SYSTEM ANALYZER

Rate My PC: Intel Core Ultra 7 265 + Intel Arc A310E

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

85 / 100
HIGH-END

Power Build

Top 15% of systems. Excellent for 1440p Ultra or 4K High gaming.

1440p Ultra4K High

System Balance Analysis

CPU vs GPU performance ratio
GPU Bottleneck
CPU
96%
VS
GPU
74%

Your GPU is limiting system performance. Consider upgrading to a more powerful graphics card to better utilize your CPU.

PROCESSOR

Intel Core Ultra 7 265

64,640 Benchmark Score
Top 4% Market Ranking
View Full Specs →
GRAPHICS CARD

Intel Arc A310E

0 Benchmark Score
Top 26% 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.

Bottleneck Detected

GPU Bottleneck - Upgrading the weaker component will improve overall performance.

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 7 265 and Intel Arc A310E form a desktop build that pairs a high-end 20-core processor with an entry-level graphics card. The CPU is a dominant force in computational workloads, sitting at the 93rd percentile among all CPUs, while the GPU is a modest performer at the 50th percentile. This combination results in a system with exceptional processing power but limited graphical capabilities, making it suitable for specific professional and productivity tasks rather than high-end gaming. The following analysis interprets the benchmark data to explain what this pairing can and cannot do, based strictly on the provided facts.

CPU Analysis

The Intel Core Ultra 7 265 is a 20-core, 20-thread desktop processor built on the Arrow Lake architecture and manufactured on a 3 nm process by TSMC. It operates with a base clock of 2.40 GHz and a boost clock of 5.30 GHz, drawing a 65 W TDP. The CPU features a substantial cache hierarchy, including 192 KB of L1 cache per core, 3 MB of L2 cache per core, and 30 MB of shared L3 cache. This configuration is designed to handle heavy multi-threaded workloads, as evidenced by its benchmark scores.

In Cinebench R23, the CPU scores 42,216 points in multi-core and 5,960 points in single-core tests. The multi-core score is particularly strong, placing the processor in the top tier for rendering and computational tasks. The single-core score of 5,960 also reflects excellent per-thread performance, which is crucial for applications that rely on lower thread counts. The Cinebench R20 results further corroborate this, with a multi-core score of 6,268 and a single-core score of 884, while the older Cinebench R15 shows 4,255 multi-core and 600 single-core.

PassMark tests reveal a mixed profile. The multithread score of 49,682 and the single-thread score of 4,689 both indicate robust performance. Data compression scores 522,983, showing high throughput for archiving and file management tasks. Floating-point math scores 172,776, while integer math scores 134,773, suggesting the CPU excels in scientific and financial calculations. The extended instructions score of 41,478 indicates strong SIMD processing capabilities. However, the find prime numbers score of 418 is relatively low, which may indicate weaker performance in certain integer-heavy algorithms that are not well-optimized for the architecture.

The CPU holds a 93rd percentile ranking among all CPUs, meaning it outperforms the vast majority of processors on the market. Its average benchmark score is 64,640. Compared to its nearest rivals, the AMD EPYC 4464P scores 64,823, which is 0.3% higher, while the Intel Core Ultra 7 265F scores 64,438, which is 0.3% lower. The AMD EPYC 7343 scores 64,202, a 0.7% deficit, and the AMD EPYC 9124 scores 65,104, a 0.7% advantage. These deltas are minimal, indicating the Ultra 7 265 is closely matched with enterprise-class server processors in overall computational power.

For real workloads, the data suggests the CPU is ideal for video rendering, 3D modeling, software compilation, and data analysis. The high multi-core scores in Cinebench directly translate to faster rendering times in applications like Blender or Autodesk Maya. The strong single-core performance ensures snappy responsiveness in everyday tasks and in lightly-threaded applications. The 20 cores, while not offering simultaneous multi-threading (SMT), still provide ample parallelism for most modern workloads, and the 30 MB of L3 cache helps reduce memory latency in data-intensive scenarios.

Benchmark Performance

The CPU’s benchmark scores place it firmly in the high-performance tier. The Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 42,216 is a standout figure, demonstrating that the processor can handle prolonged all-core loads without significant thermal throttling, given its 65 W TDP. The single-core score of 5,960 is equally impressive, ensuring that the CPU does not lag in tasks that rely on a single thread. In PassMark, the multithread score of 49,682 and the single-thread score of 4,689 are both above average, though the gap between them highlights the CPU’s strength in parallel workloads.

The GPU, the Intel Arc A310E, has no benchmark scores listed in the data, but it holds a 50th percentile ranking among all GPUs. This places it exactly in the middle of the performance spectrum, indicating it is an entry-level or low-end graphics card. The GPU’s average benchmark score is listed as 0, which likely reflects a lack of data rather than actual performance. The combined percentile for this CPU+GPU build is 72, which is higher than the GPU’s individual percentile but lower than the CPU’s, suggesting that the GPU drags down the overall system performance in graphics-intensive tasks.

The combined picture is one of imbalance. The CPU is a top-tier performer, capable of handling the most demanding computational workloads, while the GPU is a modest component that will struggle with modern games and graphics applications. For workloads that are CPU-bound, such as video encoding, data processing, or software development, this system will perform exceptionally well. For GPU-bound tasks, such as gaming or 3D rendering with GPU acceleration, the system will be limited by the Arc A310E. The benchmark data shows a clear split: the CPU excels in multi-threaded and single-threaded tests, while the GPU’s mid-pack percentile suggests it is only suitable for light graphics work or legacy titles.

Balance and Bottleneck

The data clearly indicates that the GPU is the primary bottleneck in this build. The CPU sits at the 93rd percentile, while the GPU sits at the 50th percentile, a 43-point gap that underscores the disparity in their capabilities. In any workload that requires significant GPU processing, such as modern gaming or GPU-accelerated rendering, the Arc A310E will limit performance. The CPU will be underutilized in these scenarios, as it waits for the GPU to complete its tasks.

For CPU-bound workloads, the system will perform at a high level. The 20-core processor can handle multiple simultaneous tasks, and the high Cinebench scores indicate it will not be a limiting factor in video editing, 3D rendering (CPU-based), or data analysis. The GPU’s role in these tasks is minimal, so the bottleneck is less pronounced. However, in mixed workloads, such as gaming with a live stream, the GPU may struggle to keep up with both rendering and encoding demands, potentially causing frame drops or stutters.

The FPS scaling evidence, while not measured for this specific combination, can be inferred from the GPU’s specifications. The Arc A310E has a 4 GB memory buffer and a 64-bit memory bus, which are indicative of a low-end card. In modern games, this will limit the resolution and detail settings that can be used. The CPU’s high single-core score of 5,960 will help in games that are CPU-bound, but the GPU will cap the frame rate in most titles. For a balanced system, a more powerful GPU would be required to match the CPU’s capabilities, but based on the data, the Arc A310E is the clear constraint.

Upgrade Path and Platform

The Intel Core Ultra 7 265 uses the Intel Socket 1851, which is specific to the Core Ultra Series 2 processors. This socket is not forward-compatible with older Intel platforms, so upgrading the CPU would require a new motherboard. The platform supports DDR5 memory in a dual-channel configuration, with a memory bandwidth of 102.4 GB/s. ECC memory is not supported, which may be a consideration for workstation users who require error correction. The CPU provides PCIe Gen 5 with 20 lanes, offering high bandwidth for modern SSDs and GPUs.

The GPU, the Intel Arc A310E, uses a PCIe 4.0 x8 interface, which is sufficient for its bandwidth needs. It has a 75 W TDP and requires no external power connectors, drawing all its power from the motherboard. The suggested PSU for this GPU is 250 W, which is low and indicates the card is power-efficient. For upgrades, the CPU’s 65 W TDP means a modest cooling solution is sufficient, but the platform supports higher-end CPUs that may require more robust cooling.

A sensible next upgrade would be to replace the GPU with a more powerful model. The CPU has the headroom to support a much faster graphics card, as its 20 lanes of PCIe Gen 5 can handle the bandwidth requirements of high-end GPUs. The 250 W suggested PSU for the current GPU suggests the system has a low overall power draw, so upgrading to a more power-hungry GPU may require a new PSU. The motherboard’s DDR5 support is modern, and the memory bandwidth of 102.4 GB/s is adequate for most tasks, though adding more memory or faster modules could improve performance in memory-intensive applications. The platform is well-suited for a long-term build, with the CPU being a strong foundation for future upgrades.

FAQ

Q: What is the CPU’s performance percentile?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 7 265 is at the 93rd percentile among all CPUs, indicating it is in the top 7% of processors for overall performance.

Q: How does the CPU compare to its nearest rivals?

A: The CPU has an average benchmark score of 64,640. It is 0.3% slower than the AMD EPYC 4464P and 0.7% slower than the AMD EPYC 9124, but 0.3% faster than the Intel Core Ultra 7 265F and 0.7% faster than the AMD EPYC 7343.

Q: What is the GPU’s memory configuration?

A: The Intel Arc A310E has 4 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 64-bit bus, providing a bandwidth of 124.0 GB/s.

Q: Does the GPU require external power connectors?

A: No, the Arc A310E has a 75 W TDP and uses no power connectors, drawing power solely from the motherboard. The suggested PSU is 250 W.

Q: What is the CPU’s TDP and socket type?

A: The CPU has a TDP of 65 W and uses the Intel Socket 1851.

Q: What is the combined percentile of this build?

A: The combined percentile for the CPU and GPU is 72, reflecting the CPU’s high performance and the GPU’s mid-range performance.

Q: Does the CPU support ECC memory?

A: No, ECC memory is not supported by the Intel Core Ultra 7 265.

GPU Analysis

The Intel Arc A310E is built on the Xe-HPG architecture and uses the DG2-128 chip, manufactured on a 6 nm process by TSMC. It has 768 shading units, 32 texture mapping units (TMUs), and 16 raster operation pipelines (ROPs), along with 6 ray tracing cores. The GPU operates at a base clock of 2000 MHz and a boost clock of 2000 MHz, with memory running at 1937 MHz (15.5 Gbps effective). The 4 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 64-bit bus yields a bandwidth of 124.0 GB/s, which is modest by modern standards.

The GPU’s compute capabilities are limited, with an FP32 performance of 3.072 TFLOPS and an FP16 performance of 6.144 TFLOPS (2:1). The pixel rate is 32.00 GPixel/s, and the texture rate is 64.00 GTexel/s. These figures place the card in the entry-level segment, suitable for 1080p gaming at low to medium settings or for basic GPU-accelerated tasks. The ray tracing cores are present, but their performance is likely constrained by the overall low compute power. There are no tensor cores listed, meaning AI acceleration features are absent or minimal.

The GPU supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4, ensuring compatibility with modern graphics APIs. It has 4x mini-DisplayPort 2.0 outputs, allowing for multiple monitor setups. The card is single-slot with dimensions of 168 mm in length, 69 mm in height, and 20 mm in width. Its 50th percentile ranking among all GPUs confirms its mid-pack status, but the lack of benchmark scores makes it difficult to assess its exact performance against competitors. For rendering workloads, the CPU will be the primary workhorse, while the GPU can offload some tasks like video encoding or light ray tracing, but it will not be sufficient for professional-grade 3D rendering or high-end gaming.

Who Should Build It

This build is targeted at users who prioritize CPU performance over GPU performance. The 93rd percentile CPU and 50th percentile GPU make it ideal for professionals who work with CPU-intensive applications. Video editors using software like Adobe Premiere Pro will benefit from the 20 cores and high Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 42,216, which accelerates rendering and export times. Software developers compiling large codebases will appreciate the multithread score of 49,682, reducing build times significantly. Data analysts and scientists working with large datasets will find the data compression score of 522,983 and floating-point math score of 172,776 valuable for processing and simulation tasks.

For gamers, this build is less suitable. The GPU’s 50th percentile ranking and 4 GB memory will limit gaming performance, especially at higher resolutions or with modern titles. Gamers playing at 1080p with low settings may find acceptable performance, but those seeking high-refresh-rate or 1440p gaming should look elsewhere. Students in computer science or engineering fields will benefit from the CPU’s power for programming and simulation projects, while the GPU is sufficient for general use and light graphics work. Small business workstations that run accounting software, databases, or office applications will perform well, as these tasks are CPU-bound and do not require a powerful GPU. The build is not ideal for content creators who rely on GPU-accelerated rendering in tools like Blender, as the Arc A310E will be a significant bottleneck.

Build Overview

This is a desktop build that pairs the Intel Core Ultra 7 265 CPU with the Intel Arc A310E GPU. The CPU is a high-end, 20-core processor with a 93rd percentile ranking, while the GPU is an entry-level card at the 50th percentile. The combined percentile is 72, indicating that the overall system is above average but held back by the GPU. The CPU is the dominant component, providing exceptional computational performance for its 65 W TDP. The GPU, with its 4 GB memory and 3.072 TFLOPS FP32 performance, is a weak link that limits the system’s graphics capabilities. This pairing is best described as a CPU-centric workstation that can handle demanding processing tasks but is not designed for gaming or GPU-intensive applications. The build’s overall tier is mid-to-high range, with the CPU pushing it toward the top end for productivity, while the GPU keeps it grounded in the lower tier for graphics.

Usage Scenarios

For high-refresh gaming, this build is not recommended. The GPU’s 50th percentile ranking and 4 GB memory will struggle to maintain high frame rates at 1080p, let alone higher resolutions. The CPU’s strong single-core score of 5,960 will help in CPU-bound games, but the GPU will cap performance, making high-refresh monitors underutilized.

Streaming is a mixed scenario. The CPU can handle the encoding workload, as its 20 cores and high multithread score of 49,682 can manage simultaneous gaming and encoding. However, the GPU may not be able to keep up with the gaming demands, leading to a poor experience. The system would be better suited for streaming non-gaming content or light games.

Video editing is a strong use case. The CPU’s Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 42,216 accelerates rendering and exporting in applications like Premiere Pro or DaVinci Resolve. The GPU can assist with effects, but the CPU will carry the load, making this build capable for 1080p or 4K video editing.

3D rendering, particularly CPU-based rendering, is another strong scenario. The CPU’s high core count and Cinebench scores will produce fast render times in software like Blender’s Cycles engine. The GPU is not powerful enough for GPU rendering, but it can display the viewport adequately.

Software development is an excellent fit. The CPU’s 20 cores and high integer math score of 134,773 will speed up compilation and testing. The GPU is sufficient for running IDEs and basic GUI applications, making this a productive development machine.

Student and office work is well-served. The CPU’s single-core performance of 5,960 ensures smooth multitasking and responsive applications, while the GPU handles basic graphical needs like spreadsheets, documents, and web browsing. The low TDP of both components means the system runs quiet and cool, ideal for a shared workspace.

Gaming Performance

There are no measured FPS rows for this exact CPU+GPU combination in the data, so all frame rates discussed are estimates based on the benchmark scores and hardware specifications. The Intel Arc A310E’s 50th percentile ranking and 4 GB memory suggest it can handle esports titles and older games at 1080p with low to medium settings. Games like Counter-Strike 2 or League of Legends may achieve playable frame rates, but demanding AAA titles will likely struggle. The GPU’s 3.072 TFLOPS FP32 performance and 124.0 GB/s bandwidth are indicators of its entry-level status, and modern games with high texture requirements will exceed the 4 GB memory buffer, causing stuttering or lower texture quality.

At 1080p, users can expect playable performance in less demanding games, but frame rates will be inconsistent in newer titles. At 1440p or higher, the GPU will be severely limited, and most games will need to be run at the lowest settings or reduced resolutions. The CPU’s high single-core score will help in games that are CPU-bound, but the GPU will be the limiting factor in the majority of gaming scenarios. Ray tracing is available due to the 6 RT cores, but performance will be poor, and it is not recommended to enable it. The figures for FPS are estimates, as no measured data exists, and they should be treated as rough guidelines rather than definitive performance metrics.