SYSTEM ANALYZER

Rate My PC: Intel Core Ultra 9 285T + 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)

▼

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

94%

GPU

85%

PROCESSOR

Intel Core Ultra 9 285T

51,310 Benchmark Score

Top 6% 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 285T paired with the Intel Arc A310 is a desktop build that mixes a top-tier, ultra-efficient CPU with an entry-level discrete GPU. The benchmark data shows an extreme performance imbalance: the processor is a heavyweight capable of demanding professional workloads, while the graphics card is a lightweight suited for basic display tasks and light gaming. This analysis interprets the available benchmark data to define what this pairing can and cannot do.

CPU Analysis

The Intel Core Ultra 9 285T is a 24-core, 24-thread processor based on the Arrow Lake architecture, manufactured on a 3 nm process by TSMC. It features a base clock of 1.40 GHz and a boost clock of 5.40 GHz, with a 35 W TDP. This combination of high core count and very low power draw is the defining characteristic of this chip; it is designed for maximum multi-threaded throughput within a strict power envelope, making it an outlier in the desktop segment. The CPU supports DDR5 memory on a dual-channel bus, offering 102.4 GB/s of bandwidth, and includes ECC memory support, indicating a focus on stability for professional use.

Benchmark results confirm the CPU’s high standing. In Cinebench R23, it scores 33573 in multi-core and 4739 in single-core. The multi-core score is 30.8% higher than its single-core score is relative to other chips, but more importantly, the multi-core result places it in the 91st percentile among all CPUs. Its average benchmark score of 51310 is nearly identical to that of the Intel Core i9-14900T, which scores 51015, a mere 0.6% difference. It also edges out the AMD Ryzen 9 5900XT, which scores 50718, by 1.2%. This data indicates the 285T is a top-tier performer for multi-threaded tasks, competing directly with the best desktop CPUs from the previous generation while doing so at a fraction of the power draw.

Real-world workload analysis shows where this strength lies. The PassMark data compression score of 384140 and multithread score of 39931 are exceptional, indicating rapid file archiving, video encoding, and 3D rendering capabilities. However, the single-thread score of 4576, while strong, is less dominant. The Cinebench R15 single-core score of 477 and R20 single-core score of 1990 are solid but not class-leading, suggesting that while the boost clock of 5.40 GHz is high, the architecture's efficiency is optimized for sustained all-core loads. The 24 threads without hyper-threading mean it relies on physical cores for parallelism, which is efficient for power but can be a slight disadvantage in lightly-threaded tasks that benefit from additional logical processors. The L3 cache is 36 MB shared, which is ample for feeding those 24 cores in multi-threaded scenarios.

FAQ

Q: How does the Intel Core Ultra 9 285T compare to its closest rival, the Intel Core i9-14900T?

A: The data shows them as near-identical performers. The Ultra 9 285T has an average benchmark score of 51310, which is 0.6% higher than the i9-14900T's score of 51015. This puts them in the same performance tier for overall CPU workloads.

Q: What is the performance class of the Intel Arc A310?

A: The Arc A310 is a low-tier GPU, sitting in the 40th percentile of all GPUs. Its average benchmark score of 7550 is statistically equivalent to the AMD Radeon R7 250, which scores 7557, and the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650, which scores 7472, differing by -0.1% and 1%, respectively. It is a full 60% below the median GPU performance.

Q: Does the CPU bottleneck the GPU in this build?

A: In gaming and GPU-accelerated tasks, yes, but in reverse. The CPU is far more powerful than the GPU. The CPU's 91st percentile score versus the GPU's 40th percentile score indicates the GPU will be the limiting factor in virtually any graphics-intensive workload, preventing the CPU from being fully utilized.

Q: Can this system handle 3D rendering?

A: Yes, for CPU-based rendering. The Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 33573 is a strong result, placing the CPU in the top 10% of all processors. This indicates excellent performance for rendering tasks that rely on the processor. GPU-accelerated rendering would be limited by the Arc A310's compute score of 2157 in PassMark.

Q: What kind of memory does this CPU support?

A: It supports DDR5 memory on a dual-channel bus, providing a memory bandwidth of 102.4 GB/s. It also supports ECC memory, which is a feature typically associated with professional workstations where data integrity is crucial.

Q: Is the Arc A310 suitable for modern gaming?

A: The data suggests it is not. Its PassMark G3D score of 5433 and DirectX 12 score of 29 are very low. While it can output video, it is not designed for high-fidelity gaming and will struggle with modern titles at any playable settings.

Q: What is the launch MSRP of the CPU?

A: The launch MSRP for the Intel Core Ultra 9 285T is $549.

Balance and Bottleneck

The performance data paints a clear picture of a severe imbalance. The CPU is in the 91st percentile of all CPUs, while the GPU is in the 40th percentile. This 51-point gap is the single most important fact about this build. The CPU is not a bottleneck; it is the dominant component. The bottleneck is unequivocally the GPU.

In any workload that utilizes the GPU—gaming, 3D rendering with GPU acceleration, video encoding with hardware encoders—the Arc A310 will be the limiting factor. Its PassMark G3D score of 5433 is the primary indicator of its limited capability. The CPU will be idle waiting for the GPU to finish its work. For example, in a game, the CPU could easily calculate game logic and physics, but the GPU would fail to keep up with frame rendering, resulting in low FPS regardless of the CPU's power.

Conversely, in CPU-bound workloads like data compression, software compilation, or CPU-based 3D rendering, the GPU is irrelevant and the CPU's power is fully realized. The PassMark multithread score of 39931 and Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 33573 demonstrate that for these tasks, the system is a high-end workstation. The build is a professional-grade CPU paired with a display adapter. The data shows that this is not a balanced gaming system but rather a highly specialized configuration where the CPU's massive compute capability is the star, and the GPU is present for basic output.

Who Should Build It

This build is for a user who needs extreme multi-threaded CPU performance but has minimal to no need for discrete GPU performance. The target user is a professional or power user whose primary software is CPU-bound.

Software Developers and Data Analysts: The CPU's performance in PassMark data compression (384140) and integer math (132433) makes it excellent for compiling large codebases, running complex simulations, and processing large datasets. The ECC memory support is a critical feature for data integrity during long-running computations.
Content Creators (CPU-centric): Video editors using software-based encoders or 3D artists using CPU-based renderers (like many offline renderers) will find the Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 33573 to be a massive asset. The 24 cores will drastically reduce render times compared to mainstream desktop CPUs.
Small Business Workstations: For tasks like financial modeling, database management, or engineering simulations that are heavily single-threaded or multi-threaded but do not require advanced graphics, this build offers top-tier performance. The 35 W TDP is also a benefit for dense office environments where heat and noise are concerns.
Students in STEM Fields: Engineering and computer science students running simulations, compiling code, or using mathematical computing software will benefit from the CPU's power.
High-Refresh Gaming Enthusiasts (with a caveat): This is not a build for modern AAA gaming. The GPU's 40th percentile ranking means it will not drive high refresh rates in modern titles. However, for esports titles or older games with low graphical demands, the CPU's strong single-thread performance (Cinebench R23 single-core score of 4739) will ensure the game logic runs flawlessly, but the GPU will still limit FPS.

Gaming Performance

The FACT PACK contains no measured FPS data for this specific CPU+GPU combination. Therefore, all gaming performance discussion is estimated from the benchmark scores. The data indicates that this is not a gaming-focused build.

The GPU's benchmark scores are extremely low for modern gaming. Its PassMark G3D score of 5433 places it in the 40th percentile, and its DirectX 12 score of 29 is minimal. In contrast, the CPU's single-thread score is high (Cinebench R23 single-core score of 4739), which is good for game logic. However, the GPU will be the absolute bottleneck.

Esports Titles (e.g., CS:GO, Valorant, LoL): At 1080p with low settings, the Arc A310 might be able to produce playable frame rates (potentially 60-100+ FPS) in these less demanding titles, but it is not guaranteed. The CPU will not bottleneck, but the GPU's raw pixel throughput (28.00 GPixel/s) and texture rate (56.00 GTexel/s) will limit performance.
Modern AAA Games: The Arc A310 is estimated to be inadequate for modern AAA titles at any resolution. At 1080p with low settings, players should expect very low frame rates, likely below 30 FPS, due to the GPU's low FP32 performance of 2.688 TFLOPS and limited 4 GB VRAM. The 64-bit memory bus and 124.0 GB/s bandwidth will also cause severe stuttering in texture-heavy scenes.
Resolution Scaling: This GPU is only viable for 1080p gaming, and even then, only for undemanding titles. At 1440p or 4K, performance would be unplayable in almost all scenarios.

The CPU's performance will be completely wasted in gaming. The data shows a system where the processor is capable of running a game's simulation at the highest levels, but the graphics card cannot render the frames to match.

GPU Analysis

The Intel Arc A310 is an entry-level discrete GPU based on the Xe-HPG architecture (Alchemist generation) and manufactured on a 6 nm process. It has 768 shading units, 32 TMUs, and 16 ROPs. It is equipped with 4 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 64-bit bus, providing a bandwidth of 124.0 GB/s. The GPU's clocks are a constant 1750 MHz for both base and boost. It supports DirectX 12 Ultimate, OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4, and offers 6 ray tracing cores.

Benchmark data shows this GPU is at the bottom of the performance spectrum. Its average benchmark score of 7550 places it in the 40th percentile of all GPUs, and it is statistically tied with the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 (score 7472, deltaPct 1%) and the AMD Radeon R7 250 (score 7557, deltaPct -0.1%). This means the A310 is not a modern gaming GPU; it is a display adapter with some compute capability.

The compute scores are telling. The PassMark GPU Compute score of 2157 is low, indicating limited suitability for GPGPU tasks. The FP32 performance is 2.688 TFLOPS, which is a fraction of what even mid-range GPUs offer. While it has 6 RT cores, their performance is not benchmarked, but given the low overall scores, ray tracing performance is expected to be negligible. The 4 GB VRAM is also a significant limitation, as modern games and some professional applications require more memory for textures and assets. The 30 W TDP and lack of power connectors make it a very low-power solution, but this does not compensate for its limited performance. It is an end-of-life product, as indicated by its production status.

Usage Scenarios

High-Refresh Gaming: This scenario is a poor fit. The GPU's 40th percentile score and low DirectX 12 score (29) would make high-refresh gaming impossible in modern titles. The CPU is powerful enough, but the GPU will bottleneck the system to low frame rates.
Streaming: While the CPU's 24 cores and high Cinebench R23 multi-core score (33573) could handle software encoding for a stream, the GPU is too weak to run games and encode video simultaneously. A hardware encoder on a more powerful GPU would be necessary.
Video Editing: For CPU-based effects and timeline editing, this build is strong. The PassMark multithread score of 39931 and data compression score of 384140 will speed up rendering and exporting in software like Premiere Pro when using the CPU. However, GPU-accelerated effects and rendering will be slow due to the Arc A310's low compute score (2157).
3D Rendering: This is a core strength. CPU-based render engines like Arnold or V-Ray will perform exceptionally well, with the Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 33573 indicating render times that are competitive with high-end workstations. GPU-based render engines like Octane or Redshift are not viable options with this GPU.
Software Development: This is an excellent scenario. Compiling large projects will be fast, thanks to the high multi-threaded performance (PassMark multithread score of 39931) and fast data compression (384140). The ECC memory support also ensures stability for long compilations.
Student and Office Work: This build is overpowered for standard office tasks like word processing and spreadsheets. The CPU's high performance will go unused, but the system will be extremely responsive. The low TDP of 35 W makes it an efficient, quiet workstation for a desk.

Build Overview

This is a desktop build (buildClass: "desktop") that pairs Intel's top-tier, low-power CPU with Intel's entry-level discrete GPU. The combined percentile of the build is 66, which is skewed heavily by the CPU's 91st percentile ranking. The GPU's 40th percentile ranking drags the combined number down significantly.

The pairing is unusual and defines the system's character. It is a professional workstation-class CPU with a display adapter. It is not a balanced gaming system, nor is it a balanced general-purpose system. It is a single-minded tool for maximizing CPU compute within a 35 W power envelope. The CPU is a top-tier performer in its class, rivaling the Intel Core i9-14900T (0.6% higher avg score) and the AMD Ryzen 9 5900XT (1.2% higher avg score), which are significantly higher-power parts. The GPU is a legacy part (end-of-life) whose performance is comparable to the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 (1% higher score) but is fundamentally limited by its 4 GB VRAM and 64-bit memory bus.

Benchmark Performance

The benchmark data shows a stark contrast between the two components.

The CPU achieves an average benchmark score of 51310, placing it in the 91st percentile of all CPUs. Its key scores include a Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 33573 and a single-core score of 4739. In PassMark, it scores 39931 in multithread and 4576 in single-thread. This performance is 0.6% higher than the Intel Core i9-14900T (score 51015) and 1.2% higher than the AMD Ryzen 9 5900XT (score 50718).

The GPU achieves an average benchmark score of 7550, placing it in the 40th percentile of all GPUs. Its key scores include a PassMark G3D score of 5433 and a Geekbench OpenCL score of 30607. Its performance is 1% higher than the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 (score 7472) and 0.1% lower than the AMD Radeon R7 250 (score 7557).

The combined picture is one of extreme specialization. The CPU's scores are those of a high-end workstation processor, while the GPU's scores are those of a basic entry-level card. The data confirms that this is a system designed for CPU-intensive professional workloads, where the GPU's role is secondary to providing a display output. The 91st and 40th percentile gap is the defining metric of this build, indicating that the CPU is the sole driver of system performance.

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

Apex Performer

System Balance Analysis

Intel Core Ultra 9 285T

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

FAQ

Balance and Bottleneck

Who Should Build It

Gaming Performance

GPU Analysis

Usage Scenarios

Build Overview

Benchmark Performance

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