SYSTEM ANALYZER

Rate My PC: Intel Core Ultra 7 366H + NVIDIA RTX 3000 Mobile 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)

▼

83 Score

Top 17% Ranking

83 / 100

HIGH-END

Power Build

Top 17% of systems. Excellent for 1440p Ultra or 4K High gaming.

1440p Ultra4K High

System Balance Analysis

CPU vs GPU performance ratio

Well Balanced

CPU

93%

GPU

74%

PROCESSOR

Intel Core Ultra 7 366H

41,263 Benchmark Score

Top 7% Market Ranking

View Full Specs →

GRAPHICS CARD

NVIDIA RTX 3000 Mobile Ada Generation

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

The Intel Core Ultra 7 366H and NVIDIA RTX 3000 Mobile Ada Generation pairing is a mobile workstation-class configuration that lands in the 69th percentile overall, meaning it outperforms roughly two-thirds of all tracked desktop and laptop builds. The data shows a CPU that is a top-tier performer for its segment, while the GPU, though competent, represents the more modest half of the equation. Benchmark results indicate this is a system built for serious multi-threaded productivity rather than raw gaming dominance.

GPU Analysis — VRAM, bandwidth, clocks, RT/tensor hardware, what the benchmark scores mean for rendering

The NVIDIA RTX 3000 Mobile Ada Generation is built on the Ada Lovelace architecture using a 5 nm TSMC process. The chip, designated AD106, contains 22,900 million transistors on a 188 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 121.8M per mm². This is a mobile part with a 115 W TDP, and its slot width is listed as IGP, indicating it is integrated into the system board rather than a removable MXM module.

The GPU is equipped with 8 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 128-bit bus, delivering 256.0 GB/s of bandwidth. The memory operates at 2000 MHz with 16 Gbps effective speed. For compute, the GPU features 4608 shading units, 144 texture mapping units, and 48 raster output units. Ray tracing is handled by 36 dedicated RT cores, and AI acceleration is provided by 144 tensor cores. The base clock is set at 1395 MHz with a boost clock of 1695 MHz.

The rendering throughput figures are substantial: the GPU achieves a pixel rate of 81.36 GPixel/s and a texture rate of 244.1 GTexel/s. In terms of raw compute, the FP32 and FP16 performance are both rated at 15.62 TFLOPS, with a 1:1 ratio indicating no half-rate penalty for FP16 workloads. The GPU supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4, covering the full modern API stack for professional applications.

The GPU's percentile rank against all GPUs is 50, placing it exactly at the median. This means half of all tracked GPUs are faster and half are slower. For rendering tasks, the 8 GB VRAM is sufficient for many 1080p and some 1440p workloads, but the 128-bit bus and 256.0 GB/s bandwidth will become a limiting factor for large texture sets or high-resolution render targets. The RT and tensor cores provide hardware acceleration for ray-traced workflows and AI-based denoising or upscaling, which are increasingly common in DCC applications.

Benchmark scores for this GPU are absent from the data, so no direct numerical comparison is possible. However, given the 50th percentile ranking, the expectation is that this GPU will handle professional rendering tasks at moderate settings, with the 15.62 TFLOPS FP32 throughput being the theoretical ceiling for compute-bound operations. The lack of a suggested PSU and the IGP slot width suggest this is a fixed, non-upgradeable component within a laptop chassis.

Benchmark Performance — exact CPU and GPU scores, percentile positions, and what the combined picture is

The combined build percentile is 69, indicating that this CPU+GPU pairing outperforms 69% of all tracked configurations. The CPU is the clear driver of this position, with an average benchmark score of 41263 and a percentile rank of 87 against all CPUs.

The CPU's Cinebench results are strong. In Cinebench R15, it scores 2870 in multi-core and 405 in single-core. Cinebench R20 shows 11960 multi-core and 1688 single-core. The most recent Cinebench R23 results show 28477 multi-core and 4020 single-core. These numbers indicate a processor that is roughly 7x faster in multi-core than single-core workloads, reflecting its 16-core design.

PassMark results reinforce this pattern. The multithread score is 33429, while the single-thread score is 4043. Integer math scores 83695, floating-point math scores 103615, and extended instructions (SIMD) scores 26901. Data compression is a standout at 327455, while data encryption scores 25845. Random string sorting achieves 39814, and physics simulation scores 2880. Finding prime numbers is a relatively weak 326, which is typical for a processor without extreme clock speeds.

The CPU's nearest rivals show a tight cluster at the top. The Intel Core Ultra 7 356H scores 41215, just 0.1% lower. The AMD Ryzen AI 5 PRO 440 also scores 41208, again 0.1% lower. The AMD Ryzen 9 5900X scores 41376, which is 0.3% higher than the 366H. The Intel Core Ultra X7 358H scores 40967, 0.7% lower. This means the 366H is effectively tied with its immediate competition, with all four rivals within a 0.7% spread.

The GPU, as noted, has no benchmark scores and sits at the 50th percentile. The combined picture is a system where the CPU is the performance anchor, providing top-quartile compute capability, while the GPU is a mid-pack component. This asymmetry suggests that the overall build percentile of 69 is dragged down by the GPU relative to what the CPU alone could achieve.

CPU Analysis — cores, clocks, architecture, what the benchmark scores mean for real workloads

The Intel Core Ultra 7 366H is a 16-core, 16-thread processor from the Core Ultra Series 3, based on the Panther Lake architecture. It is manufactured on Intel's 3 nm process node and is part of the Panther Lake-H generation, released in early 2026. The base clock is 2.00 GHz with a boost clock of 4.80 GHz. The TDP is rated at 25 W, which is very low for a 16-core part, indicating the efficiency of the 3 nm process.

The cache hierarchy is substantial: 192 KB of L1 per core, 2.5 MB of L2 per core, and 18 MB of shared L3 cache. This is a large L2 allocation per core, which helps with data locality in multi-threaded workloads. The memory controller supports dual-channel DDR5 and LPDDR5X, with a maximum memory bandwidth of 115.2 GB/s. ECC memory is not supported. The PCIe interface is Gen 5 with 12 lanes from the CPU, which is narrower than typical desktop parts but appropriate for mobile.

The processor integrates Intel Xe3 Graphics, providing a fallback display output and basic compute capability. The socket is Intel BGA 2540, which is soldered and not upgradeable. The multiplier is locked, preventing overclocking.

The benchmark scores translate to real-world performance as follows. The Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 28477 places this CPU in the upper echelon of mobile processors. For content creation, this means video encoding, 3D rendering, and software compilation will be fast. The PassMark data compression score of 327455 suggests excellent performance in file archiving and database operations. The floating-point math score of 103615 indicates strong performance in scientific computing and physics simulations.

The single-thread performance, with a Cinebench R23 score of 4020, is also competitive. This matters for legacy software, spreadsheets, and general desktop responsiveness. The boost clock of 4.80 GHz is high for a 25 W TDP part, suggesting that the processor can sustain high single-core frequencies without excessive power draw.

The 87th percentile rank against all CPUs confirms that this is a top-tier mobile processor. The tight clustering with rivals (all within 0.7%) indicates that at this performance level, small architectural differences matter less than thermal and power delivery implementation in the laptop chassis.

Who Should Build It — target users and industries (gamers at specific resolutions, content creators, developers, students, small business workstations) tied strictly to the measured performance

This laptop configuration is best suited for users who need serious multi-threaded CPU performance but only moderate GPU capability. The CPU's 87th percentile rank makes it ideal for content creators who work with video editing, 3D modeling, and software development — tasks that leverage the 16 cores and high PassMark multithread score of 33429.

For video editors, the data compression score of 327455 and floating-point math score of 103615 indicate strong performance in codec-heavy workflows. The CPU can handle 4K video timelines with multiple effects without becoming the bottleneck, though the GPU's 8 GB VRAM may limit real-time preview of complex color grades or heavy noise reduction.

Software developers will benefit from the high integer math score of 83695 and the extended instructions score of 26901. Compilation of large codebases will be significantly faster than typical mobile processors, and the 18 MB L3 cache helps with context switching between many threads.

Students in engineering or data science programs will find the CPU capable of running MATLAB, Python, and simulation tools. The Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 28477 suggests that rendering assignments in CAD or 3D animation courses will complete in reasonable time.

Small business workstations that handle databases, virtualization, or financial modeling will see strong performance. The random string sorting score of 39814 indicates good performance in data manipulation tasks, and the 16 threads allow multiple virtual machines to run concurrently without severe degradation.

Gamers should be cautious. The GPU's 50th percentile rank means that at 1080p, this system will run many titles at medium to high settings, but the 8 GB VRAM and 128-bit bus will struggle with 1440p high-texture workloads. The CPU will not bottleneck the GPU, but the GPU is the limiting factor for gaming.

Balance and Bottleneck — which component limits which workload, using percentiles and FPS scaling as evidence

The data clearly shows an unbalanced pairing. The CPU sits at the 87th percentile, while the GPU sits at the 50th percentile. This 37-point gap means that in CPU-bound workloads, the system will perform near the top of the range, but in GPU-bound workloads, it will perform at the median.

For productivity tasks like video encoding or software compilation, the CPU is the primary resource, and the GPU has minimal involvement. These workloads will perform at the CPU's 87th percentile level. The GPU's 50th percentile is irrelevant here.

For rendering workloads that use both CPU and GPU — such as Blender or V-Ray — the CPU will handle the geometry and physics while the GPU handles the rasterization or ray tracing. The CPU's strong multi-core scores (Cinebench R23 28477) will keep up with the GPU's 15.62 TFLOPS FP32 throughput, but the GPU's 50th percentile rank means the overall render time will be closer to mid-pack.

For gaming, the bottleneck is unambiguously the GPU. The CPU can feed frames at a rate far exceeding what the GPU can render. The GPU's 8 GB VRAM and 256.0 GB/s bandwidth will cause frame rate drops in texture-heavy scenes at 1440p. At 1080p, the GPU is more capable, but the 50th percentile rank means it will not deliver high refresh rate experiences in demanding titles.

The memory bandwidth of 115.2 GB/s on the CPU side is a potential secondary bottleneck in mixed workloads. If the CPU is simultaneously processing data and feeding the GPU, the dual-channel memory bus may starve both components. However, for most single-application workloads, this is unlikely to manifest.

Gaming Performance — measured FPS by game and resolution from measuredFpsUltraByGame (or, if dataIsMeasured is false, frame expectations qualitatively from the benchmark scores and say the figures are estimates)

The FACT PACK contains no measured FPS data for this exact combination, and the dataIsMeasured flag is false. Therefore, all gaming performance figures discussed here are estimates based on the benchmark scores and percentiles, not measured results.

Given the GPU's 50th percentile rank and 15.62 TFLOPS FP32 throughput, the expected gaming performance is moderate. At 1080p with ultra settings, this GPU should deliver playable frame rates (60+ FPS) in esports titles like Counter-Strike 2 or Valorant, but will likely fall below 60 FPS in graphically demanding AAA titles such as Cyberpunk 2077 or Alan Wake 2 without upscaling.

At 1440p, the 8 GB VRAM and 256.0 GB/s bandwidth will be the limiting factors. High-resolution textures will exceed the VRAM capacity in some titles, causing stuttering. The 128-bit memory bus is narrow by modern standards, and the effective 16 Gbps memory speed is mid-range. Estimated 1440p ultra performance is 40-60 FPS in moderately demanding titles, dropping to 30-40 FPS in the most demanding ones.

The CPU's 4.80 GHz boost clock and strong single-thread score (Cinebench R23 4020) ensure that it will not bottleneck the GPU at any resolution. The 16 cores provide ample headroom for background tasks while gaming. The 25 W TDP of the CPU also means it will not generate excessive heat, allowing the GPU to maintain its 115 W TDP without thermal throttling.

Ray tracing performance, supported by the 36 RT cores, will be functional but not class-leading. The 15.62 TFLOPS FP32 throughput is the same for FP16, meaning the tensor cores are not being used for DLSS-style upscaling at full rate. The 50th percentile rank suggests that ray tracing at 1080p will be playable only with DLSS or FSR enabled.

Upgrade Path and Platform — socket, memory support, PCIe, PSU headroom from suggestedPsu/tdp, what a sensible next upgrade looks like

The upgrade path for this laptop configuration is severely limited. The CPU is soldered to an Intel BGA 2540 socket, which is a mobile-only form factor. The GPU is listed as IGP slot width, meaning it is integrated into the system board and cannot be replaced. Neither component is user-serviceable.

The memory supports DDR5 and LPDDR5X in dual-channel configuration. The maximum memory bandwidth is 115.2 GB/s. Depending on the laptop design, the RAM may be soldered or socketed. If socketed, upgrading to higher-capacity or faster memory modules is the only feasible hardware upgrade.

The PCIe interface is Gen 5 with 12 lanes from the CPU. This is sufficient for one or two NVMe SSDs. The GPU uses PCIe 4.0 x16, which is a separate interface. The storage is likely upgradeable, and replacing a SATA SSD with a Gen 5 NVMe drive would improve load times in applications and games.

The CPU's TDP is 25 W, and the GPU's TDP is 115 W, totaling 140 W for the compute components. The suggested PSU is null, meaning there is no recommended power supply figure in the data. However, the combined TDP of 140 W is moderate for a laptop, and the power delivery system should have headroom for the CPU and GPU to run at their rated clocks simultaneously.

A sensible next upgrade, beyond storage, would be to maximize the memory capacity and speed if the laptop allows it. Filling the dual-channel slots with the fastest LPDDR5X modules supported would reduce the memory bandwidth bottleneck. However, the CPU and GPU are fixed, and no meaningful performance improvement can be achieved by replacing them.

The platform is otherwise current, with PCIe Gen 5 support and modern API compatibility. The lack of ECC memory support is a consideration for mission-critical workstations, but for most users, this is acceptable.

Build Overview — what this CPU+GPU pairing is, its class (desktop/laptop from buildClass), and overall tier from the percentiles

This is a laptop-class build, as indicated by the buildClass field. The pairing consists of the Intel Core Ultra 7 366H, a 16-core mobile processor from the Panther Lake architecture, and the NVIDIA RTX 3000 Mobile Ada Generation, a mid-range mobile GPU based on Ada Lovelace.

The overall tier is defined by the combined percentile of 69. This places the system in the upper-middle tier of all tracked builds. The CPU's 87th percentile is the defining characteristic, making this a high-performance productivity machine. The GPU's 50th percentile keeps it from being a high-end gaming or rendering system.

The CPU's average benchmark score of 41263 is a strong indicator of its capability. The nearest rivals are all within 0.7% of this score, confirming that the 366H is at the top of its class. The GPU has no scores, but its 50th percentile is a clear signal of mediocrity.

In summary, this is a laptop that excels at CPU-intensive tasks: compilation, video encoding, data analysis, and 3D modeling. It is adequate for gaming at 1080p and light GPU-accelerated work, but it is not a gaming or rendering powerhouse. The 69th combined percentile reflects this split personality, with the CPU pulling the score up and the GPU holding it back.

FAQ

Q: What is the combined performance percentile of this CPU+GPU pairing?

A: The combined percentile is 69, meaning it outperforms 69% of all tracked builds.

Q: How does the Intel Core Ultra 7 366H compare to its nearest rival, the AMD Ryzen 9 5900X?

A: The 366H scores 41263, which is 0.3% lower than the Ryzen 9 5900X's 41376. The difference is negligible in real-world terms.

Q: What is the GPU's memory bandwidth and capacity?

A: The GPU has 8 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 128-bit bus, delivering 256.0 GB/s of bandwidth.

Q: Does this laptop support ECC memory?

A: No, ECC memory is not supported by the CPU.

Q: What is the TDP of the CPU and GPU?

A: The CPU has a TDP of 25 W, and the GPU has a TDP of 115 W.

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

A: The Cinebench R23 multi-core score is 28477, which places the CPU at the 87th percentile against all CPUs.

Q: Is the GPU upgradeable in this laptop?

A: No, the GPU has an IGP slot width, meaning it is integrated into the system board and cannot be replaced.

Rate My PC: Intel Core Ultra 7 366H + NVIDIA RTX 3000 Mobile Ada Generation

Power Build

System Balance Analysis

Intel Core Ultra 7 366H

NVIDIA RTX 3000 Mobile Ada Generation

Market Position

Game Performance Benchmarks

Cyberpunk 2077

Red Dead Redemption 2

Microsoft Flight Simulator

Control

Call of Duty: Warzone

Fortnite

Performance Insights

Strong Performance

Performance Tiers Explained

Ultimate

High-End

Mid-Range

Entry Level

Legacy

GPU Analysis — VRAM, bandwidth, clocks, RT/tensor hardware, what the benchmark scores mean for rendering

Benchmark Performance — exact CPU and GPU scores, percentile positions, and what the combined picture is

CPU Analysis — cores, clocks, architecture, what the benchmark scores mean for real workloads

Who Should Build It — target users and industries (gamers at specific resolutions, content creators, developers, students, small business workstations) tied strictly to the measured performance

Balance and Bottleneck — which component limits which workload, using percentiles and FPS scaling as evidence

Gaming Performance — measured FPS by game and resolution from measuredFpsUltraByGame (or, if dataIsMeasured is false, frame expectations qualitatively from the benchmark scores and say the figures are estimates)

Upgrade Path and Platform — socket, memory support, PCIe, PSU headroom from suggestedPsu/tdp, what a sensible next upgrade looks like

Build Overview — what this CPU+GPU pairing is, its class (desktop/laptop from buildClass), and overall tier from the percentiles

FAQ

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