SYSTEM ANALYZER

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

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

84 / 100
HIGH-END

Power Build

Top 16% of systems. Excellent for 1440p Ultra or 4K High gaming.

1440p Ultra4K High

System Balance Analysis

CPU vs GPU performance ratio
Well Balanced
CPU
94%
VS
GPU
74%
PROCESSOR

Intel Core Ultra 7 265T

47,697 Benchmark Score
Top 6% 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.

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

Intel Core Ultra 7 265T paired with the Intel Arc A350 is a desktop configuration built around a 20-core Arrow Lake processor and an entry-level discrete GPU. The data indicates a system with a strong CPU foundation but a limited graphics subsystem, making it a specialized tool rather than a general-purpose gaming rig. The CPU sits in the 90th percentile among all processors, while the GPU sits exactly in the 50th percentile, creating a significant performance gap that defines the system’s character.

GPU Analysis

The Intel Arc A350 is an entry-level discrete GPU built on the Xe-HPG architecture, manufactured on a 6 nm process by TSMC. The chip, designated DG2-128, contains 7,200 million transistors on a 157 mm² die. The GPU operates with 768 shading units, 48 texture mapping units, and 24 raster operation pipelines. The Arc A350 includes 6 dedicated ray tracing cores, placing it in the entry tier of hardware-accelerated ray tracing support.

Memory configuration is a limiting factor for the Arc A350. The GPU is equipped with 4 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 64-bit bus, yielding a bandwidth of 124.0 GB/s. This is a modest amount of memory for modern workloads; the 64-bit interface restricts memory throughput compared to wider-bus designs. The memory clock runs at 1937 MHz, translating to 15.5 Gbps effective. For context, the CPU’s system memory bandwidth is 102.4 GB/s, meaning the GPU’s dedicated memory bandwidth is only slightly higher than what the CPU can pull from system RAM.

Clock speeds for the Arc A350 are fixed at 2000 MHz for both base and boost. The pixel rate is 48.00 GPixel/s, and the texture rate is 96.00 GTexel/s. Floating-point performance is rated at 3.072 TFLOPS for FP32 and 6.144 TFLOPS for FP16 via a 2:1 ratio. These figures place the Arc A350 in the entry-level segment for rendering tasks; the 50th percentile ranking among all GPUs confirms it is an average performer relative to the wider market, but that average is dragged down by modern high-end parts.

The Arc A350 is end-of-life, with its predecessor being Xe Graphics and its successor Battlemage. It supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The bus interface is PCIe 4.0 x8, which is adequate for the GPU’s bandwidth needs. Note that the card has no display outputs, meaning it is not intended for direct video connection; the system relies on the CPU’s integrated graphics for display output.

Benchmark results for the GPU are not present in the data, and the average benchmark score is zero. This absence of measured scores means all performance assessments for the Arc A350 must be inferred from its architectural specifications and the percentile ranking. The 50th percentile position suggests it performs better than half of all GPUs ever tested, but it lacks the raw power for demanding rendering workloads.

Upgrade Path and Platform

The platform is built around the Intel Socket 1851, which supports the Core Ultra Series 2 processors. The CPU uses a 20-lane PCIe Gen 5 connection, providing high-bandwidth connectivity for storage and expansion cards. The GPU, however, is limited to PCIe 4.0 x8, which is a mismatch in generation but not a practical bottleneck for a card of this class.

Memory support is DDR5 with a dual-channel configuration. The CPU’s memory bandwidth is rated at 102.4 GB/s, which is standard for dual-channel DDR5. The system does not support ECC memory, so error-correcting memory is not an option for stability-critical workloads. The CPU’s TDP is 35 watts, a very low figure for a 20-core part, indicating a power-efficient design.

The GPU has a TDP of 25 watts, and the suggested PSU for the entire system is 200 watts. This is an exceptionally low power requirement for a desktop build. The combined CPU and GPU TDP totals 60 watts, meaning even a modest power supply provides substantial headroom. The data shows the GPU is single-slot and has no power connectors, drawing all its power from the PCIe slot. The CPU uses a locked multiplier, so overclocking is not an avenue for gaining additional performance.

A sensible next upgrade would focus on the GPU. The CPU’s 90th percentile ranking indicates it has significant headroom to drive a more powerful graphics card. The 20 PCIe Gen 5 lanes from the CPU and the dual-channel DDR5 memory provide a solid foundation. The power supply headroom is generous; the 200-watt suggested PSU leaves room for a GPU with a higher TDP, though the exact wattage limit is not specified in the data. The platform’s low power draw makes it suitable for compact builds, but the lack of ECC support limits its use in mission-critical servers.

CPU Analysis

The Intel Core Ultra 7 265T is a 20-core, 20-thread processor based on the Arrow Lake architecture, manufactured on a 3 nm process by TSMC. The CPU contains 17,800 million transistors on a 243 mm² die. The base clock is 1.50 GHz with a boost clock of 5.30 GHz, a wide range that allows for aggressive power saving at idle and high performance when needed.

Cache configuration is substantial: 192 KB of L1 per core, 3 MB of L2 per core, and 30 MB of shared L3 cache. The L3 cache is significant for a desktop part, aiding in workloads that benefit from large shared pools of fast memory. The CPU supports DDR5 memory in dual-channel mode, with a memory bandwidth of 102.4 GB/s.

Benchmark scores for the CPU are strong across the board. In Cinebench R23, the CPU scores 31,558 in multi-core and 4,455 in single-core. The multi-core score is 7.1 times higher than the single-core score, indicating excellent scaling across the 20 cores. Cinebench R20 results show 13,254 multi-core and 1,871 single-core, while Cinebench R15 shows 3,180 multi-core and 449 single-core. The single-core R15 score of 449 is notably low, but this is likely due to the test’s age and the CPU’s power management.

PassMark results show a multi-thread score of 37,084 and a single-thread score of 4,338. Integer math scores 104,943, floating-point math scores 129,817, and extended instructions score 28,609. Data compression scores 370,158, while data encryption scores 29,687. Random string sorting scores 44,400, physics scores 2,391, and finding prime numbers scores 322. These scores paint a picture of a CPU that excels in parallel workloads like rendering and compression, with floating-point performance notably higher than integer performance.

The CPU’s average benchmark score is 47,697, placing it in the 90th percentile of all CPUs. Its nearest rivals are the AMD Ryzen 9 PRO 5945 (average score 47,527, delta 0.4%), the AMD Ryzen 9 7900X3D (average score 47,908, delta -0.4%), the AMD Ryzen 9 3900 (average score 47,918, delta -0.5%), and the Intel Core Ultra X9 378H (average score 47,468, delta 0.5%). The deltas are all within 0.5%, meaning the 265T is statistically tied with these competitors despite different architectures and core counts.

The launch MSRP for the CPU is $384. The CPU is unlocked? No, the multiplier is locked, so overclocking is not possible. The release date is January 6, 2025, and the production status is active. The integrated graphics is Arc Xe-LPG Graphics with 64 execution units, providing a basic display output and some compute capability, though it is not a substitute for a discrete GPU in gaming.

Balance and Bottleneck

The combined percentile for this configuration is 70, but this hides a massive imbalance. The CPU is in the 90th percentile, while the GPU is in the 50th percentile. This is a classic CPU-bound configuration for most workloads, meaning the GPU is the limiting factor in graphics-intensive tasks. In gaming, the Arc A350 will be the bottleneck, unable to keep up with the CPU’s processing power.

In CPU-bound workloads like video encoding, 3D rendering, and software compilation, the CPU will be the star performer. The 20 cores and high multi-thread scores (31,558 in R23) will crush these tasks. However, in any workload that relies on GPU acceleration, the Arc A350 will hold the system back. The GPU’s 3.072 TFLOPS FP32 performance is a fraction of what modern mid-range cards offer, and the 4 GB memory limit will cause issues with larger textures or datasets.

The data shows no measured FPS for this exact combination, so bottleneck analysis must be inferred from the benchmark scores. The CPU’s single-thread score of 4,338 in PassMark is strong, meaning it can feed frames to the GPU quickly. But the GPU’s 50th percentile ranking suggests it will cap frame rates well below what the CPU could handle. For a balanced system, the GPU would need to be upgraded to match the CPU’s capabilities, but the low TDP of the GPU (25 watts) and the suggested 200-watt PSU indicate this is designed for efficiency, not raw gaming performance.

Gaming Performance

No measured FPS data exists for the Intel Core Ultra 7 265T and Intel Arc A350 combination. The FACT PACK contains no measuredFps rows, so all gaming performance figures are estimates derived from the benchmark scores. The data is not measured, and the following discussion should be treated as qualitative expectations.

Based on the GPU’s 50th percentile ranking and its 4 GB memory capacity, gaming performance will be limited to 1080p with low to medium settings in modern titles. The GPU’s 3.072 TFLOPS FP32 performance is adequate for esports titles like CS:GO or League of Legends at high frame rates, but demanding AAA games will struggle. The 4 GB VRAM is a hard limit; games that require more memory will experience stuttering or texture pop-in.

The CPU’s strong single-thread performance (4,338 in PassMark) will not be the limiting factor in most games; the GPU will cap frame rates. Ray tracing is theoretically supported via the 6 RT cores, but the low compute performance means ray tracing effects will have a severe impact on frame rates. DLSS is not available; the Arc A350 does not have tensor cores listed in the data, so upscaling technologies are not an option.

For a gaming system, this configuration is not recommended. The CPU is overkill for the GPU, and the GPU is too weak for a satisfying gaming experience at high settings. Users would be better served by a lower-end CPU and a higher-end GPU for gaming purposes.

Usage Scenarios

High-refresh gaming: Not viable. The GPU’s 50th percentile ranking and 4 GB memory will not sustain high frame rates at 144Hz or 240Hz in most titles. The CPU can handle it, but the GPU cannot.

Streaming: Viable for CPU-based encoding. The 20 cores and 20 threads provide ample headroom for x264 encoding while gaming. The Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 31,558 indicates strong encoding performance. However, the GPU will limit game quality, so streaming will be at low settings.

Video editing: Strong CPU performance for rendering and export. The multi-thread scores are excellent, and the 30 MB L3 cache helps with timeline scrubbing. The GPU’s limited VRAM will hinder GPU-accelerated effects, but CPU-based workflows will be fast.

3D rendering: Excellent CPU performance for CPU-based renderers like Blender Cycles or V-Ray. The 20 cores and high PassMark multi-thread score of 37,084 will handle complex scenes. The GPU is not suitable for GPU rendering due to its low compute and memory.

Software development: Strong CPU for compilation. The 20 cores will speed up builds, and the single-thread performance of 4,338 in PassMark is good for IDE responsiveness. The GPU is irrelevant for most development tasks.

Student and office work: Overkill. The CPU is far more powerful than needed for document editing or web browsing. The low TDP of 35 watts means it will run cool and quiet, but the cost of the platform is not justified for basic tasks.

Who Should Build It

This configuration targets users who need massive CPU compute power in a low-power package and do not require significant GPU performance. The 90th percentile CPU ranking makes it suitable for content creators who work in CPU-bound applications like video encoding, 3D rendering, or scientific computing. The 20 cores and 30 MB L3 cache provide the compute density needed for these tasks.

Software developers who compile large codebases will benefit from the multi-thread performance, and the 35-watt TDP allows for a compact, efficient build. Students in engineering or computer science fields will appreciate the CPU power for simulations and compilation, though the GPU is not suited for gaming.

Small business workstations that run heavy number-crunching applications, such as financial modeling or data analysis, can leverage the CPU’s integer and floating-point math scores (104,943 and 129,817 in PassMark). The system’s low power draw reduces operating costs over time.

The GPU is a weak point for any gaming or GPU-accelerated workload. Users who need graphics performance should look elsewhere, as the Arc A350 is not suitable for modern gaming or GPU rendering. The system is best viewed as a CPU-centric compute box with a basic display adapter for non-demanding tasks.

FAQ

Q: What is the CPU’s percentile ranking?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 7 265T is in the 90th percentile of all CPUs, with an average benchmark score of 47,697.

Q: How much memory does the GPU have?

A: The Intel Arc A350 has 4 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 64-bit bus, providing 124.0 GB/s of bandwidth.

Q: What is the CPU’s TDP?

A: The CPU has a 35-watt TDP, and the GPU has a 25-watt TDP. The suggested power supply for the system is 200 watts.

Q: Does the CPU support ECC memory?

A: No, the CPU does not support ECC memory. It supports dual-channel DDR5 memory with a bandwidth of 102.4 GB/s.

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

A: The CPU scores 31,558 in Cinebench R23 multi-core, which is 7.1 times its single-core score of 4,455.

Q: Is the GPU’s production status active?

A: No, the Intel Arc A350 is end-of-life, with its successor being Battlemage.

Q: What is the CPU’s socket and PCIe support?

A: The CPU uses Intel Socket 1851 and supports PCIe Gen 5 with 20 lanes from the CPU. The GPU uses PCIe 4.0 x8.

Benchmark Performance

The Intel Core Ultra 7 265T delivers strong benchmark results across all tested workloads. In Cinebench R23, the multi-core score is 31,558, and the single-core score is 4,455. Cinebench R20 scores are 13,254 multi-core and 1,871 single-core, while Cinebench R15 scores are 3,180 multi-core and 449 single-core. PassMark results show a multi-thread score of 37,084, a single-thread score of 4,338, integer math at 104,943, and floating-point math at 129,817. Data compression scores 370,158, and data encryption scores 29,687.

The CPU’s average benchmark score is 47,697, placing it in the 90th percentile. Its nearest rival is the AMD Ryzen 9 7900X3D, which scores 47,908 on average, a delta of -0.4%. The AMD Ryzen 9 PRO 5945 scores 47,527, a delta of 0.4%. The AMD Ryzen 9 3900 scores 47,918, a delta of -0.5%, and the Intel Core Ultra X9 378H scores 47,468, a delta of 0.5%. The CPU is statistically tied with all four rivals, despite architectural differences.

The Intel Arc A350 has no benchmark scores in the data, and its average benchmark score is zero. Its percentile ranking is 50, meaning it sits exactly in the middle of all GPUs. The combined percentile for the system is 70, but this is misleading due to the CPU’s high ranking and the GPU’s average ranking. The CPU carries the system’s performance, while the GPU provides only entry-level graphics capability.

The combined picture is a system with exceptional CPU compute power for its 35-watt TDP, paired with a GPU that is adequate for basic tasks but not for demanding graphics workloads. The CPU’s 90th percentile ranking makes it a top-tier processor, while the GPU’s 50th percentile ranking is merely average. Users should prioritize CPU-bound workloads with this configuration and plan for a GPU upgrade if graphics performance becomes necessary.