Pc Building Simulator

FAQ

Q: Can this PC run Pc Building Simulator at 1920x1080 with playable frame rates?

A: Yes. The recorded data shows playable settings at 1920x1080 include Low and Medium. Low delivers 113 FPS average, while Medium delivers 80 FPS average, both above the 60 FPS playable threshold.

Q: What is the best playable setting at 2560x1440 for this combo?

A: At 2560x1440, only Low settings clear the 60 FPS threshold. Low delivers 71 FPS average. Medium and High fall below 60 FPS, with 50 FPS and 36 FPS respectively.

Q: Does this PC run the game at 4K?

A: No. At 3840x2160, no settings reach the 60 FPS playable threshold. The highest average is 37 FPS on Low, with High at 19 FPS, Medium at 26 FPS, and Ultra at 18 FPS.

Q: How does the Intel Core i5-9400 compare to its nearest rivals in synthetic benchmarks?

A: The i5-9400 has an average benchmark score of 2254. It sits within 0.4% of the Intel Core i7-1068NG7 (2259, -0.2% delta), Intel Core i7-10710U (2248, +0.3% delta), AMD Ryzen 5 PRO 1500 (2246, +0.4% delta), and Intel Core i3-10305 (2264, -0.4% delta). This means the CPU is essentially interchangeable with these alternatives in compute workloads.

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

A: The Arc B370 has an average 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 score of 1184. Its nearest rivals are within 1.4%: ATI Mobility Radeon HD 5570 (1186, -0.2% delta), ATI Radeon HD 5770 (1190, -0.5% delta), AMD Radeon HD 7650M (1192, -0.7% delta), and AMD FirePro M2000 (1168, +1.4% delta). The GPU ranks in the 5th percentile among all GPUs.

Q: What is this combo's overall rank among tested combos in this game?

A: This combo ranks 3436 out of 3723 tested combinations, placing it in the lower portion of the database for Pc Building Simulator.

CPU and GPU Roles

The recorded FPS data across resolutions reveals a clear pattern: the Intel Arc B370 is the limiting component in this pairing, while the Intel Core i5-9400 provides sufficient CPU headroom for this simulation title. The game is not CPU-bound at any tested resolution, as evidenced by the fact that lowering resolution from 2560x1440 to 1920x1080 produces substantial FPS gains. If the CPU were the bottleneck, resolution scaling would show smaller differences.

At 1920x1080, the GPU has less work per frame, so the FPS gains are dramatic. Low settings jump from 71 FPS at 2560x1440 to 113 FPS at 1920x1080, a 59% improvement. Medium settings improve from 50 FPS to 80 FPS, a 60% gain. High settings go from 36 FPS to 56 FPS, a 55% increase. This nearly linear scaling with pixel count indicates the GPU is the dominant constraint at both resolutions.

At 4K, the GPU is overwhelmed. The jump from 2560x1440 Low (71 FPS) to 3840x2160 Low (37 FPS) represents a 48% drop, while Medium drops from 50 FPS to 26 FPS (48% reduction). The Ultra preset at 4K produces just 18 FPS, which is unplayable. The Arc B370, with its 1280 shading units and 6.144 TFLOPS FP32 performance, simply lacks the raw throughput for 4K rendering in this title.

The CPU's role is minimal at all settings. The i5-9400, a 6-core, 6-thread Coffee Lake processor with a 4.10 GHz boost clock and 9 MB shared L3 cache, is more than adequate for a simulation game like Pc Building Simulator, which is not known for heavy multi-threaded rendering workloads. The CPU's 47th percentile ranking among all CPUs, combined with the GPU's 5th percentile ranking, clearly identifies the GPU as the performance ceiling.

The settings scaling within each resolution reinforces this conclusion. At 1920x1080, moving from Low to Medium costs 33 FPS (113 to 80), while Medium to High costs another 24 FPS (80 to 56). At 2560x1440, Low to Medium costs 21 FPS (71 to 50), and Medium to High costs 14 FPS (50 to 36). These consistent penalties across resolutions show the GPU struggling with increased shading and texture loads, not the CPU being starved.

Measured FPS Breakdown

1920x1080: The best results come at this resolution. Low settings deliver 113 FPS average, the highest recorded figure for this combo. Medium settings produce 80 FPS average with a minimum of 68 FPS and a maximum of 92 FPS, providing a stable experience above the 60 FPS threshold. High settings drop to 56 FPS average, just below playable. Ultra settings produce 54 FPS average. The gap between Low and Medium is substantial, but both are comfortably playable.

2560x1440: Only Low settings achieve playable performance at 71 FPS average. Medium settings deliver 50 FPS average with a minimum of 43 FPS and a maximum of 58 FPS, which means the experience will frequently dip below the 60 FPS playable threshold. High settings drop to 36 FPS average, and Ultra falls to 34 FPS average. The resolution increase from 1080p to 1440p costs roughly 42% of the frame rate at Low settings, indicating the GPU's limited bandwidth and shading capacity.

3840x2160: This resolution is not viable for this combo. Low settings produce 37 FPS average, Medium delivers 26 FPS average with a minimum of 22 FPS and a maximum of 30 FPS, High produces 19 FPS average, and Ultra produces 18 FPS average. None of these come close to the 60 FPS threshold. The 4K data confirms that even the lowest settings cannot overcome the GPU's fundamental throughput limitations. The memory bandwidth being "System Dependent" and the shared system memory architecture likely contribute to these poor 4K results.

The min/max data available for Medium settings at each resolution shows reasonable frame pacing for the hardware tier. At 1920x1080 Medium, the 68 to 92 FPS range indicates occasional dips but generally smooth performance. At 2560x1440 Medium, the 43 to 58 FPS range shows the frame rate hovering below the threshold. At 4K Medium, the 22 to 30 FPS range is consistently poor.

Similar Performance Alternatives

The nearest rivals for the Intel Core i5-9400 in the database are all within 0.4% of its average score of 2254. The Intel Core i7-1068NG7 (2259, -0.2% delta) and Intel Core i3-10305 (2264, -0.4% delta) are marginally faster, while the Intel Core i7-10710U (2248, +0.3% delta) and AMD Ryzen 5 PRO 1500 (2246, +0.4% delta) are slightly slower. In practical terms for Pc Building Simulator, any of these CPUs paired with the same GPU would produce nearly identical FPS numbers. The game's low CPU demand means the i5-9400's 6 cores and 6 threads are not a limiting factor.

The Intel Arc B370's nearest rivals are dramatically older GPUs, all within 1.4% of its 1184 Steel Nomad score. The ATI Mobility Radeon HD 5570 (1186, -0.2% delta) and ATI Radeon HD 5770 (1190, -0.5% delta) are essentially equal in performance. The AMD Radeon HD 7650M (1192, -0.7% delta) is marginally faster, while the AMD FirePro M2000 (1168, +1.4% delta) is slightly slower. Any of these GPUs paired with the i5-9400 would produce similar frame rates in Pc Building Simulator, meaning the playable settings would remain identical: Low and Medium at 1080p, Low at 1440p, and nothing at 4K.

The combination of a mid-range 2018-era CPU with an entry-level integrated-style GPU creates a system that behaves like a low-end laptop or compact desktop. Users familiar with the HD 5770 era of GPUs will have an accurate mental model of this system's capabilities. The Arc B370's 25 W TDP and IGP slot width further reinforce its position as a low-power integrated solution, not a discrete gaming card.

How This Combo Ranks

In the database of tested combinations for Pc Building Simulator, this specific pairing ranks 3436 out of 3723 combos. This places it in the bottom 8% of all tested systems. The ranking reflects the GPU's severe performance limitation more than the CPU's capability. The i5-9400, at the 47th percentile among all CPUs, is a solidly mid-range processor, but the Arc B370's 5th percentile GPU ranking drags the overall combo down.

The rank indicates that most other tested combinations, even those with older CPUs, outperform this system in this game. The 287-combo gap from the bottom suggests there are some even less capable systems, but the vast majority of the database delivers better results. For a simulation game like Pc Building Simulator, which has modest graphical demands compared to AAA shooters, this low ranking is notable. It means the game's menu-heavy, UI-focused presentation still cannot be rendered smoothly at higher settings by this hardware.

The practical takeaway from the rank is that this system belongs to the entry-level class for gaming. It will run older or less demanding titles at low settings, but it is not designed for modern gaming at high resolutions or quality presets. The 1080p Low and Medium results are the best case scenario, and even those require accepting significant compromises.

The Verdict

This PC can run Pc Building Simulator, but only under specific conditions. At 1920x1080, the system delivers playable performance on Low (113 FPS) and Medium (80 FPS) settings. The Medium preset is the recommended choice, as it provides a comfortable 20 FPS margin above the 60 FPS threshold with a minimum of 68 FPS, ensuring smooth gameplay even in demanding scenes. High and Ultra at 1080p fall below 60 FPS, so they should be avoided.

At 2560x1440, only Low settings are playable, producing 71 FPS average. This is a marginal result, with only 11 FPS of headroom above the threshold. Medium at 1440p drops to 50 FPS, which will be noticeable as stutter or frame pacing issues during gameplay. For users with a 1440p monitor, the recommendation is to use Low settings or drop to 1080p for a better experience.

At 3840x2160, the system cannot play this game at any settings. The best result is 37 FPS on Low, which is far below the 60 FPS threshold and would feel unresponsive for a game that requires precise mouse controls for building PCs. The 4K resolution is simply beyond this GPU's capabilities.

The verdict is clear: this is a 1080p machine for Pc Building Simulator. The Intel Core i5-9400 provides adequate CPU performance, but the Intel Arc B370 is the decisive factor. Users should set expectations accordingly and use Medium settings at 1080p for the optimal balance of visual quality and performance. At 1440p, Low is the only viable option, and 4K should be considered unsupported.