SYSTEM ANALYZER

Rate My PC: Intel Core Ultra 7 265F + NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5050

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)

▼

94 Score

Top 6% Ranking

94 / 100

ULTIMATE READY

Apex Performer

Top 6% 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

91%

PROCESSOR

Intel Core Ultra 7 265F

64,438 Benchmark Score

Top 4% Market Ranking

View Full Specs →

GRAPHICS CARD

NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5050

21,035 Benchmark Score

Top 9% 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

The Intel Core Ultra 7 265F paired with the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5050 is a desktop build defined by asymmetry: a processor sitting in the 93rd percentile of all CPUs, attached to a graphics card in the 66th percentile. The combined build lands at the 80th percentile, which tells the story — the CPU carries this pairing, and the GPU defines its ceiling. The Core Ultra 7 265F brings 20 cores, a 5.30 GHz boost clock, and Arrow Lake-S architecture on Intel Socket 1851, while the RTX 5050 contributes 8 GB of GDDR6, PCIe 5.0, and Blackwell 2.0 feature support at a 130 W TDP. This is a productivity-first machine with competent, mid-tier gaming capability attached. Notably, no measured frame-rate data exists for this exact combination in the database, so all FPS discussion below is framed as estimation derived from benchmark scores rather than recorded measurement.

Balance and Bottleneck

This build is CPU-heavy, and the data makes that unambiguous. The Core Ultra 7 265F sits at the 93rd percentile against all CPUs; the RTX 5050 sits at the 66th percentile against all GPUs. In any graphically demanding workload, the RTX 5050 is the limiter. Its PassMark G3D score of 17326 and 3DMark Steel Nomad score of 2502 place it in entry-tier discrete territory, whereas the CPU's Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 41980 describes a chip that can feed far faster graphics hardware without breaking stride.

The bottleneck direction flips depending on resolution and workload. At lower resolutions, where the CPU does proportionally more work per frame, the 265F's strong single-thread results — a PassMark single-thread score of 4750 and Cinebench R23 single-core score of 5926 — mean the processor will rarely be the frame limiter. The GPU will saturate first. In CPU-bound scenarios such as high-refresh esports titles, simulation-heavy games, or compilations and rendering tasks, the 20-core CPU has substantial headroom the GPU simply cannot exploit.

The practical reading: this pairing leaves CPU performance on the table for gaming, but that surplus is not wasted — it converts directly into responsiveness, streaming overhead, background-task tolerance, and productivity throughput. The 65 W TDP of the CPU next to the 130 W TDP of the GPU also signals where the thermal and power budget of this build concentrates.

Upgrade Path and Platform

The platform story is one of the strongest arguments for this configuration. The Core Ultra 7 265F uses Intel Socket 1851, supports DDR5 in a dual-channel configuration with 102.4 GB/s of memory bandwidth, and provides PCIe Gen 5 with 20 CPU lanes. That lane count and generation matter: a future GPU upgrade can run at full PCIe 5.0 bandwidth, and Gen 5 storage gets CPU-attached lanes rather than chipset hops.

Power headroom is generous. The RTX 5050 draws 130 W through a single 8-pin connector, with NVIDIA suggesting a 300 W PSU for the card. Combined with the 65 W CPU TDP, a sensible total system PSU sits comfortably above the sum of those figures — but the key point is that the 300 W suggested PSU figure is tied to the GPU alone, and the 65 W CPU keeps the total system draw modest for a 20-core desktop. Anyone planning to keep this platform and later install a substantially faster GPU should size the PSU for that future card, not for the RTX 5050, since the current pairing leaves deep headroom.

A sensible next upgrade is clear from the percentile gap: the GPU. Moving from the 66th-percentile RTX 5050 to a higher-tier card would let the 93rd-percentile CPU actually stretch. The CPU side needs nothing — 20 threads, a 5.30 GHz boost, and 30 MB of shared L3 cache already exceed what this GPU can demand. Memory upgrades within DDR5 and storage on the Gen 5 lanes round out the path. One limitation to note: the 265F has a locked multiplier, so the upgrade path does not include overclocking the CPU.

CPU Analysis

The Core Ultra 7 265F is a 20-core, 20-thread Arrow Lake-S processor built on TSMC's 3 nm process, with a 243 mm² die packing 17,800 million transistors. It runs a 2.40 GHz base clock and boosts to 5.30 GHz. The cache hierarchy is deep: 192 KB of L1 and 3 MB of L2 per core, plus 30 MB of shared L3. Note that the threads equal the cores — there is no SMT doubling here, which makes the multi-core scores a product of physical cores rather than hyperthreading.

The benchmark picture is consistent and strong. Cinebench R15 multi-core returns 4231 against a 597 single-core score; R20 returns 17631 multi versus 2488 single; R23 returns 41980 multi versus 5926 single. The multi-to-single scaling ratio in R23 is roughly seven-fold, which is what you want to see from a 20-core part — it means the cores scale efficiently in threaded rendering loads rather than hitting scheduling or thermal walls. In practical terms, a 41980 R23 multi-core score describes a machine that handles video encoding, 3D rendering, code compilation, and heavy multitasking without the user waiting.

The PassMark suite reinforces the breadth. The 49410 multithread score pairs with strong per-category results: 507018 in data compression, 39468 in encryption, 173855 in floating-point math, 138078 in integer math, 62439 in string sorting, and 39235 in extended instructions. The 3172 physics score matters for gaming-adjacent simulation loads. The 4750 single-thread score means everyday applications — which remain largely lightly threaded — feel fast, not just batch jobs.

Against its nearest rivals, the 265F essentially ties everything in its bracket. Its average benchmark score of 64438 sits within a fraction of a percent of the Intel Core Ultra 7 265 (-0.3%), the AMD EPYC 7343 (+0.4%), the AMD EPYC 4464P (-0.6%), and the Intel Core i9-13900KS (+0.6%). The rivalry with the Core Ultra 7 265 is expected — same silicon, with the "F" denoting no integrated graphics, and indeed the pack lists integrated graphics as N/A. Matching an i9-13900KS on average score while running at 65 W TDP is the notable result: comparable throughput at a fraction of the power envelope.

FAQ

Q: Does this build have measured frame-rate data in the database?

A: No. There are no measured FPS rows for this exact CPU+GPU combination, and all frame-rate discussion for this page is estimated from the benchmark scores rather than recorded testing.

Q: Which component is the bottleneck?

A: The GPU. The RTX 5050 sits at the 66th percentile of all GPUs while the Core Ultra 7 265F sits at the 93rd percentile of all CPUs — a wide gap that puts the graphics card firmly in the limiting role for graphically demanding work.

Q: Can the CPU be overclocked?

A: No. The multiplier is unlocked-flagged as false, so the 5.30 GHz boost clock is the ceiling.

Q: How much PSU does this build need?

A: The GPU's suggested PSU figure is 300 W, and the card itself draws 130 W through a single 8-pin connector. The CPU adds a 65 W TDP. Builders planning a future GPU upgrade should size above the current pairing's requirements.

Q: How does the 265F compare to the Core i9-13900KS?

A: Their average benchmark scores are near-identical — the 265F averages 64438 against the i9-13900KS's 64051, a +0.6% edge for the 265F.

Q: What memory does the platform support?

A: DDR5 in dual-channel, delivering 102.4 GB/s of memory bandwidth. ECC is not supported.

Q: What is the combined percentile of this build?

A: 80 percent — the strong CPU percentile pulls the mid-tier GPU upward, resulting in an overall upper-tier pairing.

Gaming Performance

To be clear and stated once: no measured FPS data exists for this exact CPU+GPU combination in the database — `dataIsMeasured` is false and the measured FPS table is empty. Everything in this section is estimation derived from benchmark scores.

The RTX 5050's profile — a 17326 PassMark G3D score, 2502 in 3DMark Steel Nomad, 2560 shading units, a 2572 MHz boost clock, and 320 GB/s of memory bandwidth on a 128-bit bus — describes a card built for 1080p gaming with high settings, where ultra presets are playable in most titles but ray tracing demands upscaling assistance. The 66th-percentile placement frames expectations: this is entry-level discrete performance, capable but not headroom-rich.

The CPU side is never the concern. A PassMark single-thread score of 4750 and a physics score of 3172 mean frame pacing and CPU-side simulation stay smooth even when the GPU is the limiter. For esports and competitive titles at 1080p, where the GPU load is light, the estimated frame rates climb well past what most displays can show, and the 265F's strong single-core results keep the low end tight. For modern AAA titles at ultra settings, estimates from the G3D score suggest the GPU is the frame-rate governor, and stepping to higher resolutions shifts the burden further onto the 8 GB of GDDR6 and its 320 GB/s of bandwidth — the most likely point of pressure.

The 8 GB VRAM buffer deserves caution at higher settings and resolutions in texture-heavy titles; it is the hardware limit most likely to be hit before raw compute is.

GPU Analysis

The RTX 5050 is NVIDIA's Blackwell 2.0 entry card, built on the GB207 chip at TSMC's 5 nm node — 149 mm² of silicon carrying 16,900 million transistors at a density of 113.4M per mm². The specification sheet is coherent for its tier: 2560 shading units, 80 texture units, 32 ROPs, 20 RT cores, and 80 tensor cores. Clocks run from a 2317 MHz base to a 2572 MHz boost, with memory at 2500 MHz (20 Gbps effective). That memory is 8 GB of GDDR6 on a 128-bit bus delivering 320 GB/s.

Throughput figures put the card in context. FP32 compute lands at 13.17 TFLOPS, with FP16 running at a 1:1 ratio for the same 13.17 TFLOPS. Pixel rate is 82.30 GPixel/s and texture rate 205.8 GTexel/s. The 20 RT cores and 80 tensor cores mean hardware ray tracing and AI acceleration are present, in proportion to the card's tier — this is a card that can run RT and upscaling features rather than one built to excel at them.

The compute benchmarks confirm the positioning. Geekbench OpenCL returns 90334 and Vulkan 89381 — close parity between the two APIs, indicating balanced driver performance. PassMark G3D of 17326 is the headline gaming figure, while the DirectX sub-scores (186 for DX9, 150 for DX11, 103 for DX10, 66 for DX12) track the expected pattern of older APIs scoring higher on raw-scale tests. PassMark GPU compute lands at 9184. For rendering work, these numbers describe a card suited to viewport acceleration, light GPU compute, and entry-level render assistance — not a primary compute engine. The bus interface is PCIe 5.0 x8, and the card is a dual-slot design with one HDMI 2.1b and three DisplayPort 2.1b outputs, supporting DirectX 12 Ultimate, OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4.

Against its listed rivals, the RTX 5050 sits within a tight band: the AMD Radeon RX Vega M GL (-0.6%), the Radeon HD 8970M (-1%), the Radeon RX 5600 XT (+1.6%), and the NVIDIA RTX A4000 Mobile (-1.6%). In other words, its average score of 21035 places it among cards of a clearly established mid-tier class — an entry-lane Blackwell part trading blows with much older hardware on aggregate score while offering modern feature support those rivals lack.

Who Should Build It

The profile suits three user groups well. First, content creators and developers who need CPU throughput: the 20-core, 41980 R23 multi-core machine handles video editing, 3D rendering, code compilation, and local builds with room to spare, and the 65 W TDP keeps the platform efficient while doing it. Developers compiling large codebases, students in compute-adjacent programs, and small-business workstations running productivity and light creative work all map directly onto the 93rd-percentile CPU.

Second, 1080p gamers — particularly those who prioritize high-refresh competitive play. The GPU's tier and the CPU's single-thread strength combine best at 1080p, where esports titles should run at high frame rates and AAA titles are playable with settings discipline. Gamers targeting higher resolutions with ultra settings should treat the GPU as the first upgrade, not the endpoint.

Third, upgraders thinking about platform longevity. Socket 1851, DDR5, and Gen 5 lanes with 20 CPU-attached lanes make this a foundation build: buy the strong CPU now, accept the mid-tier GPU, and replace the graphics card when budget allows. The locked multiplier means the CPU itself is a fixed quantity — but at its percentile, there is little reason to want more.

It fits less well for enthusiasts chasing maximum frame rates at high resolutions, for whom the GPU is a mismatch with the processor's class.

Build Overview

This is a desktop-class build, and its tier is best summarized by the combined percentile of 80 — upper-tier overall, but composed unevenly. The Core Ultra 7 265F (Core Ultra Series 2, Arrow Lake-S, released January 2025, launch MSRP $379) is the anchor: 20 cores at up to 5.30 GHz on a 3 nm TSMC process, in the 93rd percentile of all CPUs. The RTX 5050 (GeForce 50-series, Blackwell 2.0, released June 2025, launch MSRP 249 USD) is the accessory: an entry-tier Blackwell card in the 66th percentile of all GPUs.

The pairing is best understood as a productivity platform with a serviceable gaming attachment. The "F" suffix means the CPU ships without integrated graphics, so the RTX 5050 is also the display engine of necessity — a single HDMI 2.1b and three DisplayPort 2.1b outputs handle monitoring duties. Both components are in active production status, which supports the build's viability as a current-generation platform.

Benchmark Performance

The exact numbers, and what they mean together.

CPU: average benchmark score 64438, 93rd percentile. Cinebench R23 multi-core 41980 and single-core 5926; R20 multi 17631 and single 2488; R15 multi 4231 and single 597. PassMark multithread 49410, single-thread 4750, physics 3172, integer math 138078, floating point 173855, data compression 507018, encryption 39468, string sorting 62439, extended instructions 39235, prime finding 416. Rival deltas: Core Ultra 7 265 at -0.3%, EPYC 7343 at +0.4%, EPYC 4464P at -0.6%, i9-13900KS at +0.6%.

GPU: average benchmark score 21035, 66th percentile. PassMark G3D 17326, 3DMark Steel Nomad 2502, Geekbench OpenCL 90334, Vulkan 89381, PassMark GPU compute 9184, G2D 1113, DirectX scores 186 (DX9), 150 (DX11), 103 (DX10), 66 (DX12). Rival deltas: RX Vega M GL at -0.6%, HD 8970M at -1%, RX 5600 XT at +1.6%, RTX A4000 Mobile at -1.6%.

The combined picture: a build whose 80th percentile comes from CPU excellence averaging down to GPU adequacy. In every workload where threads matter — rendering, encoding, compilation, compression, simulation — this machine performs like a 93rd-percentile system. In every workload bound by rasterization and VRAM, it performs like a 66th-percentile one. That split is the entire identity of this pairing, and it should drive the buying decision: choose it for the processor, and treat the graphics card as the designated next upgrade.

Rate My PC: Intel Core Ultra 7 265F + NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5050

Apex Performer

System Balance Analysis

Intel Core Ultra 7 265F

NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5050

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

Balance and Bottleneck

Upgrade Path and Platform

CPU Analysis

FAQ

Gaming Performance

GPU Analysis

Who Should Build It

Build Overview

Benchmark Performance

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