FP32 performance is modest, but it is delivered within a 15 W power budget, which is remarkable for an IGP.

The benchmark scores indicate that the 860M is a capable GPU for its class. The nearest rival comparison shows it performing within 1.1% of the RTX A4000, which is a professional-grade discrete GPU. This is not to say that the 860M can replace a dedicated workstation GPU, but it does suggest that for compute tasks that scale well with the architecture, the integrated part holds its own. The rasterization performance, as implied by the pixel and texture rates, is sufficient for 1080p gaming at medium to high settings, depending on the title.

The lack of dedicated VRAM means that the GPU will compete with the CPU for memory bandwidth. This can become a bottleneck in scenarios where both the CPU and GPU are heavily loaded, such as gaming while streaming. However, for a laptop with a 17 W CPU and a 15 W GPU, the system is clearly designed for efficiency over raw performance.

Balance and Bottleneck

The balance between the Intel Core Ultra 5 228V and the AMD Radeon 860M is dictated by their respective percentile rankings. The CPU sits at the 75th percentile, and the GPU sits at the 72nd percentile. This is a near match, meaning that neither component is dramatically stronger than the other. In a system where one component vastly outperforms the other, the weaker one becomes the bottleneck. Here, the data suggests a relatively even pairing.

In CPU-bound workloads, such as data compression or single-threaded tasks, the CPU's high boost clock and strong single-thread score will be the limiting factor for overall system performance. The Passmark single-thread score of 3836 and the Cinebench R23 single-core score of 1758 indicate that the CPU can handle most everyday tasks without the GPU being involved. Conversely, in GPU-bound workloads like gaming at higher resolutions or rendering with ray tracing, the GPU will be the limiting component. The GPU's FP32 performance of 3.072 TFLOPS is the ceiling for graphics compute.

The FPS scaling is not measured for this exact combination, so the bottleneck analysis must rely on the percentile data. Since the CPU and GPU are within 3 percentile points of each other, the system is likely to be balanced in most scenarios. However, there are edge cases. In light gaming at lower resolutions, the CPU might be the bottleneck if the GPU is not fully utilized. In heavy compute tasks that use both the CPU and GPU, such as video encoding with hardware acceleration, the shared memory bandwidth could be a limiting factor.

The memory bandwidth being system dependent is a key consideration. If the laptop is configured with slower memory, the GPU's performance will suffer disproportionately. The CPU's dual-channel memory bus is also a factor, as it provides the bandwidth for both the CPU and the GPU. In a balanced system like this, the memory configuration can make the difference between the components performing at their expected level or falling short.

Who Should Build It

This Intel Core Ultra 5 228V and AMD Radeon 860M combination is targeting a specific audience. The build class is a laptop, and the combined percentile of 74 indicates that it is a mid-to-upper-tier mobile system. The target users are those who need a portable machine for a mix of productivity and light to moderate gaming or content creation.

For gamers, this system is best suited for 1080p gaming at medium settings. The GPU's percentile rank of 72 and its proximity to the MX550 in benchmarks suggest that it can handle esports titles and older AAA games with ease. It will struggle with the latest AAA titles at high settings, but it is a capable entry-level gaming solution for those who prioritize portability over maximum graphical fidelity.

Content creators who work with video or photo editing will find the CPU's single-thread performance and the GPU's compute capabilities useful. The Cinebench R23 multicore score of 9932 is sufficient for 1080p video editing, and the GPU's Vulkan performance can accelerate effects that use the GPU. However, render-heavy workflows will be slow due to the lack of SMT and the modest GPU core count.

Software developers will appreciate the fast single-thread performance for compilation and code editing. The Passmark integer math score of 39679 and the multithread score of 18227 indicate that the CPU can handle build tasks for small to medium-sized projects. The low TDP also means that the laptop will have good battery life during coding sessions.

Students and small business users who need a laptop for office work, web browsing, and media consumption will find this configuration more than adequate. The high single-thread score ensures that the system feels responsive in everyday tasks, and the GPU can handle external display output and light photo editing. The 17 W CPU TDP and 15 W GPU TDP make this an efficient machine that can run cool and quiet.

Usage Scenarios

High-Refresh Gaming: The GPU's percentile rank of 72 and its benchmark scores suggest that it can drive 1080p displays at high refresh rates in esports titles. Games like Counter-Strike or Valorant, which are not GPU-intensive, should easily hit high frame rates. For more demanding titles, the frame rate will be lower, but the system is not suited for 1440p or 4K high-refresh gaming.

Streaming: Streaming requires both CPU and GPU resources. The CPU's 8 cores and 8 threads, combined with the GPU's video encoding capabilities, can handle a single-stream setup. However, the lack of SMT means that running a game, encoding the stream, and managing chat software simultaneously may cause frame drops in CPU-intensive games. The GPU's shared memory bandwidth could also be a constraint.

Video Editing: The Cinebench R23 multicore score of 9932 and the GPU's OpenCL score of 22759 indicate that the system can handle 1080p video editing in software like Premiere Pro or DaVinci Resolve. Timeline scrubbing and simple effects will be smooth, but rendering long videos will take time. The system is not suitable for 4K editing or heavy motion graphics.

3D Rendering: The CPU's multicore performance and the GPU's 3.072 TFLOPS of FP32 performance are below what is needed for professional 3D rendering. Blender or Maya users will find that CPU rendering is slow, and GPU rendering is limited by the modest core count. This is a system for hobbyist-level rendering, not production work.

Software Development: The single-thread score of 3836 and the boost clock of 4.50 GHz make this an excellent laptop for coding. Compilation times for small projects will be quick, and the system can run multiple containers or virtual machines without excessive lag. The low power draw is a benefit for developers who work on the go.

Student and Office Work: The CPU's single-thread performance makes office applications feel instant. Spreadsheets, documents, and presentation software will run flawlessly. The GPU is more than capable of driving an external monitor or two. Battery life should be excellent given the low TDP of both components.

Gaming Performance

There are no measured FPS rows for this exact Intel Core Ultra 5 228V and AMD Radeon 860M combination. The FACT PACK contains no measuredFps data, so all frame rate discussions are estimates based on the benchmark scores. The GPU's percentile rank of 72 and its proximity to the MX550 in benchmarks suggest that it performs at a level comparable to a low-end discrete GPU.

For esports titles like Fortnite, Rocket League, or League of Legends, the system should comfortably exceed 60 FPS at 1080p with medium to high settings. The CPU's strong single-core performance will help in these titles, which are often CPU-bound at lower resolutions. The GPU's 512 shading units are sufficient for these lighter workloads.

For AAA titles like Cyberpunk 2077 or Red Dead Redemption 2, the system will need to run at 1080p with low to medium settings to achieve playable frame rates. The GPU's lack of dedicated VRAM and the shared memory bandwidth will be a limiting factor. The ray tracing cores, while present, are only 8 in number, so enabling ray tracing will likely result in a significant performance hit.

The estimated FPS for a game like Overwatch or Apex Legends is likely in the 60-90 FPS range at 1080p medium settings. For more demanding titles like Assassin's Creed Valhalla, the estimate drops to 30-50 FPS at 1080p low settings. These are estimates, and actual performance will vary based on the specific laptop's cooling and memory configuration. The system is not intended for high-refresh 1440p gaming, as the GPU's compute power is too limited for that workload.

FAQ

Q: What is the CPU's core and thread count?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 5 228V has 8 cores and 8 threads.

Q: What is the clock speed of the CPU?

A: The base clock is 2.10 GHz, and the boost clock is 4.50 GHz.

Q: How does the CPU compare to the AMD Ryzen 5 2600?

A: The AMD Ryzen 5 2600 has an average score of 21484, which is 0.2% higher than the Intel Core Ultra 5 228V's score of 21440.

Q: What is the GPU's FP32 performance?

A: The AMD Radeon 860M has an FP32 performance of 3.072 TFLOPS.

Q: How does the GPU compare to the NVIDIA GeForce MX550?

A: The NVIDIA GeForce MX550 has an average score of 26421, which is 0.1% higher than the AMD Radeon 860M's score of 26401.

Q: Does the GPU have ray tracing cores?

A: Yes, the AMD Radeon 860M has 8 ray tracing cores.

Q: What is the combined percentile for this CPU and GPU pairing?

A: The combined percentile is 74.

Build Overview

This build pairs the Intel Core Ultra 5 228V with the AMD Radeon 860M in a laptop form factor. The CPU is a Lunar Lake architecture mobile processor from the Core Ultra Series 2, manufactured on a 3 nm process. The GPU is an RDNA 3.5 architecture integrated graphics solution from the Krackan Point generation, manufactured on a 4 nm process. Both components are designed for low power consumption, with the CPU at 17 W TDP and the GPU at 15 W TDP.

The overall tier of this system, based on the 74th combined percentile, is mid-to-upper range for mobile hardware. The CPU's 75th percentile and the GPU's 72nd percentile indicate that both components are above average when compared to all tested parts. This is not a flagship configuration, but it is a competent one that should handle a wide variety of tasks. The lack of measured FPS data means that gaming performance is an estimate, but the benchmark scores suggest that it is a capable entry-level gaming laptop. The system is best suited for users who need a portable machine for productivity, light content creation, and moderate gaming.