SYSTEM ANALYZER

Rate My PC: Intel Core Ultra 9 275HX + Intel Arc A350M

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)

▼

94 Score

Top 6% Ranking

94 / 100

ULTIMATE READY

Apex Performer

Top 6% of systems. Capable of 4K Ultra gaming and advanced rendering.

4K 60+ FPSVR ReadyRay Tracing

System Balance Analysis

CPU vs GPU performance ratio

Well Balanced

CPU

96%

GPU

92%

PROCESSOR

Intel Core Ultra 9 275HX

67,469 Benchmark Score

Top 4% Market Ranking

View Full Specs →

GRAPHICS CARD

Intel Arc A350M

24,647 Benchmark Score

Top 8% 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

Optimal Performance

Your system is in the top tier. You can run any modern game at maximum settings.

4K Gaming Ready

Consider a 4K 144Hz monitor to fully utilize your hardware capabilities.

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 pairing is an unusual entry in the database: a current-generation flagship mobile CPU, the Intel Core Ultra 9 275HX, matched with an entry-level discrete GPU, the Intel Arc A350M, in a laptop-class build. The combined percentile of 82 reflects the fact that the processor carries this combination almost entirely on its own. No measured FPS rows exist for this exact configuration in the FACT PACK, so all frame-rate discussion below is framed as estimation derived from the benchmark scores rather than measured results.

GPU Analysis

The Arc A350M is a small Alchemist-era part, and the spec sheet makes that plain. It is built on TSMC's 6 nm process, packs 7,200 million transistors into a 157 mm² die, and carries 768 shading units, 48 texture mapping units, and 24 render output units. Ray tracing is present but thin on the ground: 6 RT cores. There are no tensor cores listed in the data, so AI-accelerated upscaling and denoising features should be assumed absent rather than assumed present.

Memory is the defining constraint. The A350M ships with 4 GB of GDDR6 on a 64-bit bus, delivering 112.0 GB/s of bandwidth. That bus width and capacity are the numbers that will shape real-world behavior far more than the 3.379 TFLOPS FP32 figure. In rendering terms, 4 GB of VRAM fills quickly at higher resolutions or with modern texture packs; when the buffer saturates, the 64-bit interface offers little headroom to absorb the spill. Pixel throughput is rated at 52.80 GPixel/s and texture fill at 105.6 GTexel/s — modest figures that place a hard ceiling on rasterization-heavy scenes.

Clocks run from a 1150 MHz base to a 2200 MHz boost, with memory at 1750 MHz (14 Gbps effective). FP16 throughput is listed at 6.758 TFLOPS at a 2:1 ratio to FP32. The bus interface is PCIe 4.0 x8, which is worth noting: with only 4 GB of local VRAM, texture streaming over the bus matters, and a narrow x8 link compounds the capacity limit rather than relieving it.

The API support is respectable on paper — DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), Vulkan 1.4, and OpenGL 4.6 — so the feature set is modern even if the horsepower is not. The GPU sits at the 70th percentile versus all GPUs in the database with an average benchmark score of 24647, built from a Geekbench OpenCL score of 24546 and a Vulkan score of 24747. For rendering work, read that as: capable of GPU compute tasks, but the A350M is not the tool for GPU-bound viewport work or final-frame ray-traced output. It is an accelerator for display output and light compute, not a rendering engine.

Benchmark Performance

Start with the processor, because it dominates this build's profile. The Core Ultra 9 275HX sits in the 94th percentile of all CPUs with an average benchmark score of 67469. Its nearest rivals tell an interesting story: the Intel Xeon w5-3525 averages 67673 (a deltaPct of -0.3 relative to this chip), the AMD EPYC 4484PX averages 67822 (-0.5), the AMD Ryzen Threadripper PRO 5955WX averages 67868 (-0.6), and the Intel Xeon 6515P averages 67006 (0.7). Those are workstation and server-class names. A mobile part trading blows within a fraction of a percent of Xeon and Threadripper PRO hardware is the single most important fact about this configuration.

The Cinebench ladder shows the shape of the performance curve. R15 multi-core: 5619.5, single-core: 334. R20 multi-core: 19899, single-core: 2809. R23 multi-core: 35589, single-core: 2204. The single-core figures are strong in absolute terms; the multi-core figures are what place the chip near workstation territory. Geekbench tells the same story with 20795 multi-core and 2458 single-core.

PassMark rounds out the picture: 55759 multithread, 4713 single thread, 191186 floating point math, 155218 integer math, 608381 data compression, 47112 data encryption, 74320 string sorting, 448 on find-prime-numbers, 47016 on extended instructions, and 3338 on physics.

Against that, the GPU's average of 24647 at the 70th GPU percentile is a clear second act. The combined percentile of 82 lands between the CPU's 94th and the GPU's 70th, and the weighting is obvious: this build performs like a fast machine for anything CPU-bound and like a mid-range machine for anything GPU-bound.

Gaming Performance

To be clear once more: the FACT PACK contains no measured FPS data for this exact pairing — measuredFpsUltraByGame is empty and dataIsMeasured is false. Everything in this section is estimated from the benchmark scores, not measured.

With that caveat, the estimates follow directly from the numbers. The Arc A350M's average score of 24647 puts it within a fraction of a percent of the AMD Radeon RX 590 (24744, deltaPct -0.4), the NVIDIA RTX A5000 Mobile (24763, -0.5), and the AMD Radeon RX 6600 XT (24442, 0.8), and slightly ahead of the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1630 (24277, 1.5). Cards in that performance neighborhood are 1080p-class hardware. At ultra settings and 1080p, expect playable frame rates in lighter titles and compromised frame rates in demanding ones — the 4 GB VRAM buffer and 112.0 GB/s bandwidth are the limiting factors, not the 2200 MHz boost clock.

At 1440p and 4K, the estimate worsens considerably. A 64-bit bus and 4 GB of GDDR6 do not scale gracefully to higher resolutions, and the 24 ROPs cap what the back end can push out. The practical read: this is a 1080p, settings-adjusted gaming configuration where the CPU is never the problem and the GPU almost always is. The six RT cores exist, but with this level of throughput, ray-traced effects should be treated as off the table for sustained play.

The CPU side, by contrast, could feed a far faster GPU. With a PassMark physics score of 3338 and a 94th-percentile overall standing, the 275HX will not be the frame limiter in any realistic pairing with the A350M.

Upgrade Path and Platform

In a laptop-class build, the usual desktop upgrade logic does not apply, and the specs confirm it. The Core Ultra 9 275HX uses Intel BGA 2114 — a soldered socket with no CPU swaps. The Arc A350M is likewise fixed hardware, and its production status is listed as end-of-life, meaning the GPU is not part of any forward platform path.

What the platform does offer is modern connectivity. The CPU supports DDR5 on a dual-channel bus with 102.4 GB/s of memory bandwidth, PCIe Gen 5 with 20 lanes from the CPU, and the chip is multiplier unlocked — though in a mobile chassis, sustained overclocking headroom is constrained by the 55 W TDP figure rather than the silicon. ECC memory is not supported, which closes off one workstation checkbox.

For power planning, the data lists a 55 W CPU TDP and a 25 W GPU TDP. No suggested PSU figure exists in the FACT PACK because none applies — this is an integrated laptop platform, not a component build. A sensible "next upgrade" here means a new machine, not a new part. Anyone whose workload outgrows the A350M's 4 GB of VRAM should be shopping for a laptop with a larger discrete GPU; anyone happy with the CPU's standing can note that the 275HX's performance level — within a percentage point of Xeon w5-3525 and Threadripper PRO 5955WX hardware — is already the ceiling of this class.

CPU Analysis

The Core Ultra 9 275HX is an Arrow Lake-HX part manufactured on TSMC's 3 nm process, carrying 17,800 million transistors on a 243 mm² die. It offers 24 cores and 24 threads — no hyperthreading-style doubling here, just physical cores — with a 2.70 GHz base clock and a 5.40 GHz boost. Cache is generous: 192 KB of L1 and 3 MB of L2 per core, plus 36 MB of shared L3. The integrated graphics is Arc Xe-LPG with 64 EUs.

What do the scores mean for real workloads? The Cinebench R23 multi-core result of 35589 and Geekbench multi-core of 20795 describe a chip that chews through parallel rendering, code compilation, and video encodes at a level that rivals workstation silicon. The PassMark data compression score of 608381 and encryption score of 47112 indicate strong throughput for archive and security workloads. Single-thread performance — 2204 in R23 and 4713 in PassMark single thread — is equally capable, which matters for applications that refuse to parallelize: audio workstations, CAD, scripting, and game engines with heavy main-thread logic.

The nearest-rival table deserves emphasis. A mobile processor scoring within 0.3 to 0.6 percent of an Intel Xeon w5-3525, an AMD EPYC 4484PX, and a Threadripper PRO 5955WX — and 0.7 percent ahead of a Xeon 6515P — means the 275HX effectively delivers workstation-class throughput in a notebook power envelope. The 55 W TDP makes that comparison all the more notable; this is not a chip running unrestrained.

Usage Scenarios

High-refresh gaming: The CPU is ready; the GPU is not. With the 275HX at the 94th percentile and a physics score of 3338, frame delivery is never in doubt — but the A350M's 24647 average and 4 GB VRAM cap estimates at 1080p with reduced settings. High-refresh play at 1440p or above is outside this configuration's estimated envelope.

Streaming: This is a credible scenario. Single-core strength (2458 Geekbench, 334 R15) handles encoder and game main threads, while the 24-core pool absorbs the encoder's parallel load. The caveat: if the game itself is GPU-heavy, the A350M leaves no rendering headroom for simultaneous encode at high quality.

Video editing: CPU-side editing — timeline scrubbing, proxy workflows, export — benefits directly from the R23 multi-core score of 35589 and 102.4 GB/s of DDR5 bandwidth. GPU-accelerated effects are where the A350M's 4 GB buffer and 112.0 GB/s become obstacles. Long exports will be fast; effect-heavy timelines will not.

3D rendering: CPU rendering is genuinely strong here, benchmarked alongside Xeon and Threadripper PRO parts. GPU rendering is a different story: 6 RT cores, 3.379 TFLOPS FP32, and 4 GB of VRAM put final-frame GPU rendering out of realistic scope. Viewport work at moderate scene complexity is the usable zone.

Software development: Arguably this build's best case. Compiling is a parallel workload that the 24 cores and PassMark multithread score of 55759 exploit fully, and the single-thread figures keep IDEs and debuggers responsive. The GPU is essentially irrelevant to this workflow, which neutralizes the build's weak spot.

Student and office work: Overkill in the best way. Documents, browsing, and video calls barely register against a 94th-percentile CPU, and battery-relevant concerns aside, the performance headroom covers years of heavier coursework. No scenario here touches the A350M's limits.

Who Should Build It

The honest answer: buyers of this laptop are buying the 275HX and accepting the A350M. Developers are the ideal audience — compilation throughput within a percentage point of workstation Xeons and Threadripper PROs, in a mobile package, with a GPU that simply needs to drive displays. Engineering students, data-analysis users, and small-business workstation shoppers who run CPU-bound tools (spreadsheets are trivial; statistical computing benefits from the floating point score of 191186) fit the same profile.

Content creators should buy it only with scoped expectations: CPU-rendered output and CPU-encoded video are strengths; GPU-accelerated anything is not. Gamers should look elsewhere — the estimated frame rates put this at 1080p-class, settings-adjusted play, regardless of how fast the processor is. Anyone whose workflow lives in GPU compute — ML inference, GPU path tracing, heavy simulation — will hit the A350M's percentile ceiling immediately.

FAQ

Q: Is this configuration good for gaming?

A: Not primarily. The GPU sits at the 70th percentile with 4 GB of VRAM, so estimated performance is 1080p-class with adjusted settings, while the 94th-percentile CPU goes largely unused.

Q: How does the CPU compare to workstation chips?

A: Extremely closely. Its average score of 67469 lands within 0.3 percent of the Intel Xeon w5-3525, 0.5 percent of the AMD EPYC 4484PX, and 0.6 percent of the Ryzen Threadripper PRO 5955WX.

Q: Are the frame rates in this article measured?

A: No. The FACT PACK contains no measured FPS data for this pairing, so all frame-rate discussion is estimated from benchmark scores.

Q: Can the CPU or GPU be upgraded later?

A: No. The CPU uses the soldered Intel BGA 2114 socket and the Arc A350M is fixed, end-of-life laptop hardware.

Q: Is the CPU unlocked?

A: Yes, the multiplier is unlocked, though the 55 W TDP of the mobile platform constrains how much of that headroom is usable in practice.

Q: How much memory bandwidth does the platform provide?

A: Dual-channel DDR5 at 102.4 GB/s on the CPU side; the GPU adds 112.0 GB/s across its 64-bit bus.

Q: Does the GPU support ray tracing?

A: It has 6 RT cores and DirectX 12 Ultimate support on paper, but with 3.379 TFLOPS of FP32 throughput, ray-traced rendering is beyond its realistic capability.

Balance and Bottleneck

This is one of the most lopsided pairings in the database, and the percentile spread quantifies it precisely: CPU at the 94th percentile, GPU at the 70th, combined at 82. The CPU outruns the GPU by 24 percentile points, and the benchmark averages — 67469 against 24647 — make the ratio unmistakable.

Every GPU-bound workload is limited by the Arc A350M. The 4 GB VRAM buffer, 64-bit bus, and 112.0 GB/s of bandwidth are the specific chokepoints, and the PCIe 4.0 x8 interface narrows the streaming path further. No CPU-side improvement is possible or needed; the 275HX's physics score of 3338 and R23 multi-core result of 35589 describe a processor with ample headroom that this GPU cannot consume.

Every CPU-bound workload is limited by nothing at all. Compilation, CPU rendering, compression, and encryption run at a level benchmarked alongside Xeon and Threadripper PRO hardware. The practical bottleneck map is simple: if the task touches the GPU, the A350M sets the ceiling; if it does not, this machine performs like a mobile workstation. That asymmetry — a flagship processor driving an entry-level accelerator — is the defining characteristic of the build, and the combined 82nd percentile is the arithmetic consequence of it.

Rate My PC: Intel Core Ultra 9 275HX + Intel Arc A350M

Apex Performer

System Balance Analysis

Intel Core Ultra 9 275HX

Intel Arc A350M

Market Position

Game Performance Benchmarks

Cyberpunk 2077

Red Dead Redemption 2

Microsoft Flight Simulator

Control

Call of Duty: Warzone

Fortnite

Performance Insights

Optimal Performance

4K Gaming Ready

Performance Tiers Explained

Ultimate

High-End

Mid-Range

Entry Level

Legacy

GPU Analysis

Benchmark Performance

Gaming Performance

Upgrade Path and Platform

CPU Analysis

Usage Scenarios

Who Should Build It

FAQ

Balance and Bottleneck

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