Pc Building Simulator

How This Combo Ranks

The Intel Core i5-11400F paired with the Intel Arc B370 lands at rank 3436 out of 3723 tested combinations in the database for Pc Building Simulator. This places the combo in the bottom 8% of all recorded configurations, a position driven almost entirely by the graphics side of the equation. The CPU itself sits at the 71st percentile among all processors, a respectable mid-range standing, but the GPU's percentile ranking of 5 among all graphics cards drags the overall result down considerably.

What makes this ranking particularly striking is the asymmetry between the two components. The i5-11400F delivers solid synthetic scores, with a Cinebench R23 multi-core result of 14340 and a single-core score of 2024, numbers that place it comfortably ahead of many older desktop parts. The Arc B370, however, produces a 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 score of just 1184, which puts it in the company of GPUs from over a decade ago. The database indicates that this combination is not merely below average for the game, it is near the bottom of the entire distribution of tested hardware.

The implications are clear from the outset: this is a system where the processor has ample headroom, but the graphics solution becomes the limiting factor in nearly every scenario. The recorded frame rates confirm this pattern across all resolutions, with the combo struggling to maintain smooth gameplay even at 1080p in some presets. The ranking of 3436 out of 3723 is not a verdict on the CPU, which performs admirably in isolation, but rather a reflection of how severely the integrated-class GPU constrains the overall experience.

CPU and GPU Roles

The benchmark data reveals a system where the GPU dominates performance outcomes at every resolution, but the degree of that dominance shifts as resolution changes. At 3840x2160, the frame rates are so low across all settings, from 18 FPS at Ultra to 37 FPS at Low, that neither component can be said to be working effectively; the GPU is overwhelmed, and the CPU's capabilities are irrelevant when the renderer cannot produce frames quickly enough.

Moving to 2560x1440, the picture becomes more instructive. Low settings produce 71 FPS, while Medium drops to 50 FPS, High to 36 FPS, and Ultra to 34 FPS. The scaling from Low to Medium represents a 30% performance hit, while the jump from High to Ultra is a much smaller 6% decline. This pattern suggests that the GPU is the primary constraint, as the incremental cost of each preset tier is not linear; the largest single drop occurs between Low and Medium, indicating that the GPU's fill rate and shading capacity are exhausted early in the settings ladder.

At 1920x1080, the data shows the most balanced picture, though the GPU still leads the bottleneck analysis. Low settings deliver 113 FPS, Medium drops to 80 FPS, High falls to 56 FPS, and Ultra bottoms out at 54 FPS. The 41% reduction from Low to Medium, followed by a 30% reduction from Medium to High, then a mere 4% drop from High to Ultra, suggests that the CPU begins to matter more as resolution decreases. The i5-11400F's single-thread performance, a Geekbench single-core score of 1777, is sufficient to feed the GPU at 1080p Low, but once the graphics load increases, the Arc B370's limited compute resources, 6.144 TFLOPS of FP32 throughput, become the ceiling.

The measured data indicates that the CPU's role is largely passive in this pairing. The i5-11400F has 6 cores and 12 threads with a boost clock of 4.40 GHz, and its Passmark multi-thread score of 16908 suggests it could handle far more demanding graphics workloads. However, the Arc B370's 1280 shading units and 40 TMUs, paired with system-shared memory, create a situation where the GPU saturates long before the CPU is taxed. At 4K, the GPU is the absolute bottleneck; at 1440p, the GPU still leads; at 1080p, the CPU finally shows some relevance, but only at Low settings where the GPU has less work to do.

Best Settings per Resolution

At 3840x2160, no preset achieves the 60 FPS playability threshold. The highest recorded average is 37 FPS at Low settings, which falls well short of the target. The database's verdict for this resolution lists no playable settings, and the best settings field is null, confirming that 4K is not viable with this hardware.

At 2560x1440, the situation improves marginally. Low settings produce an average of 71 FPS, which clears the 60 FPS bar. Medium settings drop to 50 FPS, so they fail the threshold. The verdict identifies Low as the best playable option, with an average of 71 FPS at that preset. This means users at 1440p must accept minimal graphical fidelity to maintain smooth gameplay, as any increase in visual quality pushes frame rates below the playable mark.

At 1920x1080, the most demanding preset that stays at or above 60 FPS is Medium, with an average of 80 FPS. Low settings run even faster at 113 FPS, but Medium is the highest quality option that remains playable. High settings fall to 56 FPS, just below the threshold, and Ultra sits at 54 FPS. The database verdict confirms this, listing Low and Medium as playable settings, with Medium selected as the best option at 80 FPS average.

The pattern across resolutions is clear: this system can handle 1080p at medium quality, 1440p at low quality, and cannot handle 4K at any quality level. The frame rate margins are thin at the upper boundary, with High at 1080p missing the 60 FPS target by just 4 frames per second, suggesting that users with tolerance for minor stuttering might find it acceptable, but the data strictly identifies Medium as the highest playable preset.

Similar Performance Alternatives

The CPU's nearest rivals in the database provide context for its performance tier. The AMD EPYC 7H12 scores 17120, a 0.3% difference from the i5-11400F's 17177 average benchmark score. The Intel Core i5-12450H is 0.4% faster at 17239, while the AMD Ryzen 3 PRO 8300G is 0.6% faster at 17278. The Intel Core Ultra 7 164U trails by 0.6% at 17074. These deltas are all within a single percentage point, indicating that the i5-11400F sits in a tightly clustered performance band where real-world differences would be negligible.

For the GPU, the nearest rivals are all significantly older parts, which underscores the Arc B370's low standing. The ATI Mobility Radeon HD 5570 scores 1186, just 0.2% higher than the Arc B370's 1184. The ATI Radeon HD 5770 scores 1190, 0.5% higher, and the AMD Radeon HD 7650M scores 1192, 0.7% higher. The AMD FirePro M2000 trails by 1.4% at 1168. These are graphics solutions from the early 2010s, and the fact that a 2026-era integrated GPU matches them in raw 3DMark performance explains why the combo ranks so low in the game-specific database.

What this means for Pc Building Simulator is that swapping the CPU for any of its nearest rivals would produce nearly identical results, as the differences are under 1%. Swapping the GPU for any of its nearest rivals would also yield similar frame rates, since the 3DMark scores are within 1.4% of each other. In practical terms, the entire combo's performance envelope is defined by this low-end graphics tier, and the CPU's headroom offers no relief.

Measured FPS Breakdown

The recorded data provides a complete picture of performance across all three resolutions and four settings tiers.

At 3840x2160, the results are uniformly poor. Ultra settings average 18 FPS, High averages 19 FPS, Medium averages 26 FPS with a minimum of 22 and maximum of 30, and Low averages 37 FPS. The spread from worst to best is 19 FPS, but even the best case is far below playability. The Medium preset's min-max range of 22 to 30 FPS shows that even the most consistent setting at this resolution cannot hold a stable frame rate.

At 2560x1440, the numbers improve substantially. Ultra averages 34 FPS, High averages 36 FPS, Medium averages 50 FPS with a range of 43 to 58, and Low averages 71 FPS. The jump from High to Medium represents a 39% improvement, while the jump from Medium to Low is a 42% improvement. The Medium preset's maximum of 58 FPS is tantalizingly close to the 60 FPS threshold, but the average of 50 confirms that it does not sustain playable performance.

At 1920x1080, the data shows the full range of the hardware's capability. Ultra averages 54 FPS, High averages 56 FPS, Medium averages 80 FPS with a range of 68 to 92, and Low averages 113 FPS. The gap between High and Medium is 24 FPS, the largest single-tier jump in the entire dataset, illustrating how quickly the GPU's performance degrades as quality settings increase. The Medium preset's minimum of 68 FPS ensures that even the slowest frames clear the playability bar, making it the safest choice for consistent gameplay.

The min-max data points are sparse, with only the Medium presets at each resolution recording both bounds. At 4K Medium, the 8 FPS spread between min and max indicates heavy frame pacing variance. At 1440p Medium, the 15 FPS spread shows more volatility, likely due to scene complexity changes. At 1080p Medium, the 24 FPS spread is the largest, but the absolute floor of 68 FPS means the variance does not impact playability.

FAQ

Q: Can this system run Pc Building Simulator at 4K?

A: No. At 3840x2160, the highest recorded average is 37 FPS at Low settings, with Ultra at 18 FPS, High at 19 FPS, and Medium at 26 FPS. None of these approach the 60 FPS playability threshold.

Q: What is the best settings preset for 1080p gameplay?

A: Medium settings at 1920x1080 produce an average of 80 FPS, with a minimum of 68 and maximum of 92. This is the highest quality preset that maintains an average at or above 60 FPS. Low settings run at 113 FPS, but Medium is the best balance of quality and performance.

Q: How does the Intel Arc B370 compare to its nearest GPU rivals?

A: The Arc B370 scores 1184 in 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12. The ATI Mobility Radeon HD 5570 scores 1186, 0.2% higher, the ATI Radeon HD 5770 scores 1190, 0.5% higher, and the AMD Radeon HD 7650M scores 1192, 0.7% higher. The AMD FirePro M2000 scores 1168, 1.4% lower.

Q: Is the CPU or GPU the limiting factor in this combo?

A: The GPU is the primary bottleneck. The i5-11400F ranks in the 71st percentile among CPUs, while the Arc B370 ranks in the 5th percentile among GPUs. Frame rates scale dramatically with resolution and settings, which is characteristic of a GPU-bound system. The CPU's Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 14340 is more than sufficient for this simulation game.

Q: What frame rates can be expected at 1440p with Low settings?

A: At 2560x1440 with Low settings, the average frame rate is 71 FPS, which clears the 60 FPS threshold. Medium settings drop to 50 FPS, so Low is the only playable preset at this resolution.

Q: How does this combo rank among all tested systems for this game?

A: The combo ranks 3436 out of 3723 tested combinations. This places it in the bottom 8% of all configurations in the database for Pc Building Simulator.

The Verdict

The data is unambiguous: this PC can run Pc Building Simulator, but only under specific conditions. At 1920x1080, the system clears the 60 FPS threshold at Low and Medium settings, with Medium producing 80 FPS average and representing the best quality playable option. At 2560x1440, only Low settings achieve playability, averaging 71 FPS. At 3840x2160, no preset reaches 60 FPS, with the best case being 37 FPS at Low.

The verdict by resolution confirms this assessment. For 1080p, the playable settings are Low and Medium, with Medium as the best at 80 FPS. For 1440p, the only playable setting is Low at 71 FPS. For 4K, there are no playable settings, and the database records no best settings or associated frame rate.

The i5-11400F provides ample computational power, and its 71st percentile CPU ranking indicates it is not the constraining factor. The Arc B370, however, with its 5th percentile GPU ranking and 3DMark score of 1184, limits the system to 1080p Medium or 1440p Low for smooth gameplay. Users with this combination should target 1080p Medium for the best experience, accept 1440p Low if they prefer higher resolution, and avoid 4K entirely. The hardware is functional for the game, but the graphics solution's performance envelope leaves no room for high-fidelity gaming at higher resolutions.