Pc Building Simulator

The pairing of AMD's Ryzen 5 8400F with Intel's Arc B570 is an unconventional cross-vendor build, but the benchmark data for PC Building Simulator shows it is a thoroughly competent combination for a simulation title released in early 2019. Both components sit in the upper-middle of the performance distribution — the CPU at the 77th percentile versus all tested processors and the GPU at the 65th percentile versus all tested graphics cards — and neither is meaningfully stressed by this game. Below, the measured frame rates are walked through resolution by resolution, preset by preset, alongside the hardware context that explains the results.

FAQ

Q: Can the Ryzen 5 8400F + Arc B570 run PC Building Simulator at 60 FPS?

A: Yes, at 1080p and 1440p. At 1920x1080 every preset clears the threshold, topping out at 91 FPS on Ultra. At 2560x1440, Low, Medium, and High all stay at or above 60 FPS, with High delivering 61 FPS. At 3840x2160, only Low clears the bar, at 63 FPS.

Q: What is the single fastest measured result for this combo in the game?

A: 192 FPS, recorded at 1920x1080 on the Low preset. The slowest measured average is 30 FPS at 3840x2160 on Ultra.

**Q: How does the Ryzen 5 8400F compare to rival CPUs?

A: Its average benchmark score of 25005 places it within a fraction of a percent of the AMD Ryzen 5 7500F (24964, a 0.2% gap), Intel Core i7-11850H (24935, 0.3%), Intel Core i7-13620H (24911, 0.4%), and AMD EPYC 9474F (25103, −0.4%). In practice these processors are statistically interchangeable in this database's aggregate scoring.

Q: How does the Arc B570 stack up against comparable GPUs?

A: Its average score of 20556 is effectively tied with the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3070 Mobile (20534, 0.1% apart), Intel Arc A750 (20582, −0.1%), NVIDIA Quadro M4000M (20480, 0.4%), and AMD Radeon R9 M390X (20662, −0.5%). Expect near-identical gaming behavior from any of these cards in this title.

Q: Where does this exact CPU+GPU combination rank in PC Building Simulator?

A: It ranks 2997 out of 3723 tested combinations in this game — roughly the lower fifth of the ranked field, which simply reflects how undemanding the game is: faster hardware exists, but this combo already exceeds the playable threshold at two of three resolutions.

Q: What CPU and GPU benchmarks back up these results?

A: The Ryzen 5 8400F posts a Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 20851, a single-core score of 2943, and a PassMark multithread score of 24389. The Arc B570 posts a PassMark G3D score of 14195 and a 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 score of 2649.

CPU and GPU Roles

The scaling data indicates this game is GPU-bound at every resolution tested, which is typical of a simulation title from 2019 running on 2024- and 2025-era hardware. The evidence is in the frame-rate collapse as pixel count rises: at 1080p Low the combo averages 192 FPS, at 1440p Low it drops to 121 FPS, and at 4K Low it falls to 63 FPS — a reduction of roughly two-thirds from 1080p to 4K. If the CPU were the limiting factor, frame rates would plateau across resolutions instead of scaling down almost in lockstep with the increased pixel load.

Preset scaling tells the same story. At 1920x1080, moving from Low to Ultra costs 101 FPS (192 down to 91), a steep settings-driven decline that points at the graphics card absorbing the difference. The Ryzen 5 8400F — six Zen 4 cores, twelve threads, a 4.70 GHz boost clock, and a single-thread PassMark score of 3685 — is never the constraint here. Its Cinebench R23 single-core result of 2943 is far beyond what this simulation demands per frame. The Arc B570, with 2304 shading units and 11.52 TFLOPS of FP32 throughput, is the component doing the meaningful work, and its 10 GB of GDDR6 on a 160-bit bus means memory capacity is never a question at any tested resolution.

How This Combo Ranks

This pairing ranks 2997 out of 3723 combinations tested in PC Building Simulator. Taken at face value, that placement is low — but the context matters. The rank reflects raw frame-rate ordering across the entire tested field, and because the game is lightweight, much of the field above it consists of hardware that is overkill for a title like this. The verdict data shows the combo already clears the 60 FPS playable threshold at every preset at 1080p and at three of four presets at 1440p. In other words, the rank measures headroom the user will never need rather than a shortfall in playability. The components themselves are mid-to-upper-tier in the broader database — 77th percentile for the CPU, 65th for the GPU — and the game simply does not exploit the difference between this hardware and the leaderboard-toppers.

The Verdict

Yes, this PC can run PC Building Simulator, with one caveat at 4K. The clear picture by resolution:

• 1920x1080: Fully playable on every preset. Low (192 FPS), Medium (136), High (96), and Ultra (91) all exceed 60 FPS comfortably, and Ultra is the recommended setting.
• 2560x1440: Playable on Low (121 FPS), Medium (86), and High (61). Only Ultra falls short at 58 FPS — a near miss, but below the threshold nonetheless. High is the recommended preset.
• 3840x2160: Playable only on Low, at 63 FPS — a three-frame margin over the threshold. Medium (45), High (32), and Ultra (30) do not qualify.

For a 60 Hz display at 1080p or 1440p, the data shows no compromise is required; the user can max out settings at 1080p and drop a single preset tier at 1440p. 4K is technically achievable but only with the visual workload stripped down.

Similar Performance Alternatives

On the CPU side, the nearest rivals are all within half a percent in aggregate score, so any of them would produce indistinguishable results in this game. The AMD Ryzen 5 7500F (24964 average score, 0.2% behind) is the most direct substitute — the same brand and a statistically identical performer. The Intel Core i7-11850H (24935, 0.3% gap) and Intel Core i7-13620H (24911, 0.4% gap) are mobile-class parts that land in the same scoring band, and the AMD EPYC 9474F (25103, actually 0.4% ahead) shows how compressed this segment of the leaderboard is.

On the GPU side, the Intel Arc A750 (20582 average score, 0.1% ahead) is the natural sibling — same manufacturer, effectively the same measured performance, and would be expected to mirror the B570's frame rates in this title. The NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3070 Mobile (20534, 0.1% behind), NVIDIA Quadro M4000M (20480, 0.4% behind), and AMD Radeon R9 M390X (20662, 0.5% ahead) round out a cluster of cards separated by fractions of a percent. Any of these substitutions would leave the game's verdict unchanged: playable at all presets at 1080p, all but Ultra at 1440p, and Low-only at 4K.

Best Settings per Resolution

• 1920x1080 — Ultra, 91 FPS average. The most demanding preset in the game still delivers a 31-FPS cushion over the 60 FPS threshold. There is nothing left to enable.
• 2560x1440 — High, 61 FPS average. Ultra slips to 58 FPS and misses the cut, so High is the highest preset that holds the line, with Medium (86 FPS) available for additional headroom.
• 3840x2160 — Low, 63 FPS average. The only 4K preset above threshold, and only barely. Medium drops to 45 FPS, so the margin at Low should be treated as thin.

Measured FPS Breakdown

All figures are measured averages from the database; min/max frames were captured only for Medium-preset runs.

1920x1080:

| Preset | Avg FPS | Min FPS | Max FPS |

|---|---|---|---|

| Low | 192 | — | — |

| Medium | 136 | 115 | 156 |

| High | 96 | — | — |

| Ultra | 91 | — | — |

The 1080p results show a smooth, evenly spaced ladder from Ultra to Low, with frame rates roughly doubling from Ultra to Low. The Medium-run spread of 115 to 156 FPS indicates stable frame delivery with no pathological dips — the minimum never approaches the playable threshold.

2560x1440:

| Preset | Avg FPS | Min FPS | Max FPS |

|---|---|---|---|

| Low | 121 | — | — |

| Medium | 86 | 73 | 99 |

| High | 61 | — | — |

| Ultra | 58 | — | — |

The step from Medium to High is the steepest relative drop at this resolution, costing 25 FPS. The Medium-run minimum of 73 FPS confirms that even worst-case frames stay above 60 at 1440p, while High's 61 FPS average leaves essentially no buffer — frame-time variance would occasionally dip below threshold there.

3840x2160:

| Preset | Avg FPS | Min FPS | Max FPS |

|---|---|---|---|

| Low | 63 | — | — |

| Medium | 45 | 38 | 52 |

| High | 32 | — | — |

| Ultra | 30 | — | — |

At 4K the ladder compresses at the bottom — High and Ultra are only 2 FPS apart — which suggests the heaviest presets are hitting a similar rendering cost ceiling. The Medium-run range of 38 to 52 FPS sits entirely below the playable threshold. Low's 63 FPS average is the only 4K result that qualifies, and with no minimum-frame data captured at that setting, some dips below 60 are plausible. The data overall supports a straightforward recommendation: play at 1080p Ultra or 1440p High, and treat 4K as achievable but tight.