SYSTEM ANALYZER

Rate My PC: Intel Core Ultra 9 285 + AMD Radeon RX 7700

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

93 / 100
ULTIMATE READY

Apex Performer

Top 7% 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
97%
VS
GPU
89%
PROCESSOR

Intel Core Ultra 9 285

75,488 Benchmark Score
Top 3% Market Ranking
View Full Specs →
GRAPHICS CARD

AMD Radeon RX 7700

15,852 Benchmark Score
Top 11% 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

The Intel Core Ultra 9 285 and AMD Radeon RX 7700 form a desktop pairing that places the combined system at the 77th percentile of all builds. This is a configuration defined by a top-tier processor paired with a mid-range graphics card, creating a distinct performance profile where CPU-bound tasks will vastly outpace GPU-bound ones. The data shows a processor that sits at the 95th percentile among all CPUs, while the graphics card holds the 58th percentile among all GPUs, a gap that frames every workload analysis.

CPU Analysis

The Intel Core Ultra 9 285 is a 24-core, 24-thread processor built on the Arrow Lake architecture, specifically the Arrow Lake-S desktop variant. It belongs to the Core Ultra Series 2 generation and is manufactured on a 3 nm process node by TSMC, with a transistor count of 17,800 million on a 243 mm² die. The processor operates with a base clock of 2.50 GHz and a boost clock of 5.60 GHz, and it carries a 65 W TDP. Its cache hierarchy includes 192 KB of L1 per core, 3 MB of L2 per core, and a shared 36 MB L3 cache.

Benchmark results place this CPU in an elite tier. In Cinebench R23, it scores 48,945 points in multi-core and 6,909 points in single-core. The single-core result is particularly strong, indicating excellent per-thread performance that benefits responsiveness and lightly-threaded applications. The multi-core score reflects the aggregate throughput of all 24 cores, which is substantial for rendering and compilation workloads. In Cinebench R20, the scores are 20,556 multi-core and 2,901 single-core, while Cinebench R15 shows 4,933 multi-core and 696 single-core. PassMark results further corroborate this: the processor achieves 56,602 in multithread, 4,881 in single-thread, 194,988 in floating-point math, and 164,869 in integer math. The data compression score of 602,121 and data encryption score of 46,949 indicate strong capabilities in data-intensive tasks.

The average benchmark score for this CPU is 75,488, which places it at the 95th percentile of all CPUs. Its nearest rivals in the database are remarkably close: the AMD EPYC 8224P scores 75,582 (a delta of -0.1%), the AMD EPYC 4545P scores 75,373 (a delta of 0.2%), the AMD Ryzen 7 PRO 9755X3D scores 75,716 (a delta of -0.3%), and the AMD Ryzen 7 PRO 9755 scores 75,738 (a delta of -0.3%). These deltas are all within a fraction of a percent, meaning the Core Ultra 9 285 is statistically tied with these server and prosumer processors in aggregate benchmark performance. The architecture uses a dual-channel DDR5 memory bus with a bandwidth of 102.4 GB/s and supports ECC memory. It provides PCIe Gen 5 with 20 lanes from the CPU. The integrated graphics are Arc Xe-LPG Graphics with 64 execution units. The processor launched with an MSRP of $579 and is not multiplier-unlocked.

Usage Scenarios

High-Refresh Gaming: The CPU's single-core performance is exceptional, with a Cinebench R23 single-core score of 6,909 and a PassMark single-thread score of 4,881. These numbers suggest that the processor can feed frames rapidly in CPU-bound scenarios, which is critical for high-refresh-rate gaming. However, the GPU's 58th percentile position means that at higher resolutions, the graphics card will likely become the limiting factor. At 1080p with lower graphical settings, the CPU can shine; at 1440p or 4K, the RX 7700 will cap frame rates.

Streaming: The Core Ultra 9 285 has 24 cores and 24 threads, which provides ample headroom for encoding video while gaming. The PassMark multithread score of 56,602 indicates that simultaneous workloads—game plus encoder—should not cause significant frame drops. The GPU also supports hardware encoding, but the CPU's raw throughput makes it a capable streaming host on its own. The data does not include specific encoding benchmarks, but the multi-core scores imply strong parallel processing capability.

Video Editing: Video editing software often relies on both single-core speed for timeline scrubbing and multi-core power for export rendering. The Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 48,945 is high, suggesting fast export times. The single-core score of 6,909 ensures a responsive interface. The PassMark floating-point math score of 194,988 further indicates robust numerical processing, which is relevant for effects and color grading. The GPU's 16 GB VRAM can hold large video buffers, but the GPU's overall compute score is modest.

3D Rendering: This is a workload where the CPU is the star. The Cinebench R15 multi-core score of 4,933, R20 score of 20,556, and R23 score of 48,945 show consistent scaling across versions. The 24 physical cores (with no hyperthreading, as threads equal cores) provide a high degree of parallelism. The PassMark physics score of 3,598 and find prime numbers score of 459 are lower, but these are specific tests. For CPU-based rendering engines, this processor is in the top 5% of all CPUs.

Software Development: Compilation is a multi-threaded task that benefits from many cores. The PassMark integer math score of 164,869 and random string sorting score of 73,651 suggest strong performance in code compilation and data manipulation. The 24 threads allow for parallel builds, and the high single-core speed ensures fast link times and IDE responsiveness. The memory bandwidth of 102.4 GB/s is sufficient for large project files.

Student and Office Work: For typical productivity tasks like word processing, spreadsheets, and web browsing, this CPU is vastly over-provisioned. The single-core scores are among the highest in the database, meaning every mundane task will feel instantaneous. The 65 W TDP is low for the performance level, which is beneficial for system thermals and power consumption in an office environment, though the platform cost is high for such workloads.

Benchmark Performance

The CPU's aggregate average benchmark score is 75,488, placing it at the 95th percentile of all CPUs. Its nearest rivals include the AMD EPYC 8224P at 75,582 (-0.1%), the AMD EPYC 4545P at 75,373 (0.2%), the AMD Ryzen 7 PRO 9755X3D at 75,716 (-0.3%), and the AMD Ryzen 7 PRO 9755 at 75,738 (-0.3%). The performance delta between the Core Ultra 9 285 and these rivals is negligible, meaning a user would see no practical difference in aggregate benchmarks. This positions the CPU in the same performance class as dual-socket server parts and high-end Ryzen PRO processors.

The GPU's average benchmark score is 15,852, placing it at the 58th percentile of all GPUs. Its nearest rivals are the AMD Radeon R9 370X at 15,862 (-0.1%), the AMD Radeon RX 9060 at 16,014 (-1%), the AMD Radeon Pro W5500 at 15,679 (1.1%), and the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3060 Ti at 16,129 (-1.7%). The RX 7700 is essentially tied with the older R9 370X and within 1.7% of the RTX 3060 Ti. This indicates that the GPU is a solid mid-range performer, but it is not in the same league as the CPU. The combined percentile for this build is 77, reflecting the CPU-heavy imbalance.

Specific GPU benchmark scores include 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 at 2,865, Geekbench OpenCL at 106,028, PassMark G3D at 20,974, and PassMark GPU Compute at 10,963. The PassMark DirectX scores are 92 for DX10, 186 for DX11, 96 for DX12, and 261 for DX9. The G2D score is 1,206. These figures show that the GPU performs best in DirectX 11, which is legacy, and has lower scores in modern DirectX 12, suggesting that the RDNA 3.0 architecture may not be fully optimized for the latest API in this particular configuration.

Who Should Build It

This pairing is for users who prioritize CPU-intensive workloads over GPU-accelerated tasks. The target user is a content creator who spends most of their time in CPU-based rendering, video encoding, or software compilation, but also plays games at 1080p or 1440p with mid-range settings. The CPU's 95th percentile ranking means that for 3D rendering in CPU-based engines like Cinebench, this build will outperform the vast majority of systems. The GPU's 58th percentile ranking means that for GPU-accelerated rendering or high-resolution gaming, the system will be average.

Gamers at 1080p with high refresh rate monitors will benefit from the CPU's strong single-core performance, but they must accept that the GPU will limit frame rates in demanding titles. Content creators using Adobe Premiere or DaVinci Resolve will see fast export times due to the CPU's multi-core might, and the GPU's 16 GB VRAM is helpful for effects and color grading. Software developers compiling large codebases will appreciate the 24 cores and the high integer math score of 164,869. Students and small business workstations would be overpaying for this level of performance, but the low 65 W TDP makes it a power-efficient choice for sustained workloads.

Upgrade Path and Platform

The CPU uses the Intel Socket 1851, which is specific to the Core Ultra Series 2. It supports DDR5 memory on a dual-channel bus with a bandwidth of 102.4 GB/s, and ECC memory is supported, which is a feature aimed at workstation users. The CPU provides PCIe Gen 5 with 20 lanes, which is sufficient for a single high-end graphics card and one or two NVMe SSDs. The GPU uses a PCIe 4.0 x16 interface, which is backward compatible with the CPU's PCIe Gen 5 slots, though the GPU will operate at PCIe 4.0 speeds.

The CPU has a TDP of 65 W, and the GPU has a TDP of 200 W, with a suggested PSU of 550 W. This suggests that a 550 W power supply is adequate for the combined system, leaving some headroom for other components. The GPU requires two 8-pin power connectors. A sensible next upgrade for this system would be a more powerful GPU, as the CPU is already at the 95th percentile and has little room to improve within the same socket. The CPU's performance is so high that it will not be a bottleneck for any GPU currently available. The platform supports PCIe Gen 5, so a future GPU with a Gen 5 interface would be fully utilized.

Gaming Performance

No measured FPS rows exist for this exact combination, as the FACT PACK contains no measuredFps data. All frame rate discussions are therefore estimates derived from the benchmark scores. The CPU's single-core performance is excellent, with a Cinebench R23 single-core score of 6,909 and a PassMark single-thread score of 4,881, which suggests that it can handle even the most demanding game logic and physics calculations without bottlenecking. The GPU's 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 score of 2,865 and PassMark G3D score of 20,974 place it in the mid-range tier.

At 1080p resolution with ultra settings, the GPU is likely to be the limiting factor. The RX 7700's performance is close to the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3060 Ti, which is a known 1080p card. Players can expect playable frame rates in most titles, but not maximum refresh rates in the latest AAA games. At 1440p, the GPU will struggle to maintain high frame rates in demanding titles, and the CPU's advantage will be largely irrelevant. At 4K, the GPU will be severely challenged, and the CPU's power will be wasted. The estimated figures suggest that this is a 1080p gaming system with the ability to handle 1440p at reduced settings.

Balance and Bottleneck

The data clearly shows a CPU-bound system. The CPU is at the 95th percentile, while the GPU is at the 58th percentile. In gaming workloads, the GPU will be the bottleneck at any resolution above 1080p, as the CPU can deliver frames faster than the GPU can render them. The FPS scaling is limited by the GPU's rendering throughput, which is indicated by its 3DMark score of 2,865. In CPU-intensive workloads like 3D rendering or video encoding, the CPU is the star, and the GPU plays a minor role. The PassMark GPU Compute score of 10,963 is low relative to the CPU's multithread score of 56,602, meaning that GPU-accelerated compute tasks will not benefit from the CPU's power.

The imbalance is stark: a user who buys this system for gaming is paying for CPU performance they will not use, while a user who buys it for rendering is paying for GPU capability they will not use. The combined percentile of 77 reflects this compromise. The CPU's nearest rivals are server-class EPYC processors, which are designed for multi-threaded throughput, while the GPU's nearest rivals are older mid-range cards. This pairing is a workstation CPU with a gaming GPU, creating a system that excels at CPU-bound tasks but is average at GPU-bound tasks.

Build Overview

This is a desktop build class system that pairs the Intel Core Ultra 9 285 with the AMD Radeon RX 7700. The CPU is a top-tier desktop processor from the Core Ultra Series 2, while the GPU is a mid-range card from the Radeon RX 7000 series. The combined percentile is 77, which places this system in the upper quarter of all builds, but the individual components are far apart in their respective rankings. The CPU is at the 95th percentile, while the GPU is at the 58th percentile.

The overall tier of this build is that of a professional workstation for CPU-centric tasks with a secondary gaming capability. It is not a balanced gaming rig, nor is it a balanced workstation. It is a CPU monster paired with a capable but not exceptional GPU. The 65 W TDP of the CPU and the 200 W TDP of the GPU make this a relatively power-efficient system for the CPU performance delivered.

FAQ

Q: What is the performance difference between the Intel Core Ultra 9 285 and its nearest rival, the AMD EPYC 8224P?

A: The average benchmark scores are nearly identical, with the Core Ultra 9 285 scoring 75,488 and the EPYC 8224P scoring 75,582, a delta of -0.1%. This means the two processors are statistically tied in aggregate performance.

Q: Does the CPU support ECC memory?

A: Yes, the Intel Core Ultra 9 285 supports ECC memory, which is a feature commonly found in workstation and server platforms.

Q: What is the GPU's percentile ranking among all GPUs?

A: The AMD Radeon RX 7700 is at the 58th percentile of all GPUs, with an average benchmark score of 15,852.

Q: What is the suggested power supply wattage for this build?

A: The suggested PSU for the GPU is 550 W, which is sufficient for the combined TDP of the CPU (65 W) and GPU (200 W).

Q: Is the CPU multiplier unlocked for overclocking?

A: No, the multiplier is locked, meaning the CPU cannot be overclocked via multiplier adjustment.

Q: What is the memory bandwidth of the CPU?

A: The CPU supports dual-channel DDR5 memory with a bandwidth of 102.4 GB/s.

Q: How does the GPU compare to the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3060 Ti?

A: The RX 7700 has an average score of 15,852, while the RTX 3060 Ti has an average score of 16,129, making the RX 7700 1.7% slower in aggregate benchmarks.

GPU Analysis

The AMD Radeon RX 7700 is built on the RDNA 3.0 architecture, specifically the Navi 32 chip with the codename "Wheat Nas." It is manufactured on a 5 nm process by TSMC, with 28,100 million transistors on a 346 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 81.2 million per mm². The GPU has 16 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 256-bit bus, providing a bandwidth of 624.1 GB/s. The base clock is 1900 MHz, the boost clock is 2459 MHz, and the game clock is 2041 MHz. The memory operates at 2438 MHz, which is 19.5 Gbps effective.

The GPU features 2,560 shading units, 160 texture mapping units, and 96 raster output units. It has 40 ray tracing cores, but no tensor cores, which means AI-accelerated tasks are not a focus. The pixel rate is 236.1 GPixel/s, and the texture rate is 393.4 GTexel/s. The FP32 performance is 25.18 TFLOPS, and the FP16 performance is also 25.18 TFLOPS at a 1:1 ratio. The GPU supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4.

Benchmark results show a 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 score of 2,865 and a Geekbench OpenCL score of 106,028. The PassMark G3D score is 20,974, and the PassMark GPU Compute score is 10,963. The PassMark DirectX 11 score of 186 is notably higher than the DirectX 12 score of 96, which is unusual and suggests that the GPU's driver or architecture may favor legacy APIs in this specific benchmark suite. The G2D score of 1,206 indicates modest 2D performance.

The GPU's average benchmark score is 15,852, placing it at the 58th percentile. Its nearest rivals are the Radeon R9 370X at 15,862 (-0.1%), the Radeon RX 9060 at 16,014 (-1%), the Radeon Pro W5500 at 15,679 (1.1%), and the GeForce RTX 3060 Ti at 16,129 (-1.7%). The RX 7700 is effectively tied with the much older R9 370X, which is a surprising result given the generational gap. The GPU has a TDP of 200 W, is dual-slot, and requires two 8-pin power connectors. Its display outputs include one HDMI 2.1a, two DisplayPort 2.1, and one USB Type-C. The GPU was released in September 2025 and has a successor in the Navi IV generation. For rendering tasks, the GPU's 16 GB VRAM is ample, but its compute scores are low relative to the CPU, meaning that GPU-accelerated rendering will not match the CPU's throughput.