Pc Building Simulator

How This Combo Ranks

The Intel Core i5-9400 paired with the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3070 occupies the 1639th position out of 3723 tested combinations in the database for Pc Building Simulator. This places the combo in the upper-middle tier of all recorded configurations, roughly in the 56th percentile of tested systems. The ranking reflects a substantial gap between this pairing and top-tier hardware, but also shows it comfortably ahead of the long tail of older or weaker configurations that struggle with modern simulation titles.

What makes this rank interesting is the asymmetry between the two components. The RTX 3070 sits at the 61st percentile among all GPUs in the database, while the i5-9400 lands at the 47th percentile among all CPUs. The combined rank of 1639 suggests the processor is the limiting factor in many scenarios, dragging the overall position below what the graphics card alone would achieve. This is a pattern worth investigating, especially given how the game scales across resolutions and presets.

The CPU's average benchmark score of 2254 places it in a tight cluster of rivals, with the Intel Core i7-1068NG7 at 2259 (0.2% faster), the Intel Core i3-10305 at 2264 (0.4% faster), and the AMD Ryzen 5 PRO 1500 at 2246 (0.4% slower). These are effectively identical performance levels, meaning the i5-9400 is not an outlier in either direction. The GPU, meanwhile, averages 17208 across all tests, with the AMD Radeon RX 7600 XT at 17083 (0.7% slower) and the NVIDIA Tesla K40c at 17468 (1.5% faster) as its closest neighbors. The near-ties on both sides suggest this combo's rank is more about how the two parts interact in this specific game than about either component being exceptional.

FAQ

Q: Can this system run Pc Building Simulator at 1080p with maximum settings?

A: Yes. At 1920x1080 with Ultra settings, the combo delivers an average of 143.1 FPS, which clears the 60 FPS playable threshold by a wide margin. All four settings presets at this resolution are playable, from Low at 241.6 FPS to High at 149.2 FPS.

Q: What is the best playable setting at 4K resolution?

A: At 3840x2160, Medium settings provide the highest quality that stays above 60 FPS, averaging 70.2 FPS. High settings drop to 47.3 FPS and Ultra falls to 50.9 FPS, both below the playable threshold. Low settings run at 97.6 FPS but sacrifice visual fidelity.

Q: How does the CPU compare to its closest rivals?

A: The i5-9400's average score of 2254 is within 0.4% of all four nearest rivals. The Intel Core i3-10305 is marginally faster at 2264 (0.4% ahead), while the AMD Ryzen 5 PRO 1500 is marginally slower at 2246 (0.4% behind). The Intel Core i7-1068NG7 and Intel Core i7-10710U sit at 2259 and 2248 respectively, making this a five-way statistical tie.

Q: Does the RTX 3070 outperform its closest GPU rivals?

A: The RTX 3070's average score of 17208 is ahead of the AMD Radeon RX 7600 XT (17083, 0.7% slower) and the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 690 (17037, 1% slower), but trails the NVIDIA Tesla K40c (17468, 1.5% faster). The differences are small enough that real-world game performance would be nearly indistinguishable among these cards.

Q: Which resolution gives the biggest FPS jump from this hardware?

A: Dropping from 1440p to 1080p yields the largest relative gain. At Ultra settings, 2560x1440 averages 93.7 FPS, while 1920x1080 averages 143.1 FPS, an increase of roughly 53%. The jump from 4K to 1440p at Ultra is smaller, from 50.9 FPS to 93.7 FPS.

Q: Is the CPU or GPU more responsible for performance at 1080p?

A: At 1920x1080, the GPU's headroom is enormous, with Low settings reaching 241.6 FPS. The CPU's single-thread performance, measured at 935 in Cinebench R23 single-core, appears sufficient to feed the GPU at this resolution, as evidenced by the fact that even Ultra settings maintain 143.1 FPS.

CPU and GPU Roles

The recorded data reveals a clear pattern of GPU dominance at lower resolutions transitioning to a more balanced picture at higher resolutions. At 1920x1080, the GPU is almost certainly the bottleneck in the opposite direction: the RTX 3070 has so much headroom that even Ultra settings produce 143.1 FPS, suggesting the CPU is keeping up without issue. The spread from Low (241.6 FPS) to Ultra (143.1 FPS) at 1080p shows the graphics card scaling with workload, but never being pushed to its limits.

Moving to 2560x1440, the picture shifts subtly. Ultra settings still deliver 93.7 FPS, which is comfortably above 60 FPS, and the gap between Low (191.4 FPS) and Ultra (93.7 FPS) narrows slightly in percentage terms. The fact that 1440p Ultra remains this fast indicates the CPU is still not the primary constraint, though the margin for error is thinner. The i5-9400's six cores and six threads, running at a boost clock of 4.10 GHz, provide enough compute for the simulation's logic, while the GPU handles the rendering load.

At 3840x2160, the dynamic flips decisively toward the GPU. Ultra settings drop to 50.9 FPS, below the playable threshold, and High settings fall to 47.3 FPS. The jump from Medium (70.2 FPS) to High (47.3 FPS) is a 33% performance loss for one preset step, which indicates the graphics card's memory bandwidth and shading resources are being saturated. The RTX 3070's 8 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 256-bit bus, with 448.0 GB/s bandwidth, appears to be the limiting factor at 4K. The CPU's role diminishes because the frame rate is low enough that the processor has ample time to prepare each frame.

The scaling between resolutions reinforces this interpretation. At Ultra, performance drops from 143.1 FPS at 1080p to 93.7 FPS at 1440p (a 35% reduction), then to 50.9 FPS at 4K (a further 46% reduction). This progressive degradation is characteristic of a GPU-bound scenario at higher resolutions, where pixel count and memory pressure increase faster than the CPU's ability to feed frames matters. The CPU's percentile rank of 47 suggests it is a mid-pack processor, but for this game, that is sufficient until the GPU becomes the wall.

Similar Performance Alternatives

For the CPU side, the nearest rivals are all within a 0.4% performance envelope, making them functional equivalents. The Intel Core i7-1068NG7 (2259 average score) and the Intel Core i3-10305 (2264) would behave nearly identically in Pc Building Simulator, as would the Intel Core i7-10710U (2248) and the AMD Ryzen 5 PRO 1500 (2246). Any of these processors paired with the RTX 3070 would produce frame rates within the margin of measurement error. The choice among them would come down to platform features rather than game performance, since the simulation's CPU demands are modest enough that all five chips sit at the same performance plateau.

On the GPU side, the AMD Radeon RX 7600 XT (17083 average score, 0.7% slower) is the closest match, followed by the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 690 (17037, 1% slower) and the AMD Radeon HD 7970M (17019, 1.1% slower). The NVIDIA Tesla K40c is slightly faster at 17468 (1.5% ahead). In practical terms, swapping the RTX 3070 for any of these cards would yield similar frame rates in Pc Building Simulator, with differences of one or two FPS at most. The GTX 690 and HD 7970M are notably older architectures, so their similar average scores likely reflect specific benchmark strengths rather than overall gaming capability, but the data shows this game does not heavily favor the RTX 3070's newer feature set.

A system builder looking to replicate this combo's performance could choose any of these CPU or GPU alternatives without materially changing the experience. The bottleneck at 4K would remain the GPU, and the CPU would continue to be adequate at 1080p and 1440p. The tight clustering of all these scores means the rank of 1639 is more a function of the specific pairing than of any individual component's superiority.

Measured FPS Breakdown

At 1920x1080, the combo delivers its strongest results across all presets. Low settings average 241.6 FPS, Medium averages 214 FPS, High averages 149.2 FPS, and Ultra averages 143.1 FPS. Every preset clears the 60 FPS threshold by more than double, and even the most demanding setting maintains nearly 2.4 times the playable minimum. The narrow gap between High and Ultra (149.2 vs 143.1, a 4% difference) suggests the Ultra preset adds only marginal rendering cost at this resolution.

At 2560x1440, performance remains strong but shows the expected drop. Low settings average 191.4 FPS, Medium averages 135.2 FPS, High averages 93 FPS, and Ultra averages 93.7 FPS. Interestingly, Ultra edges out High by 0.7 FPS, which is within measurement noise and indicates the two presets are effectively identical in cost at this resolution. All four presets stay above 60 FPS, with the lowest being High at 93 FPS.

At 3840x2160, the picture changes dramatically. Low settings average 97.6 FPS, Medium averages 70.2 FPS, High averages 47.3 FPS, and Ultra averages 50.9 FPS. Only Low and Medium clear the 60 FPS threshold. The drop from Medium to High is severe, a 33% reduction, while the jump from High to Ultra actually improves by 3.6 FPS, which is again within noise. This non-monotonic behavior suggests the High and Ultra presets are computationally similar at 4K, both overwhelming the GPU's resources.

The recorded data includes no minimum or maximum frame times, only averages, so the consistency of these frame rates cannot be assessed. However, the average values alone are sufficient to determine playability, and the pattern across resolutions is consistent: the system is overpowered at 1080p, well-suited at 1440p, and only partially adequate at 4K.

The Verdict

This PC can absolutely run Pc Building Simulator, with the caveat that resolution determines how demanding you can be with settings. At 1920x1080, every preset is playable, including Ultra at 143.1 FPS, which is more than double the 60 FPS threshold. At 2560x1440, all four presets also clear the threshold, with Ultra at 93.7 FPS providing the best visual experience without any compromise. At 3840x2160, only Low (97.6 FPS) and Medium (70.2 FPS) are playable; High at 47.3 FPS and Ultra at 50.9 FPS both fall short.

The verdict by resolution is unambiguous: the database records 1920x1080 and 2560x1440 as fully playable across all settings, while 4K requires dropping to Medium or below. For users with a 1080p or 1440p monitor, this combo offers a smooth experience with maximum settings. For 4K displays, the system demands setting compromises, but still delivers a playable frame rate at Medium quality.

The i5-9400's mid-pack CPU performance does not prevent playability at any resolution, confirming that the game is not heavily CPU-bound. The RTX 3070's strong showing at lower resolutions and its limitations at 4K align with its 61st percentile GPU rank. The data does not indicate any stuttering or minimum-frame issues, as those figures are not recorded, but the average FPS values suggest a stable experience for a simulation game that does not involve fast-paced action.

Best Settings per Resolution

At 1920x1080, the best settings are Ultra, delivering 143.1 FPS on average. This is the most demanding preset and it remains far above the 60 FPS threshold, so there is no reason to reduce quality. The gap to High (149.2 FPS) is only 6.1 FPS, meaning Ultra's extra effects cost almost nothing at this resolution.

At 2560x1440, Ultra is again the best choice, averaging 93.7 FPS. This clears the threshold by 33.7 FPS, providing ample headroom for any scene complexity the game might throw at the system. High settings at 93 FPS are statistically identical, so choosing Ultra is essentially free.

At 3840x2160, Medium is the most demanding preset that stays at or above 60 FPS, with an average of 70.2 FPS. This is 10.2 FPS above the threshold, leaving a small but acceptable margin. Low settings at 97.6 FPS would provide more safety, but Medium offers a meaningfully better visual experience for only a 27.4 FPS cost. High and Ultra are not viable at 4K, as both fall below 60 FPS.