SYSTEM ANALYZER

Rate My PC: Intel Core Ultra 7 265F + NVIDIA Quadro RTX 5000

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 Quadro RTX 5000

21,629 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

# FAQ

Q: What CPU and GPU are paired in this build?

A: The build pairs an Intel Core Ultra 7 265F processor with an NVIDIA Quadro RTX 5000 graphics card. The CPU is part of the Core Ultra Series 2, based on the Arrow Lake architecture on a 3 nm TSMC process, while the GPU is a Turing-architecture workstation card built on a 12 nm process.

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

A: The Core Ultra 7 265F has an average benchmark score of 64,438, placing it in the 93rd percentile of all CPUs. It is effectively tied with the Intel Core Ultra 7 265 (0.3% slower), the AMD EPYC 7343 (0.4% faster), the AMD EPYC 4464P (0.6% slower), and the Intel Core i9-13900KS (0.6% faster). All four rivals are within a 1.2% spread, indicating this chip sits in a highly competitive performance band.

Q: What is the GPU's performance percentile and how does it rank?

A: The Quadro RTX 5000 sits in the 67th percentile of all GPUs, with an average benchmark score of 21,629. Its closest rival is the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1060 6 GB, which is 1% faster, followed by the NVIDIA RTX A4000 Mobile (1.2% slower), the AMD Radeon HD 8970M (1.8% slower), and the AMD Radeon RX Vega M GL (2.3% slower). This places the card in a mid-range performance tier among all GPUs.

Q: Is there measured FPS data for this specific CPU-GPU combination?

A: No. The FACT PACK contains no measuredFps rows for this exact pairing, and the dataIsMeasured flag is false. All frame-rate discussions in this analysis are therefore estimates derived from the CPU and GPU benchmark scores, not empirical game testing.

Q: What memory and PCIe capabilities does the CPU support?

A: The Core Ultra 7 265F supports dual-channel DDR5 memory with a bandwidth of 102.4 GB/s. It does not support ECC memory. The CPU provides 20 PCIe Gen 5 lanes, and it has no integrated graphics, meaning a discrete GPU is mandatory for any display output.

Q: What is the combined performance percentile of this build?

A: The combined percentile for the CPU and GPU pairing is 80, meaning this desktop build outperforms roughly 80% of all recorded CPU-GPU combinations in the benchmark database. The CPU contributes significantly more to this score than the GPU, given the CPU's 93rd percentile rank versus the GPU's 67th.

Q: What are the power requirements for the GPU?

A: The Quadro RTX 5000 has a TDP of 230 W, requires a dual-slot cooler, and draws power via one 6-pin and one 8-pin connector. NVIDIA suggests a 550 W power supply for systems using this card. The CPU has a 65 W TDP, so the total system power draw is dominated by the GPU.

# Gaming Performance

Since the FACT PACK contains no measured FPS data for this exact CPU-GPU combination, all frame-rate figures presented here are estimates based on the benchmark scores of the individual components. The CPU's 93rd percentile rank indicates it has ample headroom for gaming workloads, while the GPU's 67th percentile rank suggests it will be the constraining factor in most game titles.

The Quadro RTX 5000's PassMark G3D score of 15,616 and its directX 11 score of 140 provide a baseline for rasterization performance. Its nearest rival, the GeForce GTX 1060 6 GB, is only 1% faster in average benchmark score, which historically places this class of GPU in the 1080p high-settings territory for modern titles. At 1440p, this GPU would likely require medium-to-high settings to maintain playable frame rates, while 4K gaming would be limited to less demanding titles or older games with reduced graphical presets.

The CPU's PassMark single-thread score of 4,750 and multi-thread score of 49,410 indicate that processor-side frame pacing will not be a bottleneck in most scenarios. The Core Ultra 7 265F's boost clock of 5.30 GHz provides strong single-threaded performance for game logic, and its 20 cores handle background tasks without stealing frames from the primary gaming thread.

For esports titles and competitive shooters at 1080p, the combination of a high-clock CPU and a mid-range GPU should deliver smooth performance at high frame rates, likely exceeding 100 FPS in games like CS2 or Valorant, though these figures remain estimates. For AAA single-player games at 1440p, expect frame rates in the 50-70 FPS range at high settings, with dips to 40 FPS in the most demanding scenes. At 4K, the GPU's 448 GB/s memory bandwidth and 16 GB VRAM will help with texture loading, but raw rasterization throughput will cap performance at roughly 30-40 FPS in modern titles on medium settings.

It is critical to note that the Quadro RTX 5000 is a workstation card, not a gaming GPU. Its drivers are optimized for compute and professional applications, and its DirectX 12 benchmark score of 59 is notably low, suggesting that modern API-based games may perform below what the raw G3D score implies. The directX 9 score of 195 is higher, indicating better performance in legacy or API-light titles.

# CPU Analysis

The Intel Core Ultra 7 265F is a 20-core, 20-thread desktop processor based on the Arrow Lake architecture, built on TSMC's 3 nm process node. It has a base clock of 2.40 GHz and a boost clock of 5.30 GHz, with a 65 W TDP. The chip integrates 17,800 million transistors on a 243 mm² die, with a cache hierarchy consisting of 192 KB L1 per core, 3 MB L2 per core, and 30 MB of shared L3 cache.

In Cinebench R23, the CPU scores 41,980 in multi-core and 5,926 in single-core. The multi-core result places this chip firmly in high-end desktop territory, competitive with the Intel Core i9-13900KS which is only 0.6% faster in average benchmark score. The single-core score of 5,926 reflects the high 5.30 GHz boost clock and demonstrates strong per-thread performance for latency-sensitive workloads.

The PassMark suite provides additional insight into real-world performance. The multi-thread score of 49,410 aligns with the Cinebench results, while the single-thread score of 4,750 confirms the chip's responsiveness in lightly-threaded tasks. The data compression score of 507,018 and encryption score of 39,468 indicate strong throughput for archival and security workloads. Floating-point math scores 173,855, while integer math scores 138,078, showing a balanced ALU/FPU design. The extended instructions score of 39,235 suggests robust SIMD performance, which benefits scientific computing and media encoding.

The 93rd percentile ranking means this CPU outperforms 93% of all processors in the benchmark database. Its nearest rivals include both desktop and server-class chips: the AMD EPYC 7343 and EPYC 4464P, both server processors, are within 0.6% of this chip's average score. This indicates the Core Ultra 7 265F delivers server-class multi-threaded performance in a desktop form factor with a modest 65 W TDP.

For real workloads, the 20 cores and 20 threads (no hyperthreading) handle heavily parallel tasks like video rendering, 3D model compilation, and software builds efficiently. The 5.30 GHz boost clock ensures snappy performance in single-threaded applications such as spreadsheets, web browsing, and legacy software. The absence of integrated graphics means the CPU relies entirely on the discrete GPU for display output, which is standard for performance-focused builds.

The memory bandwidth of 102.4 GB/s via dual-channel DDR5 is adequate for most workloads but may bottleneck memory-intensive applications like large in-memory databases or complex simulations. The lack of ECC support rules out this chip for mission-critical server deployments that require error correction.

# Who Should Build It

This desktop build targets users who prioritize CPU-heavy workloads over GPU-accelerated gaming or rendering. The Core Ultra 7 265F's 93rd percentile CPU performance makes it an excellent choice for software developers compiling large codebases, data analysts processing large datasets, and engineers running simulation tools that are primarily single-threaded or lightly threaded.

Content creators working with video editing or 3D modeling will benefit from the CPU's 20 cores and high multi-threaded scores, particularly in applications that rely on CPU-based rendering rather than GPU acceleration. The Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 41,980 indicates strong performance in tasks like video encoding, batch photo processing, and audio production. However, the GPU's 67th percentile rank means GPU-accelerated rendering will be limited, so creators who depend on CUDA-accelerated effects or GPU rendering should consider a different graphics card.

Students and researchers in computer science, physics, or engineering will find this build suitable for coursework involving parallel programming, numerical analysis, or machine learning model training on CPU. The high floating-point and integer math scores support scientific computing, and the 16 GB VRAM on the GPU enables moderate-sized deep learning workloads, though the GPU's compute score of 6,525 in PassMark limits its utility for large-scale training.

Small business workstations handling financial modeling, database management, or ERP software will benefit from the CPU's strong multi-threaded performance and the GPU's 16 GB VRAM for large spreadsheets or data visualization. The 65 W CPU TDP keeps cooling requirements modest, making this a viable option for quiet office environments. However, the GPU's 230 W TDP and dual-slot design require adequate case airflow.

Gamers at 1080p will find this build capable of high-refresh-rate play in esports titles, but the Quadro RTX 5000's workstation-oriented drivers and low DirectX 12 score make it a suboptimal choice for modern AAA gaming. Gamers at 1440p or 4K should look elsewhere, as the GPU will struggle to maintain high frame rates at those resolutions in demanding titles.

# Benchmark Performance

The Core Ultra 7 265F delivers an average benchmark score of 64,438, placing it in the 93rd percentile of all CPUs. Its nearest rival, the Intel Core Ultra 7 265, scores 64,640, a delta of -0.3%, meaning the 265F is marginally slower but effectively identical in performance. The AMD EPYC 7343 (64,202) and EPYC 4464P (64,823) are also within 0.6% of this chip, while the Intel Core i9-13900KS (64,051) trails by 0.6%. This tight clustering indicates that the 265F delivers flagship-tier CPU performance despite its 65 W TDP.

The Quadro RTX 5000 GPU has an average benchmark score of 21,629, placing it in the 67th percentile of all GPUs. Its closest rival, the GeForce GTX 1060 6 GB, scores 21,856, which is 1% higher. The RTX A4000 Mobile (21,379) is 1.2% slower, the Radeon HD 8970M (21,237) is 1.8% slower, and the Radeon RX Vega M GL (21,153) is 2.3% slower. These deltas show the Quadro RTX 5000 is closely matched with a range of older and mobile GPUs, none of which are modern high-end parts.

The combined percentile for this pairing is 80, meaning the system outperforms 80% of all recorded CPU-GPU combinations. This combined score is heavily weighted by the CPU's excellent 93rd percentile rank, while the GPU's 67th percentile pulls the overall figure down. The discrepancy between CPU and GPU performance tiers is substantial: the CPU is among the top 7% of all processors, while the GPU is only in the top 33% of all graphics cards.

The CPU's individual benchmark scores reinforce this picture. Cinebench R23 multi-core (41,980) and PassMark multi-thread (49,410) both indicate exceptional parallel processing capability. The GPU's PassMark G3D score of 15,616 and Geekbench OpenCL score of 78,999 position it as a mid-range performer, adequate for professional visualization but not for high-end gaming or compute-intensive rendering.

# GPU Analysis

The NVIDIA Quadro RTX 5000 is based on the Turing architecture, built on a 12 nm process at TSMC, with 13,600 million transistors on a 545 mm² die. It features 3,072 shading units, 192 texture mapping units, and 64 raster output units. The card operates at a base clock of 1620 MHz and a boost clock of 1815 MHz, with 16 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 256-bit bus, delivering 448.0 GB/s of memory bandwidth.

The GPU includes 48 RT cores and 384 tensor cores, which provide hardware acceleration for ray tracing and AI-based tasks. However, the benchmark data suggests these features do not translate into strong raw performance. The PassMark DirectX 12 score of 59 is particularly low, indicating poor optimization for modern graphics APIs, while the DirectX 11 score of 140 and DirectX 10 score of 113 show better but still modest performance. The DirectX 9 score of 195 is the highest among the DirectX tests, suggesting the card performs relatively better in legacy APIs.

The pixel rate of 116.2 GPixel/s and texture rate of 348.5 GTexel/s are moderate figures, consistent with the card's mid-range positioning. FP32 performance is rated at 11.15 TFLOPS, and FP16 at 22.30 TFLOPS (2:1 ratio), which provides some compute capability for scientific workloads. The Geekbench Vulkan score of 92,309 is notably higher than the OpenCL score of 78,999, indicating better performance in Vulkan-based applications.

The GPU's 67th percentile rank places it in the company of the GeForce GTX 1060 6 GB (1% faster) and the RTX A4000 Mobile (1.2% slower). These rivals are all several generations old, and none are considered high-performance by modern standards. The 16 GB VRAM is the card's primary advantage, enabling large texture loads and substantial datasets for professional visualization, but the underlying compute hardware limits the practical benefit of this memory capacity.

For rendering workloads, the 448 GB/s bandwidth and 16 GB capacity are sufficient for 4K texture sets and complex scenes, but the FP32 throughput of 11.15 TFLOPS will extend render times compared to modern GPUs. The tensor cores provide some acceleration for AI denoising or DLSS-style upscaling, but the Turing generation's tensor cores are less efficient than newer architectures.

# Balance and Bottleneck

The performance imbalance between the CPU and GPU in this build is stark. The CPU's 93rd percentile rank versus the GPU's 67th percentile creates a scenario where the GPU is the clear bottleneck in almost every graphics-intensive workload. In gaming, the CPU can easily feed frames to the GPU at 1080p, but the GPU's limited rasterization throughput will cap frame rates well below what the CPU can support. At higher resolutions, the GPU bottleneck becomes even more pronounced.

The PassMark data illustrates this imbalance. The CPU's multi-thread score of 49,410 is more than three times the GPU's G3D score of 15,616, which is an unusual ratio. In typical balanced builds, the GPU score is often higher than the CPU's multi-thread score for gaming-focused systems. Here, the CPU has significant headroom that the GPU cannot utilize.

In CPU-bound workloads such as compilation, data processing, or scientific computing, the GPU sits idle while the CPU operates at peak efficiency. The GPU's compute score of 6,525 is low relative to the CPU's floating-point score of 173,855, so any workload that can be parallelized across CPU cores will run faster on the CPU than the GPU. This makes the GPU a poor accelerator for general-purpose compute tasks.

The memory subsystem also shows imbalance. The CPU supports DDR5 with 102.4 GB/s bandwidth, while the GPU has 448 GB/s of GDDR6 bandwidth. This mismatch means data transfers between CPU and GPU over PCIe 3.0 x16 (the GPU's interface) will be a bottleneck for workloads that require frequent data exchange, such as real-time simulation or interactive visualization. The CPU's PCIe Gen 5 lanes are backward compatible with the GPU's PCIe 3.0 interface, but the older standard limits transfer speeds.

For gaming, the practical bottleneck is the GPU. The CPU's single-thread score of 4,750 and boost clock of 5.30 GHz ensure that even the most demanding game logic runs smoothly, but the GPU's low DirectX 12 score of 59 will cause frame rate drops in titles that rely on modern API features. The GPU's 16 GB VRAM helps with texture-heavy scenes, but the raw shading throughput is insufficient to maintain high frame rates at 1440p or above in demanding titles.

# Build Overview

This is a desktop-class build combining an Intel Core Ultra 7 265F CPU with an NVIDIA Quadro RTX 5000 GPU, achieving a combined percentile of 80 across all recorded CPU-GPU pairings. The CPU is a current-generation Arrow Lake processor in the Core Ultra Series 2, released in January 2025 with a launch MSRP of $379. The GPU is an end-of-life workstation card from the Turing generation, released in August 2018 with a launch MSRP of 2,299 USD.

The pairing represents a significant generational mismatch. The CPU is among the newest and most powerful desktop processors available, ranking in the 93rd percentile, while the GPU is a six-year-old design that now ranks in the 67th percentile. This makes the build CPU-centric: it is a workstation-grade processing platform with a modest graphics capability bolted on.

The CPU's 20 cores and 20 threads, combined with a 5.30 GHz boost clock, place it in the top tier of desktop processors, competitive with server chips like the AMD EPYC 7343. The GPU's 16 GB VRAM and 448 GB/s bandwidth are respectable for professional visualization, but its 11.15 TFLOPS FP32 performance and low DirectX 12 scores limit its utility in modern graphics workloads.

The build class is desktop, with the CPU's market segment also listed as desktop. The GPU's dual-slot design and 230 W TDP require a standard ATX case with adequate airflow, while the CPU's 65 W TDP allows for a modest air cooler. The total system is not power-hungry by gaming standards, with a suggested 550 W PSU covering the entire build.

Overall, this pairing sits in the 80th combined percentile, which is respectable but not exceptional. The CPU boosts the system into high-performance territory, while the GPU anchors it in the mid-range. This is a build for users who need CPU horsepower and are willing to compromise on graphics performance, or who need the GPU's 16 GB VRAM for specific professional applications.

# Upgrade Path and Platform

The Intel Core Ultra 7 265F uses Intel Socket 1851, which is the platform for Arrow Lake desktop processors. The CPU supports dual-channel DDR5 memory and provides 20 PCIe Gen 5 lanes from the CPU. The GPU, however, uses a PCIe 3.0 x16 interface, which is backward compatible but does not take advantage of the CPU's newer PCIe Gen 5 capabilities.

The motherboard platform supports DDR5 memory, and the CPU's memory bandwidth of 102.4 GB/s is the maximum achievable with dual-channel configuration. The lack of ECC support limits this platform to consumer or prosumer use, not enterprise servers. The CPU's 65 W TDP means most Socket 1851 motherboards will handle it with ease, and the multiplier is locked, so overclocking is not possible.

The GPU is the primary upgrade bottleneck. Its PCIe 3.0 interface is two generations behind the CPU's PCIe Gen 5 support, but more importantly, its 67th percentile rank means any modern mid-range or high-end GPU would be a significant upgrade. Swapping the Quadro RTX 5000 for a newer GPU with a PCIe 4.0 or 5.0 interface would better utilize the CPU's bandwidth and improve graphics performance substantially.

The suggested PSU of 550 W provides headroom for a GPU upgrade up to approximately 300 W TDP, assuming the rest of the system draws modest power. The CPU's 65 W TDP leaves ample power budget for a more powerful graphics card. However, the GPU's power connectors (1x 6-pin + 1x 8-pin) are standard, and any replacement GPU should fit within the case dimensions given the dual-slot design.

A sensible next upgrade would be to replace the GPU with a modern card that offers higher DirectX 12 performance and better compute capabilities. The CPU has enough headroom to support a GPU in the 90th percentile without becoming a bottleneck. Alternatively, adding more DDR5 memory (if the motherboard has free slots) would benefit memory-bandwidth-sensitive workloads, though the dual-channel configuration already provides 102.4 GB/s.

The platform's PCIe Gen 5 lanes are future-proof for storage and accelerator cards, but the current GPU does not use them. Upgrading to a PCIe 4.0 or 5.0 GPU would be the most impactful change, as it would align the graphics subsystem with the CPU's modern capabilities and unlock the system's full potential. The CPU itself is unlikely to need an upgrade for several years, given its 93rd percentile rank and competitive standing against the Core i9-13900KS and EPYC server chips.

Rate My PC: Intel Core Ultra 7 265F + NVIDIA Quadro RTX 5000

Apex Performer

System Balance Analysis

Intel Core Ultra 7 265F

NVIDIA Quadro RTX 5000

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

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