SYSTEM ANALYZER

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

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)

▼

88 Score

Top 12% Ranking

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%

GPU

79%

PROCESSOR

Intel Core Ultra 7 265F

64,438 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

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

The NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5080 SUPER is a peculiar entry in this database. It carries 24 GB of GDDR7 memory on a 256-bit bus, yielding 1.02 TB/s of bandwidth. The memory clock runs at 2000 MHz with 32 Gbps effective transfer. That is a substantial memory pool for a desktop GPU, and the bandwidth figure is high enough to feed the 10,752 shading units without obvious starvation. The GPU's base clock sits at 2295 MHz, boosting to 2617 MHz, which is a modest boost ratio for a high-end part but consistent with the 415 W TDP class.

The chip itself is GB203, built on a 5 nm process at TSMC, with 45,600 million transistors across a 378 mm² die. That yields a transistor density of 120.6 million per mm², which is dense but not unprecedented. The Blackwell 2.0 architecture brings 84 RT cores and 336 tensor cores. The FP32 throughput is 56.28 TFLOPS, with FP16 at the same 56.28 TFLOPS (1:1 ratio), indicating no dedicated half-rate path. Pixel rate is 293.1 GPixel/s, and texture rate is 879.3 GTexel/s. These figures point to a GPU that can push high-resolution textures and complex geometry simultaneously.

Now, the benchmark data is where this gets strange. The only recorded test is 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12, scoring 3075. That score places the GPU at the 19th percentile among all GPUs in the database. The nearest rivals are not high-end parts: the NVIDIA Quadro P1000 scores 3163 (deltaPct -2.8%), the Intel Arc Pro B60 scores 3182 (deltaPct -3.4%), and the NVIDIA GeForce 820A scores 2983 (deltaPct +3.1%). The GeForce GTX 860M scores 2967 (deltaPct +3.6%). This is a bizarre situation. A GPU with 24 GB of VRAM, 84 RT cores, and 56.28 TFLOPS of FP32 is scoring below a Quadro P1000 in the only benchmark available. The data suggests either a severely flawed benchmark run or a database entry that does not reflect the hardware's actual capabilities. The percentile vs all GPUs of 19 is far below what the specifications would imply for a 50-series flagship-tier card.

For rendering, the implications are mixed. The RT core count of 84 and tensor core count of 336 are high, and the FP32 throughput of 56.28 TFLOPS would normally suggest strong ray tracing and AI-accelerated denoising performance. The 24 GB VRAM is ample for large scenes, and the 1.02 TB/s bandwidth can move texture data quickly. However, the 3DMark score of 3075 contradicts these specs. If that score is accurate, rendering workloads would suffer from poor driver optimization or thermal throttling, but the FACT PACK provides no evidence for either. The data shows a GPU that should excel at rasterization and ray tracing, yet the single benchmark result places it in the lower quartile. The texture rate of 879.3 GTexel/s and pixel rate of 293.1 GPixel/s are objectively high, but without corroborating benchmark scores, those numbers remain theoretical.

The nearest rival comparisons are telling. The Quadro P1000 is a workstation card with far lower specs, yet it outperforms the RTX 5080 SUPER in 3DMark Steel Nomad by 2.8%. The Intel Arc Pro B60, a professional GPU, leads by 3.4%. These deltas are small but consistent in direction. The data implies that the RTX 5080 SUPER's benchmark score is anomalous relative to its hardware, or the test environment was not representative. In rendering contexts, the 84 RT cores would typically accelerate Blender or V-Ray workloads, and the 336 tensor cores would assist with OptiX denoising. The FP16 1:1 ratio means no loss when using half-precision for AI inference, which is beneficial for real-time denoising. Yet, the percentile rank of 19 suggests that, in practice, this GPU underperforms in the measured workload. The dual-slot cooler and 1x 16-pin power connector indicate a physically capable card, but the data does not back that up in benchmark terms.

# Usage Scenarios

High-refresh gaming: The RTX 5080 SUPER has the theoretical hardware for high-refresh gaming: 10,752 shading units, 112 ROPs, and 1.02 TB/s bandwidth. The 3DMark score of 3075, however, is below the 20th percentile, which would predict low frame rates at high settings. The CPU's Cinebench R23 single-core score of 5926 is strong, so gaming at 1080p would be GPU-limited if the GPU performs as poorly as the benchmark suggests. The data implies that high-refresh 144Hz or 240Hz gaming would be out of reach for this pairing, despite the hardware specs.

Streaming: The tensor cores (336) could handle NVENC-adjacent tasks, but the FACT PACK does not list a dedicated encoder. The CPU's PassMark multithread score of 49410 suggests it can handle software encoding for streaming. The GPU's 24 GB VRAM would allow for high-bitrate capture buffers. However, the low 3DMark score raises questions about GPU-side encoding acceleration. The data shows a CPU capable of streaming workloads, but the GPU's benchmark position is a red flag.

Video editing: The CPU's PassMark data compression score of 507018 and integer math score of 138078 are strong for codec processing. The GPU's 24 GB VRAM can hold large timelines and 8K previews. The FP32 throughput of 56.28 TFLOPS would accelerate effects rendering, but the 3DMark score of 3075 contradicts that. The data suggests video editing would rely heavily on the CPU, with the GPU providing memory capacity but uncertain compute performance.

3D rendering: The CPU's Cinebench R23 multicore score of 41980 is excellent for CPU-based rendering. The GPU's 84 RT cores and 56.28 TFLOPS FP32 should accelerate GPU rendering, but the benchmark percentile of 19 says otherwise. The 24 GB VRAM is sufficient for large scenes, and the 1.02 TB/s bandwidth is fast, but the measured performance is poor. The data implies that CPU rendering via the 20 cores would be more reliable than GPU rendering.

Software development: The CPU's PassMark single-thread score of 4750 and Cinebench R23 single-core of 5926 indicate strong compilation performance for single-threaded tasks. The 20 cores provide parallel compilation. The GPU's low benchmark score does not affect code compilation, and the 24 GB VRAM is irrelevant. The data shows a development workstation that excels at build times.

Student and office work: The CPU's 65 W TDP and 20 cores provide efficient multitasking. The PassMark multithread score of 49410 handles office suites and spreadsheets easily. The GPU's 415 W TDP is overkill for office work, but the 24 GB VRAM is unused. The data indicates a system that is far more powerful than needed for typical student tasks, with the GPU being a liability for power consumption.

# FAQ

Q: What is the CPU's percentile ranking among all CPUs?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 7 265F is at the 93rd percentile among all CPUs, with an average benchmark score of 64438.

Q: How does the GPU compare to its nearest rival in 3DMark Steel Nomad?

A: The GPU scores 3075, which is 2.8% lower than the NVIDIA Quadro P1000's 3163, and 3.4% lower than the Intel Arc Pro B60's 3182.

Q: What is the GPU's memory bandwidth and size?

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

Q: Does the CPU support ECC memory?

A: No, the Intel Core Ultra 7 265F does not support ECC memory, according to the FACT PACK.

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

A: The combined percentile is 56, placing it in the mid-range of all desktop builds.

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

A: The CPU has 20 cores and 20 threads, with a base clock of 2.40 GHz and a boost clock of 5.30 GHz.

Q: What is the GPU's RT core and tensor core count?

A: The GPU has 84 RT cores and 336 tensor cores, with a FP32 throughput of 56.28 TFLOPS.

# Balance and Bottleneck

The balance between this CPU and GPU is heavily skewed toward the CPU. The Core Ultra 7 265F sits at the 93rd percentile among all CPUs, while the RTX 5080 SUPER is at the 19th percentile among GPUs. In CPU-bound workloads, such as code compilation or data compression (PassMark score of 507018), the CPU is the clear driver. The GPU's low benchmark score means it will bottleneck any graphics-intensive task, but not in the typical sense — the GPU is underperforming relative to its specs, so it becomes the limiting factor in gaming and rendering.

The CPU's 20 cores and 30 MB of L3 cache provide ample parallel throughput, with a Cinebench R23 multicore score of 41980. The GPU's 3DMark score of 3075 is the weakest link. In gaming, the CPU's single-core score of 5926 (Cinebench R23) can feed the GPU, but the GPU's low percentile means frame rates will be constrained. The data shows a 74-percentage-point gap between CPU and GPU percentiles (93 vs 19), indicating a severe imbalance. The GPU's 415 W TDP versus the CPU's 65 W TDP also highlights that the GPU is the power-hungry component, yet it delivers less benchmark performance per watt relative to the CPU.

The FP32 throughput of 56.28 TFLOPS on the GPU is high, but the 3DMark score suggests the GPU is not utilizing that compute in practice. This could indicate a driver issue or thermal throttling, but the FACT PACK does not specify. The CPU's memory bandwidth of 102.4 GB/s (DDR5 dual-channel) is modest compared to the GPU's 1.02 TB/s, but for CPU-bound tasks like PassMark integer math (138078), the CPU is not limited by memory. The bottleneck analysis points to the GPU as the limiting factor in any workload that involves 3D rendering or gaming, while the CPU excels in multi-threaded non-graphics tasks.

# CPU Analysis

The Intel Core Ultra 7 265F is a 20-core, 20-thread desktop processor from the Core Ultra Series 2, based on the Arrow Lake architecture (Arrow Lake-S). It is manufactured on a 3 nm process at TSMC, with 17,800 million transistors on a 243 mm² die. The base clock is 2.40 GHz, boosting to 5.30 GHz. The L1 cache is 192 KB per core, L2 is 3 MB per core, and L3 is 30 MB shared. This is a 3 nm part with a 65 W TDP, which is efficient for the core count. The CPU supports DDR5 memory on a dual-channel bus, providing 102.4 GB/s of bandwidth. It does not support ECC memory and has no integrated graphics. PCIe support is Gen 5 with 20 lanes from the CPU.

Benchmark scores are consistently strong. Cinebench R23 multicore hits 41980, while single-core is 5926. Cinebench R20 scores are 17631 (multi) and 2488 (single). Cinebench R15 is 4231 (multi) and 597 (single). PassMark results show a multithread score of 49410 and single-thread of 4750. Specific workloads include data compression at 507018, data encryption at 39468, extended instructions at 39235, floating-point math at 173855, integer math at 138078, physics at 3172, and random string sorting at 62439. The find prime numbers score is 416, which is low relative to other scores, indicating a weakness in that specific integer workload.

The CPU sits at the 93rd percentile among all CPUs, with an average benchmark score of 64438. Its nearest rivals are the Intel Core Ultra 7 265 (avgScore 64640, deltaPct -0.3%), AMD EPYC 7343 (avgScore 64202, deltaPct +0.4%), AMD EPYC 4464P (avgScore 64823, deltaPct -0.6%), and Intel Core i9-13900KS (avgScore 64051, deltaPct +0.6%). The deltas are all within 0.6%, meaning the 265F is essentially tied with these parts. The i9-13900KS is a notable rival, as it is a high-end consumer chip, and the 265F matches it within 0.6% despite a lower TDP (65 W versus the i9's higher TDP, though the FACT PACK does not list the i9's TDP). The 20 cores and 20 threads (no hyperthreading) are unusual, but the architecture compensates with high IPC. The launch MSRP is $379.

The real-world implication is that this CPU is a top-tier multi-threaded performer for its class. The Cinebench R23 multicore score of 41980 suggests heavy rendering or compilation workloads will be handled with ease. The single-core score of 5926 ensures responsive general use. The 3 nm process contributes to the low 65 W TDP, making it a power-efficient choice for sustained loads. The memory bandwidth of 102.4 GB/s is a potential limitation for memory-intensive tasks, but the large L3 cache (30 MB) mitigates that. The PassMark data compression score of 507018 indicates excellent archive and file-handling performance. The lack of ECC and integrated graphics means it is not a workstation or server chip, but a pure desktop compute part.

# Who Should Build It

This pairing targets users who need massive CPU throughput but can tolerate a GPU that benchmarks poorly. The CPU's 93rd percentile and Cinebench R23 multicore score of 41980 make it ideal for 3D artists using CPU-based renderers, software developers compiling large codebases, and data analysts running heavy simulations. The 20 cores provide parallel processing for video encoding (PassMark multithread 49410), and the 65 W TDP allows for quiet cooling solutions. Gamers at 1080p or 1440p would rely on the CPU's single-core score of 5926, but the GPU's 19th percentile would limit frame rates; this is not a high-refresh gaming build. Content creators editing video would benefit from the CPU's data compression (507018) and integer math (138078) scores, but the GPU's low 3DMark score means GPU-accelerated effects would underperform. Students and office workers would find the CPU overpowered for their needs, and the GPU's 415 W TDP would be wasteful. Small business workstations running multi-threaded database queries or financial modeling would see strong CPU performance, but the GPU is a liability for any graphics-accelerated tasks. The build is best suited for CPU-centric workloads where the GPU is secondary.

# Upgrade Path and Platform

The CPU uses Intel Socket 1851, which is specific to the Core Ultra Series 2 (Arrow Lake). It supports DDR5 memory on a dual-channel bus with 102.4 GB/s bandwidth. PCIe Gen 5 with 20 lanes from the CPU allows for fast NVMe storage and the GPU's PCIe 5.0 x16 interface. The GPU's TDP is 415 W, and the CPU's TDP is 65 W, so the total system power draw is high, but the FACT PACK does not list a suggested PSU. The GPU requires a 1x 16-pin power connector and is a dual-slot card measuring 304 mm in length. The socket is current for the Arrow Lake generation, so a future upgrade within the same socket is possible, but the FACT PACK does not specify which other CPUs are compatible. The memory support is limited to DDR5, and ECC is not available. A sensible next upgrade would be a higher-performing GPU, as the CPU is already at the 93rd percentile. However, the GPU's benchmark score of 3075 is so low that any replacement would likely improve graphics performance. The motherboard would need to support PCIe 5.0 and the 20 CPU lanes. The 24 GB VRAM on the GPU is abundant, so memory capacity is not a bottleneck. The platform's limitation is the 102.4 GB/s CPU memory bandwidth, which could bottleneck data-heavy workloads. The upgrade path is straightforward: replace the GPU with a better-benchmarking part, as the CPU has headroom in the 93rd percentile.

# Build Overview

This is a desktop build (buildClass: desktop) pairing the Intel Core Ultra 7 265F with the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5080 SUPER. The combined percentile is 56, which is mid-range for all desktop builds. The CPU is at the 93rd percentile, and the GPU is at the 19th percentile. The average benchmark score for the CPU is 64438, and the GPU's average is 3075. This is a lopsided pairing: the CPU is a top-tier performer, while the GPU's only benchmark score places it near the bottom. The build is a desktop workstation with a 65 W CPU and a 415 W GPU. The launch MSRP for the CPU is $379, and the GPU is $999 USD. The CPU has 20 cores and 20 threads, while the GPU has 10,752 shading units. The data shows that this combination is not balanced, with the GPU dragging down the overall percentile. The build class is desktop, so it is not portable. The overall tier is mid-range due to the combined percentile of 56, despite the CPU's high ranking.

# Benchmark Performance

The CPU's benchmark scores are consistently high. In Cinebench R23, it scores 41980 multicore and 5926 single-core. In Cinebench R20, it scores 17631 multicore and 2488 single-core. In Cinebench R15, it scores 4231 multicore and 597 single-core. PassMark scores include multithread 49410, single-thread 4750, data compression 507018, data encryption 39468, extended instructions 39235, find prime numbers 416, floating-point math 173855, integer math 138078, physics 3172, and random string sorting 62439. The CPU's percentile vs all CPUs is 93, and its average benchmark score is 64438. The GPU's only benchmark is 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 with a score of 3075. The GPU's percentile vs all GPUs is 19, and its average benchmark score is 3075. The combined percentile is 56.

The nearest rivals for the CPU are the Intel Core Ultra 7 265 (deltaPct -0.3%), AMD EPYC 7343 (deltaPct +0.4%), AMD EPYC 4464P (deltaPct -0.6%), and Intel Core i9-13900KS (deltaPct +0.6%). These deltas are all within 1%, indicating that the 265F is performance-equivalent to these parts. For the GPU, the nearest rivals are the NVIDIA Quadro P1000 (deltaPct -2.8%), NVIDIA GeForce 820A (deltaPct +3.1%), Intel Arc Pro B60 (deltaPct -3.4%), and NVIDIA GeForce GTX 860M (deltaPct +3.6%). The GPU's performance is within 3.6% of these low-end parts, which is a stark contrast to the CPU's tight competition with high-end chips. The combined picture is that the CPU carries the build, while the GPU's benchmark score is an outlier that lowers the overall percentile to 56.

# Gaming Performance

No measured FPS rows exist for this exact combination of the Intel Core Ultra 7 265F and NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5080 SUPER. The FACT PACK contains no measuredFps data, so all FPS figures below are estimates derived from the benchmark scores. The CPU's single-core score of 5926 (Cinebench R23) and the GPU's 3DMark Steel Nomad score of 3075 are the primary indicators. Given the GPU's 19th percentile ranking, estimated frame rates in modern titles at 1080p ultra settings would be low, likely below 30 FPS in demanding games, based on the 3DMark score relative to rivals like the GTX 860M (which scores 2967). At 1440p and 4K, the GPU's 24 GB VRAM would help textures, but the low compute score would limit frame rates further. The CPU would not be the bottleneck, as its single-core performance is high. The data implies that this GPU would struggle to maintain 60 FPS at 1080p in most AAA titles, and high-refresh gaming at 144Hz is not feasible. The estimates are speculative because the FACT PACK has no measured FPS data, but the 3DMark score of 3075 is the only available metric, and it suggests poor gaming performance.

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

Power Build

System Balance Analysis

Intel Core Ultra 7 265F

NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5080 SUPER

Market Position

Game Performance Benchmarks

Cyberpunk 2077

Red Dead Redemption 2

Microsoft Flight Simulator

Control

Call of Duty: Warzone

Fortnite

Performance Insights

Strong Performance

Performance Tiers Explained

Ultimate

High-End

Mid-Range

Entry Level

Legacy

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