SYSTEM ANALYZER

Rate My PC: Intel Core Ultra 9 285K + 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 285K

83,807 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 285K and Intel Arc A310 form a desktop pairing with a large performance gap between the two components. The CPU ranks in the 96th percentile among all CPUs and carries an average benchmark score of 83807, while the GPU ranks in the 40th percentile among all GPUs with an average score of 7550. The combined percentile for this build is 68, meaning the overall position is pulled upward by the processor and downward by the graphics card.

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

The Core Ultra 9 285K belongs to Intel’s Core Ultra Series 2 and uses the Arrow Lake-S architecture, built on a 3 nm TSMC process. It has 24 cores and 24 threads, a base clock of 3.70 GHz, and a boost clock of 5.70 GHz. The cache configuration is 192 KB of L1 per core, 3 MB of L2 per core, and 36 MB of shared L3. The CPU supports DDR5 memory over a dual-channel bus with 102.4 GB/s of bandwidth and includes ECC memory support. From the CPU itself, the platform provides PCIe Gen 5 with 20 lanes, and the integrated graphics are Arc Xe-LPG Graphics with 64 execution units. The TDP is 125 W, the multiplier is unlocked, and the production status is Active.

Benchmark results place this processor in the 96th percentile of all CPUs. Cinebench R23 multicore is 42522, while Cinebench R23 single-core is 2377. Cinebench R20 scores are 24003 multicore and 3388 single-core. Geekbench reports 26702 multicore and 2870 single-core. PassMark multi-thread is 67260, PassMark single-thread is 5087, integer math is 172379, floating point math is 224324, data compression is 790052, data encryption is 57745, and extended instructions is 62277. These results indicate strong sustained throughput for multi-threaded workloads such as compilation, rendering, and compression, while the single-core scores point to responsive behavior in lighter desktop applications.

The nearest rival scores reinforce the CPU’s position. The Core Ultra 9 290K Plus has an average score of 84003, the AMD EPYC 4584PX is at 83090, the AMD EPYC 9135 is at 82980, and the AMD EPYC 7F72 is at 85072. The deltaPct values are -0.2, 0.9, 1, and -1.5 respectively. The 285K’s average of 83807 sits between the 83090 and 82980 scores on the lower side and the 84003 and 85072 scores on the upper side, so this CPU is tightly grouped with those parts.

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

The Intel Arc A310 is a discrete GPU from the Intel Arc 3 generation, built on the Xe-HPG architecture with the DG2-128 chip. It is manufactured on TSMC’s 6 nm process with 7,200 million transistors on a 157 mm² die. The GPU has 768 shading units, 32 texture mapping units, 16 ROPs, and 6 ray tracing cores. The data does not list a tensor core count, so the compute story is carried by the RT cores, FP32 performance, and API results. The GPU runs at 1750 MHz base and boost, while memory runs at 1937 MHz or 15.5 Gbps effective. Memory capacity is 4 GB of GDDR6 on a 64-bit bus, giving 124.0 GB/s of bandwidth. The card is single-slot, uses no power connectors, has a 30 W TDP, and lists a 200 W suggested PSU. It connects over PCIe 4.0 x8 and provides four mini-DisplayPort 2.0 outputs.

For rendering, the compute figures are modest. FP32 throughput is 2.688 TFLOPS, FP16 throughput is 5.376 TFLOPS at a 2:1 ratio, pixel rate is 28.00 GPixel/s, and texture rate is 56.00 GTexel/s. PassMark G3D is 5433, PassMark GPU compute is 2157, and Geekbench OpenCL and Vulkan scores are 30607 and 28964. The GPU’s 40th percentile among all GPUs places it in an entry-level performance band despite the presence of 6 ray tracing cores. Its nearest rivals are the AMD Radeon R7 250 at 7557, the AMD Radeon Pro WX 3100 at 7580, the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 at 7472, and the AMD Radeon HD 8850M at 7447. The deltaPct values are -0.1, -0.4, 1, and 1.4, so the Arc A310’s 7550 average is closely surrounded by those parts. PassMark DirectX scores are 69 for DirectX 9, 31 for DirectX 10, 33 for DirectX 11, and 29 for DirectX 12; the DirectX 12 score in particular indicates that modern API rendering workloads will be constrained.

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

The CPU’s average benchmark score is 83807, with a 96th percentile ranking. Its headline results include Cinebench R23 multicore 42522, Geekbench multicore 26702, and PassMark multi-thread 67260. The GPU’s average benchmark score is 7550, with a 40th percentile ranking. Its headline results include Geekbench OpenCL 30607, Geekbench Vulkan 28964, and PassMark G3D 5433. The combined percentile for the build is 68.

The combined picture is one of a very strong processor paired with a very weak graphics card by percentile standards. The CPU’s average score of 83807 is far above the GPU’s 7550 average, and the nearest-rival data for each component confirms that the CPU competes with high-end server and desktop parts while the GPU competes with older entry-level graphics solutions. In a build that is used for CPU-bound work, the overall result will look close to the CPU’s 96th-percentile performance. In any workload that depends on the discrete GPU, the overall result will be pulled down toward the GPU’s 40th-percentile position.

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

Benchmark results indicate that the GPU is the limiting component for graphical workloads. The CPU’s 96th percentile and 83807 average score dwarf the GPU’s 40th percentile and 7550 average score. In CPU-heavy tasks, the Core Ultra 9 285K delivers high throughput: Cinebench R23 multicore is 42522, PassMark integer math is 172379, and PassMark floating point math is 224324. In GPU-heavy tasks, the Arc A310 sets a much lower ceiling: PassMark G3D is 5433, GPU compute is 2157, and DirectX 12 is 29. The 4 GB GDDR6 frame buffer on a 64-bit bus reinforces that ceiling.

FPS scaling cannot be quantified from the data because no measured FPS rows exist for this exact CPU and GPU combination. The percentile gap is still direct evidence of the bottleneck direction. For any game or render workload that leans on the discrete GPU, the Arc A310 will be saturated before the CPU is heavily loaded. The CPU has enough single-thread and multi-thread capacity to feed a much more powerful graphics card; the GPU does not have enough capacity to demand more from the CPU.

Usage Scenarios — grounded in the scores: high-refresh gaming, streaming, video editing, 3D rendering, software development, student and office work

High-refresh gaming. This is not a high-refresh gaming configuration. The GPU is the frame-rate gate, and its PassMark G3D score of 5433, DirectX 12 score of 29, and 40th percentile ranking are far below the CPU’s 96th percentile. The CPU’s 5.70 GHz boost clock and PassMark single-thread score of 5087 will not overcome the GPU’s limited 3D throughput.

Streaming. The CPU provides strong headroom for streaming-related overhead. PassMark multi-thread is 67260 and data compression is 790052, so the processor can handle concurrent workload processing. The GPU’s compute score of 2157 is much lower, so the Arc A310 contributes little to compute-heavy auxiliary tasks.

Video editing. Video editing workloads benefit from the CPU’s Cinebench R23 multicore score of 42522 and PassMark floating point math score of 224324. The Arc A310’s Geekbench OpenCL score of 30607 can provide some graphics acceleration, but the 4 GB GDDR6 frame buffer is the most likely constraint in memory-intensive editing work.

3D rendering. CPU rendering is strong on this build. Cinebench R20 multicore is 24003, and Cinebench R23 multicore is 42522. GPU rendering is constrained by the Arc A310’s FP32 throughput of 2.688 TFLOPS and its 40th percentile ranking, so any renderer that uses the discrete GPU will be limited by it.

Software development. Development builds depend on integer throughput and data handling. PassMark integer math is 172379, data compression is 790052, and extended instructions is 62277, all of which indicate a capable build machine. The DDR5 dual-channel memory path with 102.4 GB/s of bandwidth supports that kind of workload.

Student and office work. For student and office tasks, the CPU’s PassMark single-thread score of 5087 and Cinebench R23 single-core score of 2377 provide responsive application behavior. The integrated Arc Xe-LPG Graphics 64EU can drive displays, while the discrete Arc A310 adds 4 GB GDDR6 for light graphics acceleration.

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 the Intel Core Ultra 9 285K paired with the Intel Arc A310; the FACT PACK contains no measuredFps data for this combination. The dataIsMeasured field is false, so all frame-rate discussion below is estimated from benchmark scores rather than game tests.

The CPU would not be the constraint in gaming. PassMark single-thread is 5087 and Cinebench R23 single-core is 2377, while the CPU overall sits in the 96th percentile. The Arc A310, however, is a 40th-percentile GPU with a PassMark G3D score of 5433. Its DirectX 12 score of 29 and DirectX 11 score of 33 suggest that modern-API gaming at high settings would be severely limited. The DirectX 9 score of 69 is the highest of the four DirectX results, indicating that older API titles are less disadvantaged than newer ones. The 4 GB GDDR6 memory on a 64-bit bus also limits texture-heavy scenes. The nearest rival GPUs include the GeForce GTX 1650 at 7472 and the Radeon R7 250 at 7557, which positions the Arc A310 at an entry-level gaming tier.

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 is someone who needs the Core Ultra 9 285K’s compute capacity but does not need substantial discrete GPU power. The CPU’s 96th percentile, 24 cores, 24 threads, and ECC memory support suit CPU-centric workstations, developers, and small business machines where data integrity matters. The GPU’s 40th percentile and 4 GB GDDR6 make it suitable only for light graphics work and display output. Gamers building this exact pair should expect the GPU to be the limiting component; this is not a high-refresh modern gaming build. Content creators whose pipelines are CPU-bound will benefit from the processor’s Cinebench and PassMark results, while creators relying on GPU rendering will be constrained by the Arc A310. Students and office users can also use the integrated Arc Xe-LPG Graphics 64EU, reducing dependence on the discrete GPU.

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

This is a desktop build pairing the Intel Core Ultra 9 285K with the Intel Arc A310. The CPU is an unlocked, 125 W part from the Core Ultra Series 2 with a launch MSRP of $589. The GPU is a 30 W, single-slot Arc A310 with no power connectors and a suggested PSU of 200 W. The CPU is Active in production status, while the GPU is listed as End-of-life. The overall tier is defined by a combined percentile of 68. Within that combined position, the CPU contributes a 96th-percentile score and the GPU contributes a 40th-percentile score. The result is a top-heavy desktop configuration: a high-end CPU paired with an entry-level GPU.

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

Q: Is there measured game performance for this CPU+GPU combination?

A: No. The measuredFpsUltraByGame data is empty for the Intel Core Ultra 9 285K and Intel Arc A310, and dataIsMeasured is false. Any FPS expectations must be estimated from component benchmark scores.

Q: What memory type does the platform support?

A: The platform supports DDR5 memory over a dual-channel bus with 102.4 GB/s of bandwidth. ECC memory is supported.

Q: What is the GPU memory configuration?

A: The Arc A310 has 4 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 64-bit bus, with 124.0 GB/s of bandwidth and 15.5 Gbps effective memory speed.

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

A: The Core Ultra 9 285K has an average benchmark score of 83807. Its nearest rivals are the Core Ultra 9 290K Plus at 84003, the AMD EPYC 4584PX at 83090, the AMD EPYC 9135 at 82980, and the AMD EPYC 7F72 at 85072.

Q: How does the GPU compare with its nearest rivals?

A: The Arc A310 has an average benchmark score of 7550. Its nearest rivals are the AMD Radeon R7 250 at 7557, the AMD Radeon Pro WX 3100 at 7580, the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 at 7472, and the AMD Radeon HD 8850M at 7447.

Q: What PSU is suggested for this build?

A: The Arc A310 lists a suggested PSU of 200 W. The CPU TDP is 125 W, and the GPU TDP is 30 W.

Q: Is the CPU overclockable?

A: Yes, the multiplier is unlocked. The base clock is 3.70 GHz, and the boost clock is 5.70 GHz.

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

The platform is built around Intel Socket 1851 with DDR5 dual-channel memory support, ECC capability, and PCIe Gen 5 with 20 lanes from the CPU. Memory bandwidth is 102.4 GB/s. The Arc A310 uses a PCIe 4.0 x8 bus interface, which is compatible with the platform’s PCIe Gen 5 lanes at the GPU’s own bus speed. The CPU TDP is 125 W, the GPU TDP is 30 W, and the GPU suggests a 200 W PSU, so the current configuration has a modest power requirement. The GPU is listed as End-of-life, while the CPU is Active. The GPU’s successor is Battlemage, but a sensible next upgrade based on the data alone is any discrete GPU with a higher average benchmark score than the Arc A310’s 7550. The CPU is already in the 96th percentile, so replacing the 40th-percentile GPU would raise the combined percentile far more than changing the processor. The platform’s DDR5 support, ECC support, and PCIe Gen 5 lanes leave room for a more capable graphics card once one is installed.

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

Apex Performer

System Balance Analysis

Intel Core Ultra 9 285K

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

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

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

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

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

Usage Scenarios — grounded in the scores: high-refresh gaming, streaming, video editing, 3D rendering, software development, student and office work

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)

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

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

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

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