SYSTEM ANALYZER

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

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)

▼

97 Score

Top 3% Ranking

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%

GPU

99%

PROCESSOR

Intel Core Ultra 7 265F

64,438 Benchmark Score

Top 4% Market Ranking

View Full Specs →

GRAPHICS CARD

NVIDIA RTX 4000 SFF Ada Generation

117,088 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 paired with the NVIDIA RTX 4000 SFF Ada Generation is an unusual combination: a current mainstream desktop processor from Intel's Core Ultra Series 2 lineup mated to a compact professional workstation GPU. The pairing earns a combined percentile of 94, meaning it outperforms roughly 94% of tracked systems, though the character of that performance is distinctly lopsided — strong compute on the CPU side and specialized, efficiency-focused GPU throughput on the other. An important note up front: the FACT PACK contains no measured FPS data for this exact pairing, so all frame-rate discussion in this article is estimated from the benchmark scores rather than drawn from recorded game runs.

Balance and Bottleneck

This is not a balanced gaming build, and the data makes that plain. The RTX 4000 SFF Ada sits at the 95th percentile versus all GPUs with an average benchmark score of 117088, while the Core Ultra 7 265F sits at the 93rd percentile with an average of 64438 — superficially close, but the two components are optimized for entirely different kinds of work. The GPU is a 70 W dual-slot professional card drawing entirely from the PCIe slot, built around a 160-bit memory bus and 280 GB/s of bandwidth, which is modest by gaming standards. The CPU, by contrast, posts a Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 41980 and a single-core score of 5926 — numbers that place it firmly among upper-mainstream desktop performers.

In gaming workloads, the GPU is the limiting component. Its Vulkan score of 109364 and OpenCL score of 124812 describe a compute card with 48 RT cores and 192 tensor cores doing rendering and inference work, not a card tuned to push pixels at high refresh rates. In production workloads — video encoding, 3D rendering, compiling — the CPU's 20 threads of throughput dominate and the GPU becomes an accelerator rather than a bottleneck. The practical takeaway: the CPU can feed this GPU far more data than the GPU's 280 GB/s of bandwidth can chew through in rasterization-heavy games, but for CUDA-accelerated rendering the pairing is coherent.

Because there are no measured FPS rows for this combination, the bottleneck analysis rests entirely on the percentile and bandwidth evidence rather than empirical frame scaling. That evidence points one direction: gaming is GPU-limited, professional rendering is well-matched.

Usage Scenarios

High-refresh gaming: Not the intended use, and the benchmark data reflects that. With no measured FPS figures in the FACT PACK, estimates derived from the GPU's 95th-percentile standing suggest playable ultra-settings performance at 1440p in most titles, but the 160-bit bus and 280 GB/s bandwidth make 4K ultra gaming at high frame rates unrealistic. Treat this as a 1080p-to-1440p machine at best, and even then as a byproduct rather than a design goal.

Streaming: The CPU is the star here. A PassMark multithread score of 49410 and a physics score of 3172 indicate plenty of headroom to run a game and an encoder simultaneously, with single-thread performance of 4750 keeping latency-sensitive tasks responsive. The GPU's 192 tensor cores can assist with NVENC-adjacent and AI-enhanced streaming workloads, though the FACT PACK does not include dedicated encoder benchmarks.

Video editing: A strong scenario. The 20 GB of GDDR6 gives the RTX 4000 SFF Ada generous buffer capacity for timeline scrubbing and effects workloads, and the CPU's R23 multi-core score of 41980 handles timeline rendering, proxies, and export passes efficiently. This is the workload the pairing was effectively made for.

3D rendering: Excellent fit. The GPU's OpenCL score of 124812 places it marginally behind the Radeon PRO W7700 (deltaPct -1.6) and ahead of the Tesla V100 SXM2 16 GB (deltaPct 2.4) — professional comparisons, not gaming ones. With 48 RT cores for hardware-accelerated ray tracing in viewport work and 192 tensor cores for denoising and AI rendering passes, this is a compact viewport and final-frame rendering solution.

Software development: The CPU's PassMark single-thread score of 4750 and Cinebench R23 single-core result of 5926 deliver fast interactive compilation for single-threaded toolchains, while the 49410 multithread score accelerates parallel builds and containerized test suites. Data compression at 507018 and encryption at 39468 in PassMark tests further benefit version-control-heavy workflows.

Student and office work: Overkill in the best sense. The combined 94th-percentile standing means this build handles web workloads, documents, and multi-tab research without breaking a sweat, and the 65 W CPU TDP keeps idle behavior efficient. The dual-slot, 168 mm card even fits small enclosures suitable for a dorm or compact desk setup.

CPU Analysis

The Core Ultra 7 265F is an Arrow Lake-S processor built on TSMC's 3 nm process, packing 20 cores and 20 threads — no hyperthreading, so physical cores are all you get. The base clock sits at 2.40 GHz with boosts reaching 5.30 GHz, and the package carries 17,800 million transistors on a 243 mm² die. Cache is generous: 192 KB of L1 and 3 MB of L2 per core, with 30 MB of shared L3.

The benchmark picture is consistent across suites. Cinebench R23 multi-core lands at 41980 with 5926 single-core; step back to R20 and the figures scale to 17631 and 2488, with R15 at 4231 and 597. The multi-to-single scaling ratio in R23 — roughly 7x — reflects how well the 20 cores aggregate under an all-core render load, which is exactly the behavior you want in encoding, rendering, and compilation workloads.

Against its nearest rivals, the 265F is essentially dead-center of a competitive cluster. It trails the Intel Core Ultra 7 265 by just 0.3% (its integrated-graphics sibling), sits 0.4% ahead of the AMD EPYC 7343, is 0.6% behind the AMD EPYC 4464P, and edges the Intel Core i9-13900KS by 0.6%. Those deltas are statistical noise at this resolution of measurement — the practical meaning is that this CPU delivers workstation-class throughput in a 65 W desktop envelope, and the 93rd percentile against all tracked CPUs confirms it.

The "F" suffix corresponds to the absence of integrated graphics, which is irrelevant here since a discrete GPU is present. One caveat for enthusiasts: the multiplier is locked, so clock tuning is off the table as an upgrade lever.

GPU Analysis

The RTX 4000 SFF Ada Generation is a small-form-factor professional card built on the AD104 chip, Ada Lovelace architecture, and TSMC's 5 nm process — 35,800 million transistors on a 294 mm² die at a density of 121.8M transistors per mm². It measures just 168 mm long and 69 mm tall in a dual-slot configuration, needs no auxiliary power connectors, and draws only 70 W.

The specs read as a professional renderer's card. There are 6144 shading units, 192 TMUs, 64 ROPs, 48 RT cores, and 192 tensor cores. FP32 throughput is 19.17 TFLOPS with FP16 running at a 1:1 ratio. Pixel rate is 99.84 GPixel/s and texture rate is 299.5 GTexel/s. Clocks run from a 720 MHz base to a 1560 MHz boost, with memory at 14 Gbps effective on a 160-bit bus.

The memory subsystem is the defining constraint: 20 GB of GDDR6 delivering 280 GB/s. That capacity is outstanding for professional work — large scenes, high-resolution textures, and AI models all fit comfortably — but the bandwidth is what limits high-resolution gaming texture streaming. The two Geekbench results (OpenCL 124812, Vulkan 109364) produce an average of 117088, placing the card at the 95th percentile against all GPUs. Its nearest rivals are all professional parts: it trails the NVIDIA GB10 by 0.3% and the Radeon PRO W7700 by 1.6%, while leading the Tesla V100 SXM2 16 GB by 2.4% and the RTX A5500 Mobile by 2.8%. In other words, this card trades blows with data-center and workstation hardware, not gaming flagships — which is precisely the intended context. Outputs are four mini-DisplayPort 1.4a connectors, with DirectX 12 Ultimate, OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4 support.

Who Should Build It

The ideal builder here is a content creator or technical professional in a compact workspace. Video editors benefit from the 20 GB VRAM buffer and the CPU's 41980-point R23 multi-core result. 3D artists working with ray-traced viewports get 48 RT cores and denoising via 192 tensor cores, at GPU compute levels that rival professional hardware within a couple of percent. Developers running parallel builds and test suites get 20 threads at 49410 multithreaded PassMark performance.

Gamers are secondary. At 1080p and 1440p the pairing will produce playable ultra-settings experiences based on the GPU's 95th-percentile compute standing, but the bandwidth constraints make it a poor choice for 4K ultra gaming, and no measured FPS data exists in the FACT PACK to argue otherwise. Students in technical programs — engineering, 3D design, data science — and small businesses needing compact workstations for CAD-lite, media, and analysis work are the natural audience. Anyone whose primary metric is frame rate should look elsewhere; anyone whose primary metric is rendered frames per hour or compile minutes is well served.

Upgrade Path and Platform

The platform foundation is solid. Socket 1851 is Intel's current desktop interface for this generation, and the board ecosystem supports DDR5 in dual-channel at up to 102.4 GB/s of memory bandwidth. The CPU provides 20 lanes of PCIe Gen 5 directly from the processor, which matters here: the GPU itself uses a PCIe 4.0 x16 interface, so the Gen 5 lanes remain available for future Gen 5 storage or capture cards. ECC memory is not supported, which is worth noting for workstation buyers with data-integrity requirements.

Power headroom is exceptional. The CPU carries a 65 W TDP and the GPU draws 70 W with no power connectors, and the GPU's suggested PSU is 250 W — a modest requirement for the entire system given these figures. A sensible next upgrade would be a higher-bandwidth gaming or rendering GPU once workload demands outgrow the 280 GB/s ceiling, since the CPU's 93rd-percentile standing leaves it with room to drive a faster card. The locked multiplier means CPU overclocking is not an upgrade path; a platform-level CPU swap within Socket 1851 is the realistic option if multi-core demand grows.

Benchmark Performance

The complete CPU benchmark set:

Cinebench R15: 4231 multi-core, 597 single-core
Cinebench R20: 17631 multi-core, 2488 single-core
Cinebench R23: 41980 multi-core, 5926 single-core
PassMark multithread: 49410; single thread: 4750
PassMark physics: 3172
PassMark integer math: 138078; floating point: 173855
PassMark data compression: 507018; encryption: 39468
PassMark extended instructions: 39235; prime finding: 416; string sorting: 62439

The GPU contributes Geekbench OpenCL 124812 and Vulkan 109364 for an average of 117088.

The combined picture: a 94th-percentile system whose strength is breadth rather than peak gaming frame rates. The CPU benchmarks describe a processor that is within a fraction of a percent of workstation-class rivals across the board — deltas of -0.3 to +0.6% against the Ultra 7 265, EPYC 7343, EPYC 4464P, and i9-13900KS — while the GPU benchmarks describe a card within a few percent of professional peers. Neither component has an obvious weak spot in its intended domain; the only soft spot is rasterization bandwidth on the GPU side.

FAQ

Q: Is this a good gaming build?

A: It is adequate rather than good. The GPU sits at the 95th percentile for compute, but its 160-bit bus and 280 GB/s bandwidth target professional rendering, not high-refresh gaming. Expect 1080p/1440p playability at ultra settings based on estimates, not measured data.

Q: Are the frame rates in this article measured?

A: No. The FACT PACK contains no measured FPS rows for this pairing, so every frame-rate statement here is an estimate derived from the benchmark scores.

Q: Does the CPU have integrated graphics?

A: No. The "F" suffix on the Core Ultra 7 265F means no integrated GPU, which is fine here since the RTX 4000 SFF Ada provides the display outputs.

Q: How big a power supply does this build need?

A: The GPU's suggested PSU is 250 W. With a 65 W CPU and a 70 W GPU that requires no auxiliary power connectors, that suggestion covers the pairing comfortably.

Q: Can the CPU be overclocked?

A: No. The multiplier is locked, so tuning headroom is limited to platform-level adjustments.

Q: How does the CPU compare to rivals?

A: It is statistically tied with its cluster: -0.3% versus the Core Ultra 7 265, +0.4% versus the EPYC 7343, -0.6% versus the EPYC 4464P, and +0.6% versus the i9-13900KS.

Q: What memory does the platform support?

A: DDR5 in dual-channel, with up to 102.4 GB/s of bandwidth. ECC is not supported.

Gaming Performance

To restate clearly: no measured FPS data exists for this combination — the FACT PACK's measured FPS records are empty and dataIsMeasured is false. Everything below is estimated from benchmark scores.

The GPU's 95th-percentile average of 117088 and its 19.17 TFLOPS of FP32 throughput suggest the raw shading capability for smooth 1080p ultra gameplay and respectable 1440p performance in most modern titles. The limiting factors at higher settings are the 280 GB/s memory bandwidth and 64 ROPs with a 99.84 GPixel/s pixel rate — figures that describe a card which will feel the strain at 4K ultra, especially in bandwidth-hungry open-world titles. Ray-traced gaming benefits from the 48 RT cores, but the modest bandwidth still constrains resolution and settings headroom.

The CPU side is never the problem in games: a Cinebench R23 single-core score of 5926 and a PassMark single-thread result of 4750 indicate frame-pacing and draw-call performance comfortably ahead of what this GPU will deliver, and the physics score of 3172 supports in-game physics without CPU-induced stutter. For a buyer whose gaming is secondary to rendering and creation work, these estimated expectations are acceptable. For a buyer whose gaming is primary, the bandwidth numbers alone — before any frame is measured — argue for a different card.

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

Apex Performer

System Balance Analysis

Intel Core Ultra 7 265F

NVIDIA RTX 4000 SFF Ada Generation

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

Usage Scenarios

CPU Analysis

GPU Analysis

Who Should Build It

Upgrade Path and Platform

Benchmark Performance

FAQ

Gaming 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