SYSTEM ANALYZER

Rate My PC: Intel Core Ultra 7 268V + Intel Arc A370M

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

89 / 100
HIGH-END

Power Build

Top 11% of systems. Excellent for 1440p Ultra or 4K High gaming.

1440p Ultra4K High

System Balance Analysis

CPU vs GPU performance ratio
Well Balanced
CPU
85%
VS
GPU
93%
PROCESSOR

Intel Core Ultra 7 268V

20,897 Benchmark Score
Top 15% Market Ranking
View Full Specs →
GRAPHICS CARD

Intel Arc A370M

29,175 Benchmark Score
Top 7% 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

The Intel Core Ultra 7 268V and Intel Arc A370M form a mobile pairing that targets a specific niche: efficient, compact laptops that can handle a wide range of productivity tasks and light-to-moderate creative work. The data shows a system with a strong modern CPU and a modest, entry-level discrete GPU. This analysis draws exclusively from the provided benchmark data to explain what this combination can do, where it falls short, and who should consider it.

CPU Analysis

The Intel Core Ultra 7 268V is an 8-core, 8-thread processor based on the Lunar Lake architecture, built on a 3 nm process by TSMC. It belongs to the Core Ultra Series 2 and is designed for mobile platforms, fitting the Intel BGA 2833 socket. With a base clock of 2.20 GHz and a boost clock of 5.00 GHz, it offers a substantial dynamic range. The CPU's thermal design point (TDP) is 17 W, which is a low-power figure, indicating a strong focus on energy efficiency. The cache hierarchy includes 192 KB of L1 per core, 2.5 MB of L2 per core, and 12 MB of shared L3 cache.

Benchmark results show a processor that excels in single-threaded tasks while holding its own in multi-threaded workloads. In Cinebench R23, the chip scores 1921 points in single-core and 10653 points in multi-core. Similarly, Geekbench tests yield a single-core score of 2270 and a multi-core score of 9963. The single-core numbers are particularly strong, indicating excellent responsiveness for applications that rely on one or two threads. The multi-core scores are respectable for an 8-thread part, but they are not class-leading. PassMark results reinforce this profile: the single-thread score is 4051, while the multithread score is 19297. The PassMark data also reveals specific workload strengths. The floating-point math score is 57628, and the integer math score is 42669, showing balanced computational throughput. Data compression yields a high score of 181443, and extended instructions score 15323, suggesting solid performance in modern, well-optimized software. The find prime numbers score is a low 192, which is typical of a low-power mobile chip.

The CPU sits in the 74th percentile among all CPUs, meaning it outperforms roughly three-quarters of the processors in the database. Its average benchmark score is 20897. The nearest rivals provide context. The AMD Ryzen 5 PRO 4655GE scores 20900 (0% difference), the Intel Core i5-12600T scores 20917 (-0.1% difference), the AMD EPYC 7J13 scores 20845 (+0.2% difference), and the Intel Core Ultra 5 125U scores 20826 (+0.3% difference). This places the Ultra 7 268V in a tight performance cluster with these parts, essentially matching their overall scores. For real workloads, this means the 268V is a very capable processor for everyday use, office productivity, and software development, where its high single-thread speed will make the system feel snappy. It will handle moderate multi-threaded tasks like video editing exports and 3D rendering, but it won't be a powerhouse for heavy, continuous all-core workloads.

Usage Scenarios

High-Refresh Gaming: The CPU has the single-thread muscle to feed high frame rates, but the GPU will be the limiting factor. The Arc A370M is an entry-level part, so expecting high frame rates at high settings in demanding titles is unrealistic. The system is better suited for esports and older games where the CPU's strong single-core score of 1921 in Cinebench R23 can help maintain high FPS at lower resolutions and settings.

Streaming: This is a mixed bag. The CPU's 8 threads are enough for the game and streaming software, but the GPU's limited encoding hardware and 4 GB of VRAM will restrict quality. The PassMark multi-thread score of 19297 indicates the CPU can handle the encoding load, but the system may struggle with modern games while streaming simultaneously. It's more suited for streaming less demanding games or using very efficient encoding presets.

Video Editing: The CPU's performance in the Cinebench R23 multi-core test (10653) and PassMark integer math (42669) suggests it can handle 1080p video editing timelines in software like Premiere Pro. The GPU can assist with effects and rendering via its compute capabilities, but the 4 GB VRAM and 112.0 GB/s bandwidth will limit its ability to work with complex 4K timelines or heavy effects stacks. Export times will be moderate, not blazing fast.

3D Rendering: This workload is heavily multi-threaded, and the CPU will be the primary engine. The Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 10653 is decent for a low-power chip, meaning it can complete renders, but it will take longer than a higher-core desktop part. The GPU's FP32 compute of 4.198 TFLOPS can be used for GPU-accelerated rendering in some engines, but the 4 GB VRAM will be a significant constraint for larger scenes.

Software Development: This is a strong scenario for this CPU. The high single-core performance (Geekbench single-core 2270) makes compilation of smaller projects and code navigation very responsive. The 8 cores are sufficient for parallel builds. PassMark data encryption (13779) and data compression (181443) scores also indicate good performance for tasks like package management and version control operations.

Student and Office Work: This is the sweet spot. The combination of the powerful single-threaded CPU and the efficient 17 W TDP makes for a responsive and long-lasting laptop for web browsing, document editing, spreadsheets, and presentation software. The 74th percentile CPU performance ensures that no productivity task will feel sluggish, and the low power draw means good battery life, though that is not directly measured here.

GPU Analysis

The Intel Arc A370M is a mobile discrete GPU based on the Xe-HPG architecture, specifically the Alchemist generation. It is built on a 6 nm process by TSMC and uses the DG2-128 chip, which contains 7,200 million transistors on a 157 mm² die. The GPU has 1024 shading units, 64 texture mapping units (TMUs), and 32 raster operation pipelines (ROPs). It also features 8 dedicated ray tracing cores, bringing some hardware ray tracing capability to the table.

Memory is a key differentiator and limitation. The A370M has 4 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 64-bit bus, providing a bandwidth of 112.0 GB/s. The memory clock is 1750 MHz, which translates to 14 Gbps effective. This is a modest amount of bandwidth and capacity by modern standards, which will constrain performance in high-resolution textures and memory-intensive workloads. The GPU's clock speeds are a base of 1550 MHz and a boost of 2050 MHz. Its compute capabilities are rated at 4.198 TFLOPS for FP32 and 8.397 TFLOPS for FP16 (2:1 ratio). The pixel rate is 65.60 GPixel/s, and the texture rate is 131.2 GTexel/s.

In compute benchmarks, the A370M scores 29676 in Geekbench OpenCL and 28673 in Geekbench Vulkan. This places it in the 74th percentile among all GPUs, with an average benchmark score of 29175. Its nearest rivals are the AMD Radeon RX Vega M GH (score 29197, -0.1% difference), the AMD FirePro W8000 (score 29211, -0.1% difference), the AMD Radeon RX 470 (score 28996, +0.6% difference), and notably, the AMD Radeon RX 6800M (score 28874, +1% difference). This is an interesting comparison: the A370M's average score is statistically tied with the high-end RX 6800M in these specific compute tests, though this does not reflect gaming performance. The GPU supports modern APIs, including DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. Its TDP is 35 W, and it connects via a PCIe 4.0 x8 interface. For rendering, the 4.198 TFLOPS of FP32 performance is enough for basic 3D work, but the 4 GB VRAM and 112.0 GB/s bandwidth will cause stuttering or crashes in large scenes and high-resolution textures.

Balance and Bottleneck

The data paints a clear picture of a system that is balanced for productivity but unbalanced for gaming. The CPU is a high-performer, sitting in the 74th percentile among all CPUs. The GPU is also in the 74th percentile among all GPUs, but the nature of that percentile is different. For gaming, the GPU will be the primary bottleneck in almost all scenarios. The CPU's strong single-core performance (4051 in PassMark single-thread) is more than capable of feeding the GPU, meaning the A370M's 4 GB VRAM and 112.0 GB/s bandwidth will be the limiting factors for frame rates and texture quality.

For CPU-bound workloads like software compilation, data processing, and office tasks, the CPU is the star. The 268V's high single-thread score ensures snappy performance, and its multi-thread score (19297 in PassMark multithread) handles parallel tasks well. In these scenarios, the GPU is largely irrelevant and will not be a bottleneck.

The FPS scaling is expected to be poor in modern games. The CPU can produce high frame rates in esports titles, but the GPU will cap the performance well below what the CPU is capable of. In more demanding AAA games, the GPU will be the clear constraint, and users will need to lower settings and resolution to achieve playable frame rates. The 4 GB VRAM is a hard limit for modern game assets at 1080p, and texture quality will need to be reduced. This is a classic case of a strong CPU paired with a budget GPU, resulting in a system that is excellent for work but only entry-level for play.

Who Should Build It

This pairing is for users who prioritize CPU performance and efficiency over GPU horsepower. It is an ideal choice for a mobile workstation for a software developer. The high single-core speed (Geekbench single-core 2270) and 8 cores make code compilation, testing, and running virtual machines a smooth experience. The low 17 W CPU TDP contributes to a cooler and quieter laptop, which is a plus for long coding sessions.

It is also well-suited for students and office professionals who need a responsive, efficient laptop for a wide range of tasks. The 74th percentile CPU performance ensures that everything from web browsing to complex spreadsheets runs without lag. The 17 W TDP means the laptop can be light and have good battery life, which is crucial for portability. This is not a gaming laptop. For gamers, this system should only be considered for esports titles or older games at low-to-medium settings. It can serve as a secondary or travel machine for gaming, but the 4 GB GPU VRAM and entry-level GPU performance will be a constant limitation. For content creators, it is a mixed bag. It can handle photo editing and 1080p video editing, but the GPU's 4 GB VRAM will be a significant hurdle for 3D rendering or complex motion graphics. The CPU's strong multi-thread score (10653 in Cinebench R23) means it can handle the processing load, but the GPU will often be the bottleneck.

Gaming Performance

Note: No measured FPS data exists for this exact CPU-GPU combination. The following discussion is an estimate based on the benchmark scores of the CPU and GPU, not measured frame rates.

The data indicates the system is not designed for high-fidelity gaming. The GPU's 4 GB VRAM is a primary concern, as it will limit texture quality in even moderately modern games. The 112.0 GB/s memory bandwidth is also low, which will hurt performance in games that stream large amounts of data from memory to the GPU. The GPU's FP32 compute of 4.198 TFLOPS puts it in the entry-level class.

Based on the GPU's benchmark score and its position relative to rivals like the Radeon RX 470, we can estimate 1080p gaming performance. In esports titles like Counter-Strike 2, Valorant, or League of Legends, the CPU's strong single-core score (1921 in Cinebench R23) will allow for high frame rates, but the GPU may still limit the maximum FPS at high settings. Players will likely achieve high frame rates at medium settings. In AAA games from the last few years, the system will struggle. Frame rates will likely be below 60 FPS at 1080p with medium settings. Users will need to lower settings to low and potentially reduce the resolution to achieve a playable experience. The 4 GB VRAM will cause texture popping and stuttering in games with high-resolution texture packs. The system is not suitable for 1440p or 4K gaming. The GPU's 74th percentile score suggests it is on par with an older mid-range card, but its low VRAM capacity and bandwidth make it less capable than that percentile might suggest for modern titles. Users should expect to treat this as a 1080p, low-to-medium settings gaming machine for older or less demanding games.

Benchmark Performance

The combined performance picture is defined by a strong CPU and a modest GPU. The CPU, Intel Core Ultra 7 268V, has an average benchmark score of 20897 and sits in the 74th percentile. Its performance is statistically tied with the AMD Ryzen 5 PRO 4655GE (20900, 0% delta), Intel Core i5-12600T (20917, -0.1% delta), AMD EPYC 7J13 (20845, +0.2% delta), and Intel Core Ultra 5 125U (20826, +0.3% delta). This confirms its position as a solidly performing mid-range mobile processor.

The GPU, Intel Arc A370M, has an average benchmark score of 29175 and also sits in the 74th percentile. Its compute performance is on par with the AMD Radeon RX Vega M GH (29197, -0.1% delta), AMD FirePro W8000 (29211, -0.1% delta), AMD Radeon RX 470 (28996, +0.6% delta), and AMD Radeon RX 6800M (28874, +1% delta). While its raw compute scores are respectable, its gaming performance will be limited by its 4 GB VRAM and 64-bit memory bus. The combined percentile for this build is 74, which reflects the average of the two components. The CPU's excellence in single-threaded tasks (Geekbench single-core 2270) and the GPU's entry-level compute power (4.198 TFLOPS FP32) create a system that is a top performer for productivity but a bottom-tier performer for gaming. The data suggests that the CPU will rarely be the bottleneck in any task, while the GPU will consistently be the limiting factor in graphics-intensive workloads.

FAQ

Q: What is the CPU's performance level compared to other processors?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 7 268V sits in the 74th percentile of all CPUs with an average score of 20897. It is statistically tied with the AMD Ryzen 5 PRO 4655GE (20900) and the Intel Core i5-12600T (20917).

Q: How much VRAM does the GPU have, and is it enough for modern gaming?

A: The Intel Arc A370M has 4 GB of GDDR6 memory. This is a limiting factor for modern gaming, as it will require low texture settings and can cause stuttering in games with high-resolution assets.

Q: Is this system suitable for video editing?

A: The CPU's multi-core score of 10653 in Cinebench R23 suggests it can handle 1080p video editing. The GPU can assist with effects, but its 4 GB VRAM and 112.0 GB/s bandwidth will limit its ability to work with complex 4K timelines.

Q: What is the CPU's power consumption?

A: The CPU has a TDP of 17 W, which is very low for an 8-core processor. This indicates excellent energy efficiency, making it suitable for thin and light laptops with good battery life.

Q: What is the GPU's compute performance in TFLOPS?

A: The GPU has a FP32 performance of 4.198 TFLOPS and a FP16 performance of 8.397 TFLOPS (2:1). This puts it in the entry-level class for discrete GPUs.

Q: Does the GPU support ray tracing?

A: Yes, the Intel Arc A370M has 8 dedicated ray tracing cores. However, given its overall performance level, ray tracing will only be usable in very light scenarios or at low resolutions.

Q: How does the GPU compare to the AMD Radeon RX 470?

A: The Arc A370M has an average benchmark score of 29175, which is slightly higher than the Radeon RX 470's score of 28996 (a +0.6% difference). However, the A370M's lower VRAM capacity and bandwidth will likely make it less capable in modern games.

Upgrade Path and Platform

The system is built on the Intel BGA 2833 socket, which indicates the CPU is soldered directly to the motherboard. This means the CPU is not upgradeable; users are locked into the Ultra 7 268V for the life of the laptop. The CPU supports PCIe Gen 5 with 4 lanes (CPU only), providing a modern, high-bandwidth connection for future NVMe SSDs. The memory support is listed as "unknown" and "Depends on motherboard," but it uses a dual-channel memory bus, which is standard for mobile platforms. ECC memory is not supported.

The GPU is also a mobile component, likely soldered to the motherboard, so it cannot be upgraded either. The GPU's 35 W TDP and the CPU's 17 W TDP combine for a total of 52 W, which is a low power draw for a discrete GPU laptop. This means the laptop's cooling solution and power adapter can be relatively modest. There is no suggested PSU figure for the GPU, but the low TDPs suggest that a standard 65 W or 90 W laptop power adapter would suffice, though this is not specified in the data.

Given that both the CPU and GPU are soldered, the only meaningful upgrades are system memory (if not soldered) and storage. The most sensible "next upgrade" for a user of this system is not a new CPU or GPU, but rather a new laptop entirely. The platform is a dead end for component-level upgrades. For users who find the GPU to be a bottleneck, the only solution is to move to a system with a more powerful discrete GPU. For users who are happy with the CPU but want more graphics performance, this platform offers no path forward. In this sense, the platform is best viewed as a complete, fixed package. The data suggests that the CPU is the more capable and long-lived component, while the GPU is the primary weakness that will likely drive a future upgrade decision.