SYSTEM ANALYZER

Rate My PC: Intel Core Ultra 7 256V + 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)

▼

89 Score

Top 11% Ranking

89 / 100

HIGH-END

Power Build

Top 11% of systems. Excellent for 1440p Ultra or 4K High gaming.

1440p Ultra4K High

System Balance Analysis

CPU vs GPU performance ratio

Well Balanced

CPU

85%

GPU

93%

PROCESSOR

Intel Core Ultra 7 256V

21,112 Benchmark Score

Top 15% 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

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 7 256V and Intel Arc A370M form a specific mobile pairing designed for thin-and-light laptops, but the benchmark data reveals a complex performance profile. While the CPU is a modern, power-efficient part with strong single-threaded capabilities, the GPU represents an entry-level discrete solution with significant memory bandwidth constraints. This analysis will interpret the available benchmark scores to understand what this combination offers for various workloads, clarifying its strengths and limitations without relying on unmeasured gaming data.

CPU Analysis

The Intel Core Ultra 7 256V is an 8-core, 8-thread processor based on the Lunar Lake architecture, manufactured on a 3 nm process by TSMC. It belongs to the Core Ultra Series 2 generation, and its mobile market segment is immediately clear from its 17 W TDP and BGA 2833 socket. The absence of hyper-threading means the 8 cores map directly to 8 threads, which is a notable design choice that prioritizes power efficiency over multi-threaded throughput. The processor’s base clock is 2.20 GHz, with a boost clock of 4.80 GHz, allowing for significant single-core performance when workload demands it. The cache hierarchy includes 192 KB of L1 per core, 2.5 MB of L2 per core, and a shared 12 MB L3 cache.

Benchmark data underscores the CPU's dual nature. In single-threaded workloads, the Core Ultra 7 256V is exceptionally strong, posting a Cinebench R23 single-core score of 1877.5 and a Geekbench single-core score of 1990. These results are high for a mobile part, indicating excellent responsiveness in everyday tasks, lightweight coding, and applications that rely on a single primary thread. The PassMark single-thread score of 4029 corroborates this, placing it in the upper echelon for laptops. Conversely, its multi-threaded performance is more modest. The Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 10399 and the Geekbench multi-core score of 8643 are respectable for a 17 W TDP chip, but they do not match the output of higher-power, higher-core-count processors. This is the expected trade-off for ultra-portable devices: the CPU can burst to high clocks for short periods, but sustained all-core loads are limited by thermal and power constraints.

The CPU’s overall average benchmark score is 21112, placing it in the 75th percentile of all CPUs. This is a strong position, but the nearest rivals show a tight cluster of performance. It sits within 0.3% of the AMD Ryzen 5 7530U, AMD Ryzen 5 5600G, Intel Core i3-1220P, and Intel Core Ultra 7 155U. The data indicates that while the Core Ultra 7 256V is not a leader in raw multi-core throughput, its balanced score places it in a highly competitive tier where differences are marginal. The PassMark results for integer math (43358) and floating-point math (58576) show a healthy balance, but the physics score of 1595 and the find prime numbers score of 192 are relatively low, suggesting that its computational strength is not in heavily parallelized integer workloads. The data encryption score of 13998 and extended instructions score of 15643 demonstrate a capable execution engine for modern instruction sets. For real-world use, this means the CPU excels in scenarios like web browsing, office productivity, and application launches, but it will feel less dominant in tasks like long-duration video rendering or complex simulations, where its 8-thread limit and 17 W power envelope become bottlenecks.

Benchmark Performance

The combined performance picture is defined by the CPU's strong single-threaded showing and the GPU's mid-range compute capabilities. The Core Ultra 7 256V's Cinebench R20 scores are 982 for single-core and 6958 for multi-core, while the older R15 scores are 285.5 and 1583.5, respectively. These numbers follow the expected pattern: excellent single-core scaling, but multi-core results that are adequate rather than impressive. The Geekbench scores of 1990 (single) and 8643 (multi) confirm this, with the multi-core score being about 4.3 times the single-core score, a ratio that reflects the 8-core/8-thread design.

On the GPU side, the Intel Arc A370M produces a Geekbench OpenCL score of 29676 and a Vulkan score of 28673. These scores are very close, suggesting balanced performance across different compute APIs. The GPU's average benchmark score is 29175, which places it in the 74th percentile of all GPUs. This is surprisingly high for an entry-level part, but the nearest rivals reveal the context. The Arc A370M performs nearly identically to the AMD Radeon RX Vega M GH (deltaPct -0.1%) and the AMD FirePro W8000 (deltaPct -0.1%), and it is only 1% ahead of the AMD Radeon RX 6800M. This is a critical insight: the A370M's percentile rank is high, but it is clustered with older or specialized parts, and its absolute performance is far from what a modern high-end laptop GPU would deliver. Its 74th percentile ranking confirms the broad range of GPUs in the database, not a sign of high-end gaming capability.

The combined percentile for this build is 75, matching the CPU's individual percentile and slightly edging out the GPU's. This indicates a balanced system where the CPU is the slightly stronger component. However, the lack of measured FPS data for this specific combination is a significant limitation. The FACT PACK contains no entries for `measuredFpsUltraByGame`, so all gaming analysis must be framed as estimates derived from the raw benchmark scores. The data shows a CPU that is fast in single-threaded tasks and a GPU that is competent for its class, but translating that into specific frame rates requires inference. The GPU's 4 GB memory and 112.0 GB/s bandwidth will be a limiting factor for modern games, and its FP32 performance of 4.198 TFLOPS suggests it is capable of 1080p gaming at medium settings in many titles, but not at ultra settings with high frame rates.

Upgrade Path and Platform

The platform is built around the Intel BGA 2833 socket, which is a soldered mobile design. This means the CPU is not upgradeable; it is permanently attached to the motherboard. The memory support is listed as "unknown" and depends on the motherboard, but the memory bus is dual-channel, which is standard for this class of laptop. The CPU supports PCIe Gen 5 with 4 lanes, while the GPU connects via PCIe 4.0 x8. This is a modern I/O configuration, but the limited number of CPU PCIe lanes is a constraint for expanding storage or connecting multiple high-speed devices.

The GPU has a 35 W TDP, and the CPU has a 17 W TDP, resulting in a combined thermal envelope of 52 W. This is a low-power configuration suited for laptops with compact cooling solutions. The `suggestedPsu` field is null, which is typical for a laptop build where the power supply is integrated into the chassis. The data does not provide a specific PSU wattage, so any discussion of power headroom must remain qualitative. The low TDPs mean that a standard laptop power adapter is sufficient, and thermal throttling is more likely to be a constraint than power delivery.

For a user considering an upgrade path, the options are severely limited by the BGA socket. The only realistic upgrade is to replace the entire laptop. The GPU is listed as "End-of-life" production status, and the CPU is "Active," but neither is modular. A sensible next step for users needing more performance would be to look at systems with higher-TDP mobile CPUs (such as H-series parts) and more powerful discrete GPUs. The data from this build shows a balanced low-power pair, and upgrading one component without the other is not possible. The platform's strength is its efficiency, not its expandability.

Who Should Build It

This CPU+GPU pairing is aimed at users who prioritize portability and battery life over raw performance. The 17 W CPU TDP and the 35 W GPU TDP make it suitable for thin-and-light laptops that are used for productivity on the go. The CPU's 75th percentile ranking and strong single-threaded scores make it an excellent choice for students and office workers who run web browsers, office suites, and communication tools. The PassMark data compression score of 184985 is particularly high, suggesting that file archiving and decompression tasks will be handled quickly.

Content creators who work with light photo editing or 1080p video editing will find the system capable, but with caveats. The CPU's multi-core scores are sufficient for basic video exports, but the 8-thread limit means long 4K renders will be slow. The GPU's 4 GB VRAM and 112.0 GB/s bandwidth are limiting factors for complex graphics work, but the Vulkan score of 28673 indicates that GPU-accelerated effects and encoding will be faster than CPU-only workflows. Software developers will appreciate the fast single-core performance for compilation of smaller projects and the efficient power draw for long coding sessions, but large multi-threaded builds will take longer than on higher-core-count desktop chips.

The system is not designed for high-end gaming. The GPU's 74th percentile rank is misleading for gamers, as it is in the same class as the AMD Radeon RX 470, a much older desktop card. Users who want to play modern AAA titles at high settings will be disappointed. The target user is the mobile professional who needs a reliable, efficient machine for everyday work and occasional light gaming or creative tasks. Small business workstations that handle spreadsheets, databases, and web applications will perform admirably.

Balance and Bottleneck

The benchmark data reveals a system where the CPU and GPU are closely matched in overall percentile rank, but their workload characteristics create specific bottleneck scenarios. The CPU's single-threaded performance is its standout feature, with a Geekbench single-core score of 1990 that is more than double its multi-core score ratio would suggest. This means that in lightly threaded tasks, the CPU is rarely the limiting factor. However, in multi-threaded workloads like video rendering or 3D modeling, the CPU's 8 threads and 17 W TDP will be the primary bottleneck, as the GPU has more relative headroom in its compute scores.

In gaming, the GPU will almost certainly be the limiting component. The Arc A370M's 4 GB VRAM and 64-bit memory bus are severe constraints for modern game textures and data streaming. The CPU is fast enough to feed the GPU frames in most scenarios, but the GPU's raw throughput and memory bandwidth will cap frame rates. The measured FPS data is absent, so this is an inference from the GPU's 112.0 GB/s bandwidth, which is low compared to mainstream gaming GPUs. The CPU's strong single-thread performance will help maintain consistent frame pacing, but the GPU will struggle to maintain high frame rates at 1080p in demanding titles.

The PassMark physics score of 1595 is notably low, which could indicate a bottleneck in physics-based simulations, a common component in game engines. This score is lower than what the CPU's overall performance would suggest, pointing to a potential weakness in specific computational patterns. In professional workloads, the balance is more favorable. For tasks like photo editing or code compilation, the CPU's fast single-core speed and the GPU's compute capabilities complement each other. The system is well-balanced for general productivity, but it is unbalanced for gaming, where the GPU's limitations are the primary concern.

FAQ

Q: Is the Intel Core Ultra 7 256V a good processor for programming?

A: Yes, for most development tasks. Its Geekbench single-core score of 1990 and Cinebench R23 single-core score of 1877.5 indicate excellent responsiveness for code editing, compiling smaller projects, and running local development servers. The 8 cores will handle parallel builds, but the 17 W TDP means sustained heavy compilation will be slower than on higher-power desktop CPUs.

Q: Can the Intel Arc A370M handle 4K video playback?

A: Yes, modern video codecs are largely hardware-accelerated. The GPU's Vulkan score of 28673 and its support for DirectX 12 Ultimate suggest it has the necessary decode engines. However, the 4 GB VRAM and 64-bit memory bus are not designed for heavy graphical workloads, so 4K gaming or video editing will be challenging.

Q: How does the Arc A370M compare to the AMD Radeon RX 6800M?

A: According to the benchmark data, the Arc A370M's average benchmark score is 29175, which is 1% higher than the RX 6800M's score of 28874. This is a statistical tie, but it is important to note that the RX 6800M is a much higher-tier GPU. The percentile ranking is based on the database, and the A370M's 74th percentile placement is due to its score being comparable to much older parts.

Q: What is the maximum memory bandwidth of this system?

A: The GPU has a memory bandwidth of 112.0 GB/s. The CPU's memory bandwidth is not specified in the data, but it supports dual-channel memory. The GPU's bandwidth is a key limitation for gaming, as it restricts how quickly textures and geometry data can be loaded.

Q: Is this CPU+GPU combo good for video editing?

A: It is adequate for light 1080p editing. The CPU's multi-core score of 10399 in Cinebench R23 will handle basic timelines and exports, while the GPU can accelerate effects and encoding. However, the 4 GB VRAM on the GPU and the CPU's 8-thread limit will cause slowdowns with 4K footage or complex multi-layer projects.

Q: Does the GPU support ray tracing?

A: Yes, the Intel Arc A370M has 8 dedicated ray tracing cores and supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2). This means it can run ray-traced effects, but the low FP32 performance of 4.198 TFLOPS will result in low frame rates, making it only suitable for light ray tracing use in non-demanding titles.

Q: What is the upgrade path for this laptop processor?

A: There is no upgrade path for the CPU. It uses the Intel BGA 2833 socket, which is a soldered design, meaning the processor is permanently attached to the motherboard. The only way to upgrade is to purchase a new laptop.

Gaming Performance

The FACT PACK explicitly states that no measured FPS data exists for this exact CPU+GPU combination. Therefore, all gaming performance figures are estimates based on the benchmark scores. The GPU's Geekbench Vulkan score of 28673 is a strong indicator of its overall compute capability, but it does not translate directly to game frame rates. The GPU is in the 74th percentile of all GPUs, but this is a broad category. Its nearest rival, the AMD Radeon RX 470, is a desktop GPU from a different era, and the A370M's performance is expected to be similar to that older card's.

Based on the GPU's 4 GB VRAM and 112.0 GB/s memory bandwidth, the system is best suited for 1080p gaming at medium to low settings in modern titles. Esports titles like Counter-Strike 2 or Valorant should run smoothly at high frame rates due to the CPU's strong single-threaded performance (Cinebench R23 single-core score of 1877.5). For demanding AAA games, setting expectations to 1080p at medium settings with frame rates in the 30-60 FPS range is realistic. The CPU is unlikely to be a bottleneck at 1080p, as its single-core speed is sufficient to keep up with the GPU's output. The GPU will be the limiting factor. Games with high VRAM requirements will struggle with the 4 GB limit, leading to texture pop-in or reduced quality settings. The estimated FPS figures should be treated as a rough guide, and actual performance will vary by game title and driver optimization.

Build Overview

This is a laptop-class build combining the Intel Core Ultra 7 256V CPU with the Intel Arc A370M GPU. The CPU is a modern, power-efficient 8-core processor from the Lunar Lake architecture, while the GPU is an entry-level discrete part from the Alchemist generation. The build's combined percentile is 75, indicating that it outperforms the majority of systems in the database. This is driven by the CPU's strong performance relative to all other CPUs, while the GPU's 74th percentile is slightly lower. The pairing is fundamentally a productivity-first configuration, where the CPU's excellent single-threaded performance and the GPU's competent compute capabilities create a balanced system for everyday work and moderate creative tasks. It is not a high-performance gaming rig, nor is it a workstation-class machine. It sits in a middle tier, offering a strong blend of efficiency and capability for mobile users who need a reliable all-rounder.

GPU Analysis

The Intel Arc A370M is a discrete mobile GPU based on the Xe-HPG architecture, specifically the DG2-128 chip. It is manufactured on a 6 nm process by TSMC and consists of 7,200 million transistors on a 157 mm² die. The GPU operates at a base clock of 1550 MHz and a boost clock of 2050 MHz, with memory running at 1750 MHz (14 Gbps effective). The memory subsystem is a significant constraint: it has 4 GB of GDDR6 on a 64-bit bus, yielding a bandwidth of 112.0 GB/s. This is a low bandwidth figure for modern gaming, and it will limit performance in texture-heavy scenes. The GPU has 1024 shading units, 64 TMUs, and 32 ROPs, along with 8 ray tracing cores. Its pixel rate is 65.60 GPixel/s and its texture rate is 131.2 GTexel/s. The FP32 performance is 4.198 TFLOPS, with FP16 at 8.397 TFLOPS (2:1).

Benchmark results show a Geekbench OpenCL score of 29676 and a Vulkan score of 28673. The average benchmark score is 29175, placing it in the 74th percentile of all GPUs. This is a respectable score, but the nearest rivals demonstrate that it is competing with older technology. The A370M is statistically tied with the AMD Radeon RX Vega M GH and the AMD FirePro W8000, and it is only 1% faster than the AMD Radeon RX 6800M. This suggests that the A370M is a modern GPU with a feature set that includes DirectX 12 Ultimate, Vulkan 1.4, and OpenGL 4.6, but its raw compute power is on par with parts that are several years old. For rendering, the GPU supports hardware ray tracing, but the low FP32 throughput means that ray-traced workloads will be slow. The 4 GB VRAM is also a limiting factor for large 3D scenes or high-resolution textures. The GPU is best suited for 1080p rendering with moderate settings, where its feature set can be leveraged without exceeding its memory and bandwidth limits.

Usage Scenarios

High-Refresh Gaming: Not a recommended scenario for this build. The GPU's 4 GB VRAM and 112.0 GB/s bandwidth are insufficient for modern games at high frame rates. The CPU can handle the workload, but the GPU will be the bottleneck. Esports titles at 1080p with low settings may achieve high frame rates, but this is not a high-refresh gaming platform.

Streaming: The CPU's strong single-core score (1877.5 in Cinebench R23) can handle encoding at lower bitrates, and the GPU supports hardware encoding. A single-PC streaming setup for non-demanding games is feasible, but the GPU's gaming limitations will cap the game's quality and frame rate, making it a mediocre option for streaming modern AAA titles.

Video Editing: Light 1080p video editing is a viable scenario. The CPU's multi-core score of 10399 in Cinebench R23 will handle basic timelines, and the GPU can accelerate effects and encoding. However, 4K footage or complex projects will expose the 8-thread limit and the 4 GB VRAM, leading to slow render times and potential system strain.

3D Rendering: This is a weak scenario for this pairing. The CPU's 8 threads and the GPU's 4 GB VRAM are both limiting factors. Simple models and scenes may render, but complex scenes will be slow. The GPU's OpenCL score of 29676 is not competitive with dedicated rendering GPUs, and the CPU's multi-core performance is insufficient for professional 3D workloads.

Software Development: An excellent scenario for the CPU. The fast single-core speed (1990 in Geekbench) makes code editing and compiling small projects feel responsive. The 8 cores handle parallel builds reasonably well. The low TDP means long coding sessions on battery are possible. The GPU is irrelevant for most development tasks, making this a strong point for the build.

Student and Office Work: The ideal scenario. The CPU's single-threaded performance makes web browsing, document editing, and spreadsheet work feel snappy. The high PassMark data compression score of 184985 means file archiving is fast. The low power draw extends battery life, and the overall 75th percentile ranking ensures the system is more capable than most office machines. This is a perfect laptop for a university student or a business professional.

Rate My PC: Intel Core Ultra 7 256V + Intel Arc A370M

Power Build

System Balance Analysis

Intel Core Ultra 7 256V

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

Strong Performance

Performance Tiers Explained

Ultimate

High-End

Mid-Range

Entry Level

Legacy

CPU Analysis

Benchmark Performance

Upgrade Path and Platform

Who Should Build It

Balance and Bottleneck

FAQ

Gaming Performance

Build Overview

GPU Analysis

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