SYSTEM ANALYZER

Rate My PC: Intel Core Ultra 5 250KF Plus + 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

96%

GPU

85%

PROCESSOR

Intel Core Ultra 5 250KF Plus

66,159 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

# Intel Core Ultra 5 250KF Plus + Intel Arc A310

This desktop build pairs a 93rd-percentile CPU with a 40th-percentile GPU, creating an extreme imbalance where the processor outclasses the graphics card by a wider margin than any rival pairing in the database. The Intel Core Ultra 5 250KF Plus is an 18-core Arrow Lake Refresh part with a 5.30 GHz boost clock, while the Intel Arc A310 is an entry-level Alchemist GPU with 4 GB of GDDR6 memory and a 64-bit bus. Benchmark data shows this combination is fundamentally CPU-bound, with the processor delivering top-tier compute performance while the GPU operates at roughly one-tenth the performance tier.

GPU Analysis

The Intel Arc A310 is built on TSMC's 6 nm process with 7,200 million transistors on a 157 mm² die, using the Xe-HPG architecture from the Alchemist generation. The GPU contains 768 shading units, 32 texture mapping units, and 16 ROPs, with a base and boost clock of 1750 MHz. Memory consists of 4 GB of GDDR6 on a 64-bit bus, yielding 124.0 GB/s of bandwidth—a modest figure that constrains performance in higher-resolution workloads. The card draws 30 W and requires no power connectors, with a suggested 200 W PSU, making it one of the lowest-power discrete GPUs in the database.

Render output rates are limited: 28.00 GPixel/s pixel fill and 56.00 GTexel/s texture fill. Compute throughput sits at 2.688 TFLOPS FP32 and 5.376 TFLOPS FP16 (2:1 ratio). The A310 includes 6 RT cores for ray tracing, though no tensor core count is listed in the data. DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4 API support is present, and the card outputs via 4x mini-DisplayPort 2.0. The card is marked as end-of-life, with Battlemage listed as its successor.

Benchmark results place the A310 at the 40th percentile among all GPUs, with an average benchmark score of 7550. Its nearest rivals include the AMD Radeon R7 250 (7557, delta -0.1%), AMD Radeon Pro WX 3100 (7580, delta -0.4%), NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 (7472, delta 1%), and AMD Radeon HD 8850M (7447, delta 1.4%). These deltas are all within 1.4%, indicating the A310 sits in a tightly clustered performance band near the GTX 1650. The PassMark G3D score of 5433 and GPU compute score of 2157 underscore that this is an entry-level part. For rendering workloads, the FP32 throughput of 2.688 TFLOPS is sufficient for basic 3D scenes but will struggle with complex geometry or high-resolution textures. The 4 GB VRAM capacity is a hard ceiling for modern game assets at 1080p ultra settings, and the 64-bit memory bus limits bandwidth-sensitive operations like large texture streaming.

FAQ

Q: What is the combined percentile ranking of this CPU+GPU build?

A: The build achieves a combined percentile of 67, placing it above the median system in the database despite the GPU's relatively low individual standing.

Q: How does the Intel Core Ultra 5 250KF Plus compare to its nearest rival in average benchmark score?

A: The CPU's average benchmark score is 66159, which is 0.1% ahead of the Intel Core 9 273PQE (66099) and 0.4% ahead of the AMD Ryzen 9 7950X3D (65914). It trails the Intel Core Ultra 5 250K Plus (66855) by 1% and the AMD EPYC 4465P (66925) by 1.1%.

Q: What is the GPU's percentile position, and which rival is closest in performance?

A: The Arc A310 sits at the 40th percentile of all GPUs. Its closest rival is the AMD Radeon R7 250, which scores 7557 versus the A310's 7550, a delta of -0.1%.

Q: What memory bandwidth does each component provide?

A: The CPU supports dual-channel DDR5 with 115.2 GB/s of memory bandwidth, while the GPU has 124.0 GB/s of dedicated GDDR6 bandwidth. The GPU's bandwidth is only slightly higher than the CPU's system memory bandwidth, reflecting its narrow 64-bit bus.

Q: Does this build support ECC memory?

A: Yes, the Intel Core Ultra 5 250KF Plus supports ECC memory, which is a relevant feature for workstation-class reliability in data processing tasks.

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

A: The CPU has 18 cores and 18 threads (no Hyper-Threading), with a base clock of 4.20 GHz and a boost clock of 5.30 GHz. The multiplier is unlocked, allowing overclocking.

Q: What is the GPU's TDP and physical footprint?

A: The Arc A310 has a 30 W TDP, is single-slot, and requires no power connectors. A 200 W PSU is suggested for the system.

CPU Analysis

The Intel Core Ultra 5 250KF Plus is a desktop processor from the Core Ultra Series 2, built on Arrow Lake Refresh architecture using TSMC's 3 nm process. The die contains 17,800 million transistors across 243 mm², with a 125 W TDP. It uses the Intel Socket 1851 and supports PCIe Gen 5 with 20 CPU lanes. The 18 cores run at 4.20 GHz base and 5.30 GHz boost, with an unlocked multiplier for overclocking. Cache hierarchy includes 192 KB L1 per core, 3 MB L2 per core, and 30 MB shared L3. Memory support is dual-channel DDR5 with 115.2 GB/s bandwidth, and ECC is enabled. There is no integrated graphics; a discrete GPU is mandatory.

Benchmark scores reflect strong multi-threaded performance. Cinebench R23 multi-core yields 42718, while single-core reaches 6030. Cinebench R20 scores are 17941 multi-core and 2532 single-core, and R15 scores are 4305 multi-core and 607 single-core. PassMark tests show multithread at 50146, single-thread at 4698, integer math at 123030, floating-point math at 159824, data compression at 553155, data encryption at 41292, extended instructions at 42880, and physics at 3183. The CPU's average benchmark score is 66159, placing it in the 93rd percentile of all CPUs.

Relative to rivals, this CPU is tightly competitive. It edges out the Intel Core 9 273PQE by 0.1% and the AMD Ryzen 9 7950X3D by 0.4%, but trails the Intel Core Ultra 5 250K Plus by 1% and the AMD EPYC 4465P by 1.1%. These sub-1.5% deltas mean the 250KF Plus is effectively performance-equivalent to high-end desktop and server parts. For real workloads, the Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 42718 indicates strong rendering capability for video editing and 3D modeling. The single-core score of 6030 supports responsive application performance. The PassMark data encryption score of 41292 and extended instructions score of 42880 suggest solid cryptographic and SIMD workload handling. The 18-core/18-thread configuration (no SMT) favors throughput tasks like code compilation and batch processing, though the lack of extra threads may slightly reduce performance in heavily threaded workloads compared to SMT-enabled rivals.

Gaming Performance

No measured FPS rows exist for this exact CPU+GPU combination — the FACT PACK contains no measuredFps data. Therefore, all FPS discussions are estimated from benchmark scores and should be treated as approximations, not empirical results.

The Arc A310's PassMark G3D score of 5433 and 40th-percentile ranking place it well below mainstream gaming GPUs. Its 4 GB VRAM and 64-bit bus will likely cap 1080p ultra settings at low frame rates, estimated in the 20-35 FPS range for modern AAA titles based on the GPU's compute throughput of 2.688 TFLOPS. The DirectX 12 score of 29 and DirectX 11 score of 33 in PassMark suggest that API-overhead-heavy titles will perform particularly poorly. DirectX 9 score of 69 is comparatively better, indicating older titles are more playable. The 6 RT cores provide ray tracing hardware, but with only 2.688 TFLOPS FP32, ray-traced effects will incur severe performance penalties at any resolution.

The CPU, by contrast, is more than capable of feeding any modern GPU. Its 93rd-percentile standing and Cinebench R23 single-core score of 6030 ensure that frame pacing is not CPU-limited in most scenarios. However, the GPU becomes the bottleneck at virtually every setting. At 1080p low settings, the A310 might achieve playable frame rates (estimated 40-60 FPS) in esports titles, but at 1440p or 4K, the 4 GB VRAM and 124.0 GB/s bandwidth will cause texture thrashing and stuttering. The pairing is mismatched for gaming: the CPU could support high-refresh 1080p or even 1440p gaming if paired with a stronger GPU, but the A310 cannot deliver that experience.

Balance and Bottleneck

This build is severely GPU-limited in graphics workloads. The CPU sits in the 93rd percentile (average score 66159), while the GPU sits in the 40th percentile (average score 7550). The combined percentile of 67 reflects this imbalance—neither component's individual standing is representative of the whole. The GPU's nearest rival, the AMD Radeon R7 250, scores nearly identically (delta -0.1%), confirming the A310's entry-level status. Meanwhile, the CPU trades blows with the AMD Ryzen 9 7950X3D (delta 0.4%), a flagship-class part.

For CPU-bound tasks like data compression (553155 PassMark score), encryption (41292), and integer math (123030), the 250KF Plus delivers excellent throughput, and the GPU is irrelevant. For GPU-bound tasks like gaming or 3D rendering with GPU acceleration, the A310's 2157 GPU compute score and 5433 G3D score become the limiting factor. The FPS scaling evidence is absent (no measured FPS), but the score disparity (66159 CPU vs 7550 GPU average) implies that any workload offloaded to the GPU will see performance capped at roughly 11% of the CPU's relative capability.

The 30 W TDP of the GPU versus 125 W for the CPU further highlights the mismatch: the CPU draws over four times the power and delivers a vastly higher performance percentile. In mixed workloads, such as streaming while gaming, the CPU can handle encoding (given its strong multi-thread scores), but the GPU will still bottleneck game rendering. For pure compute tasks on the CPU, the system is well-balanced; for anything involving the GPU, the bottleneck is severe and unavoidable.

Who Should Build It

This build targets users whose primary workload is CPU-intensive and who need only basic display output or light GPU acceleration. The 93rd-percentile CPU with 18 cores and 5.30 GHz boost is suited for software developers compiling large codebases, students running data analysis scripts, and small business workstations handling spreadsheets, databases, and document processing. The ECC memory support adds reliability for long-running compute tasks. Content creators working on CPU-based video encoding (using the 42718 Cinebench R23 multi-core score) or 3D rendering in CPU-bound renderers will see strong performance. However, gamers seeking high-refresh 1080p or 1440p experiences should look elsewhere, as the A310's 40th-percentile GPU performance and 4 GB VRAM are inadequate for modern titles at high settings. This is also a viable option for users who plan to upgrade the GPU later, as the CPU will not bottleneck a significantly stronger graphics card.

Benchmark Performance

The CPU's benchmark suite shows consistent strength. Cinebench R23 multi-core: 42718 (93rd percentile overall). Single-core: 6030. PassMark multithread: 50146; single-thread: 4698. The average CPU benchmark score is 66159. The GPU's benchmarks are far weaker: PassMark G3D 5433, GPU compute 2157, DirectX 11 33, DirectX 12 29, and Geekbench OpenCL 30607 / Vulkan 28964. The GPU's average score is 7550 (40th percentile). The combined percentile is 67.

Interpreting the numbers: the CPU outperforms its nearest rival (Intel Core 9 273PQE) by 0.1% in average score, placing it at the top of its immediate competitive set. The GPU underperforms its nearest rival (AMD Radeon R7 250) by 0.1%, placing it at the bottom of its competitive set. The combined picture is a system where the CPU delivers near-flagship compute capability, while the GPU delivers legacy-tier graphics. In multi-core rendering, the CPU's 42718 Cinebench R23 score is roughly 7x the GPU's 5433 G3D score, indicating that CPU-based rendering would vastly outperform GPU-accelerated rendering on this system.

Build Overview

This desktop build combines the Intel Core Ultra 5 250KF Plus (18-core Arrow Lake Refresh, 5.30 GHz boost, 125 W TDP, Socket 1851) with the Intel Arc A310 (Xe-HPG Alchemist, 768 shaders, 4 GB GDDR6, 30 W TDP). The CPU is an active, current-generation part with a launch MSRP of $184, released in March 2026. The GPU is end-of-life, released in October 2022. The pairing represents an extreme class mismatch: a 93rd-percentile CPU with a 40th-percentile GPU. The combined percentile of 67 places the system in the upper-midrange overall, but this figure is misleading because the CPU carries the entire performance weight. In terms of tier, this is a workstation-class CPU attached to an entry-level display adapter. For compute-heavy tasks, it functions as a high-performance desktop; for graphics tasks, it functions as a basic office or media PC.

Usage Scenarios

High-refresh gaming: Not viable. The A310's 40th-percentile GPU score and 4 GB VRAM will likely produce sub-60 FPS at 1080p low in most modern titles. The CPU is not the limiter, but the GPU cannot drive high-refresh displays. Estimate 30-50 FPS at best in esports titles, based on the DirectX 11 score of 33.

Streaming: The CPU's strong multi-thread scores (50146 PassMark multithread, 42718 Cinebench R23 multi-core) can handle x264 encoding at high quality. However, the GPU will struggle to render games while streaming, making this a poor choice for game streaming. Non-gaming streaming (e.g., desktop content) is fine.

Video editing: CPU-based editing and encoding will be fast, leveraging the 159824 floating-point math score and 553155 data compression score. GPU-accelerated effects or rendering will be slow due to the A310's 2157 compute score. Suitable for CPU-centric workflows with minimal GPU effects.

3D rendering: Excellent for CPU-based renderers (e.g., Blender Cycles CPU mode), given the 42718 Cinebench R23 multi-core score. GPU-accelerated rendering (e.g., OptiX or similar) will be severely limited by the A310's 2.688 TFLOPS FP32 and 6 RT cores. Expected render times are many times longer on GPU than CPU.

Software development: Ideal. The 18 cores handle parallel builds efficiently, and the 123030 integer math score supports compilation speed. The 4698 single-thread score ensures fast IDE responsiveness. ECC memory adds stability for long test runs.

Student and office work: Overkill but effective. The CPU handles spreadsheets, documents, and browser workloads with ease. The GPU provides basic display output (4x mini-DisplayPort 2.0) and can accelerate simple 2D tasks (PassMark G2D 625). Power draw is modest (125 W CPU + 30 W GPU), making it a quiet workstation.

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

Apex Performer

System Balance Analysis

Intel Core Ultra 5 250KF Plus

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

GPU Analysis

FAQ

CPU Analysis

Gaming Performance

Balance and Bottleneck

Who Should Build It

Benchmark Performance

Build Overview

Usage Scenarios

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