SYSTEM ANALYZER

Rate My PC: Intel Core Ultra 9 285 + Intel Arc A310E

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

86 / 100
HIGH-END

Power Build

Top 14% of systems. Excellent for 1440p Ultra or 4K High gaming.

1440p Ultra4K High

System Balance Analysis

CPU vs GPU performance ratio
GPU Bottleneck
CPU
97%
VS
GPU
74%

Your GPU is limiting system performance. Consider upgrading to a more powerful graphics card to better utilize your CPU.

PROCESSOR

Intel Core Ultra 9 285

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

Intel Arc A310E

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.

Bottleneck Detected

GPU Bottleneck - Upgrading the weaker component will improve overall performance.

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 paired with the Intel Arc A310E is one of the more lopsided desktop combinations in the database: a 95th-percentile flagship-class processor strapped to a midrange 50th-percentile graphics card. The CPU sits in the 95th percentile against all tracked processors with an average benchmark score of 75488, while the Arc A310E sits at the exact median of the GPU distribution. No measured FPS data exists for this specific pairing in the database — every frame-rate discussion below is therefore an estimate extrapolated from the benchmark scores rather than a direct measurement.

CPU Analysis

The Core Ultra 9 285 is an Arrow Lake-S desktop processor built on TSMC's 3 nm node, packing 24 cores and 24 threads into a 243 mm² die carrying 17,800 million transistors. Notably, the thread count equals the core count — there is no hyper-threading-style doubling here, so each of the 24 cores does exactly one thread of work at a time. Base clock sits at 2.50 GHz with boosts reaching 5.60 GHz, and the whole package is constrained to a 65 W TDP, which is remarkably conservative for a chip of this class.

The cache hierarchy is generous: 192 KB of L1 per core, a substantial 3 MB of L2 per core, and 36 MB of shared L3. That per-core L2 allocation is the standout figure — it suggests Arrow Lake is designed to keep working sets local and reduce cross-core traffic, which matters in latency-sensitive workloads like compilation and simulation. Memory support is DDR5 on a dual-channel bus delivering 102.4 GB/s of bandwidth, and ECC memory is supported — an unusual, workstation-flavored feature for a desktop part. PCIe connectivity is Gen 5 with 20 lanes from the CPU.

Benchmark results indicate the chip is a genuine heavyweight. Cinebench R23 multi-core lands at 48945, with single-core at 6909 — a multi-to-single ratio of roughly seven, consistent with 24 physical cores running without SMT. In R20 the split is 20556 multi-core versus 2901 single-core. PassMark multithread scores 56602 while single-thread reads 4881. The single-core figures place it among the fastest consumer chips in responsiveness-oriented tasks; the multi-core figures put it squarely in territory usually occupied by workstation and entry server silicon.

That last point is confirmed by the nearest rivals list, and it raises an interesting question. The data shows the Ultra 9 285's average score of 75488 within a fraction of a percent of the AMD EPYC 8224P (75582, a delta of -0.1%), the AMD EPYC 4545P (75373, +0.2%), and the AMD Ryzen 7 PRO 9755X3D and Ryzen 7 PRO 9755 (75716 and 75738, both -0.3%). Three of those four are PRO- or EPYC-branded parts. What the data implies is that this desktop CPU performs at a level where AMD only competes with professional-grade hardware — either server chips or workstation Ryzen PRO variants. That is a strong statement about where Intel has positioned Arrow Lake's throughput ceiling.

The multiplier is locked, which limits enthusiast overclocking headroom, but the 65 W TDP already suggests the chip is tuned for efficiency rather than raw frequency pushing.

Usage Scenarios

High-refresh gaming: The CPU side is more than capable — a 6909 Cinebench R23 single-core score and a 95th percentile ranking mean no game engine will bottleneck this processor at reasonable frame targets. The GPU is the problem, sitting at the 50th percentile with 4 GB of VRAM and 3.072 TFLOPS of FP32 throughput. Estimated frame rates at 1080p ultra settings will be modest, and high-refresh 1440p or 4K gaming is out of the question for modern AAA titles.

Streaming: Encoding a stream while gaming splits the workload awkwardly here. The 24 cores and a PassMark extended instructions score of 45357 give plenty of headroom for software encoding, and the physics score of 3598 indicates strong simulation throughput. But since the GPU is already the limiting factor in games, adding capture overhead means the stream will compete for a GPU that has little spare capacity. CPU-side encoding is the only sensible path.

Video editing: This is where the build makes sense for light-to-moderate work. The 48945 Cinebench R23 multi-core score chews through renders, and 102.4 GB/s of memory bandwidth plus ECC support suit long timeline work. The constraint is the 4 GB of GPU VRAM — timeline previews and GPU-accelerated effects will hit that ceiling quickly on higher-resolution footage.

3D rendering: Cinebench is literally a rendering benchmark, and a 48945 R23 multi-core score is workstation-adjacent performance, rivaling EPYC-class parts per the rival data. CPU-based rendering is excellent. GPU-path rendering, however, is severely limited by 768 shading units and 124.0 GB/s of memory bandwidth; viewport work and final-frame GPU rendering belong on other hardware.

Software development: Arguably this build's sweet spot. A 4881 PassMark single-thread score keeps IDEs and debuggers snappy, while 24 threads chew through parallel builds. The 36 MB shared L3 and 3 MB per-core L2 cache help with compile-heavy workloads, and the 73651 random string sorting score reflects strong general-purpose throughput. The Arc A310E's four mini-DisplayPort 2.0 outputs handle multi-monitor code layouts without issue.

Student and office work: Overkill on the CPU side in the best way — documents, browsers, and video calls will never scratch this processor. The 65 W TDP means the system stays quiet and cool under everyday loads, and the single-slot, connector-free GPU keeps the build simple and compact.

Benchmark Performance

The CPU's benchmark record is comprehensive. Cinebench R15: 4933 multi-core, 696 single-core. R20: 20556 multi, 2901 single. R23: 48945 multi, 6909 single. PassMark results: 56602 multithread, 4881 single-thread, 602121 data compression, 46949 data encryption, 45357 extended instructions, 459 find-prime-numbers, 194988 floating point math, 164869 integer math, 3598 physics, and 73651 random string sorting.

Interpreting these: the compression score of 602121 and encryption score of 46949 indicate strong memory-and-ALU-bound throughput; floating point at 194988 versus integer at 164869 shows balanced numerical capability rather than an integer-tilted design. The physics score of 3598 signals excellent game-simulation capacity. Across the board, the average benchmark score of 75488 places this CPU in the 95th percentile of all processors — top-five-percent territory, with rivals that are literally server parts.

The GPU, by contrast, has no benchmark entries in the database at all, and sits at the 50th percentile of all GPUs — the exact midpoint of the distribution. The combined percentile for the pairing is 73, dragged down from the CPU's 95 by the GPU's median position. The combined picture is unambiguous: extraordinary compute attached to ordinary graphics.

FAQ

Q: What socket does the Core Ultra 9 285 use?

A: Intel Socket 1851, paired with DDR5 memory on a dual-channel bus supporting up to 102.4 GB/s of bandwidth.

Q: How does the CPU compare to AMD alternatives?

A: Its average benchmark score of 75488 is within a fraction of a percent of the AMD EPYC 8224P (-0.1%), AMD EPYC 4545P (+0.2%), AMD Ryzen 7 PRO 9755X3D (-0.3%), and AMD Ryzen 7 PRO 9755 (-0.3%) — server and workstation-class competition.

Q: Is this build good for gaming?

A: The CPU is exceptional for gaming logic, but the Arc A310E's 50th percentile ranking, 4 GB VRAM, and 3.072 TFLOPS FP32 output mean the GPU limits frame rates in modern titles. It suits esports and older games at moderate settings, not AAA ultra gaming.

Q: How much memory does the Arc A310E have, and what type?

A: 4 GB of GDDR6 on a 64-bit bus, delivering 124.0 GB/s of bandwidth — modest capacity and throughput that cap texture quality and resolution headroom.

Q: Does the CPU support ECC memory?

A: Yes, ECC is supported — unusual for a desktop part and useful for stability-critical workstation use.

Q: What power supply does the build need?

A: The GPU requires no power connectors and suggests a 250 W PSU, while the CPU runs at a 65 W TDP. A modest PSU covers this combination comfortably.

Q: Is the Arc A310E still in production?

A: No — its production status is End-of-life. Its architectural successor is Battlemage, and it belongs to the Alchemist (Arc 3) generation.

Balance and Bottleneck

The bottleneck analysis here is unusually clean-cut. The CPU ranks in the 95th percentile; the GPU ranks in the 50th. The combined percentile of 73 sits almost exactly where a weighted average of those two figures would predict, and that tells you the pairing is GPU-limited in every graphically demanding workload.

Consider the evidence in FPS-scaling terms: because no measured FPS data exists for this combination, estimates must come from the scores. In any game where the render load is heavy — modern AAA titles at ultra settings — the Arc A310E's 768 shading units, 16 ROPs, 32 TMUs, and 124.0 GB/s memory bandwidth will saturate long before the CPU's 24 cores break a sweat. A PassMark single-thread score of 4881 means the processor could, in principle, feed a far faster GPU hundreds of frames per second of game logic; the A310E simply cannot draw them.

Flip the workload, and the picture inverts. In CPU-bound tasks — a Cinebench R23 multi-core run, a large compile, a PassMark physics simulation at 3598 — the A310E is irrelevant, and the build performs like a workstation. The integrated Arc Xe-LPG Graphics 64EU on the CPU itself is also worth noting: it exists alongside the discrete card, and in display-output terms the A310E's four mini-DisplayPort 2.0 connectors add multi-monitor flexibility. The practical conclusion: this is a compute build with a display adapter, not a balanced gaming rig.

Who Should Build It

Developers and software teams are the primary audience. Twenty-four threads, a 4881 single-thread score, huge per-core L2 cache, ECC support, and a 65 W TDP make this an outstanding compilation-and-container machine that stays efficient. The nearest-rival data showing parity with EPYC and Ryzen PRO parts reinforces the workstation credential.

Small business workstations benefit from the same profile: ECC memory support for data integrity, quiet 65 W operation, and multi-monitor output via four mini-DisplayPort 2.0 connections on the GPU plus integrated graphics as a fallback.

Content creators doing CPU-rendered work — offline CPU rendering, batch encoding, audio processing — get genuine value from the 48945 R23 multi-core score. Creators relying on GPU acceleration should look elsewhere; 4 GB of VRAM is disqualifying for serious GPU-accelerated editing at scale.

Students and general office users would find the CPU dramatically overpowered for their needs, though harmlessly so — the efficiency and stability make it a pleasant if extravagant choice.

Gamers should temper expectations. This build handles esports and lighter titles at 1080p, but anyone targeting 1440p or 4K ultra gaming needs a GPU several tiers above the median-ranked A310E.

GPU Analysis

The Arc A310E is an Alchemist-generation (Arc 3) part built on the DG2-128 chip, manufactured by TSMC on a 6 nm process. The die measures 157 mm² and holds 7,200 million transistors at a density of 45.9M per mm² — a compact, efficient design by any measure.

Its specifications paint a picture of an entry-level card. There are 768 shading units, 32 TMUs, 16 ROPs, and 6 RT cores. Clocks run at 2000 MHz base and 2000 MHz boost — a flat frequency profile with no boost uplift. FP32 compute is 3.072 TFLOPS, with FP16 at 6.144 TFLOPS in a 2:1 ratio. Pixel rate is 32.00 GPixel/s and texture rate is 64.00 GTexel/s.

Memory is the tightest constraint: 4 GB of GDDR6 on a 64-bit bus, clocked at 1937 MHz (15.5 Gbps effective), yielding 124.0 GB/s of bandwidth. For rendering workloads, that capacity limit arrives before the throughput limit does — modern texture sets at high resolutions will exceed 4 GB quickly. The 6 RT cores provide hardware ray tracing capability, and DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2) support with Vulkan 1.4 means the API feature set is current, but the hardware behind it is entry-level. There are no tensor cores listed.

The physical design is a model of restraint: single-slot, 20 mm wide, 168 mm long, 69 mm tall, no power connectors, and a 75 W TDP. It fits virtually anywhere. Its successor, Battlemage, and its End-of-life status mean buyers should treat it as a legacy display-and-light-compute adapter rather than a forward-looking purchase.

Build Overview

This is a desktop build (buildClass: desktop) pairing Intel's current flagship-tier Arrow Lake desktop CPU with an end-of-life entry graphics card. The tier story is told entirely by the percentiles: the CPU sits at the 95th percentile of all processors, the GPU at the 50th percentile of all GPUs, and the combination at the 73rd percentile overall. The launch MSRP of the CPU was $579; the GPU's launch MSRP is not recorded in the database.

What the data describes is a compute-centric desktop: workstation-grade processing power, ECC-capable DDR5, conservative power draw, and a graphics card whose role is display output and light acceleration. Both components come from the same manufacturer, an all-Intel platform spanning a 3 nm CPU and a 6 nm GPU.

Gaming Performance

No measured FPS data exists for this exact CPU-plus-GPU combination — the database contains no measuredFps entries for it, so all frame-rate commentary here is estimated from the benchmark scores rather than observed.

The estimation logic is straightforward. The CPU's percentile, single-core scores, and rival parity guarantee it is never the limiter; frame rates are set by the A310E's 50th-percentile standing, its 3.072 TFLOPS of FP32 throughput, and its 4 GB VRAM buffer. For esports titles and older games at 1080p with reduced settings, playable frame rates are a reasonable expectation given the card's median ranking. For modern AAA titles at ultra settings, expectations should be conservative: the 64-bit memory bus and 124.0 GB/s bandwidth, combined with the 4 GB capacity, restrict both resolution and texture fidelity. Ray tracing, while supported through 6 RT cores and DirectX 12 Ultimate, carries a heavy relative cost on hardware this small and is best treated as a checkbox feature rather than a usable setting. High-refresh 1440p or 4K gaming is not a realistic target for this pairing.

Upgrade Path and Platform

The platform foundation is Intel Socket 1851, which means the CPU can be paired with current-generation desktop boards. Memory support is DDR5 dual-channel at up to 102.4 GB/s, with ECC available on suitable boards — a genuine longevity feature for a system expected to run for years. PCIe from the CPU is Gen 5 with 20 lanes, and the A310E itself connects via PCIe 4.0 x8, so the GPU slot imposes no meaningful constraint on the card.

Power headroom is generous by design. The CPU's 65 W TDP and the GPU's 75 W TDP with no power connectors make the suggested 250 W PSU more than adequate for the stock configuration — but that headroom is also the upgrade story. A builder starting here has PSU and platform room for a substantially more powerful GPU, and given that the CPU sits in the 95th percentile with rivals from EPYC and Ryzen PRO lines, a GPU upgrade is unambiguously the highest-impact change available. Swapping the A310E for a higher-tier card would raise the combined percentile of 73 directly, since the CPU side is already near the ceiling.

The A310E's End-of-life status nudges the timeline: its successor, Battlemage, represents the natural architectural next step within the Intel ecosystem, though any higher-percentile GPU on the PCIe interface would rebalance the build. On the CPU side, the locked multiplier limits frequency tuning, so the upgrade path there is a socket-compatible replacement rather than overclocking. The sensible sequence: keep the Ultra 9 285, replace the graphics card, and this system transforms from a lopsided compute box into a genuinely high-tier all-rounder.