SYSTEM ANALYZER

Rate My PC: Intel Core Ultra 5 228V + Intel Arc A530M

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)

▼

91 Score

Top 9% Ranking

91 / 100

ULTIMATE READY

Apex Performer

Top 9% 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

85%

GPU

96%

PROCESSOR

Intel Core Ultra 5 228V

21,440 Benchmark Score

Top 15% Market Ranking

View Full Specs →

GRAPHICS CARD

Intel Arc A530M

46,614 Benchmark Score

Top 4% 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

The Intel Core Ultra 5 228V and Intel Arc A530M combination represents a highly efficient mobile platform designed for balanced performance in a compact form factor. The data shows a system that sits at the 80th percentile overall, with the CPU and GPU each performing near the top of their respective classes. This pairing is best understood as a capable all-rounder for a laptop, offering strong multi-threaded processing and solid 1080p-class graphics in a power-efficient package. The following analysis breaks down the components, their measured performance, and how this system fits into various usage scenarios.

GPU Analysis — VRAM, bandwidth, clocks, RT/tensor hardware, what the benchmark scores mean for rendering

The Intel Arc A530M is a mobile graphics processor built on the Xe-HPG architecture, utilizing the DG2-256 chip manufactured on a 6 nm process. The GPU is equipped with 8 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 128-bit bus, which provides a memory bandwidth of 224.0 GB/s. This configuration is well-suited for modern game assets and textures at 1080p resolution, and the VRAM capacity offers headroom for higher-detail settings without immediately exhausting memory resources.

Clock speeds are listed at a base of 900 MHz and a boost of 1300 MHz, with memory running at 1750 MHz (14 Gbps effective). The compute configuration includes 1536 shading units, 96 texture mapping units, and 48 raster output pipelines. The chip also houses 12 dedicated ray tracing cores, enabling hardware-accelerated ray tracing for supported titles. The GPU’s compute throughput is rated at 3.994 TFLOPS for FP32 operations and 7.987 TFLOPS for FP16 (at a 2:1 ratio), which informs its raw shader performance. Pixel and texture rates are listed at 62.40 GPixel/s and 124.8 GTexel/s, respectively.

Benchmark results for the GPU are limited but telling. In Geekbench OpenCL, the Arc A530M scores 49735, and in Geekbench Vulkan, it scores 43492. These results place the GPU at the 85th percentile of all GPUs, indicating a strong showing among its peers. The average benchmark score is 46614, which sits nearly exactly between its nearest rivals. The AMD Radeon RX 5600M scores 46601, a delta of 0%, while the AMD Radeon RX 6550M scores 46702, a delta of -0.2%. The NVIDIA RTX A2000 scores 46043, putting the Arc A530M 1.2% ahead, and the NVIDIA RTX 5880 Ada Generation scores 45972, with the Arc A530M leading by 1.4%. The data suggests the Arc A530M is a mid-range performer that matches or slightly edges out comparable mobile GPUs from the previous generation.

For rendering workloads, the FP32 throughput of 3.994 TFLOPS is the baseline for traditional rasterization. The FP16 performance, doubling to 7.987 TFLOPS, can benefit workloads that leverage reduced precision, though this is less common in gaming. The presence of 12 RT cores means ray-traced effects are possible, but the overall compute power will likely limit RT performance to lower resolutions or less demanding settings. The 8 GB VRAM and 224.0 GB/s bandwidth are adequate for 1080p rendering, but the data does not support expectations for high-resolution texture-heavy workloads beyond that.

Benchmark Performance — exact CPU and GPU scores, percentile positions, and what the combined picture is

The CPU and GPU each deliver strong individual benchmark results, and their combined performance places this system in the 80th percentile overall. The Intel Core Ultra 5 228V achieves an average benchmark score of 21440, which places it at the 75th percentile of all CPUs. The Arc A530M GPU achieves an average score of 46614, placing it at the 85th percentile of all GPUs. This combination of a top-quartile CPU and a top-15% GPU creates a balanced platform, though the GPU is relatively stronger than the CPU in terms of percentile ranking.

CPU benchmark scores show a clear picture of its capabilities. In Cinebench R23, the processor scores 9932 in multi-core and 1758 in single-core. Earlier Cinebench versions show a similar pattern: R20 scores are 6491 multi-core and 916 single-core, while R15 scores are 1502.5 multi-core and 267 single-core. PassMark results reinforce this, with a multi-thread score of 18227 and a single-thread score of 3836. The CPU’s nearest rival, the AMD Ryzen 5 2600, has an average score of 21484, a delta of -0.2%, meaning the Core Ultra 5 228V is essentially tied with it. The Intel Core i9-11900H scores 21367, putting it 0.3% behind. The Intel Xeon D-1746TER scores 21635, which is 0.9% ahead, and the AMD EPYC 9454 scores 21223, which the Core Ultra 5 228V leads by 1%.

The combined picture from the data is one of high efficiency. The CPU’s performance is competitive with older desktop and high-end mobile parts, while the GPU’s performance is competitive with mid-range discrete mobile GPUs. The system is not a top-tier enthusiast platform, but it is a substantial step above integrated graphics solutions. The 80th percentile combined rank indicates that this pairing will handle a wide variety of tasks with good responsiveness, but it will not be the fastest option for intensive, multi-hour rendering tasks or maximum-detail 4K gaming.

Upgrade Path and Platform — socket, memory support, PCIe, PSU headroom from suggestedPsu/tdp, what a sensible next upgrade looks like

The platform is built around the Intel Core Ultra 5 228V, which uses the Intel BGA 2833 socket. This is a mobile, soldered form factor, meaning the CPU is not upgradeable. The processor is based on the Lunar Lake architecture and is manufactured on a 3 nm process by TSMC. The CPU’s TDP is 17 watts, and the GPU’s TDP is 65 watts, indicating a combined thermal envelope that is well-suited for thin-and-light laptops. The GPU is listed as an IGP, suggesting it is integrated into the motherboard or is a low-profile discrete solution, and the platform relies on the system’s power delivery rather than a separate PSU.

Memory support is listed as "unknown" and depends on the motherboard, but the memory bus is dual-channel. The CPU’s PCIe support is Gen 5 with 4 lanes for the CPU only, while the GPU uses a PCIe 4.0 x8 interface. This means the GPU has a dedicated, high-bandwidth connection, but the CPU’s limited lane count is a constraint for adding multiple NVMe drives or other expansion cards. The integrated graphics are the Arc 130V, which is a separate, lower-tier GPU than the discrete Arc A530M.

Given the soldered nature of the CPU and the integrated GPU class, a "sensible next upgrade" is not about swapping components. The data suggests that the primary upgrade path for a user is the laptop itself, moving to a higher-tier platform if more CPU or GPU performance is needed. Within the constraints of this system, the only user-accessible upgrades would be memory and storage, assuming the motherboard supports it. The 17 W TDP of the CPU and 65 W TDP of the GPU indicate a system that is designed for power efficiency, so there is no headroom for overclocking or adding high-power components. The data does not include a suggested PSU, but the low TDPs imply that a modest power supply is sufficient.

Gaming Performance — measured FPS by game and resolution from measuredFpsUltraByGame (or, if dataIsMeasured is false, frame expectations qualitatively from the benchmark scores and say the figures are estimates)

Note: The FACT PACK contains no measured FPS data for this exact CPU and GPU combination. All frame rate expectations are estimates derived from the benchmark scores and should be treated as such.

Based on the GPU’s benchmark performance, which places it at the 85th percentile and nearly identical to the AMD Radeon RX 5600M and RX 6550M, the Arc A530M is a capable 1080p gaming solution. The 8 GB VRAM and 224.0 GB/s bandwidth are sufficient for modern titles at medium-to-high settings. The GPU’s FP32 throughput of 3.994 TFLOPS suggests that it can handle most games at 1080p with playable frame rates, though achieving "ultra" settings at high refresh rates will depend on the specific title.

For esports titles, the data indicates the CPU’s strong single-core performance (1758 in Cinebench R23) will not bottleneck the GPU, and the system should deliver high frame rates on lower settings. For AAA titles, the GPU’s performance, roughly equivalent to the RX 5600M, suggests that 1080p with a mix of medium and high settings is a realistic target. The 12 RT cores mean that ray tracing is possible, but the limited compute power will likely require significant compromises to resolution or settings to maintain smooth performance. Overall, the estimated gaming experience is solid for 1080p, with the understanding that the GPU is the limiting factor for higher resolutions or maximum detail settings.

Usage Scenarios — grounded in the scores: high-refresh gaming, streaming, video editing, 3D rendering, software development, student and office work. One short paragraph per scenario, citing the numbers that support the verdict

High-refresh gaming: For 1080p high-refresh gaming, the GPU’s performance, which sits 1.2% ahead of the NVIDIA RTX A2000 and 1.4% ahead of the RTX 5880 Ada Generation, is strong. However, the FP32 throughput of 3.994 TFLOPS will likely limit frame rates in demanding titles, making this a good fit for 1080p at high settings rather than maximum detail. The CPU’s single-core score of 1758 in Cinebench R23 ensures the processor can keep up with high frame rates in less demanding titles.

Streaming: The CPU’s 8 cores and 8 threads, combined with a PassMark multi-thread score of 18227, provide sufficient headroom for encoding a stream while gaming. The integrated Arc 130V GPU could serve as a dedicated encoder, offloading work from the discrete Arc A530M. The data suggests this system can handle a single-stream setup for 1080p gaming and streaming simultaneously, though the lack of additional threads means background tasks should be kept light.

Video editing: The CPU’s multi-core performance, which is 0.9% behind the Intel Xeon D-1746TER and 0.3% ahead of the Core i9-11900H, is adequate for 1080p video editing. The GPU’s FP16 performance of 7.987 TFLOPS can accelerate effects and rendering in supported software. The 8 GB VRAM is useful for previewing larger projects, but the system is not built for heavy 4K or multi-layer timelines.

3D rendering: In Cinebench R23, the CPU scores 9932 multi-core, which is a decent result for a 17 W part. The GPU’s 3.994 TFLOPS FP32 performance is comparable to older mid-range desktop cards, meaning it can handle basic 3D rendering and viewport work. However, for final frame rendering, the CPU will be the primary workhorse, and the data indicates it will be slower than dedicated high-core-count desktop CPUs.

Software development: The CPU’s PassMark integer math score of 39679 and data compression score of 173924 indicate strong performance for compilation and code processing. The 8 cores/8 threads are sufficient for parallel builds, and the single-thread score of 3836 ensures snappy UI and IDE responsiveness. This is a capable development machine for most software engineering tasks.

Student and office work: The CPU’s power efficiency (17 W TDP) and strong single-core performance make it ideal for everyday tasks. The PassMark single-thread score of 3836 ensures smooth multitasking across documents, browsers, and communication apps. The GPU is overkill for this scenario, but the platform’s efficiency means long battery life is a likely outcome, making it a strong choice for a portable student laptop.

Who Should Build It — target users and industries tied strictly to the measured performance

This platform is best suited for users who need a balanced, power-efficient mobile solution. The 80th percentile combined rank and the GPU’s 85th percentile position indicate a system that excels at general-purpose computing with a strong graphics component. Gamers targeting 1080p resolution with medium-to-high settings will find the Arc A530M, which is 1.2% ahead of the NVIDIA RTX A2000, to be a capable partner. Content creators working with 1080p video or light 3D workloads will benefit from the CPU’s multi-core score of 9932 in Cinebench R23 and the GPU’s FP16 throughput of 7.987 TFLOPS.

Software developers, particularly those working on compilation-heavy projects, are a target audience. The CPU’s PassMark data compression score of 173924 and integer math score of 39679 show strong throughput for code builds. Students and professionals in office environments will find the system more than adequate, with the CPU’s single-thread score of 3836 ensuring responsive application performance. The platform is not intended for high-end workstation tasks like 4K video rendering or complex 3D simulations, as the CPU’s 8 threads and the GPU’s 3.994 TFLOPS FP32 performance will be limiting factors. Small business workstations that require a compact, efficient system for general tasks and light graphics work would also fit this profile, but it is not a server-class platform.

Balance and Bottleneck — which component limits which workload, using percentiles and FPS scaling as evidence

The system exhibits a balanced profile, but the bottleneck shifts depending on the workload. The GPU is the stronger component relative to its peers, sitting at the 85th percentile compared to the CPU’s 75th percentile. In gaming, the GPU is almost always the limiting factor. The Arc A530M’s performance, which is 0% different from the RX 5600M and 1.2% ahead of the RTX A2000, defines the ceiling for frame rates. The CPU, with a single-core score of 1758 in Cinebench R23, has enough headroom to feed the GPU in most scenarios, meaning the GPU is the primary constraint for FPS scaling.

In CPU-bound workloads like software compilation or data processing, the CPU becomes the limiting factor. Its multi-thread score of 18227 in PassMark is competitive, but the 8-thread limit means it will lag behind higher-core-count parts in heavily parallel tasks. The CPU’s performance, which is 0.9% behind the Xeon D-1746TER, shows it is near the top of its class, but it is still the bottleneck for tasks that scale with core count.

For a balanced workload like video editing, the system is well-matched. The CPU’s 75th percentile and the GPU’s 85th percentile mean neither component is drastically underpowered relative to the other. The data suggests that the GPU will limit 3D rendering and gaming, while the CPU will limit encoding and multi-threaded productivity tasks. The lack of measured FPS data makes it impossible to quantify the exact scaling, but the percentile positions indicate a well-balanced system where the user will not experience a severe bottleneck in typical usage.

FAQ

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

A: The combined percentile for this build is 80, indicating it performs better than 80% of all tested system configurations.

Q: How does the Intel Core Ultra 5 228V compare to the AMD Ryzen 5 2600?

A: The Core Ultra 5 228V has an average benchmark score of 21440, while the Ryzen 5 2600 scores 21484. The delta is -0.2%, meaning the Intel part is essentially tied with the AMD processor.

Q: How much VRAM does the Intel Arc A530M have, and what is its memory bandwidth?

A: The Arc A530M has 8 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 128-bit bus, providing a total bandwidth of 224.0 GB/s.

Q: Does this system have ray tracing support?

A: Yes, the Intel Arc A530M includes 12 dedicated ray tracing cores, enabling hardware-accelerated ray tracing in supported games and applications.

Q: What is the TDP of the CPU and the GPU?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 5 228V has a TDP of 17 watts, and the Intel Arc A530M has a TDP of 65 watts.

Q: Is the CPU overclockable?

A: No, the multiplier is locked on the Intel Core Ultra 5 228V, meaning it is not unlocked for overclocking.

Q: What is the socket type for this CPU?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 5 228V uses the Intel BGA 2833 socket, which is a soldered mobile form factor.

CPU Analysis — cores, clocks, architecture, what the benchmark scores mean for real workloads

The Intel Core Ultra 5 228V is an 8-core, 8-thread processor from the Core Ultra Series 2, based on the Lunar Lake architecture. It is manufactured on a 3 nm process at TSMC, which contributes to its low 17 W TDP. The base clock is 2.10 GHz, with a boost clock of 4.50 GHz. The cache hierarchy includes 192 KB of L1 per core, 2.5 MB of L2 per core, and 8 MB of shared L3 cache. This configuration is designed for efficiency, with a focus on delivering strong single-threaded performance while maintaining low power consumption.

Benchmark scores confirm the CPU’s capabilities. The Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 9932 is a strong result for a low-power part, placing it in the same range as older desktop processors like the AMD Ryzen 5 2600 (which scores 21484 in the average benchmark, a -0.2% delta). The single-core score of 1758 in R23 is particularly notable, as it indicates excellent responsiveness for everyday tasks and games. PassMark results break down the workload performance: a multi-thread score of 18227, a single-thread score of 3836, and specific scores for integer math (39679), floating-point math (53310), and data compression (173924).

For real workloads, the CPU’s 8 threads will be a limiting factor in heavily parallel tasks like 3D rendering or video encoding, where higher-core-count CPUs will pull ahead. However, for software development, the integer math and data compression scores suggest fast compilation and file handling. The single-thread performance ensures that office applications, web browsing, and general system navigation feel snappy. The CPU’s performance is tied with the AMD Ryzen 5 2600 and 0.3% ahead of the Intel Core i9-11900H, showing that it provides comparable processing power to those parts while using a fraction of the power. The 75th percentile ranking among all CPUs underscores that this is a top-quartile processor for its class, making it an excellent choice for a thin-and-light laptop where battery life and thermal efficiency are as important as raw performance.

Rate My PC: Intel Core Ultra 5 228V + Intel Arc A530M

Apex Performer

System Balance Analysis

Intel Core Ultra 5 228V

Intel Arc A530M

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

GPU Analysis — VRAM, bandwidth, clocks, RT/tensor hardware, what the benchmark scores mean for rendering

Benchmark Performance — exact CPU and GPU scores, percentile positions, and what the combined picture is

Upgrade Path and Platform — socket, memory support, PCIe, PSU headroom from suggestedPsu/tdp, what a sensible next upgrade looks like

Gaming Performance — measured FPS by game and resolution from measuredFpsUltraByGame (or, if dataIsMeasured is false, frame expectations qualitatively from the benchmark scores and say the figures are estimates)

Usage Scenarios — grounded in the scores: high-refresh gaming, streaming, video editing, 3D rendering, software development, student and office work. One short paragraph per scenario, citing the numbers that support the verdict

Who Should Build It — target users and industries tied strictly to the measured performance

Balance and Bottleneck — which component limits which workload, using percentiles and FPS scaling as evidence

FAQ

CPU Analysis — cores, clocks, architecture, what the benchmark scores mean for real workloads

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