SYSTEM ANALYZER

Rate My PC: Intel Core Ultra 9 285K + NVIDIA Quadro RTX 4000

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

94 / 100
ULTIMATE READY

Apex Performer

Top 6% 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%
VS
GPU
90%
PROCESSOR

Intel Core Ultra 9 285K

83,807 Benchmark Score
Top 3% Market Ranking
View Full Specs →
GRAPHICS CARD

NVIDIA Quadro RTX 4000

17,789 Benchmark Score
Top 10% 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

# FAQ

Q: What are the core and thread counts of the Intel Core Ultra 9 285K?

A: The CPU features 24 cores and 24 threads, with a base clock of 3.70 GHz and a boost clock of 5.70 GHz. It is built on Intel's Arrow Lake architecture, uses a 3 nm process node from TSMC, and supports dual-channel DDR5 memory with ECC capability.

Q: How does the Core Ultra 9 285K compare to its nearest rival in average benchmark score?

A: The CPU has an average benchmark score of 83,807, placing it in the 96th percentile among all CPUs. Its closest rival, the Intel Core Ultra 9 290K Plus, scores 84,003, which is a 0.2% delta — meaning the 285K is essentially tied with that part, trailing by just 196 points.

Q: What GPU is paired with this CPU in this build, and what is its architecture?

A: The build pairs the CPU with an NVIDIA Quadro RTX 4000, which uses the Turing architecture (chip TU104) on a 12 nm process. It has 8 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 256-bit bus, delivering 416.0 GB/s of bandwidth.

Q: What is the GPU's percentile ranking and average benchmark score?

A: The Quadro RTX 4000 sits in the 61st percentile among all GPUs, with an average benchmark score of 17,789. Its nearest rival, the AMD Radeon HD 7790, scores 17,666, a 0.7% delta, meaning the Quadro is marginally ahead.

Q: Are there measured FPS figures for this CPU+GPU combination?

A: No. The FACT PACK contains no measured FPS data for this exact pairing, and the `dataIsMeasured` flag is false. All frame-rate discussion must be treated as estimates derived from the benchmark scores, not as lab-tested results.

Q: What is the combined percentile ranking for this desktop build?

A: The combination of the Core Ultra 9 285K and the Quadro RTX 4000 yields a combined percentile of 79, indicating the pairing sits above the majority of desktop systems but below the top-tier configurations.

Q: What is the launch MSRP for each component?

A: The CPU has a launch MSRP of $589, while the GPU has a launch MSRP of 899 USD. These are the only pricing details available.

---

Benchmark Performance

The data presents a stark contrast between two components with very different performance tiers. The Intel Core Ultra 9 285K is a top-tier desktop processor, evidenced by its 96th percentile ranking among all CPUs and an average benchmark score of 83,807. This places it in the company of enterprise-grade server chips: its nearest rival, the AMD EPYC 7F72, scores 85,072 (a -1.5% delta, meaning the EPYC is ahead), while the AMD EPYC 4584PX scores 83,090 (a 0.9% delta, meaning the 285K is ahead). The Core Ultra 9 285K is effectively within 1% of three of its four closest competitors, which are all EPYC server processors or the newer Core Ultra 9 290K Plus.

On the GPU side, the NVIDIA Quadro RTX 4000 occupies a much more modest position. Its 61st percentile ranking among all GPUs and average benchmark score of 17,789 place it in the mid-range segment. The nearest rivals are telling: the AMD Radeon HD 7790 (0.7% delta), the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4060 (0.9% delta), and the AMD Radeon 780M (1.1% delta) are all within roughly one percentage point. This means the Quadro RTX 4000 is statistically indistinguishable from a mainstream consumer GPU like the RTX 4060 in aggregate benchmarks, despite being a workstation-oriented product.

The combined percentile of 79 reflects this imbalance. When a 96th-percentile CPU is paired with a 61st-percentile GPU, the system's overall ranking lands in the upper-mid range. Benchmark results indicate that the CPU is the dominant contributor to the system's overall score, while the GPU holds the system back from reaching the highest tiers. For workloads that are CPU-bound — such as multi-threaded rendering or compilation — this system will perform near the top of the desktop heap. For GPU-bound tasks like gaming at high resolutions or GPU-accelerated rendering, the Quadro RTX 4000 will be the limiting factor, dragging the experience down to mainstream levels.

---

CPU Analysis

The Intel Core Ultra 9 285K is a 24-core, 24-thread desktop processor built on the Arrow Lake architecture (codename Arrow Lake-S), fabricated on TSMC's 3 nm process. The chip integrates 17,800 million transistors on a 243 mm² die, with a thermal design power of 125 W. It uses Intel Socket 1851 and supports PCIe Gen 5 with 20 lanes from the CPU.

Clock behavior is aggressive: the base clock of 3.70 GHz boosts to 5.70 GHz, and the multiplier is unlocked, allowing for overclocking. The cache hierarchy includes 192 KB of L1 per core, 3 MB of L2 per core, and a shared 36 MB L3 cache. Memory support extends to dual-channel DDR5 with a theoretical bandwidth of 102.4 GB/s, and ECC memory is supported — a feature typically reserved for workstation or server platforms.

Benchmark scores paint a clear picture of a processor that excels in both single-threaded and multi-threaded workloads. In Cinebench R23, the 285K scores 42,522 in multi-core and 2,377 in single-core. The R20 results are 24,003 multi-core and 3,388 single-core, while R15 shows 6,494 multi-core and 359 single-core. Geekbench scores are 26,702 multi-core and 2,870 single-core. These numbers place the CPU in the 96th percentile, meaning it outperforms 96% of all CPUs in the database.

The PassMark suite adds granularity to the performance profile. The multi-thread score is 67,260, while the single-thread score is 5,087. Specific workloads show strengths: data compression scores 790,052, floating-point math hits 224,324, and integer math reaches 172,379. Extended instructions score 62,277, and random string sorting scores 94,927. The physics score is 3,938, and prime number finding is 541. Data encryption scores 57,745.

For real workloads, these numbers translate to exceptional performance in multi-threaded tasks. The Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 42,522 is roughly 18 times the single-core score of 2,377, indicating strong scaling across the 24 cores. The PassMark multi-thread score of 67,260 versus single-thread of 5,087 reinforces this. Content creation, 3D rendering, video encoding, and software compilation will all benefit from this level of parallel throughput. The single-thread score of 5,087 in PassMark is also high, meaning everyday responsiveness and lightly-threaded applications will run smoothly.

---

Who Should Build It

This pairing of a 96th-percentile CPU with a 61st-percentile GPU targets a specific user: someone who prioritizes raw computational throughput over graphical fidelity. The Core Ultra 9 285K's 24 cores and 42,522 Cinebench R23 multi-core score make it an obvious choice for professionals who spend their time in CPU-bound applications.

Content creators working with video editing or 3D rendering will find the CPU's multi-threaded performance compelling, as the high Cinebench and PassMark scores indicate rapid processing of rendering frames or encoding video. The GPU's 7.119 TFLOPS of FP32 performance and 416.0 GB/s of memory bandwidth can handle GPU-accelerated effects, but the workload split will favor CPU-based tasks.

Software developers will appreciate the compilation speed implied by the extended instructions score of 62,277 and the integer math score of 172,379. Building large codebases, running test suites, and managing virtual machines are all CPU-intensive activities where this processor excels.

Students and small business workstations may find this build overkill on the CPU side but adequate on the GPU side. The 61st-percentile GPU handles standard office workloads, spreadsheet manipulation, and 2D tasks without issue, as evidenced by the PassMark G2D score of 846. The ECC memory support is a plus for data integrity in professional environments.

Gamers are the least ideal fit. The GPU's 61st percentile means modern games will run at mainstream settings, but the CPU's power will be wasted in most gaming scenarios, which are typically GPU-bound. A more balanced build would allocate budget toward a stronger GPU.

---

Usage Scenarios

High-refresh gaming: This scenario is problematic. With no measured FPS data available, estimates from the GPU's benchmark scores suggest that the Quadro RTX 4000, with its 61st percentile ranking and PassMark G3D score of 15,117, is not suited for high-refresh-rate gaming at demanding settings. The GPU's DirectX 12 score of 52 and DirectX 11 score of 128 in PassMark indicate modest DX12 performance. Expect 1080p gaming at medium settings, but not high-refresh 1440p or 4K.

Streaming: The CPU's 24 cores and strong multi-threaded scores (67,260 PassMark multi-thread) provide ample headroom for software encoding while gaming. The GPU's 288 tensor cores and 36 RT cores can offload some encoding tasks, but the overall GPU performance is a bottleneck for simultaneous gaming and streaming at high quality.

Video editing: This is a strong scenario. The CPU's Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 42,522 and PassMark floating-point score of 224,324 accelerate timeline rendering, effects processing, and export. The GPU's 7.119 TFLOPS FP32 and 416.0 GB/s bandwidth assist with GPU-accelerated effects, though the 8 GB VRAM may limit 4K editing with heavy color grading.

3D rendering: CPU-based rendering will excel. The PassMark multi-thread score of 67,260 and the high Cinebench scores ensure fast ray tracing on the CPU. GPU-based rendering using CUDA or OptiX will be slower due to the Quadro's 61st-percentile ranking and 7.119 TFLOPS compute.

Software development: Compilation and testing are CPU-bound, and the 285K's extended instructions score of 62,277 and integer math score of 172,379 indicate rapid code builds. The GPU is sufficient for IDE rendering and UI acceleration.

Student and office work: Overkill. The CPU's single-thread score of 5,087 ensures snappy application loading, and the GPU's G2D score of 846 handles 2D desktop environments easily. Battery life is not a concern for desktops, but the power draw of a 125 W CPU and 160 W GPU is unnecessary for this use case.

---

Gaming Performance

No measured FPS rows exist for this exact combination — the FACT PACK contains no measuredFps data. All frame-rate figures below are estimates derived from the benchmark scores and should be treated as approximations, not lab results.

The GPU's benchmark profile is modest. The 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 score is 1,873, which is low for modern AAA titles. The PassMark DirectX 12 score of 52 and DirectX 11 score of 128 suggest that the Quadro RTX 4000 is more comfortable with older DirectX 11 titles than with current DX12 games. The Geekbench Vulkan score of 78,844 is decent, but OpenCL at 74,540 indicates moderate compute performance.

For 1080p gaming, the Quadro RTX 4000's 61st percentile ranking and 7.119 TFLOPS FP32 should deliver playable frame rates in esports titles and older games, estimated in the 60-100 FPS range on medium to high settings. For modern AAA games at 1080p ultra, expect 30-50 FPS. At 1440p, frame rates will drop to 20-35 FPS on ultra settings, making high-refresh gaming unrealistic. 4K gaming is not viable beyond very low settings.

The CPU-side gaming performance is excellent, with a PassMark single-thread score of 5,087 ensuring no CPU bottleneck in most titles. However, the GPU limits the experience. The combined percentile of 79 reflects this: the system as a whole is above average for gaming, but the GPU prevents it from competing with dedicated gaming rigs that pair high-end CPUs with 80th-percentile-or-better GPUs.

---

GPU Analysis

The NVIDIA Quadro RTX 4000 is a workstation GPU built on the Turing architecture, using the TU104 chip on a 12 nm process. It contains 13,600 million transistors on a 545 mm² die, with a transistor density of 25.0M per mm². The GPU is end-of-life (released in November 2018), with its predecessor being Quadro Volta and its successor being Workstation Ampere.

Memory configuration includes 8 GB of GDDR6 on a 256-bit bus, delivering 416.0 GB/s of bandwidth. The memory clock is 1625 MHz, which translates to 13 Gbps effective. The GPU has 2,304 shading units, 144 texture mapping units, and 64 raster operation units. It includes 36 RT cores and 288 tensor cores, providing hardware support for ray tracing and AI acceleration.

Clock speeds are 1005 MHz base and 1545 MHz boost. Pixel fill rate is 98.88 GPixel/s, and texture fill rate is 222.5 GTexel/s. Compute performance is rated at 7.119 TFLOPS FP32 and 14.24 TFLOPS FP16 (2:1 ratio). Power consumption is 160 W TDP, requiring a single 8-pin power connector and a suggested 450 W PSU. The card is single-slot, 241 mm long, 111 mm tall, and uses PCIe 3.0 x16.

Benchmark results place the GPU at the 61st percentile, with an average score of 17,789. The PassMark G3D score is 15,117, but the DirectX 12 score is just 52, and DirectX 11 is 128. This indicates weak DX12 performance, which is unusual for a Turing card. The Geekbench OpenCL score of 74,540 and Vulkan score of 78,844 are more respectable. The 3DMark Steel Nomad score of 1,873 is low.

For rendering workloads, the 7.119 TFLOPS FP32 and 416.0 GB/s bandwidth are adequate for 1080p and light 1440p work, but the 8 GB VRAM is a limiting factor for large scenes or high-resolution textures. The RT cores enable ray-traced rendering in supported applications, but the 61st-percentile performance means render times will be longer than with higher-tier GPUs. The tensor cores support AI-based features like DLSS, but the overall GPU performance caps the benefit.

---

Build Overview

This build pairs the Intel Core Ultra 9 285K, a 96th-percentile desktop CPU, with the NVIDIA Quadro RTX 4000, a 61st-percentile GPU, in a desktop-class system. The combined percentile is 79, placing the system in the upper-mid range of all desktop builds in the database.

The CPU is the clear centerpiece. With 24 cores, a 5.70 GHz boost clock, and a Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 42,522, it ranks in the 96th percentile of all CPUs, outperforming 96% of processors. This is a top-tier desktop part that can handle the most demanding CPU workloads.

The GPU is a workstation part from 2018, now end-of-life. Its 61st percentile ranking and average score of 17,789 place it at the level of a mainstream consumer GPU like the RTX 4060. The 8 GB VRAM, 416.0 GB/s bandwidth, and 7.119 TFLOPS FP32 are sufficient for mid-range tasks but not for high-end gaming or professional rendering.

As a pairing, the system is imbalanced. The CPU is overkill for the GPU, and the GPU underwhelms relative to the CPU. The overall tier is "upper-mid range," meaning it will handle most tasks well but will not excel at GPU-intensive workloads. This is a workstation-oriented build for CPU-heavy professional use, not a gaming or GPU-compute powerhouse.

---

Balance and Bottleneck

The data reveals a significant performance imbalance between the two components. The CPU's 96th percentile versus the GPU's 61st percentile creates a situation where the GPU is the bottleneck in GPU-bound workloads, while the CPU has spare capacity.

In multi-threaded CPU workloads, the 285K's Cinebench R23 score of 42,522 and PassMark multi-thread score of 67,260 indicate that the CPU can sustain heavy parallel processing. The GPU's 17,789 average benchmark score cannot keep pace in GPU-accelerated tasks. For example, in 3D rendering, the CPU will complete its portion of the work faster than the GPU can render frames, leaving the CPU idle while waiting for the GPU.

In gaming, the bottleneck is nearly always the GPU. The CPU's single-thread score of 5,087 ensures that game logic and physics are handled quickly, but the GPU's 61st-percentile ranking and low DirectX 12 score (52 in PassMark) mean that frame rendering is the limiting factor. The CPU would not bottleneck even a much stronger GPU, but the Quadro RTX 4000 caps frame rates.

In mixed workloads, such as video editing with GPU-accelerated effects, the balance depends on the specific task. CPU-based export will be fast, but GPU-based effects will be slower. The 8 GB VRAM and 416.0 GB/s bandwidth are enough for 1080p effects, but 4K projects will exceed the GPU's capacity.

The FPS scaling evidence — though estimated — supports this: at 1080p, the GPU can deliver playable frame rates, but at 1440p and above, performance drops disproportionately because the GPU is already near its limit at 1080p. The CPU has no such scaling issue; it can handle any resolution without degradation in CPU-bound tasks.

Overall, the bottleneck is the GPU for all graphics and GPU-compute tasks, while the CPU is the bottleneck only in scenarios where single-threaded performance is critical — and even then, the 285K's single-thread score of 5,087 is high enough to avoid being a practical limit. The system is best deployed in CPU-heavy workloads where the GPU is secondary.