SYSTEM ANALYZER

Rate My PC: Intel Core Ultra X9 388H + 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

93%

GPU

93%

PROCESSOR

Intel Core Ultra X9 388H

44,466 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

This is an unusual pairing. The data sheet places a next-generation Panther Lake mobile processor alongside a GPU from the previous Alchemist generation. It is a laptop configuration that sits at the 81st percentile overall, but the components themselves tell divergent stories. The CPU is a high-end mobile part with an 88th percentile ranking, while the GPU is a more modest entry-level discrete solution at the 74th percentile. This page analyzes that combination strictly from the provided benchmark data and technical specifications.

Usage Scenarios

For high-refresh gaming, the pairing presents a significant limitation. The Intel Arc A370M, with its 4 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 64-bit bus, is not positioned to drive frame rates at high refresh rates in demanding titles. While the CPU's strong single-thread performance (2200.5 in Cinebench R23 single-core) can handle game logic, the GPU's 4.198 TFLOPS of FP32 compute is the constraining factor. The data suggests this is not a system for 144Hz competitive gaming, as the GPU is the clear bottleneck in this workload.

Streaming and content creation see a more balanced picture. The CPU's 16 cores and 16 threads, combined with a 25W TDP, indicate a processor designed for sustained multi-threaded workloads. Its Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 18911 places it in a strong position for encoding tasks. The GPU's dedicated 8 RT cores and support for DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2) provide hardware acceleration for video encoding and AI-assisted effects, but the relatively low FP32 throughput will limit the speed of complex render effects in real-time.

Video editing benefits from the CPU's high integer math score of 90882 in PassMark, which helps with timeline scrubbing and effect processing. The combination of the CPU's 18 MB of shared L3 cache and the GPU's 112.0 GB/s of memory bandwidth allows for smooth 1080p editing workflows. The data indicates that 4K editing would be possible, but the GPU's 4 GB VRAM capacity could become a limiting factor with multiple high-resolution layers and effects, forcing the system to rely more heavily on the CPU's capabilities.

3D rendering workloads are heavily CPU-bound, and the data shows this processor excels in that area. The Cinebench R15 multi-core score of 2955 and the PassMark multi-threaded score of 36811 demonstrate substantial rendering muscle. The GPU's 1024 shading units can assist with viewport previews and GPU-accelerated renders, but its 4.198 TFLOPS of FP32 performance is far below what would be needed for professional-grade GPU rendering, making the CPU the primary workhorse for final frame production.

Software development is a mixed workload that this system handles competently. The CPU's PassMark data compression score of 361763 and random string sorting score of 44010 indicate strong performance for compilation tasks and code indexing. The single-thread score of 4280 in PassMark is particularly relevant for IDE responsiveness. The GPU's OpenCL score of 29676 suggests it can handle compute shaders for development tasks like physics simulations or data visualization, though the 4 GB memory limit restricts the size of datasets that can be processed on the GPU.

Student and office work is where this system is arguably overqualified on the CPU side. The processor's single-core performance is exceptional, but the GPU, while not a gaming powerhouse, is still a discrete solution that far exceeds integrated graphics capabilities. The 25W CPU TDP suggests good battery life potential for a laptop in this class, and the dual-channel LPDDR5X memory with 153.6 GB/s bandwidth provides ample headroom for typical productivity applications and multitasking.

Benchmark Performance

The CPU's average benchmark score is 44466, placing it at the 88th percentile of all CPUs. This is a strong result, but the nearest rivals show how tight the competition is at this level. The AMD Ryzen 5 7500X3D has an average score of 44573, which is 0.2% higher, making the performance difference essentially negligible. The Intel Core i9-13950HX is 0.3% behind at 44342, and the AMD Ryzen AI Max 385 is 0.4% behind at 44309. The data indicates this CPU is competitive with, but not decisively ahead of, previous generation high-end desktop and mobile parts.

The GPU's average benchmark score of 29175 places it at the 74th percentile of all GPUs. Its nearest rival, the AMD Radeon RX Vega M GH, scores 29197, a 0.1% difference that is within measurement noise. The AMD FirePro W8000 is also 0.1% behind at 29211. The Intel Arc A370M is 0.6% ahead of the AMD Radeon RX 470 (28996) and 1% ahead of the AMD Radeon RX 6800M (28874). This positions the GPU as a solid entry-level to mid-range mobile solution, capable of 1080p gaming but not high-end performance.

The combined picture is one of imbalance. The CPU is a top-tier mobile processor, while the GPU is a competent but not exceptional entry-level part. The combined percentile of 81 reflects this, pulling the system down from the CPU's 88th percentile. The data shows a system that is CPU-dominant in most workloads, with the GPU serving as a secondary accelerator rather than a primary compute engine.

CPU Analysis

The Intel Core Ultra X9 388H 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, indicating its position in Intel's mobile lineup. The base clock of 2.10 GHz boosts up to 5.10 GHz, showing a wide frequency range that allows for both power efficiency at idle and high performance under load. The 25W TDP for a 16-core processor is remarkably low, suggesting this is designed for thin-and-light laptops that prioritize battery life without sacrificing multi-threaded capability.

The cache hierarchy is substantial, with 192 KB of L1 per core, 3 MB of L2 per core, and 18 MB of shared L3 cache. The L3 cache is relatively small compared to some desktop parts, but the high L2 allocation per core helps mitigate this. The memory support for LPDDR5X over a dual-channel bus provides 153.6 GB/s of bandwidth, which is adequate for the CPU's needs but not exceptional for a modern high-core-count part.

The benchmark results reveal a processor that is exceptionally strong in single-threaded tasks. The Cinebench R23 single-core score of 2200.5 and the PassMark single-thread score of 4280 are both high, indicating excellent per-core performance. The multi-threaded scores are also strong, with Cinebench R23 multi-core at 18911 and PassMark multi-thread at 36811, but the scaling from single-core to multi-core is not linear, suggesting some thermal or power constraints under full load.

The PassMark sub-tests provide insight into specific workload characteristics. The data compression score of 361763 is very high, indicating strong performance in file archiving and data processing. The floating-point math score of 112550 is solid, while the integer math score of 90882 is slightly lower but still competitive. The extended instructions score of 29943 shows good AVX and SIMD performance, which benefits scientific and engineering workloads. The find prime numbers score of 358 is notably low, which is an odd result that may indicate a quirk in the benchmark rather than a real-world weakness.

Who Should Build It

The target user is someone who needs exceptional CPU performance in a laptop form factor but does not require top-tier GPU capabilities. Gamers at 1080p with medium to high settings would find this system adequate, as the GPU can handle most titles at that resolution, but the CPU ensures that frame rates remain stable even in CPU-intensive scenes. Gamers at 1440p or 4K would be better served by a different configuration, as the GPU would become the limiting factor at those resolutions.

Content creators who work primarily with CPU-bound tasks such as video encoding, batch photo processing, and 3D rendering would benefit from this system. The 16 cores provide substantial parallel processing power, and the high single-core performance ensures responsive editing software. The GPU can offload some tasks, but the CPU is the primary workhorse.

Software developers would find this system well-suited for their needs. The high single-thread performance makes IDEs and code editors feel snappy, while the multi-threaded performance speeds up compilation times. The data compression and string sorting scores suggest efficient handling of large codebases and build systems.

Students in engineering, computer science, or data analysis programs would benefit from the CPU performance for their computational coursework. The low TDP suggests good battery life for all-day use in classes, and the discrete GPU provides enough performance for CAD visualization or basic machine learning experiments. Small business workstations that run complex spreadsheets, databases, or virtual machines would also see strong performance from the CPU, with the GPU providing hardware acceleration for any graphics-intensive applications.

GPU Analysis

The Intel Arc A370M is based on the Xe-HPG architecture, specifically the DG2-128 chip built on TSMC's 6 nm process. It contains 7,200 million transistors on a 157 mm² die, giving a transistor density of 45.9M per mm². The GPU has 1024 shading units, 64 texture mapping units, and 32 raster output units. It also includes 8 RT cores for hardware-accelerated ray tracing, though the lack of tensor cores means AI acceleration is handled differently than in competing architectures.

The memory subsystem consists of 4 GB of GDDR6 on a 64-bit bus, providing 112.0 GB/s of bandwidth. The memory clock is 1750 MHz, which translates to 14 Gbps effective. This is a significant limitation for a modern GPU, as 4 GB of VRAM is insufficient for high-resolution textures in modern games and many professional applications. The 64-bit bus is also narrow, limiting memory bandwidth.

The core clocks are 1550 MHz base and 2050 MHz boost, which are respectable for a mobile GPU. The compute performance is rated at 4.198 TFLOPS for FP32 and 8.397 TFLOPS for FP16 with a 2:1 ratio. The pixel rate is 65.60 GPixel/s and the texture rate is 131.2 GTexel/s. These figures place the GPU in the entry-level to mid-range category for mobile graphics.

The benchmark scores show the GPU achieving 29676 in Geekbench OpenCL and 28673 in Geekbench Vulkan. The Vulkan score being lower than OpenCL is notable, as it suggests the driver optimization for Vulkan may not be as mature as for OpenCL. The GPU supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4, indicating full support for modern graphics APIs. The PCIe 4.0 x8 interface is sufficient for this class of GPU, though it limits bandwidth compared to x16 connections.

Gaming Performance

The FACT PACK contains no measured FPS data for this exact CPU and GPU combination. All frame rate expectations are therefore estimates based on the benchmark scores and should be treated as approximations.

For esports titles like Counter-Strike 2 or Valorant, the GPU's 4.198 TFLOPS of FP32 compute should be sufficient for high frame rates at 1080p with competitive settings. The CPU's strong single-core performance will help maintain high minimum frame rates, but the GPU will still be the limiting factor in reaching very high refresh rates.

For AAA games at 1080p, the GPU can be expected to handle medium settings at playable frame rates, likely in the 30-60 FPS range depending on the title. The 4 GB VRAM will be a constraint in games with large texture packs, potentially causing stuttering or requiring reduced texture quality. The GPU's 74th percentile ranking relative to all GPUs suggests it is in the mid-range of mobile graphics, capable of 1080p gaming but not at maximum settings.

At 1440p, the GPU would struggle to maintain playable frame rates in demanding titles. The narrow 64-bit memory bus and limited bandwidth of 112.0 GB/s would become a bottleneck, and the 4 GB VRAM would be insufficient for most modern games at this resolution. The CPU would not be the limiting factor at this resolution; the GPU would clearly be the constraint.

Ray tracing performance would be poor due to the limited number of RT cores and the low overall compute throughput. While the GPU supports DirectX 12 Ultimate, enabling ray tracing would likely result in frame rates that are too low for practical gaming. The data suggests this is a GPU best suited for 1080p gaming with ray tracing disabled.

FAQ

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

A: The combined percentile for this system is 81, which places it above the majority of configurations but below the top tier.

Q: How does the CPU compare to its nearest rival, the AMD Ryzen 5 7500X3D?

A: The Intel Core Ultra X9 388H has an average benchmark score of 44466, while the AMD Ryzen 5 7500X3D scores 44573. This makes the AMD part 0.2% faster, which is a negligible difference.

Q: What is the GPU's memory bandwidth and how does it affect performance?

A: The GPU has a memory bandwidth of 112.0 GB/s, provided by 4 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 64-bit bus. This bandwidth is sufficient for 1080p gaming but limits performance at higher resolutions.

Q: Does the CPU support ECC memory?

A: No, the CPU does not support ECC memory. It supports LPDDR5X memory over a dual-channel bus with a bandwidth of 153.6 GB/s.

Q: What is the production status of the GPU?

A: The GPU is listed as end-of-life, with a release date of 2022-03-29. The CPU is listed as active in production.

Q: What is the socket type for this CPU?

A: The CPU uses the Intel BGA 2540 socket, which is a ball grid array design for mobile processors.

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.

Build Overview

This is a laptop configuration pairing a high-end mobile CPU with a mid-range entry-level mobile GPU. The Intel Core Ultra X9 388H is a 16-core processor based on the Panther Lake architecture, built on a 3 nm process node. The Intel Arc A370M is a 4 GB GPU based on the Xe-HPG architecture, built on a 6 nm process. The system is classified as a laptop and holds an 81st percentile ranking overall.

The CPU's 88th percentile ranking among all CPUs indicates it is a top-tier mobile processor, competitive with desktop parts from the previous generation. The GPU's 74th percentile ranking places it in the mid-range of all GPUs, capable of handling mainstream gaming and content creation tasks but not high-end workloads. The combination creates a system that is CPU-dominant, with the processor providing the majority of the computational power.

This is not a balanced pairing in the traditional sense. The CPU is capable of driving much more powerful GPUs, and the GPU is the limiting factor in graphics-intensive workloads. However, for users who prioritize CPU performance for productivity tasks and only need moderate GPU capabilities, this system represents a logical configuration.

Balance and Bottleneck

The data clearly shows the GPU is the bottleneck in most graphics-intensive workloads. The GPU's 74th percentile ranking compared to the CPU's 88th percentile means the GPU is significantly weaker relative to its peers than the CPU is. In gaming, the GPU would be the limiting factor, with the CPU having substantial headroom to spare. The GPU's 4 GB VRAM and 64-bit memory bus are likely to cause issues in modern games that require more memory bandwidth.

In CPU-bound workloads such as 3D rendering, video encoding, and compilation, the CPU is the primary performer, and the GPU's role is secondary. The CPU's high multi-threaded scores (18911 in Cinebench R23 multi-core, 36811 in PassMark multi-thread) indicate it can handle these tasks efficiently, while the GPU provides acceleration for specific operations.

The FPS scaling in gaming would be heavily dependent on the GPU. At 1080p, the GPU would likely be the bottleneck in most titles, with the CPU providing enough performance to avoid being a limiting factor. At lower resolutions or with less demanding games, the CPU might become the bottleneck in frame rate generation, but this is unlikely given the CPU's strong single-core performance.

The memory configuration also creates a potential bottleneck. The CPU's dual-channel LPDDR5X memory with 153.6 GB/s bandwidth is adequate, but the GPU's 112.0 GB/s bandwidth on a 64-bit bus is low. This means the GPU may struggle with texture streaming and large data transfers, further limiting its performance.

Upgrade Path and Platform

The CPU uses the Intel BGA 2540 socket, which is a soldered mobile socket, meaning the CPU cannot be upgraded. The memory support is limited to LPDDR5X over a dual-channel bus, with no ECC support. The PCIe interface is Gen 5 with 4 lanes available from the CPU, which provides high bandwidth for connecting to a discrete GPU or other peripherals, though the GPU itself uses PCIe 4.0 x8.

The GPU has a TDP of 35W, and the CPU has a TDP of 25W, giving a combined TDP of 60W for the core components. There is no suggested PSU listed, but for a laptop, the power delivery is integrated into the system design. The GPU is listed as end-of-life, so no future driver optimizations are guaranteed, and the hardware is no longer being manufactured.

A sensible next upgrade for this system would be a newer GPU with more VRAM and higher memory bandwidth, but the BGA socket and laptop form factor limit upgradeability. The CPU's high performance means it would not need to be replaced for several generations, but the GPU's end-of-life status means it will become increasingly outdated as newer games and applications require more graphics memory and compute power. The system's overall performance is capped by the GPU, so any meaningful upgrade would require a new laptop rather than component swaps.

Rate My PC: Intel Core Ultra X9 388H + Intel Arc A370M

Apex Performer

System Balance Analysis

Intel Core Ultra X9 388H

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

Usage Scenarios

Benchmark Performance

CPU Analysis

Who Should Build It

GPU Analysis

Gaming Performance

FAQ

Build Overview

Balance and Bottleneck

Upgrade Path and Platform

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