SYSTEM ANALYZER

Rate My PC: Intel Core Ultra 5 250K Plus + Intel Arc A310

Get a comprehensive performance analysis of your gaming rig with detailed benchmarks, bottleneck detection, and upgrade recommendations

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
96%
VS
GPU
85%
PROCESSOR

Intel Core Ultra 5 250K Plus

66,855 Benchmark Score
Top 4% 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 250K Plus and Intel Arc A310 form a desktop pairing that is defined by a stark contrast in capability. The CPU is a high-end, 18-core processor that sits in the 93rd percentile of all CPUs, while the GPU is an entry-level, low-power component in the 40th percentile of all GPUs. No measured FPS rows exist for this exact combination, so all frame rate discussion is estimated from the benchmark scores rather than direct game testing. The data reveals a system built around a powerful compute core with a graphics solution that is primarily suited for basic display output and light workloads.

Usage Scenarios

High-Refresh Gaming: This is not a viable scenario for this pairing. The Arc A310's PassMark G3D score of 5433 places it in the 40th percentile of all GPUs, directly alongside the AMD Radeon R7 250 and NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650. With just 4 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 64-bit bus, the GPU lacks the fill rate and memory bandwidth to push high frame rates at modern resolutions. The CPU's single-thread score of 4757 in PassMark and 2261 in Cinebench R23 would not be the limiting factor; the GPU would prevent any high-refresh gaming experience.

Streaming: The CPU is exceptionally well-suited for streaming workloads. Its multithreaded PassMark score of 51596 and Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 30867 provide ample headroom for encoding video while other tasks run concurrently. However, the Arc A310 is a bottleneck for game capture, as its benchmark scores suggest it cannot render modern games at playable frame rates. The 18 cores and 18 threads of the 250K Plus would handle the encoding, but the source footage from the A310 would be too low quality to make streaming worthwhile.

Video Editing: The CPU is the star here. A Cinebench R15 multi-core score of 4640 and a PassMark floating-point math score of 162692 indicate strong number-crunching for video effects and color grading. The Arc A310's GPU compute score of 2157 offers some acceleration, but its 4 GB VRAM and 124.0 GB/s bandwidth are insufficient for working with complex timelines or high-resolution footage. This system could handle light 1080p editing where the CPU does the heavy lifting, but it will struggle with GPU-accelerated effects.

3D Rendering: The CPU performs exceptionally well in multi-threaded rendering tasks. Its Cinebench R20 multi-core score of 18442 and R23 score of 30867 demonstrate serious render capability, placing it in the 93rd percentile for all CPUs. The GPU, by contrast, is a non-factor for rendering; its FP32 performance of 2.688 TFLOPS is below what is needed for modern viewport rendering, and its PassMark DirectX 12 score of 29 is among the lowest measured. Users should rely entirely on CPU-based renderers with this build.

Software Development: The 18 cores and 18 threads of the Core Ultra 5 250K Plus make it a strong compiler workhorse. PassMark integer math score of 125091 and data compression score of 568721 suggest fast compilation times and quick file operations. The Arc A310 is adequate for basic desktop use and 2D UI rendering, but its PassMark G2D score of 625 is modest. Developers working on large codebases will benefit from the CPU, but the GPU will not accelerate any modern compute APIs effectively.

Student and Office Work: This pairing is overkill on the CPU side and adequate on the GPU side. The Core Ultra 5 250K Plus, with its 4757 PassMark single-thread score, will make spreadsheet calculations and document processing feel instantaneous. The Arc A310 handles 2D desktop compositing without issue, and its 4 GB VRAM is more than enough for multiple monitors via its 4x mini-DisplayPort 2.0 outputs. This is a system for users who need extreme CPU performance for occasional heavy tasks but only basic graphics for daily work.

Benchmark Performance

The combined percentile for this pairing is 67, indicating that the system as a whole performs better than most desktop configurations, but this is driven almost entirely by the CPU. The Intel Core Ultra 5 250K Plus achieves an average benchmark score of 66855, placing it in the 93rd percentile of all CPUs. Its nearest rival, the AMD EPYC 4465P, scores 66925, a delta of -0.1%, meaning the Core Ultra 5 is essentially tied with a server-class EPYC chip. It is also 0.9% behind the Intel Core Ultra 9 275HX and 1.1% ahead of the Intel Core Ultra 5 250KF Plus.

The Intel Arc A310 presents a much weaker picture. Its average benchmark score of 7550 places it in the 40th percentile of all GPUs. It is statistically tied with the AMD Radeon R7 250 (7557, delta -0.1%) and the AMD Radeon Pro WX 3100 (7580, delta -0.4%). It is 1% ahead of the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 (7472) and 1.4% ahead of the AMD Radeon HD 8850M (7447). These scores place the GPU firmly in the entry-level segment of 2016-2018 era hardware.

The combined picture is one of extreme imbalance. The CPU outperforms its nearest rival by less than a single percentage point in aggregate, while the GPU's score is roughly 11% of the CPU's average score. In absolute terms, the CPU's Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 30867 is over 5.6 times higher than the GPU's PassMark G3D score of 5433, though these are different metrics. The data shows a system where the CPU can handle any computational task, but the GPU can only manage the lightest graphical duties.

GPU Analysis

The Intel Arc A310 is built on the Xe-HPG architecture with the DG2-128 chip, fabricated on a 6 nm TSMC process. The GPU packs 768 shading units, 32 texture mapping units, and 16 raster output units. It has 6 dedicated ray tracing cores and supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), Vulkan 1.4, and OpenGL 4.6. The card runs at a fixed clock of 1750 MHz for both base and boost, with memory clocked at 1937 MHz (15.5 Gbps effective).

The memory subsystem consists of 4 GB of GDDR6 on a 64-bit bus, yielding a bandwidth of 124.0 GB/s. This is a severe limitation for modern games, which typically require at least 6 GB of VRAM and higher bandwidth for 1080p high settings. The pixel rate of 28.00 GPixel/s and texture rate of 56.00 GTexel/s are low figures, consistent with its 16 ROPs and 32 TMUs. The FP32 compute of 2.688 TFLOPS and FP16 of 5.376 TFLOPS (2:1) are modest, confirming its entry-level positioning.

Benchmark results reflect these limitations. The PassMark DirectX 11 score is 33, DirectX 12 score is 29, and DirectX 9 score is 69; these numbers indicate that the GPU can barely execute modern graphics APIs without significant frame drops. The Geekbench OpenCL score of 30607 and Vulkan score of 28964 are better but still low. The GPU compute score of 2157 shows that compute workloads are not a strength. The 6 RT cores are largely irrelevant in practice, as the GPU lacks the raw throughput to enable ray tracing at any playable resolution. The 30 W TDP and lack of power connectors mean this is a bus-powered solution, but its performance ceiling is extremely low for rendering.

Who Should Build It

The target user for this pairing is a professional or power user who needs massive CPU throughput but has minimal graphics requirements. The Core Ultra 5 250K Plus's 93rd percentile CPU ranking makes it a legitimate contender for software development, where the 18 cores and PassMark integer math score of 125091 speed up compilation, and the data compression score of 568721 aids in package management. Small business workstations running database queries or financial models will see strong returns from the CPU's Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 30867.

Content creators who work primarily in CPU-bound applications such as audio production or batch photo processing will benefit. The PassMark extended instructions score of 44565 and floating-point math score of 162692 support this use case. However, video editors and 3D artists should look elsewhere, as the Arc A310's 4 GB VRAM and 5433 G3D score cannot handle GPU-accelerated timelines or viewport rendering. Gamers are not the target audience; the GPU's 40th percentile ranking makes it unsuitable for any modern gaming beyond esports titles at low settings.

Students in engineering or computer science programs will find the CPU invaluable for running simulations or compiling code, while the GPU suffices for displaying IDE interfaces and web browsers. The 4x mini-DisplayPort 2.0 outputs allow for a multi-monitor setup, which is useful for productivity. The ECC memory support and 115.2 GB/s dual-channel DDR5 bandwidth make this pairing appropriate for long-running workstation tasks where data integrity is critical.

Balance and Bottleneck

The bottleneck analysis here is unambiguous: the Intel Arc A310 is the limiting factor in every graphical workload, while the Core Ultra 5 250K Plus is the limiting factor in none. The GPU's 40th percentile ranking versus the CPU's 93rd percentile creates a 53-point gap in relative performance. In CPU-intensive tasks like data encryption (PassMark score of 42144) or prime number finding (score of 486), the system will perform at the level of a top-tier workstation. In any GPU-accelerated task, the system will perform at the level of a 2016-era entry-level card.

The FPS scaling estimated from these scores indicates that for any game, the Arc A310 will cap frame rates well below what the CPU can feed it. The CPU's single-thread performance (PassMark 4757, Cinebench R23 single-core 2261) is sufficient for high-FPS eSports titles, but the GPU's DirectX 12 score of 29 will prevent any meaningful frame output. Conversely, the GPU is not a bottleneck for office work or 2D desktop tasks, where its G2D score of 625 is adequate. The CPU's 18 threads will sit largely idle in these scenarios, meaning the system is unbalanced for most consumer workloads, but ideal for specific professional use cases where CPU compute is the sole focus.

FAQ

Q: Can this system play modern games at 1080p?

A: No. The Arc A310 has a PassMark G3D score of 5433, which places it in the 40th percentile of all GPUs, comparable to a GTX 1650. With only 4 GB of VRAM and a DirectX 12 score of 29, it cannot handle modern game rendering at playable frame rates.

Q: Is the CPU good for video rendering?

A: Yes, for CPU-based rendering. The Core Ultra 5 250K Plus has a Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 30867 and a PassMark multithread score of 51596, placing it in the 93rd percentile. It is 0.9% faster than the Intel Core Ultra 9 275HX in average benchmark score.

Q: What is the power requirement for this build?

A: The suggested PSU for the Arc A310 is 200 W, and the CPU has a TDP of 125 W. The GPU draws only 30 W and requires no power connectors, so a modest power supply is sufficient.

Q: Does the GPU support ray tracing?

A: The Arc A310 has 6 RT cores and supports DirectX 12 Ultimate. However, its FP32 performance of 2.688 TFLOPS is too low to enable playable ray tracing in any game.

Q: How much memory bandwidth does the CPU support?

A: The Core Ultra 5 250K Plus supports dual-channel DDR5 with a memory bandwidth of 115.2 GB/s. It also supports ECC memory.

Q: Is this a good choice for a software developer?

A: Yes. The 18 cores and 18 threads provide a PassMark integer math score of 125091 and a data compression score of 568721, which are strong indicators for compilation and build performance.

Q: What is the GPU's memory configuration?

A: The Arc A310 has 4 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 64-bit bus, with a bandwidth of 124.0 GB/s. This is a limiting factor for any memory-intensive task.

CPU Analysis

The Intel Core Ultra 5 250K Plus is a desktop processor from the Core Ultra Series 2, codenamed Arrow Lake Refresh, manufactured on a 3 nm TSMC process. It features 18 cores and 18 threads, with a base clock of 4.20 GHz and a boost clock of 5.30 GHz. The chip contains 17,800 million transistors on a 243 mm² die, and it is unlocked for overclocking. The TDP is 125 W.

In terms of cache, the CPU has 192 KB of L1 per core, 3 MB of L2 per core, and 30 MB of shared L3 cache. This configuration supports high-throughput workloads. The CPU's benchmark scores are consistently strong. Cinebench R15 multi-core score is 4640 and single-core 328; R20 multi-core is 18442 and single-core 2603; R23 multi-core is 30867 and single-core 2261. These single-core scores indicate strong per-thread performance, while the multi-core scores are exceptional.

The average benchmark score of 66855 places it in the 93rd percentile of all CPUs, with the nearest rival being the AMD EPYC 4465P at 66925 (-0.1% delta). This means the Core Ultra 5 250K Plus is effectively on par with a server-grade EPYC processor. PassMark tests show a multithread score of 51596, physics score of 3494, and single-thread score of 4757. The floating-point math score of 162692 and integer math score of 125091 indicate broad computational strength. The extended instructions score of 44565 and encryption score of 42144 further confirm its capability. For real workloads, this CPU excels at multi-threaded compilation, scientific computing, and any task that can leverage its 18 threads. Its memory bandwidth of 115.2 GB/s via dual-channel DDR5, combined with ECC support, makes it suitable for data-intensive workstation tasks.

Upgrade Path and Platform

The Core Ultra 5 250K Plus uses the Intel Socket 1851 platform, which supports DDR5 memory in a dual-channel configuration with a bandwidth of 115.2 GB/s. The CPU provides PCIe Gen 5 with 20 lanes, enabling high-speed connectivity for storage and add-in cards. The integrated Arc Xe-LPG Graphics 64EU provides a basic display output fallback. The production status is Active, and the launch date is 2026-03-10.

The Arc A310 uses a PCIe 4.0 x8 bus interface, which is compatible with the CPU's PCIe Gen 5 slots. The GPU is end-of-life, with its successor being Battlemage. A sensible next upgrade would be to replace the Arc A310 with a more powerful GPU, as the CPU has ample headroom. The CPU's 93rd percentile performance means it will not bottleneck a faster graphics card. The PSU headroom is substantial: the GPU's suggested PSU is 200 W, and the CPU TDP is 125 W, so a standard 300-400 W power supply would have room for a mid-range GPU upgrade. The 4x mini-DisplayPort 2.0 outputs on the A310 support up to four displays, but a new GPU would offer higher bandwidth and more VRAM. The platform's DDR5 support and ECC capability mean that memory upgrades are also straightforward, though the current 115.2 GB/s bandwidth is already robust.

Build Overview

This is a desktop build classified as a standard workstation or productivity system. The pairing of the Intel Core Ultra 5 250K Plus and Intel Arc A310 creates a system with a combined percentile of 67, which is above average for all systems. The CPU is a top-tier desktop processor in the 93rd percentile, while the GPU is an entry-level component in the 40th percentile.

The overall tier of this build is "workstation-class CPU with entry-level graphics." It is suited for users who prioritize computational performance over gaming. The CPU's average benchmark score of 66855 is competitive with server processors like the AMD EPYC 4465P, while the GPU's average score of 7550 is comparable to the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650. This is not a balanced gaming rig, but it is a powerful compute platform for software development, financial analysis, and CPU-based rendering tasks. The 125 W TDP of the CPU and 30 W TDP of the GPU mean the system is energy-efficient for the CPU performance it delivers. The build class is desktop, and the production status of the CPU is Active, while the GPU is end-of-life, suggesting that the CPU is a long-term investment while the GPU is a temporary placeholder.