SYSTEM ANALYZER

Rate My PC: Intel Core Ultra 9 285HX + Intel Arc A370M

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)

▼

95 Score

Top 5% Ranking

95 / 100

ULTIMATE READY

Apex Performer

Top 5% 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

93%

PROCESSOR

Intel Core Ultra 9 285HX

76,155 Benchmark Score

Top 3% Market Ranking

View Full Specs →

GRAPHICS CARD

Intel Arc A370M

29,175 Benchmark Score

Top 7% 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 285HX and Intel Arc A370M form a laptop-class pairing with a pronounced performance split. The CPU sits at the 95th percentile of all CPUs with an average benchmark score of 76155, while the GPU sits at the 74th percentile of all GPUs with an average benchmark score of 29175; the combined result is an 85th-percentile laptop. No measured FPS rows exist for this exact combination, so all frame-rate discussion in this analysis is estimated from the benchmark scores.

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

The Intel Arc A370M uses the Xe-HPG architecture and the DG2-128 chip, built on a 6 nm TSMC process with 7,200 million transistors on a 157 mm² die. It contains 1024 shading units, 64 texture mapping units, and 32 raster output units. The base clock is 1550 MHz and the boost clock is 2050 MHz. Memory is 4 GB GDDR6 on a 64-bit bus, running at 1750 MHz with 14 Gbps effective speed, producing 112.0 GB/s of bandwidth. The listed TDP is 35 W, and the slot width is listed as IGP, reflecting the laptop-oriented packaging of this part.

Ray tracing hardware is present in the form of 8 RT cores. The fact pack lists no tensor-core count for this GPU. API support includes DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4, so the feature set for hardware-accelerated ray tracing and modern graphics APIs is available. The measured compute rates are 4.198 TFLOPS for FP32, 8.397 TFLOPS for FP16 at a 2:1 ratio, 131.2 GTexel/s for texture rate, and 65.60 GPixel/s for pixel rate. These figures define a GPU with modest shading throughput.

The GPU’s aggregate benchmark score is 29175, placing it at the 74th percentile of all GPUs. In Geekbench OpenCL it scores 29676, and in Geekbench Vulkan it scores 28673. The nearest listed rival is the AMD Radeon RX Vega M GH, with an average score of 29197 and a delta of -0.1%, meaning the Arc A370M is essentially tied with it. The AMD FirePro W8000 is also within 0.1% at 29211. The Arc A370M is 0.6% above the AMD Radeon RX 470’s listed average score of 28996, and 1% above the AMD Radeon RX 6800M’s listed average score of 28874. For rendering, the FP32 throughput and texture rate indicate a capable entry-level mobile renderer, while the 4 GB frame buffer and 112.0 GB/s bandwidth are the clearest constraints for larger or more detailed scenes.

Usage Scenarios — grounded in the scores: high-refresh gaming, streaming, video editing, 3D rendering, software development, student and office work. One short paragraph per scenario, citing the numbers that support the verdict

For high-refresh gaming, the frame-rate picture is estimated because no measured FPS data exists for this pairing. The CPU side is strong: a PassMark single-thread score of 4618 and a 5.50 GHz boost clock should keep game logic from becoming the main bottleneck. The GPU side is the limiting factor, with an aggregate score at the 74th percentile, 4 GB of GDDR6 VRAM, and 112.0 GB/s of bandwidth. That combination points to lower-resolution, moderate-settings play rather than high-detail high-refresh output.

Streaming benefits from the CPU’s 24 threads and PassMark multithread score of 56902. The data compression score of 631885 and data encryption score of 48567 indicate that the CPU can handle compression-heavy streaming overhead while a game continues running. The GPU’s 4 GB VRAM still limits how high in-game settings can go during a concurrent stream, but the CPU has substantial headroom for simultaneous workload.

Video editing is well served by the CPU’s Cinebench R23 multicore score of 36429.5 and single-core score of 2187.5. The GPU’s OpenCL score of 29676 adds acceleration for effects and previews, but the 4 GB VRAM and 112.0 GB/s bandwidth will restrict the size and resolution of GPU-accelerated editing buffers. Export and transcode work should lean heavily on the CPU’s multithread capacity.

3D rendering on the CPU is strong: Cinebench R20 scores 20236 and Cinebench R15 scores 5656.5 in multicore tests. The GPU contributes FP32 throughput of 4.198 TFLOPS and 8 RT cores, with DirectX 12 Ultimate and Vulkan 1.4 support for ray-traced effects. This is a workable CPU-first 3D workstation configuration, though the GPU is not a high-end render device.

Software development is supported by PassMark integer math of 155076, floating point math of 194998, and extended instructions of 49148. Those scores indicate solid compilation throughput and SIMD-heavy code execution. The platform also supports DDR5 dual-channel memory at 102.4 GB/s with ECC enabled, which is useful for long-running build and test jobs.

Student and office work is easily handled by the 95th-percentile CPU. The PassMark single-thread score of 4618 provides responsive everyday use, while the 24 threads ensure background tasks do not stall foreground work. The 74th-percentile GPU is more than sufficient for display, document, and browser workloads.

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

Benchmark results indicate a CPU-dominant laptop. The CPU is at the 95th percentile of all CPUs, while the GPU is at the 74th percentile of all GPUs. The combined percentile is 85. The gap between the CPU’s percentile rank and the GPU’s percentile rank means the CPU can feed frames faster than the GPU can rasterize them in many game workloads. For GPU-heavy scenes, the Arc A370M becomes the limiting component.

FPS scaling evidence is absent: the fact pack has no measured FPS rows, dataIsMeasured is false, and pairRankByFps is null. The bottleneck analysis therefore rests on the synthetic scores and percentiles. The CPU’s average benchmark score of 76155 is far above the GPU’s average of 29175, and the 95-to-74 percentile split reinforces that asymmetry.

In CPU-only workloads such as compilation, data compression, or encryption, the GPU is not the limiting factor. In GPU-accelerated rendering, the constraints are the GPU’s 4.198 TFLOPS, 112.0 GB/s bandwidth, and 4 GB VRAM. The CPU’s 36 MB shared L3 cache and 102.4 GB/s memory bandwidth feed data to the GPU through a PCIe 4.0 x8 interface. The CPU itself has PCIe Gen 5 with 20 lanes, but those lanes are listed as CPU-only, so the GPU connection remains the PCIe 4.0 x8 bus.

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

The target user for this pairing is someone who needs high CPU throughput in a laptop. The 95th-percentile CPU and 85th-percentile combined score make it a strong mobile workstation for processor-heavy work. The GPU is secondary in this configuration.

Gamers at lower resolutions and moderate settings can expect the 74th-percentile GPU to be the frame-rate ceiling. The CPU’s single-thread score of 4618 and boost clock of 5.50 GHz help maintain frame pacing, but the 4 GB VRAM and 112.0 GB/s bandwidth limit how far resolution and texture detail can go. No measured FPS data exists, so this is an estimate.

Content creators fit this build well because of the CPU’s Cinebench R23 multicore score of 36429.5 and PassMark multithread score of 56902. Video editors gain from the OpenCL score of 29676, while 3D artists can use the 8 RT cores and DirectX 12 Ultimate support, though the GPU’s 4 GB frame buffer is a limiting factor.

Software developers benefit from the PassMark integer math score of 155076, extended instructions score of 49148, and ECC memory support. These metrics point to a dependable machine for builds, tests, and data processing. Students get a portable laptop with a 95th-percentile CPU and a 74th-percentile GPU, which is far beyond the demands of ordinary coursework. Small business workstations can rely on the data compression score of 631885 and ECC memory true for file-serving, database, and spreadsheet-heavy workloads.

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

The Intel Core Ultra 9 285HX is a 24-core, 24-thread mobile CPU in the Core Ultra Series 2. It uses Arrow Lake architecture with the Arrow Lake-HX codename and is manufactured on a 3 nm TSMC process. The die contains 17,800 million transistors and measures 243 mm². The base clock is 2.80 GHz and the boost clock is 5.50 GHz. The TDP is 55 W, and the socket is Intel BGA 2114. The market segment is mobile, production status is Active, and the multiplier is unlocked. It also includes integrated graphics in the form of Arc Xe-LPG Graphics with 64 EU.

The cache hierarchy is L1 192 KB per core, L2 3 MB per core, and L3 36 MB shared. Memory support is DDR5 dual-channel with 102.4 GB/s bandwidth and ECC true. The CPU provides PCIe Gen 5 with 20 lanes, noted as CPU-only. This combination of cache, memory bandwidth, and PCIe lanes supports both high-core-count compute work and fast data movement.

Single-thread performance is measured by Cinebench R23 at 2187.5, Cinebench R20 at 2856, Cinebench R15 at 323.5, and PassMark single-thread at 4618. These scores indicate excellent responsiveness in lightly threaded workloads. Multithread performance is equally strong: Cinebench R23 multicore scores 36429.5, Cinebench R20 multicore scores 20236, Cinebench R15 multicore scores 5656.5, and PassMark multithread scores 56902.

Additional PassMark results include data compression 631885, data encryption 48567, extended instructions 49148, find prime numbers 460, floating point math 194998, integer math 155076, physics 3476, and random string sorting 77196. These numbers show a CPU that is well rounded for compute-heavy real workloads, especially encryption, compression, and floating-point simulation.

The CPU’s aggregate benchmark score is 76155, with a 95th percentile rank. Its nearest rival is the AMD Ryzen 9 8945HX, with an average score of 76212 and a delta of -0.1%. The AMD EPYC Embedded 8224P has an average score of 76492 and a delta of -0.4%. The AMD Ryzen Threadripper PRO 9945WX has an average score of 76513 and a delta of -0.5%. The AMD Ryzen 9 9950X3D has an average score of 75779 and a delta of +0.5%. Each listed rival is therefore within 0.5% of the Core Ultra 9 285HX in aggregate score.

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)

No measured FPS rows exist for this exact combination. The measuredFpsUltraByGame field is empty, dataIsMeasured is false, and pairRankByFps is null. No game-by-game FPS table can be provided. All gaming performance expectations described here are estimates based on the CPU and GPU benchmark scores.

The Arc A370M’s aggregate average score is 29175, with a Vulkan score of 28673 and an OpenCL score of 29676. That places it at the 74th percentile of all GPUs, which is a mid-tier position in the database. The CPU’s single-thread PassMark score of 4618 and 5.50 GHz boost clock should support high CPU-side frame rates, but the GPU is the practical ceiling in games.

The 4 GB GDDR6 frame buffer and 112.0 GB/s bandwidth are the main constraints on resolution and texture detail. At lower resolutions and moderate settings, the CPU should not be the limiting factor in most titles. At higher detail settings, the GPU’s 4.198 TFLOPS and 64-bit memory interface will cap performance. Because no measured FPS figures exist, these conclusions are qualitative estimates.

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

The CPU’s aggregate benchmark score is 76155, placing it at the 95th percentile of all CPUs. In key synthetic tests, it scores 36429.5 in Cinebench R23 multicore, 2187.5 in Cinebench R23 single-core, 20236 in Cinebench R20 multicore, 2856 in Cinebench R20 single-core, 5656.5 in Cinebench R15 multicore, and 323.5 in Cinebench R15 single-core. PassMark results include 56902 in multithread and 4618 in single-thread.

The GPU’s aggregate benchmark score is 29175, placing it at the 74th percentile of all GPUs. It scores 29676 in Geekbench OpenCL and 28673 in Geekbench Vulkan. The nearest GPU rivals are the AMD Radeon RX Vega M GH at 29197 with a delta of -0.1%, the AMD FirePro W8000 at 29211 with a delta of -0.1%, the AMD Radeon RX 470 at 28996 with a delta of +0.6%, and the AMD Radeon RX 6800M at 28874 with a delta of +1%.

The combined percentile is 85. That puts the laptop as a whole in the upper part of the database. The combined picture is one of a high-performing CPU paired with a distinctly lower-performing GPU. The CPU is the source of this configuration’s high rank, while the GPU keeps gaming and GPU-rendering performance at a lower tier.

FAQ — 5-7 Q&A pairs answerable from FACT PACK data

Q: What are the CPU and GPU in this pairing?

A: The CPU is the Intel Core Ultra 9 285HX with 24 cores, 24 threads, a base clock of 2.80 GHz, and a boost clock of 5.50 GHz. The GPU is the Intel Arc A370M with 4 GB GDDR6 memory on a 64-bit bus and 112.0 GB/s bandwidth.

Q: Is there measured gaming FPS data for this exact combination?

A: No. The fact pack has no measuredFpsUltraByGame entries, dataIsMeasured is false, and pairRankByFps is null. Frame rates can only be estimated from the CPU and GPU benchmark scores.

Q: How does the CPU compare to its nearest rivals?

A: The CPU’s average benchmark score is 76155. The AMD Ryzen 9 8945HX scores 76212 with a delta of -0.1%, the AMD EPYC Embedded 8224P scores 76492 with a delta of -0.4%, the AMD Ryzen Threadripper PRO 9945WX scores 76513 with a delta of -0.5%, and the AMD Ryzen 9 9950X3D scores 75779 with a delta of +0.5%.

Q: What memory and PCIe support does the CPU provide?

A: The CPU supports DDR5 dual-channel memory with 102.4 GB/s bandwidth and ECC true. It provides PCIe Gen 5 with 20 lanes, listed as CPU-only. The GPU uses a PCIe 4.0 x8 interface.

Q: What ray tracing hardware does the GPU have?

A: The GPU has 8 RT cores. It supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. No tensor-core count is listed.

Q: What is the build class and overall tier of this configuration?

A: The build class is laptop. The CPU is at the 95th percentile of all CPUs, the GPU is at the 74th percentile of all GPUs, and the combined percentile is 85.

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 pairing. The CPU is a mobile part with a market segment of Mobile, and the GPU is a 35 W part with its slot width listed as IGP. The CPU production status is Active, while the GPU production status is End-of-life. The data describes a notebook platform rather than a desktop tower, and the platform’s overall tier is tied to the CPU more than the GPU.

The combined percentile of 85 places the pairing in the upper range of the database. The CPU’s 95th percentile drives that overall position, while the GPU’s 74th percentile keeps the system from being a top-tier gaming or GPU-rendering machine. This is best understood as a high-end CPU laptop with a mid-tier integrated-style GPU, not a balanced high-end gaming laptop.

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

The CPU uses the Intel BGA 2114 socket. Memory support is DDR5 dual-channel with 102.4 GB/s bandwidth and ECC true. The CPU provides PCIe Gen 5 with 20 lanes, listed as CPU-only. The GPU uses a PCIe 4.0 x8 bus interface. These specifications define the platform for this laptop.

PSU headroom is not specified in the data: the suggested PSU field is null, and the GPU power connector field is null. The CPU TDP is 55 W and the GPU TDP is 35 W. That TDP pairing suggests a relatively power-conscious laptop design, but no power-supply sizing guidance is included in the fact pack.

The logical upgrade target is the GPU side, because the CPU is at the 95th percentile while the GPU is at the 74th percentile. However, this is a laptop with a BGA 2114 CPU and a GPU slot width listed as IGP, so the data does not support user-swappable component upgrades. A sensible next step would be a different laptop configuration with the same CPU class and a stronger GPU, which would raise the GPU percentile and balance the pairing.

Rate My PC: Intel Core Ultra 9 285HX + Intel Arc A370M

Apex Performer

System Balance Analysis

Intel Core Ultra 9 285HX

Intel Arc A370M

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

Usage Scenarios — grounded in the scores: high-refresh gaming, streaming, video editing, 3D rendering, software development, student and office work. One short paragraph per scenario, citing the numbers that support the verdict

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

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

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

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)

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

FAQ — 5-7 Q&A pairs answerable from FACT PACK data

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

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

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