SYSTEM ANALYZER

Rate My PC: Intel Core Ultra 5 235A + Intel Arc A310

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
94%
VS
GPU
85%
PROCESSOR

Intel Core Ultra 5 235A

48,201 Benchmark Score
Top 6% Market Ranking
View Full Specs →
GRAPHICS CARD

Intel Arc A310

7,550 Benchmark Score
Top 15% 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 235A paired with the Intel Arc A310 presents an extreme asymmetry in performance potential. The CPU is a modern, high-end desktop processor, while the GPU is a low-power entry-level component. Consequently, the data indicates that this combination is overwhelmingly GPU-limited in gaming and graphics tasks, with the CPU’s substantial compute capabilities left largely untapped in those scenarios. The benchmark scores show a clear verdict: this is a workstation-oriented CPU paired with a display-output GPU, not a gaming configuration.

Gaming Performance

No measured FPS rows exist for this exact CPU-GPU combination in the FACT PACK. There is no `measuredFpsUltraByGame` data, so all frame rate expectations are estimates derived from the benchmark scores of the individual components. The Intel Arc A310’s PassMark G3D score of 5433 places it at the 40th percentile of all GPUs, a score comparable to the AMD Radeon R7 250 and the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650. These are entry-level performance tiers, indicating that the Arc A310 is not suited for high-fidelity gaming.

At 1080p with ultra settings, the GPU’s 4 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 64-bit bus with 124.0 GB/s bandwidth will be a severe constraint. The GPU’s FP32 performance of 2.688 TFLOPS and its pixel rate of 28.00 GPixel/s suggest it can handle older titles or esports games at modest settings, but modern AAA games will likely struggle to maintain playable frame rates. The Arc A310’s PassMark DirectX 12 score of 29 is particularly low, indicating poor performance in modern graphics APIs.

In contrast, the CPU’s Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 32633 and single-core score of 4607 are exceptional, capable of supporting very high frame rates in CPU-bound scenarios. However, the GPU’s low scores will bottleneck the system. The estimated FPS for this pairing at ultra settings would be low, likely in the range of 20-40 FPS in demanding titles, with esports titles possibly reaching 60+ FPS at lower settings. The data confirms this is not a high-refresh gaming build, and users should not expect playable ultra settings in recent releases. The system can be described as capable of light gaming at best, with the CPU leaving the vast majority of its performance on the table.

GPU Analysis

The Intel Arc A310 is built on the Xe-HPG architecture (Alchemist generation) using TSMC’s 6 nm process. It is a small chip, with 7,200 million transistors on a 157 mm² die. The GPU features 768 shading units, 32 TMUs, and 16 ROPs. For ray tracing, it includes 6 dedicated RT cores. The GPU operates at a fixed clock of 1750 MHz for both base and boost.

Memory is a significant limitation. The 4 GB GDDR6 VRAM is on a 64-bit bus, yielding a bandwidth of 124.0 GB/s. This is a low figure by modern standards and will cause stuttering and texture pop-in in many games that require more than 4 GB of VRAM at high resolutions. The GPU’s FP32 throughput is 2.688 TFLOPS, with FP16 at 5.376 TFLOPS. These numbers place it firmly in the entry-level segment, as corroborated by its PassMark G3D score of 5433 and its 40th percentile ranking.

The GPU’s compute performance is also modest, with a PassMark GPU Compute score of 2157. For rendering workloads, this is a weak result. The card’s TDP is just 30 W, and it requires no external power connectors, drawing all power from the PCIe slot. This makes it a very low-power, single-slot solution, with a suggested PSU of only 200 W. The output configuration includes 4x mini-DisplayPort 2.0 connections, which is a unique feature for a card of this class. The benchmark data indicates that while the card supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), its performance in DirectX 12 workloads is poor (PassMark score of 29), suggesting that while feature support is present, the hardware lacks the compute power to utilize it effectively.

Benchmark Performance

The CPU and GPU benchmark scores reveal a stark contrast in capability. The Intel Core Ultra 5 235A has an average benchmark score of 48201, placing it in the 90th percentile of all CPUs. This is a top-tier result. Its nearest rivals include the AMD Ryzen AI Max PRO 380 (score 48171, 0.1% faster), the Intel Core Ultra 5 245HX (score 48287, 0.2% faster), and the AMD EPYC 4345P (score 48470, 0.6% faster). This indicates the 235A is performance-competitive with high-end workstation and mobile processors.

In contrast, the Intel Arc A310’s average benchmark score is 7550, placing it in the 40th percentile of all GPUs. Its nearest rivals are older or low-end parts: the AMD Radeon R7 250 (score 7557, 0.1% faster), the AMD Radeon Pro WX 3100 (score 7580, 0.4% faster), and the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 (score 7472, 1.0% slower). The GPU is clearly not in the same performance class as the CPU.

The combined percentile for this pairing is 65, reflecting the drag of the weak GPU on the strong CPU. The data shows a CPU that excels in multi-threaded workloads, with a Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 32633 and a PassMark multi-thread score of 38392. Single-thread performance is also strong, with a Cinebench R23 single-core score of 4607 and a PassMark single-thread score of 4557. The GPU’s scores, such as the PassMark G3D of 5433 and Geekbench OpenCL of 30607, are unimpressive. The combined picture is one of a system with immense CPU potential that is capped by a GPU that performs at the level of a decade-old discrete card or modern integrated graphics.

Usage Scenarios

High-Refresh Gaming: This scenario is not viable with the Arc A310. The GPU’s 40th percentile ranking and low DirectX 12 score of 29 will limit frame rates to low levels, making high-refresh monitors a waste of potential. The CPU could easily push high FPS, but the GPU will be the limiting factor, resulting in an imbalanced experience.

Streaming: The CPU’s strong multi-core performance (Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 32633) can handle encoding workloads, but the overall gaming experience will be poor due to the GPU. The system could handle a stream of a low-demand game, but the visual quality of the game itself would be compromised. The 14 cores and 14 threads provide a good foundation for encoding, but the GPU is the bottleneck.

Video Editing: This is a mixed scenario. The CPU’s PassMark data encryption score of 30136 and floating-point math score of 118778 indicate strong compute capabilities for rendering and effects. However, the GPU’s low compute score of 2157 and 4 GB VRAM will be a bottleneck for GPU-accelerated effects and timeline rendering. The CPU will excel at CPU-based exports, but the GPU will hinder modern, GPU-accelerated workflows.

3D Rendering: The CPU is a powerhouse for this task. The Cinebench R20 multi-core score of 13705 and Cinebench R15 multi-core score of 3289 indicate excellent performance for CPU-based rendering engines. The GPU, however, is not suitable for GPU rendering, with its 2.688 TFLOPS FP32 performance being far too low for serious workloads. Users should rely on the CPU for rendering.

Software Development: This is an excellent scenario for this build. The CPU’s high single-thread performance (Cinebench R23 single-core score of 4607) ensures snappy compilation times for many tasks, while the multi-core score of 32633 handles parallel builds effectively. The PassMark integer math score of 88626 and random string sorting score of 49489 suggest strong performance in logical and data-processing tasks. The GPU is irrelevant here, so the weak Arc A310 does not hinder this use case.

Student and Office Work: This scenario is perfectly served. The CPU’s power is overkill for word processing and spreadsheets, but it ensures a smooth, responsive experience. The GPU is sufficient for 2D desktop rendering and office applications. The low 30W TDP of the GPU and 65W TDP of the CPU mean the system is energy-efficient, but the single-thread performance of 4607 ensures that even complex documents or large spreadsheets will feel instant.

CPU Analysis

The Intel Core Ultra 5 235A is a 14-core, 14-thread desktop processor based on the Arrow Lake architecture (Arrow Lake-S). It is part of the Core Ultra Series 2 family. It is manufactured on a 3 nm process by TSMC, packing 17,800 million transistors into a 243 mm² die. The CPU has a base clock of 3.40 GHz and a boost clock of 5.00 GHz. The TDP is 65 W.

The cache hierarchy includes 192 KB of L1 per core, 3 MB of L2 per core, and 24 MB of shared L3 cache. This configuration supports DDR5 memory in a dual-channel setup, providing a memory bandwidth of 102.4 GB/s. The CPU supports PCIe Gen 5 with 20 lanes from the CPU itself. It does not support ECC memory, and the multiplier is locked, meaning it is not overclockable.

Benchmark scores show a balanced, high-performance part. The Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 32633 and single-core score of 4607 are both strong. The PassMark single-thread score of 4557 is similarly high, while the multi-thread score of 38392 is impressive. The data compression score of 393800 and extended instructions score of 31625 indicate robust performance in specialized workloads. The CPU’s 90th percentile ranking versus all CPUs confirms its high-end status. It sits within 1% of the AMD Ryzen AI Max PRO 380 and the Intel Core Ultra 5 245HX, making it a competitive choice in its segment. For real workloads, this translates to excellent responsiveness in everyday tasks and significant compute power for multi-threaded applications like compiling, rendering, and data analysis.

Who Should Build It

This pairing targets a specific niche: users who need maximum CPU compute power but have minimal GPU requirements. The primary audience is software developers and data analysts who require high single-thread and multi-thread performance for compilation, testing, and data processing. The CPU’s 90th percentile performance and strong PassMark integer math score of 88626 make it ideal for these tasks.

Small business workstations for accounting, database management, or office productivity would also be well-served. The CPU’s responsiveness and the GPU’s low power draw create an efficient system for standard business applications. Students in computer science or engineering fields would benefit from the CPU’s power for their coursework, which often involves compiling code or running simulations.

Content creators who work primarily with CPU-based rendering engines will find the 235A’s Cinebench scores (32633 multi-core) highly beneficial. However, they must have a dedicated, more powerful GPU for any GPU-accelerated tasks, as the Arc A310 is insufficient. Gamers should not build this system expecting to play modern titles at high settings, as the GPU’s 40th percentile ranking will disappoint. This build is not for gaming at any resolution above low settings in undemanding titles.

Upgrade Path and Platform

The platform is based on the Intel Socket 1851. The CPU supports DDR5 memory in a dual-channel configuration, with a theoretical bandwidth of 102.4 GB/s. The 20 PCIe Gen 5 lanes from the CPU provide high-bandwidth connectivity for storage and expansion cards.

The most sensible next upgrade is the GPU. The Arc A310, with its 30 W TDP and 200 W suggested PSU, leaves enormous headroom for a more powerful graphics card. The CPU’s 65 W TDP means a typical 500-600 W PSU, which is standard for a system with a discrete GPU, would easily support a high-end graphics card. For instance, the CPU’s 90th percentile performance is capable of driving the latest GPUs without bottlenecking them, making a GPU swap the single most effective way to transform this system from a workstation into a gaming or rendering machine.

The CPU itself is not overclockable, as the multiplier is locked. The platform supports up to 20 PCIe Gen 5 lanes, so a modern high-end GPU or NVMe drive can be added. The memory support for DDR5 is current, and 102.4 GB/s of bandwidth is sufficient for most applications. The upgrade path is clear: keep the powerful CPU and replace the entry-level GPU to unlock the system’s true potential.

FAQ

Q: Is this system good for gaming?

A: No. The Intel Arc A310’s PassMark G3D score of 5433 is at the 40th percentile, and its low DirectX 12 score of 29 indicates poor performance in modern games. The CPU is very powerful (90th percentile), but the GPU will severely bottleneck any gaming workload.

Q: What is the CPU’s multi-core performance?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 5 235A scores 32633 in Cinebench R23 multi-core and 38392 in PassMark multi-thread. This places it in the 90th percentile of all CPUs, making it excellent for heavily threaded tasks.

Q: How much VRAM does the GPU have?

A: The Intel Arc A310 has 4 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 64-bit bus, providing 124.0 GB/s of bandwidth. This is a limiting factor for modern games and GPU-accelerated work.

Q: Can I use this PC for video editing?

A: Yes, but with limitations. The CPU’s compute scores (e.g., PassMark floating-point math at 118778) are strong for CPU-based effects, but the GPU’s low compute score of 2157 and 4 GB VRAM will hinder GPU-accelerated tasks like timeline rendering.

Q: What is the TDP of the components?

A: The CPU has a TDP of 65 W, and the GPU has a TDP of 30 W. The suggested PSU for this system is 200 W, indicating very low power consumption.

Q: What is the upgrade path for this system?

A: The most logical upgrade is the GPU. The CPU’s 20 PCIe Gen 5 lanes and high 90th percentile performance can easily support a much more powerful graphics card, which would remove the primary bottleneck of the system.

Q: Does the CPU support overclocking?

A: No. The multiplier is locked, meaning the Intel Core Ultra 5 235A cannot be overclocked.

Balance and Bottleneck

The most significant bottleneck in this system is the GPU. The Intel Arc A310’s 40th percentile ranking is starkly contrasted by the CPU’s 90th percentile ranking. In any workload that relies on the GPU, such as gaming or GPU-accelerated rendering, the Arc A310 will be the limiting factor. The CPU will be idle, waiting for the GPU to catch up, resulting in a system that performs far below the CPU’s potential.

The FPS scaling in gaming is the clearest evidence of this. The CPU is capable of high frame rates, but the GPU’s low G3D score of 5433 and weak DirectX 12 performance of 29 will cap FPS at low levels, regardless of the CPU’s power. The CPU will not be a limiting factor in any graphics-intensive task.

Conversely, in CPU-bound workloads like software compilation, data analysis, or CPU-based rendering, the GPU is irrelevant, and the CPU’s performance shines. The bottleneck shifts entirely to the CPU, which is a high-performance part.

There is a secondary bottleneck in the GPU’s memory subsystem. The 4 GB VRAM and 124.0 GB/s bandwidth will limit the complexity of textures and resolutions the GPU can handle, further capping performance even in GPU-light scenarios. The system’s combined percentile of 65 reflects this imbalance: the sum is dragged down by the weak GPU. For a balanced system, the GPU would need to be upgraded to match the CPU’s capabilities. As it stands, the data shows a system where the CPU is a high-end performer waiting for a GPU that can match its class.