SYSTEM ANALYZER

Rate My PC: Intel Core Ultra 9 290K Plus + Intel Arc A380

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)

▼

92 Score

Top 8% Ranking

92 / 100

ULTIMATE READY

Apex Performer

Top 8% 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

98%

GPU

86%

PROCESSOR

Intel Core Ultra 9 290K Plus

84,003 Benchmark Score

Top 2% Market Ranking

View Full Specs →

GRAPHICS CARD

Intel Arc A380

8,558 Benchmark Score

Top 14% 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

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

The Intel Arc A380 is a 6 GB GDDR6 graphics card built on the Xe-HPG architecture, fabricated on a 6 nm process at TSMC with 7,200 million transistors across a 157 mm² die. The memory subsystem runs on a 96-bit bus with a bandwidth of 186.0 GB/s, paired with a boost clock of 2050 MHz and a base clock of 2000 MHz. The card operates at a 75 W TDP and draws power through a single 8-pin connector, with the manufacturer recommending a 250 W power supply unit.

The A380's compute resources are modest: 1024 shading units, 64 texture mapping units, and 32 raster output units. It features 8 dedicated ray tracing cores, though the tensor core count is not specified in the data. The FP32 throughput is 4.198 TFLOPS, while FP16 performance reaches 8.397 TFLOPS using a 2:1 ratio. Pixel fill rate is 65.60 GPixel/s and texture fill rate is 131.2 GTexel/s, figures that place it firmly in the entry-level segment.

The 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 benchmark score of 808 reflects the A380's raw graphics capability. In the Passmark suite, the GPU scores 6252 in G3D, with DirectX 10, 11, and 12 scores of 37, 38, and 35 respectively — these are extremely low figures that suggest the card struggles with modern API workloads. The DirectX 9 score of 73 is notably higher, while the G2D score of 610 indicates reasonable 2D performance. The Geekbench OpenCL score of 38224 and Vulkan score of 36736 show compute capability that is substantially better than the DirectX results would imply. The Passmark GPU Compute score of 2762 reinforces this pattern: the A380 is better suited to compute tasks than to traditional rasterization.

The GPU's percentile rank of 44 against all GPUs means it sits below the median, and its average benchmark score of 8558 places it in direct competition with mobile-class parts. The nearest rivals are the AMD FirePro W5170M (deltaPct -0.4), AMD Radeon HD 8870M (deltaPct 1.1), NVIDIA GeForce MX330 (deltaPct 1.2), and AMD Radeon 880M (deltaPct 1.4). This proximity to older mobile and integrated graphics solutions is telling: the A380 is not a high-performance desktop part, but rather an entry-level option with ray tracing hardware and modern API support.

For rendering workloads, the A380's ray tracing cores exist but are limited to 8 units. The card supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4, which means it can run modern rendering APIs. However, the low FP32 throughput and modest memory bandwidth will constrain real-world rendering performance. The 6 GB VRAM is sufficient for lighter 1080p textures but will become a bottleneck in scenes with high-resolution assets. The card's production status is listed as end-of-life, with Battlemage as the successor, and the 2022-06-13 release date indicates it is now several generations old.

Gaming Performance

No measured FPS rows exist for this exact combination — the FACT PACK contains no measuredFps data. All FPS figures discussed here are estimates derived from the benchmark scores, not measured results. The data clearly shows that this pairing will produce low frame rates in modern games, particularly at high detail settings.

The A380's Passmark G3D score of 6252 and 3DMark Steel Nomad score of 808 indicate entry-level gaming capability. At 1080p with ultra settings, estimated frame rates would be in the low-to-mid 30s for demanding titles, and likely below 30 FPS for the most graphically intensive games. The DirectX 12 score of 35 in Passmark is particularly concerning, as it suggests poor optimization for current-generation game engines that rely heavily on DX12. The DirectX 11 score of 38 is similarly low, meaning even older titles may struggle to maintain smooth frame rates at high settings.

At 1440p, the A380 would be largely out of its depth. The 6 GB VRAM and 186.0 GB/s bandwidth are insufficient for the memory demands of 1440p ultra textures, and the 4.198 TFLOPS FP32 throughput limits fill-rate-heavy scenes. Estimated 1440p ultra performance would be in the mid-20s FPS range for most games, with significant drops in scenes involving particle effects or heavy post-processing.

For competitive esports titles that are less GPU-intensive, the A380 could manage playable frame rates at 1080p with medium settings. The card's 65.60 GPixel/s pixel rate and 131.2 GTexel/s texture rate are adequate for simpler geometry and lower-resolution assets. However, the low DirectX scores suggest that even esports titles running on modern APIs may underperform relative to what the raw compute figures would suggest.

The 44th percentile ranking among all GPUs means the A380 is slower than 56% of the GPUs in the database. This is not a card designed for high-refresh gaming or ultra-detail settings. Users seeking 60 FPS at 1080p ultra would need to look at parts with substantially higher benchmark scores, while those targeting 30 FPS at 1080p medium might find the A380 acceptable for less demanding titles.

Upgrade Path and Platform

The Intel Core Ultra 9 290K Plus uses the Intel Socket 1851 and supports DDR5 memory in a dual-channel configuration with a maximum memory bandwidth of 115.2 GB/s. ECC memory is supported, which is unusual for a desktop platform and indicates intended use cases beyond pure gaming. The CPU provides 20 PCIe Gen 5 lanes, allowing for high-bandwidth connectivity to GPUs and NVMe storage.

The A380's bus interface is PCIe 4.0 x8, which means it will run at half the lane width of a typical desktop GPU but with the older PCIe 4.0 standard. The 20 PCIe Gen 5 lanes from the CPU can accommodate the A380's x8 connection while leaving ample bandwidth for other devices. In a system with the 290K Plus, the A380 is the clear bottleneck; a future GPU upgrade would be the most impactful change.

The 290K Plus has a TDP of 125 W, while the A380 has a TDP of 75 W and a suggested PSU rating of 250 W. Combined with the CPU's 125 W, a system with these two components would draw roughly 200 W under full load, leaving substantial headroom on even a modest 250 W power supply. This low power consumption makes the build suitable for compact systems or those with efficiency requirements, though the A380's dual-slot design and 222 mm length (8.7 inches) require a case with adequate clearance.

The memory support for DDR5 with dual-channel configuration means users can populate up to two DIMM slots for optimal bandwidth. The 115.2 GB/s memory bandwidth is sufficient for the CPU's 24 threads but is not exceptional by current standards. The 3 nm process node (TSMC) and 17,800 million transistors across a 243 mm² die indicate a modern, power-efficient design.

A sensible next upgrade would be replacing the A380 with a more powerful GPU. The PCIe Gen 5 lanes from the CPU can fully saturate any current graphics card, and the 125 W CPU TDP leaves room for a higher-wattage GPU on the same power supply if the PSU is upgraded accordingly. The socket 1851 platform is current, so CPU upgrades within the same socket would be possible, though the 290K Plus already sits at the top of the Core Ultra Series 2 lineup.

CPU Analysis

The Intel Core Ultra 9 290K Plus is a 24-core, 24-thread desktop processor from the Core Ultra Series 2, codenamed Arrow Lake Refresh. It has a base clock of 3.70 GHz and a boost clock of 5.80 GHz, with a 125 W TDP. The CPU is built on a 3 nm process at TSMC, with 17,800 million transistors on a 243 mm² die. It supports DDR5 memory in dual-channel mode with 115.2 GB/s bandwidth and includes 20 PCIe Gen 5 lanes.

The cache hierarchy consists of 192 KB L1 per core, 3 MB L2 per core, and 36 MB of shared L3 cache. The multiplier is unlocked, allowing for overclocking. The integrated graphics are Arc Xe-LPG Graphics with 64 execution units, which provides a fallback display output even without a discrete GPU. The production status is active, and the market segment is desktop.

Benchmark results show exceptional multi-threaded performance. The Cinebench R23 multicore score of 51731 is very high, placing the CPU in the 96th percentile among all CPUs. The R20 multicore score of 21727 and R15 multicore score of 5214 are consistent with this performance level. Single-core scores are also strong: R23 single-core of 7303, R20 single-core of 3067, and R15 single-core of 736.

Passmark results further characterize the CPU's strengths. The multithread score of 60860 is robust, with integer math at 166194 and floating-point math at 214760. Data compression scores 698346, data encryption 52563, and extended instructions 52338. The physics score of 3315 and random string sorting of 79744 round out the suite. The single-thread score of 4823 confirms that the CPU is not just a multi-core monster but also performs well in lightly threaded workloads.

The average benchmark score of 84003 places the 290K Plus in a tight cluster with its nearest rivals. The Intel Core Ultra 9 285K scores 83807 (deltaPct 0.2), meaning the 290K Plus is only 0.2% faster. The AMD EPYC 4584PX scores 83090 (deltaPct 1.1), the AMD EPYC 9135 scores 82980 (deltaPct 1.2), and the AMD EPYC 7F72 scores 85072 (deltaPct -1.3), meaning the EPYC 7F72 is 1.3% faster. These deltas are all within 2%, indicating that the 290K Plus is essentially at parity with its closest competitors, which include both desktop and server-class parts.

For real workloads, the 24 cores and 24 threads (no hyperthreading) handle heavily threaded tasks like video encoding, 3D rendering, and scientific computation with ease. The 5.80 GHz boost clock ensures snappy responsiveness in single-threaded applications such as web browsing, office productivity, and legacy software. The 36 MB L3 cache helps with data-intensive workloads, while the 3 nm process keeps power efficiency reasonable at 125 W TDP.

Balance and Bottleneck

This pairing is severely imbalanced. The CPU sits in the 96th percentile among all CPUs, while the GPU is in the 44th percentile. The 290K Plus is a top-tier processor capable of driving the most demanding workloads, but the A380 is an entry-level GPU that will bottleneck nearly every graphics-intensive task.

In gaming workloads, the A380 is the limiting factor. The CPU's single-thread score of 4823 and multi-thread score of 60860 are far more than sufficient to feed the A380's modest graphics throughput. Even at 1080p, where CPU overhead is highest, the 290K Plus would rarely be the constraint; the A380's 4.198 TFLOPS FP32 throughput and 186.0 GB/s memory bandwidth would cap frame rates well below what the CPU could handle.

In compute workloads, the balance shifts somewhat. The A380's Geekbench OpenCL score of 38224 and Vulkan score of 36736 indicate that it can contribute to GPU-accelerated compute tasks, but the CPU's 214760 floating-point math score and 166194 integer math score dominate overall compute performance. The Passmark GPU Compute score of 2762 is low compared to the CPU's multithread score of 60860, meaning the CPU will be the primary workhorse for most non-graphics tasks.

The FPS scaling evidence, while not directly measured, follows from the benchmark scores. A GPU with a 44th percentile ranking cannot push high frame rates regardless of CPU capability. The CPU's 96th percentile ranking means it will not hold back any GPU up to the top tier. Therefore, the bottleneck is unequivocally the GPU in gaming and graphics rendering, while the CPU is the bottleneck only in workloads that are purely single-threaded or have very low GPU utilization.

For content creation, the balance is more favorable. The CPU's Cinebench R23 multicore score of 51731 means video encoding and 3D rendering on the CPU will be fast, while the GPU can assist with lighter GPU-accelerated effects. However, for heavy GPU rendering (e.g., GPU-based ray tracing in DCC tools), the A380's 8 RT cores and 4.198 TFLOPS will limit performance significantly.

Who Should Build It

This build targets a narrow niche: users who need exceptional CPU performance for productivity tasks but have minimal GPU requirements. The 96th percentile CPU ranking makes it suitable for software developers compiling large codebases, data analysts running complex queries, and students in engineering or scientific fields who run simulations or mathematical software. The 24 cores and 24 threads, combined with the 36 MB L3 cache and 115.2 GB/s memory bandwidth, handle multi-threaded workloads with ease.

Content creators who work primarily with CPU-based rendering (e.g., video editing with CPU codecs, 3D modeling with CPU-based renderers) would benefit from the 290K Plus's Cinebench R23 multicore score of 51731. The A380 can serve as a basic display output and provide some GPU acceleration for effects, but it is not suited for GPU-intensive rendering tasks. The 6 GB VRAM limits texture sizes, and the 44th percentile GPU ranking means GPU-accelerated workflows will be slow.

Gamers should avoid this build unless they plan to immediately replace the A380. At 1080p ultra, estimated frame rates are in the low 30s or below, which is below the 60 FPS target most gamers expect. The CPU would support high-refresh gaming with a better GPU, but the A380 negates that capability. Users who play esports titles at 1080p with medium settings might find the A380 acceptable, but the low DirectX scores suggest even that could be inconsistent.

Small business workstations that run office productivity, accounting software, or web applications would be well-served by the CPU's single-thread score of 4823, which ensures snappy application responsiveness. The ECC memory support is a differentiator for businesses requiring data integrity. The A380's low power draw (75 W TDP, 250 W suggested PSU) keeps the system quiet and energy-efficient, which is beneficial in office environments.

Benchmark Performance

The CPU's average benchmark score is 84003, placing it in the 96th percentile among all CPUs. The nearest rivals are all within a narrow band: the Intel Core Ultra 9 285K at 83807 (deltaPct 0.2), the AMD EPYC 4584PX at 83090 (deltaPct 1.1), the AMD EPYC 9135 at 82980 (deltaPct 1.2), and the AMD EPYC 7F72 at 85072 (deltaPct -1.3). This means the 290K Plus is statistically indistinguishable from its closest competitors, all of which are either the same family or server-class parts.

The GPU's average benchmark score is 8558, placing it in the 44th percentile among all GPUs. The nearest rivals are the AMD FirePro W5170M at 8595 (deltaPct -0.4), the AMD Radeon HD 8870M at 8462 (deltaPct 1.1), the NVIDIA GeForce MX330 at 8458 (deltaPct 1.2), and the AMD Radeon 880M at 8436 (deltaPct 1.4). These are all mobile or integrated-class parts, underscoring the A380's position as an entry-level discrete GPU.

The combined percentile for this system is 70, meaning it outperforms 70% of all builds in the database. This is entirely due to the CPU's strong performance; the GPU's 44th percentile score drags the combined figure down from what the CPU alone would achieve. The Cinebench R23 multicore score of 51731 and single-core score of 7303 dominate the picture, while the GPU's 3DMark Steel Nomad score of 808 is a minor contributor.

The Passmark suite for the CPU shows a multithread score of 60860 with a single-thread score of 4823, while the GPU's Passmark G3D score is 6252. The disparity is enormous: the CPU is roughly 10 times faster in its respective Passmark multithread test than the GPU is in G3D. This combined picture is one of extreme CPU over-provisioning relative to GPU capability.

Build Overview

This is a desktop build pairing the Intel Core Ultra 9 290K Plus processor with the Intel Arc A380 graphics card. The CPU is a 24-core, 24-thread part from the Core Ultra Series 2 (Arrow Lake Refresh) on the Intel Socket 1851 platform, with a boost clock of 5.80 GHz and a 125 W TDP. The GPU is a 6 GB GDDR6 card from the Alchemist generation with a 2050 MHz boost clock, 8 ray tracing cores, and a 75 W TDP.

The build class is desktop, and the combined percentile of 70 indicates it sits above the median but well below top-tier gaming or workstation systems. The CPU is in the 96th percentile, while the GPU is in the 44th percentile, creating a significant imbalance. The overall tier is mid-range, driven almost entirely by CPU performance.

The A380 is marked as end-of-life, with a launch MSRP of 149 USD, while the CPU is active in production. This suggests the GPU is a placeholder or a budget-oriented choice rather than a long-term component. The CPU's 5.80 GHz boost clock, 36 MB L3 cache, and 24 threads make it a future-proof processor that could support a much more powerful GPU in a subsequent upgrade.

FAQ

Q: What is the combined percentile ranking of this build?

A: The combined percentile is 70, meaning it outperforms 70% of builds in the database.

Q: How does the CPU compare to its nearest rival?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 9 290K Plus has an average benchmark score of 84003, which is 0.2% higher than the Intel Core Ultra 9 285K's score of 83807.

Q: What is the GPU's memory configuration?

A: The Intel Arc A380 has 6 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 96-bit bus, with 186.0 GB/s bandwidth and a 1937 MHz memory clock (15.5 Gbps effective).

Q: Does the CPU support ECC memory?

A: Yes, the Intel Core Ultra 9 290K Plus supports ECC memory.

Q: What is the TDP of each component?

A: The CPU has a TDP of 125 W, and the GPU has a TDP of 75 W. The suggested PSU for the GPU is 250 W.

Q: What are the estimated FPS figures for gaming?

A: No measured FPS data exists for this combination. Based on the GPU's 44th percentile ranking and low DirectX scores, 1080p ultra frame rates are estimated to be in the low 30s or below for demanding games.

Q: What is the GPU's production status?

A: The Intel Arc A380 is end-of-life, with Battlemage as its successor. Its release date was 2022-06-13.

Usage Scenarios

High-refresh gaming: This build is not suitable for high-refresh gaming. The A380's 44th percentile GPU ranking and low DirectX scores (35-38 in Passmark) mean 1080p ultra frame rates would be in the low 30s, far below the 144 Hz or 240 Hz targets of high-refresh monitors. The CPU's 96th percentile performance does not compensate for the GPU's limitations.

Streaming: The CPU's 24 cores and 24 threads, with a Cinebench R23 multicore score of 51731, can handle software encoding (x264/x265) without impacting game performance. However, the A380's low gaming frame rates make streaming gameplay problematic, as the encoder would be fed low-FPS video. The GPU's 8 ray tracing cores and 4.198 TFLOPS are insufficient for GPU-accelerated streaming effects.

Video editing: The CPU excels in this role. The multithread score of 60860 and floating-point math score of 214760 accelerate timeline rendering and video effects. The A380's 6 GB VRAM is sufficient for 1080p editing with lighter effects, and its OpenCL score of 38224 provides some GPU acceleration. However, 4K editing with heavy color grading would strain the GPU's memory and compute resources.

3D rendering: CPU-based rendering is strong, with the Cinebench R20 multicore score of 21727 and R15 score of 5214 indicating fast render times in software like Blender Cycles (CPU mode). GPU-based rendering is weak, as the A380's 4.198 TFLOPS FP32 and 8 RT cores are far below what GPU renderers expect. Users should plan for CPU rendering or upgrade the GPU.

Software development: The 24 cores and 24 threads, combined with the 5.80 GHz boost clock, handle compilation, testing, and virtualization workloads efficiently. The Passmark data compression score of 698346 and integer math score of 166194 are particularly relevant for build pipelines and data processing. The ECC memory support adds reliability for long-running builds.

Student and office work: The CPU's single-thread score of 4823 ensures fast application launches and responsive multitasking. The A380's low power draw (75 W TDP) and the system's overall efficiency (125 W CPU + 75 W GPU) make it suitable for dorm rooms or offices with power constraints. The 222 mm GPU length (8.7 inches) fits in most mid-tower cases, and the dual-slot design is standard.

Rate My PC: Intel Core Ultra 9 290K Plus + Intel Arc A380

Apex Performer

System Balance Analysis

Intel Core Ultra 9 290K Plus

Intel Arc A380

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

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

Gaming Performance

Upgrade Path and Platform

CPU Analysis

Balance and Bottleneck

Who Should Build It

Benchmark Performance

Build Overview

FAQ

Usage Scenarios

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