SYSTEM ANALYZER

Rate My PC: Intel Core Ultra 7 265K + Intel Arc A350

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)

▼

85 Score

Top 15% Ranking

85 / 100

HIGH-END

Power Build

Top 15% of systems. Excellent for 1440p Ultra or 4K High gaming.

1440p Ultra4K High

System Balance Analysis

CPU vs GPU performance ratio

GPU Bottleneck

CPU

97%

GPU

74%

Your GPU is limiting system performance. Consider upgrading to a more powerful graphics card to better utilize your CPU.

PROCESSOR

Intel Core Ultra 7 265K

70,879 Benchmark Score

Top 3% Market Ranking

View Full Specs →

GRAPHICS CARD

Intel Arc A350

0 Benchmark Score

Top 26% 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.

Bottleneck Detected

GPU Bottleneck - Upgrading the weaker component will improve overall performance.

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 265K and Intel Arc A350 pairing is a desktop configuration that presents an unusual dichotomy in performance. The CPU is a high-end 20-core processor that sits in the 94th percentile of all CPUs tested, while the GPU is a low-power entry-level part in the 50th percentile. The benchmark data in this FACT PACK contains no measured FPS rows for this exact combination, so all frame rate discussions below are estimates derived from the relative benchmark scores of the components, not from direct game testing.

Gaming Performance

The FACT PACK explicitly contains no measured FPS data for this CPU and GPU pairing. The `measuredFpsUltraByGame` field is empty and `dataIsMeasured` is false. This means that all gaming performance figures presented here are estimated projections based on the benchmark scores and hardware specifications of the two components, not observed frame rates from game testing.

The primary constraint on gaming performance in this build is the Intel Arc A350 GPU. The GPU has 4 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 64-bit bus for a bandwidth of 124.0 GB/s. Its FP32 compute is rated at 3.072 TFLOPS, and it has 768 shading units, 48 TMUs, and 24 ROPs. This places the GPU in the 50th percentile of all GPUs, which is exactly the median. For 1080p gaming with ultra settings, the data suggests this GPU will be the limiting factor. The 4 GB memory capacity is a significant constraint for modern titles at high detail levels, as texture data and frame buffers can exceed this capacity, leading to performance drops or texture streaming issues.

The CPU, in contrast, would not be a bottleneck in most gaming scenarios. With a boost clock of 5.50 GHz and a Cinebench R23 single-core score of 2020, the Core Ultra 7 265K provides strong per-thread performance that is essential for game logic and physics. The single-core performance is sufficient to drive high frame rates in CPU-limited scenarios. However, the Arc A350's 25 W TDP and low compute throughput mean that at 1080p, users should expect playable but not high-refresh-rate performance. Estimates for esports titles like CS:GO or Valorant would be higher, but the lack of measured data prevents any specific numbers.

At higher resolutions like 1440p or 4K, the GPU becomes even more of a constraint. The 124.0 GB/s memory bandwidth and 3.072 TFLOPS of FP32 compute are insufficient for heavy pixel shading at these resolutions. The 4 GB VRAM would be exhausted quickly, causing significant frame rate drops. For 1440p and above, the estimated performance would drop below playable levels for most modern AAA games. The data suggests that this build is effectively a 1080p gaming machine, and even then, it is best suited for less demanding titles or games with reduced settings. The lack of any measured FPS data means these are qualitative estimates based on the GPU's specifications and its median percentile ranking.

Benchmark Performance

The CPU benchmark scores for the Intel Core Ultra 7 265K are consistently strong across multiple test suites. In Cinebench R23, the processor achieves a multi-core score of 35850 and a single-core score of 2020. The multi-core result is particularly impressive, indicating excellent scaling across its 20 cores. The Geekbench scores are also robust: 23085 multi-core and 2713 single-core. In PassMark, the CPU shows specific strengths in data encryption with a score of 48246, extended instructions at 54333, and floating-point math at 189629. The integer math score is 143242, and the multithread score is 58594.

The CPU has an average benchmark score of 70879, placing it in the 94th percentile of all CPUs. Its nearest rivals include the Intel Xeon 6511P with an average score of 71051 and a deltaPct of -0.2, meaning the 265K is 0.2% behind. The Intel Xeon Platinum 8270 scores 71370, putting the 265K 0.7% behind. In the other direction, the Intel Core i7-14700KF scores 70163, which puts the 265K 1% ahead. The AMD Ryzen 7 9700F scores 69996, with the 265K 1.3% ahead. These deltas show that the Core Ultra 7 265K is in a tight performance cluster with these rivals, trading blows within a 2% window. The data shows the 265K is not the absolute leader in its class but is competitive with high-end server and desktop parts.

The GPU, the Intel Arc A350, has no benchmark scores listed in the FACT PACK. Its `avgBenchmarkScore` is 0 and the `benchmarks` array is empty. Its percentile ranking is 50, which is the median. The combined percentile for the build is 72. The absence of GPU benchmark numbers means the combined percentile is heavily weighted by the CPU's strong 94th percentile showing. The combined picture is of a system with exceptional CPU compute capability paired with a GPU that performs at the median level of all GPUs. This creates a substantial imbalance in raw compute potential between the two components.

FAQ

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

A: The combined percentile for this CPU and GPU pairing is 72.

Q: Does the CPU support ECC memory?

A: Yes, the Intel Core Ultra 7 265K supports ECC memory.

Q: What is the boost clock speed of the CPU?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 7 265K has a boost clock of 5.50 GHz.

Q: How much memory bandwidth does the GPU have?

A: The Intel Arc A350 has a memory bandwidth of 124.0 GB/s.

Q: What is the TDP of the GPU?

A: The Intel Arc A350 has a TDP of 25 W.

Q: What is the process node for the CPU?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 7 265K is manufactured on a 3 nm process node by TSMC.

Q: What is the CPU's Cinebench R23 multi-core score?

A: The CPU achieves a Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 35850.

Who Should Build It

The target user for this build is one that prioritizes CPU compute power over graphics performance. The data indicates this is a desktop system for professionals and enthusiasts who need significant multi-threaded processing capabilities. The 94th percentile CPU ranking makes it suitable for content creators, software developers, and engineers who run CPU-intensive workloads like code compilation, data analysis, and scientific simulations. The PassMark data compression score of 665554 and data encryption score of 48246 indicate strong performance for database and server-type tasks.

Gamers at 1080p with moderate expectations could use this build for less demanding titles, but the GPU's 50th percentile ranking means it is not a high-end gaming part. The 4 GB VRAM and 124.0 GB/s bandwidth will limit texture quality and resolution. This is not a build for competitive high-refresh-rate gamers or those who want to play AAA titles at maximum settings. The GPU is more suited to basic office graphics, video playback, and light creative work where 3D acceleration is needed but not at extreme levels.

The build could serve as a workstation for a small business or an academic environment. The CPU's ECC memory support is a key feature for data integrity in long-running computations. The 20 cores and 20 threads with a 125 W TDP make it a power-efficient choice for multi-threaded workloads compared to some server parts. The 5.50 GHz boost clock ensures that single-threaded tasks, such as running legacy applications or certain scripting tasks, will perform well. The lack of measured gaming FPS data reinforces that this is not a gaming-first system, but a compute-first one with basic graphics capability.

CPU Analysis

The Intel Core Ultra 7 265K is a 20-core, 20-thread desktop processor based on the Arrow Lake architecture from the Core Ultra Series 2. It is manufactured by TSMC on a 3 nm process node, containing 17,800 million transistors on a die size of 243 mm². The base clock is 3.90 GHz with a boost clock of 5.50 GHz. The cache hierarchy includes 192 KB of L1 per core, 3 MB of L2 per core, and a shared 30 MB L3 cache. The CPU supports dual-channel DDR5 memory with a bandwidth of 102.4 GB/s.

The benchmark scores reveal a processor that excels in multi-threaded workloads. The Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 35850 is particularly strong, and the PassMark multithread score of 58594 confirms this. The 20 cores provide substantial parallelism for tasks like 3D rendering, video encoding, and complex simulations. The Cinebench R20 multi-core score of 20918 and R15 multi-core score of 5020 show consistent scaling across benchmark versions. The data indicates that this CPU can handle heavy multi-threaded loads with ease.

Single-threaded performance is also robust. The Cinebench R23 single-core score of 2020 and the PassMark single-thread score of 4928 are high, reflecting the 5.50 GHz boost clock. The Geekbench single-core score of 2713 further supports this. For real workloads, this means the CPU is responsive for everyday tasks like web browsing, office applications, and light coding. It also means that workloads that are not perfectly parallelized, such as certain game engines or legacy software, will still see good performance.

The nearest rival data places the 265K in a competitive position. It is 1% ahead of the Intel Core i7-14700KF and 1.3% ahead of the AMD Ryzen 7 9700F. It is slightly behind the Xeon parts, but those are server-focused chips. The data suggests that for a desktop platform, the 265K is a top-tier performer in its price and performance class. The 30 MB L3 cache is shared across all cores, which helps with data locality in multi-threaded applications. The memory bandwidth of 102.4 GB/s is adequate for feeding the 20 cores. The ECC memory support is a notable feature for workstation users who require data reliability.

GPU Analysis

The Intel Arc A350 is an entry-level GPU based on the Xe-HPG architecture, part of the Alchemist generation. It is manufactured on a 6 nm process by TSMC with 7,200 million transistors on a die size of 157 mm². The GPU has 4 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 64-bit bus, providing a bandwidth of 124.0 GB/s. The memory clock is 1937 MHz, which translates to 15.5 Gbps effective. The GPU has 768 shading units, 48 TMUs, and 24 ROPs. It includes 6 ray tracing cores.

The GPU's clock speeds are listed as 2000 MHz for both base and boost. The FP32 performance is 3.072 TFLOPS, and FP16 is 6.144 TFLOPS at a 2:1 ratio. The pixel rate is 48.00 GPixel/s, and the texture rate is 96.00 GTexel/s. The TDP is just 25 W, which is extremely low for a discrete GPU. The suggested PSU for a system with this GPU is 200 W. The bus interface is PCIe 4.0 x8, and the GPU has no display outputs, meaning it is intended for use in a system with an integrated GPU or for compute purposes.

The GPU has a 50th percentile ranking among all GPUs, which is exactly the median. However, it has no benchmark scores listed in the FACT PACK, so the percentile ranking is not backed by specific test data. The 4 GB VRAM is a limiting factor for modern rendering tasks. With 124.0 GB/s of bandwidth, the GPU is constrained in high-resolution texture loading and heavy shader workloads. The 3.072 TFLOPS of FP32 performance is modest compared to mid-range or high-end GPUs. The 6 ray tracing cores provide entry-level ray tracing capability, but the overall compute power is limited.

For rendering and 3D workloads, the data suggests this GPU is best for light tasks. The low TDP of 25 W means it can be passively cooled or used in small form factor systems. The lack of display outputs indicates it is not meant to be the primary display adapter, but rather an auxiliary compute device. The API support includes DirectX 12 Ultimate, OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4, which are current standards. The production status is end-of-life, with a successor named Battlemage. The predecessor is Xe Graphics.

Upgrade Path and Platform

The Intel Core Ultra 7 265K uses the Intel Socket 1851. This is a desktop platform that supports DDR5 memory in a dual-channel configuration. The CPU provides 20 PCIe Gen 5 lanes from the CPU itself. The memory bandwidth is 102.4 GB/s, and ECC memory support is available. The CPU has a TDP of 125 W. The platform is current and active, with the CPU released in late 2024.

The GPU, the Intel Arc A350, uses a PCIe 4.0 x8 bus interface. The suggested PSU for a system with this GPU is 200 W, which is quite low. The GPU has a TDP of 25 W. The upgrade path for the GPU is straightforward: a user could replace the Arc A350 with a more powerful GPU that uses a PCIe x16 slot. The CPU and platform can support a much more powerful GPU than the Arc A350. The 20 PCIe Gen 5 lanes from the CPU are more than enough for any current or near-future GPU.

For memory, the platform supports DDR5. The CPU's dual-channel memory controller with 102.4 GB/s of bandwidth is a solid foundation. Upgrading to faster DDR5 memory could improve performance in memory-sensitive workloads. The ECC memory support is a feature that is not commonly found on desktop platforms, making this a unique selling point for workstation builds.

The PSU headroom is significant. The CPU TDP is 125 W, and the GPU TDP is 25 W, for a combined TDP of 150 W. The suggested PSU for the GPU is 200 W, which is the minimum. A sensible next upgrade would be to a more powerful GPU. The platform's PCIe Gen 5 support means that a user could install a high-end GPU without worrying about the bus interface being a bottleneck. The CPU's 94th percentile ranking indicates that it will not be the limiting factor in most systems for years to come. The socket 1851 platform is the current generation for Intel desktop CPUs, so there is potential for future CPU upgrades within the same socket family.

Build Overview

This build pairs the Intel Core Ultra 7 265K, a 20-core desktop processor, with the Intel Arc A350, a 25 W entry-level GPU. The build class is desktop. The combined percentile for this configuration is 72. The CPU is in the 94th percentile of all CPUs, while the GPU is in the 50th percentile of all GPUs. This is a significant disparity in performance tiers.

The overall tier of this build is determined by the CPU's strong performance. The combined percentile of 72 is higher than the GPU's percentile, indicating that the CPU is the dominant component in terms of overall system capability. This is a compute-centric build where the CPU is the star, and the GPU is an afterthought or an auxiliary compute unit. The CPU's launch MSRP is $394.

The build is not balanced for gaming. The CPU has the power to drive high frame rates in CPU-bound scenarios, but the GPU cannot keep up in GPU-bound scenarios. This is a workstation-oriented build where the CPU's multi-core performance is the primary asset. The GPU provides basic graphics acceleration and compute capability but does not match the CPU's high-end status. The build is a desktop system, not a laptop, and is intended for users who need heavy CPU compute power with minimal graphics requirements.

Balance and Bottleneck

The balance of this build is heavily skewed toward the CPU. The CPU's 94th percentile ranking versus the GPU's 50th percentile ranking creates a clear bottleneck. In gaming workloads, the GPU is the limiting factor. The CPU's strong single-core performance would not be utilized to its fullest because the GPU cannot render frames fast enough to keep up. The 4 GB VRAM and 124.0 GB/s bandwidth of the GPU would cause stuttering and low frame rates in modern games, especially at high resolutions. The data shows that in any GPU-intensive scenario, the Arc A350 will be the bottleneck.

In CPU-intensive workloads, the situation is reversed. The GPU is not a factor, and the CPU's 20 cores and 5.50 GHz boost clock deliver strong performance. The PassMark multithread score of 58594 and Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 35850 indicate that the CPU can handle heavy multi-threaded tasks without any GPU assistance. For tasks like video encoding, 3D rendering, and code compilation, the CPU is the primary engine, and the GPU's low compute power is not a limiting factor.

The FPS scaling evidence is absent because there is no measured FPS data. However, the percentile gap is the strongest indicator of bottleneck. A 44-percentage-point gap between the CPU and GPU percentiles is substantial. In any workload that uses both components, the GPU will be the limiting factor. The CPU's performance is so far ahead of the GPU that it will be idle waiting for the GPU to complete its work. The bottleneck is the GPU in all graphics-related tasks, while the CPU is the sole driver of performance in compute tasks.

Usage Scenarios

High-refresh gaming: This scenario is not supported by the data. The GPU's 50th percentile ranking and 4 GB VRAM are insufficient for high-refresh gaming at high settings. The CPU could support high frame rates, but the GPU would not deliver them. Expect low to medium settings at 1080p for playable frame rates.

Streaming: The CPU's 20 cores provide ample headroom for encoding video while gaming. The Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 35850 suggests that simultaneous game and stream encoding would not tax the CPU. However, the GPU's performance would limit the game quality, making the stream less visually impressive.

Video editing: This is a strong scenario for this build. The CPU's multi-core performance excels in video rendering and export. The PassMark integer math score of 143242 and floating-point math score of 189629 are excellent for video processing. The GPU would provide hardware acceleration for effects, but the CPU is the main workhorse here.

3D rendering: The CPU is well-suited for CPU-based rendering engines. The Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 35850 is a high score that would render complex scenes efficiently. The GPU's 3.072 TFLOPS of FP32 performance is low, so GPU-based rendering would be slow. This build is best for CPU rendering.

Software development: The CPU's 20 cores and high single-core speed are ideal for code compilation and running builds. The PassMark data compression score of 665554 is useful for version control and data handling. The ECC memory support adds stability for long compile sessions.

Student and office work: This build is overkill for basic office tasks, but it will handle them with ease. The CPU's single-core performance ensures a responsive system for web browsing, document editing, and spreadsheets. The GPU is sufficient for basic 2D graphics and video playback. The low power draw of the GPU is a benefit for energy efficiency in an office setting.

Rate My PC: Intel Core Ultra 7 265K + Intel Arc A350

Power Build

System Balance Analysis

Intel Core Ultra 7 265K

Intel Arc A350

Market Position

Game Performance Benchmarks

Cyberpunk 2077

Red Dead Redemption 2

Microsoft Flight Simulator

Control

Call of Duty: Warzone

Fortnite

Performance Insights

Strong Performance

Bottleneck Detected

Performance Tiers Explained

Ultimate

High-End

Mid-Range

Entry Level

Legacy

Gaming Performance

Benchmark Performance

FAQ

Who Should Build It

CPU Analysis

GPU Analysis

Upgrade Path and Platform

Build Overview

Balance and Bottleneck

Usage Scenarios

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