SYSTEM ANALYZER

Rate My PC: Intel Core Ultra 9 386H + Intel Arc A370M

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

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%
VS
GPU
93%
PROCESSOR

Intel Core Ultra 9 386H

43,210 Benchmark Score
Top 7% Market Ranking
View Full Specs →
GRAPHICS CARD

Intel Arc A370M

29,175 Benchmark Score
Top 7% 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

Intel Core Ultra 9 386H pairs with the Intel Arc A370M in a laptop configuration, a combination that places the overall system at the 81st percentile against all other builds. The CPU is a 16-core, 16-thread Panther Lake part with a base clock of 2.10 GHz and a boost clock of 4.90 GHz, built on Intel's 3 nm process, while the GPU is an end-of-life Alchemist mobile part with 4 GB of GDDR6 memory. No measured FPS data exists for this exact pairing, so all frame-rate discussion below is estimated from the benchmark scores rather than direct testing.

CPU Analysis

The Intel Core Ultra 9 386H is a 16-thread processor with a 25 W TDP, which is a notably low power envelope for a chip with this many cores. The architecture is Panther Lake, Intel's 3 nm process, and it uses a BGA 2540 socket. The cache hierarchy includes 192 KB of L1 per core, 2.5 MB of L2 per core, and 18 MB of shared L3 cache. The CPU's memory bandwidth is rated at 115.2 GB/s over a dual-channel DDR5/LPDDR5X bus, which is not particularly wide, but the low TDP suggests this is a power-efficient design aimed at sustained workloads rather than short bursts.

In Cinebench R23, the CPU scores 20547 in multi-core and 2071.5 in single-core. The multi-core figure is strong for a 25 W part, but the single-core score of 2071.5 is more telling; it indicates that even at a 2.10 GHz base clock, the boost to 4.90 GHz delivers competitive per-thread performance. The Cinebench R20 scores are 12820 multi-core and 1809 single-core, which tracks consistently with the R23 results. The R15 scores are 3223 multi-core and 303.5 single-core, and the progression across R15/R20/R23 shows a linear scaling that suggests the CPU does not throttle heavily under sustained multi-threaded loads.

The Passmark results paint a more detailed picture of workload-specific strengths. The multithread score is 35399, and the single-thread score is 4218. The integer math score is 87284, while floating-point math is 108527, showing a clear advantage in FP-heavy tasks. The data compression score is 352365, which is exceptionally high, while data encryption is 27150. The extended instructions score is 29138, and finding prime numbers scores 341. Physics simulation scores 3028, and random string sorting is 42135. These numbers suggest the CPU is well-balanced but particularly strong at compression and floating-point workloads.

The CPU's average benchmark score is 43210, placing it at the 88th percentile of all CPUs. Its nearest rivals are the AMD Ryzen AI Max PRO 385 with an average score of 43326 (0.3% higher), the AMD Ryzen AI 9 465 at 43431 (0.5% higher), the Intel Core i9-12900 at 42906 (0.7% lower), and the Intel Core i9-12900KF at 42830 (0.9% lower). The 386H is effectively within a rounding error of both AMD parts, sitting slightly behind them, while it edges out both desktop i9-12900 variants. This is remarkable because the 386H is a mobile chip with a 25 W TDP, competing with desktop parts that have much higher power budgets. The data implies that Panther Lake's 3 nm process and architecture have closed the efficiency gap significantly.

Upgrade Path and Platform

The platform is built around the Intel BGA 2540 socket, which means the CPU is soldered to the motherboard. This is not a socketed desktop platform, so the CPU itself is not upgradeable in any meaningful sense. The system memory support is dual-channel DDR5 or LPDDR5X, with a total bandwidth of 115.2 GB/s. The CPU provides 12 PCIe Gen 5 lanes, which is a generous allocation for a mobile part, but the GPU uses a separate PCIe 4.0 x8 interface.

The GPU is an Intel Arc A370M with a 35 W TDP, and it is described as "IGP" in slot width, meaning it is integrated or soldered onto the board. No suggested PSU is listed, which is expected for a laptop, but the combined CPU TDP of 25 W and GPU TDP of 35 W totals 60 W for the core components. This is a low-power pairing, so the power delivery in the laptop chassis should be sufficient for the CPU and GPU without needing a large external power brick.

For a sensible next upgrade, the data points to the GPU as the primary bottleneck in gaming scenarios, but since this is a laptop, the upgrade path is essentially closed. The user would need to move to a different laptop entirely. However, within the constraints of the platform, the CPU has headroom in multi-threaded tasks; its R23 multi-core score of 20547 shows it can handle heavy workloads, but the GPU's 4 GB VRAM and 64-bit memory bus will limit performance in modern games. The PCIe Gen 5 lanes from the CPU are not fully utilized by the GPU, which uses PCIe 4.0 x8, so there is no bottleneck from the interface in that direction.

GPU Analysis

The Intel Arc A370M is an Alchemist-generation mobile GPU based on the DG2-128 chip, built on TSMC's 6 nm process. It has 7,200 million transistors on a 157 mm² die, with a transistor density of 45.9 million per mm². The GPU has 1024 shading units, 64 TMUs, and 32 ROPs. There are 8 ray tracing cores, but no tensor cores are listed, which is notable for AI workloads. The base clock is 1550 MHz, boosting to 2050 MHz, and the memory runs at 1750 MHz, which translates to 14 Gbps effective. The memory configuration is 4 GB of GDDR6 on a 64-bit bus, providing 112.0 GB/s of bandwidth.

The pixel rate is 65.60 GPixel/s, and the texture rate is 131.2 GTexel/s. FP32 performance is 4.198 TFLOPS, with FP16 at 8.397 TFLOPS via a 2:1 ratio. The GPU supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4, which means it has full feature support for modern APIs including ray tracing. The bus interface is PCIe 4.0 x8, and display outputs are dependent on the portable device.

In Geekbench, the GPU scores 29676 in OpenCL and 28673 in Vulkan. These are nearly identical, suggesting that the GPU is not driver-limited in either API. The average benchmark score is 29175, placing it at the 74th percentile of all GPUs. Its nearest rivals are the AMD Radeon RX Vega M GH at 29197 (0.1% higher), the AMD FirePro W8000 at 29211 (0.1% higher), the AMD Radeon RX 470 at 28996 (0.6% lower), and the AMD Radeon RX 6800M at 28874 (1% lower). The A370M is essentially tied with the RX Vega M GH and FirePro W8000, and it slightly outperforms the RX 470 and the RX 6800M in these specific benchmarks. This is an interesting result because the RX 6800M is a high-end mobile GPU, but the Geekbench compute scores show the A370M edging it out by 1%, which suggests the A370M's architecture is efficient in compute-heavy synthetic tests even if its real-world gaming performance may differ.

The 4 GB VRAM and 64-bit bus are the clear limitations. A bandwidth of 112.0 GB/s is low for 1080p gaming, and 4 GB is insufficient for high-resolution textures in modern titles. The 8 RT cores provide ray tracing capability, but with only 4.198 TFLOPS of FP32 performance, ray tracing will be a heavy load. The FP16 throughput of 8.397 TFLOPS is useful for some AI workloads, but the absence of dedicated tensor cores means any AI acceleration relies on the standard shader units.

Usage Scenarios

For high-refresh gaming, the data suggests the GPU will be the limiting factor. The A370M's 4 GB VRAM and 112.0 GB/s bandwidth are below what is typically needed for smooth 144 Hz gaming at 1080p in modern titles. The CPU's single-thread score of 4218 in Passmark is strong enough to feed the GPU, but the GPU's FP32 performance of 4.198 TFLOPS is moderate. Estimated frame rates in esports titles could reach high numbers, but the 4 GB VRAM will be a constraint in texture-heavy games.

Streaming is a mixed scenario. The CPU has 16 threads and a Passmark multithread score of 35399, which is more than enough for software encoding alongside gaming. The CPU's data compression score of 352365 is particularly relevant here, as it suggests the CPU can handle the encoding workload efficiently. However, the GPU's lack of tensor cores means no dedicated NVENC-style acceleration, so streaming will rely on the CPU's x264 encoder, which should perform well given the multithread scores.

Video editing benefits from the CPU's floating-point strength. The FP math score of 108527 is high, and the Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 20547 indicates the CPU can handle rendering timelines. The GPU's 4 GB VRAM will limit its role in GPU-accelerated effects, but the CPU can carry the load. The 115.2 GB/s memory bandwidth is adequate for 1080p editing, but 4K timelines may struggle due to the narrow bus.

3D rendering is CPU-bound in this pairing. The R23 multi-core score of 20547 is strong, and the CPU's 88th percentile ranking confirms it. The GPU's 4.198 TFLOPS is low for rendering, and the 4 GB VRAM will be a hard limit for complex scenes. The CPU will do the heavy lifting in Blender or similar applications, while the GPU can handle simple viewport tasks.

Software development is a clear strength. The CPU's integer math score of 87284 and the high single-thread score of 4218 indicate fast compilation times for single-threaded tasks, while the multithread score of 35399 handles parallel builds. The 16 threads are sufficient for most development workloads, and the low TDP of 25 W means sustained compilation will not cause thermal throttling.

Student and office work is well-served. The CPU's single-thread performance is excellent for productivity applications, and the integrated Intel Xe3 Graphics (not the discrete A370M) can handle basic display output. The low TDP contributes to long battery life, and the 16 threads are overkill for office tasks but provide headroom for multitasking. The GPU's 4 GB VRAM is irrelevant here, as the integrated graphics will handle the display.

Who Should Build It

This laptop configuration targets users who need strong CPU performance in a power-efficient mobile package. The CPU's 88th percentile ranking and its near-parity with desktop i9-12900 parts make it suitable for software developers who compile code frequently, given the integer math score of 87284 and multithread score of 35399. Content creators working on video editing will find the CPU's FP math score of 108527 and Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 20547 useful, though they must accept the GPU's limitations.

Students and small business workstations are the primary audience. The low TDP of 25 W for the CPU and 35 W for the GPU means the laptop can run cool and quiet, and the 16 threads handle multitasking without issue. The GPU's 74th percentile ranking is sufficient for light gaming and basic graphics tasks, but it is not a gaming laptop. The 4 GB VRAM limits the GPU to 1080p gaming at medium settings in most titles, and the 64-bit memory bus of 112.0 GB/s is a bottleneck.

The pairing is not suitable for high-end gaming at 1440p or 4K, nor for professional 3D rendering. The CPU is the star, and the GPU is an entry-level discrete part. For users who primarily need CPU compute power with occasional light gaming, this is a sensible configuration. For gamers or GPU-heavy workloads, the 4 GB VRAM and FP32 throughput will be insufficient.

FAQ

Q: What is the CPU's multi-core performance compared to its closest rival?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 9 386H scores 20547 in Cinebench R23 multi-core. Its nearest rival, the AMD Ryzen AI Max PRO 385, has an average benchmark score that is 0.3% higher, and the AMD Ryzen AI 9 465 is 0.5% higher, meaning the 386H is marginally behind both in overall average score.

Q: How does the GPU compare to the AMD Radeon RX 6800M?

A: The Intel Arc A370M has an average benchmark score of 29175, which is 1% higher than the AMD Radeon RX 6800M's score of 28874. In Geekbench, the A370M scores 29676 in OpenCL and 28673 in Vulkan, while the RX 6800M trails in the average score comparison.

Q: Is the CPU or GPU the bottleneck in gaming?

A: The GPU is the bottleneck in gaming. The CPU has a Passmark single-thread score of 4218 and a multithread score of 35399, which is strong, but the GPU has only 4 GB of VRAM and a 64-bit memory bus providing 112.0 GB/s bandwidth, which limits frame rates in modern games.

Q: What is the memory bandwidth of the CPU?

A: The CPU supports dual-channel DDR5 or LPDDR5X memory with a bandwidth of 115.2 GB/s. This is moderate for a mobile chip, and it may limit performance in memory-intensive workloads.

Q: Does the GPU have ray tracing capability?

A: Yes, the GPU has 8 ray tracing cores and supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2). However, its FP32 performance of 4.198 TFLOPS means ray tracing will be a heavy load, and frame rates will be low in RT-enabled games.

Q: What is the combined percentile of this system?

A: The combined percentile of the CPU-GPU pairing is 81st, meaning it outperforms 81% of all systems in the database. The CPU is at the 88th percentile, and the GPU is at the 74th percentile.

Q: What is the production status of the GPU?

A: The Intel Arc A370M is end-of-life, with a release date of March 29, 2022. The CPU is active, with a release date of January 4, 2026.

Balance and Bottleneck

The data shows a clear imbalance between the CPU and GPU. The CPU sits at the 88th percentile of all CPUs, while the GPU is at the 74th percentile of all GPUs. In raw compute, the CPU's Passmark multithread score is 35399, which is roughly in line with desktop i9-12900 parts, while the GPU's 4.198 TFLOPS of FP32 is entry-level. The CPU's 16 threads and 18 MB of L3 cache are more than sufficient to feed the GPU, but the GPU's 4 GB VRAM and 112.0 GB/s bandwidth will cause it to run out of memory or bandwidth in demanding games.

The CPU's Cinebench R23 single-core score of 2071.5 is high, so in gaming scenarios, the CPU will not hold back the GPU. However, the GPU's 64-bit memory bus is a hard limit. For example, a game that needs 6 GB of VRAM will either fail to load or use system memory, which is slow at 115.2 GB/s. In CPU-bound workloads like data compression, the CPU scores 352365 in Passmark, which is a top-tier result, but in GPU-bound workloads like 3D rendering, the GPU's 4 GB VRAM will force the user to reduce scene complexity.

The FPS scaling between the CPU and GPU is not measured for this pairing. The CPU's single-thread score of 4218 suggests it is capable of driving high frame rates, but the GPU's FP32 performance and memory bandwidth will cap it. In esports titles at 1080p, the CPU could push 200+ FPS, but the GPU may only deliver 60-80 FPS depending on the game. In AAA titles, the GPU will likely be the limiting factor at 1080p, and at 1440p, the 4 GB VRAM will be a major constraint. The 1% delta between the GPU and its nearest rival, the AMD Radeon RX Vega M GH (0.1% higher), indicates the A370M is well-optimized for its class, but that class is entry-level.

Build Overview

This is a laptop-class build combining the Intel Core Ultra 9 386H CPU with the Intel Arc A370M GPU. The CPU is a 16-thread Panther Lake part with a 25 W TDP, and the GPU is an end-of-life Alchemist mobile part with a 35 W TDP. The combined percentile is 81, meaning this system outperforms 81% of all builds in the database. The CPU's 88th percentile ranking is the primary driver of this score, while the GPU's 74th percentile is below the CPU's level.

The pairing is best described as a CPU-centric laptop. The CPU is capable of desktop-level multi-threaded performance, as evidenced by its Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 20547, which rivals the Intel Core i9-12900 (0.7% lower average score). The GPU, however, is an entry-level discrete part with 4 GB of VRAM and 4.198 TFLOPS of FP32 performance. This is not a gaming laptop, but it is a capable workstation for CPU-intensive tasks.

Benchmark Performance

The CPU's average benchmark score is 43210, placing it at the 88th percentile. Its best results include a Passmark multithread score of 35399, a data compression score of 352365, and a floating-point math score of 108527. In Cinebench, it scores 20547 in R23 multi-core and 2071.5 in R23 single-core. The GPU's average benchmark score is 29175, at the 74th percentile, with Geekbench scores of 29676 in OpenCL and 28673 in Vulkan.

The combined picture is a system that is significantly stronger in CPU tasks than GPU tasks. The CPU's nearest rivals are the AMD Ryzen AI Max PRO 385 (0.3% higher score) and the AMD Ryzen AI 9 465 (0.5% higher), while the GPU's nearest rival is the AMD Radeon RX Vega M GH (0.1% higher). The CPU is a top-tier mobile part, while the GPU is a mid-range entry-level part. The overall 81st percentile reflects the CPU's strength pulling up the GPU's weaker showing.

Gaming Performance

No measured FPS data exists for this exact CPU-GPU combination, so all frame rates below are estimates based on the benchmark scores rather than direct testing. The CPU's single-thread score of 4218 in Passmark indicates it can handle high-refresh gaming, but the GPU's 4 GB VRAM and 112.0 GB/s bandwidth are limiting factors.

At 1080p in esports titles like Counter-Strike or Valorant, the A370M's 4.198 TFLOPS of FP32 performance and 65.60 GPixel/s pixel rate should deliver 60-100 FPS at high settings, with the CPU not being a bottleneck. In AAA titles like Cyberpunk 2077 or Assassin's Creed Mirage, the 4 GB VRAM will be insufficient for high textures, and the 64-bit bus will limit bandwidth, resulting in estimated 30-50 FPS at medium settings. At 1440p, the GPU will struggle, with estimated frame rates dropping below 30 FPS in most modern titles due to VRAM capacity and bandwidth constraints.

The GPU's 8 RT cores mean ray tracing is technically supported, but the FP32 throughput of 4.198 TFLOPS will make RT-heavy games unplayable at playable frame rates. Estimated RT performance is 20-30 FPS at 1080p with low RT settings. The GPU's 74th percentile ranking suggests it is better than 74% of GPUs, but that percentile is dominated by older or integrated parts. For modern gaming, the 4 GB VRAM is the key limitation, and users should expect to run games at 1080p with reduced texture quality and no ray tracing.