SYSTEM ANALYZER

Rate My PC: Intel Core Ultra 5 245HX + Intel Arc A350M

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)

▼

93 Score

Top 7% Ranking

93 / 100

ULTIMATE READY

Apex Performer

Top 7% 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

94%

GPU

92%

PROCESSOR

Intel Core Ultra 5 245HX

48,287 Benchmark Score

Top 6% Market Ranking

View Full Specs →

GRAPHICS CARD

Intel Arc A350M

24,647 Benchmark Score

Top 8% 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

# CPU Analysis

The Intel Core Ultra 5 245HX is a 14-core, 14-thread mobile processor built on the Arrow Lake-HX architecture, part of Intel's Core Ultra Series 2. It is manufactured on a 3 nm process node at TSMC, with a transistor count of 17,800 million and a die size of 243 mm². The chip runs at a base clock of 3.10 GHz and boosts up to 5.10 GHz, with a TDP of 55 W. This is a significant generational shift, moving away from the hybrid big.LITTLE designs of earlier generations to a unified set of 14 cores, all capable of handling both single-threaded and multi-threaded workloads without the complexity of thread director scheduling.

The cache hierarchy is substantial: 192 KB of L1 per core, 3 MB of L2 per core, and a shared 24 MB L3 pool. This large L3 cache, combined with the high boost clock, positions the CPU for strong single-threaded performance. The benchmark data supports this. In Cinebench R23, the chip scores 4,568 points in single-core and 32,358 in multi-core. The single-core score is particularly strong, indicating excellent per-thread performance that benefits lightly-threaded applications like web browsing, office productivity, and many games. The multi-core score, while strong, reflects the fact that 14 threads are working with a 55 W TDP ceiling, which limits sustained all-core throughput compared to higher-power desktop parts.

In Cinebench R20, the scores are 1,918 single-core and 13,590 multi-core, while Cinebench R15 yields 460 single-core and 3,261 multi-core. These scores are consistent across the R15/R20/R23 scaling, showing that the CPU scales well with increasing workload intensity. The PassMark suite provides further context: the multi-thread score is 38,069, with a single-thread score of 4,481. Data compression scores 393,071, while encryption hits 30,022. Extended instructions score 31,212, and floating-point math reaches 120,735. Integer math scores 92,150, and the physics test scores 2,526. The prime number search test scores 359, and random string sorting hits 47,616.

The average benchmark score across all tests is 48,287, placing the CPU in the 90th percentile of all CPUs. This is a high-end mobile processor by any measure. Its nearest rivals are informative: the Intel Core Ultra 5 235A scores 48,201 (0.2% slower), the AMD Ryzen AI Max PRO 380 scores 48,171 (0.2% slower), the AMD EPYC 4345P scores 48,470 (0.4% faster), and the Intel Core i5-14600K scores 48,618 (0.7% faster). The 245HX is thus statistically tied with these parts, despite the i5-14600K being a desktop chip with a much higher power budget. This shows that the 245HX's efficiency and architecture are competitive with both mobile and desktop rivals, though it does not decisively beat any of them.

For real workloads, the data indicates the following: the high single-thread score (4,568 in R23) suggests snappy application launches and responsive UI interactions. The multi-thread score (32,358 in R23) suggests the chip can handle moderately parallel tasks like video encoding or 3D rendering, but it is not a workstation-class monster. The data compression score of 393,071 indicates strong archival performance, and the encryption score of 30,022 suggests capable but not exceptional cryptographic throughput. The floating-point math score of 120,735 is well above the integer math score of 92,150, which is typical for modern x86 cores and benefits scientific and financial workloads that rely on FP operations.

Balance and Bottleneck

In this laptop configuration, the Intel Arc A350M GPU is paired with the Core Ultra 5 245HX. The CPU is far more powerful than the GPU in relative terms. The CPU sits at the 90th percentile among all CPUs, while the GPU sits at the 70th percentile among all GPUs. This creates a clear bottleneck scenario: the GPU is the limiting factor for graphics-intensive workloads, while the CPU has headroom to spare.

The benchmark scores illustrate this imbalance. The CPU's average score of 48,287 is competitive with desktop parts like the Core i5-14600K (48,618), but the GPU's average score of 24,647 is only comparable to the AMD Radeon RX 590 (24,744) and the NVIDIA RTX A5000 Mobile (24,763). The GPU is also slightly ahead of the AMD Radeon RX 6600 XT (24,442) and the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1630 (24,277). This means that in gaming, the GPU will max out well before the CPU does, especially at lower resolutions where the CPU's high single-thread performance is not the constraining factor.

The combined percentile for this pairing is 80, reflecting that the overall system is balanced toward the CPU side. The lack of measured FPS data for this exact combination means we cannot provide precise frame rates, but the scores allow us to infer the bottleneck. In CPU-bound scenarios, such as strategy games or simulation titles with heavy AI logic, the 245HX will shine, providing strong minimum frame rates. In GPU-bound scenarios, such as modern AAA shooters at high resolutions, the A350M will be the limiting factor. The 14-core CPU will not be the reason for frame drops in most games; rather, the 4 GB GPU memory and 64-bit bus will be.

The data suggests that the CPU's 55 W TDP is a deliberate choice for a laptop, balancing performance and thermals. The GPU's 25 W TDP is similarly low, indicating a thin-and-light design intent. This pairing is not meant for high-refresh competitive gaming where GPU headroom is critical; instead, it is a productivity-first machine with modest gaming capabilities. The bottleneck is thus by design: the CPU is overprovisioned for the GPU, ensuring that the system never feels sluggish in non-graphics tasks, while accepting that gaming will be constrained by the GPU.

Benchmark Performance

The CPU's benchmark suite is extensive and shows a consistent picture of high performance. The Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 32,358 is the standout number, placing the chip in the top decile of all CPUs. The single-core score of 4,568 is equally impressive, indicating that the chip can handle both bursty and sustained workloads. The PassMark multi-thread score of 38,069 reinforces the multi-core capability, while the single-thread score of 4,481 shows that the chip does not sacrifice single-threaded responsiveness for core count.

The GPU's benchmark scores are more modest. In Geekbench OpenCL, the Arc A350M scores 24,546, and in Geekbench Vulkan, it scores 24,747. These are nearly identical, suggesting that the GPU's compute performance is consistent across APIs. The average GPU benchmark score is 24,647, placing it in the 70th percentile of all GPUs. This is a mid-range result, not a high-end one. The nearest rivals show that the A350M is competitive with older desktop cards like the RX 590 (24,744, 0.4% faster) and the mobile RTX A5000 (24,763, 0.5% faster), while being slightly faster than the RX 6600 XT (24,442, 0.8% slower) and the GTX 1630 (24,277, 1.5% slower).

The combined picture is that of a system where the CPU is the star. The 90th percentile CPU paired with a 70th percentile GPU results in an 80th percentile overall. This means that in a direct comparison with other laptops, this system will outperform most in CPU-heavy tasks but will be average in GPU-heavy tasks. For productivity, this is a winning combination; for gaming, it is adequate but not exceptional. The data shows that the CPU's single-thread performance is within 0.7% of the Core i5-14600K, a desktop chip known for excellent gaming performance, which means the CPU will not hold back any game that relies on strong per-core performance. The GPU, however, will hold back gaming at high resolutions or with high graphical settings.

Usage Scenarios

High-refresh gaming: The CPU is more than capable of driving high frame rates in esports titles, given its 4,568 single-core score in R23. However, the GPU's 24,647 average score and 4 GB VRAM will limit the achievable frame rates, particularly at 1080p ultra settings. This system is not ideal for 144 Hz competitive gaming; it is better suited for 60 Hz gaming at medium settings.

Streaming: The 14-core CPU provides ample headroom for encoding while gaming, as the multi-thread score of 32,358 in R23 shows. The GPU also supports modern encoding features, but its limited compute power (3.379 TFLOPS FP32) may struggle with concurrent gaming and encoding at high quality. The CPU can handle the encoding load without significantly impacting gaming performance.

Video editing: The CPU's multi-thread score of 32,358 in R23 and floating-point score of 120,735 make it a strong candidate for video editing. Timeline scrubbing and effects rendering will be smooth. The GPU's 4 GB VRAM may be a limitation for complex compositions or 4K timelines, but simple edits and exports will be fine.

3D rendering: The CPU's 14 cores will handle CPU-based rendering engines like Blender Cycles or V-Ray with reasonable speed, as indicated by the 32,358 R23 multi-core score. The GPU's 3.379 TFLOPS FP32 is not competitive for GPU-based rendering, so users should rely on the CPU for this workload.

Software development: The CPU's high single-thread score (4,568 in R23) ensures fast compilation of single files, while the multi-thread score (32,358) helps with parallel builds. The 24 MB L3 cache and 102.4 GB/s memory bandwidth support large codebases and virtual machines. The GPU is irrelevant here, making this a strong development machine.

Student and office work: The CPU is overkill for this use case, but the headroom means the system will never feel slow. The 90th percentile CPU ensures snappy response in spreadsheets, document editing, and web browsing. The GPU is sufficient for basic display output and video playback.

Who Should Build It

This pairing is aimed at users who prioritize CPU performance over GPU performance in a mobile form factor. The 90th percentile CPU makes this a compelling choice for software developers who need fast compilation and the ability to run multiple VMs. Content creators who work primarily with CPU-based workflows, such as video editors using software encoders or 3D artists using CPU renderers, will benefit from the 32,358 R23 multi-core score. Students in engineering or computer science fields will find the CPU more than adequate for their coursework, and the GPU can handle light gaming or CAD tasks.

Small business workstations that run data analysis, financial modeling, or database applications will benefit from the high single-thread score and the 393,071 data compression score. The system is not suited for gamers who want to play at high resolutions or with maximum settings, as the GPU's 4 GB VRAM and 64-bit bus are limiting. It is also not for machine learning practitioners who need GPU compute, as the A350M's 3.379 TFLOPS is far below what is needed for training models. The target user is someone who spends most of their time in CPU-bound applications and games only occasionally or at modest settings.

GPU Analysis

The Intel Arc A350M is based on the Xe-HPG architecture, codenamed Alchemist (Arc 3 Mobile), and is built on a 6 nm process at TSMC with 7,200 million transistors on a 157 mm² die. The chip has 768 shading units, 48 texture mapping units, and 24 raster operation units, along with 6 ray tracing cores. The base clock is 1150 MHz, with a boost clock of 2200 MHz. The GPU does not have dedicated tensor cores, which means AI-accelerated workloads are not a focus.

Memory is a significant limitation: 4 GB of GDDR6 on a 64-bit bus, yielding a bandwidth of 112.0 GB/s. The memory clock is 1750 MHz, or 14 Gbps effective. This is a low-bandwidth configuration for a modern GPU, which will constrain performance in texture-heavy scenes and at higher resolutions. The pixel rate is 52.80 GPixel/s, and the texture rate is 105.6 GTexel/s. The FP32 throughput is 3.379 TFLOPS, with FP16 at 6.758 TFLOPS (2:1 ratio). The GPU has a TDP of 25 W, making it an integrated-class (IGP) part in terms of power draw, though it is a discrete chip.

The benchmark scores are 24,546 in Geekbench OpenCL and 24,747 in Geekbench Vulkan, averaging 24,647. This places the GPU at the 70th percentile of all GPUs. The nearest rivals are telling: the AMD Radeon RX 590 (24,744) is 0.4% faster, the NVIDIA RTX A5000 Mobile (24,763) is 0.5% faster, the AMD Radeon RX 6600 XT (24,442) is 0.8% slower, and the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1630 (24,277) is 1.5% slower. The A350M is thus comparable to a mid-range desktop GPU from several years ago, but it is not in the same league as modern high-end parts.

For rendering, the GPU's ray tracing cores (6) provide hardware acceleration for ray-traced effects, but the low FP32 throughput and limited bandwidth will result in poor performance in ray-traced scenes. The GPU supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4, meaning it is feature-complete for modern games. However, the 64-bit memory bus is a severe bottleneck for bandwidth-heavy workloads like 4K texturing or complex post-processing. The 4 GB VRAM will also cause issues in games that require more memory, leading to texture pop-in or reduced quality settings.

Gaming Performance

No measured FPS data exists for this exact CPU+GPU combination. The FACT PACK contains no measured FPS rows, so all frame rate figures presented here are estimates derived from the benchmark scores. The CPU's high single-thread performance (4,568 in Cinebench R23) indicates that it will not be a bottleneck in most games. The GPU's average score of 24,647, however, suggests that gaming performance will be modest.

Based on the GPU's score relative to the RX 590 (24,744) and the GTX 1630 (24,277), this system should handle 1080p gaming at medium to high settings in esports titles like Counter-Strike 2 or Valorant, with frame rates in the 60-100 fps range. For modern AAA games at 1080p ultra settings, the GPU will likely struggle to maintain 60 fps, and users may need to lower settings to medium or high to achieve playable frame rates. At 1440p, the GPU's 4 GB VRAM and 112.0 GB/s bandwidth will become a significant limitation, and frame rates will drop substantially. At 4K, this GPU is not viable for modern gaming.

The CPU's performance in CPU-bound games will be excellent, as its scores are within 0.7% of the Core i5-14600K, a desktop chip known for strong gaming performance. In games with heavy physics or AI, the 14-core CPU will provide smooth gameplay. However, the overall gaming experience will be limited by the GPU, which is the clear bottleneck. Users should expect a system that is capable of 1080p gaming at medium settings, with better results in less demanding titles and worse results in the latest AAA releases.

Build Overview

This is a laptop-class build (buildClass: "laptop") that pairs the Intel Core Ultra 5 245HX CPU with the Intel Arc A350M GPU. The CPU is a high-end mobile part at the 90th percentile of all CPUs, while the GPU is a mid-range mobile part at the 70th percentile. The combined system percentile is 80, indicating that this is a solidly above-average laptop overall, but with a clear skew toward CPU performance.

The Core Ultra 5 245HX is a 14-core, 14-thread Arrow Lake-HX processor with a 5.10 GHz boost clock and a 55 W TDP. It is a modern, efficient chip that competes with desktop parts like the Core i5-14600K. The Arc A350M is an Alchemist-generation GPU with 768 shading units, 6 ray tracing cores, and 4 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 64-bit bus. It is a capable entry-level discrete GPU, but it is not designed for high-end gaming.

This build is best understood as a productivity-first laptop with light gaming capability. The CPU is the star, providing excellent performance for software development, content creation, and office work. The GPU is adequate for casual gaming and basic graphics tasks but will not satisfy users with demanding gaming expectations. The overall tier, based on the 80th combined percentile, is that of a premium mid-range laptop.

FAQ

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

A: The Intel Core Ultra 5 245HX has 14 cores and 14 threads, with a base clock of 3.10 GHz and a boost clock of 5.10 GHz.

Q: How does the CPU compare to the Intel Core i5-14600K?

A: The Core Ultra 5 245HX has an average benchmark score of 48,287, which is 0.7% lower than the Core i5-14600K's score of 48,618. They are statistically tied.

Q: What is the GPU's memory configuration?

A: The Intel Arc A350M has 4 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 64-bit bus, with a bandwidth of 112.0 GB/s and a memory clock of 1750 MHz (14 Gbps effective).

Q: What is the GPU's percentile ranking?

A: The GPU is at the 70th percentile of all GPUs, with an average benchmark score of 24,647.

Q: Does this system support ray tracing?

A: Yes, the GPU has 6 ray tracing cores and supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), making it capable of hardware-accelerated ray tracing, though performance will be limited by the GPU's modest compute power.

Q: What is the memory bandwidth of the CPU?

A: The CPU supports dual-channel DDR5 memory with a bandwidth of 102.4 GB/s.

Q: Is there measured FPS data for this combination?

A: No, there is no measured FPS data for this exact CPU+GPU combination. All frame rate expectations are estimates based on the benchmark scores.

Upgrade Path and Platform

The CPU uses the Intel BGA 2114 socket, which is a soldered mobile socket, meaning the CPU is not upgradeable in a traditional sense. The platform supports DDR5 memory in dual-channel mode, with a memory bandwidth of 102.4 GB/s. The CPU provides PCIe Gen 5 with 20 lanes (CPU only), and the GPU uses a PCIe 4.0 x8 interface. The GPU is also soldered or integrated into the motherboard, so upgrading it is not feasible in most laptop designs.

The CPU has a TDP of 55 W, and the GPU has a TDP of 25 W. There is no suggested PSU wattage provided, but the combined 80 W TDP suggests that a modest power adapter is sufficient. The system has no ECC memory support, which limits its use in mission-critical server environments.

Given the soldered nature of both the CPU and GPU, the primary upgrade path for this laptop is memory and storage. Users can increase the DDR5 RAM capacity to improve multitasking and memory-heavy workloads. The storage can be upgraded to a faster NVMe SSD to reduce load times. However, the CPU and GPU are fixed, so the performance ceiling is set at the factory.

A sensible next upgrade for users who need more graphics performance would be to move to a laptop with a more powerful discrete GPU, as the A350M is at the 70th percentile and is the limiting factor in gaming. For users who need more CPU performance, the 90th percentile placement means that only the very top-tier mobile CPUs would offer a meaningful improvement. The platform is mature, and the 3 nm process node for the CPU and 6 nm for the GPU indicate a modern, efficient design that should remain relevant for several years.

Rate My PC: Intel Core Ultra 5 245HX + Intel Arc A350M

Apex Performer

System Balance Analysis

Intel Core Ultra 5 245HX

Intel Arc A350M

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

Balance and Bottleneck

Benchmark Performance

Usage Scenarios

Who Should Build It

GPU Analysis

Gaming Performance

Build Overview

FAQ

Upgrade Path and Platform

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