SYSTEM ANALYZER

Rate My PC: Intel Core Ultra 5 235H + Intel Arc A730M

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)

▼

94 Score

Top 6% Ranking

94 / 100

ULTIMATE READY

Apex Performer

Top 6% 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

91%

GPU

96%

PROCESSOR

Intel Core Ultra 5 235H

37,522 Benchmark Score

Top 9% Market Ranking

View Full Specs →

GRAPHICS CARD

Intel Arc A730M

45,592 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 235H and Intel Arc A730M combination delivers a balanced mobile platform that sits in the 85th percentile overall, with the CPU holding an 85th percentile rank and the GPU at 84th. The data indicates a system designed for high-performance mobile computing, but it is crucial to note that no measured FPS rows exist for this exact combination in the FACT PACK. All gaming performance figures discussed in this analysis are estimates derived from the benchmark scores, not from direct frame rate measurements.

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

The Intel Arc A730M is built on the Xe-HPG architecture using the DG2-512 chip, manufactured on a 6 nm process by TSMC. The GPU contains 21,700 million transistors on a 406 mm² die, resulting in a transistor density of 53.4M per mm². The memory subsystem is substantial for a mobile part: 12 GB of GDDR6 on a 192-bit bus delivers 336.0 GB/s of bandwidth, with memory clocked at 1750 MHz (14 Gbps effective). This large memory pool is a significant asset for rendering workloads that require large texture datasets or complex scenes, as it reduces the need for data swapping.

The GPU operates at a base clock of 1100 MHz and boosts to 2050 MHz. It features 3072 shading units, 192 texture mapping units, and 96 raster operation units. The pixel rate is 196.8 GPixel/s, and the texture rate is 393.6 GTexel/s. Compute performance is rated at 12.60 TFLOPS for FP32 and 25.19 TFLOPS for FP16 (at 2:1 ratio). For ray tracing, the A730M includes 24 RT cores, which is modest compared to dedicated high-end parts, but the architecture supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4, ensuring compatibility with modern rendering APIs.

Benchmark results show the A730M scoring 1732 in 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12, 70352 in Geekbench OpenCL, and 64693 in Geekbench Vulkan. The OpenCL score is notably higher than the Vulkan score, suggesting that compute-oriented workloads may perform better than real-time graphics in some scenarios. The GPU sits at the 84th percentile of all GPUs, with an average benchmark score of 45592. Its nearest rivals include the AMD Radeon Pro 5500 XT (0.5% higher score), the NVIDIA RTX 5880 Ada Generation (0.8% lower), the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5090 Mobile (1% higher), and the NVIDIA RTX A2000 (1% lower). This places the A730M in a competitive position against both workstation and high-end mobile gaming GPUs, though the RTX 5090 Mobile's higher score suggests the A730M is not at the absolute top tier of mobile graphics.

For rendering, the combination of 12 GB VRAM and 336.0 GB/s bandwidth is well-suited for 1080p and 1440p workloads, but the 12.60 TFLOPS FP32 performance indicates that heavy 3D rendering tasks will be competent rather than exceptional. The 24 RT cores provide hardware-accelerated ray tracing capability, but the performance in ray-traced scenes will be limited by the overall compute throughput.

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 235H, which uses the Intel BGA 2049 socket, indicating a soldered mobile processor with no upgrade path for the CPU itself. The memory support includes DDR5 and LPDDR5X in a dual-channel configuration, with a memory bandwidth of 102.4 GB/s. The system does not support ECC memory, which is typical for a consumer mobile platform. The PCIe interface is Gen 5 with 8 lanes from the CPU only, which provides ample bandwidth for the GPU and fast NVMe storage, though the A730M itself uses a PCIe 4.0 x16 interface.

The CPU has a TDP of 28 W, and the GPU has a TDP of 80 W. There is no suggested PSU listed in the data, but the combined 108 W TDP for the CPU and GPU indicates that a typical laptop power adapter in the range of 100-150 W would be sufficient, though the exact wattage is not specified. The GPU's slot width is listed as "IGP", which suggests it is an integrated graphics package, though the A730M is a discrete-class GPU; the display outputs are described as "Portable Device Dependent", meaning they vary by laptop model.

For a sensible next upgrade, the data suggests that the primary limitation is the GPU, which is marked as "End-of-life" in production status. Since the CPU is soldered and the GPU is an IGP form factor, neither component can be upgraded in a traditional sense. A user looking to improve performance would need to consider a new laptop with a more modern GPU. However, the CPU's 85th percentile rank and the platform's support for PCIe Gen 5 and DDR5 memory mean that the system is not outdated in terms of its core architecture. The data shows that the CPU is within 1% of the performance of the Intel Core i5-13600K and the AMD Ryzen AI 5 PRO 435, indicating that the platform is competitive for its generation.

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

The Intel Core Ultra 5 235H is part of the Core Ultra Series 2, built on the Arrow Lake architecture (Arrow Lake-H) using a 3 nm process from TSMC. It features 14 cores and 14 threads, with a base clock of 2.40 GHz and a boost clock of 5.00 GHz. The cache hierarchy includes 192 KB of L1 per core, 3 MB of L2 per core, and 18 MB of shared L3 cache. The CPU is not multiplier unlocked, and its production status is Active, with a release date of January 12, 2025.

Benchmark scores for the CPU are strong across the board. In Cinebench, the CPU scores 2580 in R15 multicore, 364 in R15 singlecore, 10751 in R20 multicore, 1517 in R20 singlecore, 25598 in R23 multicore, and 3613 in R23 singlecore. The R23 multicore score of 25598 is particularly notable, indicating strong multi-threaded performance for a 28 W mobile part. PassMark scores include 301979 for data compression, 23121 for data encryption, 23354 for extended instructions, 239 for find prime numbers, 93509 for floating point math, 74247 for integer math, 30091 for multithread, 1985 for physics, 36208 for random string sorting, and 4359 for single thread (listed twice as passmark_single_thread and passmark_singlethread).

The CPU's average benchmark score is 37522, placing it at the 85th percentile of all CPUs. Its nearest rivals include the Intel Core i9-13900HK (0.3% higher score), Intel Core i5-13600K (0.4% lower), Intel Core Ultra 5 225F (0.6% higher), and AMD Ryzen AI 5 PRO 435 (0.6% lower). This is a tight grouping, with all rivals within 0.6% of the 235H's score. The fact that the 235H matches the i9-13900HK, a higher-tier part, suggests that the Arrow Lake architecture is highly efficient. For real workloads, the 14-core/14-thread configuration with a 5.00 GHz boost clock means that the CPU can handle demanding multi-threaded tasks like video encoding and 3D rendering, while the strong single-core score of 3613 in R23 indicates excellent responsiveness for general productivity and lightly-threaded applications.

Who Should Build It — target users and industries (gamers at specific resolutions, content creators, developers, students, small business workstations) tied strictly to the measured performance

This platform is suited for users who need a mobile system with strong CPU and GPU performance without reaching the absolute top tier. The CPU's 85th percentile rank and the GPU's 84th percentile rank indicate that this is a high-performing combination, though not the fastest available. Gamers at 1080p resolution will find the combination capable, as the GPU's 12 GB VRAM and 336.0 GB/s bandwidth are sufficient for modern titles, though the lack of measured FPS data means performance is estimated. At 1440p, the system may struggle with the most demanding games, but it should handle medium to high settings in many titles.

Content creators, particularly those working in video editing and 3D rendering, will benefit from the CPU's 25598 Cinebench R23 multicore score and the GPU's 12.60 TFLOPS FP32 performance. The 12 GB VRAM is a clear advantage for GPU-accelerated rendering, as it can hold larger scenes than typical 8 GB mobile GPUs. Software developers will appreciate the CPU's strong single-thread performance (3613 in R23 singlecore) for compile times and the 14 threads for parallel builds. Students and small business users will find the system more than adequate for office work, with the PassMark single-thread score of 4359 indicating snappy application responsiveness. The platform is not ideal for users requiring the absolute maximum performance, as the GPU is end-of-life and the CPU is a mid-range Ultra 5 part, but it sits comfortably above the median for most workloads.

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

The combined system percentile is 85, placing it in the top 15% of all laptop configurations in the database. The CPU's average benchmark score is 37522, with a percentile rank of 85. The GPU's average benchmark score is 45592, with a percentile rank of 84. Looking at specific tests, the CPU achieves 25598 in Cinebench R23 multicore and 3613 in Cinebench R23 singlecore. The PassMark multithread score is 30091, and the single-thread score is 4359. The GPU achieves 1732 in 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12, 70352 in Geekbench OpenCL, and 64693 in Geekbench Vulkan.

The combined picture is one of balanced performance. The CPU's nearest rival, the Intel Core i9-13900HK, has an average score of 37425, which is 0.3% higher than the 235H. The GPU's nearest rival, the AMD Radeon Pro 5500 XT, has an average score of 45384, which is 0.5% lower than the A730M. This indicates that neither component is dramatically ahead or behind its direct competitors. The CPU is a strong performer for its class, and the GPU is competitive with mid-range workstation and high-end mobile gaming parts. The data shows that the system is well-matched, with neither component acting as a clear bottleneck in most workloads.

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)

The FACT PACK contains no measured FPS data for this system. The `measuredFpsUltraByGame` field is empty, and `dataIsMeasured` is false. Therefore, all gaming performance figures in this section are estimates based on the benchmark scores, not direct measurements.

The GPU's 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 score of 1732 and its 84th percentile rank suggest that it is capable of running most games at 1080p with high to ultra settings. The 12 GB VRAM is sufficient for modern textures at this resolution. At 1440p, the system will likely need to reduce settings to high or medium for demanding titles, as the FP32 compute of 12.60 TFLOPS is mid-range. The 24 RT cores provide ray tracing capability, but the estimated performance in ray-traced games will be lower than non-RT scenes due to the compute overhead.

For esports titles, the CPU's strong single-thread performance (4359 PassMark single-thread) will ensure high frame rates, potentially exceeding 144 FPS at 1080p with low settings. For AAA games, the estimates suggest a playable experience at 1080p, with frame rates varying based on the title's optimization for Intel GPUs. The Vulkan score of 64693 is lower than the OpenCL score of 70352, which may indicate that DirectX 12 games perform better than Vulkan titles, though this is speculative. Users should expect the system to handle 1080p gaming well, with 1440p being a stretch for the most graphically intensive titles.

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: The combination of the CPU's 4359 PassMark single-thread score and the GPU's 84th percentile rank supports high-refresh gaming at 1080p in esports titles. The estimated frame rates in games like Counter-Strike or Valorant could exceed 144 FPS, but the lack of measured data means this is an estimate. For AAA titles, the 12 GB VRAM and 336.0 GB/s bandwidth help maintain stable frame pacing, but the 12.60 TFLOPS compute limits performance at higher refresh rates in demanding games.

Streaming: The CPU's 14 cores and 14 threads provide enough headroom for software encoding while gaming. The PassMark multithread score of 30091 indicates that the CPU can handle simultaneous gaming and encoding workloads, though the 28 W TDP may limit sustained performance. The GPU's support for DirectX 12 Ultimate ensures compatibility with modern streaming APIs, but hardware encoding capabilities are not specified in the data.

Video editing: The Cinebench R23 multicore score of 25598 suggests that the CPU can handle 4K video editing timelines with multiple effects. The GPU's 70352 Geekbench OpenCL score indicates strong compute acceleration for effects and color grading. The 12 GB VRAM is beneficial for scrubbing high-resolution footage, though the lack of measured performance in video editing software is a limitation.

3D rendering: The CPU's 25598 Cinebench R23 multicore score and the GPU's 12.60 TFLOPS FP32 performance make this a capable system for 3D rendering, particularly in GPU-accelerated renderers that can utilize the 12 GB VRAM. The 24 RT cores provide hardware acceleration for ray-traced previews, but final renders will rely on the overall compute throughput. The system is suited for medium-complexity scenes, with more demanding projects requiring longer render times.

Software development: The CPU's single-thread score of 3613 in R23 and 4359 in PassMark ensures fast compile times for single-file changes, while the 14 threads handle parallel builds. The 18 MB L3 cache and 102.4 GB/s memory bandwidth reduce data bottlenecks during compilation. The system is well-suited for full-stack development, mobile app development, and light machine learning tasks.

Student and office work: The CPU's 85th percentile rank and the GPU's 12 GB VRAM provide more than enough performance for productivity applications, web browsing, and multitasking. The PassMark data compression score of 301979 indicates fast file archiving and data processing. The system's balanced performance means that students or office workers will rarely encounter performance limitations, though the 80 W GPU TDP may impact battery life in a laptop form factor.

FAQ — 5-7 Q&A pairs answerable from FACT PACK data (format: Q: ... A: ...)

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

A: The combined system percentile is 85, with the CPU at the 85th percentile and the GPU at the 84th percentile of all parts in the database.

Q: How does the Intel Core Ultra 5 235H compare to its nearest rival, the Intel Core i9-13900HK?

A: The Core Ultra 5 235H has an average benchmark score of 37522, while the Core i9-13900HK has an average score of 37425, making the i9-13900HK 0.3% higher. The difference is negligible in real-world terms.

Q: What is the memory bandwidth of the Intel Arc A730M and how much VRAM does it have?

A: The Intel Arc A730M has 12 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 192-bit bus, providing a bandwidth of 336.0 GB/s.

Q: What are the Cinebench R23 scores for the Intel Core Ultra 5 235H?

A: The CPU scores 25598 in Cinebench R23 multicore and 3613 in Cinebench R23 singlecore.

Q: Is the Intel Arc A730M still in production?

A: No, the production status is listed as "End-of-life", while the CPU is marked as "Active".

Q: What is the TDP of the CPU and GPU in this system?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 5 235H has a TDP of 28 W, and the Intel Arc A730M has a TDP of 80 W.

Q: Does this system support ECC memory?

A: No, the memory support is DDR5 and LPDDR5X in dual-channel configuration, with ECC memory support listed as false.

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

The data indicates a well-balanced system, but the bottleneck characteristics vary by workload. For CPU-intensive tasks like data compression (PassMark score 301979) and encryption (23121), the CPU is the primary driver, and its 85th percentile rank suggests it is not a limiting factor. The GPU's 84th percentile rank is similar, meaning that in compute-heavy workloads like 3D rendering, neither component is dramatically ahead of the other.

For gaming, the GPU is likely the limiting factor in most scenarios. The lack of measured FPS data means this is an estimate, but the GPU's 12.60 TFLOPS FP32 performance and 24 RT cores are lower than the CPU's relative strength. The CPU's 85th percentile rank is higher than the GPU's 84th, so at lower resolutions and settings where the CPU can feed frames quickly, the GPU will become the bottleneck. At 1080p with high settings, the GPU is expected to be the constraint, while at 1440p and above, the GPU's 12 GB VRAM and bandwidth may also become a factor for texture-heavy scenes.

For productivity workloads, the CPU is the primary component. The 25598 Cinebench R23 multicore score and 14 threads handle multi-threaded tasks well, but the 28 W TDP may limit sustained performance in long render jobs. The GPU's OpenCL score of 70352 indicates strong compute, so in GPU-accelerated applications, the system is balanced. The only scenario where the CPU might bottleneck the GPU is in high-refresh gaming at low resolutions, where the 5.00 GHz boost clock and strong single-thread performance are sufficient, and the GPU's 84th percentile rank becomes the limiting factor. Overall, the system is balanced, with the GPU slightly more likely to be the bottleneck in gaming and the CPU more likely to be the limiting factor in sustained multi-threaded workloads due to its 28 W TDP.

Rate My PC: Intel Core Ultra 5 235H + Intel Arc A730M

Apex Performer

System Balance Analysis

Intel Core Ultra 5 235H

Intel Arc A730M

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

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

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

Who Should Build It — target users and industries (gamers at specific resolutions, content creators, developers, students, small business workstations) tied strictly to the measured performance

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

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

FAQ — 5-7 Q&A pairs answerable from FACT PACK data (format: Q: ... A: ...)

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

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