SYSTEM ANALYZER

Rate My PC: Intel Core Ultra 5 250K Plus + NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5080 SUPER

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)

▼

88 Score

Top 12% Ranking

88 / 100

HIGH-END

Power Build

Top 12% of systems. Excellent for 1440p Ultra or 4K High gaming.

1440p Ultra4K High

System Balance Analysis

CPU vs GPU performance ratio

Well Balanced

CPU

96%

GPU

79%

PROCESSOR

Intel Core Ultra 5 250K Plus

66,855 Benchmark Score

Top 4% Market Ranking

View Full Specs →

GRAPHICS CARD

NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5080 SUPER

3,075 Benchmark Score

Top 21% 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

The Intel Core Ultra 5 250K Plus and NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5080 SUPER pairing represents a fascinating study in contrasts. The CPU sits in the 93rd percentile among all processors, a top-tier performer for its class. Conversely, the GPU’s single 3DMark Steel Nomad score places it in the 19th percentile, a surprisingly low rank that warrants deep investigation. This combination of a dominant CPU and an apparently underperforming GPU defines the system’s entire analytical profile.

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

The NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5080 SUPER is a substantial piece of hardware, built on the Blackwell 2.0 architecture using TSMC’s 5 nm process. The chip, designated GB203, contains 45,600 million transistors on a 378 mm² die. The GPU is equipped with 24 GB of GDDR7 memory on a 256-bit bus, providing a memory bandwidth of 1.02 TB/s. This is a massive pool of VRAM that suggests a capability for very high-resolution textures and complex scenes, far beyond what typical consumer cards require.

Clock speeds are set at a base of 2295 MHz with a boost of 2617 MHz. The memory runs at 2000 MHz, or 32 Gbps effective. The GPU has 10752 shading units, 336 texture mapping units, and 112 raster operation processors. For ray tracing and AI workloads, it includes 84 RT cores and 336 tensor cores. The theoretical compute capabilities are substantial: 56.28 TFLOPS for FP32 and the same for FP16 (1:1), with a pixel rate of 293.1 GPixel/s and a texture rate of 879.3 GTexel/s. These raw numbers typically point to a card capable of handling the most demanding rendering tasks at high resolutions.

However, the benchmark data tells a different story. The only benchmark score for this GPU is 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12, where it achieved a score of 3075. This score places the GPU in the 19th percentile of all GPUs. The nearest rivals in the database are oddly disparate: the NVIDIA Quadro P1000 (scoring 3163, a 2.8% delta), the Intel Arc Pro B60 (scoring 3182, a 3.4% delta), and the NVIDIA GeForce 820A (scoring 2983, a 3.1% delta). The data suggests that in this specific test, the RTX 5080 SUPER is performing at a level comparable to entry-level or professional workstation cards, which is a stark contradiction to its specifications.

This discrepancy implies several possibilities. The score might be a result of a specific driver configuration, a thermal issue, or perhaps the test was run on an early engineering sample. The architecture itself is not in question; the sheer number of RT cores and tensor cores suggests that ray-traced and AI-accelerated workloads should see significant benefits. The 1.02 TB/s memory bandwidth is a critical advantage for data-intensive tasks, which the 3DMark score does not seem to reflect. For rendering, the data is ambiguous: the hardware can theoretically produce high-quality output, but the measured performance is far below expectations. The 24 GB VRAM is a clear asset for 3D rendering and 8K video work, as it prevents memory-related bottlenecks in complex scenes.

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

The Intel Core Ultra 5 250K Plus delivers a comprehensive benchmark suite that establishes it as a high-end desktop processor. In Cinebench R23, it scores 30867 in multi-core and 2261 in single-core. Its Cinebench R20 scores are 18442 multi-core and 2603 single-core, while R15 results are 4640 multi-core and 328 single-core. These scores represent strong performance across the board, placing the CPU in the 93rd percentile of all CPUs. Its average benchmark score across all tests is 66855.

The CPU’s rivals are tightly grouped. The AMD EPYC 4465P scores 66925, which is a 0.1% delta, making the Ultra 5 250K Plus effectively a statistical tie. The Intel Xeon 6515P scores 67006, a 0.2% delta, also a negligible difference. The Intel Core Ultra 9 275HX, a mobile processor, scores 67469, a 0.9% delta. Interestingly, the only rival it beats convincingly is its near-twin, the Intel Core Ultra 5 250KF Plus, which scores 66159, a 1.1% delta in favor of the 250K Plus. This data indicates that the 250K Plus is at the very top of its performance class, trading blows with server-grade silicon.

The GPU, as mentioned, scores 3075 in 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12, placing it in the 19th percentile. The combined percentile for this system is 56. This suggests that when taking both components into account, the system is roughly average, dragged down significantly by the GPU’s benchmark result. The picture is confusing: a top-7% CPU paired with a bottom-20% GPU in terms of benchmark scores. The combined picture is one of imbalance, where the CPU’s capabilities are being held back by the GPU’s measured performance in this single test. The data shows a system whose raw potential is high, but whose realized performance in the 3DMark test is severely limited.

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

The benchmark data paints a clear picture of a CPU-bound system in the worst sense. The CPU’s 93rd percentile performance means it can handle almost any computational task thrown at it. The GPU’s 19th percentile score in its sole benchmark indicates that it will be the limiting factor in any graphics-intensive workload. In gaming, this would manifest as low FPS regardless of resolution, as the GPU would be unable to keep up with the CPU’s draw calls.

The data suggests the CPU is not the bottleneck. For content creation tasks like video editing or 3D rendering, the CPU’s Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 30867 shows it can process complex scenes efficiently. The Passmark multi-thread score of 51596 further confirms its capability in parallel workloads. The GPU, with its 3DMark score, would likely struggle to render the final output or display the viewport in real-time.

The FPS scaling evidence is absent, as there is no measured FPS data. However, the percentile difference is stark. A 74-percentile gap between the CPU and GPU is a massive imbalance. In any workload that relies on both components, the GPU will be the limiting factor. The data implies that a user would see high frame rates in CPU-intensive simulation games but severely low frame rates in GPU-bound AAA titles. The system is not balanced; it is a high-performance CPU paired with a GPU that is, according to the data, underperforming.

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

Given the data, this specific pairing is not suitable for most users. The CPU’s performance is excellent, but the GPU’s benchmark score is a serious concern. Gamers at 1080p or 1440p would experience frame rates dictated by the GPU, which the 3DMark score suggests would be low. The GPU’s 24 GB of VRAM is theoretically excellent for 4K gaming, but its processing power, as measured, is insufficient. Therefore, a gamer seeking high-refresh 1080p or 1440p performance would be disappointed.

Content creators, such as video editors or 3D modelers, would benefit from the CPU’s strong multi-core performance in Cinebench R23 (30867) for tasks like rendering and encoding. However, the GPU’s low score would hinder real-time preview and final rendering quality, making this a frustrating experience. Software developers would appreciate the CPU’s compilation speeds, but the GPU’s performance would be irrelevant for most development tasks.

Students and small business workstations would find the CPU’s 93rd percentile performance excellent for productivity, but the GPU is overkill for office work and its performance is poor anyway. The only scenario where this makes sense is if the GPU’s benchmark score is an anomaly. If the GPU is later proven to perform to its specification, this could be a powerful machine for 4K gaming and professional rendering. As it stands, the data suggests this build is a poor investment for most, except perhaps a developer who needs the CPU power and does not care about the GPU’s 3D performance. The CPU’s ECC memory support and DDR5 compatibility make it a viable workstation base, but the GPU undermines that.

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

The platform is built on the Intel Socket 1851, which supports DDR5 memory in a dual-channel configuration. The memory bandwidth is rated at 115.2 GB/s, which is standard for DDR5. The CPU provides 20 PCIe Gen 5 lanes, ensuring high-bandwidth connectivity for the latest SSDs and GPUs. The CPU includes an integrated Arc Xe-LPG Graphics 64EU, which serves as a basic display output and can handle light tasks if the discrete GPU is removed.

The CPU has a TDP of 125 W, and the GPU has a TDP of 415 W. The suggested PSU field is null, so a specific wattage recommendation cannot be made. However, the combined TDP of 540 W indicates a robust power supply is necessary. The GPU uses a 1x 16-pin power connector, which is standard for modern high-end cards. The CPU’s multiplier is unlocked, allowing for overclocking to potentially improve performance beyond its 5.30 GHz boost clock.

A sensible next upgrade, based on the data, would be to replace or troubleshoot the GPU. The CPU is a top-tier performer, and the platform is modern. The next logical step is to find a GPU that scores much higher than the 19th percentile. Alternatively, a user could wait for a driver update that might improve the RTX 5080 SUPER’s score. The upgrade path is clear: the CPU is a keeper, but the GPU is the weak link. The PCIe 5.0 interface ensures that any future GPU will not be bottlenecked by the connection. The memory support is capped at DDR5, and the dual-channel bus is adequate for the CPU’s performance.

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 specific combination, so no exact frame rates can be reported. All FPS figures discussed here are estimates based on the CPU and GPU benchmark scores. The data is not measured, and this must be stated clearly.

Based on the CPU’s 93rd percentile performance, it is likely capable of high frame rates in CPU-bound titles, such as strategy games or simulators. The single-core Cinebench R23 score of 2261 is robust for such games. However, the GPU’s 3DMark Steel Nomad score of 3075 is exceedingly low. This score suggests that the GPU would severely bottleneck gaming performance. In a game like Cyberpunk 2077 at 4K Ultra settings, the frame rate would likely be very low, potentially in the single digits or low teens. At 1080p, the CPU could push more frames, but the GPU’s rendering capabilities would still limit the output to a fraction of what a typical high-end card would achieve.

The 24 GB VRAM is a non-factor if the GPU core cannot render the frames. The memory bandwidth of 1.02 TB/s is irrelevant if the shaders are slow. The estimate is that gaming performance would be poor across the board, from 1080p to 4K. The CPU would be waiting for the GPU to finish each frame. The FPS estimates are far below what the CPU’s architecture suggests is possible. The pairing is a mismatch, and gaming performance is expected to be the weakest aspect of this build.

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

The Intel Core Ultra 5 250K Plus is a desktop processor from the Core Ultra Series 2, codenamed Arrow Lake Refresh. It has 18 cores and 18 threads, meaning no hyper-threading. The base clock is 4.20 GHz, boosting up to 5.30 GHz. It is manufactured on a 3 nm process by TSMC, containing 17,800 million transistors on a 243 mm² die. The cache hierarchy includes 192 KB of L1 per core, 3 MB of L2 per core, and a 30 MB shared L3 cache. It supports DDR5 memory with ECC capability.

In Cinebench R23, it scores 30867 multi-core. This is a strong result, indicating it can handle parallel workloads like video encoding and 3D rendering. The Passmark multi-thread score of 51596 supports this. The single-core Cinebench R23 score of 2261 is also high, indicating excellent responsiveness in daily tasks and gaming. The Passmark single-thread score is 4757. Data compression and encryption scores are 568721 and 42144, respectively, showing strength in archiving and security tasks. The floating-point math score is 162692, which is useful for scientific computing.

The 93rd percentile ranking places it above 93% of all CPUs. The nearest rivals are the AMD EPYC 4465P and Intel Xeon 6515P, server processors, and it trades blows with them. This means the Ultra 5 250K Plus offers server-class multi-core performance in a desktop package. For software development, the high core count speeds up compilation. For content creation, the rendering times are short. The lack of hyper-threading might be a concern in heavily threaded tasks, but the physical core count compensates. The 5.30 GHz boost clock is excellent for lightly threaded tasks.

FAQ

Q: What is the CPU’s benchmark percentile ranking?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 5 250K Plus is in the 93rd percentile of all CPUs, with an average benchmark score of 66855.

Q: How does the CPU compare to its nearest rival, the AMD EPYC 4465P?

A: The AMD EPYC 4465P has an average score of 66925, which is a 0.1% delta from the Ultra 5 250K Plus, making them statistically tied.

Q: What is the GPU’s memory bandwidth?

A: The NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5080 SUPER has a memory bandwidth of 1.02 TB/s, using 24 GB of GDDR7 memory on a 256-bit bus.

Q: Is there measured FPS data for this build in games?

A: No, the FACT PACK contains no measured FPS data for this CPU+GPU combination. All FPS discussions are estimates based on benchmark scores.

Q: What is the CPU’s socket type?

A: The CPU uses the Intel Socket 1851 and supports dual-channel DDR5 memory.

Q: What is the GPU’s score in 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12?

A: The GPU scored 3075 in 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12, placing it in the 19th percentile of all GPUs.

Q: Does the CPU support ECC memory?

A: Yes, the Intel Core Ultra 5 250K Plus has ECC memory support.

Usage Scenarios — grounded in the scores: high-refresh gaming, streaming, video editing, 3D rendering, software development, student and office work.

High-Refresh Gaming: The CPU’s 93rd percentile single-core performance (Cinebench R23 score 2261) can feed frames quickly, but the GPU’s 19th percentile 3DMark score (3075) will be the hard limit. The estimated frame rates at 1080p or 1440p would be too low for a high-refresh monitor, making this scenario a failure.

Streaming: The CPU’s multi-core Cinebench R23 score of 30867 is more than capable of encoding a stream via x264 without impacting gameplay performance. However, the game’s frame rate itself would be crippled by the GPU, so the streamed content would be of low quality and low FPS. The CPU side is fine, but the GPU ruins the experience.

Video Editing: The CPU’s Passmark multi-thread score of 51596 and strong Cinebench scores will accelerate timeline rendering and effect processing in software like Premiere Pro. The GPU’s 24 GB VRAM is large for effects, but its low compute score means hardware-accelerated effects will be slow. The export times may be CPU-bound and fast, but the preview experience will be poor.

3D Rendering: In CPU-based renderers like V-Ray, the 18 cores and 30867 Cinebench R23 score will produce fast renders. The GPU’s 56.28 TFLOPS FP32 and 84 RT cores are theoretically powerful, but its 3DMark score suggests driver or hardware issues, making GPU rendering unreliable. The CPU is the workhorse here.

Software Development: The CPU’s high multi-core score (51596 Passmark) and single-thread score (4757) make it ideal for compiling large codebases and running many virtual machines. The GPU is irrelevant for most development tasks, so its poor score does not matter. This is a strong use case for this CPU.

Student and Office Work: The CPU is overkill for spreadsheets and web browsing, but its 93rd percentile ensures any office task is instantaneous. The GPU’s poor performance is irrelevant for this workload, but the 415 W TDP makes it an inefficient choice for a simple office machine. The integrated Arc Xe-LPG Graphics would be sufficient and more efficient.

Build Overview — what this CPU+GPU pairing is, its class (desktop/laptop from buildClass), and overall tier from the percentiles

This is a desktop build, as indicated by the buildClass field. It pairs the Intel Core Ultra 5 250K Plus, a high-end desktop CPU, with the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5080 SUPER, a high-end graphics card by name. The system’s combined percentile is 56, placing it in the middle of the pack overall, but this is misleading. The CPU is in the 93rd percentile, a top-tier performer, while the GPU is in the 19th percentile, a bottom-tier performer in its sole benchmark.

The build is a study in imbalance. The CPU is a champion, rivaling server processors like the AMD EPYC 4465P and Intel Xeon 6515P. The GPU, despite its 24 GB of VRAM and Blackwell 2.0 architecture, has a benchmark score comparable to entry-level cards like the NVIDIA Quadro P1000. The overall tier is therefore defined by the GPU’s poor showing. If the GPU were performing to its theoretical potential, this would be a top-tier system. As the data stands, it is a mid-tier system with an exceptional CPU and a severely underperforming GPU. The launch MSRP is $199 for the CPU and 999 USD for the GPU. The data suggests that the CPU is the component worth building around, while the GPU requires immediate scrutiny or replacement.

Rate My PC: Intel Core Ultra 5 250K Plus + NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5080 SUPER

Power Build

System Balance Analysis

Intel Core Ultra 5 250K Plus

NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5080 SUPER

Market Position

Game Performance Benchmarks

Cyberpunk 2077

Red Dead Redemption 2

Microsoft Flight Simulator

Control

Call of Duty: Warzone

Fortnite

Performance Insights

Strong Performance

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

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

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

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

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

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)

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

FAQ

Usage Scenarios — grounded in the scores: high-refresh gaming, streaming, video editing, 3D rendering, software development, student and office work.

Build Overview — what this CPU+GPU pairing is, its class (desktop/laptop from buildClass), and overall tier from the percentiles

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