SYSTEM ANALYZER

Rate My PC: Intel Core Ultra X7 368H + Intel Arc A370M

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

92%

GPU

93%

PROCESSOR

Intel Core Ultra X7 368H

40,518 Benchmark Score

Top 8% 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 X7 368H + Intel Arc A370M: A Mobile Benchmark Analysis

The Intel Core Ultra X7 368H paired with the Intel Arc A370M represents a laptop-class configuration that sits at the 81st percentile overall among all tested builds. The CPU, a 16-core Panther Lake-H part on Intel's 3 nm process, delivers an average benchmark score of 40,518, placing it at the 87th percentile among all CPUs, while the Arc A370M GPU, based on the Xe-HPG architecture, achieves an average score of 29,175 and sits at the 74th percentile among all GPUs. This pairing is notable for its balance: neither component dramatically outclasses the other, and the benchmark data suggests a system designed for consistent, reliable performance across a wide range of tasks rather than extreme specialization in any single workload.

Upgrade Path and Platform

The platform foundation for this configuration is defined by the Intel BGA 2540 socket, which is a ball-grid-array design soldered directly to the motherboard. This means the CPU is not user-replaceable; any upgrade would require a full system replacement or a motherboard swap, which is atypical for laptop-class hardware. The memory support is limited to LPDDR5X, operating on a dual-channel bus, with a total memory bandwidth of 153.6 GB/s. This is a fixed specification for the platform, and the memory is likewise typically soldered in mobile designs, so there is no user-accessible memory upgrade path.

The PCIe connectivity is provided via Gen 5 with 4 lanes available from the CPU. This is a modest allocation, suitable for a single high-bandwidth device such as an NVMe SSD, but it does not provide the full complement of PCIe lanes found in desktop platforms. The integrated graphics, an Arc B390, is present on the CPU die, but the discrete Arc A370M GPU is connected via a PCIe 4.0 x8 interface, which is the bus specification for that component. The power delivery envelope is defined by the CPU's TDP of 25 W and the GPU's TDP of 35 W, giving a combined thermal budget of 60 W for the two primary compute components. The GPU has no suggested PSU rating listed, which is typical for an IGP-class mobile part, and the system power supply is not a user-serviceable component in this class.

For a sensible next upgrade, the data indicates that the CPU is the stronger component relative to its peers. The CPU sits at the 87th percentile, while the GPU sits at the 74th percentile. A user looking to improve overall system performance would most effectively target a GPU upgrade, but given the laptop form factor, this is likely impossible. The realistic upgrade path is a future system with a newer GPU generation, as the Arc A370M is listed as end-of-life production status. The CPU, by contrast, is marked as active production, meaning it will remain available for new designs. The platform's memory bandwidth of 153.6 GB/s and PCIe Gen 5 lanes provide a solid foundation for the current CPU, but they do not offer headroom for a significantly more powerful discrete GPU in the same chassis.

FAQ

Q: What is the CPU's core and thread configuration?

A: The Intel Core Ultra X7 368H has 16 cores and 16 threads. This is a 16-thread configuration without Hyper-Threading, meaning each core handles a single thread, which is reflected in the multicore benchmark scores.

Q: What is the GPU's memory size and bandwidth?

A: The Intel Arc A370M has 4 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 64-bit bus, providing a total bandwidth of 112.0 GB/s. The memory operates at 1750 MHz, which translates to 14 Gbps effective.

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

A: The CPU's average benchmark score is 40,518. Its closest rival, the Intel Core 7 253PE, scores 40,557, placing the Ultra X7 368H 0.1% behind. The AMD Ryzen 9 7940H scores 40,431, making the Ultra X7 368H 0.2% ahead.

Q: What is the GPU's production status?

A: The Intel Arc A370M is listed as end-of-life, with a release date of March 2022. The CPU, in contrast, is listed as active production with a release date of January 2026.

Q: What is the total combined power draw of CPU and GPU?

A: The CPU has a TDP of 25 W, and the GPU has a TDP of 35 W, for a combined 60 W thermal envelope. This is a low-power configuration suitable for thin-and-light laptops.

Q: Does the GPU support modern graphics APIs?

A: Yes, the Arc A370M supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4, making it compatible with current game titles and graphics workloads.

Q: What is the CPU's memory support?

A: The CPU supports LPDDR5X memory on a dual-channel bus with a maximum bandwidth of 153.6 GB/s. ECC memory is not supported.

Usage Scenarios

For high-refresh gaming, the benchmark data provides a mixed picture. The GPU's Geekbench scores of 29,676 for OpenCL and 28,673 for Vulkan indicate solid compute capability, but the 4 GB VRAM and 112.0 GB/s bandwidth are modest. The CPU's single-thread score of 4,005 in Passmark suggests strong per-core performance, which is crucial for frame pacing. However, at high refresh rates, the GPU is likely the limiting factor, as its 74th percentile ranking is below the CPU's 87th percentile. Estimated frame rates would be playable at 1080p with reduced settings, but not consistently competitive for 144 Hz panels in demanding titles.

Streaming is a viable workload for this configuration. The CPU's multicore performance is strong, with a Cinebench R23 multicore score of 28,221, which provides ample headroom for encoding while gaming. The Passmark multithread score of 32,956 further supports this, indicating the CPU can handle simultaneous game and encode workloads. The GPU's lack of dedicated tensor cores is not a drawback for streaming, as encoding is typically handled by dedicated hardware blocks. The 25 W CPU TDP, however, means sustained multicore loads will be thermally constrained, potentially limiting long streaming sessions.

Video editing is well-served by this configuration. The CPU's Cinebench R20 multicore score of 11,852 and R15 multicore score of 2,844 indicate strong rendering performance for a mobile part. The Passmark floating-point math score of 105,681 suggests excellent numerical throughput, which is beneficial for video effects and color grading. The GPU's 4 GB VRAM is a limitation for large projects with many high-resolution layers, but for 1080p editing, the configuration should handle timeline scrubbing and preview rendering adequately. The combined 60 W power envelope means sustained export times will be longer than desktop parts.

3D rendering is a workload where the CPU excels but the GPU lags. The CPU's Cinebench R23 multicore score of 28,221 places it well above average for CPU-based rendering, and the Passmark integer math score of 88,083 supports strong geometry processing. The GPU's 4.198 TFLOPS FP32 performance is modest for GPU-accelerated rendering, and its 8 RT cores are present but not numerous. The 74th percentile GPU ranking means render times using GPU acceleration will be acceptable but not class-leading. The CPU is the recommended primary render device for this configuration.

Software development benefits from the CPU's strong single-thread and multicore balance. The Passmark single-thread score of 4,005 and Cinebench R23 single-core score of 3,984 indicate snappy compilation of single files, while the multicore scores handle parallel builds efficiently. The data encryption score of 25,228 and data compression score of 312,927 in Passmark suggest solid performance for code signing and source archive operations. The 16 GB/s memory bandwidth is not a bottleneck for typical development workloads, and the PCIe Gen 5 lane supports fast storage for large repositories.

Student and office work is a straightforward scenario for this configuration. The CPU's 87th percentile ranking among all CPUs means it outperforms the vast majority of installed processors, making office applications, web browsing, and document processing feel responsive. The GPU's 74th percentile ranking is more than sufficient for 2D desktop acceleration and light graphics work. The 25 W CPU TDP contributes to long battery life potential, though the 35 W GPU adds to the overall draw. This is a capable machine for productivity tasks with headroom for occasional creative workloads.

Who Should Build It

The target users for this configuration are those who need a balanced mobile workstation without extreme performance in any single domain. Gamers at 1080p with medium-to-high settings will find the GPU sufficient for most titles, given the CPU's ability to feed frames efficiently. The CPU's 87th percentile ranking ensures no bottleneck in CPU-bound games, and the GPU's 74th percentile ranking provides a solid baseline. Content creators working with 1080p video or moderate-resolution images will benefit from the CPU's strong multicore scores, particularly the Cinebench R23 multicore result of 28,221, which accelerates export and render tasks.

Software developers will find this configuration well-suited, with the CPU's single-thread score of 4,005 in Passmark supporting fast interactive compilation and the multicore score of 32,956 handling parallel builds. Students in technical fields, such as engineering or computer science, will appreciate the balance of compute and graphics capability for both coursework and personal projects. Small business workstations that handle a mix of office productivity, light database work, and occasional graphics tasks will find the performance adequate, with the CPU's data compression score of 312,927 indicating efficient handling of file archives and the encryption score of 25,228 supporting secure communications.

The configuration is less suited for users who prioritize gaming above all else, as the GPU's 4 GB VRAM and 112.0 GB/s bandwidth are below the thresholds for high-resolution texture packs and advanced effects. Similarly, professionals doing heavy 3D rendering or machine learning inference will find the GPU's 4.198 TFLOPS FP32 and 8.397 TFLOPS FP16 (2:1) performance limiting. The system is best described as a capable all-rounder, with the CPU carrying the heavier load and the GPU providing adequate but not exceptional graphics acceleration.

CPU Analysis

The Intel Core Ultra X7 368H is a 16-core, 16-thread processor based on the Panther Lake architecture, manufactured on Intel's 3 nm process node. It has a base clock of 2.00 GHz and a boost clock of 5.00 GHz, with a TDP of 25 W. The cache hierarchy consists of 192 KB of L1 per core, 2.5 MB of L2 per core, and 18 MB of shared L3 cache. This is a uniform core design without hybrid architecture, meaning all 16 cores are identical and capable of identical performance.

The benchmark scores reveal a processor with strong single-thread and multicore capabilities. The Cinebench R23 single-core score of 3,984 and Passmark single-thread score of 4,005 indicate excellent per-core performance for a mobile part, which is critical for lightly-threaded tasks like web browsing and legacy software. The multicore scores are equally impressive: Cinebench R23 multicore of 28,221, Cinebench R20 multicore of 11,852, and Cinebench R15 multicore of 2,844. These scores place the CPU at the 87th percentile among all CPUs, meaning it outperforms 87% of the processors in the benchmark database.

The Passmark suite provides additional granularity. The multithread score of 32,956 and the floating-point math score of 105,681 show strong numerical throughput, while the integer math score of 88,083 indicates robust general-purpose processing. The data compression score of 312,927 is particularly high, suggesting efficient use of the 18 MB L3 cache, and the encryption score of 25,228 reflects the presence of AES-NI instructions. The extended instructions score of 25,669 and find prime numbers score of 321 round out the picture of a well-rounded processor. The random string sorting score of 38,093 indicates good memory subsystem performance, which is consistent with the 153.6 GB/s memory bandwidth.

The CPU's nearest rival is the Intel Core 7 253PE, with an average score of 40,557 versus the Ultra X7 368H's 40,518, a 0.1% difference. This places the two processors in the same performance tier. The AMD Ryzen 9 7940H scores 40,431, which is 0.2% behind, again indicating near-identical performance. The Intel Core 5 223PE scores 40,585, which is 0.2% ahead. This tight grouping suggests that the Ultra X7 368H is a mainstream high-performance part, not an outlier in either direction.

Gaming Performance

The FACT PACK contains no measured FPS data for this exact CPU+GPU combination. The measuredFpsUltraByGame field is empty, and dataIsMeasured is set to false. Therefore, all frame rate expectations discussed below are estimates derived from the CPU and GPU benchmark scores, not from direct game testing. The figures provided are qualitative interpretations of the benchmark data, not measured results.

Based on the GPU's Geekbench scores of 29,676 for OpenCL and 28,673 for Vulkan, and its 74th percentile ranking, the Arc A370M is capable of 1080p gaming at medium settings for most modern titles. The CPU's high single-thread score of 4,005 in Passmark ensures that game logic and physics simulation will not be a bottleneck. The GPU's 4 GB VRAM is the primary constraint, limiting texture quality and resolution. At 1080p with high textures, the configuration may struggle in VRAM-heavy titles, but at medium textures, it should maintain playable frame rates.

For esports titles like CS:GO or Valorant, the CPU's 5.00 GHz boost clock and strong single-thread performance would support high frame rates, but the GPU's 4.198 TFLOPS FP32 and 112.0 GB/s bandwidth would cap performance at approximately 100-144 FPS at 1080p low settings. For AAA titles like Cyberpunk 2077 or Assassin's Creed, frame rates would likely fall to 30-60 FPS at 1080p low-to-medium settings, with the GPU being the limiting factor. The 8 RT cores support ray tracing, but with only 4.198 TFLOPS of FP32, ray-traced effects would come at a significant performance cost.

The CPU's 87th percentile ranking versus the GPU's 74th percentile ranking suggests that the GPU is the bottleneck in gaming workloads. This is a typical imbalance for mobile configurations, where CPU performance is easier to scale than GPU performance due to power and thermal constraints. For high-refresh gaming at 144 Hz, the GPU would need to be upgraded to a higher-tier part, but within this configuration, users should target 60 Hz displays for a consistent experience.

Benchmark Performance

The CPU's average benchmark score is 40,518, placing it at the 87th percentile among all CPUs. The GPU's average benchmark score is 29,175, placing it at the 74th percentile among all GPUs. The combined percentile for the build is 81st, indicating that this configuration outperforms 81% of all tested systems. The CPU's individual benchmark scores include Cinebench R15 multicore of 2,844, Cinebench R20 multicore of 11,852, and Cinebench R23 multicore of 28,221. The single-core scores are 401 for Cinebench R15, 1,673 for Cinebench R20, and 3,984 for Cinebench R23.

The Passmark suite provides additional context. The multithread score is 32,956, the single-thread score is 4,005, the floating-point math score is 105,681, and the integer math score is 88,083. The data compression score is 312,927, the encryption score is 25,228, the extended instructions score is 25,669, and the find prime numbers score is 321. The physics score is 2,857, and the random string sorting score is 38,093. These scores collectively paint a picture of a CPU that excels at both integer and floating-point workloads, with particularly strong data compression capabilities.

The GPU's benchmark scores are limited to Geekbench results: 29,676 for OpenCL and 28,673 for Vulkan. The average of these two scores is 29,175. The GPU's nearest rival is the AMD Radeon RX Vega M GH with an average score of 29,197, placing the Arc A370M 0.1% behind. The AMD FirePro W8000 scores 29,211, also 0.1% ahead, while the AMD Radeon RX 470 scores 28,996, putting the Arc A370M 0.6% ahead. The AMD Radeon RX 6800M scores 28,874, which is 1% behind the Arc A370M.

The combined picture is one of a balanced system. The CPU is a high-performing part at the 87th percentile, and the GPU is a solid mid-range part at the 74th percentile. The gap of 13 percentage points between them is not extreme, but it does indicate that the CPU is the stronger component. This is confirmed by the combined percentile of 81, which is between the two individual percentiles, suggesting that the overall system performance is limited more by the GPU than the CPU.

Build Overview

This is a laptop-class build, as indicated by the buildClass field. The CPU is a mobile processor with a 25 W TDP, and the GPU is an IGP-slot device with a 35 W TDP, meaning it is designed to be soldered onto the motherboard. The combined 60 W thermal envelope is consistent with a thin-and-light or ultraportable laptop, not a gaming or workstation-class machine. The CPU is from the Core Ultra Series 3, specifically the Ultra X7 368H, and is based on the Panther Lake architecture. The GPU is from the Arc 3 Mobile generation, based on the Xe-HPG architecture.

The overall tier of this build is defined by the combined percentile of 81, which places it in the upper quintile of all tested systems. The CPU's 87th percentile ranking is notably high for a mobile part, and the GPU's 74th percentile is respectable. This is not a budget configuration, but it is also not a high-end gaming or rendering system. It is a balanced mid-to-high-tier laptop that can handle a wide range of tasks with consistent performance.

The CPU's 16 cores and 16 threads, combined with a 5.00 GHz boost clock, make it a powerful processor for both productivity and creative work. The GPU's 4 GB GDDR6 memory and 1024 shading units provide adequate graphics performance for 1080p gaming and light creative workloads. The combination of these two components results in a system that is greater than the sum of its parts, with the CPU's strength compensating for the GPU's relative weakness in CPU-bound tasks.

Balance and Bottleneck

The benchmark data clearly indicates that the GPU is the limiting factor in this configuration. The CPU's 87th percentile ranking versus the GPU's 74th percentile ranking shows a 13-point gap, meaning the CPU outperforms the GPU relative to their respective peer groups. In CPU-bound workloads, such as software compilation, data compression, and single-threaded applications, the CPU will perform at a high level, with the GPU playing little to no role. In GPU-bound workloads, such as gaming and GPU-accelerated rendering, the GPU will cap performance, and the CPU's extra headroom will go unused.

The FPS scaling evidence, while not measured, can be inferred from the benchmark scores. In gaming, the GPU's 4.198 TFLOPS FP32 and 112.0 GB/s bandwidth will determine frame rates, and the CPU's strong single-thread score of 4,005 in Passmark ensures that it will not be a bottleneck until frame rates exceed approximately 200 FPS, which is unlikely given the GPU's capability. In GPU-accelerated rendering, the GPU's 8 RT cores and 1024 shading units will be the constraint, and the CPU's multicore performance will only matter if the renderer uses hybrid CPU-GPU rendering.

The power balance is also relevant. The CPU's 25 W TDP and the GPU's 35 W TDP mean that the GPU draws more power, but the CPU has a higher performance ceiling. In a thermally constrained laptop, sustained workloads may cause the GPU to throttle before the CPU, further widening the performance gap. The memory bandwidth of 153.6 GB/s is shared between CPU and GPU, and the GPU's 112.0 GB/s is close to this limit, suggesting that memory bandwidth is not a bottleneck for either component.

The practical implication is that users should expect the GPU to be the primary upgrade target, but given the laptop form factor and the GPU's end-of-life status, this is not feasible. The CPU will remain the stronger component for the life of the system, and users should allocate workloads accordingly, using the CPU for compute-heavy tasks and the GPU for graphics-accelerated tasks where its 74th percentile performance is sufficient.

GPU Analysis

The Intel Arc A370M is a mobile GPU based on the DG2-128 chip, manufactured on TSMC's 6 nm process. It has 7,200 million transistors on a die size of 157 mm², giving a transistor density of 45.9 million per mm². The GPU has 1024 shading units, 64 texture mapping units, and 32 raster operation units, along with 8 RT cores for ray tracing. It does not have dedicated tensor cores, which is a notable absence for AI workloads, but it does support DirectX 12 Ultimate, OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4.

The clock speeds are a base of 1550 MHz and a boost of 2050 MHz, with memory operating at 1750 MHz, or 14 Gbps effective. The memory configuration is 4 GB of GDDR6 on a 64-bit bus, providing a bandwidth of 112.0 GB/s. The pixel rate is 65.60 GPixel/s, and the texture rate is 131.2 GTexel/s. The FP32 performance is 4.198 TFLOPS, and the FP16 performance is 8.397 TFLOPS at a 2:1 ratio. The TDP is 35 W, and the bus interface is PCIe 4.0 x8.

The benchmark scores are 29,676 for Geekbench OpenCL and 28,673 for Geekbench Vulkan, averaging 29,175. This places the GPU at the 74th percentile among all GPUs. Its nearest rival is the AMD Radeon RX Vega M GH with an average score of 29,197, which is 0.1% ahead. The AMD FirePro W8000 scores 29,211, also 0.1% ahead, while the AMD Radeon RX 470 scores 28,996, placing the Arc A370M 0.6% ahead. The AMD Radeon RX 6800M scores 28,874, which is 1% behind.

For rendering workloads, the GPU's 4.198 TFLOPS FP32 and 8.397 TFLOPS FP16 provide moderate compute throughput, but the 4 GB VRAM is a significant limitation for large scenes or high-resolution textures. The 112.0 GB/s bandwidth is also low for a discrete GPU, which will affect texture streaming and memory-intensive operations. The 8 RT cores support ray tracing, but with only 4.198 TFLOPS of FP32, ray-traced effects will be slow, and users should expect to use hybrid rendering techniques or disable ray tracing for playable frame rates. The GPU's end-of-life status means no further driver optimizations are likely, but the existing support for DirectX 12 Ultimate and Vulkan 1.4 ensures compatibility with current titles.

Rate My PC: Intel Core Ultra X7 368H + Intel Arc A370M

Apex Performer

System Balance Analysis

Intel Core Ultra X7 368H

Intel Arc A370M

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

Upgrade Path and Platform

FAQ

Usage Scenarios

Who Should Build It

CPU Analysis

Gaming Performance

Benchmark Performance

Build Overview

Balance and Bottleneck

GPU Analysis

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