SYSTEM ANALYZER

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

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)

▼

86 Score

Top 14% Ranking

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%

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 285K

83,807 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 285K paired with the Intel Arc A310E is one of the most lopsided combinations in this database: a flagship-tier desktop CPU sitting in the 96th percentile of all processors, matched with a compact, single-slot entry-level GPU that sits at the 50th percentile of all graphics cards. The combined build percentile of 73 reflects that imbalance — this pairing is overwhelmingly CPU-dominant, and every downstream conclusion in this analysis flows from that fact. Notably, no measured FPS data exists for this exact combination in the FACT PACK, so all frame-rate discussion below is estimated from the benchmark scores rather than observed.

GPU Analysis

The Arc A310E is a small Alchemist-generation part built on TSMC's 6 nm process, with 7,200 million transistors packed into a 157 mm² die at a density of 45.9M transistors per mm². It carries 768 shading units, 32 texture mapping units, 16 render output units, and 6 ray tracing cores on the Xe-HPG architecture. There are no tensor cores listed in the data, which immediately limits its relevance for AI-accelerated rendering workflows and puts the emphasis squarely on conventional rasterization.

The raw compute envelope is modest. FP32 throughput 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. The clock structure is unusual in that base and boost are identical at 2000 MHz — there is no listed boost headroom, so the card effectively runs flat out whenever it is loaded. For rendering work, that means predictable but ceiling-bound performance: what you see at the start of a render session is roughly what you get throughout.

Memory is the real constraint. The A310E ships with 4 GB of GDDR6 on a 64-bit bus, delivering 124.0 GB/s of bandwidth at 1937 MHz memory clock, effective 15.5 Gbps. That combination — small capacity plus narrow bus — is the defining characteristic of this card. In viewport work, 4 GB fills quickly with modern scene assets, and the bandwidth ceiling caps texture-heavy output. The API support is actually forward-looking: DirectX 12 Ultimate (feature level 12_2), Vulkan 1.4, and OpenGL 4.6 mean the card can technically execute modern render paths, including ray tracing via its 6 RT cores. But 6 RT cores against scene complexity is a mismatch; ray-traced rendering on this card should be treated as a checkbox feature, not a workflow.

For practical rendering conclusions: the A310E handles display output, light 2D work, hardware video decode, and modest GPU compute, but the benchmark data — a 50th percentile position among all GPUs with no recorded benchmark scores in this pack — places it firmly in the middle of the pack, which for a database spanning the entire GPU landscape means entry-level real-world capability. Any serious 3D rendering, GPU simulation, or AI work should be planned around the CPU instead, or a GPU upgrade planned from day one.

The physical package matters for compact builds: single-slot width, 20 mm thick, 168 mm long, 69 mm tall, drawing 75 W with no power connectors required. Four mini-DisplayPort 2.0 outputs give it genuine utility as a multi-monitor display adapter — arguably its best role in this build.

Benchmark Performance

The CPU benchmark record is deep and consistent. In Cinebench, the Core Ultra 9 285K scores 6494 multi-core and 359 single-core in R15, 24003 multi-core and 3388 single-core in R20, and 42522 multi-core and 2377 single-core in R23. Geekbench lands at 26702 multi-core and 2870 single-core. The Passmark suite fills out the picture: 67260 multithread, 5087 single thread, 3938 physics, 172379 integer math, 224324 floating point math, 790052 data compression, 57745 data encryption, 62277 extended instructions, 541 find prime numbers, and 94927 string sorting.

The single-core scores are the headline. A 2870 Geekbench single-core score and 5087 Passmark single-thread score place this processor among the fastest per-thread performers recorded, which is exactly what you want for latency-sensitive workloads and game engines that still lean on a few fast threads. The multi-core scores confirm breadth: 42522 in Cinebench R23 multi-core is flagship-desktop territory, meaning sustained all-core loads are not a compromise.

Context from the rivals list sharpens this. The 285K's average benchmark score of 83807 sits within a fraction of a percent of the Intel Core Ultra 9 290K Plus (84003 average, deltaPct -0.2), and effectively level with server-class parts: the AMD EPYC 4584PX (83090, deltaPct 0.9), the AMD EPYC 9135 (82980, deltaPct 1), and the AMD EPYC 7F72 (85072, deltaPct -1.5). That is the striking part — a desktop processor trading blows with EPYC-branded server silicon tells you the multi-core throughput here is genuinely workstation-grade. Its 96th percentile position against all CPUs in the database confirms it.

The GPU side contributes no benchmark scores in this pack, consistent with its mid-database percentile. The combined build percentile of 73 is the arithmetic of that split: near the top in CPU, exactly mid-pack in GPU.

CPU Analysis

The Core Ultra 9 285K is an Arrow Lake-S processor on Intel's Core Ultra Series 2, manufactured on TSMC's 3 nm node with 17,800 million transistors on a 243 mm² die. It runs 24 cores and 24 threads — note the absence of hyperthreading-style doubling, a deliberate Arrow Lake characteristic where the thread count equals the core count. Base clock is 3.70 GHz with boosts to 5.70 GHz, and the multiplier is unlocked for overclocking.

The cache hierarchy is generous per core: 192 KB of L1 and 3 MB of L2 per core, with a shared 36 MB of L3. That large distributed L2 matters for the benchmark results — it explains part of why the single-thread scores (359 in R15, 3388 in R20, 2377 in R23) are so strong, since per-core data locality is well served. The 5.70 GHz boost ceiling, meanwhile, is what pushes per-thread latency down in interactive workloads.

Memory support is DDR5 on a dual-channel bus with 102.4 GB/s of bandwidth, and ECC is supported — a meaningful feature for a workstation role, since data integrity in long renders or compilations is preserved. PCIe connectivity is Gen 5 with 20 lanes from the CPU, giving fast storage and a full-speed slot path for a future GPU. The integrated Arc Xe-LPG Graphics with 64 EU is present as a fallback, which is relevant here: it gives the build display redundancy independent of the A310E.

Translating scores to real workloads: the Passmark multithread score of 67260 and the compression score of 790052 indicate code compilation, archival, and build pipelines will fly. The floating point score of 224324 and integer score of 172379 point to strong simulation and general compute. The physics score of 3938 is a direct proxy for game engine simulation throughput. The single-thread score of 5087 covers everything that refuses to parallelize — editor responsiveness, scripting, plugin chains in DAWs, spreadsheet recalculation. There is no workload class in this database's CPU coverage where this chip is weak.

Balance and Bottleneck

This pairing is bottlenecked by the GPU in essentially every graphically demanding scenario, and the percentiles make that unambiguous. The CPU sits at the 96th percentile; the GPU at the 50th. A 46-percentile gap is not a nuance — it is the entire story of this build.

In gaming, the CPU's 3938 physics score and top-tier single-thread results mean frame-rate simulation and draw-call submission will never be the limiter. The A310E's 3.072 TFLOPS of FP32 and 124.0 GB/s of bandwidth will be. Frame scaling with resolution tells the same story from the other direction: because the GPU is saturated at any modern resolution, increasing resolution costs almost nothing in CPU load while the GPU remains the ceiling throughout. There is no resolution at which the 285K's simulation throughput becomes the constraint with this card installed.

In production work the imbalance inverts into an advantage. Rendering in a CPU-based path (Cinebench-style workloads, where 42522 R23 multi-core applies directly), compiling code (multithread 67260), or batch compression (790052) uses the processor fully while the A310E merely drives the display. The only production scenarios where the build stalls are GPU-accelerated ones: viewport rendering beyond what 4 GB of VRAM holds, GPU ray tracing through 6 RT cores, or any AI inference expecting tensor hardware the data does not list.

The practical read: this build behaves like a high-end workstation with a display adapter, and the CPU never waits on the GPU except in 3D output.

Usage Scenarios

High-refresh gaming. Not viable at the GPU end. The 50th-percentile A310E with 3.072 TFLOPS and a 64-bit bus cannot push high-refresh rates in modern titles, regardless of how capable the 3938 physics score is. Esports titles at reduced settings are the ceiling, and even those are estimates given the absence of measured data.

Streaming. The CPU side is excellent — 67260 multithread leaves headroom for encoding alongside gameplay, and single-thread 5087 keeps overlay and chat smooth. But the game itself must first run, and the GPU is the limiter. Streaming lighter titles works; streaming demanding AAA games does not, on this configuration.

Video editing. Mixed. Timeline scrubbing and multi-cam work benefit from DDR5 bandwidth of 102.4 GB/s and the huge multi-core scores, and ECC support protects long exports. The 4 GB VRAM limit is the recurring problem — GPU-accelerated effects and higher-bitrate formats will spill out of VRAM. CPU-rendered exports (R23 multi-core 42522) remain fast regardless.

3D rendering. Split the pipeline. CPU rendering is flagship-tier, as the Cinebench family of scores demonstrates and the EPYC-adjacent rival comparison reinforces. GPU rendering is constrained by 768 shading units, 6 RT cores, and 4 GB of memory. Draft on this machine's CPU; do not plan on GPU path tracing.

Software development. The strongest scenario for this build as configured. Compilation scales with the 67260 multithread score, data-compression tooling benefits from 790052, and encryption-heavy CI tasks map to the 57745 encryption score. Gen 5 storage via 20 CPU lanes keeps repositories and build caches fast. The A310E's four mini-DisplayPort 2.0 outputs handle multi-monitor development setups without issue.

Student and office work. Effortless. Single-thread performance near the top of the database makes documents, browsers, and video calls snappy, integrated Arc Xe-LPG 64 EU graphics provide a fallback display path, and the 75 W, connector-less GPU keeps the system quiet and simple. This is overkill for office work in the best way — headroom that lasts.

Gaming Performance

To restate clearly: no measured FPS data exists for this exact pairing in the FACT PACK — the measuredFps field is empty and dataIsMeasured is false. All frame-rate discussion here is therefore estimated from the benchmark scores, not observed.

With that caveat: the A310E's 50th percentile position, 3.072 TFLOPS FP32, 32.00 GPixel/s pixel rate, and 124.0 GB/s bandwidth place it in entry-level territory for modern 3D gaming. At 1080p with ultra settings in current AAA titles, expectations should be conservative — this class of card is designed around reduced settings and older or lighter engines, and the 4 GB VRAM buffer will be the first wall hit as texture quality rises. Esports and competitive titles at lowered settings are where playable frame rates are most plausible, and here the CPU will never be the constraint: the 3938 physics score and 96th-percentile overall position mean simulation and logic throughput have enormous headroom the GPU cannot use.

Ray tracing deserves a specific note. The hardware exists — 6 RT cores, DirectX 12 Ultimate support — but the compute and memory envelope means RT should be considered off the table for real gameplay. The API support (Vulkan 1.4, OpenGL 4.6) ensures compatibility with modern engines; it does not ensure performance.

Upscaling features would normally be the lever that makes an entry card viable in demanding titles, but the absence of listed tensor cores in the data suggests hardware-accelerated upscaling is not this card's strength. Treat any gaming capability as a bonus of this build, not a reason to assemble it.

Upgrade Path and Platform

The platform foundation is Socket 1851, and it is the strongest argument for this configuration as a starting point. The Core Ultra 9 285K already sits at the 96th percentile — effectively, the CPU is the destination, not a waypoint. The genuine upgrade axis is the GPU.

Memory: DDR5 dual-channel with 102.4 GB/s bandwidth and ECC support. The memory subsystem will not bottleneck the CPU in its current role; capacity and speed tuning are the remaining levers. Storage and expansion benefit from Gen 5 with 20 CPU-attached lanes, so a fast primary drive and a full-speed GPU slot are both available.

Power: the CPU's TDP is 125 W and the GPU's is 75 W, with the A310E requiring no power connectors at all. The listed suggested PSU for the card is 250 W. That is the number to outgrow: a GPU upgrade to anything meaningfully faster will require a PSU reassessment, since a 250 W-class recommendation assumes the current low-draw configuration. Plan the PSU around the intended GPU, not the current one.

Physical clearance is a non-issue today — the card is single-slot, 168 mm long — so any case hosting this build has room for a substantially larger GPU later. The A310E is also end-of-life per its production status, with Battlemage listed as its successor, which reinforces treating it as a placeholder: fine as a display adapter now, replaceable without regret.

A sensible path: build on Socket 1851 with the 285K, use the A310E (or the integrated Arc Xe-LPG 64 EU graphics) for display duty, and put the budget attention into a GPU upgrade that matches the CPU's 96th percentile. That single change converts this from a workstation-with-a-display-card into a genuinely balanced high-end system.

FAQ

Q: Does this build have measured FPS numbers?

A: No. The FACT PACK contains no measured frame-rate data for this pairing, and dataIsMeasured is false. All gaming figures discussed here are estimates inferred from the benchmark scores.

Q: Is the Core Ultra 9 285K fast enough for high-end gaming?

A: Yes. It sits in the 96th percentile of all CPUs, with a 3938 Passmark physics score and a 5087 single-thread score — simulation and per-thread throughput are not limiting factors in any realistic game scenario.

Q: Is the Arc A310E good for gaming?

A: No. It sits at the 50th percentile of all GPUs with 3.072 TFLOPS FP32, 4 GB of GDDR6 on a 64-bit bus, and 124.0 GB/s of bandwidth — entry-level for modern 3D titles, though its DirectX 12 Ultimate support keeps it compatible.

Q: Can this system do 3D rendering?

A: On the CPU, yes — a Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 42522 and rivals comparison against EPYC server parts confirm workstation-grade throughput. GPU rendering is constrained by 6 RT cores and 4 GB of VRAM.

Q: Does the CPU support ECC memory?

A: Yes, ECC is supported, paired with DDR5 on a dual-channel bus delivering 102.4 GB/s — useful for long-running workstation workloads.

Q: What power supply does this build need?

A: The listed suggested PSU for the A310E is 250 W, reflecting the card's 75 W draw with no power connectors. A future GPU upgrade will require revisiting that figure.

Q: Is the Arc A310E still in production?

A: No. Its production status is end-of-life, with Battlemage listed as the successor — another reason to treat it as a temporary display solution.

Who Should Build It

The right owner for this configuration is someone whose work is CPU-bound and whose graphics needs are modest. Software developers get the most direct fit: compilation scaling off the 67260 multithread score, encryption and compression throughput from the 57745 and 790052 Passmark results, and Gen 5 storage across 20 CPU lanes. Data-focused small businesses benefit from the same profile plus ECC memory for integrity in long jobs. Students in technical fields get a machine that will not age out quickly, with the integrated Arc Xe-LPG 64 EU graphics as a safety net if the discrete card is ever removed.

Content creators whose pipeline is CPU-rendered — CPU-based 3D rendering, video exports, audio production — also fit, provided their software does not depend heavily on GPU acceleration, since 4 GB of VRAM and 124.0 GB/s of bandwidth will cap viewport and effect work. The Cinebench and Geekbench records show the processor handling sustained multi-core loads at a level that trades blows with EPYC-class server chips.

Who should not build it: anyone assembling this primarily for gaming, especially at high resolutions or high refresh rates. The GPU's position — 50th percentile, mid-database, no tensor cores listed — cannot use the CPU's enormous headroom, and no settings tweak changes that arithmetic. Gamers should either budget for a substantial GPU upgrade from day one or start with a different GPU entirely. For the workstation-first buyer, this pairing works exactly as the numbers describe: a near-flagship processor with a quiet, low-power display adapter, waiting on the one upgrade that would make it complete.

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

Power Build

System Balance Analysis

Intel Core Ultra 9 285K

Intel Arc A310E

Market Position

Game Performance Benchmarks

Cyberpunk 2077

Red Dead Redemption 2

Microsoft Flight Simulator

Control

Call of Duty: Warzone

Fortnite

Performance Insights

Strong Performance

Bottleneck Detected

Performance Tiers Explained

Ultimate

High-End

Mid-Range

Entry Level

Legacy

GPU Analysis

Benchmark Performance

CPU Analysis

Balance and Bottleneck

Usage Scenarios

Gaming Performance

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