Pc Building Simulator

Intel Core i7-13700K paired with the Intel Arc B370 in Pc Building Simulator presents a fascinating study in system balance. The data reveals a combination where the CPU's substantial processing power is heavily constrained by the integrated graphics solution, resulting in a very specific set of playable scenarios. This analysis breaks down the recorded measurements to show exactly where this combo stands.

Measured FPS Breakdown

The recorded data for this combination shows a clear performance hierarchy that scales predictably with resolution and graphics settings. At the demanding 3840x2160 (4K) resolution, the system struggles to maintain fluid frame rates across all presets. The High preset yields an average of 19 FPS, which is far below the 60 FPS playable threshold. Lowering to Medium improves the average to 26 FPS, with recorded minimums of 22 FPS and maximums of 30 FPS, but this remains a stutter-heavy experience. The Low preset at 4K reaches an average of 37 FPS, still insufficient for smooth gameplay, while the Ultra preset drops to an average of 18 FPS, the lowest recorded figure in the entire dataset. None of these 4K configurations approach playability.

Moving down to 2560x1440 (QHD) reveals a significant improvement, though the system remains limited. The High preset averages 36 FPS, and the Ultra preset averages 34 FPS, both well below the 60 FPS target. The Medium preset reaches an average of 50 FPS, with minimums of 43 FPS and maximums of 58 FPS, indicating a playable experience only in less demanding scenes. The Low preset is the sole configuration at this resolution to cross the threshold, delivering an average of 71 FPS. This represents a 48% performance increase over the High preset and a 109% increase over the 4K Low preset, highlighting the substantial impact of resolution scaling.

The 1920x1080 (1080p) resolution is where this combination finds its most usable territory. The Low preset delivers a robust average of 113 FPS, the highest figure recorded for any configuration. The Medium preset also clears the 60 FPS bar comfortably with an average of 80 FPS, recording minimums of 68 FPS and maximums of 92 FPS. The High preset sits just below the target at 56 FPS, while the Ultra preset averages 54 FPS. The data shows a clear pattern: at 1080p, the system can handle low to medium settings with headroom, but higher presets cause it to fall short of the playability standard.

FAQ

Q: Can this system run Pc Building Simulator at 4K resolution?

A: No. The measured data shows no playable settings at 3840x2160. The best average FPS at this resolution is 37 FPS on Low settings, which is far below the 60 FPS playable threshold. All presets at 4K, from Low to Ultra, result in averages between 18 and 37 FPS.

Q: What is the highest quality preset that maintains 60 FPS at 1080p?

A: The Medium preset at 1920x1080 is the most demanding configuration that stays above the threshold, achieving an average of 80 FPS with minimums of 68 FPS. The Low preset is also playable at 113 FPS, but Medium offers better visual quality while retaining a comfortable margin above 60 FPS.

Q: How does the 1440p Medium preset compare to the 1080p Medium preset?

A: The difference is substantial. At 2560x1440, the Medium preset averages 50 FPS with minimums of 43 FPS and maximums of 58 FPS, which falls short of the 60 FPS target. At 1920x1080, the same preset averages 80 FPS, a 60% improvement in average frame rate. This illustrates how heavily the resolution impacts performance for this hardware combination.

Q: Is there a significant performance gap between Low and Ultra settings?

A: Yes, the gap is pronounced across all resolutions. At 1080p, Low averages 113 FPS while Ultra averages 54 FPS, a difference of 59 FPS. At 1440p, the gap narrows to 37 FPS (71 FPS vs 34 FPS), and at 4K it shrinks to 19 FPS (37 FPS vs 18 FPS). The relative difference is consistent, with Ultra typically delivering about half the frame rate of Low.

Q: What are the minimum frame rates for playable configurations?

A: For the two playable configurations, the recorded minimums are 68 FPS at 1080p Medium and no minimum is listed for 1440p Low. The 1080p Medium minimum of 68 FPS indicates that even in demanding scenes, the system maintains a comfortable buffer above the 60 FPS threshold.

Q: Does the system ever exceed 100 FPS in any configuration?

A: Yes, only at 1920x1080 with Low settings, where the average FPS reaches 113. No other configuration in the measured data comes close to this figure; the next highest average is 80 FPS at 1080p Medium.

Best Settings per Resolution

At 3840x2160, no preset achieves the 60 FPS playable threshold. The database records no playable settings for this resolution, so there is no recommended configuration.

At 2560x1440, the Low preset is the only playable option, delivering an average of 71 FPS. This is the best settings choice for this resolution, as it is the sole preset that clears the 60 FPS bar with a modest margin.

At 1920x1080, the Medium preset is the most demanding configuration that stays at or above 60 FPS, averaging 80 FPS with minimums of 68 FPS. This offers the best balance of visual fidelity and performance at this resolution. The Low preset also works at 113 FPS, but Medium provides higher quality while still maintaining a comfortable playable frame rate.

The Verdict

This PC configuration can run Pc Building Simulator, but only under specific conditions. The verdict by resolution is clear: at 3840x2160, the system is not playable at any preset, as all recorded averages fall between 18 and 37 FPS. At 2560x1440, the system is playable only on Low settings, achieving an average of 71 FPS. At 1920x1080, the system is playable on both Low and Medium settings, with Medium providing an average of 80 FPS and Low reaching 113 FPS.

The data indicates that users should target 1080p for a satisfactory experience, as this is the only resolution where the system has meaningful headroom above the 60 FPS threshold. At 1440p, the Low preset works, but there is little margin for error, and any increase in graphical demands would likely push frame rates below playable levels. The system is not suitable for 4K gaming in this title, regardless of settings. The overall verdict is that this combo is a capable 1080p performer for this simulation game, with limited viability at higher resolutions.

CPU and GPU Roles

The performance data reveals an interesting dynamic between the Intel Core i7-13700K and the Intel Arc B370. The CPU is a high-end desktop processor with 16 cores, 24 threads, and a boost clock of 5.40 GHz, ranking in the 89th percentile among all CPUs. The GPU, however, is an integrated graphics solution with a 5th percentile ranking among all GPUs, based on its single recorded benchmark score of 1184 in 3DMark Steel Nomad. This massive disparity in component capability suggests that the GPU is the primary bottleneck in this system.

The scaling between resolutions confirms this analysis. When moving from 1080p to 1440p, the frame rates at Low settings drop from 113 FPS to 71 FPS, a 37% reduction. Moving from 1440p to 4K at Low settings drops the average from 71 FPS to 37 FPS, another 48% reduction. This steep decline with increasing pixel count is characteristic of a GPU-limited scenario, where the graphics hardware cannot keep up with the rendering demands. If the CPU were the limiting factor, the frame rates would be more consistent across resolutions, as the processor's workload does not scale as dramatically with resolution changes.

The setting scaling also points to GPU limitation. At 1080p, moving from Low to Medium costs 33 FPS (113 to 80), and moving from Medium to High costs 24 FPS (80 to 56). These are large penalties for modest preset changes, again indicating that the graphics pipeline is saturated. The CPU's high multithreaded performance, evidenced by its Cinebench R23 multicore score of 30745, is not the constraint here. The data suggests that the CPU has ample headroom, and the integrated GPU's limited shading units (1280) and texture units (40) are what govern the final frame rates.

How This Combo Ranks

The Intel Core i7-13700K with Intel Arc B370 combination ranks 3436 out of 3723 tested combos in Pc Building Simulator. This places it in the bottom 8% of all tested systems, which aligns with the measured performance data showing limited playability. The rank reflects the GPU's low percentile standing (5th among all GPUs) dragging down an otherwise strong CPU. The CPU alone ranks in the 89th percentile, but the combo rank demonstrates that the integrated graphics solution is the decisive factor for gaming performance.

This rank means that the vast majority of other tested combinations deliver better frame rates in this game. The system is positioned well below average, and users should expect it to handle only lighter gaming loads or older titles at moderate settings. For a simulation game like Pc Building Simulator, which is not particularly demanding, the fact that this combo still struggles at higher resolutions underscores its limitations.

Similar Performance Alternatives

Based on the nearest rivals in the database, several hardware options would behave similarly to this combination. The Intel Core i7-13700K's closest CPU rivals include the AMD Ryzen 9 5900 with an average score of 46971, which is 0.2% lower than the i7-13700K's score. The AMD Ryzen AI 9 HX PRO 375 scores 47022, 0.3% lower, while the AMD Ryzen 9 7845HX scores 46654, 0.5% higher. The Intel Xeon w3-2535 scores 46653, also 0.5% higher. These CPUs would likely produce nearly identical frame rates when paired with the same integrated GPU, as the performance differences are negligible.

For the GPU, the Intel Arc B370's nearest rivals are all older or lower-end graphics solutions. The ATI Mobility Radeon HD 5570 scores 1186, which is 0.2% higher than the Arc B370's 1184. The ATI Radeon HD 5770 scores 1190, 0.5% higher, and the AMD Radeon HD 7650M scores 1192, 0.7% higher. The AMD FirePro M2000 scores 1168, which is 1.4% lower. These GPUs would deliver very similar frame rates in Pc Building Simulator, meaning users with these alternatives should expect comparable performance characteristics. The data indicates that swapping the CPU for any of its rivals would have minimal impact on the final frame rates, while swapping the GPU for any of its rivals would also result in nearly identical outcomes. This reinforces the conclusion that the GPU is the limiting factor, and the CPU's performance headroom is largely unused in this gaming scenario.