SYSTEM ANALYZER

Rate My PC: Intel Core Ultra X7 368H + 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)

▼

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

92%

GPU

92%

PROCESSOR

Intel Core Ultra X7 368H

40,518 Benchmark Score

Top 8% 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

# CPU Analysis

The Intel Core Ultra X7 368H is a 16-core, 16-thread mobile processor built on Intel's 3 nm Panther Lake architecture, part of the Core Ultra Series 3 generation. It operates with a base clock of 2.00 GHz and a boost clock of 5.00 GHz, with a thermal design power of 25 W. The CPU features a three-tier cache hierarchy: 192 KB of L1 per core, 2.5 MB of L2 per core, and 18 MB of shared L3 cache. This configuration targets high-performance laptops where power efficiency and sustained multi-threaded throughput matter.

Benchmark data positions this processor in the 87th percentile among all CPUs, indicating strong overall capability. Its average benchmark score of 40518 places it in direct competition with the Intel Core 7 253PE (40557, 0.1% faster), Intel Core 5 223PE (40585, 0.2% faster), AMD Ryzen 9 7940H (40431, 0.2% slower), and Intel Xeon 6507P (40426, 0.2% slower). The deltas are remarkably tight—within half a percent—suggesting that the Core Ultra X7 368H sits at a performance plateau shared by several top-tier mobile and entry-level server processors, offering no significant advantage or disadvantage over them in aggregate workloads.

Single-thread performance is a standout area. The Cinebench R23 single-core score of 3984 demonstrates strong per-core efficiency, which directly translates to snappy responsiveness in everyday applications, faster compilation of lightly threaded code, and better performance in games that depend on one or two primary threads. The R20 single-core score of 1673 and R15 single-core score of 401 confirm this pattern across different benchmark versions. The Passmark single-thread score of 4005 reinforces the picture: this is not a CPU that sacrifices latency-sensitive workloads for raw multi-core throughput.

Multi-threaded performance is equally compelling. The Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 28221 indicates that all 16 cores scale well under sustained load, with the processor maintaining high clock speeds across the entire package. The R20 multi-core score of 11852 and R15 multi-core score of 2844 show consistent scaling from older to newer benchmark iterations. Passmark's multithread score of 32956, combined with integer math at 88083 and floating point math at 105681, suggests robust compute throughput for tasks like video encoding, 3D rendering, and scientific calculations. The extended instructions score of 25669 indicates solid support for modern SIMD workloads, including AVX-512 if present, which benefits applications like physics simulations and image processing.

Memory bandwidth is rated at 153.6 GB/s via dual-channel LPDDR5X support, which is adequate for feeding 16 cores but not exceptional. This bandwidth figure aligns with the processor's mobile positioning, where power constraints limit memory speed. The PCIe Gen 5 interface with 4 CPU lanes provides high-speed connectivity for NVMe storage and discrete GPUs, though the lane count is modest compared to desktop platforms. The integrated Arc B390 graphics provide a fallback display output, though the primary GPU in this build is the discrete Arc A350M.

# Benchmark Performance

The CPU's average benchmark score of 40518 places it in the 87th percentile of all CPUs, a strong showing for a mobile part. Its nearest rivals cluster tightly: the Intel Core 7 253PE scores 40557 (-0.1%), the Intel Core 5 223PE scores 40585 (-0.2%), the AMD Ryzen 9 7940H scores 40431 (+0.2%), and the Intel Xeon 6507P scores 40426 (+0.2%). These sub-1% differences mean that in practice, the Core Ultra X7 368H and its rivals are interchangeable in aggregate performance; any observed difference would fall within run-to-run variance. The practical takeaway is that this CPU competes at the upper mid-range of mobile processors, edging out last-generation flagship parts like the Ryzen 9 7940H by a hair, but not leaping ahead of contemporary competitors.

The GPU, an Intel Arc A350M, posts an average benchmark score of 24647, placing it in the 70th percentile of all GPUs. Its nearest rivals are the AMD Radeon RX 590 (24744, -0.4%), NVIDIA RTX A5000 Mobile (24763, -0.5%), AMD Radeon RX 6600 XT (24442, +0.8%), and NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1630 (24277, +1.5%). The Arc A350M's Geekbench OpenCL score of 24546 and Vulkan score of 24747 show consistent performance across both compute APIs. The deltaPct values indicate the A350M is effectively a peer of the RX 590 and RTX A5000 Mobile, slightly behind the GTX 1630, and marginally ahead of the RX 6600 XT in these synthetic tests. However, these are compute-focused benchmarks; gaming performance depends on driver optimization and architecture-specific strengths, which the data does not fully capture.

The combined percentile of 79 for this CPU+GPU pairing reflects a balanced system where the processor is relatively stronger than the graphics card. This means the CPU will not be the limiting factor in most workloads; the GPU will likely cap performance in graphics-intensive tasks. The pairing is well-suited for productivity work, where the CPU's 87th percentile standing drives performance, while gaming will be constrained by the GPU's 70th percentile capability.

# GPU Analysis

The Intel Arc A350M is a mobile graphics processor based on the Xe-HPG architecture, manufactured on TSMC's 6 nm process. The chip, designated DG2-128, contains 7,200 million transistors on a 157 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 45.9 million per mm². It features 768 shading units, 48 texture mapping units, and 24 raster output units, along with 6 ray tracing cores. The GPU operates at a base clock of 1150 MHz and a boost clock of 2200 MHz, with memory running at 1750 MHz (14 Gbps effective) across a 64-bit bus. Memory capacity is 4 GB of GDDR6, providing 112.0 GB/s of bandwidth.

Compute throughput is rated at 3.379 TFLOPS for FP32 and 6.758 TFLOPS for FP16 (with 2:1 ratio), placing it in the entry-level discrete GPU segment. The pixel rate of 52.80 GPixel/s and texture rate of 105.6 GTexel/s indicate sufficient fill for 1080p rendering at moderate settings. The 6 RT cores provide hardware-accelerated ray tracing, though the low shader count and modest bandwidth will limit ray tracing performance to lighter scenes. The GPU supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4, ensuring compatibility with modern game engines and professional applications.

The benchmark scores tell a nuanced story. The Geekbench OpenCL score of 24546 and Vulkan score of 24747 are nearly identical, suggesting the GPU's compute performance is API-agnostic. Compared to its nearest rivals, the A350M sits within 1.5% of the RX 590, RTX A5000 Mobile, RX 6600 XT, and GTX 1630 in aggregate compute. This is surprising given the architectural differences: the RX 590 is a 2018 Polaris card, the RTX A5000 Mobile is a professional workstation GPU, and the RX 6600 XT is a desktop gaming card. The fact that a 2022 entry-level mobile GPU matches these disparate competitors indicates efficient use of its 768 shaders and 112 GB/s bandwidth.

For rendering workloads, the FP32 throughput of 3.379 TFLOPS is modest but workable for basic 3D scenes and photo editing. The 4 GB VRAM is a significant constraint for modern textures and large scenes; it will handle 1080p gaming with medium settings but will struggle with 1440p high-texture packs or 3D rendering with large assets. The ray tracing cores, while present, will deliver playable performance only in games with light RT effects at reduced resolutions. The 64-bit memory bus is the primary bottleneck, capping bandwidth and limiting performance in bandwidth-sensitive workloads like high-resolution texturing and compute shaders.

# Usage Scenarios

High-Refresh Gaming: The GPU's 70th percentile standing and 3.379 TFLOPS FP32 throughput suggest playable 1080p gaming at medium settings, with frame rates likely in the 60–90 FPS range for esports titles, though exact figures require measured data. The CPU's 5.00 GHz boost clock and single-thread score of 4005 will not bottleneck most games, but the 4 GB VRAM limits texture quality at higher resolutions.

Streaming: The CPU's 16 cores and 28221 Cinebench R23 multi-core score provide ample headroom for software encoding while gaming, though the GPU's lack of a dedicated hardware encoder (not specified in the data) may push encoding to the CPU. The 32956 Passmark multithread score supports simultaneous game and encode workloads without severe frame drops.

Video Editing: The strong multi-core performance (28221 in R23) accelerates timeline rendering and export, while the GPU's OpenCL score of 24546 assists with effects and color grading. The 4 GB VRAM is adequate for 1080p editing but will limit 4K projects with heavy effects. The 153.6 GB/s memory bandwidth on the CPU side aids in previewing high-bitrate footage.

3D Rendering: CPU-based rendering will be strong, with the R23 multi-core score of 28221 placing it near desktop-class performance. GPU rendering will be limited by the A350M's 3.379 TFLOPS FP32 and 4 GB VRAM, making it suitable only for simple scenes. The 6 RT cores provide basic ray tracing acceleration for hybrid rendering pipelines.

Software Development: The 16 threads and 88083 Passmark integer math score handle compilation of large codebases efficiently, while the 4005 single-thread score ensures fast IDE responsiveness. The 312927 Passmark data compression score accelerates build artifact archiving, and the 25228 encryption score supports secure development workflows.

Student and Office Work: The CPU's 87th percentile standing guarantees smooth multitasking across office suites, web browsing, and video conferencing. The integrated Arc B390 graphics provide a fallback if the discrete GPU is disabled for battery savings, and the 25 W TDP supports long battery life. The 4 GB VRAM is irrelevant for these workloads, which rely primarily on CPU and memory performance.

# Balance and Bottleneck

The combined percentile of 79, with a CPU at 87th and GPU at 70th, indicates a CPU-heavy system. In CPU-bound workloads like compilation, 3D rendering, and data processing, the processor will perform near its full potential, with the GPU rarely becoming a limiting factor. The CPU's nearest rivals all score within 0.2% of each other, so no meaningful bottleneck exists within the CPU tier itself.

In gaming, the bottleneck shifts decisively to the GPU. The A350M's 70th percentile, combined with its 4 GB VRAM and 112 GB/s bandwidth, will cap frame rates in GPU-heavy scenes. The CPU's 5.00 GHz boost clock and strong single-thread score (3984 in R23) ensure it can feed the GPU at 1080p, but at higher resolutions or with increased graphics settings, the GPU's fill rate and bandwidth will be the limiting factor. The deltaPct of 0.8% versus the RX 6600 XT suggests that in GPU-bound scenarios, the A350M will perform nearly identically to that desktop card, which is itself a 1080p-oriented part.

For mixed workloads like video editing, the balance is more even. The CPU handles encode/decode and timeline operations, while the GPU accelerates effects and previews. The 153.6 GB/s CPU memory bandwidth and 112 GB/s GPU bandwidth are comparable, avoiding a severe imbalance. However, the GPU's 4 GB VRAM could force texture swapping in 4K timelines, creating a bottleneck that the CPU cannot mitigate. Overall, this system is balanced for productivity but GPU-limited for gaming.

# FAQ

Q: How does the Intel Core Ultra X7 368H compare to the AMD Ryzen 9 7940H?

A: The Ultra X7 368H scores 40518 on average, 0.2% higher than the Ryzen 9 7940H's 40431, making them effectively tied in aggregate performance.

Q: Is the Arc A350M suitable for 4K gaming?

A: No. Its 4 GB VRAM, 112 GB/s bandwidth, and 70th percentile standing suggest it is best suited for 1080p gaming; 4K would exceed its memory capacity and bandwidth.

Q: Does the system support hardware ray tracing?

A: Yes, the Arc A350M includes 6 RT cores and supports DirectX 12 Ultimate, but the low shader count (768) and modest bandwidth will limit ray tracing performance.

Q: What is the CPU's power consumption?

A: The TDP is 25 W, which is low for a 16-core processor and indicates excellent power efficiency, suitable for thin-and-light laptops.

Q: How does the GPU compare to the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1630?

A: The Arc A350M scores 24647 on average, 1.5% lower than the GTX 1630's 24277, placing them in the same performance class.

Q: Can the CPU handle software development workloads?

A: Yes, with 16 threads, an integer math score of 88083, and a data compression score of 312927, it is well-suited for compilation and build tasks.

Q: Is the 4 GB VRAM enough for video editing?

A: For 1080p projects, yes. For 4K projects with heavy effects, it may be insufficient, potentially causing slowdowns due to memory swapping.

# Who Should Build It

This CPU+GPU pairing targets laptop builders and buyers who prioritize CPU performance in a mobile form factor. The 87th percentile CPU is ideal for professionals who run multi-threaded workloads: software developers compiling large codebases, data analysts processing datasets (with a floating point math score of 105681), and researchers running simulations. The 16 cores and 25 W TDP make it a strong choice for mobile workstations where battery life matters alongside compute power.

Gamers at 1080p with medium-to-high settings will find the Arc A350M adequate, though the 4 GB VRAM means future titles with large texture packs may require reduced settings. The GPU's 70th percentile places it at the level of a desktop RX 590, so expect comparable performance in older titles and esports games. Ray tracing is possible but not a primary feature—the 6 RT cores are best considered a bonus rather than a selling point.

Content creators editing 1080p video will appreciate the CPU's R23 multi-core score of 28221, which accelerates exports and rendering. The GPU's OpenCL score of 24546 assists with effects and color grading, though the 4 GB VRAM limits 4K workflows. Students and office workers will find the system overkill for basic tasks, but the long battery life (implied by the 25 W TDP) and CPU headroom ensure smooth multitasking for years.

Small business workstations that run accounting software, databases, and office suites will benefit from the CPU's 87th percentile standing and 312927 data compression score for backups and archiving. The system is not suited for high-end 3D rendering or AI training, where the GPU's 3.379 TFLOPS and 4 GB VRAM would be insufficient.

# Build Overview

This build pairs the Intel Core Ultra X7 368H with the Intel Arc A350M in a laptop form factor. The CPU is a 16-core Panther Lake-H processor on Intel's 3 nm node, while the GPU is a DG2-128 Alchemist mobile part on TSMC's 6 nm node. The combined percentile of 79 places this system in the upper-midrange of laptop configurations, with the CPU contributing most of the overall performance.

The CPU's average benchmark score of 40518 (87th percentile) is its strongest asset, while the GPU's 24647 average (70th percentile) is adequate for entry-level discrete graphics. The system is best described as a productivity-first laptop with gaming capability, rather than a gaming-first machine. The 25 W TDP for both CPU and GPU suggests a thin-and-light chassis with efficient cooling, prioritizing portability over raw performance.

The pairing is unusual in that the CPU is substantially stronger than the GPU, a configuration that benefits users who run CPU-intensive applications but only occasionally game or use GPU acceleration. The Arc A350M's end-of-life production status (released March 2022) means this is a mature, stable platform, though it lacks the latest GPU features. The CPU's 2026 release date indicates a modern platform with current connectivity.

# Gaming Performance

No measured FPS data exists for this exact CPU+GPU combination. All frame rate expectations below are estimates derived from the benchmark scores and should be treated as approximations, not measured results.

Based on the Arc A350M's Geekbench OpenCL score of 24546 and Vulkan score of 24747, and its position near the RX 590 and GTX 1630 in the nearestRivals data, the GPU is likely to deliver 60–75 FPS in esports titles like Counter-Strike 2 and Valorant at 1080p with high settings. For AAA games at 1080p, expect 40–55 FPS at medium settings, dropping to 30–40 FPS at high settings due to the 4 GB VRAM and 112 GB/s bandwidth constraints.

The CPU's 5.00 GHz boost clock and single-thread score of 3984 (Cinebench R23) ensure it will not bottleneck the GPU at 1080p in most titles. However, in CPU-intensive games like strategy titles or simulators, the 16 cores and 28221 multi-core score will provide headroom that the GPU cannot fully utilize. At 1440p, the GPU's 70th percentile and 3.379 TFLOPS FP32 throughput will likely reduce frame rates to 30–45 FPS at medium settings, with the 4 GB VRAM causing texture pop-in in newer titles.

Ray tracing performance, supported by the 6 RT cores, will be limited to 1080p at low RT settings in games like Cyberpunk 2077 or Control, with frame rates estimated at 25–35 FPS given the modest shader count and bandwidth. Older DX11 titles and indie games will perform better, as will games with excellent Intel driver optimization, though driver maturity for Arc GPUs remains a factor. For competitive gaming at high refresh rates (144 Hz+), the GPU will likely fall short in most titles, making this system better suited for 60 Hz displays.

# Upgrade Path and Platform

The CPU uses the Intel BGA 2540 socket, which is soldered to the motherboard and not upgradeable in a traditional sense. The 25 W TDP means the cooling solution is designed for low power, so replacing the CPU is not feasible. The system supports LPDDR5X memory via a dual-channel bus, with 153.6 GB/s bandwidth; this is typically soldered as well, limiting memory upgrades to what the manufacturer installed at build time.

The PCIe Gen 5 interface with 4 CPU lanes provides high-speed connectivity for NVMe storage, and the GPU connects via PCIe 4.0 x8. This means storage upgrades are possible via M.2 slots, but the GPU is likely soldered or non-replaceable in most laptop designs. The Arc A350M's end-of-life status means no successor within the same architecture, but the PCIe 4.0 x8 interface would support a faster GPU if the laptop chassis allowed it—a rare option in thin-and-light designs.

The suggested PSU is not listed, and the combined TDP of 25 W (CPU) + 25 W (GPU) totals 50 W, indicating a power adapter in the 65–90 W range is likely sufficient. This low power draw is a strength for portability but limits performance headroom. The socket and platform are current as of the CPU's 2026 release, so drivers and BIOS support will be maintained for several years.

A sensible next upgrade for this platform would be adding more NVMe storage via the PCIe Gen 5 lanes, or upgrading the display to a higher refresh rate panel if the laptop supports it. The memory and GPU are factory-soldered and not user-replaceable, so the system's performance is fixed at purchase. Users seeking more GPU performance would need to consider a different laptop with a higher-tier Arc or NVIDIA GPU, as the 70th percentile GPU is the system's primary limitation.

Rate My PC: Intel Core Ultra X7 368H + Intel Arc A350M

Apex Performer

System Balance Analysis

Intel Core Ultra X7 368H

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

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