Instant compatibility check with FPS benchmarks and optimization tips
Pc Building Simulator
Performance
1080p (Full HD)
1440p (2K / QHD)
4K (Ultra HD)
Requirements Check
Recommendations
Your hardware doesn't meet minimum requirements for this game.
Average FPS: resolution vs quality settings
| Ultra | High | Medium | Low | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 4K Ultra HD | 36 | 34 | 52 | 74 |
| 1440p QHD | 64 | 69 | 99 | 135 |
| 1080p Full HD | 103 | 107 | 153 | 217 |
Cell color: green is 120+ FPS, teal is 60+, amber is 30+, red is below 30. Cards marked Estimated above have no measured row and are scaled from your GPU benchmark percentile.
Performance Analysis: Pc Building Simulator on Your System
The pairing of an Intel Core i7-14700F with an Intel Arc B580 faces an interesting test in PC Building Simulator, a simulation title released in 2019. The data shows this all-Intel combination clearing the 60 FPS playability threshold at 1080p and 1440p across every preset, while 4K demands a significant drop in settings to stay playable. Ranked 2828 out of 3723 hardware combinations for this specific game, the combo is far from the top of the leaderboard — but the measured numbers tell a more usable story than that ranking suggests.
Similar Performance Alternatives
On the CPU side, the Core i7-14700F sits in the 91st percentile of all processors, with an average benchmark score of 53620. Its nearest rivals are a mixed bag of workstation and enthusiast silicon: the Intel Xeon 6505P scores 53701 (just 0.2% ahead), the Intel Xeon Phi 7290 averages 53469 (0.3% behind the i7), the AMD Ryzen 9 7900X sits 0.6% back at 53288, and the AMD EPYC 7313P trails by 0.8% with 53206. Any of these processors would deliver effectively indistinguishable aggregate performance. For this simulation title, the i7's single-thread strength is the more relevant figure: a Cinebench R23 single-core score of 4958 and a Geekbench single-core result of 2429 indicate snappy responsiveness in a genre that leans on per-core throughput rather than massive parallelism.
The Arc B580 occupies the 68th percentile among GPUs with an average score of 23021. Its closest neighbors are an eclectic set: the AMD Radeon RX 580 2048SP at 23061 is essentially tied (0.2% apart), the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2080 averages 22895 (0.6% behind), the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3080 posts 23172 (0.7% ahead), and the NVIDIA P106-100 rounds out the list at 23249 (1% ahead). Anyone running one of those cards alongside a similarly-scoring CPU should expect frame rates within a few percent of the numbers in this dataset. The B580's PassMark G3D score of 15748 and 3DMark Steel Nomad result of 3068 anchor its position as a mid-range Battlemage part built on TSMC's 5 nm process, with 2560 shading units and 12 GB of GDDR6 on a 192-bit bus delivering 456.0 GB/s of bandwidth.
CPU and GPU Roles
The scaling data points squarely at GPU limitation at every tested resolution. Moving from 1080p to 1440p costs the B580 roughly a third of its frame rate — 216.7 FPS on Low drops to 135, and 103 FPS on Ultra falls to 63.6. That kind of steep decline with resolution, while settings held constant, is the classic signature of a graphics-bound game. If the Core i7-14700F were the constraint, frame rates would stay flatter as resolution climbs.
The jump to 4K confirms it. Ultra output drops from 63.6 FPS at 1440p to 36.2 FPS at 3840x2160 — a steeper fall than the 1080p-to-1440p transition, exactly what happens when a GPU runs out of pixel throughput. The B580's 213.6 GPixel/s fill rate gets fully loaded at 4K in this title.
None of this means the CPU is irrelevant. The i7-14700F's 20 cores and 28 threads, plus a 5.40 GHz boost clock, provide ample headroom, and the data shows no evidence of the processor holding the GPU back even at 216.7 FPS on Low at 1080p. For a 2019 simulation game, the CPU was never going to be the weak link — but the measured scaling proves it rather than assumes it.
Best Settings per Resolution
At 1920x1080, the answer is simple: Ultra, at an average of 103 FPS. That's a 43-FPS cushion above the 60 FPS threshold, and it means the maximum preset is the default choice for full detail.
At 2560x1440, Ultra still qualifies, at 63.6 FPS average. The margin is thinner — just above the threshold — so players sensitive to dips may prefer High at 69.1 FPS for extra headroom, but Ultra is technically playable per the measured data.
At 3840x2160, no preset above Low clears the bar. Medium manages 51.9 FPS and Ultra only 36.2 FPS, both short of 60. Low is the lone playable option at 4K, delivering 73.6 FPS average — enough headroom to feel smooth despite the reduced visual detail.
The Verdict
Yes, this PC can run PC Building Simulator — with one qualification. At 1080p, every preset from Low through Ultra exceeds 60 FPS, topping out at 103 FPS on Ultra. At 1440p, the story is the same: all four presets clear the threshold, with Ultra at 63.6 FPS representing the tightest pass. The 4K result splits the verdict: only Low (73.6 FPS) is playable, while Medium (51.9 FPS), High (33.6 FPS), and Ultra (36.2 FPS) all fall short. Note the odd quirk in the data: at 4K, High actually measures lower than Ultra — 33.6 versus 36.2 FPS — an inversion worth remembering when choosing settings, since dropping from High to Ultra costs nothing there. Anyone content with 1080p or 1440p gets a fully playable experience at maximum detail; 4K owners must accept Low settings or a sub-60 frame rate.
Measured FPS Breakdown
All figures below are measured averages for the Core i7-14700F + Arc B580 pairing. Minimum and maximum frame rates were not recorded in this dataset.
1920x1080:
- Low: 216.7 FPS average
- Medium: 152.5 FPS average
- High: 106.5 FPS average
- Ultra: 103 FPS average
The spread from Low to Ultra is less than a 2.1x factor — this game is not heavily demanding on the GPU at 1080p with this hardware, and even the top preset leaves massive headroom.
2560x1440:
- Low: 135 FPS average
- Medium: 99.1 FPS average
- High: 69.1 FPS average
- Ultra: 63.6 FPS average
Resolution costs more than settings here. Dropping from Ultra to Low at 1440p recovers 71.4 FPS, whereas staying at Ultra and dropping from 1440p to 1080p recovers 39.4 FPS. If more headroom is needed at 1440p, lowering resolution is the more effective lever than lowering presets.
3840x2160:
- Low: 73.6 FPS average
- Medium: 51.9 FPS average
- High: 33.6 FPS average
- Ultra: 36.2 FPS average
The 4K numbers expose the B580's ceiling in this title. The High-preset result of 33.6 FPS sitting below Ultra's 36.2 FPS is an anomaly in the dataset, but both are equally unplayable regardless. Only Low keeps the experience above 60 FPS, with a 13.6-FPS cushion.
FAQ
Q: Can the i7-14700F + Arc B580 run PC Building Simulator at 4K?
A: Only on Low settings, which averages 73.6 FPS. Medium (51.9 FPS), High (33.6 FPS), and Ultra (36.2 FPS) all miss the 60 FPS playability threshold.
Q: What is the highest settings preset that stays above 60 FPS at 1440p?
A: Ultra, at 63.6 FPS average. All four presets — Low, Medium, High, and Ultra — clear 60 FPS at 2560x1440.
Q: How many FPS does the game deliver at 1080p on Ultra?
A: 103 FPS average on Ultra at 1920x1080, with Low reaching as high as 216.7 FPS.
Q: Which component is the bottleneck in this game?
A: The GPU. Frame rates fall steeply as resolution rises — from 103 to 63.6 to 36.2 FPS on Ultra across 1080p, 1440p, and 4K — a pattern consistent with graphics limitation. The 20-core i7-14700F shows no sign of holding the Arc B580 back.
Q: Which GPUs would perform similarly to the Arc B580 in this game?
A: Per the benchmark database, the AMD Radeon RX 580 2048SP, NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2080, NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3080, and NVIDIA P106-100 all fall within roughly 1% of the B580's average score of 23021.
Q: Is the CPU's single-core performance a factor for this simulation game?
A: It helps. The i7-14700F posts a Cinebench R23 single-core score of 4958 and a Geekbench single-core score of 2429, comfortably high for a 2019 simulation title, though the measured data indicates the game is GPU-bound at higher resolutions with this pairing.