Pc Building Simulator

The Intel Core i5-14400F paired with the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3080 delivers a performance profile that is markedly stronger at lower resolutions, with the data showing a clear progression from a comfortable 4K experience to extremely high refresh rate dominance at 1080p. This combination places 1048th out of 3723 tested combos, putting it in the upper third of all systems benchmarked for Pc Building Simulator. The measured FPS data indicates that this pairing is well-balanced for the game, with the CPU's strong multi-core capabilities complementing the GPU's substantial rasterization power.

Best Settings per Resolution

The benchmark data identifies the most demanding preset that maintains an average of at least 60 FPS at each resolution. For this combo, the results are straightforward, with no resolution proving too demanding for the hardware.

At 3840x2160 (4K), the highest playable setting is High, which produces an average of 60.5 FPS. This is a marginal pass over the 60 FPS threshold, leaving almost no headroom for fluctuations. The data shows that stepping up to Ultra drops the average to 52.8 FPS, which falls below the playable threshold. For a smoother experience at 4K, dropping to Medium yields 82.7 FPS, and Low hits 115.6 FPS. If you prioritize visual fidelity over a perfect frame rate lock, High is acceptable, but the slim margin suggests that Medium is a more consistent choice for 4K gaming.

At 2560x1440 (1440p), the combo can handle the maximum preset. Ultra settings produce an average of 107.7 FPS, which is well above the 60 FPS target. This leaves ample room for dips during complex scenes. The data also shows High at 112.2 FPS, Medium at 154.9 FPS, and Low at 221.4 FPS. The choice between Ultra and High is nearly academic given the small 4.5 FPS difference, so opting for Ultra is the logical conclusion for 1440p.

At 1920x1080 (1080p), the hardware is far from stressed. Ultra settings deliver an average of 165.1 FPS, which is more than double the playable threshold. This makes Ultra the definitive best setting for 1080p. Lowering settings provides diminishing returns, with High at 173.6 FPS, Medium at 250.5 FPS, and Low at 350.9 FPS. The incremental gains from dropping below Ultra are minimal relative to the visual sacrifice, so there is no reason to use anything other than the maximum preset at this resolution.

CPU and GPU Roles

The data reveals how the balance of workload shifts between the CPU and GPU across resolutions. At 1080p, the average FPS at Low settings reaches 350.9, which is nearly triple the 4K Low result of 115.6 FPS. This massive scaling factor indicates that the GPU is the primary limiter at higher resolutions, while the CPU has ample headroom to feed frames at lower resolutions. The i5-14400F, with its 10 cores and 16 threads, is more than capable of handling the simulation logic and physics at any resolution, as evidenced by the high frame rates even at 4K.

The difference between 1440p and 4K is telling. At 1440p Ultra, the average is 107.7 FPS, while at 4K Ultra, it drops to 52.8 FPS — a reduction of roughly 51%. This halving of performance when moving from 1440p to 4K is characteristic of a GPU-bound scenario. The RTX 3080's 10 GB of GDDR6X memory and 760.3 GB/s bandwidth are sufficient for 1440p, but the increased pixel count at 4K strains the GPU's compute units, specifically its 8704 shading units.

Conversely, the scaling between presets at the same resolution shows the CPU's role. At 4K, moving from Low to Ultra reduces FPS from 115.6 to 52.8. This 62.8 FPS drop is entirely due to increased GPU workload, as the CPU's task remains constant regardless of visual quality. The fact that the CPU can sustain over 115 FPS at 4K Low suggests it is not a bottleneck at any setting, even at 1080p Ultra where the GPU is producing 165.1 FPS. The data indicates that the RTX 3080 is the dominant component for this game, with the i5-14400F providing sufficient single-thread and multi-thread performance to avoid limiting frame rates.

Measured FPS Breakdown

The complete dataset provides a detailed view of performance across all tested configurations. At 3840x2160, the results are as follows: Low averages 115.6 FPS, Medium averages 82.7 FPS, High averages 60.5 FPS, and Ultra averages 52.8 FPS. The gap between High and Ultra is 7.7 FPS, which is the smallest incremental drop in the 4K set, indicating that Ultra's additional effects are relatively cheap but still push the GPU past its limit.

At 2560x1440, the numbers are substantially higher. Low delivers 221.4 FPS, Medium reaches 154.9 FPS, High hits 112.2 FPS, and Ultra achieves 107.7 FPS. Notably, the difference between High and Ultra at 1440p is only 4.5 FPS, which is even smaller than the 4K gap. This suggests that the GPU has enough headroom at 1440p to absorb the extra load of Ultra settings without a significant penalty.

At 1920x1080, the performance is exceptional across the board. Low produces 350.9 FPS, Medium comes in at 250.5 FPS, High reaches 173.6 FPS, and Ultra tops out at 165.1 FPS. The drop from Low to Medium is 100.4 FPS, which is the largest single-step reduction in the dataset, showing that Medium introduces significant GPU work. However, the step from High to Ultra is only 8.5 FPS, reinforcing the pattern that the highest preset is not disproportionately demanding relative to High.

Similar Performance Alternatives

The nearestRivals data provides context for what other hardware would behave similarly to the components in this combo. For the CPU, the Intel Core i5-14400F has an average benchmark score of 32279. Its closest rival is the AMD Ryzen 7 PRO 8840U, with an average score of 32233, representing a deltaPct of 0.1%. This means the i5-14400F is effectively tied with that mobile processor in synthetic tests. The Intel Core i9-11900 scores 32226, a 0.2% difference, also placing it in the same performance tier. On the other side, the AMD Ryzen 7 6800HS scores 32354, which is 0.2% higher, and the Intel Core i7-12800H scores 32121, which is 0.5% lower. All four rivals are within a 0.7% range, indicating that any of these CPUs would deliver nearly identical frame rates in Pc Building Simulator.

For the GPU, the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3080 has an average benchmark score of 23172. Its nearest rival is the NVIDIA P106-100 with a score of 23249, a deltaPct of -0.3%, meaning the RTX 3080 is 0.3% slower. The AMD Radeon Pro Vega 16 scores 23250, also -0.3% relative to the RTX 3080. The AMD Radeon RX 6600M scores 23273, a -0.4% difference, and the AMD Radeon R9 M290X scores 23276, also -0.4%. These deltaPct values are all negative, which means the RTX 3080 sits just below these rivals in average score. However, the differences are negligible — less than half a percent — so in practical gaming terms, any of these GPUs would produce nearly identical FPS results. It is importantly these rivals span different generations and market segments, but the benchmark data groups them together based on raw compute performance.

How This Combo Ranks

The comboRankInGame field places this specific CPU-GPU pairing at 1048 out of 3723 tested combinations. This percentile position — roughly the 72nd percentile — indicates that the i5-14400F and RTX 3080 together outperform the majority of systems tested for Pc Building Simulator. The rank is a holistic measure that accounts for the balance between the two components, not just their individual strengths. Given that the CPU ranks in the 83rd percentile among all CPUs and the GPU ranks in the 68th percentile among all GPUs, the combined rank of 1048 suggests the pairing is slightly more effective than the GPU's individual standing would imply, likely due to the CPU's strong single-thread performance which matters in simulation games.

The rank also reflects the game's specific demands. Pc Building Simulator is a simulation title that may not stress the GPU as heavily as a fast-paced shooter would, but the RTX 3080 still provides ample graphics horsepower. The i5-14400F's 20 MB of L3 cache and 4.70 GHz boost clock contribute to strong per-core performance, which helps with the game's logic and UI rendering. In the context of all combos, this system sits comfortably in the upper echelon, with only about 28% of tested configurations achieving a better rank.

The Verdict

The verdictByResolution data provides a clear answer to whether this PC can run Pc Building Simulator. At 3840x2160, the playable settings are High, Low, and Medium, with the best setting being High at 60.5 FPS. This means the game is playable at 4K, but only just barely at the highest quality preset. At 2560x1440, all four settings are playable, with Ultra as the best setting at 107.7 FPS. This is a fully comfortable experience with significant headroom. At 1920x1080, all settings are also playable, with Ultra delivering 165.1 FPS, which is ideal for high refresh rate monitors.

In practical terms, this system can run Pc Building Simulator at 60 FPS or above on the highest settings at 1080p and 1440p, and on High settings at 4K. The only configuration that fails to meet the 60 FPS threshold is 4K Ultra, which averages 52.8 FPS. For most users, the 1440p Ultra experience is the sweet spot, offering a high frame rate and maximum visual quality. At 4K, sticking to High is advised to stay above the playable threshold, though users with variable refresh rate monitors may find the 52.8 FPS at Ultra to be acceptable if they prefer maximum fidelity over a locked 60 FPS. Overall, this combo is more than sufficient for the game, with performance that scales well across all common resolutions.