SYSTEM ANALYZER

Rate My PC: Intel Core Ultra 9 285K + AMD Radeon RX 6400

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)

▼

90 Score

Top 10% Ranking

90 / 100

ULTIMATE READY

Apex Performer

Top 10% 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

83%

PROCESSOR

Intel Core Ultra 9 285K

83,807 Benchmark Score

Top 3% Market Ranking

View Full Specs →

GRAPHICS CARD

AMD Radeon RX 6400

6,001 Benchmark Score

Top 17% 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 pairing of Intel's Core Ultra 9 285K with AMD's Radeon RX 6400 is one of the most lopsided combinations in the desktop benchmark database: a top-tier CPU from the 96th percentile attached to a GPU sitting in the 35th. The Core Ultra 9 285K is a 24-core, 24-thread Arrow Lake-S flagship built on TSMC's 3 nm node, launched at $589 MSRP, while the RX 6400 is a single-slot, connector-free 53 W Navi 24 card with 4 GB of GDDR6 that arrived at 159 USD. The combined percentile of 66 reflects a build whose aggregate score is dragged up by CPU muscle and pulled down hard by graphics throughput. No measured FPS data exists for this exact combination in the database — every frame-rate discussion below is therefore an estimate derived from benchmark scores, not recorded gameplay.

Balance and Bottleneck

This build is GPU-bound in essentially every graphics workload. The evidence is stark: the CPU occupies the 96th percentile versus all processors, while the GPU sits in the 35th percentile versus all graphics cards. That gap of 61 percentile points means the RX 6400 will be the limiter in any 3D task, and the Core Ultra 9 285K will spend most of its 24 threads waiting.

The benchmark scores make the imbalance concrete. The CPU's average benchmark score is 83807, roughly fourteen times the GPU's average of 6001. Its Cinebench R23 multi-core result of 42522 and Geekbench multi-core result of 26702 describe a workstation-class rendering engine; the RX 6400's PassMark G3D score of 7673 and 3DMark Steel Nomad score of 176 describe an entry-level graphics solution. When those two are asked to render a modern game together, the GPU finishes last by an enormous margin.

The corollary is that CPU-bound scenarios — compilation, compression, physics, single-threaded application logic — will run at effectively the full speed of the 285K. PassMark physics scored 3938, single-thread scored 5087, and integer math reached 172379. None of those numbers will ever be constrained by the attached GPU. The bottleneck appears only when pixels need pushing, and it appears immediately. For a buyer, the practical implication is simple: this configuration makes sense as a compute platform with incidental display capability, not as a gaming rig. The GPU's PassMark DirectX 12 score of 30 against its DirectX 9 score of 93 also indicates that as APIs become more demanding, the card falls further behind, so modern titles are the worst case for this pairing.

Benchmark Performance

The CPU numbers place the Core Ultra 9 285K among elite desktop processors. Cinebench R15 multi-core: 6494. Cinebench R20 multi-core: 24003. Cinebench R23 multi-core: 42522, with 2377 in single-core. Geekbench reports 26702 multi-core and 2870 single-core. PassMark multithread reaches 67260, floating point math 224324, integer math 172379, data compression 790052, and encryption 57745.

Against its nearest rivals, the 285K holds its ground tightly. The Intel Core Ultra 9 290K Plus averages 84003 — just 0.2 percent ahead. The AMD EPYC 4584PX trails by 0.9 percent at 83090, the EPYC 9135 by 1 percent at 82980, and the EPYC 7F72 leads by 1.5 percent at 85072. A spread of under two percentage points across four rivals, two of which are server-class EPYC parts, confirms the 285K as top-bin silicon.

The GPU tells the opposite story. Its average benchmark score of 6001 is matched almost exactly by the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 770M at 6000 — a dead heat at 0 percent delta. The NVIDIA RTX PRO 6000 Blackwell Server sits at 5996, 0.1 percent behind; the AMD FirePro W4100 at 5987, 0.2 percent behind; and the NVIDIA Quadro K4000M at 5986, 0.3 percent behind. The rival list itself is telling: this card scores in the same band as a laptop GPU and legacy workstation parts, some of which were premium data-center components in their day but score low here only because the database's averaged cross-section is broad. Geekbench OpenCL scored 32011 and Vulkan 16372, while GPU compute in PassMark managed 2812.

The combined percentile of 66 is the arithmetic middle ground of a 96th-percentile CPU and a 35th-percentile GPU. It is not a measure of balanced performance — it is an average of two extremes, and the build behaves like whichever extreme a given workload touches.

CPU Analysis

The Core Ultra 9 285K is Arrow Lake-S silicon: 24 cores and 24 threads on TSMC's 3 nm process, packing 17,800 million transistors into a 243 mm² die. It boosts to 5.70 GHz from a 3.70 GHz base, with an unlocked multiplier for overclocking and a 125 W TDP rating. Cache is generous — 192 KB of L1 per core, 3 MB of L2 per core, and 36 MB of shared L3 — and memory support extends to dual-channel DDR5 with 102.4 GB/s of bandwidth and ECC capability, which is notable for a desktop part and relevant to workstation buyers.

What do the scores mean for real workloads? The Cinebench R23 multi-core figure of 42522 puts sustained rendering throughput near the very top of the database's desktop field. The single-core score of 2377 in R23, 3388 in R20, and 359 in R15 show per-thread speed that keeps lightly threaded applications from being a weak spot — this is not a chip that trades single-thread responsiveness for multi-thread bulk. Geekbench single-core at 2870 reinforces that.

The PassMark subscores map to specific tasks. Data compression at 790052 and encryption at 57745 indicate strong file-archiving and cryptographic performance. Random string sorting at 94927 reflects capable memory-subsystem behavior for data processing. Extended instructions scored 62277, suggesting SIMD-heavy workloads — media encoding, scientific computation — are well served. Find prime numbers at 541 and floating point math at 224324 round out a profile of a genuine all-rounder. With Arrow Lake's architecture and the integrated Arc Xe-LPG Graphics 64EU on die, the chip even carries a fallback display path that is, on paper, not far removed from what the discrete RX 6400 offers — an unusual situation where the iGPU and dGPU exist in the same performance neighborhood.

Usage Scenarios

High-refresh gaming: This is the wrong build for it. With a GPU in the 35th percentile and a PassMark DirectX 12 score of 30, high-refresh play at any modern setting is out of reach; the 96th-percentile CPU cannot compensate for a graphics subsystem this far behind. Estimated frame rates, absent measured data, would be modest even at reduced settings.

Streaming: CPU-side encoding and multi-tasking are comfortably handled — 24 threads and a Geekbench multi-core of 26702 absorb stream encoding, chat overlays, and browser load simultaneously. But the game being streamed has to render on the RX 6400 first, and that is where the pipeline collapses. Streaming this build's own gameplay is CPU-rich and GPU-starved.

Video editing: Timeline scrubbing, proxy workflows, and export encoding lean on the 285K's 42522 Cinebench R23 multi-core score and 36 MB of L3, and DDR5 at 102.4 GB/s helps footage handling. The limitation is the 4 GB of GPU VRAM — effects acceleration and GPU preview will hit a wall quickly, pushing the workload back onto the CPU.

3D rendering: CPU rendering is a genuine strength; the R20 multi-core score of 24003 and rivals within 1.5 percent — including server EPYC parts — confirm workstation-class throughput. GPU rendering is not viable at scale: OpenCL at 32011 and a 3.565 TFLOPS FP32 ceiling place serious viewport and path-tracing work out of realistic scope.

Software development: The strongest scenario for this configuration. Compilation scales with threads, and 67260 in PassMark multithread plus 5087 single-thread means both parallel builds and single-threaded tooling run near the top of the field. The GPU is irrelevant to this workload, which is exactly why the imbalance doesn't matter here.

Student and office work: Massively overpowered on the CPU side and underpowered nowhere that matters. Documents, browsing, video calls, and research all run on a fraction of the 285K's capability, and the RX 6400's dual display outputs — one HDMI 2.1 and one DisplayPort 1.4a — cover a two-monitor study setup adequately.

Gaming Performance

No measured FPS rows exist for this exact CPU and GPU combination in the database; all figures below are estimates derived from the benchmark scores, not recorded tests. The estimate frame is set by the RX 6400's PassMark G3D score of 7673, its 3DMark Steel Nomad result of 176, and its position in the 35th percentile of all GPUs. That band corresponds to entry-level 1080p capability at reduced settings, not ultra.

The API breakdown sharpens the picture. PassMark DirectX 9 scored 93, DirectX 10 scored 54, DirectX 11 scored 70, and DirectX 12 scored 30 — a clear decline as workload complexity rises. Estimated behavior follows: older or lightweight titles at 1080p should remain playable at medium settings, while modern DirectX 12 titles at ultra settings are likely to fall to levels most enthusiasts would consider unplayable, especially with ray tracing enabled, where 12 RT cores on a 768-shading-unit chip cannot carry meaningful load.

Resolution scaling is similarly constrained. The 64-bit memory bus delivers 128.0 GB/s of bandwidth from 4 GB of GDDR6, which is the hard ceiling on texture quality and frame consistency. Moving from 1080p to 1440p would multiply pixel count while the 74.27 GPixel/s pixel rate stays fixed — estimated results at higher resolutions drop off steeply. The Intel Arc Xe-LPG 64EU integrated graphics offer an alternative render path in some scenarios, but the database does not indicate it meaningfully exceeds the discrete card. In short: treat this as a 1080p, low-to-medium settings, older-titles machine — if gaming matters at all.

GPU Analysis

The RX 6400 is a Navi 24 die on TSMC's 6 nm process: 5400 million transistors across 107 mm², yielding a transistor density of 50.5M per mm². It is a compact, efficient design with 768 shading units, 48 TMUs, 32 ROPs, and 12 RT cores. Clocks run from a 1923 MHz base to a 2321 MHz boost, with a 2039 MHz game clock, and memory ticks at 2000 MHz — 16 Gbps effective. Peak FP32 throughput is 3.565 TFLOPS, FP16 doubles that at 7.130 TFLOPS in a 2:1 configuration, and there are no tensor cores.

Its defining physical trait is the form factor: single-slot, no external power connectors, a 53 W TDP, and a suggested PSU of just 250 W. That makes it a drop-in card for compact or constrained systems where power delivery is limited. The trade-offs are severe for a build of this class. The PCIe 4.0 x4 bus interface narrows host communication, and 4 GB of VRAM on a 64-bit bus is the binding constraint in any modern rendering task — texture sets that exceed 4 GB force asset streaming that no bandwidth figure can hide.

For compute, the picture is modest: PassMark GPU compute at 2812, OpenCL at 32011, Vulkan at 16372. These are functional numbers for display output, video decode, and light GPU-assisted tasks, but they are not rendering numbers. The card is end-of-life, succeeded by the Navi III generation, which limits its long-term relevance in an otherwise modern platform. Within this pairing, the RX 6400 functions best as a display adapter that happens to be installed in a PCIe slot — a role the CPU's integrated Arc graphics could nearly serve on its own.

Upgrade Path and Platform

The platform side is genuinely forward-looking. Socket 1851 hosts the 285K, and the nearest-rival list includes the Intel Core Ultra 9 290K Plus averaging 84003 — within the same family, indicating headroom exists on this socket for a stronger CPU later, though the 285K is already within 0.2 percent of it. Memory support covers dual-channel DDR5 at up to 102.4 GB/s with ECC, and the CPU provides PCIe Gen 5 with 20 lanes from the processor alone — enough for a top-tier GPU and a Gen 5 SSD simultaneously.

That is precisely what makes this configuration an upgrade candidate rather than a dead end. The sensible next step is obvious: replace the RX 6400. Any modern GPU that actually uses the CPU's 20 Gen 5 lanes would redress the 61-point percentile gap, and the 125 W CPU TDP leaves substantial PSU headroom — the card itself only asks for a 250 W suggested PSU, but the platform built around a 285K should be provisioned beyond that once a serious GPU enters the picture. The multiplier-unlocked CPU, paired with capable cooling, offers tuning headroom for enthusiasts. Users who keep the RX 6400 long-term are, in effect, leaving the entire platform's graphics potential unused: the card's PCIe 4.0 x4 interface cannot even saturate the Gen 5 link the CPU provides. Conversely, there is no meaningful CPU upgrade that would improve this build's weakest area, because the GPU is the bottleneck by a wide margin.

FAQ

Q: Is this build good for gaming?

A: No. The RX 6400 sits in the 35th percentile of all GPUs with a PassMark G3D score of 7673 and a DirectX 12 score of 30, while the CPU is in the 96th percentile. Every graphics workload is GPU-bound.

Q: What is the single biggest upgrade for this configuration?

A: The graphics card. The Core Ultra 9 285K is within 0.2 percent of the Intel Core Ultra 9 290K Plus, so the CPU is already near the top of its class; the RX 6400 is the component holding the combined percentile at 66.

Q: How strong is the CPU for productivity work?

A: Very strong. It scores 42522 in Cinebench R23 multi-core, 26702 in Geekbench multi-core, and 67260 in PassMark multithread, placing it in the 96th percentile and within 1.5 percent of several EPYC server processors.

Q: Does the RX 6400 need additional power connections?

A: No. It draws 53 W with no external power connectors and a single-slot design, and carries a suggested PSU rating of 250 W.

Q: Are the FPS figures for this build measured?

A: No. The database contains no measured FPS data for this exact combination; all frame-rate expectations discussed here are estimates derived from benchmark scores.

Q: Can this system handle streaming and video editing?

A: CPU-side, yes — 24 threads and strong compression and encryption scores support encoding and multitasking. GPU-side, the 4 GB of VRAM and 128.0 GB/s of bandwidth are severe limits for GPU-accelerated effects and previews.

Q: What memory does the platform support?

A: Dual-channel DDR5 at up to 102.4 GB/s, with ECC support — unusual for a desktop platform and useful for workstation-grade stability.

Who Should Build It

The honest answer: almost nobody should build this exact combination, but pieces of it suit specific users. Software developers and compile-heavy engineering teams get genuine value — the 285K's multithreaded scores rival EPYC server parts while running on a standard desktop platform with ECC-capable DDR5. Students and small-business workstation users who need document handling, multi-monitor output, and long-term CPU headroom would also be served, and the RX 6400's two display outputs cover that need without external power.

Content creators should build the CPU side but not the GPU side. A Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 42522 makes this a legitimate rendering and encoding workstation the moment a capable GPU replaces the RX 6400 across the CPU's 20 PCIe Gen 5 lanes. Gamers — at 1080p, 1440p, or 4K — should look elsewhere or budget for an immediate graphics upgrade, because the 35th-percentile GPU with 4 GB of VRAM caps every title this system touches. The configuration is best understood as a high-end compute platform wearing a placeholder graphics card; buy it for the processor, and treat the RX 6400 as a stopgap on a socket that has room to grow.

Rate My PC: Intel Core Ultra 9 285K + AMD Radeon RX 6400

Apex Performer

System Balance Analysis

Intel Core Ultra 9 285K

AMD Radeon RX 6400

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

Balance and Bottleneck

Benchmark Performance

CPU Analysis

Usage Scenarios

Gaming Performance

GPU Analysis

Upgrade Path and Platform

FAQ

Who Should Build It

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