SYSTEM ANALYZER

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

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

86 / 100
HIGH-END

Power Build

Top 14% 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%
VS
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 265KF

71,910 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

This analysis examines the pairing of an Intel Core Ultra 7 265KF processor with an Intel Arc A350 graphics card, based strictly on the provided benchmark and specification data. The combination represents a desktop-class build where a high-end, 20-core processor is paired with an entry-level, low-power discrete GPU. This mismatch in capability defines the system's overall character, making it a specialized tool for CPU-intensive tasks rather than a balanced gaming machine. All performance interpretations herein derive from the synthetic benchmark scores and architectural details in the fact pack; no measured FPS data exists for this exact combination.

CPU Analysis

The Intel Core Ultra 7 265KF is a 20-core, 20-thread desktop processor built on the Arrow Lake architecture and fabricated on a 3 nm TSMC process. It operates with a base clock of 3.90 GHz and a boost clock of 5.50 GHz, with a TDP of 125 W. The architecture is notable for its lack of integrated graphics—the “F” suffix indicates this—requiring a discrete GPU for any display output. The CPU's cache hierarchy includes 192 KB of L1 per core, 3 MB of L2 per core, and a 30 MB shared L3 cache, providing substantial on-die storage for active workloads.

Benchmark results position this CPU as a high-tier performer. Its Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 49,736 and single-core score of 7,021 indicate strong sustained throughput and excellent single-thread responsiveness. Geekbench scores of 22,913 multi-core and 2,759 single-core corroborate this, suggesting balanced performance across diverse instruction sets. The CPU's overall average benchmark score of 71,910 places it at the 94th percentile among all CPUs, meaning it outperforms 94% of processors in the database. This positions it in the top tier of consumer and even many workstation chips.

The nearest rivals in the database provide context for these scores. The AMD Ryzen 7 8840HX scores 71,797 on average, a mere 0.2% behind the Ultra 7 265KF, making them effectively equivalent in aggregate performance. The Intel Xeon 6517P trails by 0.6% with a score of 72,350, while the Xeon 6724P is 0.7% behind at 72,396. The Intel Xeon Platinum 8270 sits 0.8% ahead at 71,370. These deltas, all under one percent, indicate that the Ultra 7 265KF sits squarely in a competitive performance band alongside these server and high-end mobile parts, though its 20-thread count is lower than many Xeon parts, its high boost clock compensates in single-threaded tasks.

PassMark results show specialized strengths: a data compression score of 666,589 and an encryption score of 48,198. Floating-point math hits 189,431, while integer math reaches 143,351. The extended instructions score of 54,513 confirms robust SIMD capabilities, useful for scientific and media code. The multi-thread score of 58,518 and single-thread score of 4,928 (reported twice in the pack) reinforce the dual nature of the chip: it is equally adept at heavily parallel workloads and latency-sensitive single-threaded tasks. For real-world use, this CPU excels in video encoding, 3D rendering, software compilation, and data analysis—tasks that leverage its 20 cores and high IPC.

Balance and Bottleneck

This build presents an extreme imbalance between CPU and GPU capability. The CPU sits at the 94th percentile among all CPUs, while the GPU sits at the 50th percentile among all GPUs, and the combined percentile for the build is 72. This disparity means the GPU will be the limiting factor in any graphics-bound scenario, including all gaming and GPU-accelerated rendering. The CPU will be underutilized in such workloads, waiting on the GPU to finish frame processing.

The CPU's PassMark physics score of 3,633 indicates strong computational physics, useful for simulations and game logic, but the GPU's FP32 throughput of 3.072 TFLOPS will bottleneck any visual output. In CPU-bound tasks like data compression, encryption, and code compilation, the CPU will run at near-full utilization, and the GPU will remain idle. Conversely, in GPU-bound tasks like gaming at high resolutions or ray tracing, the GPU will be pegged at 100% while the CPU sits at a fraction of its capacity.

The FPS scaling evidence is indirect but clear: with no measured FPS data, the 50th-percentile GPU ranking and its 4 GB VRAM limit are the primary indicators. At 1080p, some games may be CPU-limited at low settings, but the GPU's modest shader count (768) and 64-bit memory bus will cap frame rates regardless. At higher resolutions or with any graphical detail enabled, the GPU becomes the sole bottleneck. The CPU's 125 W TDP versus the GPU's 25 W TDP underscores this dynamic—the CPU is a power-hungry workhorse, while the GPU is designed for minimal power draw, further confirming their disparate performance classes.

GPU Analysis

The Intel Arc A350 is a low-power, entry-level GPU built on the Xe-HPG architecture (Alchemist generation) and fabricated on a 6 nm TSMC process. It features 4 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 64-bit bus, yielding a bandwidth of 124.0 GB/s. The memory clock is 1937 MHz, with an effective data rate of 15.5 Gbps. The GPU contains 768 shading units, 48 texture mapping units, and 24 raster output units, along with 6 ray tracing cores. Its compute capabilities are rated at 3.072 TFLOPS for FP32 and 6.144 TFLOPS for FP16 (with a 2:1 ratio).

Clock speeds are a flat 2000 MHz for both base and boost, unusual for a GPU, suggesting a locked, efficient design rather than a boost-dependent one. The pixel rate is 48.00 GPixel/s and the texture rate is 96.00 GTexel/s. The GPU supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4, ensuring modern API compatibility including ray tracing features. Notably, the GPU has no display outputs—it is a compute-only or auxiliary device, not a primary graphics card for monitor connection.

The TDP is a mere 25 W, with a suggested PSU of 200 W, making it extremely power-efficient. However, the GPU has no benchmark scores in the database, and its average benchmark score is listed as 0, with no nearest rivals. Its percentile ranking of 50 places it exactly at the median of all GPUs, indicating average performance in a vacuum. For rendering workloads, the 4 GB VRAM is a severe limitation, likely causing texture thrashing in modern games at high settings. The 6 ray tracing cores provide entry-level RT capability, but the low memory bandwidth and small memory pool will hamper RT performance. This GPU is best suited for basic display output, HTPC use, or as a compute accelerator for tasks that fit within its 3 TFLOPS budget.

Upgrade Path and Platform

The CPU uses the Intel Socket 1851 platform, which supports DDR5 memory in a dual-channel configuration, providing a memory bandwidth of 102.4 GB/s. The memory controller does not support ECC memory. The CPU provides 20 PCIe Gen 5 lanes, offering high-bandwidth connectivity for a single GPU or NVMe drives. The multiplier is unlocked, allowing overclocking for users who can manage the thermals.

The GPU connects via PCIe 4.0 x8, which is adequate for its 25 W TDP and modest bandwidth requirements. The suggested PSU for the GPU is 200 W, which is minimal. However, the CPU's 125 W TDP, combined with the GPU's 25 W, means a modest 300 W PSU would suffice for this exact build, though the fact pack only lists the GPU's 200 W suggestion. A sensible next upgrade would be a more powerful GPU, as the CPU has significant headroom—it sits at the 94th percentile, far above the GPU's 50th. Replacing the Arc A350 with a higher-tier GPU would balance the system, allowing the CPU's full potential to be realized in graphics workloads.

The platform's support for PCIe Gen 5 on the CPU side means future GPUs or storage devices can utilize the latest interconnect standards. The lack of ECC support limits use in mission-critical server roles but is standard for consumer and enthusiast desktops. The 20 CPU lanes, while less than some HEDT platforms, are sufficient for a single high-end GPU plus a fast NVMe drive. Upgrading memory to higher-capacity DDR5 kits would benefit memory-intensive workloads, given the dual-channel 102.4 GB/s bandwidth is a fixed platform characteristic.

Benchmark Performance

The CPU's benchmark scores are extensive and consistently high. Cinebench R15 yields 5,013 multi-core and 707 single-core. Cinebench R20 jumps to 20,889 multi-core and 2,948 single-core. Cinebench R23 reaches 49,736 multi-core and 7,021 single-core, a strong indicator of sustained all-core boost. Geekbench scores of 22,913 multi-core and 2,759 single-core confirm cross-platform consistency. PassMark tests show a multi-thread score of 58,518, a single-thread score of 4,928, and specialized scores like 666,589 for data compression and 48,198 for encryption. The average benchmark score of 71,910 places the CPU at the 94th percentile, with nearest rivals within 0.8%—the AMD Ryzen 7 8840HX at 0.2% behind, the Intel Xeon 6517P at 0.6% behind, the Xeon 6724P at 0.7% behind, and the Xeon Platinum 8270 at 0.8% ahead.

The GPU has no benchmark scores in the database, so its performance must be inferred from its specifications and percentile ranking. Its 50th-percentile position among all GPUs suggests average performance relative to the entire range of graphics cards. The combined percentile for the build is 72, reflecting the high CPU contribution dragging up the average of the low GPU score. The CPU's avgBenchmarkScore of 71,910 is meaningful, but the GPU's avgBenchmarkScore of 0 is a placeholder, not a true metric. The combined picture is a system that excels at CPU-bound tasks but is severely limited in GPU-accelerated scenarios, with the 94th-percentile CPU far outpacing the 50th-percentile GPU.

Gaming Performance

No measured FPS rows exist for this exact CPU+GPU combination; the fact pack contains no measuredFps data. Therefore, all gaming performance figures are estimates derived from the benchmark scores and are not empirical results. The data indicates that the GPU's 50th-percentile ranking and 4 GB VRAM will limit gaming to modest settings and resolutions. At 1080p, the GPU's 3.072 TFLOPS of FP32 throughput could handle esports titles at medium settings, but the 64-bit memory bus and 124 GB/s bandwidth will constrain texture-heavy scenes.

For AAA games at 1080p with ultra settings, the 4 GB VRAM will lead to stuttering and texture pop-in, as modern titles often exceed this capacity. The 6 ray tracing cores provide some RT capability, but the low bandwidth and memory size will make RT modes impractical at playable frame rates. At 1440p or 4K, the GPU will be overwhelmed, likely producing sub-30 FPS in most titles. The CPU, by contrast, is more than capable for gaming, with its high single-thread score of 7,021 in Cinebench R23 ensuring it will not be the bottleneck in CPU-bound scenarios like RTS games or simulation titles. In practice, this pairing would see the GPU fully saturated, with the CPU utilization remaining low, perhaps 20-30% in most games.

Who Should Build It

This build targets users whose primary workloads are CPU-intensive and who require only basic GPU acceleration. Software developers compiling large codebases will benefit from the 20 cores and multi-thread score of 58,518, dramatically reducing build times. Data scientists running analyses on large datasets will appreciate the high data compression and integer math scores, though the 4 GB GPU memory limits the size of GPU-accelerated models. Students in engineering or scientific fields running simulations, such as those using physics engines (CPU physics score of 3,633), will find the CPU's computational power valuable.

Small business workstations handling spreadsheets, databases, or financial modeling will leverage the CPU's encryption score of 48,198 for secure transactions. However, content creators should be cautious: video editing software often relies on GPU acceleration, and the Arc A350's limited VRAM and throughput will hinder 4K editing, though the CPU can handle H.264 and H.265 encoding via software, albeit slower. Gamers at 1080p with low-to-medium settings on esports titles may find this acceptable, but the GPU's 50th-percentile ranking suggests it is not a gaming card. The ideal user is one who spends most time in CPU-bound tasks and needs a display output for basic desktop use, not one who prioritizes gaming or GPU rendering.

Build Overview

This desktop-class build pairs the Intel Core Ultra 7 265KF, a 20-thread powerhouse at the 94th CPU percentile, with the Intel Arc A350, a 25 W GPU at the 50th GPU percentile. The combined percentile of 72 reflects a system weighted heavily toward CPU performance. The CPU's architecture is Arrow Lake on Socket 1851, supporting DDR5 dual-channel memory. The GPU is based on Xe-HPG (Alchemist) with 4 GB GDDR6 and no display outputs, indicating it is a secondary or compute-only device. The overall tier is high on the CPU side, average on the GPU side, and the system as a whole is unbalanced, suited for specialized CPU workloads rather than general-purpose gaming or graphics. The production status of the CPU is Active, while the GPU is End-of-life, with its successor being Battlemage, suggesting the GPU is a legacy component.

FAQ

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

A: The Intel Core Ultra 7 265KF is at the 94th percentile among all CPUs in the database.

Q: How much VRAM does the Intel Arc A350 have, and what is its memory bus width?

A: The GPU has 4 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 64-bit bus, yielding a bandwidth of 124.0 GB/s.

Q: What is the TDP of the CPU and the GPU, and what PSU is suggested for the GPU?

A: The CPU has a TDP of 125 W, the GPU has a TDP of 25 W, and the suggested PSU for the GPU is 200 W.

Q: Does this CPU have integrated graphics?

A: No, the integrated graphics is listed as "N/A," and the "F" in the name indicates a lack of iGPU, requiring a discrete GPU.

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

A: The Cinebench R23 multi-core score is 49,736.

Q: What is the nearest rival to the CPU in terms of average benchmark score?

A: The AMD Ryzen 7 8840HX is the nearest rival, with an average score of 71,797, which is 0.2% behind the Ultra 7 265KF's score of 71,910.

Q: Is there any measured FPS data for this CPU+GPU combination?

A: No, the fact pack contains no measured FPS data for this exact combination; all FPS figures are estimates.

Usage Scenarios

High-refresh gaming: This scenario is not recommended. The GPU's 50th-percentile ranking and 4 GB VRAM will limit most games to 1080p at low settings, with frame rates likely below 60 FPS in modern titles. The CPU's high single-thread score of 7,021 in Cinebench R23 ensures it is not a bottleneck, but the GPU is too weak for high-refresh displays.

Streaming: The CPU can handle software encoding for streaming via x264, leveraging its 20 cores and multi-thread score of 58,518. However, the GPU lacks display outputs, so streaming would require a separate GPU for game capture, making this build impractical for a single-PC streaming setup.

Video editing: The CPU excels in exporting and rendering timelines, with a Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 49,736. However, the GPU's 4 GB VRAM and 3.072 TFLOPS of FP32 will struggle with GPU-accelerated effects and 4K previews, making editing sluggish in effects-heavy projects.

3D rendering: CPU-based renders will be fast, with the 20 cores and PassMark floating-point score of 189,431 providing strong throughput. GPU-based renders in Blender or similar will be limited by the Arc A350's modest shader count and 4 GB memory, resulting in long render times or out-of-memory errors.

Software development: This is an ideal scenario. The CPU's 20 threads and data compression score of 666,589 speed up compilation and testing, while the 94th percentile ranking ensures responsiveness across IDE tools. The GPU's minimal role is sufficient for basic desktop rendering.

Student and office work: For everyday tasks like spreadsheets, word processing, and web browsing, the CPU is massively overqualified, but it ensures no lag even with many applications open. The GPU's 25 W TDP keeps power draw low, though its lack of display outputs means a third-party GPU is needed for any desktop use, making this a poor out-of-the-box office choice.