SYSTEM ANALYZER

Rate My PC: Intel Core Ultra 7 265 + NVIDIA Quadro RTX 4000

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)

▼

93 Score

Top 7% Ranking

93 / 100

ULTIMATE READY

Apex Performer

Top 7% 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

96%

GPU

90%

PROCESSOR

Intel Core Ultra 7 265

64,640 Benchmark Score

Top 4% Market Ranking

View Full Specs →

GRAPHICS CARD

NVIDIA Quadro RTX 4000

17,789 Benchmark Score

Top 10% 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

# Intel Core Ultra 7 265 + NVIDIA Quadro RTX 4000: A Desktop Pairing Analysis

The Intel Core Ultra 7 265 and NVIDIA Quadro RTX 4000 form a desktop-class build that sits at the 77th percentile overall, blending a modern 20-core Arrow Lake processor with a workstation-oriented Turing-generation GPU. The CPU is a clear standout, ranking in the 93rd percentile among all CPUs, while the GPU, at the 61st percentile, is the weaker link in the pairing. No measured FPS data exists for this exact combination, so all frame-rate discussions below are estimates derived from the individual benchmark scores of each component.

CPU Analysis

The Intel Core Ultra 7 265 is a 20-core, 20-thread desktop processor built on the Arrow Lake architecture, using a 3 nm process from TSMC. With a base clock of 2.40 GHz and a boost clock of 5.30 GHz, this chip is designed for high throughput in multi-threaded workloads while maintaining strong single-core responsiveness. The lack of Hyper-Threading means the 20 cores operate as 20 threads, a design choice that emphasizes physical cores over logical ones, which can benefit certain workloads like rendering and compilation that scale well with raw core counts.

The CPU's benchmark results paint a picture of a versatile performer. In Cinebench R23, it scores 42,216 points in multi-core and 5,960 in single-core, indicating a substantial gap between its parallel and serial capabilities. The multi-core score places it in a competitive tier where it trades blows with server-class EPYC processors; specifically, it is 0.3% behind the AMD EPYC 4464P, 0.7% behind the AMD EPYC 7343, but 0.7% ahead of the AMD EPYC 9124. This suggests that for heavily threaded workloads like video rendering or 3D scene compilation, the 265 performs at a level comparable to enterprise silicon, despite being a mainstream desktop part.

Single-core performance is equally telling. The Cinebench R20 single-core score of 884 and R15 single-core score of 600 reflect strong per-thread efficiency, which is critical for everyday tasks like application launching, web browsing, and responsive system interaction. PassMark's single-thread score of 4,689 reinforces this, showing that the chip can handle lightweight, latency-sensitive workloads without bottlenecking. In data compression (PassMark score of 522,983) and encryption (40,456), the chip shows robust throughput, making it suitable for database work, file archiving, and secure communications.

The average benchmark score of 64,640 places it at the 93rd percentile of all CPUs, a remarkable position for a desktop processor. Its nearest rival, the Intel Core Ultra 7 265F, scores nearly identically (64,438, a 0.3% difference), confirming that the integrated graphics on this model do not detract from processing power. The L3 cache of 30 MB shared across cores, combined with 3 MB of L2 per core and 192 KB of L1 per core, provides ample on-die storage for frequently accessed data, reducing memory latency in compute-heavy tasks.

Upgrade Path and Platform

The Intel Core Ultra 7 265 uses the Intel Socket 1851, which is exclusive to the Core Ultra Series 2 generation. This means any motherboard purchase must be a newer model supporting this socket; there is no backward compatibility with older LGA1700 boards. Memory support is DDR5 in a dual-channel configuration, with a theoretical bandwidth of 102.4 GB/s. This is a modern memory standard, offering higher speeds and lower power consumption compared to DDR4, though the system does not support ECC memory, which may be a consideration for users building a workstation for error-sensitive computations.

PCIe connectivity is provided via Gen 5 with 20 lanes from the CPU, enabling fast attachment for the latest NVMe SSDs and GPUs. However, the Quadro RTX 4000 in this build uses a PCIe 3.0 x16 interface, which means it will not fully utilize the Gen 5 bandwidth available on the platform. This is a mismatch in generations, but in practice, the GPU's 8 GB of GDDR6 memory and 256-bit bus will not be significantly hampered by the older interface for most workloads, as 3D rendering and compute tasks rely more on memory bandwidth than on PCIe throughput.

The CPU's TDP is rated at 65 W, which is low for a 20-core processor, indicating efficient power management at stock settings. The GPU, however, has a TDP of 160 W, and the suggested PSU for the entire system is 450 W. This leaves ample headroom for a capable air cooler for the CPU and a single 8-pin power connector for the GPU. A sensible next upgrade would be to replace the Quadro RTX 4000 with a newer GPU that supports PCIe Gen 4 or Gen 5, thereby taking full advantage of the motherboard's capabilities. Alternatively, adding more DDR5 memory (if the board has free slots) would improve memory-bound tasks, though the current dual-channel setup at 102.4 GB/s is already competitive.

Usage Scenarios

High-refresh gaming: This pairing is not ideal for high-refresh gaming at 1080p or 1440p. The GPU's PassMark G3D score of 15,117 places it in the 61st percentile, which is modest for modern titles. The CPU's strong single-core performance (5,960 in Cinebench R23 single-core) can push high frame rates, but the GPU will likely cap frame rates in demanding games, making 60-75 FPS at 1080p a realistic estimate for ultra settings in newer releases.

Streaming: For streaming, the CPU is the star. The 20 cores and 20 threads handle encoding workloads well, as evidenced by the PassMark multi-thread score of 49,682. The GPU's lack of modern NVENC hardware (it is Turing-generation, so it has some encoding capabilities, but not the latest) means software encoding via the CPU is viable. The 265's performance in data compression (522,983) suggests it can handle x264 or x265 encoding without tanking frame rates in the game itself.

Video editing: Video editing software like Adobe Premiere or DaVinci Resolve benefits from both CPU and GPU acceleration. The CPU's Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 42,216 indicates strong timeline scrubbing and export performance, while the GPU's 7.119 TFLOPS of FP32 compute and 416.0 GB/s memory bandwidth can accelerate effects and color grading. The 8 GB of VRAM is sufficient for 1080p and 1440p timelines, but 4K projects with heavy effects may exceed this.

3D rendering: This is where the CPU shines brightest. The multi-core scores (Cinebench R15: 4,255, R20: 6,268) are competitive with server chips, making the 265 a viable option for CPU-based rendering in Blender or V-Ray. The GPU can assist with GPU-accelerated renders, but its 61st percentile rank means it will be the bottleneck in hybrid renderers. For pure CPU rendering, this build is excellent.

Software development: The 20 threads and high single-core speed (PassMark single-thread: 4,689) are ideal for compilation, which is often single-threaded in early stages and multi-threaded in later ones. The data encryption score of 40,456 suggests strong performance for secure builds. Developers will find this setup responsive for IDEs and fast for build times.

Student and office work: Overkill for most office tasks, but the CPU's efficiency (65 W TDP) means low power draw during light loads. The integrated Arc Xe-LPG Graphics 32EU can handle basic display output, though the Quadro RTX 4000 would be used for any graphics-accelerated tasks. Office suites, web browsing, and spreadsheet work will be instantaneous, and the system can handle occasional video editing or data analysis tasks without issue.

Who Should Build It

The primary target user for this build is a professional or prosumer who needs serious CPU compute power but does not demand top-tier GPU performance. Content creators working in video editing or 3D rendering will find the 20-core CPU a massive asset, especially given its 93rd percentile standing, which is rare in a desktop form factor. The GPU, while weaker, is sufficient for intermediate GPU acceleration and is specifically a workstation card (Quadro series), meaning it is certified for certain professional applications, offering stability over raw speed.

Software developers, particularly those working on large codebases or doing cross-compilation, will appreciate the thread count and single-core speed. The 20 threads allow for parallel builds, and the fast single-core performance reduces latency in interactive development. Students in engineering or data science fields can benefit from the CPU's multi-threaded capabilities for simulations or data processing, though they may find the GPU limiting for deep learning workloads that require more VRAM.

Small business workstations that run database queries, financial modeling, or server-like tasks locally will see strong performance from the CPU's PassMark scores in compression (522,983) and integer math (134,773). The 65 W TDP keeps operating costs low, and the 450 W PSU suggestion means a modest power supply is sufficient, reducing initial build cost. However, gamers at 4K resolution should look elsewhere, as the GPU will not deliver high frame rates at that resolution in modern titles.

Balance and Bottleneck

The data clearly shows a CPU-heavy imbalance in this pairing. The CPU sits at the 93rd percentile of all CPUs, while the GPU is at the 61st percentile. This means in any workload that uses both components, the GPU will be the limiting factor. For example, in gaming, the CPU can easily generate frames at a high rate, but the GPU's PassMark G3D score of 15,117 will cap the output. Specifically, the CPU's single-core performance (5,960 in Cinebench R23) is more than sufficient for 144Hz gaming at 1080p, but the GPU's 7.119 TFLOPS of FP32 compute suggests it will struggle to maintain 144 FPS in AAA titles, likely settling in the 60-80 FPS range at ultra settings.

In GPU-compute workloads, the bottleneck is even more pronounced. The GPU's PassMark GPU Compute score of 6,176 is below the CPU's PassMark multi-thread score of 49,682, indicating that for tasks like machine learning inference or physics simulations, the CPU may actually outperform the GPU, which is unusual. This suggests that the build is better suited for CPU-bound tasks, and the GPU should be viewed as a supplementary accelerator rather than the primary compute engine.

The memory system is another potential bottleneck. The CPU supports DDR5 at 102.4 GB/s, but the GPU has its own 416.0 GB/s of bandwidth. For data transfer between CPU and GPU, the PCIe 3.0 x16 bus on the GPU is a limitation, as it offers about half the bandwidth of PCIe 4.0 x16. This will affect workloads that stream large datasets to the GPU, such as video editing with 4K footage or large 3D scenes, where the transfer can become a bottleneck.

Gaming Performance

No measured FPS data exists for this exact CPU-GPU combination, so the following figures are estimates based on the individual benchmark scores. At 1080p ultra settings, the Quadro RTX 4000's PassMark G3D score of 15,117 suggests it can handle esports titles like Counter-Strike 2 or Valorant at 100-144 FPS, but for AAA games like Cyberpunk 2077 or Assassin's Creed Mirage, expect 50-70 FPS. At 1440p ultra, frame rates would drop to 35-55 FPS in demanding titles, as the 8 GB VRAM and 416 GB/s bandwidth become limiting factors.

The CPU will not be the bottleneck in these scenarios. Its single-core score of 5,960 in Cinebench R23 ensures that even at high FPS, the processor can keep up with the GPU's output. At 4K ultra, the GPU is likely to struggle, with estimates of 25-40 FPS in modern AAA titles, pushing the game into unplayable territory for high-refresh monitors. The 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 score of 1,873 is low by modern standards, indicating that the GPU is not designed for high-end gaming, but rather for stability and accuracy in professional applications.

Benchmark Performance

The CPU's average benchmark score is 64,640, placing it at the 93rd percentile of all CPUs. This is a top-tier result, rivaling server processors like the AMD EPYC 4464P (64,823, 0.3% ahead) and EPYC 9124 (65,104, 0.7% ahead). In Cinebench R23, the multi-core score of 42,216 is particularly strong, indicating that the chip can handle sustained all-core loads without thermal throttling, thanks to its 65 W TDP. The single-core score of 5,960 is equally impressive, showing that the architecture does not sacrifice per-thread performance for core count.

The GPU's average benchmark score is 17,789, putting it at the 61st percentile of all GPUs. This is a mid-range result, with the nearest rival being the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4060 (17,639, 0.9% behind) and the AMD Radeon 780M (17,588, 1.1% behind). The GPU's PassMark G3D score of 15,117 is its highest single benchmark, but the low DirectX 12 score of 52 and DirectX 11 score of 128 suggest that it is not optimized for modern gaming APIs. In contrast, the Geekbench OpenCL score of 74,540 and Vulkan score of 78,844 indicate that the GPU is better suited for compute tasks like rendering or scientific calculations.

Combining the two, the build's overall percentile is 77, which is respectable but not exceptional. The CPU carries the load, while the GPU drags the average down. For users who prioritize CPU-heavy workloads, this is a well-balanced system, but for GPU-intensive tasks, it is clearly under-powered.

Build Overview

This is a desktop build (buildClass: desktop) that pairs a top-tier CPU with a mid-tier workstation GPU. The Intel Core Ultra 7 265 is a 20-core, 20-thread processor from the Core Ultra Series 2, released in January 2025, with a launch MSRP of $394. The NVIDIA Quadro RTX 4000 is an end-of-life workstation GPU from 2018, with a launch MSRP of $899, based on the Turing architecture. The combined percentile of 77 indicates that this system is better than 77% of all builds in the database, but the gap between the CPU's 93rd percentile and the GPU's 61st percentile is stark.

The system class is desktop, meaning it is intended for stationary use, with the CPU's 65 W TDP and the GPU's 160 W TDP requiring a 450 W power supply. The Quadro RTX 4000 is a single-slot card, 241 mm in length, making it easy to fit in most cases. The build is best described as a "workstation-lite" or "productivity powerhouse" that can handle gaming at moderate settings but is optimized for compute and content creation.

FAQ

Q: What is the CPU's performance percentile?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 7 265 is at the 93rd percentile of all CPUs, with an average benchmark score of 64,640.

Q: How does the GPU compare to its nearest rival?

A: The Quadro RTX 4000 has an average benchmark score of 17,789, which is 0.9% ahead of the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4060 (17,639) and 1.1% ahead of the AMD Radeon 780M (17,588).

Q: What is the memory bandwidth of the CPU?

A: The CPU supports dual-channel DDR5 memory with a theoretical bandwidth of 102.4 GB/s.

Q: Is the GPU's VRAM sufficient for 4K gaming?

A: The GPU has 8 GB of GDDR6 memory with a 256-bit bus and 416.0 GB/s bandwidth, which is likely insufficient for 4K gaming at ultra settings, as estimates suggest 25-40 FPS in modern titles.

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

A: The CPU has a TDP of 65 W, and the GPU has a TDP of 160 W, with a suggested PSU of 450 W for the entire system.

Q: Does the CPU support ECC memory?

A: No, the CPU does not support ECC memory, which may be a consideration for error-sensitive computing tasks.

Q: What is the GPU's architecture and process node?

A: The GPU is based on the Turing architecture with a 12 nm process node from TSMC, and it has 36 RT cores and 288 tensor cores.

GPU Analysis

The NVIDIA Quadro RTX 4000 is a professional workstation GPU based on the Turing architecture, using a 12 nm process from TSMC. It features 2,304 shading units, 144 texture mapping units, and 64 raster output units, with 36 RT cores and 288 tensor cores for ray tracing and AI acceleration. The GPU has a base clock of 1005 MHz and a boost clock of 1545 MHz, with memory running at 1625 MHz (13 Gbps effective) across a 256-bit bus, providing 416.0 GB/s of memory bandwidth. The 8 GB of GDDR6 memory is its most limiting factor for modern workloads, as larger datasets and higher resolutions will exceed this capacity.

The GPU's benchmark results show a mixed profile. Its 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 score of 1,873 is low, indicating poor performance in modern gaming APIs, but its Geekbench OpenCL score of 74,540 and Vulkan score of 78,844 are respectable for compute tasks. The PassMark G3D score of 15,117 places it at the 61st percentile, on par with the GeForce RTX 4060, but the DirectX 12 score of 52 and DirectX 11 score of 128 are far below what a gaming GPU would achieve, suggesting that the card is not optimized for real-time graphics. The FP32 performance of 7.119 TFLOPS is adequate for double-precision compute tasks, but the FP16 performance of 14.24 TFLOPS (2:1) indicates that it can accelerate certain AI workloads.

For rendering, the GPU's pixel rate of 98.88 GPixel/s and texture rate of 222.5 GTexel/s are moderate, allowing for decent performance in 3D applications like SolidWorks or AutoCAD, which are certified for Quadro drivers. The PCIe 3.0 x16 interface is a bottleneck when transferring large datasets, but the single-slot form factor and 241 mm length make it easy to install. The card is end-of-life (released in November 2018), so driver support may diminish over time, but for its intended professional market, it still offers a stable, if aging, compute platform.

Rate My PC: Intel Core Ultra 7 265 + NVIDIA Quadro RTX 4000

Apex Performer

System Balance Analysis

Intel Core Ultra 7 265

NVIDIA Quadro RTX 4000

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

CPU Analysis

Upgrade Path and Platform

Usage Scenarios

Who Should Build It

Balance and Bottleneck

Gaming Performance

Benchmark Performance

Build Overview

FAQ

GPU Analysis

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