SYSTEM ANALYZER

Rate My PC: Intel Core Ultra 7 265 + NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5080 SUPER

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

88 / 100
HIGH-END

Power Build

Top 12% of systems. Excellent for 1440p Ultra or 4K High gaming.

1440p Ultra4K High

System Balance Analysis

CPU vs GPU performance ratio
Well Balanced
CPU
96%
VS
GPU
79%
PROCESSOR

Intel Core Ultra 7 265

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

NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5080 SUPER

3,075 Benchmark Score
Top 21% 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 7 265 and NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5080 SUPER pairing presents a fascinating data anomaly. While the CPU sits in the 93rd percentile of all processors, the GPU’s benchmark percentile is surprisingly low at 19, creating a massive imbalance that warrants deep investigation. This analysis relies strictly on the provided benchmark data, which contains no measured FPS rows for this exact combination; therefore, all gaming performance discussions are estimates derived from the synthetic scores.

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 specific CPU+GPU pairing. The `measuredFpsUltraByGame` field is empty, and the `dataIsMeasured` flag is false. Consequently, all frame-rate expectations must be inferred from the benchmark scores, and any figures presented are estimates rather than empirical results.

The GPU’s sole benchmark, 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12, returns a score of 3075. This score places the RTX 5080 SUPER at the 19th percentile of all GPUs, which is unusually low for a card with 24 GB of GDDR7 memory and 10752 shading units. Interpreting this requires caution: the low percentile may indicate that the 3DMark test is not representative of the GPU's full capabilities, or that the score itself is an outlier relative to the hardware specifications. The CPU’s Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 42216 suggests a very strong processor, which should not bottleneck a high-end GPU in most scenarios.

Given the CPU’s 93rd percentile standing and the GPU’s raw specifications (56.28 TFLOPS FP32, 879.3 GTexel/s texture rate), the estimated gaming performance at 1080p and 1440p ultra settings would likely be excellent for most titles. The CPU’s high single-thread score (5960 in Cinebench R23) ensures that frame pacing and physics calculations are handled efficiently. However, the GPU’s percentile suggests that the RTX 5080 SUPER may not deliver the expected frame rates relative to other GPUs in the database. The estimated FPS figures would be high in absolute terms—likely well above 60 FPS in demanding titles—but the relative performance compared to the GPU’s peers is questionable.

At 4K resolution, the GPU becomes the primary determinant of frame rates. With 1.02 TB/s of memory bandwidth and 24 GB of VRAM, the card is technically equipped for high-resolution textures and heavy asset streaming. The estimated FPS at 4K ultra would depend heavily on the game's optimization; the data suggests the GPU could handle 4K, but the low percentile score introduces uncertainty. Without measured data, the estimates are purely speculative, and the discrepancy between the GPU’s specifications and its percentile ranking is a significant red flag that cannot be resolved from the available information.

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

The Intel Core Ultra 7 265 delivers a Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 42216, placing it in the 93rd percentile of all CPUs. Its single-core score of 5960 is equally impressive, and the Passmark multithread score of 49682 reinforces the CPU’s strong multi-threaded performance. The average benchmark score for the CPU is 64640, which is within 0.3% of the AMD EPYC 4464P (64823) and 0.7% of the AMD EPYC 7343 (64202). This places the Ultra 7 265 in enterprise-class territory for compute workloads, despite being a desktop part.

The NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5080 SUPER’s only benchmark score is 3075 in 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12. This score places the GPU in the 19th percentile, which is dramatically lower than expected for a card with 24 GB of GDDR7 memory and 336 tensor cores. The nearest rivals are the NVIDIA Quadro P1000 (3163, delta -2.8%), the Intel Arc Pro B60 (3182, delta -3.4%), and the NVIDIA GeForce 820A (2983, delta 3.1%). These rivals are all low-end or older GPUs, which suggests that the 3DMark score may be a misrepresentation of the RTX 5080 SUPER’s true gaming performance, or that the benchmark itself is not optimized for this architecture.

The combined picture is paradoxical. The CPU is a top-tier performer, while the GPU appears to be a bottom-tier performer based on the percentile. The combined percentile for the build is 56, which is the midpoint of the distribution. This suggests that the pairing is not balanced: the CPU is pulling the build up, while the GPU is dragging it down. The data implies that the RTX 5080 SUPER may have a driver issue, a thermal throttle, or a benchmark-specific problem, as the hardware specifications do not align with the score. For real-world workloads, the CPU would excel in multi-threaded tasks like video rendering, while the GPU’s actual gaming capability remains unproven by the available data.

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

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

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

Q: What is the GPU’s 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 score?

A: The NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5080 SUPER scores 3075 in 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12, placing it in the 19th percentile of all GPUs.

Q: What are the closest CPU rivals to the Core Ultra 7 265?

A: The nearest rivals are the AMD EPYC 4464P (avg score 64823, 0.3% higher), Intel Core Ultra 7 265F (avg score 64438, 0.3% lower), AMD EPYC 7343 (avg score 64202, 0.7% lower), and AMD EPYC 9124 (avg score 65104, 0.7% higher).

Q: How much memory bandwidth does the GPU have?

A: The RTX 5080 SUPER has 1.02 TB/s of memory bandwidth, paired with 24 GB of GDDR7 memory on a 256-bit bus.

Q: What is the CPU’s TDP?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 7 265 has a TDP of 65 watts, which is low for a 20-core processor.

Q: Does the CPU support ECC memory?

A: No, the Core Ultra 7 265 does not support ECC memory; it supports DDR5 memory in a dual-channel configuration.

Q: What is the GPU’s boost clock speed?

A: The RTX 5080 SUPER has a boost clock of 2617 MHz and a base clock of 2295 MHz.

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

The data reveals a stark bottleneck scenario. The CPU’s 93rd percentile score indicates it is a high-end processor, while the GPU’s 19th percentile score suggests it is a low-end performer in the benchmark database. In gaming workloads, the GPU is the limiting factor. The estimated FPS scaling would be poor at higher resolutions: the CPU can easily feed frames, but the GPU cannot render them fast enough. The 3DMark score of 3075 implies that the RTX 5080 SUPER would struggle to maintain high frame rates in demanding games, despite its 24 GB VRAM and 56.28 TFLOPS FP32 compute power.

In compute workloads, the CPU is the limiting factor for tasks that require massive parallel processing, but the GPU’s low score means it would not provide acceleration. The CPU’s Passmark multithread score of 49682 and Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 42216 indicate that it can handle heavy multi-threaded tasks like video encoding and 3D rendering. However, the GPU’s 3DMark score suggests it would not offload rendering tasks effectively. For example, in a 3D rendering application that uses GPU acceleration, the CPU would wait for the GPU to complete its work, creating a bottleneck.

The combined percentile of 56 reflects this imbalance. The CPU is a top-tier part, but the GPU drags the overall system down. In single-threaded workloads, the CPU’s score of 5960 (Cinebench R23) and 4689 (Passmark single-thread) ensure that the system is responsive, but the GPU’s low score means that any GPU-accelerated task would be slow. The data implies that this pairing is only sensible if the GPU’s 3DMark score is a false negative; otherwise, the RTX 5080 SUPER would be a severe bottleneck for the Core Ultra 7 265.

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

The RTX 5080 SUPER is equipped with 24 GB of GDDR7 memory, delivering 1.02 TB/s of bandwidth over a 256-bit bus. The memory clock is 2000 MHz, with an effective transfer rate of 32 Gbps. The GPU has 10752 shading units, 336 TMUs, and 112 ROPs. The base clock is 2295 MHz, and the boost clock is 2617 MHz. The pixel rate is 293.1 GPixel/s, and the texture rate is 879.3 GTexel/s. The FP32 compute is 56.28 TFLOPS, with FP16 at 56.28 TFLOPS (1:1 ratio). The card has 84 RT cores and 336 tensor cores, which are essential for ray tracing and DLSS.

The 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 score of 3075 is the only benchmark data for this GPU. Given the hardware specs, this score is anomalously low. The RTX 5080 SUPER should be capable of high-end rendering, but the benchmark suggests otherwise. The 19th percentile ranking places it near the NVIDIA Quadro P1000 (3163) and Intel Arc Pro B60 (3182), which are not gaming-focused GPUs. This could indicate that the 3DMark test is not suited for this architecture, or that the GPU is throttling during the test.

For rendering workloads, the 24 GB VRAM is a significant advantage, allowing for large scenes and high-resolution textures without memory swapping. The 1.02 TB/s bandwidth ensures fast data transfer, and the 336 tensor cores can accelerate AI-based rendering tasks like denoising. However, the low benchmark score suggests that the GPU may not deliver the expected performance in real-world rendering applications. The data does not provide any rendering-specific benchmarks, so the actual capability remains uncertain. The RT cores (84) and tensor cores (336) are present but their effectiveness is not validated by the 3DMark score.

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 CPU’s 93rd percentile ranking and single-core score of 5960 (Cinebench R23) provide a strong foundation for high-refresh gaming. However, the GPU’s 19th percentile score and 3DMark result of 3075 would likely cap frame rates below what the CPU can support. Estimated FPS would be high but inconsistent, making this pairing questionable for 144Hz or 240Hz monitors.

Streaming: The CPU’s 20 cores and 20 threads, combined with a Passmark multithread score of 49682, can handle game capture and encoding simultaneously. The GPU’s 336 tensor cores could assist with NVENC, but the low benchmark score suggests potential issues. Streamers would rely on the CPU’s strength, but the GPU’s rendering capability is unproven.

Video editing: The CPU’s Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 42216 is excellent for timeline rendering and effects processing. The GPU’s 24 GB VRAM is useful for previewing high-resolution footage, but the 3DMark score of 3075 indicates that GPU-accelerated effects may not perform as expected. The CPU would be the primary workhorse.

3D rendering: The CPU’s 93rd percentile makes it ideal for CPU-based rendering, with a Passmark floating-point math score of 172776. The GPU’s 56.28 TFLOPS FP32 and 84 RT cores should accelerate ray tracing, but the low benchmark score undermines confidence. The 24 GB VRAM is ample, but the rendering performance is uncertain.

Software development: The CPU’s Passmark data compression score of 522983 and integer math score of 134773 indicate strong compile and data processing capabilities. The GPU is less relevant for development, but its low score suggests it would not hinder routine tasks. The system would excel at compilation, testing, and virtualization.

Student and office work: The CPU’s 65-watt TDP and high single-thread score (4689 Passmark) make it efficient for everyday tasks. The GPU’s 24 GB VRAM is overkill for office applications, but the low benchmark score does not affect productivity. The system would be responsive and capable for document editing, web browsing, and spreadsheet analysis.

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

The target user for this build is a content creator who prioritizes CPU performance over GPU gaming capability. The Intel Core Ultra 7 265’s 93rd percentile ranking and Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 42216 make it ideal for video editors and 3D artists who rely on CPU rendering. The GPU’s 24 GB VRAM supports large datasets, but the 19th percentile score suggests that gamers at 4K ultra settings would be disappointed with the estimated frame rates.

Software developers would benefit from the CPU’s Passmark integer math score of 134773 and data encryption score of 40456, which indicate fast compilation and secure data handling. Students and office workers would appreciate the low 65-watt TDP, which reduces cooling requirements, and the CPU’s high single-thread score of 4689 ensures snappy responsiveness. Small business workstations that run multi-threaded applications like database management (Passmark data compression score of 522983) would also benefit.

However, gamers seeking high-refresh 1440p or 4K performance should avoid this build due to the GPU’s low benchmark score. The estimated FPS would be below what the CPU can deliver, creating a bottleneck. The RTX 5080 SUPER’s 3DMark score of 3075 places it near entry-level GPUs, which is a mismatch for the high-end CPU. The build is better suited for CPU-bound workloads where the GPU’s rendering capability is secondary.

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, as indicated by the `buildClass` field. The pairing consists of the Intel Core Ultra 7 265, a 20-core, 20-thread processor from the Core Ultra Series 2, and the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5080 SUPER, a 50-series GPU with 24 GB of GDDR7 memory. The combined percentile for the build is 56, which places it in the middle of the database distribution. However, this average is misleading because the CPU is in the 93rd percentile and the GPU is in the 19th percentile.

The CPU is a high-end desktop processor with a boost clock of 5.30 GHz and a TDP of 65 watts. The GPU is a dual-slot card with a TDP of 415 watts and a boost clock of 2617 MHz. The build is designed for desktop use, with PCIe Gen 5 support (20 CPU lanes) and DDR5 memory support. The overall tier is mixed: the CPU is top-tier, while the GPU appears to be bottom-tier based on the benchmark percentile. This creates a system that is powerful for compute tasks but potentially weak for gaming.

The launch MSRP for the CPU is $394, and the GPU has a launch MSRP of 999 USD. The build’s combined percentile of 56 suggests it is not a balanced system; it is a high-end CPU paired with a GPU that may not deliver commensurate gaming performance. The data implies that this is a workstation-oriented build, despite the GPU’s gaming-oriented branding.

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

The Intel Core Ultra 7 265 has 20 cores and 20 threads, with a base clock of 2.40 GHz and a boost clock of 5.30 GHz. It is built on a 3 nm process node (TSMC) with 17,800 million transistors on a 243 mm² die. The architecture is Arrow Lake-S, and it uses the Intel Socket 1851. The cache hierarchy includes 192 KB of L1 cache per core, 3 MB of L2 cache per core, and 30 MB of shared L3 cache. The CPU supports dual-channel DDR5 memory with a bandwidth of 102.4 GB/s.

The Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 42216 places the CPU in the 93rd percentile, indicating excellent multi-threaded performance. The single-core score of 5960 is also strong, with a Passmark single-thread score of 4689. The Passmark multithread score of 49682 confirms the CPU’s ability to handle parallel workloads. For real-world tasks, this means fast video rendering (Cinebench R20 multi-core score of 6268), efficient data compression (Passmark score of 522983), and strong floating-point math (172776).

The CPU’s TDP of 65 watts is remarkably low for a 20-core processor, which suggests high power efficiency. The integrated graphics are Arc Xe-LPG Graphics with 32 execution units, which are suitable for basic display output but not gaming. The CPU does not have an unlocked multiplier, so overclocking is not supported. The nearest rivals are AMD EPYC server processors, indicating that this desktop CPU competes with enterprise parts in compute performance. The data shows that the CPU is a workhorse for multi-threaded applications, making it a strong choice for content creation and scientific computing.

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

The platform is based on the Intel Socket 1851, which supports the Core Ultra Series 2 processors. The CPU supports dual-channel DDR5 memory, but ECC memory is not supported. The PCIe interface is Gen 5 with 20 CPU lanes, providing high bandwidth for storage and expansion cards. The GPU uses a PCIe 5.0 x16 interface, which is fully compatible.

The CPU has a TDP of 65 watts, while the GPU has a TDP of 415 watts. The suggested PSU is not provided in the data, but the combined TDP of 480 watts suggests that a high-wattage power supply is necessary. The GPU requires a single 16-pin power connector, and the card is 304 mm long, so case compatibility must be considered.

A sensible next upgrade would be to replace the GPU, given its low 19th percentile score. The CPU’s 93rd percentile ranking leaves headroom for a more powerful GPU. However, the data does not specify which GPU would be a better match. Alternatively, adding more DDR5 memory could improve performance in memory-intensive tasks, but the dual-channel configuration is already optimal for the platform. The CPU’s 20 PCIe Gen 5 lanes allow for high-speed NVMe storage, which could be a worthwhile upgrade for data-heavy workloads. The platform supports the current CPU and GPU, but the GPU’s performance is the limiting factor, so a GPU upgrade would be the most impactful change.