SYSTEM ANALYZER

Rate My PC: Intel Core Ultra 7 265F + Intel Arc A310

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

90 / 100
ULTIMATE READY

Apex Performer

Top 10% 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%
VS
GPU
85%
PROCESSOR

Intel Core Ultra 7 265F

64,438 Benchmark Score
Top 4% Market Ranking
View Full Specs →
GRAPHICS CARD

Intel Arc A310

7,550 Benchmark Score
Top 15% 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

CPU Analysis

The Intel Core Ultra 7 265F is a 20-core, 20-thread desktop processor built on the Arrow Lake architecture, representing Intel's Core Ultra Series 2 lineup. Fabricated on a 3 nm process at TSMC, the chip packs 17,800 million transistors into a 243 mm² die. The base clock sits at 2.40 GHz with a boost clock reaching 5.30 GHz, though the multiplier is locked, meaning overclocking headroom is limited by design. The cache hierarchy includes 192 KB of L1 per core, 3 MB of L2 per core, and a shared 30 MB L3 pool. Memory support is dual-channel DDR5, with a rated memory bandwidth of 102.4 GB/s. The CPU connects via PCIe Gen 5 with 20 lanes from the processor itself. Notably, this chip has no integrated graphics, so a discrete GPU is mandatory for any display output.

Benchmark results paint a picture of a strong multi-threaded performer. In Cinebench R23, the 265F scores 41,980 points in multi-core and 5,926 in single-core. The R20 run yields 17,631 multi-core and 2,488 single-core, while R15 shows 4,231 and 597 respectively. PassMark results reinforce the multi-threaded strength: multithread score of 49,410, integer math at 138,078, floating-point math at 173,855, and data compression at 507,018. The single-thread PassMark score is 4,750. The average benchmark score across all tests is 64,438, placing the chip in the 93rd percentile among all CPUs. Compared to its nearest rivals, the 265F sits within a tight band: it trails the Intel Core Ultra 7 265 by 0.3%, sits 0.4% ahead of the AMD EPYC 7343, lags the AMD EPYC 4464P by 0.6%, and beats the Intel Core i9-13900KS by 0.6%. These are marginal deltas, indicating the 265F is competitively positioned at the top tier of desktop processors.

For real workloads, the data suggests the 265F excels in heavily threaded tasks like video encoding, 3D rendering, and software compilation. The PassMark physics score of 3,172 and find prime numbers score of 416 indicate strong integer and floating-point throughput. The data encryption score of 39,468 and extended instructions score of 39,235 further confirm the chip handles cryptographic workloads and AVX-class instructions with ease. The 93rd percentile ranking means only about 7% of all CPUs in the database outperform it on average, making it a high-end choice for productivity-focused builds. The 65 W TDP is notably modest for the performance level, suggesting efficient power delivery in sustained workloads.

GPU Analysis

The Intel Arc A310 is a compact entry-level graphics card based on the Xe-HPG architecture, specifically the DG2-128 chip fabricated on TSMC's 6 nm process. The die contains 7,200 million transistors across a 157 mm² area, yielding a transistor density of 45.9 million per mm². The GPU operates at a fixed clock of 1750 MHz for both base and boost, with memory running at 1937 MHz (15.5 Gbps effective). It features 4 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 64-bit bus, providing 124.0 GB/s of bandwidth. The compute configuration includes 768 shading units, 32 texture mapping units, and 16 raster output units. Ray tracing hardware is present with 6 RT cores, though tensor core count is not specified. Pixel rate is 28.00 GPixel/s, texture rate is 56.00 GTexel/s, and FP32 throughput is 2.688 TFLOPS, with FP16 at 5.376 TFLOPS (2:1 ratio). The card is single-slot, requires no power connectors, and has a TDP of just 30 W, with a suggested PSU of 200 W. It interfaces via PCIe 4.0 x8 and offers four mini-DisplayPort 2.0 outputs. API support includes DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4.

Benchmark results show a modest performer. The Geekbench OpenCL score is 30,607, and Vulkan score is 28,964. PassMark results are less flattering: DirectX 10 at 31, DirectX 11 at 33, DirectX 12 at 29, and DirectX 9 at 69. The G2D score is 625, G3D is 5,433, and GPU compute is 2,157. The average benchmark score is 7,550, placing the A310 in the 40th percentile among all GPUs. Its nearest rivals are all similarly positioned: it trails the AMD Radeon R7 250 by 0.1%, sits 0.4% behind the AMD Radeon Pro WX 3100, beats the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 by 1%, and leads the AMD Radeon HD 8850M by 1.4%. These are essentially statistical ties, placing the A310 in the lower-mid range of GPU performance.

For rendering and compute workloads, the A310's FP32 throughput of 2.688 TFLOPS is the headline figure. The 4 GB VRAM with 124.0 GB/s bandwidth is sufficient for light texture work but will bottleneck at higher resolutions or with large assets. The presence of 6 RT cores means ray-traced effects are technically supported, but the low compute throughput suggests real-time ray tracing will struggle. The DirectX 12 score of 29 in PassMark indicates modern API workloads run at a basic level. The 40th percentile ranking means the A310 outperforms only about 40% of GPUs in the database, firmly establishing it as an entry-level part suited for basic display output, light gaming, and 2D productivity rather than demanding 3D work.

Benchmark Performance

The combined picture from benchmark data shows a stark contrast between the CPU and GPU. The Intel Core Ultra 7 265F achieves an average benchmark score of 64,438, placing it in the 93rd percentile of all CPUs. Its nearest rival deltas are all under 1%: 0.3% behind the Core Ultra 7 265, 0.4% ahead of the EPYC 7343, 0.6% behind the EPYC 4464P, and 0.6% ahead of the Core i9-13900KS. This indicates the 265F is statistically indistinguishable from the top-tier competition in aggregate performance. Specific CPU scores include Cinebench R23 multi-core of 41,980 and single-core of 5,926, PassMark multithread of 49,410, and PassMark single-thread of 4,750.

The Intel Arc A310, by contrast, posts an average benchmark score of 7,550, landing in the 40th percentile of all GPUs. Its nearest rival deltas are similarly tight: 0.1% behind the Radeon R7 250, 0.4% behind the Radeon Pro WX 3100, 1% ahead of the GTX 1650, and 1.4% ahead of the Radeon HD 8850M. Key GPU scores include Geekbench OpenCL of 30,607, Vulkan of 28,964, and PassMark G3D of 5,433. The combined percentile for this CPU-GPU pairing is 67, reflecting the substantial gap between the processor's high-end standing and the graphics card's entry-level positioning.

The combined picture is one of extreme imbalance. The CPU is a top-7% performer, while the GPU sits in the lower half of the database. This pairing will deliver exceptional CPU-bound productivity performance, but graphics-bound tasks will be severely limited by the A310. The combined percentile of 67 is pulled down entirely by the GPU; without the A310's low score, the CPU alone would anchor the system much higher. For workloads that depend primarily on the processor, this build performs at a premium level. For anything GPU-accelerated, the system performs at entry-level.

Balance and Bottleneck

The data clearly identifies the GPU as the bottleneck in this pairing. The CPU's 93rd percentile ranking versus the GPU's 40th percentile creates a massive performance gap. In CPU-bound workloads like software compilation, data processing, or multi-threaded rendering, the 265F will operate at near-peak efficiency, with the A310 only needed for display output. However, in GPU-bound scenarios like gaming, 3D rendering, or video encoding with hardware acceleration, the A310's 2.688 TFLOPS FP32 throughput and 4 GB VRAM will cap performance far below what the CPU can feed.

The FPS scaling evidence, while not measured for this exact combination, can be inferred from the percentile disparity. A GPU in the 40th percentile with an average benchmark score of 7,550 will produce frame rates consistent with entry-level parts like the GTX 1650, which it edges by 1%. The CPU, with an average score of 64,438, could theoretically support a GPU several tiers higher without becoming the limiting factor. The PassMark GPU compute score of 2,157 further confirms the A310's limited throughput for compute-heavy tasks. In balanced workloads, the CPU will frequently idle waiting on the GPU to finish frame rendering or data processing. The 30 W TDP of the GPU versus the 65 W TDP of the CPU also highlights the disparity in capability per watt, though the CPU's power draw is modest for its class.

The practical consequence is that any upgrade path should prioritize the GPU first. Replacing the A310 with a higher-percentile graphics card would unlock the 265F's full potential in graphics-bound tasks. Until then, the system is effectively GPU-limited in most interactive workloads.

Gaming Performance

No measured FPS data exists for this exact CPU-GPU combination. The FACT PACK contains no measuredFps rows, so all frame rate figures below are estimates derived from the benchmark scores of each component. The A310's PassMark G3D score of 5,433 and its 40th percentile ranking, alongside its nearest rival being the GTX 1650 at a 1% delta, suggest that gaming performance will align with that entry-level class of GPU. The 4 GB VRAM and 124.0 GB/s bandwidth will handle 1080p gaming with reduced settings, but the 64-bit memory bus will limit texture streaming and high-resolution assets.

At 1080p with low to medium settings, the A310 can be expected to deliver playable frame rates in esports titles and older games, consistent with its DirectX 11 score of 33 and DirectX 12 score of 29 in PassMark. Modern AAA titles will likely require significant settings reductions to maintain 30 FPS. At 1440p, the 4 GB VRAM becomes a hard constraint, with many titles exceeding that capacity at higher quality presets. The CPU's high single-thread score of 5,926 in Cinebench R23 and PassMark single-thread of 4,750 ensure that the 265F will never be the bottleneck in gaming; it can feed frames far faster than the A310 can render them. Ray-traced gaming is technically possible via the 6 RT cores, but the low FP32 throughput will make RT performance marginal at best. For a system with this CPU, the gaming experience is entirely dictated by the GPU's entry-level capabilities.

Upgrade Path and Platform

The Intel Core Ultra 7 265F uses the Intel Socket 1851 platform, which supports dual-channel DDR5 memory with a rated bandwidth of 102.4 GB/s. The CPU provides PCIe Gen 5 with 20 lanes, offering ample bandwidth for modern storage and graphics cards. The platform supports ECC memory? No, ECC is not supported. The CPU's 65 W TDP is modest, and the GPU's 30 W TDP with a suggested PSU of 200 W means the total system power draw is low, allowing for compact power supplies. The GPU is end-of-life, with its successor being Battlemage, so replacements will eventually arrive on newer architectures.

A sensible next upgrade is the graphics card. The CPU's 93rd percentile ranking and high multi-threaded scores mean it can drive much more powerful GPUs without bottlenecking. Replacing the A310 with a mid-range or high-end card would dramatically improve gaming and GPU-accelerated workloads. The PCIe 4.0 x8 interface on the A310 is sufficient for its bandwidth needs, but a newer card with PCIe 4.0 x16 would better utilize the CPU's 20 Gen 5 lanes. The platform also supports additional DDR5 memory, though the dual-channel configuration is already in place. The locked multiplier on the CPU limits overclocking, so performance gains would come from component upgrades rather than tuning. The 200 W suggested PSU for the GPU leaves significant headroom for a more powerful card, as the CPU's 65 W TDP keeps total system draw low. A future upgrade could also add a second display or leverage the four mini-DisplayPort 2.0 outputs on the A310, though its successor will likely offer improved performance per watt.

Who Should Build It

This pairing targets users whose primary workloads are CPU-bound and who need only basic graphics output. The 93rd percentile CPU performance makes it ideal for software developers compiling large codebases, data analysts running multi-threaded computations, and students in computer science or engineering programs. The PassMark multithread score of 49,410 and integer math score of 138,078 indicate strong performance in parallel processing tasks. Content creators working with video editing or 3D rendering will benefit from the CPU's 41,980 Cinebench R23 multi-core score, though the A310's 40th percentile GPU performance will limit GPU-accelerated effects and previews.

Gamers at 1080p with low settings and esports titles may find the A310 adequate, but the 40th percentile GPU ranking means this is not a gaming-first build. Small business workstations handling spreadsheets, document processing, and database queries will see excellent responsiveness from the CPU, with the GPU handling dual-monitor setups via its four mini-DisplayPort outputs. The 65 W CPU TDP and 30 W GPU TDP make this an energy-efficient build for office environments. The 30 MB L3 cache and 102.4 GB/s memory bandwidth support data-intensive workloads. However, users needing serious graphics performance should look elsewhere or plan an immediate GPU upgrade, as the A310's 4 GB VRAM and 2.688 TFLOPS FP32 throughput are entry-level figures.

FAQ

Q: What is the CPU's core and thread count?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 7 265F has 20 cores and 20 threads, with a base clock of 2.40 GHz and a boost clock of 5.30 GHz.

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

A: The 265F's average benchmark score is 64,438, placing it 0.3% behind the Core Ultra 7 265, 0.4% ahead of the AMD EPYC 7343, 0.6% behind the AMD EPYC 4464P, and 0.6% ahead of the Core i9-13900KS.

Q: What memory and PCIe support does the platform offer?

A: The CPU supports dual-channel DDR5 memory with 102.4 GB/s bandwidth and provides PCIe Gen 5 with 20 lanes from the CPU.

Q: Does the CPU have integrated graphics?

A: No, the Intel Core Ultra 7 265F has no integrated graphics (N/A), so a discrete GPU is required for display output.

Q: What is the GPU's memory configuration?

A: The Intel Arc A310 has 4 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 64-bit bus, with 124.0 GB/s bandwidth and a memory clock of 1937 MHz (15.5 Gbps effective).

Q: How does the GPU rank among all GPUs?

A: The A310 is in the 40th percentile of all GPUs, with an average benchmark score of 7,550, trailing the Radeon R7 250 by 0.1% and beating the GTX 1650 by 1%.

Q: What is the combined percentile of this CPU-GPU pairing?

A: The combined percentile is 67, reflecting the CPU's high 93rd percentile and the GPU's lower 40th percentile.

Usage Scenarios

High-refresh gaming: This scenario is constrained by the A310's 40th percentile GPU performance. The CPU can easily feed frames, but the GPU's 2.688 TFLOPS FP32 throughput and 4 GB VRAM will limit frame rates to entry-level levels. Esports titles at 1080p low settings may approach high refresh rates, but AAA games will not.

Streaming: The CPU's strong multi-threaded scores, including a PassMark multithread score of 49,410, can handle software encoding for streaming. The GPU's 30 W TDP leaves power headroom, but the A310 lacks the compute muscle for hardware encoding at high quality.

Video editing: The 265F's Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 41,980 accelerates timeline rendering and export. The A310's 4 GB VRAM and 124.0 GB/s bandwidth will struggle with large 4K projects, and GPU-accelerated effects will be slow.

3D rendering: CPU-based rendering excels here, with the 265F's 93rd percentile ranking and 173,855 PassMark floating-point math score. GPU rendering with the A310 is limited by its 2.688 TFLOPS FP32 and 40th percentile ranking, making it unsuitable for production work.

Software development: The 265F is ideal for compilation and testing, with a PassMark integer math score of 138,078 and data compression score of 507,018. The GPU is sufficient for code editors and multiple displays.

Student and office work: The CPU's 65 W TDP and the GPU's 30 W TDP make this an efficient system for word processing, spreadsheets, and web browsing. The 93rd percentile CPU ensures snappy responsiveness, while the A310's four mini-DisplayPort outputs support multi-monitor setups.