SYSTEM ANALYZER

Rate My PC: Intel Core Ultra 5 245 + 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 5 245

48,995 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

# Intel Core Ultra 5 245 + Intel Arc A310: A Desktop Duo of Extremes

This pairing combines Intel's modern Arrow Lake desktop processor with an entry-level Arc discrete GPU, creating a system where CPU capability vastly outstrips graphics performance. The Core Ultra 5 245 sits in the 90th percentile among all CPUs, while the Arc A310 languishes in the 40th percentile among GPUs, a 50-point gap that defines this build's character. No measured FPS data exists for this exact combination in the FACT PACK, so all discussion of frame rates here is estimated from the benchmark scores rather than direct testing.

FAQ

Q: How does the Core Ultra 5 245 compare to its closest rival, the Intel Core i5-14600K?

A: The Core Ultra 5 245 has an average benchmark score of 48,995, which is 0.8% higher than the i5-14600K's 48,618. This places the two within statistical noise of each other, making them effectively equivalent in overall processing power despite their architectural differences.

Q: What is the Arc A310's performance tier relative to other GPUs?

A: The Arc A310 sits in the 40th percentile of all GPUs, with an average benchmark score of 7,550. Its closest rival is the AMD Radeon R7 250, which scores 7,557, putting the A310 just 0.1% behind — a negligible difference. The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 trails by 1% with a score of 7,472.

Q: Does the Core Ultra 5 245 support ECC memory?

A: Yes, the Core Ultra 5 245 supports ECC memory. It uses dual-channel DDR5 memory with a maximum bandwidth of 102.4 GB/s, a feature set that makes it suitable for workstation-class builds where data integrity matters more than raw gaming performance.

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

A: The build overall sits in the 65th percentile when considering both CPU and GPU together. This combined figure is pulled down significantly by the GPU, which alone ranks in the 40th percentile, while the CPU alone ranks in the 90th percentile.

Q: What is the Arc A310's memory configuration and bandwidth?

A: The Arc A310 has 4 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 64-bit bus, delivering 124.0 GB/s of bandwidth. The memory clock runs at 1937 MHz, which translates to 15.5 Gbps effective. This is a modest amount of VRAM and bandwidth for modern gaming workloads.

Q: How does the CPU perform in single-threaded workloads?

A: In Cinebench R23 single-core testing, the Core Ultra 5 245 scores 4,648 points, while its PassMark single-thread score is 4,394. These figures indicate strong per-core performance, which benefits everyday responsiveness and lightly-threaded applications like office software and web browsing.

Q: What power supply is recommended for the Arc A310?

A: The suggested PSU wattage for the Arc A310 is 200 W, and the GPU itself has a TDP of just 30 W with no power connectors required. This means the GPU draws power entirely from the PCIe slot, making it exceptionally easy to integrate into low-power systems.

Balance and Bottleneck

The data paints an unmistakable picture of imbalance: the Core Ultra 5 245 is a 90th-percentile processor, while the Arc A310 is a 40th-percentile GPU. In gaming workloads, the GPU will be the limiting factor in virtually every scenario, as the CPU's 14 cores and 5.10 GHz boost clock provide far more compute headroom than the A310's 2.688 TFLOPS of FP32 performance can utilize. The CPU's PassMark multi-thread score of 38,706 and Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 32,924 dwarf the GPU's PassMark G3D score of 5,433, confirming that the graphics card is the bottleneck for any 3D-intensive task.

For productivity workloads, the balance shifts. The CPU's 90th-percentile ranking means it can handle heavy multi-threaded tasks like video encoding and 3D rendering, but the GPU's 40th-percentile standing limits GPU-accelerated tasks. The Arc A310's Geekbench OpenCL score of 30,607 and Vulkan score of 28,964 indicate it can assist with compute, but its 4 GB VRAM and 124 GB/s bandwidth cap its usefulness. In mixed workloads, the CPU will often finish its portion of a task and wait on the GPU, a classic CPU-bound system configured with an underpowered graphics solution.

The 65th-percentile combined score reflects this tension: the CPU pulls the average up, but the GPU drags it down. For frame-rate estimation, this means CPU-bound titles at low resolutions and settings might see reasonable performance, but GPU-bound scenarios at higher resolutions or detail levels will hit the A310's ceiling quickly. The PassMark DirectX scores — 31 for DX10, 33 for DX11, 29 for DX12, and 69 for DX9 — suggest the GPU handles older APIs better than modern ones, further indicating that modern games will be severely constrained.

Usage Scenarios

High-refresh gaming: This build is not suitable for high-refresh gaming. The Arc A310's PassMark G3D score of 5,433 places it in the 40th percentile, and its DirectX 12 score of 29 is particularly low. Estimated frame rates at 1080p in modern titles would struggle to reach 60 FPS even at low settings, and the 4 GB VRAM will cause texture pop-in and stuttering in memory-intensive games. The CPU is more than capable, but the GPU cannot deliver the frame throughput needed for 144 Hz displays.

Streaming: The Core Ultra 5 245's 14 cores and strong multi-threaded performance (Cinebench R23 multi-core: 32,924) provide ample headroom for software encoding while gaming. However, the Arc A310's weak DirectX 11 and 12 scores mean the game itself will run poorly, making streaming a frustrating experience. The CPU can handle the encoding workload, but the GPU cannot keep the game smooth enough to stream effectively.

Video editing: The CPU excels here, with PassMark data compression scoring 400,942 and floating-point math at 120,548, indicating strong number-crunching for codecs and effects. The Arc A310's 2.688 TFLOPS FP32 and 5.376 TFLOPS FP16 performance can accelerate some effects, but 4 GB VRAM limits timeline complexity. For 1080p editing, this is workable; for 4K, the GPU becomes a bottleneck.

3D rendering: CPU-based rendering will be strong, given the 90th-percentile CPU ranking and 14 threads. The PassMark extended instructions score of 33,304 suggests solid SIMD performance for ray tracing calculations. GPU-accelerated rendering, however, will be limited by the A310's 6 RT cores and modest compute performance, making this a CPU-first rendering machine.

Software development: The Core Ultra 5 245's multi-threaded score of 38,706 in PassMark and 13,828 in Cinebench R20 indicate fast compilation times for large codebases. The GPU is largely irrelevant here, though its Vulkan 1.4 support and OpenGL 4.6 APIs allow for API testing. The CPU's 90th-percentile ranking makes this an excellent development workstation for all but GPU-intensive graphics programming.

Student and office work: This build is overkill for office tasks, with the CPU's single-thread PassMark score of 4,394 ensuring snappy application launches and multitasking. The Arc A310's PassMark G2D score of 625 is adequate for 2D desktop rendering and office applications, though the GPU's low DirectX scores are irrelevant for this use case. The 65 W CPU TDP and 30 W GPU TDP keep power consumption modest for a dorm room or small office.

Upgrade Path and Platform

The Core Ultra 5 245 uses Intel Socket 1851, which is the LGA 1851 platform for Arrow Lake-S desktop processors. The CPU supports dual-channel DDR5 memory with ECC capability, a feature that positions this platform for both consumer and professional use. The memory bandwidth of 102.4 GB/s is standard for dual-channel DDR5, and the platform's PCIe Gen 5 support with 20 CPU lanes provides generous bandwidth for future expansion.

The Arc A310 uses a PCIe 4.0 x8 interface, which is compatible with the CPU's PCIe Gen 5 slots but will run at Gen 4 speeds. The GPU's 30 W TDP and suggested 200 W PSU requirement mean the existing power supply in most systems will have ample headroom for a GPU upgrade. Replacing the A310 with a more powerful graphics card is the most logical first upgrade, as the CPU has substantial headroom to support faster GPUs without bottlenecking — the 90th-percentile CPU ranking indicates it can drive much higher-end graphics solutions.

The CPU itself is not multiplier-unlocked, so overclocking is not an option for squeezing out extra performance. However, the platform supports future Arrow Lake processors on the same socket, allowing for a CPU swap to a higher-tier chip if needed. The DDR5 memory support means the RAM can be carried forward to a new build, and the 65 W TDP keeps cooling requirements modest, so the existing cooler can likely handle a more powerful CPU in the same socket. The PCIe Gen 5 lanes provide future-proofing for next-generation storage and GPUs, though the current GPU only uses Gen 4.

Who Should Build It

This build targets users who need substantial CPU compute power but have minimal graphics requirements. The 90th-percentile CPU makes it ideal for software developers compiling large codebases, with PassMark integer math scoring 91,187 and random string sorting at 49,140 indicating strong performance in data processing and algorithm execution. Students in computer science or engineering fields would benefit from the CPU's multi-threaded capabilities for simulations and data analysis while the GPU handles basic display output.

Small business workstations handling spreadsheets, databases, and office productivity would find the CPU's single-thread score of 4,394 and data compression score of 400,942 more than adequate. The ECC memory support adds reliability for long-running server-like workloads. However, gamers should avoid this build entirely — the 40th-percentile GPU cannot deliver playable frame rates in modern titles, and even esports games at low settings would strain the A310's capabilities.

Content creators working primarily in CPU-bound tasks like audio production or batch photo processing would appreciate the CPU's 14 cores, but video editors working with high-resolution footage would hit the GPU's 4 GB VRAM limit quickly. The build is best suited for users who know their workloads are CPU-bound and who either don't game or are willing to tolerate very low graphics settings. The 65th-percentile combined score accurately reflects this system's position: a powerful brain paired with a weak visual cortex.

GPU Analysis

The Intel Arc A310 is built on the DG2-128 chip using the Xe-HPG architecture, manufactured on TSMC's 6 nm process with 7,200 million transistors in a 157 mm² die. It has 768 shading units, 32 texture mapping units, and 16 raster output pipelines, with 6 ray tracing cores for hardware-accelerated ray tracing. The GPU runs at a fixed 1750 MHz clock for both base and boost, delivering 28.00 GPixel/s pixel rate and 56.00 GTexel/s texture rate. FP32 performance is 2.688 TFLOPS, while FP16 reaches 5.376 TFLOPS with a 2:1 ratio.

The 4 GB GDDR6 memory on a 64-bit bus provides 124.0 GB/s of bandwidth, which is severely limited for modern gaming. The memory clock of 1937 MHz (15.5 Gbps effective) cannot compensate for the narrow bus. The GPU supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4, making it API-compliant with modern standards, but the benchmark scores tell a different story. PassMark DirectX 9 scores 69, DirectX 10 scores 31, DirectX 11 scores 33, and DirectX 12 scores 29 — these are extraordinarily low numbers, indicating the GPU struggles with even legacy graphics APIs.

The Geekbench OpenCL score of 30,607 and Vulkan score of 28,964 suggest the GPU has some compute capability, and its PassMark G3D score of 5,433 places it near the AMD Radeon R7 250 (7,557, 0.1% ahead) and NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 (7,472, 1% behind). The GPU's 40th-percentile ranking among all GPUs puts it in entry-level territory, suitable for basic display output and light 2D work but not for gaming or GPU-accelerated rendering. The 30 W TDP and single-slot design with no power connectors make it easy to install, and the 4x mini-DisplayPort 2.0 outputs support modern monitors, but the underlying performance is firmly entry-level.

Benchmark Performance

The Core Ultra 5 245 delivers an average benchmark score of 48,995, placing it in the 90th percentile of all CPUs. Its Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 32,924 and single-core score of 4,648 demonstrate strong all-around performance, while PassMark multi-thread at 38,706 and single-thread at 4,394 corroborate these results. The CPU's closest rival is the AMD Ryzen 9 7900 at 49,228 (0.5% ahead) and the Intel Core i5-14600K at 48,618 (0.8% behind), showing the Ultra 5 245 competes directly with high-end mainstream processors.

The Arc A310's average benchmark score of 7,550 places it in the 40th percentile of all GPUs, a stark contrast to the CPU. Its PassMark G3D score of 5,433 is its primary gaming indicator, while GPU compute scores 2,157. The Geekbench OpenCL score of 30,607 is more promising for compute workloads, but the DirectX scores (29-69 across versions) reveal severe limitations in gaming scenarios. The GPU's nearest rival, the AMD Radeon R7 250, scores 7,557, a 0.1% difference that places the A310 statistically tied with a GPU from a much older generation.

The combined percentile of 65 reflects the massive gap between the two components. The CPU's 90th-percentile performance means productivity tasks will fly, but the GPU's 40th-percentile score means any graphics-intensive work will be severely constrained. For CPU-bound workloads, this system performs like a high-end machine; for GPU-bound workloads, it performs like a budget system from years past. The estimated FPS picture, based on these scores, suggests that even at 1080p low settings, modern games would struggle to maintain playable frame rates, while CPU-heavy applications would run exceptionally well.

CPU Analysis

The Intel Core Ultra 5 245 is a 14-core, 14-thread desktop processor from the Core Ultra Series 2, built on Arrow Lake architecture and manufactured on TSMC's 3 nm process. It has 17,800 million transistors in a 243 mm² die, with a base clock of 3.50 GHz and boost clock of 5.10 GHz. The cache hierarchy includes 192 KB L1 per core, 3 MB L2 per core, and 24 MB shared L3. The CPU supports dual-channel DDR5 memory with ECC, delivering 102.4 GB/s bandwidth, and provides 20 PCIe Gen 5 lanes. It integrates Arc Xe-LPG Graphics with 64 execution units, though the discrete Arc A310 GPU handles graphics duties in this build.

The CPU's benchmark results show exceptional multi-threaded performance, with Cinebench R15 multi-core at 3,318, R20 at 13,828, and R23 at 32,924. PassMark multi-thread scores 38,706, with floating-point math at 120,548 and integer math at 91,187. These numbers place the Ultra 5 245 in the 90th percentile, competitive with the AMD Ryzen 9 7900 (0.5% ahead) and Intel Core i5-14600K (0.8% behind). The CPU's PassMark data encryption score of 30,236 and extended instructions score of 33,304 indicate strong cryptographic and SIMD performance, beneficial for security software and scientific computing.

Single-threaded performance is equally strong, with Cinebench R23 single-core at 4,648 and PassMark single-thread at 4,394. The 5.10 GHz boost clock drives these results, making the CPU excellent for everyday tasks and lightly-threaded applications. The PassMark physics score of 2,569 and prime number finding at 365 are lower relative to other metrics, but these are specialized tests. The 65 W TDP is remarkably low for this level of performance, making the CPU easy to cool and suitable for compact builds. The release date of January 6, 2025, with a launch MSRP of $270, positions it as a mainstream desktop processor, and its production status is Active, ensuring ongoing availability.

Build Overview

This desktop build pairs the Intel Core Ultra 5 245, a 90th-percentile CPU, with the Intel Arc A310, a 40th-percentile GPU, resulting in a combined percentile of 65. The CPU is a modern Arrow Lake-S processor with 14 cores, 14 threads, and a 5.10 GHz boost clock, while the GPU is an entry-level Alchemist part with 768 shading units and 4 GB GDDR6 memory. The system is firmly in the desktop class, and the overall tier from the percentiles is mid-range, dragged down almost entirely by the GPU.

The Core Ultra 5 245 is an active production processor launched in January 2025 with a launch MSRP of $270, while the Arc A310 is an end-of-life product released in October 2022 with no launch MSRP listed. This generational mismatch is evident in their respective performance tiers: the CPU rivals the AMD Ryzen 9 7900 and Intel Core i5-14600K, while the GPU trades blows with the AMD Radeon R7 250 and NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650. The CPU's 90th percentile versus the GPU's 40th percentile creates a system that excels at compute-heavy tasks but fails at graphics-intensive ones.

The build's 65th-percentile combined score suggests it belongs in the mid-range of desktop systems, but that figure masks the extreme imbalance. In productivity and development workloads, the system performs like a high-end machine; in gaming and GPU-accelerated rendering, it performs like a budget machine. This is a system for users who prioritize CPU performance above all else and need only basic graphics output. The 30 W GPU TDP and 200 W suggested PSU keep power requirements minimal, and the 65 W CPU TDP allows for a compact, efficient build. For its target audience of developers, students, and office workers, this is a sensible pairing; for gamers or GPU-centric creators, it falls far short.