SYSTEM ANALYZER

Rate My PC: Intel Core Ultra 9 386H + Intel Arc A350M

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)

▼

93 Score

Top 7% Ranking

93 / 100

ULTIMATE READY

Apex Performer

Top 7% 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

93%

GPU

92%

PROCESSOR

Intel Core Ultra 9 386H

43,210 Benchmark Score

Top 7% Market Ranking

View Full Specs →

GRAPHICS CARD

Intel Arc A350M

24,647 Benchmark Score

Top 8% 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 386H and Intel Arc A350M form a laptop-class pairing that sits at an interesting intersection of high-end CPU compute and entry-level discrete graphics. The data shows a processor that punches well above its class, paired with a GPU that is more about efficiency and capability than raw frame rates. This combination yields a combined performance percentile of 79, indicating a system that outperforms the majority of all tested configurations, but the distinct character of each component creates a unique, and sometimes imbalanced, user experience.

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

The Intel Arc A350M is a discrete mobile GPU built on the Xe-HPG architecture, manufactured on a 6 nm process at TSMC. It is a compact chip with 7,200 million transistors on a 157 mm² die. The GPU operates at a base clock of 1150 MHz and can boost up to 2200 MHz, which is a substantial clock range for a low-power part. Its memory subsystem is a notable point of analysis: it features 4 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 64-bit bus, running at an effective speed of 14 Gbps. This configuration yields a memory bandwidth of 112.0 GB/s. The narrow bus width is a clear constraint, and the data suggests this will be a limiting factor for high-resolution textures and heavy data throughput, even if the raw clock speeds are respectable.

The A350M's compute resources include 768 shading units, 48 texture mapping units (TMUs), and 24 raster output units (ROPs). Its pixel rate is 52.80 GPixel/s, and its texture rate is 105.6 GTexel/s. For ray tracing, it includes 6 dedicated RT cores, though its FP32 performance of 3.379 TFLOPS indicates that the absolute compute throughput is modest compared to larger desktop parts. The GPU supports a full suite of modern APIs, including DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4, which ensures compatibility with all current gaming and rendering software.

Benchmark results for the A350M place it at the 70th percentile among all GPUs. Its average benchmark score is 24647, derived from a Geekbench OpenCL score of 24546 and a Geekbench Vulkan score of 24747. This performance level is remarkably close to several very different rivals. The data shows it is 0.4% behind the AMD Radeon RX 590 and 0.5% behind the NVIDIA RTX A5000 Mobile. More surprisingly, it is 0.8% ahead of the AMD Radeon RX 6600 XT and 1.5% ahead of the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1630. These tight deltas are curious; they suggest that in synthetic Geekbench compute tests, the A350M can hang with much larger, higher-power cards. However, the 4 GB VRAM capacity and 64-bit memory interface will almost certainly prevent it from translating this synthetic compute parity into real-world gaming performance at high settings. The data implies that the A350M is a compute-capable engine hampered by memory bandwidth and capacity, making it suited for specific tasks like basic rendering or compute acceleration rather than high-end gaming.

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

The Core Ultra 9 386H delivers exceptional CPU benchmark scores that position it as a top-tier mobile processor. Its average benchmark score is 43210, placing it in the 88th percentile of all CPUs. This puts it in direct competition with some of AMD's and Intel's most powerful desktop and mobile parts. The nearest rivals in the data are the AMD Ryzen AI Max PRO 385, from which it trails by just 0.3%, and the AMD Ryzen AI 9 465, from which it trails by 0.5%. Conversely, it leads the Intel Core i9-12900 by 0.7% and the Intel Core i9-12900KF by 0.9%. This is a significant finding: a 25-watt mobile processor is matching or slightly exceeding the average benchmark scores of high-end desktop CPUs from a previous generation.

In specific Cinebench tests, the CPU scores 3223 points in R15 multi-core and 303.5 points in R15 single-core. In the more demanding R20 test, it scores 12820 multi-core and 1809 single-core. The R23 results show 20547 multi-core and 2071.5 single-core. These single-core scores, particularly the R23 result above 2000 points, indicate excellent per-thread performance, which is crucial for responsiveness and lightly-threaded workloads. The multi-core scores are equally impressive, suggesting strong scaling across its 16 threads.

The combined picture of the 88th percentile CPU and the 70th percentile GPU results in a system-level combined percentile of 79. This gap is telling. The CPU is clearly the dominant component, providing top-tier compute power, while the GPU is a more mid-range performer. The CPU's Passmark multithread score of 35399, integer math score of 87284, and floating-point math score of 108527 all point to a processor that can handle heavy computational lifting. However, the GPU's average score of 24647 is less than the CPU's score in several individual sub-tests. This indicates a system where the processor is ready for demanding professional work, but the graphics subsystem will be the bottleneck in graphically intensive applications. The data suggests a laptop that is an excellent portable workstation for CPU-bound tasks, but only a modest gaming machine.

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

The performance imbalance between the CPU and GPU is the defining characteristic of this build. With the CPU in the 88th percentile and the GPU in the 70th percentile, a significant gap exists. This data strongly suggests that the GPU will be the primary bottleneck in any workload that relies heavily on graphics rendering. For gaming, the CPU has the headroom to feed the GPU, but the A350M's limited memory bandwidth of 112.0 GB/s and 4 GB VRAM will be the constraining factors.

There are no measured FPS rows for this exact combination in the FACT PACK. The `measuredFpsUltraByGame` field is empty, and `dataIsMeasured` is false. Therefore, all FPS discussion must be framed as estimates derived from the benchmark scores. Given the GPU's proximity to the AMD Radeon RX 590 (0.4% behind) and the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1630 (1.5% ahead) in compute benchmarks, one could estimate that the A350M's gaming performance would be in that general vicinity. However, its lower memory bandwidth compared to those cards might pull its actual in-game performance down relative to its compute scores. The CPU, by contrast, is unlikely to be a bottleneck in any gaming scenario, as its single-threaded Cinebench R23 score of 2071.5 is more than sufficient to keep frame rates high.

In productivity workloads, the bottleneck shifts. The CPU's high multi-core scores, such as the 20547 in Cinebench R23 and 12820 in R20, will dominate tasks like video encoding or 3D rendering. The GPU can assist in rendering via its OpenCL and Vulkan compute capabilities, but its limited VRAM will restrict the size and complexity of the scenes it can handle. The data implies a system where the CPU is the star performer, and the GPU is a supporting actor that can handle moderate graphical duties without keeping pace with the processor's raw power. The bottleneck is workload-dependent: the GPU limits gaming and graphics-heavy tasks, while the CPU's capabilities are largely untapped in such scenarios.

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

This pairing is not for the high-refresh-rate gamer. The GPU's performance level, sitting just 0.4% behind a Radeon RX 590, suggests it is capable of 1080p gaming at medium to high settings in less demanding titles, but it will struggle with modern AAA games at high settings. The 4 GB VRAM is a hard limit for texture quality at higher resolutions. Gamers targeting 1440p or 4K will find the A350M to be a severe bottleneck. The audience for this build is not the enthusiast gamer but rather the mobile professional or student who needs exceptional CPU power.

The target user is a content creator who works primarily with CPU-intensive tasks. A video editor working with 4K footage will benefit from the Core Ultra 9 386H's strong multi-core performance, seen in its Cinebench R23 score of 20547 and its Passmark multithread score of 35399. A software developer compiling large codebases will appreciate the 16 threads and the high single-thread performance (4218 in Passmark single-thread), which speeds up compilation times. The GPU can provide some acceleration for effects or rendering, but it is not the primary draw. Students in engineering or data science fields, and small business workstations that run complex simulations or financial models, would also benefit from the CPU's compute power. The high combined percentile of 79 indicates that this system is better than most for general productivity, but its specific strength is clearly in CPU-bound professional work.

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

The Intel Core Ultra 9 386H is a 16-core, 16-thread processor based on the Panther Lake architecture, built on Intel's 3 nm process node. It is part of the Core Ultra Series 3 and is designed for the mobile segment, fitting into the Intel BGA 2540 socket. It has a base clock of 2.10 GHz and a boost clock of 4.90 GHz, which is a high ceiling for a mobile part. The CPU has a TDP of 25 watts, making it a very power-efficient powerhouse. The cache hierarchy includes 192 KB of L1 cache per core, 2.5 MB of L2 cache per core, and a shared 18 MB of L3 cache. It supports dual-channel DDR5 or LPDDR5X memory, providing a memory bandwidth of 115.2 GB/s.

The benchmark scores for this CPU are remarkable. It achieves a Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 20547, which is a strong result for any processor. Its single-core score of 2071.5 in the same test is equally impressive, indicating excellent IPC (instructions per clock) and high boost clock operation. The Passmark results reinforce this picture: a multi-thread score of 35399, a single-thread score of 4218, and high scores in data encryption (27150) and compression (352365). Its performance is so strong that it rivals the Intel Core i9-12900 and i9-12900KF, both desktop parts, with the data showing it is 0.7% and 0.9% ahead of them, respectively.

For real-world workloads, these scores translate to fast video rendering, quick code compilation, and responsive multitasking. The high single-thread score means applications like spreadsheets, web browsers, and office suites will feel instant. The high multi-thread score means heavy parallel tasks like 3D rendering or batch photo processing will be completed quickly. The 88th percentile ranking confirms that this is a top-tier CPU that can handle nearly any professional workload thrown at it, making it the clear centerpiece of this build.

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)

The FACT PACK contains no measured FPS data for this CPU+GPU combination. The `measuredFpsUltraByGame` field is empty, and the `dataIsMeasured` flag is set to false. Therefore, all gaming performance figures discussed here are estimates based on the benchmark scores of the individual components, not direct measurements.

Based on the Intel Arc A350M's average benchmark score of 24647 and its proximity to the performance of the AMD Radeon RX 590 (0.4% behind) and the GeForce GTX 1630 (1.5% ahead), we can estimate that gaming performance will be in the entry-level discrete GPU category. At 1080p resolution with low to medium settings, many esports titles and older games should be playable with frame rates in the 60-90 FPS range. For modern AAA games at 1080p with high settings, the frame rate would likely drop to the 30-45 FPS range, especially in graphically intensive scenes. The 4 GB VRAM capacity will cause texture pop-in or require reduced texture quality in games that demand more memory. At 1440p, the A350M would be severely challenged, and frame rates would likely be too low for a smooth experience in most titles. The CPU's performance is a non-factor here, as it is more than capable of handling the frame generation logic. The gaming experience will be defined entirely by the A350M's limitations, which point towards 1080p as the only viable resolution for a reasonable experience.

Usage Scenarios — grounded in the scores: high-refresh gaming, streaming, video editing, 3D rendering, software development, student and office work. One short paragraph per scenario, citing the numbers that support the verdict

High-Refresh Gaming: This build is not suitable for high-refresh gaming. The GPU's estimated performance, based on its 70th percentile ranking and proximity to the GTX 1630 (1.5% ahead), would not consistently push frame rates high enough to utilize a 144Hz or higher display in most titles. The 4 GB VRAM and 112.0 GB/s bandwidth are limiting factors.
Streaming: The CPU is powerful enough for streaming. Its Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 20547 provides ample headroom to encode video via software x264 while gaming, though the GPU's modest performance might make the gaming side of the stream less visually impressive. The integrated Intel Xe3 Graphics and the Arc A350M both support hardware encoding, which could offload the work from the CPU.
Video Editing: This is a strong scenario for this build. The CPU's high multi-core scores (Cinebench R20: 12820, Passmark multithread: 35399) will drastically speed up video exports and effect rendering. The GPU can assist with GPU-accelerated effects, but its 4 GB VRAM may limit the complexity of projects.
3D Rendering: The CPU will be the primary workhorse, with its 16 threads and 20547 Cinebench R23 score providing fast CPU-based renders. The Arc A350M can accelerate viewport performance and handle GPU rendering in some engines, but its 3.379 TFLOPS of FP32 performance and 4 GB VRAM are not ideal for final high-resolution renders.
Software Development: Excellent. The high single-thread score (Passmark: 4218) ensures a responsive IDE, while the multi-thread score (Passmark: 35399) will speed up code compilation and running test suites. The 16 threads are a boon for parallel builds.
Student and Office Work: Overkill for basic tasks, but highly capable. The single-thread performance makes document editing and web browsing feel instant. The battery efficiency of the 25W TDP CPU is a benefit for all-day use, and the GPU is more than enough for any light graphical work.

FAQ — 5-7 Q&A pairs answerable from FACT PACK data (format: Q: ... A: ...)

Q: How does the Intel Core Ultra 9 386H compare to the Intel Core i9-12900 in terms of average benchmark score?

A: The Core Ultra 9 386H has an average benchmark score of 43210, which is 0.7% higher than the Intel Core i9-12900's average score of 42906.

Q: What is the memory bandwidth of the Intel Arc A350M?

A: The Intel Arc A350M has a memory bandwidth of 112.0 GB/s, utilizing 4 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 64-bit bus.

Q: What is the combined performance percentile of this CPU and GPU pairing?

A: The combined percentile for this pairing is 79, indicating it outperforms 79% of all tested system configurations.

Q: Does the data include any measured FPS results for this specific build?

A: No, the data contains no measured FPS rows for this exact combination. All FPS discussions are estimates based on the benchmark scores.

Q: What is the CPU's socket type and TDP?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 9 386H uses an Intel BGA 2540 socket and has a TDP of 25 watts.

Q: Which GPU does the Arc A350M trail by 0.4% in average benchmark score?

A: The Arc A350M trails the AMD Radeon RX 590 by 0.4% in average benchmark score, with scores of 24647 and 24744 respectively.

Q: What is the cache configuration of the Core Ultra 9 386H?

A: The Core Ultra 9 386H has 192 KB of L1 cache per core, 2.5 MB of L2 cache per core, and 18 MB of shared L3 cache.

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

This build is a laptop configuration, as indicated by the `buildClass` field. It combines a top-tier mobile processor with an entry-level discrete graphics card. The Core Ultra 9 386H is a high-end CPU, evident from its 88th percentile ranking among all CPUs, while the Arc A350M is a mid-range GPU, sitting at the 70th percentile. The overall system tier, as defined by the combined percentile of 79, places it in the upper-midrange category. This is not a flagship gaming laptop, but it is a high-performance mobile workstation. The data suggests that the system's overall ranking is pulled down significantly by the GPU, which is the weaker link. A user purchasing this system is paying for the CPU's immense compute capabilities, with the GPU serving as a capable but secondary component for graphics acceleration. This is a machine for professionals who need CPU power on the go, not for gamers seeking maximum graphical fidelity.

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

The upgrade path for this laptop is limited by its mobile form factor. The CPU is soldered to the motherboard via the Intel BGA 2540 socket, and the GPU is also integrated into the system, so neither can be upgraded in a traditional sense. The data shows the CPU supports dual-channel DDR5 and LPDDR5X memory, which is likely the only user-upgradeable component in the system. A user could potentially upgrade the system's RAM to increase memory bandwidth beyond the standard 115.2 GB/s, though the CPU's memory controller will define the limits.

The platform supports PCIe Gen 5 with 12 lanes for the CPU, and the GPU itself uses a PCIe 4.0 x8 interface. The GPU's TDP is 25 W, and the CPU's TDP is also 25 W, suggesting a low overall system power draw. There is no `suggestedPsu` figure in the data, but the low TDPs of both main components indicate that a modest power supply is sufficient, and thermal headroom is likely not a concern.

Given the constraints of the laptop form factor, a sensible "next upgrade" would not involve swapping internal components. Instead, it would be an external addition: an external GPU (eGPU) enclosure. Since the CPU is extremely powerful and has a high PCIe Gen 5 lane count, it could potentially drive an external GPU with much higher performance than the internal A350M. This would allow the user to leverage the CPU's 88th percentile performance for gaming or rendering at a much higher level, bypassing the internal GPU's limitations. The data suggests the CPU is not the bottleneck; the internal GPU is. Therefore, an eGPU would be the logical path to unlock the system's full potential.

Rate My PC: Intel Core Ultra 9 386H + Intel Arc A350M

Apex Performer

System Balance Analysis

Intel Core Ultra 9 386H

Intel Arc A350M

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

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

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

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

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)

Usage Scenarios — grounded in the scores: high-refresh gaming, streaming, video editing, 3D rendering, software development, student and office work. One short paragraph per scenario, citing the numbers that support the verdict

FAQ — 5-7 Q&A pairs answerable from FACT PACK data (format: Q: ... A: ...)

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

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