Pc Building Simulator

Best Settings per Resolution

At 3840x2160, no preset reaches the 60 FPS threshold. The recorded data shows High settings produce an average of 21 FPS, Medium averages 29 FPS, Low averages 41 FPS, and Ultra averages 20 FPS. Since none of these clear the playable threshold, there is no recommended setting for 4K; the combination cannot sustain a fluid experience at any quality level.

At 2560x1440, the only preset that stays at or above 60 FPS is Low, with an average of 79 FPS. Medium falls short at 56 FPS, High drops to 39 FPS, and Ultra sits at 38 FPS. Therefore, the best settings for 1440p are Low, which delivers a comfortable margin above the 60 FPS target.

At 1920x1080, the situation improves considerably. High settings achieve an average of 62 FPS, just above the threshold. Medium reaches 88 FPS, Low hits 125 FPS, and Ultra manages 59 FPS, which narrowly misses the target. The best settings for 1080p are High, since it is the most demanding preset that still stays at or above 60 FPS. Ultra, despite being the highest quality tier, falls one frame short of the playable mark.

The pattern is consistent: as resolution decreases, the headroom above 60 FPS grows, and higher presets become viable. At 1080p, the gap between Ultra and High is only 3 FPS, indicating that the GPU is nearing its limit at the top preset even at the lowest resolution tested.

CPU and GPU Roles

Benchmark results indicate that the GPU is the dominant constraint across all resolutions. The Intel Arc B390, with a 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 score of 1482, sits at the 9th percentile among all GPUs. This places it far below the CPU's standing: the Intel Core i5-14600K ranks at the 90th percentile among all CPUs, with an average benchmark score of 48618. The disparity between these two components is stark, and the frame rate data reflects that imbalance.

At 3840x2160, the GPU is unquestionably the limiting factor. Moving from Low to Medium raises the average from 41 to 29 FPS, a drop of 12 FPS, while moving from Medium to High drops another 8 FPS to 21. Ultra yields 20 FPS, essentially matching High. These steep reductions with each preset increase are typical of a GPU-bound scenario, where the rendering load outpaces the hardware's capabilities.

At 2560x1440, the same pattern holds. Low averages 79 FPS, Medium drops to 56, High falls to 39, and Ultra lands at 38. The scaling from Low to Medium is a 23 FPS loss, while the difference between High and Ultra is negligible at 1 FPS. This suggests that once the preset reaches a certain complexity, the GPU cannot translate additional settings into meaningful visual performance, and the frame rate plateaus near 38 to 39 FPS.

At 1920x1080, the CPU begins to show its strength, but the GPU still governs the upper limits. Low delivers 125 FPS, more than double the 4K Low figure. Medium achieves 88 FPS, High reaches 62, and Ultra sits at 59. The CPU's high multithreaded performance, evidenced by a Cinebench R23 multicore score of 24491 and a Passmark multithread score of 38682, ensures that the simulation logic, shop management, and component assembly tasks do not bottleneck at lower resolutions. However, the Arc B390's modest shading power, 1536 shading units and 7.680 TFLOPS FP32, caps the frame rate once the preset demands more intensive rendering.

The resolution scaling reinforces this interpretation. At Low settings, the jump from 1080p to 1440p reduces the average from 125 to 79 FPS, a 37% drop, and from 1440p to 4K it falls to 41 FPS, another 48% reduction. These large proportional losses are characteristic of a GPU-limited configuration. At Ultra, the differences are smaller: 59 FPS at 1080p, 38 at 1440p, and 20 at 4K, which still indicates GPU saturation but with diminishing returns as the preset becomes too heavy for the hardware at any resolution.

In summary, the data shows that the Core i5-14600K is more than capable of feeding the Arc B390 at every resolution tested. The GPU determines whether the game reaches 60 FPS, and the CPU's role is secondary, mainly preventing physics and simulation calculations from dragging down performance at lower resolutions where the GPU has spare capacity.

Measured FPS Breakdown

The measured FPS table provides the full picture across three resolutions and four presets. At 3840x2160, the results are as follows: Low averages 41 FPS with no recorded minimum or maximum; Medium averages 29 FPS with a minimum of 25 and a maximum of 34; High averages 21 FPS with no extremes recorded; Ultra averages 20 FPS with no extremes recorded. The Medium preset is the only one at 4K with a full min/max range, showing a 9 FPS spread between the lowest and highest measured values.

At 2560x1440, Low averages 79 FPS without extremes; Medium averages 56 FPS with a minimum of 47 and a maximum of 64; High averages 39 FPS without extremes; Ultra averages 38 FPS without extremes. The Medium preset again provides the only complete range, with a 17 FPS spread, indicating some frame time variability but still within a tolerable band for a simulation title.

At 1920x1080, the numbers improve across the board. Low averages 125 FPS; Medium averages 88 FPS with a minimum of 75 and a maximum of 102; High averages 62 FPS; Ultra averages 59 FPS. The Medium preset's range of 27 FPS is the widest recorded in the entire dataset, suggesting that at this resolution and preset, the workload fluctuates more noticeably, possibly due to scene complexity in the simulation.

Looking at the progression at each resolution, the pattern is consistent: Low is always the fastest, followed by Medium, then High, with Ultra either matching or slightly trailing High. At 4K, High and Ultra are separated by just 1 FPS. At 1440p, High and Ultra are also 1 FPS apart. At 1080p, the gap between High and Ultra is 3 FPS. This indicates that the Ultra preset adds little measurable performance cost over High in this game, but it also fails to provide a frame rate benefit; the GPU is already saturated by High's requirements at every resolution.

The minimum and maximum values, where recorded, show that the game does not suffer from severe frame time spikes at Medium settings. The largest spread, 27 FPS at 1080p Medium, is still within a range that most players would perceive as smooth, especially given the genre's slower pacing. The absence of min/max data for other presets means the database only captured averages for those configurations, but the available extremes suggest the game is stable rather than erratic.

FAQ

Q: Can this PC run Pc Building Simulator at 4K with any settings?

A: No. At 3840x2160, the highest average FPS is 41 on Low settings, which is below the 60 FPS playable threshold. Medium, High, and Ultra all fall further behind, at 29, 21, and 20 FPS respectively.

Q: What is the best preset for 1440p gameplay?

A: Low is the only playable preset at 2560x1440, with an average of 79 FPS. Medium comes close at 56 FPS but does not meet the 60 FPS threshold, so Low is the recommended choice.

Q: Is Ultra settings playable at 1080p?

A: No, Ultra at 1920x1080 averages 59 FPS, just one frame below the 60 FPS threshold. High settings average 62 FPS and are the highest preset that clears the playable mark.

Q: How does the GPU compare to other hardware in the database?

A: The Intel Arc B390 has an average benchmark score of 1482 and ranks at the 9th percentile among all GPUs. Its nearest rivals include the NVIDIA GeForce GT 520MX, which scores 1463, and the NVIDIA GeForce GT 710, which scores 1443.

Q: How does the CPU compare to other hardware in the database?

A: The Intel Core i5-14600K has an average benchmark score of 48618 and ranks at the 90th percentile among all CPUs. Its nearest rivals include the Intel Xeon Gold 5318H, which scores 48698, and the AMD EPYC 4345P, which scores 48470.

Q: What frame rates can be expected at 1080p Medium settings?

A: Medium at 1920x1080 averages 88 FPS, with a minimum of 75 and a maximum of 102. This preset provides a comfortable margin above the 60 FPS threshold.

Similar Performance Alternatives

For the CPU, the database lists four nearest rivals based on average benchmark scores. The Intel Xeon Gold 5318H scores 48698, which is 0.2% higher than the Core i5-14600K's 48618. The AMD EPYC 4345P scores 48470, 0.3% lower. The Intel Core Ultra 5 245HX scores 48287, 0.7% lower. The Intel Core Ultra 5 245 scores 48995, 0.8% higher. Any of these processors would deliver effectively identical CPU-side performance in Pc Building Simulator, meaning the simulation and logic workload would be handled with the same ease as the 14600K.

For the GPU, the nearest rivals are much older or lower-end parts. The NVIDIA GeForce GT 520MX scores 1463, which is 1.3% below the Arc B390's 1482. The NVIDIA GeForce 800M scores 1460, 1.5% lower. The NVIDIA GeForce GT 625 OEM scores 1446, 2.5% lower. The NVIDIA GeForce GT 710 scores 1443, 2.7% lower. These deltas are all within 3%, so the recorded frame rates for the Arc B390 would be nearly identical if any of these GPUs were substituted, assuming the rest of the system remained unchanged.

This combination of a high-end CPU and an entry-level GPU creates an unusual pairing. The CPU's rivals are server and workstation class parts, while the GPU's rivals are legacy integrated or low-end discrete graphics solutions. In practical terms, swapping the 14600K for any of its listed rivals would not change the gaming experience, because the GPU is the bottleneck. Swapping the Arc B390 for a GT 710 or GT 520MX would also produce similar results, since their benchmark scores are within a few points of each other.

The Verdict

This PC can run Pc Building Simulator, but only under specific conditions. The verdict by resolution is clear: at 3840x2160, there are no playable settings, meaning no preset reaches 60 FPS. At 2560x1440, only Low is playable, with an average of 79 FPS. At 1920x1080, High, Medium, and Low are all playable, with High being the best playable preset at 62 FPS.

For a player targeting 1080p, this combination is adequate. High settings deliver 62 FPS, which clears the threshold, and Medium offers a much larger margin at 88 FPS if visual quality can be slightly reduced. Low settings provide 125 FPS, which is more than enough for smooth gameplay. Ultra, at 59 FPS, is the only 1080p preset that fails, and it does so by a single frame.

For 1440p, the system is only marginally viable. Low settings at 79 FPS are playable, but Medium at 56 FPS falls short. This means a 1440p user must accept the lowest preset to maintain 60 FPS. Higher presets at 1440p are not recommended, as they drop into the high 30s.

For 4K, the system is not viable at any preset. The best case is Low at 41 FPS, which is far below the 60 FPS target. Even the least demanding settings cannot overcome the GPU's limited rendering throughput at this resolution.

The overall assessment is that the Core i5-14600K provides ample processing power, but the Arc B390 restricts the system to 1080p gaming with medium to high settings, or 1440p with low settings only. Users with a 4K display should not expect a playable experience in this title.

How This Combo Ranks

The database ranks this combination at 3310 out of 3723 tested combos for Pc Building Simulator. This places it in the lower portion of the ranking, near the 11th percentile of all tested systems. The low rank is driven almost entirely by the GPU, which sits at the 9th percentile among all GPUs, while the CPU is at the 90th percentile.

The ranking reflects the fact that the game's frame rates are constrained by the GPU at every resolution. A system with a weaker CPU but a stronger GPU would likely rank higher, because the simulation's CPU demands are easily satisfied by the 14600K, leaving the GPU as the deciding factor. The measured FPS data confirms this: even at 1080p Low, the system reaches 125 FPS, but at 4K Low it falls to 41 FPS, a drop that cannot be attributed to the processor.

In the context of the full database, this combo is not competitive for high-resolution or high-preset gaming. It is sufficient for 1080p at medium to high settings, and for 1440p only at low settings. The rank of 3310 out of 3723 accurately conveys that most other tested combinations deliver better performance in this game, primarily due to more capable graphics hardware. The CPU's excellent standing does little to offset the GPU's limitations, and the final rank reflects the weaker link in the chain.