SYSTEM ANALYZER

Rate My PC: Intel Core Ultra 9 285 + Intel Arc A310

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)

▼

91 Score

Top 9% Ranking

91 / 100

ULTIMATE READY

Apex Performer

Top 9% 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%

GPU

85%

PROCESSOR

Intel Core Ultra 9 285

75,488 Benchmark Score

Top 3% Market Ranking

View Full Specs →

GRAPHICS CARD

Intel Arc A310

7,550 Benchmark Score

Top 15% 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 pairs a 24-thread desktop CPU with the Intel Arc A310, a 4 GB entry-level GPU. The CPU ranks at the 95th percentile among all CPUs, while the GPU sits at the 40th percentile; the combined build lands at the 68th percentile. No measured frame-rate rows exist for this exact combination, so all gaming figures in this analysis are estimates derived from the benchmark scores, not direct measurements.

FAQ

Q: What is the Core Ultra 9 285’s architecture and process node?

A: The CPU is based on Arrow Lake (Arrow Lake-S), built on a 3 nm process from TSMC, with 17,800 million transistors on a 243 mm² die.

Q: How does the Core Ultra 9 285 compare to its nearest rivals?

A: Its average benchmark score of 75,488 is 0.1% behind the AMD EPYC 8224P, 0.2% ahead of the AMD EPYC 4545P, and 0.3% behind both the AMD Ryzen 7 PRO 9755X3D and the AMD Ryzen 7 PRO 9755.

Q: What memory does the Arc A310 use and how fast is it?

A: The GPU has 4 GB of GDDR6 on a 64-bit bus, delivering 124.0 GB/s of bandwidth, with a base and boost clock of 1750 MHz.

Q: How does the Arc A310 compare to the GeForce GTX 1650?

A: The A310’s average benchmark score of 7,550 is 1% ahead of the GTX 1650’s 7,472, though the A310 sits at the 40th percentile of all GPUs.

Q: Does the Core Ultra 9 285 support ECC memory?

A: Yes, the CPU supports ECC memory, and it uses dual-channel DDR5 with a bandwidth of 102.4 GB/s.

Q: What are the power requirements of this build?

A: The CPU has a 65 W TDP, the GPU has a 30 W TDP, and the suggested power supply is 200 W.

Q: Are there any measured frame rates for this CPU-GPU pair?

A: No measured FPS rows exist for this exact combination; all gaming performance discussed is estimated from the benchmark scores.

Usage Scenarios

High-refresh gaming: The CPU’s single-core Cinebench R23 score of 6,909 and PassMark single-thread score of 4,881 are strong, but the GPU’s low DirectX 12 score of 29 and 40th percentile placement indicate that the A310 will bottleneck at high refresh. At 1080p with ultra settings, frame rates will be far below what the CPU could support; even at 720p, the GPU’s 4 GB VRAM and 2.688 TFLOPS FP32 will limit performance.

Streaming: The 24-thread, 24-core CPU with a Cinebench R23 multicore score of 48,945 and PassMark multithread score of 56,602 can handle simultaneous encoding and gaming without overtaxing the processor. The GPU’s modest compute (PassMark GPU compute 2,157) will not assist with encoding, but the CPU’s strong multithreading is more than sufficient for software encoding.

Video editing: CPU-heavy tasks like timeline rendering and export benefit from the 24 threads and 36 MB L3 cache. The CPU’s PassMark data compression score of 602,121 and floating-point math score of 194,988 indicate efficient handling of codecs and filters. The GPU’s 4 GB VRAM and 2.688 TFLOPS are insufficient for GPU-accelerated 4K effects, so the CPU will carry the workload.

3D rendering: The CPU’s Cinebench R23 multicore score of 48,945 places it near the top of all CPUs, making it excellent for CPU-based ray tracing and rendering. The GPU’s 2.688 TFLOPS FP32 and 5.376 TFLOPS FP16 are too low for meaningful GPU rendering, and the 6 ray-tracing cores (RT cores) are not enough to accelerate path tracing. The CPU is the primary rendering engine.

Software development: Compilation and code analysis rely on integer performance; the CPU’s PassMark integer math score of 164,869 and extended instructions score of 45,357 show strong throughput. The 24 threads and 65 W TDP make it a capable compile server for small teams, while the GPU’s modest 2,157 compute score is sufficient for basic UI rendering but not for GPU compute tasks.

Student and office work: The CPU is overkill for typical word processing and spreadsheet tasks, but the GPU’s 40th percentile and 4 GB VRAM handle 2D desktop acceleration without issue. The 65 W TDP keeps the build quiet, and the 200 W suggested PSU allows for a compact system.

CPU Analysis

The Intel Core Ultra 9 285 is a 24-core, 24-thread desktop processor based on Arrow Lake-S, built on a 3 nm TSMC process. It has a base clock of 2.50 GHz and a boost clock of 5.60 GHz, with a 65 W TDP. The CPU’s cache hierarchy includes 192 KB L1 per core, 3 MB L2 per core, and 36 MB shared L3. It supports dual-channel DDR5 memory with a bandwidth of 102.4 GB/s and has 20 PCIe Gen 5 lanes. The CPU includes an integrated Arc Xe-LPG 64EU GPU, but that is separate from the discrete Arc A310.

The benchmark results place the CPU at the 95th percentile of all CPUs. In Cinebench R23, it scores 48,945 multi-core and 6,909 single-core. The R20 multi-core score is 20,556, and single-core 2,901; R15 multi-core is 4,933, single-core 696. PassMark results show a multithread score of 56,602, single-thread 4,881, and data compression 602,121. These numbers indicate that the CPU is exceptionally strong in both heavily threaded and lightly threaded workloads. Its nearest rivals are AMD EPYC 8224P, EPYC 4545P, Ryzen 7 PRO 9755X3D, and Ryzen 7 PRO 9755, with differences of 0.1% to 0.3%. The CPU is effectively tied with those server and workstation parts, but it is a desktop part with a 65 W TDP.

For real workloads, the high multi-core scores translate to fast video exports, 3D rendering, and code compilation. The single-core scores are equally strong, meaning responsiveness in web browsing, office apps, and lighter tasks is excellent. The 24 threads (no hyper-threading, so threads equal cores) are fully independent, which helps with parallel tasks but does not add extra logical cores. The 36 MB L3 cache reduces memory latency, and the dual-channel DDR5 bandwidth is sufficient for the CPU’s needs.

Who Should Build It

The build is aimed at users who need massive CPU compute but only modest GPU acceleration. Content creators who work with CPU-based rendering, software developers compiling large codebases, and small business workstations that run multithreaded analytics will benefit from the 95th-percentile CPU. The GPU, at the 40th percentile, is adequate for office displays, basic photo editing, and older games, but it is not a gaming part. The 4 GB VRAM and 2.688 TFLOPS FP32 place it in the entry-level segment; it is comparable to a GeForce GTX 1650 in average benchmark score, but that does not imply high-refresh gaming.

The CPU’s 65 W TDP and the GPU’s 30 W TDP mean a compact, low-power build is possible, and the suggested PSU of 200 W allows for a small power supply. The CPU’s ECC memory support is a feature for small business workstations that require data integrity. The build is not suitable for 4K gaming or GPU-accelerated rendering; those workloads would be bottlenecked by the A310. The target user is someone who prioritizes CPU performance for productivity and uses the GPU for basic display and light acceleration.

Balance and Bottleneck

The performance gap between the CPU and GPU is extreme: the CPU sits at the 95th percentile, while the GPU is at the 40th. In any CPU-heavy workload, the CPU will be the dominant component; in gaming, the GPU is the sole bottleneck. The GPU’s DirectX 12 score of 29 and DirectX 11 score of 33 are far below the CPU’s capability, indicating that the GPU will limit frame rates in any modern game. The GPU’s memory bandwidth of 124.0 GB/s is also low, further capping performance.

For productivity, the CPU carries the load. The PassMark multithread score of 56,602 shows the CPU is 10 times the GPU’s compute score of 2,157. The GPU’s FP32 performance of 2.688 TFLOPS is a fraction of what the CPU can deliver in integer and floating-point workloads. In gaming, the CPU would be idle at high refresh if the GPU could not keep up; the GPU’s 40th percentile suggests that even at 1080p, the GPU will be the limiting factor. The bottleneck is not a balance issue but a clear mismatch: the CPU is over-specified for the GPU.

Gaming Performance

No measured FPS data exists for this exact CPU/GPU combination. All gaming figures here are estimates based on the benchmark scores. The CPU’s single-core strength (Cinebench R23 6,909, PassMark 4,881) would support high frame rates in CPU-bound titles, but the GPU’s low DirectX 12 score of 29 and 2.688 TFLOPS will cap the output. At 1080p ultra settings, the Arc A310 would likely deliver frame rates in the low 20–30 range in modern AAA titles. At 1440p, the 4 GB VRAM and 64-bit bus would further reduce performance, and at 4K, the GPU would be unusable. The CPU’s 24 threads would not help in gaming, as most games use fewer than 8 threads. The integrated Arc Xe-LPG 64EU GPU might handle light gaming, but the discrete A310 is only slightly faster.

Benchmark Performance

The CPU’s average benchmark score is 75,488, with a percentile of 95. The GPU’s average score is 7,550, with a percentile of 40. The combined percentile is 68. The CPU’s nearest rivals are the AMD EPYC 8224P (75,582, -0.1%), AMD EPYC 4545P (75,373, 0.2%), AMD Ryzen 7 PRO 9755X3D (75,716, -0.3%), and AMD Ryzen 7 PRO 9755 (75,738, -0.3%). The GPU’s nearest rivals are the AMD Radeon R7 250 (7,557, -0.1%), AMD Radeon Pro WX 3100 (7,580, -0.4%), NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 (7,472, 1%), and AMD Radeon HD 8850M (7,447, 1.4%).

The CPU is essentially tied with its nearest rivals, with a spread of 0.3%. The GPU is 1% ahead of the GTX 1650 but 0.1% behind the R7 250. The combined percentile of 68 reflects the CPU’s dominance and the GPU’s weakness. In synthetic benchmarks, the CPU scores 48,945 in Cinebench R23 multicore and 6,909 single-core; the GPU scores 30,607 in Geekbench OpenCL and 28,964 in Vulkan. These numbers confirm the CPU is a top-tier desktop part, while the GPU is entry-level.

Build Overview

This is a desktop build with an Intel Core Ultra 9 285 CPU and an Intel Arc A310 GPU. The CPU is a 24-thread Arrow Lake-S part at the 95th percentile, and the GPU is a 4 GB entry-level part at the 40th percentile. The combined percentile of 68 places it in the mid-range tier, but the CPU alone is top-tier. The build is best described as a CPU-strong, GPU-weak configuration: it is designed for multi-threaded productivity, not for gaming or GPU compute. The CPU’s 65 W TDP and the GPU’s 30 W TDP allow a low-power, compact desktop, and the suggested PSU of 200 W reflects the low total power. The launch MSRP of the CPU is $579 (the GPU has no launch MSRP).

GPU Analysis

The Intel Arc A310 is based on the Xe-HPG architecture (Alchemist) on a 6 nm TSMC process, with 7,200 million transistors on a 157 mm² die. It has 4 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 64-bit bus, providing 124.0 GB/s bandwidth. The base and boost clocks are both 1750 MHz, and memory runs at 1937 MHz (15.5 Gbps effective). The GPU has 768 shading units, 32 TMUs, and 16 ROPs, with 6 RT cores. It does not list tensor cores. The pixel rate is 28.00 GPixel/s, texture rate 56.00 GTexel/s, FP32 performance 2.688 TFLOPS, and FP16 5.376 TFLOPS (2:1). It supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The GPU is a single-slot card with no power connectors, and the suggested PSU is 200 W.

In benchmark terms, the A310 scores 30,607 in Geekbench OpenCL and 28,764 in Vulkan. PassMark scores are much lower: DirectX 10 31, DirectX 11 33, DirectX 12 29, DirectX 9 69, G2D 625, G3D 5,433, and GPU compute 2,157. The GPU is at the 40th percentile, and its average score of 7,550 is 1% above the GTX 1650 but 0.1% below the Radeon R7 250. For rendering, the 2.688 TFLOPS is insufficient for modern 3D workloads, and the 4 GB VRAM limits texture and geometry size. The 6 RT cores are present but too few for real-time ray tracing. The GPU is best for light 2D work, basic video playback, and low-resolution gaming, but it is not a good match for a 95th-percentile CPU.

Rate My PC: Intel Core Ultra 9 285 + Intel Arc A310

Apex Performer

System Balance Analysis

Intel Core Ultra 9 285

Intel Arc A310

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

FAQ

Usage Scenarios

CPU Analysis

Who Should Build It

Balance and Bottleneck

Gaming Performance

Benchmark Performance

Build Overview

GPU Analysis

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