SYSTEM ANALYZER

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

64,438 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 265F and Intel Arc A350 pairing represents a fundamentally mismatched desktop configuration, where a high-end 20-core processor is paired with an entry-level discrete GPU. The data indicates this is a workstation-oriented CPU combined with a display adapter, rather than a balanced gaming system.

CPU Analysis

The Intel Core Ultra 7 265F is a 20-core, 20-thread desktop processor built on the Arrow Lake architecture (Arrow Lake-S codename) using a 3 nm process from TSMC. It contains 17,800 million transistors on a 243 mm² die. The CPU operates with a base clock of 2.40 GHz and a boost clock of 5.30 GHz, with a 65 W TDP. It uses the Intel Socket 1851 platform and supports dual-channel DDR5 memory with a bandwidth of 102.4 GB/s.

The cache hierarchy consists of 192 KB L1 per core, 3 MB L2 per core, and 30 MB of shared L3 cache. The processor provides PCIe Gen 5 with 20 lanes from the CPU. It has no integrated graphics and no ECC memory support. The multiplier is locked, and the launch MSRP is $379.

Benchmark results place this CPU in the 93rd percentile of all processors tested. The Cinebench R23 multi-core score is 41,980, while the single-core score is 5,926. In Cinebench R20, the multi-core score is 17,631 and single-core is 2,488. The older Cinebench R15 test yields 4,231 multi-core and 597 single-core.

PassMark results show strong multi-threaded throughput with a multithread score of 49,410 and a single-thread score of 4,750. Data compression reaches 507,018, while encryption scores 39,468. Extended instructions score 39,235, floating-point math scores 173,855, and integer math scores 138,078. Physics testing produces 3,172, and random string sorting scores 62,439. The find prime numbers test scores 416.

The average benchmark score is 64,438. Against its nearest rivals, the Core Ultra 7 265F is 0.3% behind the Intel Core Ultra 7 265 (score 64,640), 0.4% ahead of the AMD EPYC 7343 (score 64,202), 0.6% behind the AMD EPYC 4464P (score 64,823), and 0.6% ahead of the Intel Core i9-13900KS (score 64,051). These minuscule deltas indicate that the 265F performs essentially identically to these competitors in aggregate benchmarks, despite the EPYC chips being server-oriented parts.

For real workloads, the 20-thread count without hyperthreading means the CPU handles heavily threaded tasks like video encoding, 3D rendering, and compilation with substantial throughput. The single-core performance, evidenced by the 5,926 R23 single-core score, is competitive for daily responsiveness and lightly threaded applications. The data compression and encryption scores suggest strong performance in archival tasks and secure data handling.

Benchmark Performance

The CPU’s overall percentile of 93 against all CPUs indicates top-tier processing capability. However, the GPU in this build, the Intel Arc A350, sits at the 50th percentile of all GPUs, with an average benchmark score of zero and no benchmark entries in the data. The combined percentile for this pairing is 72.

The Arc A350 is an Alchemist-generation part (Arc 3 series) based on the Xe-HPG architecture. It uses the DG2-128 chip manufactured on a 6 nm TSMC process with 7,200 million transistors on a 157 mm² die. The GPU has 768 shading units, 48 texture mapping units, and 24 raster output units. It includes 6 ray tracing cores. Clock speeds are fixed at 2000 MHz base and boost, with memory running at 1937 MHz (15.5 Gbps effective). The memory subsystem consists of 4 GB GDDR6 on a 64-bit bus, providing 124.0 GB/s bandwidth.

Compute capabilities are modest: 3.072 TFLOPS FP32 and 6.144 TFLOPS FP16 (2:1 ratio). The pixel rate is 48.00 GPixel/s and texture rate is 96.00 GTexel/s. The card supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. It has a 25 W TDP with a suggested PSU of 200 W, uses a single-slot design, and connects via PCIe 4.0 x8. The card has no display outputs, which is unusual for a GPU.

The combined picture shows a CPU that can handle the most demanding processing tasks with ease, paired with a GPU that is positioned at the midpoint of all GPUs. This creates a severe imbalance where the CPU’s capabilities far outstrip what the GPU can utilize in graphics-intensive applications. In CPU-bound workloads, the system will excel; in GPU-bound scenarios, the Arc A350 will be the limiting factor.

FAQ

Q: Does the Intel Core Ultra 7 265F support ECC memory?

A: No, the FACT PACK indicates ECC memory support is false for this processor.

Q: What is the process node for the Intel Arc A350?

A: The Arc A350 is manufactured on a 6 nm process at TSMC.

Q: How much L3 cache does the Core Ultra 7 265F have?

A: The processor has 30 MB of shared L3 cache.

Q: What is the memory bandwidth of the Arc A350?

A: The GPU has a memory bandwidth of 124.0 GB/s from its 4 GB GDDR6 memory on a 64-bit bus.

Q: What PCIe generation does the CPU support?

A: The Core Ultra 7 265F supports PCIe Gen 5 with 20 lanes from the CPU.

Q: Is the Arc A350 still in production?

A: No, the production status is listed as end-of-life, with Battlemage listed as its successor.

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

A: The combined percentile is 72, reflecting the CPU’s high standing (93rd percentile) tempered by the GPU’s mid-pack position (50th percentile).

Balance and Bottleneck

The data reveals a stark imbalance between the two components. The CPU sits in the 93rd percentile of all processors, while the GPU is in the 50th percentile of all GPUs. This 43-point gap indicates that the GPU will bottleneck the CPU in almost any graphics-intensive workload.

The CPU’s multi-threaded performance, shown by the 41,980 Cinebench R23 score and 49,410 PassMark multithread score, can feed frames far faster than the Arc A350 can render them. The GPU’s 3.072 TFLOPS FP32 compute and 48.00 GPixel/s pixel rate are entry-level figures that will limit frame rates in gaming and graphics applications.

In CPU-bound workloads such as data compression (507,018), encryption (39,468), and integer math (138,078), the system will perform at a high level. The GPU will not interfere with these tasks. However, in gaming, 3D rendering, or any GPU-accelerated workload, the Arc A350 will be the constraining factor. The CPU will often be idle waiting for the GPU to complete its work.

The FPS scaling evidence is absent from the data since no measured FPS rows exist for this exact combination. However, based on the benchmark scores, the CPU’s single-core performance (5,926 in R23) is sufficient for high-refresh gaming in principle, but the GPU’s mid-pack percentile will prevent the system from achieving high frame rates in modern titles.

Memory bandwidth also shows disparity. The CPU accesses 102.4 GB/s of DDR5 bandwidth, while the GPU has 124.0 GB/s of GDDR6 bandwidth. This is unusual, as discrete GPUs typically have far higher bandwidth than system memory. The Arc A350’s narrow 64-bit bus limits its memory throughput, further constraining its performance.

Usage Scenarios

High-refresh gaming: This system is not suitable for high-refresh gaming. The Arc A350’s 50th percentile GPU position and 3.072 TFLOPS FP32 compute will limit frame rates well below what a high-refresh monitor requires. The CPU could easily drive high frame rates, but the GPU cannot keep pace.

Streaming: The CPU’s 20 cores provide ample headroom for encoding and streaming workloads. The 41,980 multi-core score in R23 indicates the processor can handle game capture and encoding simultaneously. However, the GPU’s limited performance means games would need to run at low settings and resolutions to maintain playable frame rates while streaming.

Video editing: The CPU excels in video editing tasks that leverage multi-threaded processing. The data compression score of 507,018 and multithread score of 49,410 suggest fast export times and smooth timeline scrubbing. The GPU’s 4 GB memory and 64-bit bus will limit effects rendering and preview quality, though the DirectX 12 Ultimate support provides modern API compatibility.

3D rendering: CPU-based rendering will be very fast, with the 20 cores providing substantial throughput. The floating-point math score of 173,855 indicates strong compute for rendering calculations. GPU-accelerated rendering will be slow due to the Arc A350’s modest 3.072 TFLOPS FP32 and 6.144 TFLOPS FP16 performance.

Software development: This is a strong use case. The CPU’s multi-threaded performance accelerates compilation, and the single-thread score of 4,750 handles interactive development tools well. The 20 threads allow parallel builds and testing. The GPU is sufficient for basic UI rendering and 2D graphics but will not accelerate GPU compute in development workflows.

Student and office work: The system is overkill for basic productivity. The CPU’s high benchmark scores provide snappy responsiveness, but the Arc A350 provides no benefit for office applications. The lack of display outputs on the GPU is a critical issue for this use case, as the system cannot drive monitors without additional hardware.

Gaming Performance

No measured FPS data exists for this exact CPU and GPU combination. The FACT PACK contains no measuredFps rows, so all frame rate discussion is estimated from the benchmark scores. The Arc A350’s position at the 50th percentile of all GPUs, combined with its 4 GB memory and 64-bit bus, suggests it can handle esports titles at 1080p with medium to low settings. Modern AAA games will struggle, with the 3.072 TFLOPS FP32 compute limiting performance to low settings at best.

The CPU’s single-core performance is more than adequate for gaming, with the 5,926 R23 single-core score ranking among the best available. The GPU, however, will be the binding constraint in every gaming scenario. The 25 W TDP suggests the card is designed for low-power operation, not high-performance gaming.

Ray tracing performance will be minimal despite the 6 ray tracing cores, as the overall shader throughput is too low to sustain ray-traced effects at playable frame rates. The 4 GB VRAM will also limit texture quality and resolution, with modern games requiring more memory at 1080p high settings.

Upgrade Path and Platform

The Intel Core Ultra 7 265F uses the Intel Socket 1851 platform, which supports DDR5 memory in a dual-channel configuration. The CPU provides 20 PCIe Gen 5 lanes, offering substantial bandwidth for high-speed storage and expansion cards. The 65 W TDP means the CPU requires modest cooling, and the overall system PSU requirement is low.

The Arc A350 has a 25 W TDP and a suggested PSU of 200 W. This leaves enormous headroom in any standard desktop PSU for future upgrades. The GPU uses a PCIe 4.0 x8 interface, which is compatible with the CPU’s PCIe Gen 5 slots.

A sensible next upgrade would be replacing the Arc A350 with a more powerful GPU. The CPU’s 93rd percentile performance can support virtually any graphics card without becoming a bottleneck. The single-slot, low-profile nature of the Arc A350 means the system likely has ample physical space for a larger GPU. The 200 W suggested PSU indicates the current power delivery is minimal, so a higher-wattage PSU would be needed for a more powerful GPU.

The CPU itself has no upgrade path within its generation since it is already among the top performers. The locked multiplier prevents overclocking, but the 5.30 GHz boost clock is already high. The platform supports DDR5 memory, and users could add more capacity or faster modules within the dual-channel constraint, though the 102.4 GB/s bandwidth is fixed by the memory controller.

Build Overview

This is a desktop build combining the Intel Core Ultra 7 265F, a 20-core Arrow Lake processor, with the Intel Arc A350, an entry-level Alchemist GPU. The CPU is a top-tier part at the 93rd percentile of all processors, while the GPU sits at the 50th percentile. The combined percentile is 72.

The pairing is unconventional. The CPU is designed for demanding multi-threaded workloads, evidenced by its 41,980 R23 multi-core score and 49,410 PassMark multithread score. The GPU, with only 3.072 TFLOPS FP32 and 4 GB memory, is suited for basic display output and light graphics work. The Arc A350 has no display outputs, which is a notable limitation for a desktop build.

The system overall ranks in the 72nd percentile of all builds, driven almost entirely by the CPU’s strong showing. The GPU contributes little to the combined score, and its end-of-life production status means it is not a forward-looking choice. The build is best characterized as a high-performance CPU workstation with a placeholder GPU.

Who Should Build It

The target user for this configuration is a professional or power user whose primary workloads are CPU-intensive. Software developers will benefit from the 20-thread compilation performance and the 49,410 multithread score. Data analysts and researchers using CPU-based computation will find the 173,855 floating-point math score and 138,078 integer math score valuable.

Content creators working in video editing or 3D rendering that rely on CPU rendering will see strong performance, with the 41,980 R23 multi-core score indicating fast export and render times. The data encryption score of 39,468 suggests suitability for security-sensitive workloads involving encrypted data processing.

Students and office workers do not need this level of performance. The CPU’s capabilities are wasted on basic productivity, and the GPU provides no additional benefit for such tasks. The system is also not appropriate for gamers, as the Arc A350 will limit gaming performance to entry-level levels, despite the CPU’s ability to support high-refresh gaming.

Small business workstations handling large datasets, complex spreadsheets, or database operations would benefit from the CPU’s throughput. The data compression score of 507,018 indicates strong performance in archival and file management tasks. However, the lack of GPU display outputs means the system requires a separate solution for video output, which is a significant caveat for any user.

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

Power Build

System Balance Analysis

Intel Core Ultra 7 265F

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

CPU Analysis

Benchmark Performance

FAQ

Balance and Bottleneck

Usage Scenarios

Gaming Performance

Upgrade Path and Platform

Build Overview

Who Should Build It

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