SYSTEM ANALYZER

Rate My PC: Intel Core Ultra 5 245K + Intel Arc A310

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)

▼

90 Score

Top 10% Ranking

90 / 100

ULTIMATE READY

Apex Performer

Top 10% 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

95%

GPU

85%

PROCESSOR

Intel Core Ultra 5 245K

54,053 Benchmark Score

Top 5% 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

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 245K paired with the Intel Arc A310 is an unusual combination: a current-generation, upper-tier desktop processor sitting next to an entry-level, end-of-life graphics card. The data shows a CPU holding the 91st percentile against all processors in the database, while the GPU sits at the 40th percentile against all GPUs, producing a combined build percentile of 66. No measured FPS rows exist for this exact pairing in the database, so all frame-rate discussion below is estimated from benchmark scores rather than measured play. That asymmetry defines everything about this build: it is CPU-rich and graphics-poor, and the analysis reflects that.

CPU Analysis

The Core Ultra 5 245K is an Arrow Lake-S desktop processor built on TSMC's 3 nm node, packing 14 cores and 14 threads — no hyperthreading-style doubling here, meaning each core maps to one thread. It boosts to 5.20 GHz from a 4.20 GHz base, with a 125 W TDP and an unlocked multiplier for overclocking. The cache hierarchy is generous: 192 KB of L1 per core, 3 MB of L2 per core, and a 24 MB shared L3. Total die size is 243 mm² carrying 17,800 million transistors. Memory support is DDR5 over a dual-channel bus delivering 102.4 GB/s of bandwidth, with ECC support enabled — a feature more often found in workstation parts.

The benchmark scores place this chip in genuinely strong territory. Cinebench R23 returns 25066 multi-core and 2132 single-core; R20 shows 15368 multi and 2169 single; R15 gives 3850 multi and 322 single. The PassMark single-thread score of 4714 confirms a punchy per-core profile, and the multi-thread result of 43047 indicates real throughput for a 14-thread part. Against its nearest rivals, the 245K's average benchmark score of 54053 puts it within a hair of the Intel Xeon 6505P (0.7% ahead), just ahead of the Core i7-14700F (0.8% ahead), and slightly in front of the Intel Xeon Phi 7290 (1.1% ahead). The only rival above it in the list is the AMD Ryzen 9 9900X3D, which leads by 1.3%. In practical terms: this is a processor that trades blows with mainstream i7-class and workstation chips, capable of heavy multi-core workloads without giving up single-core responsiveness.

Usage Scenarios

High-refresh gaming. The CPU side is more than ready — a 91st-percentile processor with 2132 single-core Cinebench R23 points and 5.2 GHz boost will not be the limiter in most titles. The GPU is the constraint. A 40th-percentile graphics card with 2.688 TFLOPS of FP32 throughput cannot drive high-refresh play at demanding settings; expect playable frame rates only at modest resolutions and settings, and treat all frame estimates accordingly since no measured data exists for this pairing.

Streaming. Encoding on the CPU is the viable path here. The 43047 PassMark multi-thread score and 33286 PassMark encryption result show the 245K can handle simultaneous game and encode loads — but the game itself will run at entry-level frame rates because of the A310. CPU-based streaming is feasible; the gaming quality underneath it is not high.

Video editing. Timeline scrubbing and preview on the CPU will feel capable thanks to DDR5 bandwidth of 102.4 GB/s and strong multi-core scores, but GPU-accelerated effects are limited: the A310's 4 GB of GDDR6 and 2157 PassMark compute score mean heavy GPU effects, noise reduction, and timeline GPU acceleration will hit walls quickly. Light edits are fine; layered 4K work is not.

3D rendering. Cinebench is the direct proxy, and 25066 R23 multi-core points indicate respectable CPU rendering throughput. GPU rendering is a different story — 2.688 TFLOPS FP32, 768 shading units, and a 64-bit memory bus are far below what GPU renderers expect. Viewport work will also lean on the weak GPU. CPU rendering only.

Software development. This is one of the best-fit scenarios. Compiling scales with multi-core throughput (43047 PassMark multi-thread), single-threaded tasks benefit from the 4714 PassMark single-thread score, and integer math at 98524 plus string sorting at 55098 map directly to parsing, building, and tooling workloads. The GPU is nearly irrelevant for this use case.

Student and office work. Browsing, documents, and web apps are single-thread-bound, and this CPU excels there. The 4x mini-DisplayPort 2.0 outputs on the A310 support multi-monitor setups, and the 30 W GPU TDP keeps the system quiet for desk duty.

Benchmark Performance

The full CPU picture: Cinebench R15 multi 3850 / single 322, R20 multi 15368 / single 2169, R23 multi 25066 / single 2132. PassMark suite: single-thread 4714, multi-thread 43047, physics 3081, integer math 98524, floating point math 130678, extended instructions 37617, data compression 458817, encryption 33286, prime finding 414, string sorting 55098. The average benchmark score is 54053, placing the chip at the 91st percentile versus all CPUs.

The GPU picture: Geekbench OpenCL 30607, Geekbench Vulkan 28964, PassMark G3D 5433, GPU compute 2157, G2D 625, DirectX 9 at 69 with DirectX 10/11/12 at 31/33/29 respectively. The average score of 7550 sits at the 40th percentile versus all GPUs. Its closest rivals by average score are the AMD Radeon R7 250 (7557, the A310 trails by 0.1%), the AMD Radeon Pro WX 3100 (7580, trailing by 0.4%), the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 (7472, the A310 leads by 1%), and the AMD Radeon HD 8850M (7447, leading by 1.4%).

The combined picture is unambiguous. A 91st-percentile CPU with a 40th-percentile GPU yields a combined build percentile of 66 — the processor pulls the build up, the graphics card drags it down. The pairing is severely lopsided.

Who Should Build It

This configuration makes sense for a narrow set of users. Developers and engineers are the primary candidates: the 245K's compile-class throughput and top-tier single-thread performance serve code-heavy workloads, and the A310 covers display output and light compute over its four mini-DisplayPort 2.0 connectors. Students and office users running productivity software get responsive systems with quiet, low-power graphics. Small businesses running ECC-enabled workstations — note the CPU's ECC support — for data integrity would find the CPU appropriate, though the GPU adds little beyond multi-monitor capability. Content creators doing CPU-rendered work can also use this platform. Gamers, however, are not the audience: anyone targeting high-refresh play at any resolution will be bottlenecked by the GPU, and content creators relying on GPU acceleration should look elsewhere.

Balance and Bottleneck

The bottleneck is the GPU, and it is not close. The CPU sits at the 91st percentile; the GPU at the 40th. The 245K's average score of 54053 is more than seven times the A310's 7550, and the GPU's own rival list — the Radeon R7 250, the Radeon Pro WX 3100, a mobile Radeon HD 8850M — places it in entry-level territory, a tier or more below the GTX 1650 class. In graphically demanding games, the A310 will limit frame rates almost completely; the CPU's capabilities go unused. In CPU-bound tasks — compilation, physics (3081 PassMark), compression (458817) — the balance reverses and the GPU contributes almost nothing. Since no measured FPS data exists for this pairing, this assessment is derived from the percentile gap and score ratio rather than measured scaling, but the margin is wide enough that the conclusion is robust.

FAQ

Q: Does this pairing have measured FPS data in the database?

A: No. There are no measured FPS rows for this combination; all frame-rate expectations discussed here are estimates drawn from the benchmark scores.

Q: How strong is the Core Ultra 5 245K relative to other CPUs?

A: It ranks in the 91st percentile versus all CPUs, with an average benchmark score of 54053 — within 1.3% of the AMD Ryzen 9 9900X3D and ahead of the Core i7-14700F by 0.8%.

Q: Can the Arc A310 handle modern games?

A: Only at entry level. It sits at the 40th percentile versus all GPUs with a PassMark G3D score of 5433 and 2.688 TFLOPS of FP32 compute — comparable to a Radeon R7 250, and only 1% ahead of a GTX 1650's average score.

Q: Is the CPU overclockable?

A: Yes. The multiplier is unlocked, and the 125 W TDP part uses Intel Socket 1851.

Q: How much memory bandwidth does the platform provide?

A: The CPU supports dual-channel DDR5 at 102.4 GB/s, with ECC support. The GPU adds 4 GB of GDDR6 at 124.0 GB/s over a 64-bit bus.

Q: What power supply is recommended?

A: The GPU's suggested PSU is 200 W. The card itself draws 30 W TDP and requires no additional power connectors.

Q: Is the Arc A310 still in production?

A: No. Its production status is end-of-life, with Battlemage listed as its successor.

Upgrade Path and Platform

The platform foundation is Intel Socket 1851 with PCIe Gen 5 and 20 CPU lanes, giving substantial headroom for a much faster graphics card than the A310. The GPU occupies a PCIe 4.0 x8 connection and requires no power connectors, so any meaningful upgrade will bring both a wider bus usage and external power requirements — the 200 W suggested PSU for the A310 would need revisiting in any GPU upgrade, since the CPU alone carries a 125 W TDP. The sensible next step for this build is unambiguous: keep the 91st-percentile CPU, DDR5 memory with its 102.4 GB/s of bandwidth, and the Gen 5 platform, and replace the 40th-percentile GPU. Given the CPU's standing — trading blows with i7-class and Xeon parts — the processor will remain credible even beside a far stronger card. The A310's single-slot, 30 W profile is its only distinguishing virtue in this build.

Gaming Performance

No measured FPS data exists for this combination, so the figures here are estimates from benchmark scores, not database measurements. The PassMark G3D score of 5433 and the average score of 7550 place the A310 alongside the Radeon R7 250 and Radeon Pro WX 3100, roughly 1% ahead of the GTX 1650 by average score. For modern AAA titles at high or ultra settings, this class of GPU is not suitable at mainstream resolutions; expectations should be limited to older or lightweight titles, reduced settings, and modest resolutions. The Geekbench Vulkan score of 28964 versus OpenCL at 30607 shows the API performance the card does offer. Meanwhile, the CPU side of the equation — 91st percentile, 4714 single-thread PassMark — is fully capable of feeding a far faster GPU, meaning any frame-rate ceiling in games comes entirely from the graphics card. That is an estimate-based conclusion, consistent with the absence of measured rows.

GPU Analysis

The Arc A310 is an Alchemist-generation (Arc 3) Xe-HPG part, the DG2-128 chip, manufactured by TSMC on a 6 nm process with 7,200 million transistors on a 157 mm² die at a density of 45.9M transistors per mm². The core runs at 1750 MHz for both base and boost, with memory clocked at 1937 MHz effective 15.5 Gbps. It carries 768 shading units, 32 TMUs, 16 ROPs, and 6 RT cores, with no tensor cores listed. Compute output is modest: 2.688 TFLOPS FP32 and 5.376 TFLOPS FP16 in a 2:1 ratio, a 28.00 GPixel/s pixel rate and 56.00 GTexel/s texture rate. Memory is 4 GB of GDDR6 on a 64-bit bus delivering 124.0 GB/s of bandwidth — a figure barely above the CPU's own dual-channel DDR5 bandwidth of 102.4 GB/s, which frames how limited this card is.

For rendering workloads, the benchmark results tell a clear story. The PassMark GPU compute score of 2157 is entry-level, and while Geekbench OpenCL at 30607 and Vulkan at 28964 show functioning compute pipelines, the 4 GB VRAM buffer will exhaust quickly in modern rendering, AI, or texture-heavy tasks. The six RT cores exist on paper, but at this throughput class ray-traced rendering is impractical. Software support is current — DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), Vulkan 1.4, and OpenGL 4.6 — yet the hardware beneath it is modest. In this build, the A310 functions best as a display and light-compute card, a role its 30 W TDP, single-slot design, and four mini-DisplayPort 2.0 outputs suit well.

Rate My PC: Intel Core Ultra 5 245K + Intel Arc A310

Apex Performer

System Balance Analysis

Intel Core Ultra 5 245K

Intel Arc A310

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

CPU Analysis

Usage Scenarios

Benchmark Performance

Who Should Build It

Balance and Bottleneck

FAQ

Upgrade Path and Platform

Gaming Performance

GPU Analysis

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