SYSTEM ANALYZER

Rate My PC: Intel Core Ultra 7 155H + Intel Arc A370M

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)

▼

92 Score

Top 8% Ranking

92 / 100

ULTIMATE READY

Apex Performer

Top 8% 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

90%

GPU

93%

PROCESSOR

Intel Core Ultra 7 155H

32,697 Benchmark Score

Top 10% Market Ranking

View Full Specs →

GRAPHICS CARD

Intel Arc A370M

29,175 Benchmark Score

Top 7% 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 7 155H paired with the Intel Arc A370M is a laptop-class configuration that targets a specific balance of mobility and capability. The benchmark data positions this combination at the 79th percentile overall, indicating a system that outperforms the majority of tested hardware while remaining firmly in the mobile segment. This analysis examines the CPU and GPU individually, interprets their combined benchmark scores, and outlines realistic usage scenarios based strictly on the provided facts.

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

The Intel Arc A370M is a mobile graphics processor built on the Xe-HPG architecture, utilizing the DG2-128 chip manufactured on a 6 nm process at TSMC. The GPU contains 1,024 shading units, 64 texture mapping units, and 32 raster operation units, providing a baseline for its compute capabilities. It operates at a base clock of 1550 MHz and can boost up to 2050 MHz, with memory running at 1750 MHz, translating to 14 Gbps effective. The memory subsystem consists of 4 GB of GDDR6 on a 64-bit bus, yielding a bandwidth of 112.0 GB/s. This memory configuration is a critical factor; while sufficient for many current titles at moderate settings, the 4 GB capacity and narrow bus will limit texture-heavy workloads and high-resolution rendering.

For ray tracing, the A370M includes 8 dedicated RT cores. The presence of these cores allows for hardware-accelerated ray tracing effects, though the overall pixel rate of 65.60 GPixel/s and texture rate of 131.2 GTexel/s suggest that enabling such features will come at a significant performance cost. The GPU delivers 4.198 TFLOPS of FP32 performance and 8.397 TFLOPS of FP16 performance (2:1 ratio), which are modest figures for modern rendering tasks. The GPU supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4, ensuring compatibility with the latest graphics APIs. The bus interface is PCIe 4.0 x8, which provides adequate bandwidth for the GPU’s capabilities.

In benchmark terms, the Arc A370M scores 29,676 in Geekbench OpenCL and 28,673 in Geekbench Vulkan. These scores place the GPU at the 74th percentile among all GPUs. The average benchmark score is 29,175. Compared to its nearest rivals, the performance is tightly clustered: it is 0.1% behind the AMD Radeon RX Vega M GH, 0.1% behind the AMD FirePro W8000, 0.6% ahead of the AMD Radeon RX 470, and 1% ahead of the AMD Radeon RX 6800M. This indicates that the A370M sits in a competitive band with these older or differently-purposed cards. For rendering, these scores suggest the GPU can handle light to moderate 3D workloads, such as basic modeling and preview rendering, but will struggle with complex scenes or high-resolution output due to the VRAM and bandwidth constraints. The FP32 and FP16 figures point toward acceptable performance for compute tasks that do not require massive parallel throughput.

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

The CPU benchmarks for the Intel Core Ultra 7 155H show a processor that excels in multi-threaded scenarios. In Cinebench R15, it scores 2,450 multi-core and 255 single-core. Moving to Cinebench R20, the scores are 8,754 multi-core and 1,235 single-core. The Cinebench R23 results are 15,028 multi-core and 1,743 single-core. These figures demonstrate a substantial scaling from single-core to multi-core performance, indicating strong parallel processing capabilities. The PassMark suite reinforces this: the CPU scores 24,873 in multi-thread tests and 3,468 in single-thread tests. Additional PassMark results include 277,353 for data compression, 16,358 for data encryption, 16,456 for extended instructions, 113 for find prime numbers, 63,703 for floating point math, 86,870 for integer math, 1,727 for physics, and 31,990 for random string sorting. The average benchmark score for the CPU is 32,697, placing it at the 83rd percentile among all CPUs.

The GPU’s average benchmark score is 29,175, placing it at the 74th percentile. The combined percentile for the system is 79, which is a weighted measure of both components. The CPU’s nearest rivals highlight its position: the Intel Core i5-14600T has an average score of 32,707 with a 0% delta, the AMD Ryzen AI 7 PRO 360 scores 32,662 with a 0.1% delta, the AMD Ryzen 5 7400F scores 32,750 with a -0.2% delta, and the AMD Ryzen 7 PRO 6850H scores 32,812 with a -0.4% delta. This shows the Core Ultra 7 155H is essentially at parity with these desktop and mobile processors, trading fractions of a percent in either direction. The combined picture reveals a system where the CPU is a high performer relative to its peers, while the GPU is solidly mid-range. The CPU’s 83rd percentile rank suggests it can handle demanding productivity tasks without bottlenecking, but the GPU’s 74th percentile rank will define the ceiling for graphics-intensive applications. The 79th combined percentile indicates a balanced system that leans on CPU strength.

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 exact CPU+GPU combination; the measuredFpsUltraByGame object is empty and dataIsMeasured is false. Therefore, all frame rate discussions here are estimates derived from the benchmark scores. The GPU’s Geekbench Vulkan score of 28,673 and OpenCL score of 29,676, along with its 74th percentile ranking, provide a baseline for expected performance. In practical terms, this suggests the Arc A370M is capable of running esports and older titles at high frame rates, but modern AAA games will require adjustments to settings.

At 1080p resolution with ultra settings, the GPU’s 4 GB VRAM and 112.0 GB/s bandwidth will likely be limiting factors. Games with large textures or high-detail environments may exceed the memory capacity, causing stuttering or reduced frame rates. The FP32 performance of 4.198 TFLOPS supports moderate computational load, but the 64-bit memory bus will constrain fill-rate-heavy scenes. For lighter games, the 65.60 GPixel/s pixel rate can sustain high FPS, but for demanding titles, players should expect to lower settings to high or medium to maintain playable frame rates. At 1440p, the performance will drop further; the GPU is not well-suited for this resolution in modern games, and users should expect estimates to fall below 30 FPS in many cases. The CPU’s strong single-thread score of 3,468 in PassMark ensures that the processor will not be the primary limiter in most gaming scenarios, but the GPU will be the bottleneck. These are estimates based on the benchmark data, and actual performance will vary by title and driver optimization.

Usage Scenarios — grounded in the scores: high-refresh gaming, streaming, video editing, 3D rendering, software development, student and office work. One short paragraph per scenario, citing the numbers that support the verdict

High-refresh gaming: The combination of the CPU’s 83rd percentile rank and the GPU’s 74th percentile rank suggests that high-refresh gaming (100+ Hz) is only achievable in less demanding titles. The CPU’s single-thread score of 3,468 can drive high frame rates in CPU-bound games, but the GPU’s 4 GB VRAM and 112.0 GB/s bandwidth will cap performance in visually intensive games. Users targeting high-refresh rates should focus on esports titles, where the GPU’s 65.60 GPixel/s pixel rate is sufficient.

Streaming: The CPU is well-equipped for streaming workloads. Its multi-thread score of 24,873 in PassMark and 15,028 in Cinebench R23 indicate ample headroom for encoding video while gaming. The integrated Arc Xe-LPG 128EU graphics could potentially offload some encoding tasks, though the dedicated GPU’s modest performance means games must be run at lower settings to maintain stream quality. The 22 threads provide the parallel capacity needed for simultaneous gaming and encoding.

Video editing: The CPU’s strong multi-core performance, evidenced by the 8,754 score in Cinebench R20 and 86,870 in integer math, makes it capable of handling video editing timelines, effects, and exports. The GPU’s 8,397 TFLOPS of FP16 performance can accelerate certain effects, but the 4 GB VRAM may limit working with high-resolution footage or complex compositions. The system is suitable for 1080p editing and light 4K work, though export times will be longer than with a higher-tier GPU.

3D rendering: The CPU is the primary workhorse for 3D rendering. Its Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 15,028 places it high among mobile processors, allowing for efficient CPU-based rendering. The GPU’s 8 RT cores and 4.198 TFLOPS FP32 performance can assist with real-time viewport rendering, but final frame rendering will rely heavily on the CPU. The 24 MB of shared L3 cache helps with complex scenes. The 4 GB VRAM is a clear limitation for large textures and high-poly models.

Software development: The CPU’s balanced performance is ideal for software development. The 16 cores and 22 threads handle compilation tasks efficiently, as indicated by the 27,7353 data compression score and 16,358 data encryption score, which are useful for build tools and code signing. The single-thread score of 3,468 ensures responsive IDE interactions. The GPU is sufficient for basic UI rendering, and the system’s 89.6 GB/s memory bandwidth supports fast data access during testing.

Student and office work: This system is overqualified for standard productivity tasks. The CPU’s 83rd percentile rank means it will breeze through document processing, spreadsheet calculations, and web browsing. The GPU’s capabilities are largely unused here, but the system’s efficiency, with a CPU TDP of 28 W and GPU TDP of 35 W, makes it a portable option for long battery life. The 16 cores provide headroom for future multitasking demands.

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

The Intel Core Ultra 7 155H is a mobile processor from the Core Ultra Series 1, built on the Meteor Lake architecture. It is manufactured on Intel’s 7 nm process node. The CPU features 16 cores and 22 threads, with a base clock of 3.80 GHz and a boost clock of 4.80 GHz. The TDP is rated at 28 W, which is typical for a high-performance mobile chip. It uses the Intel BGA 2049 socket and supports DDR5 memory, with the specific motherboard determining the final configuration. The memory bus is dual-channel, providing a bandwidth of 89.6 GB/s. The CPU includes 112 KB of L1 cache per core, 2 MB of L2 cache per core, and a shared 24 MB L3 cache. It does not support ECC memory. The PCIe interface is Gen 5 with 8 lanes for the CPU. The integrated graphics are Arc Xe-LPG with 128 execution units.

The benchmark scores paint a picture of a processor with strong multi-threaded performance. The Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 15,028 is substantial for a 28 W part, indicating it can handle heavy workloads like video rendering and software compilation. The PassMark multi-thread score of 24,873 further confirms this, placing the CPU at the 83rd percentile among all CPUs. The single-thread score of 3,468 in PassMark and 1,743 in Cinebench R23 are respectable, ensuring snappy responsiveness in everyday tasks and light single-threaded applications. The data encryption score of 16,358 and data compression score of 277,353 highlight strengths in security and archiving tasks. For real workloads, this CPU can manage multi-tasking with many applications open, compile code efficiently, and handle complex data processing. The 22 threads allow it to parallelize tasks effectively, and the 24 MB L3 cache reduces latency for frequently accessed data. The boost clock of 4.80 GHz provides headroom for bursty workloads, while the 3.80 GHz base clock ensures sustained performance under load.

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

This laptop configuration is best suited for users who prioritize CPU performance over GPU performance. The CPU’s 83rd percentile rank, driven by scores like 15,028 in Cinebench R23 and 24,873 in PassMark multi-thread, makes it an excellent choice for professionals who work with data, code, or media. Content creators who edit 1080p video or work with moderate 3D scenes will find the CPU capable, though the GPU’s 74th percentile rank and 4 GB VRAM will limit high-end rendering tasks. Gamers who play at 1080p with medium to high settings on less demanding titles will find this system adequate, but those seeking high-refresh or ultra-settings in AAA games will be disappointed by the GPU’s bandwidth and memory constraints.

Software developers will benefit from the CPU’s multi-threaded compilation power and the 16,358 encryption score for secure coding practices. The 22 threads and 89.6 GB/s memory bandwidth facilitate large test suites and virtual machines. Students in engineering or computer science fields will find the CPU handles their workloads efficiently, and the 28 W TDP contributes to battery life for all-day use. Small business workstations that run productivity suites, manage databases, or perform financial modeling will see excellent performance from this CPU. The GPU is sufficient for basic visualization, but the system should not be purchased for tasks that require significant graphical compute. For users who need a powerful mobile CPU with a modest GPU for occasional light gaming or acceleration, this is a valid pairing. The 79th combined percentile reflects a system that is above average, but the specific balance of components means it is not a gaming-first machine.

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

The platform is built around the Intel BGA 2049 socket, which is a soldered mobile design, meaning the CPU is not upgradeable. The memory support is DDR5, with the actual configuration depending on the motherboard; the system supports dual-channel memory with a bandwidth of 89.6 GB/s. The CPU provides PCIe Gen 5 with 8 lanes, which is sufficient for the current GPU’s PCIe 4.0 x8 interface. The GPU is also soldered or integrated in a way that makes it non-upgradeable in most laptop designs. The suggested PSU is not specified in the data, but the CPU TDP is 28 W and the GPU TDP is 35 W, totaling 63 W for the core components. This low power draw means the system likely does not require a large power supply, but the specific PSU headroom is unknown.

A sensible next upgrade for this system is limited by the laptop form factor. Since the CPU and GPU are not user-replaceable, the primary upgrade path is memory and storage. Increasing the DDR5 memory capacity would improve multitasking and allow larger datasets to reside in RAM, though the bandwidth would remain at 89.6 GB/s. Upgrading the storage to a faster NVMe SSD would reduce load times and improve overall responsiveness. For users who find the GPU limiting, the only real solution is a new system with a more powerful GPU. The PCIe Gen 5 lanes on the CPU provide future-proofing for external devices, but the internal GPU is fixed. The power budget of 63 W for the CPU and GPU suggests that the system is designed for thermal efficiency, and any upgrades that increase power draw would require careful consideration of the cooling solution. In summary, the upgrade path is constrained to memory and storage, with the understanding that the core performance is locked.

FAQ — 5-7 Q&A pairs answerable from FACT PACK data (format: Q: ... A: ...)

Q: What is the combined performance percentile of this CPU and GPU pairing?

A: The combined percentile for this system is 79, indicating it outperforms 79% of all tested configurations.

Q: How does the Intel Core Ultra 7 155H compare to the AMD Ryzen 7 PRO 6850H in average benchmark score?

A: The Core Ultra 7 155H has an average benchmark score of 32,697, while the AMD Ryzen 7 PRO 6850H scores 32,812, which is a -0.4% delta, meaning the Ryzen is slightly ahead.

Q: What is the memory bandwidth of the GPU, and how much VRAM does it have?

A: The Intel Arc A370M has 4 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 64-bit bus, providing a bandwidth of 112.0 GB/s.

Q: What are the single-core and multi-core Cinebench R23 scores for the CPU?

A: The CPU scores 1,743 in Cinebench R23 single-core and 15,028 in multi-core.

Q: Is the GPU’s production status active or end-of-life?

A: The Intel Arc A370M has a production status of "End-of-life," while the CPU is marked as "Active."

Q: What is the TDP of the CPU and the GPU?

A: The CPU has a TDP of 28 W, and the GPU has a TDP of 35 W.

Q: Does the FACT PACK contain any measured FPS data for this system?

A: No, the FACT PACK explicitly states that no measured FPS rows exist for this exact combination, and dataIsMeasured is false, so all FPS figures are estimates.

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

The system exhibits a clear imbalance where the CPU is significantly stronger than the GPU. The CPU’s 83rd percentile rank versus the GPU’s 74th percentile rank indicates that the CPU will rarely be the limiting factor in most workloads. In gaming, the GPU is the definitive bottleneck. The GPU’s 112.0 GB/s bandwidth and 4 GB VRAM are the primary constraints, evidenced by the 1% delta to the AMD Radeon RX 6800M, which is a much higher-tier mobile GPU in the same performance band. The CPU’s PassMark single-thread score of 3,468 is sufficient to feed the GPU, but the GPU’s 4.198 TFLOPS FP32 performance will cap frame rates in graphically intensive scenes. For CPU-bound workloads like 3D rendering, video encoding, or software compilation, the CPU’s 15,028 Cinebench R23 multi-core score ensures high throughput, and the GPU plays a secondary role. In these tasks, the system is well-balanced, as the GPU’s compute capabilities can assist but are not the primary driver.

The FPS scaling, although estimated, follows this pattern: in light games, the GPU can achieve playable frame rates, and the CPU’s headroom is unused. In demanding games, the GPU’s memory bandwidth becomes the limiting factor, causing frame rates to drop disproportionately. The data shows that the CPU is not a bottleneck in any scenario; it is the GPU that limits graphical performance. For users who primarily play games, this pairing is unbalanced, as the CPU’s power is wasted. For users who run productivity applications, the system is well-matched, with the CPU providing the bulk of the performance. The 79th combined percentile reflects this balance, but it is skewed toward CPU-heavy workloads. The system would benefit from a more powerful GPU to match the CPU’s capabilities for a truly balanced gaming experience.

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

This build is a laptop-class configuration, as indicated by the buildClass field. It pairs the Intel Core Ultra 7 155H, a high-performance mobile CPU, with the Intel Arc A370M, an entry-level mobile GPU. The CPU is the standout component, with an 83rd percentile rank among all CPUs, driven by its 16 cores and 22 threads. The GPU is more modest, ranking at the 74th percentile, with its 4 GB VRAM and 112.0 GB/s bandwidth defining its capabilities. The overall system ranks at the 79th percentile among all builds, placing it in the upper tier of tested configurations. This is not a high-end gaming machine, but it is a capable productivity laptop that can handle light gaming. The CPU’s 28 W TDP and the GPU’s 35 W TDP suggest a focus on energy efficiency, making it suitable for mobile use. The combined performance is above average, but the specific component balance means it excels in CPU-intensive tasks like content creation, development, and office work, while the GPU provides adequate, but not exceptional, graphical performance. This is a system for users who need strong processing power on the go and are willing to compromise on gaming fidelity.

Rate My PC: Intel Core Ultra 7 155H + Intel Arc A370M

Apex Performer

System Balance Analysis

Intel Core Ultra 7 155H

Intel Arc A370M

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 — 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

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)

Usage Scenarios — grounded in the scores: high-refresh gaming, streaming, video editing, 3D rendering, software development, student and office work. One short paragraph per scenario, citing the numbers that support the verdict

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

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

FAQ — 5-7 Q&A pairs answerable from FACT PACK data (format: Q: ... A: ...)

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

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