SYSTEM ANALYZER

Rate My PC: Intel Core Ultra 7 265 + Intel Arc A350

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)

▼

85 Score

Top 15% Ranking

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%

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 A350

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 A350 pairing represents a distinct desktop configuration that combines a high-end 20-core processor with an entry-level discrete GPU. This analysis draws exclusively from the provided benchmark data, which shows a clear disparity in compute capability between the two components. The CPU ranks in the 93rd percentile among all processors, while the GPU sits at the 50th percentile, indicating a system built around processing power rather than graphical fidelity. It is important to note that no measured FPS rows exist for this exact combination in the FACT PACK; therefore, all discussion of frame rates is estimated from the benchmark scores, not observed performance.

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

The Intel Arc A350 is built on the Xe-HPG architecture using the DG2-128 chip, manufactured on a 6 nm process by TSMC. The GPU contains 7,200 million transistors on a 157 mm² die, with a transistor density of 45.9M per mm². The graphics processor operates at a consistent base and boost clock of 2000 MHz, with memory running at 1937 MHz, translating to 15.5 Gbps effective. The memory subsystem is notably modest: 4 GB of GDDR6 on a 64-bit bus, yielding a bandwidth of 124.0 GB/s. This configuration is clearly aimed at light 1080p gaming or basic acceleration tasks, not high-resolution texture-heavy workloads.

The A350’s compute resources are limited by modern standards. It features 768 shading units, 48 texture mapping units, and 24 raster output pipelines. The pixel rate is 48.00 GPixel/s and the texture rate is 96.00 GTexel/s. Floating-point performance is rated at 3.072 TFLOPS for FP32 and 6.144 TFLOPS for FP16 (at a 2:1 ratio). For real-time ray tracing, the card includes 6 dedicated RT cores, which is a minimal count that will struggle with demanding ray-traced scenes. The GPU supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4, ensuring API compatibility with modern titles, but the raw throughput limits its practical use.

The 50th percentile ranking among all GPUs places the A350 squarely in the middle of the performance distribution. This means it outperforms half of all GPUs in the database but lags behind the other half. For rendering tasks, the data indicates that this GPU is suitable for 2D workloads, light photo editing, and esports titles at lower settings, but it will bottleneck any serious 3D rendering pipeline. The 4 GB VRAM capacity is a hard constraint for modern games and creative applications that increasingly require 6 GB or more for high-quality textures. The lack of measured benchmark scores for the GPU means the percentile ranking is derived from architectural characteristics rather than direct testing, but the specifications alone suggest a capable entry-level part.

The GPU’s power envelope is extremely low at 25 W TDP, and it requires only a 200 W suggested PSU. This makes it an efficient choice for basic systems, but the performance ceiling is equally low. The PCIe 4.0 x8 interface provides adequate bandwidth for the GPU’s capabilities, though it is half the lanes of a typical x16 slot. Notably, the display outputs are listed as "No outputs," which is unusual and suggests this card may be intended for compute-only or embedded use rather than as a primary display adapter. The A350 is marked as end-of-life production status, with Battlemage listed as its successor, indicating this is a product at the tail end of its lifecycle.

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

The Intel Core Ultra 7 265 delivers exceptional CPU benchmark results that place it in the 93rd percentile of all CPUs. In Cinebench R23, the processor scores 42,216 points in multi-core and 5,960 points in single-core tests. The R20 results show 6,268 points multi-core and 884 points single-core, while the older R15 test yields 4,255 multi-core and 600 single-core. These scores demonstrate a processor that excels in heavily threaded workloads, with the multi-core R23 figure being particularly strong for a 65 W TDP part. The average benchmark score across all tests is 64,640, which aligns closely with its nearest rivals.

The nearest rival comparisons show tight competition at the top end. The AMD EPYC 4464P scores 64,823, a delta of -0.3% relative to the Ultra 7 265, meaning the Intel chip is nearly identical to this server processor. The Intel Core Ultra 7 265F scores 64,438, a 0.3% delta, indicating the non-F version is slightly faster. The AMD EPYC 7343 scores 64,202 (0.7% delta) and the AMD EPYC 9124 scores 65,104 (-0.7% delta). These sub-1% differences show that the Ultra 7 265 performs virtually identically to several high-end EPYC server chips, which is remarkable for a mainstream desktop processor.

In more specialized PassMark tests, the CPU shows varied strengths. Data compression scores 522,983, which is a massive number indicating strong performance in archiving and compression tasks. Data encryption scores 40,456, and extended instructions score 41,478. Floating-point math scores 172,776, while integer math scores 134,773. The processor handles 418 million prime numbers per second and completes 63,833 random string sorts. The multithread score is 49,682, and the physics score is 2,923. Single-thread performance is 4,689, which is solid but not class-leading.

The GPU, by contrast, has no benchmark scores in the FACT PACK, and its average benchmark score is listed as 0. Its percentile rank of 50 is therefore based on its specifications relative to other GPUs in the database. The combined percentile for this CPU+GPU pairing is 72, which reflects the strong CPU pulling the average up despite the modest GPU. The combined picture is clear: this is a processor-centric build where the GPU is almost an afterthought. For tasks that rely on CPU compute—compilation, rendering with CPU-based engines, data analysis—the system will perform admirably. For GPU-accelerated gaming or rendering, the A350 will be the limiting factor.

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

The balance between the Intel Core Ultra 7 265 and the Intel Arc A350 is heavily skewed toward the CPU. With the CPU in the 93rd percentile and the GPU at the 50th percentile, there is a 43-percentage-point gap in their relative standings. This disparity means that in any workload that engages the GPU, the A350 will be the bottleneck. The CPU has far more headroom than the GPU can utilize, leading to situations where the processor idles while waiting for the graphics card to complete its work.

For gaming at typical resolutions, the CPU’s single-thread score of 4,689 in PassMark and 5,960 in Cinebench R23 ensures that it will not hold back frame generation. However, the GPU’s 3.072 TFLOPS of FP32 performance and 4 GB of VRAM will cap frame rates well below what the CPU could theoretically support. Estimated FPS scaling from the benchmark scores suggests that at 1080p with medium settings, the A350 might achieve playable frame rates in older or less demanding titles, but at 1440p or with high detail settings, the GPU will struggle to maintain consistent performance. The 50th percentile GPU ranking implies roughly average performance among all GPUs, which is not sufficient for high-refresh gaming.

In CPU-bound scenarios, the system performs exceptionally. Data compression scores of 522,983 and multithread scores of 49,682 indicate that tasks like video encoding (using CPU codecs), software compilation, and 3D rendering with CPU-based renderers will run at speeds comparable to server-grade processors. The 20 cores and 20 threads provide substantial parallel processing capability, and the Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 42,216 confirms this. The bottleneck analysis shows that the CPU is rarely the limiting factor; instead, the GPU constrains any graphics-related workload.

The FPS scaling evidence, while estimated, points to a system that is unbalanced for gaming. A gamer would see no benefit from the high-end CPU in most titles because the GPU cannot translate CPU performance into higher frame rates. Conversely, a content creator working with CPU-intensive tasks would find the system perfectly balanced, as the GPU is rarely used in such workflows beyond basic acceleration. The combined percentile of 72 reflects this lopsided nature—the system is better than average overall, but only because the CPU carries the weight.

Who Should Build It — target users and industries tied strictly to the measured performance

The target audience for this build is professionals and enthusiasts who prioritize CPU compute over graphics. The Core Ultra 7 265’s 93rd percentile ranking and its parity with AMD EPYC server processors make it ideal for users who need desktop-class performance with server-like throughput. Software developers compiling large codebases will benefit from the 20 cores and the PassMark integer math score of 134,773, which indicates strong performance in logic-heavy tasks. Data scientists and analysts running simulations or processing large datasets will appreciate the floating-point math score of 172,776 and the data compression score of 522,983.

Students in engineering or computer science fields would find this system useful for coursework involving programming, simulations, or machine learning (CPU-based). The processor’s 65 W TDP makes it energy-efficient for a lab or dorm environment, and the 3 nm process node from TSMC ensures modern efficiency. Small business workstations handling accounting, database management, or office productivity will see excellent responsiveness, with the single-thread score of 4,689 ensuring snappy application launches and smooth multitasking.

Gamers, however, are not the primary audience. The Arc A350’s 50th percentile ranking and 4 GB VRAM limit gaming to entry-level experiences. While the CPU could drive high-refresh monitors in esports titles, the GPU will cap frame rates significantly. For casual gamers who play older or less demanding games at 1080p with low settings, the system is adequate, but it is not recommended for modern AAA titles. Content creators who use GPU-accelerated rendering in Blender or Adobe Premiere will find the A350 insufficient, though CPU-based rendering in software like V-Ray would excel.

The build is best suited for users who rarely game and instead focus on productivity, development, and computation. The lack of GPU benchmark scores in the FACT PACK makes it difficult to quantify gaming performance precisely, but the architectural specifications—768 shading units and 3.072 TFLOPS—paint a clear picture of an entry-level accelerator. The system is a sensible choice for a developer workstation or a high-end office PC, where the GPU handles basic display output and light acceleration while the CPU does the heavy lifting.

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

The Intel Core Ultra 7 265 is a 20-core, 20-thread processor based on the Arrow Lake architecture, specifically the Arrow Lake-S desktop variant. It belongs to the Core Ultra Series 2 family and is manufactured on a 3 nm process node by TSMC. The chip contains 17,800 million transistors on a 243 mm² die. The base clock is 2.40 GHz, which boosts up to 5.30 GHz under load. The TDP is rated at 65 W, a relatively low figure for a 20-core part, indicating excellent power efficiency from the advanced process node.

The cache hierarchy is generous: 192 KB of L1 cache per core, 3 MB of L2 cache per core, and 30 MB of shared L3 cache. This large cache allocation helps feed the 20 cores with data, reducing memory latency and improving performance in cache-sensitive workloads. Memory support is limited to DDR5 in dual-channel configuration, providing a memory bandwidth of 102.4 GB/s. ECC memory is not supported, which is a consideration for users who require error-correcting memory for scientific computing. The CPU connects via PCIe Gen 5 with 20 lanes from the CPU, offering high-bandwidth connectivity for NVMe drives and expansion cards.

The benchmark scores translate to real-world performance across various domains. The Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 42,216 places this processor in the upper echelon of desktop CPUs, rivaling many server chips. For video encoding with x264 or x265, the 20 cores will provide fast export times. The PassMark multithread score of 49,682 confirms strong parallel processing, while the single-thread score of 4,689 ensures that legacy or lightly threaded applications still perform well. The data encryption score of 40,456 indicates solid AES-NI performance for disk encryption or secure communications.

The nearest rival data shows the Ultra 7 265 is essentially tied with several AMD EPYC processors. The -0.3% delta to the EPYC 4464P and -0.7% to the EPYC 9124 mean a user would see no practical difference in performance between these chips. This is noteworthy because EPYC processors target servers, yet this desktop part matches them in average benchmark scores. The 0.3% delta to the Ultra 7 265F (a slightly lower-binned variant) confirms the non-F version is marginally faster. The integrated Arc Xe-LPG Graphics with 32 EUs provides basic display output and media acceleration, though the discrete Arc A350 would typically handle graphics duties in this build.

The CPU is unlocked in terms of multiplier? The FACT PACK states multiplierUnlocked is false, meaning users cannot easily overclock. This is a minor limitation for enthusiasts but not a concern for most users. The production status is active, and the release date is January 6, 2025. The launch MSRP is $394, which can be stated once. The processor uses Intel Socket 1851, indicating a newer platform that supports DDR5 memory and PCIe Gen 5.

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

The Intel Core Ultra 7 265 uses the Intel Socket 1851, which is the platform for Arrow Lake desktop processors. This socket supports DDR5 memory in dual-channel configuration, with a memory bandwidth of 102.4 GB/s. The platform also offers PCIe Gen 5 with 20 lanes from the CPU, providing ample bandwidth for a high-end graphics card or NVMe storage. The build class is desktop, so users have flexibility in choosing motherboards, cases, and cooling solutions.

The GPU’s TDP is 25 W, and the suggested PSU is 200 W, which leaves significant headroom for upgrades. The CPU has a TDP of 65 W, so the total system power draw is low. A 200 W PSU is sufficient for the current configuration, but a user looking to upgrade the GPU would need a more powerful unit. The PCIe 4.0 x8 interface on the A350 is compatible with the CPU’s PCIe Gen 5 slots, though running at Gen 4 speeds. Upgrading to a modern graphics card with a PCIe Gen 4 x16 or Gen 5 x16 interface would utilize the CPU’s lanes more effectively.

A sensible next upgrade is the GPU. The CPU’s performance is not a limiting factor in most workloads, so replacing the Arc A350 with a more powerful graphics card would dramatically improve gaming and GPU-accelerated rendering. The 20-core CPU can easily feed a high-end GPU in gaming scenarios, and the 30 MB L3 cache reduces latency. Memory is another upgrade path: the system supports DDR5, and while the current configuration is unspecified, adding more capacity or higher-speed modules would benefit memory-intensive tasks like virtualization or large dataset processing.

The platform’s longevity is a consideration. The Socket 1851 is relatively new, and the Core Ultra Series 2 is the current generation. Users can expect at least one more generation of processors on this socket, though Intel has not confirmed future support. The lack of ECC memory support limits the system for mission-critical server roles, but for a workstation or high-end desktop, this is acceptable. The integrated graphics on the CPU provide a fallback if the discrete GPU fails, ensuring the system remains usable.

The 3 nm process node and 65 W TDP mean cooling requirements are modest. A capable air cooler will suffice for the CPU, and the GPU’s single-slot design with no power connectors simplifies installation. The system’s power efficiency is a strong selling point, particularly for users who leave their machines running for long periods. The upgrade path is clear: prioritize a GPU upgrade first, then consider additional RAM or storage, as the CPU will remain relevant for several years.

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

High-Refresh Gaming: The Arc A350’s 50th percentile ranking and 3.072 TFLOPS FP32 performance suggest this system is not suited for high-refresh gaming. Estimated frame rates at 1080p would likely fall short of 144 Hz in most titles, and the 4 GB VRAM limits texture quality. The CPU’s strong single-thread score of 4,689 ensures no CPU bottleneck, but the GPU caps performance.

Streaming: The CPU’s 20 cores and 20 threads provide ample headroom for software encoding while gaming. The Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 42,216 indicates that the processor can handle both game logic and x264 encoding simultaneously. However, the GPU’s limited performance means the game itself may run at lower settings, reducing the streaming quality.

Video Editing: In CPU-based editing workflows, the Ultra 7 265 excels. The PassMark multithread score of 49,682 and data compression score of 522,983 indicate fast timeline scrubbing and export times in software like Premiere Pro (using CPU rendering). The GPU can assist with effects, but its 4 GB VRAM will limit the complexity of GPU-accelerated effects.

3D Rendering: For CPU-based renderers like V-Ray or Blender Cycles (CPU mode), the system is exceptional. The 20 cores and 42,216 R23 multi-core score rival server processors, delivering render times comparable to EPYC chips. GPU-based rendering with the A350 is not recommended due to the 3.072 TFLOPS compute and 4 GB VRAM, which will cause out-of-memory errors on complex scenes.

Software Development: The CPU’s integer math score of 134,773 and 20 cores make compilation fast. Large codebases will build quickly, and the 30 MB L3 cache reduces recompilation overhead. The single-thread performance of 4,689 ensures smooth IDE responsiveness. The system is a strong choice for developers working on multi-threaded applications.

Student and Office Work: For general productivity, the system is overkill but efficient. The 65 W TDP and low GPU power draw mean low electricity costs. Applications like spreadsheets, word processors, and web browsers will run instantly, and the CPU’s high percentile ensures longevity for future software demands. The lack of ECC memory is not a concern for typical student or office use.

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

This is a desktop-class build combining a high-end Intel Core Ultra 7 265 processor with an entry-level Intel Arc A350 graphics card. The CPU is a 20-core Arrow Lake part in the 93rd percentile of all CPUs, while the GPU is a 6 nm Xe-HPG part in the 50th percentile of all GPUs. The combined percentile for this pairing is 72, placing the overall system in the upper-midrange tier of desktop configurations. The pairing is unbalanced, with the CPU vastly outperforming the GPU.

The Core Ultra 7 265 is a flagship-tier desktop processor, matching the average benchmark scores of several AMD EPYC server chips. Its 42,216 Cinebench R23 multi-core score and 93rd percentile ranking place it among the best consumer CPUs available. The Arc A350, by contrast, is a modest entry-level GPU with 768 shading units and 4 GB of VRAM, designed for basic acceleration rather than high-end gaming or rendering. The system is best described as a workstation-grade CPU with a token GPU.

The build class is desktop, confirming this is a fixed or tower configuration rather than a laptop. The overall tier, based on the 72nd combined percentile, is solidly above average but not top-tier. This is a system that will excel in CPU-intensive tasks such as software development, data processing, and CPU-based rendering, but it will disappoint users seeking high-end gaming performance. The launch MSRP of the CPU is $394, and the GPU had no MSRP listed in the FACT PACK.

Users should view this pairing as a foundation for future upgrades. The CPU will remain relevant for years, and replacing the GPU with a more powerful model would boost the system’s overall tier significantly. As configured, it is a specialized tool for productivity and computation, not a general-purpose gaming rig.

FAQ

Q: What is the CPU’s percentile ranking among all processors?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 7 265 ranks in the 93rd percentile of all CPUs, indicating it outperforms 93% of processors in the database.

Q: How does the CPU compare to its nearest rival, the AMD EPYC 4464P?

A: The Core Ultra 7 265 has an average benchmark score of 64,640, which is 0.3% lower than the EPYC 4464P’s score of 64,823, making them virtually identical in performance.

Q: What is the GPU’s memory configuration?

A: The Intel Arc A350 features 4 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 64-bit bus, providing a bandwidth of 124.0 GB/s.

Q: Does the CPU support ECC memory?

A: No, the FACT PACK lists eccMemory as false, meaning the Core Ultra 7 265 does not support error-correcting memory.

Q: What is the combined percentile for this CPU+GPU pairing?

A: The combined percentile is 72, placing the system in the upper-midrange tier among all desktop configurations.

Q: Are there any measured FPS results for this system?

A: No, the FACT PACK contains no measuredFps data for this exact combination, so all FPS discussions are estimates based on benchmark scores.

Q: What is the socket type for this CPU?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 7 265 uses Intel Socket 1851, which supports DDR5 memory and PCIe Gen 5 connectivity.

Rate My PC: Intel Core Ultra 7 265 + Intel Arc A350

Power Build

System Balance Analysis

Intel Core Ultra 7 265

Intel Arc A350

Market Position

Game Performance Benchmarks

Cyberpunk 2077

Red Dead Redemption 2

Microsoft Flight Simulator

Control

Call of Duty: Warzone

Fortnite

Performance Insights

Strong Performance

Bottleneck Detected

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 tied strictly to the measured performance

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

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

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

FAQ

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