SYSTEM ANALYZER

Rate My PC: Intel Core Ultra 7 265F + NVIDIA RTX 4000 Ada Generation

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

97 / 100
ULTIMATE READY

Apex Performer

Top 3% 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
99%
PROCESSOR

Intel Core Ultra 7 265F

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

NVIDIA RTX 4000 Ada Generation

135,218 Benchmark Score
Top 1% 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 and NVIDIA RTX 4000 Ada Generation pairing is a desktop build that sits at the 94th percentile in the benchmark database, placing it among the top 6% of all recorded combinations. The data indicates a system designed for high-throughput professional work and demanding creative tasks, rather than a pure gaming rig, as the GPU's workstation lineage (Ada Lovelace architecture) and the CPU's high core count drive a compute-first performance profile. The CPU alone ranks in the 93rd percentile for all processors, while the GPU sits in the 95th percentile for all graphics cards, making this a balanced, high-tier pairing where neither component is a weak link in the overwhelming majority of workloads.

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) and manufactured on a 3 nm process by TSMC. It lacks hyper-threading, meaning the 20 cores correspond directly to 20 threads, which is a deliberate design choice that prioritizes per-core efficiency over thread count. The base clock is 2.40 GHz with a boost clock of 5.30 GHz, providing a wide frequency range that allows for both power-efficient idle states and high single-thread performance when needed. The processor's TDP is rated at 65 W, a modest figure that indicates efficient power delivery, especially given the high 5.30 GHz boost capability. The cache hierarchy consists of 192 KB L1 per core, 3 MB L2 per core, and a shared 30 MB L3 cache, totaling a substantial amount of fast-access memory that helps reduce latency in compute-heavy tasks.

Benchmark results show a processor that excels in multi-threaded workloads. In Cinebench R23, the 265F scores 41,980 points in multi-core and 5,926 points in single-core tests. The multi-core score is particularly strong, representing a 93rd percentile position among all CPUs. This places it in close competition with several high-end server and desktop parts: it is 0.6% ahead of the Intel Core i9-13900KS, 0.4% ahead of the AMD EPYC 7343, and only 0.3% behind the Intel Core Ultra 7 265 (its near-identical sibling) and 0.6% behind the AMD EPYC 4464P. These deltas are remarkably small, indicating that the 265F is effectively performance-equivalent to these top-tier rivals in average benchmark scores, despite being a 65 W desktop part competing against higher-power and server-class chips.

The PassMark suite reinforces this picture. The multi-thread score of 49,410 and the single-thread score of 4,750 show a processor that is capable in both parallel and lightly-threaded tasks. Specific workload tests reveal strengths: floating-point math scores 173,855, integer math scores 138,078, and data compression scores 507,018. The data encryption score of 39,468 and extended instructions score of 39,235 indicate solid performance in security and vectorized workloads. The physics score of 3,172 is comparatively lower, suggesting that the processor is not primarily optimized for simulation-heavy physics engines but rather for general compute, data manipulation, and rendering tasks. The 20 cores and 30 MB L3 cache make this a strong choice for video encoding, 3D scene rendering, and software compilation, where the extra parallel throughput translates directly into shorter completion times.

Balance and Bottleneck

The data shows a well-balanced pairing where the CPU and GPU are closely matched in their respective percentile rankings: the CPU at 93 and the GPU at 95. This proximity suggests that neither component is likely to be a dominant bottleneck in most workloads. However, the nature of the bottleneck shifts depending on the task. In single-threaded or lightly-threaded scenarios, the CPU's Cinebench R23 single-core score of 5,926 and PassMark single-thread score of 4,750 are strong, but the GPU's compute capabilities are vast, with 26.73 TFLOPS of FP32 performance. This means that in tasks like real-time 3D viewport rendering or GPU-accelerated simulations, the GPU will likely be the limiting factor, especially at lower resolutions where the CPU can keep up with frame or data generation.

Conversely, in multi-threaded CPU tasks such as software compilation or batch photo editing, the CPU's 20 cores will be fully utilized. The Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 41,980 is nearly 7 times the single-core score, indicating excellent scaling across cores. The GPU, while powerful, is not a bottleneck here because the workload is CPU-bound. The percentiles confirm this: a combined percentile of 94 indicates that this pairing performs at a level where the two components work in concert without one dragging the other down significantly. The lack of measured FPS data means we cannot quantify gaming bottlenecks directly, but the benchmark scores suggest that at 1080p or 1440p with high refresh rates, the CPU's single-thread performance (5,926 in R23 single-core) is adequate to feed the GPU in most titles, while at 4K, the GPU's pixel rate of 139.2 GPixel/s and 20 GB of memory become the primary drivers of performance.

The 65 W TDP of the CPU versus the 130 W TDP of the GPU creates a power balance where the CPU is unlikely to thermally throttle in a well-ventilated case, allowing it to sustain its 5.30 GHz boost clock during intensive single-threaded tasks. The GPU's 300 W suggested PSU requirement further indicates that the system overall is power-efficient relative to its performance class. The data suggests that for most professional applications, the GPU will be the primary bottleneck due to the sheer volume of parallel work it handles, but the CPU has enough headroom to prevent stalling in general productivity tasks.

Benchmark Performance

The CPU's average benchmark score is 64,438, which lands it in the 93rd percentile of all CPUs. Its nearest competitor, the Intel Core Ultra 7 265, scores 64,640, a negligible 0.3% difference. The AMD EPYC 7343 scores 64,202 (0.4% slower), the AMD EPYC 4464P scores 64,823 (0.6% faster), and the Intel Core i9-13900KS scores 64,051 (0.6% slower). These sub-1% deltas mean the 265F is functionally tied with these processors in aggregate performance. The specific Cinebench scores are where the 265F shows its character: the R20 multi-core score of 17,631 and R15 multi-core score of 4,231 demonstrate consistency across benchmark versions, while the single-core scores of 2,488 (R20) and 597 (R15) are respectable but not class-leading, reflecting the architecture's focus on balanced performance rather than extreme single-thread boost.

The GPU's average benchmark score is 135,218, placing it in the 95th percentile of all GPUs. In Geekbench, it scores 146,593 in OpenCL and 123,842 in Vulkan, showing strong compute performance that is 8.5% higher in OpenCL than Vulkan, indicating good driver optimization for general-purpose compute. Its nearest rivals are the NVIDIA A10M (135,230, 0% delta), AMD Radeon PRO W6800 (135,396, -0.1%), AMD Radeon Pro W6800X Duo (135,774, -0.4%), and AMD Radeon PRO V620 (136,472, -0.9%). The GPU is effectively tied with these workstation cards, but its 20 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 160-bit bus with 360.0 GB/s bandwidth gives it a capacity advantage for large datasets, even if the bandwidth is not the highest in its class.

Combined, the CPU and GPU produce a system that ranks in the 94th percentile for all pairings. This is a high-tier configuration where the CPU's multi-threaded power (41,980 in R23 multi-core) complements the GPU's compute throughput (26.73 TFLOPS FP32) to handle demanding professional workloads. The data shows that in mixed CPU+GPU tasks, such as rendering a scene with both physics simulation and ray tracing, the system will perform at a level that is among the top 6% of all systems tested, making it suitable for high-end professional use without reaching the absolute top-tier (e.g., server-grade multi-socket or multi-GPU configurations).

Who Should Build It

This pairing is aimed squarely at professionals and power users who need high throughput in both CPU and GPU intensive tasks. The 93rd percentile CPU and 95th percentile GPU make it an excellent choice for content creators working with 4K video editing, where the 20 cores accelerate encoding (Cinebench R23 multi-core 41,980) and the 20 GB GPU memory allows for smooth scrubbing through high-resolution timelines. 3D artists and animators will benefit from the GPU's 26.73 TFLOPS FP32 performance and 192 tensor cores for AI-accelerated denoising, while the CPU's 5.30 GHz boost clock ensures responsive viewport interactions. Software developers compiling large codebases will see significant speedups from the 20 threads, with the PassMark integer math score of 138,078 indicating strong performance in logic-heavy workloads.

Students and small business workstations are also a target, but only those running compute-heavy applications like engineering simulations or data analysis, not basic office tasks. The 65 W CPU TDP makes it feasible to build a quiet, compact workstation, while the GPU's single-slot design (245 mm length, 112 mm height) fits in standard ATX cases. The lack of integrated graphics on the CPU means the discrete GPU is mandatory, which is fine for this target audience. The 94th combined percentile suggests this is not a budget build; it is a serious tool for professionals who bill by the hour and need to minimize render or compile times.

Usage Scenarios

High-refresh gaming: The CPU's single-thread score of 5,926 in Cinebench R23 and the GPU's 26.73 TFLOPS FP32 performance suggest this system can drive high refresh rates at 1080p and 1440p in most titles, though no measured FPS data exists for this exact pairing. The GPU's 64 ROPs and 139.2 GPixel/s pixel rate are sufficient for high frame rates, but the workstation-class drivers may not be optimized for gaming, so expect slightly lower performance than a comparable GeForce gaming card.

Streaming: The 20-core CPU with a PassMark data compression score of 507,018 can handle x264 encoding at high bitrates while gaming, leaving the GPU free for rendering. The GPU's 192 tensor cores could also accelerate NVENC-based encoding, though the data does not specify NVENC capabilities. The system is well-suited for streaming with minimal performance impact.

Video editing: The Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 41,980 will accelerate export times in Premiere Pro or DaVinci Resolve, while the GPU's 20 GB memory allows for handling 8K timelines and multiple layers of effects. The 360.0 GB/s memory bandwidth ensures smooth playback of high-bitrate footage.

3D rendering: In Blender or Maya, the CPU's multi-thread performance accelerates CPU-based rendering, while the GPU's 48 RT cores and 192 tensor cores provide hardware-accelerated ray tracing and AI denoising. The GPU's 26.73 TFLOPS FP32 is competitive with mid-range rendering cards, making it suitable for both viewport and final-frame rendering.

Software development: The PassMark integer math score of 138,078 and multi-thread score of 49,410 indicate fast compilation times for large C++ or Rust projects. The 30 MB L3 cache helps with frequently accessed code and data, reducing build times in incremental compilation.

Student and office work: This is overkill for typical student or office tasks, but for engineering students running CAD software or data science students processing large datasets, the combination of 20 CPU cores and 20 GB GPU memory provides a capable environment for running simulations and machine learning models locally.

FAQ

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

A: The combined percentile is 94, meaning it outperforms 94% of all recorded system pairings in the database.

Q: How does the CPU compare to the Intel Core i9-13900KS?

A: The Core Ultra 7 265F has an average benchmark score of 64,438, which is 0.6% higher than the Core i9-13900KS's score of 64,051.

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

A: The RTX 4000 Ada Generation has 20 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 160-bit bus, providing 360.0 GB/s of memory bandwidth.

Q: Does the CPU support ECC memory?

A: No, the Core Ultra 7 265F does not support ECC memory, as indicated in the specifications.

Q: What is the release date of the CPU?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 7 265F was released on January 6, 2025.

Q: How does the GPU compare to the AMD Radeon PRO W6800?

A: The RTX 4000 Ada Generation has an average benchmark score of 135,218, which is 0.1% higher than the Radeon PRO W6800's score of 135,396.

Q: What is the power consumption of the GPU and what PSU is suggested?

A: The GPU has a TDP of 130 W, and the suggested power supply is 300 W.

Gaming Performance

No measured FPS rows exist for this exact CPU+GPU combination; the FACT PACK contains no measured FPS data for any game or resolution. Therefore, all frame rate discussions below are estimates based on the benchmark scores and should be treated as such. The CPU's single-thread performance (Cinebench R23 score of 5,926) and the GPU's compute capabilities (26.73 TFLOPS FP32) suggest that at 1080p, the system is capable of high frame rates exceeding 144 FPS in esports titles like CS:GO or Valorant, but the workstation-class drivers may limit day-one gaming optimizations. At 1440p, expect frame rates around 100-144 FPS in AAA titles, with the GPU's 20 GB memory preventing texture-related stutters in modern games. At 4K, the GPU's 139.2 GPixel/s pixel rate becomes the limiting factor, with estimates of 60-100 FPS in optimized titles, but this is a professional card first, and gaming performance will trail dedicated gaming GPUs of similar cost. The lack of measured FPS data makes these figures speculative, but the high percentiles (CPU 93, GPU 95) indicate a system that will handle gaming well, albeit not as efficiently as a purpose-built gaming rig.

Upgrade Path and Platform

The CPU uses the Intel Socket 1851 platform, which is the current socket for Core Ultra Series 2 desktop processors. Memory support is DDR5 in dual-channel configuration, with a theoretical bandwidth of 102.4 GB/s. The CPU provides PCIe Gen 5 with 20 lanes (CPU only), while the GPU uses PCIe 4.0 x16, meaning the GPU will run at PCIe 4.0 speeds, which is backward compatible and will not bottleneck the RTX 4000 Ada Generation's 360.0 GB/s memory bandwidth. The 65 W CPU TDP and 130 W GPU TDP indicate that a 300 W PSU is sufficient for the GPU, but a system with this CPU and GPU would likely need a 400-500 W PSU for the full system, though the data only specifies the GPU's 300 W suggested PSU.

The next sensible upgrade would be to increase system memory to the maximum supported by the dual-channel DDR5 controller, as the CPU's 102.4 GB/s bandwidth is a potential bottleneck for some workloads. A future GPU upgrade would require a higher wattage PSU, as the RTX 4000 Ada Generation's successors (Blackwell PRO W) would likely have higher power requirements, but the PCIe 4.0 x16 slot is adequate. The CPU's multiplier is not unlocked, so overclocking is not possible, limiting performance gains to BIOS updates or a future CPU change on the same socket, though the 1851 platform is relatively new and may support future Arrow Lake refreshes.

Build Overview

This is a desktop-class build (buildClass: "desktop") pairing the Intel Core Ultra 7 265F, a 20-core Arrow Lake processor with a 65 W TDP, with the NVIDIA RTX 4000 Ada Generation, a 130 W workstation GPU with 20 GB of GDDR6 memory. The combined percentile of 94 places this in the top 6% of all system pairings, making it a high-tier configuration for professional workloads. The CPU's average benchmark score of 64,438 (93rd percentile) and the GPU's average score of 135,218 (95th percentile) show a balanced system where the CPU is slightly less dominant than the GPU, but both are far above average. The system is best described as a professional workstation for content creation, 3D rendering, and software development, with the capability to handle gaming at high settings, though its primary optimization is for compute tasks. With no measured FPS data, gaming performance is estimated to be strong but not class-leading, while compute performance is genuinely top-tier.