Pc Building Simulator

PC Building Simulator is not a demanding game, yet the Intel Core i5-9400 paired with the Intel Arc B390 delivers results that tell a very specific story: 1080p is comfortably playable up to High settings, 1440p only clears the 60 FPS bar at Low, and 4K is off the table entirely. The recorded data places this combo at rank 3310 of 3723 tested combinations for this title, which signals a weak overall pairing despite the game's modest requirements. The bottleneck is unambiguous: the GPU sits in the 9th percentile of all graphics hardware in the database, while the CPU sits near the middle at the 47th percentile.

Best Settings per Resolution

The playable threshold in this dataset is 60 FPS average, and the numbers dictate clear answers at each resolution.

At 1920x1080, the best settings are High, where the combo averages 62 FPS. That is the most demanding preset that stays at or above the threshold. Ultra comes close but falls short at 59 FPS, one frame under the bar, so High is the ceiling for a guaranteed smooth experience. Medium is far more comfortable at 88 FPS, and Low pushes into high-refresh territory at 125 FPS.

At 2560x1440, only Low clears the threshold, averaging 79 FPS. Medium at 56 FPS and High at 39 FPS both fall short, so players targeting 1440p must accept reduced visual settings.

At 3840x2160, no preset is playable. Low manages 41 FPS, Medium 29, High 21, and Ultra 20. All four sit well below 60 FPS, and none can be recommended for actual play on this hardware.

CPU and GPU Roles

This game is GPU-limited on this configuration at every resolution, and the scaling data proves it. When the resolution climbs from 1920x1080 to 3840x2160 at Low settings, the average frame rate falls from 125 FPS to 41 FPS. That is a drop of roughly two-thirds when pixel count quadruples, the classic signature of a graphics-bound workload. If the CPU were the limiting factor, frame rates would stay nearly flat as resolution increased.

The same pattern holds across presets. At 1080p, moving from Low to Medium drops the average from 125 to 88 FPS, and Medium to High falls again to 62. Visual load scales, frame rate responds, and the GPU is the component running out of headroom. The Intel Core i5-9400, a 6-core, 6-thread Coffee Lake part with a 4.10 GHz boost clock, sits at the 47th percentile of all CPUs in the database, which is respectable mid-tier placement for a simulation title that leans on single-threaded responsiveness. Its Cinebench R23 single-core score of 935 and Geekbench single-core score of 1389 indicate it feeds frames fast enough for this game.

The Arc B390 is the weak link. It occupies the 9th percentile among GPUs, with an average benchmark score of 1482 and a 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 score of 1482. It is an integrated graphics solution built on Intel's Xe3-LPG architecture at a 3 nm process node, with 1536 shading units, 12 RT cores, and 7.680 TFLOPS of FP32 throughput, sharing system memory over a dual-channel DDR4 interface. The bandwidth figure of 42.7 GB/s from the platform's memory support constrains graphics performance further, since system-shared GPUs are acutely sensitive to memory bandwidth. The CPU is doing its part; the GPU is the constraint.

Measured FPS Breakdown

All figures below are measured averages from the database, with minimum and maximum values recorded where available.

At 1920x1080:

• Low: 125 FPS average
• Medium: 88 FPS average, with a minimum of 75 and a maximum of 102
• High: 62 FPS average
• Ultra: 59 FPS average

The Medium preset shows a tight frame-time profile, with the minimum of 75 FPS staying comfortably above the 60 FPS threshold. That 27-frame spread between minimum and maximum suggests stable frame delivery rather than stutter-prone variance.

At 2560x1440:

• Low: 79 FPS average
• Medium: 56 FPS average, with a minimum of 47 and a maximum of 64
• High: 39 FPS average
• Ultra: 38 FPS average

Medium at 1440p is a borderline case: the average sits below 60, and the minimum of 47 confirms noticeable dips. High and Ultra are effectively identical at 39 and 38 FPS, indicating the GPU has hit a hard ceiling where additional visual load no longer changes the outcome much.

At 3840x2160:

• Low: 41 FPS average
• Medium: 29 FPS average, with a minimum of 25 and a maximum of 34
• High: 21 FPS average
• Ultra: 20 FPS average

The 4K numbers converge at the bottom of the stack the same way the 1440p High and Ultra numbers do, with Medium maxing out at just 34 FPS. Four times the pixels of 1080p is simply beyond what this graphics solution can push.

How This Combo Ranks

Within the full set of hardware combinations tested on PC Building Simulator, this pairing ranks 3310 out of 3723, placing it in the bottom tenth of the field. That rank reflects the imbalance between the two components: a mid-pack CPU dragging along a bottom-tier GPU. For a simulation game released in 2019, most combinations in the database clear the playable threshold easily, so a bottom-tenth ranking here is a meaningful negative signal.

Context matters, though. Despite the low rank, the combo still delivers playable frame rates at 1080p and at 1440p Low, which shows how light this title is. The rank says the hardware is weak; the measured frame rates say the game forgives it.

Similar Performance Alternatives

For the CPU, the database's nearest rivals cluster tightly around the Core i5-9400's average score of 2254. The Intel Core i7-1068NG7 sits at 2259, a 0.2 percent delta. The Intel Core i7-10710U scores 2248, 0.3 percent behind. The AMD Ryzen 5 PRO 1500 lands at 2246, 0.4 percent off the pace, and the Intel Core i3-10305 scores 2264, 0.4 percent ahead. Any of these processors would deliver effectively identical CPU-side performance in this game, since differences of half a percent are invisible in frame-time data.

For the GPU, the nearest rivals are older NVIDIA parts. The GeForce GT 520MX averages 1463, just 1.3 percent behind the Arc B390. The GeForce 800M averages 1460, 1.5 percent behind. The GT 625 OEM at 1446 and the GT 710 at 1443 trail by 2.5 and 2.7 percent respectively. A system built around any of these graphics solutions would produce nearly the same frame rates: playable at 1080p on modest settings, marginal at 1440p, and non-viable at 4K. The tight deltas on both sides, all within roughly 3 percent, mean the alternatives would shift expected frame rates by a frame or two at most.

The Verdict

Yes, this PC can run PC Building Simulator, but only with the right display settings. At 1920x1080, the combo clears 60 FPS on High (62 FPS), Medium (88 FPS), and Low (125 FPS), with Ultra missing the bar by a single frame at 59 FPS. At 2560x1440, Low is the single playable preset at 79 FPS. At 3840x2160, no preset reaches the threshold, topping out at 41 FPS on Low.

The practical recommendation is straightforward: play at 1080p with Medium or High settings for the best balance of visuals and frame rate stability, or accept Low at 1440p if a higher-resolution display is the priority. 4K should not be attempted on this configuration. The Core i5-9400 handles the game without issue; the Arc B390 defines the ceiling, and that ceiling sits at 1080p High.