Pc Building Simulator

The AMD Ryzen 5 7400F paired with the Intel Arc B370 ranks near the bottom of the database for Pc Building Simulator, placing 2761st out of 3002 tested combos. This position places it in the bottom 8% of all combinations, indicating that while the system is capable of running the game, its overall performance ceiling is limited compared to the broader hardware landscape. The data shows a system that is fundamentally playable at lower resolutions and settings, but one that struggles significantly when demands are increased, making it a configuration best suited for modest expectations.

How This Combo Ranks

The combination of the AMD Ryzen 5 7400F and Intel Arc B370 achieves a combo rank of 2761 out of 3002 in Pc Building Simulator. This is a low placement, suggesting that the graphics subsystem is the primary bottleneck holding this configuration back. The Intel Arc B370 has a benchmark percentile of only 5%, meaning it performs worse than 95% of all GPUs in the database. Its average 3DMark Steel Nomad score of 1184 places it in direct competition with legacy parts like the ATI Mobility Radeon HD 5570, which scores 1186, and the ATI Radeon HD 5770, which scores 1190. The Arc B370 trails these older cards by 0.2% and 0.5%, respectively, while only managing a 1.4% lead over the AMD FirePro M2000.

In contrast, the processor is a much stronger component. The Ryzen 5 7400F sits in the 83rd percentile among all CPUs, with an average benchmark score of 32750. This places it in a tight cluster with the Intel Core i5-14600T, which scores 32707, and the Intel Core Ultra 7 155H, which scores 32697. The Ryzen 5 7400F is essentially neck-and-neck with these rivals, leading the i5-14600T by a mere 0.1% and the Core Ultra 7 155H by 0.2%. The data strongly suggests that the CPU is not the limiting factor in this pairing; the GPU's low standing drags the entire combo down to the 2761st position.

The measured frame rates confirm this dynamic. Even at the lowest settings and resolution, the system cannot achieve high refresh rates, which would be expected if the CPU were the bottleneck. The GPU's performance percentile of 5% is the clearest indicator of the system's ultimate potential. The combination's rank is a direct consequence of the GPU's position in the hierarchy, as the CPU's robust 83rd percentile standing is unable to compensate for the graphics card's limitations. This is a classic case of a balanced processor being paired with a severely imbalanced graphics solution for this specific workload.

Settings Recommendations

For the best experience according to the measured data, the Low preset at 1920x1080 is the only configuration that provides a consistently smooth frame rate. At this setting, the system delivers an average of 113 FPS, which is more than double the performance of the next best preset at the same resolution. The Medium preset at 1080p yields an average of 80 FPS, which is also playable, but the jump from Medium to High at 1080p results in a significant drop to 56 FPS. The Ultra preset at 1080p is the least favorable option, producing an average of only 54 FPS.

The data shows a clear trade-off between visual fidelity and performance. At 1920x1080, the Low preset is the only option that guarantees a high frame rate. The Medium preset, with an average of 80 FPS, is still viable for those who prefer better visuals, but the frame rate drops to a level that may be less desirable on high refresh rate displays. The High and Ultra presets at 1080p are not recommended as they both fall below the 60 FPS threshold, making the gameplay feel less fluid.

At 2560x1440, the recommendations shift. The Low preset is the only playable option, delivering an average of 71 FPS. The Medium preset at this resolution drops to 50 FPS, and the High preset falls to 36 FPS. The Ultra preset is not viable, averaging only 34 FPS. For 4K resolution, none of the presets are recommended for a smooth experience. The Low preset at 3840x2160 achieves an average of 37 FPS, which is the highest of the 4K options, but still well below acceptable levels. The Medium preset produces 26 FPS, while High and Ultra produce 19 FPS and 18 FPS, respectively.

The optimal strategy is to prioritize the Low preset at 1080p for the most responsive gameplay. If a higher resolution is desired, dropping to Low at 1440p is the only way to maintain a frame rate above 60 FPS. The data suggests that the system is not capable of handling higher quality settings at any resolution without significant performance degradation. Users should expect to sacrifice visual quality for playability, as the GPU's limitations are pronounced.

Resolution Scaling

The frame rate data reveals a steep performance drop as resolution increases, clearly indicating that the GPU is the limiting component. Moving from 1920x1080 to 2560x1440 at the Low preset reduces the average frame rate from 113 FPS to 71 FPS, a 37% decrease. The drop from 1440p to 4K at the Low preset is even more severe, falling from 71 FPS to 37 FPS, a 48% reduction. This pattern holds across all settings, with the scaling factor worsening at higher resolutions.

At the Medium preset, the frame rates go from 80 FPS at 1080p, down to 50 FPS at 1440p, and finally to 26 FPS at 4K. The High preset shows a similar trend, with 56 FPS at 1080p, 36 FPS at 1440p, and 19 FPS at 4K. The Ultra preset is the most demanding, dropping from 54 FPS at 1080p to 34 FPS at 1440p and 18 FPS at 4K. The consistent and dramatic decline in performance with each resolution increase points to a system that is heavily constrained by the graphics processor's ability to fill pixels.

The data indicates that the Arc B370's pixel throughput is insufficient for higher resolutions. The GPU's pixel rate is 48.00 GPixel/s, which is a modest figure. As the resolution increases, the number of pixels that need to be processed grows exponentially, and the GPU's fixed pixel rate becomes the bottleneck. The CPU, with its high benchmark scores, is not the cause of this scaling behavior. The Ryzen 5 7400F's strong single-thread and multi-thread performance would be more than capable of feeding a more powerful GPU. The steep frame rate drops are a direct result of the GPU's inability to keep up with the increased pixel load, making it clear that the graphics card is the sole limiting factor in this configuration.

Measured FPS Breakdown

At 1920x1080, the system shows a wide range of performance depending on the preset. The Low preset delivers an average of 113 FPS, which is the highest score recorded for this combination. The Medium preset produces an average of 80 FPS, with a minimum of 68 FPS and a maximum of 92 FPS. The High preset drops to an average of 56 FPS, while the Ultra preset averages 54 FPS. The gap between Low and Medium is substantial, at 33 FPS, while the difference between High and Ultra is minimal, at just 2 FPS, suggesting diminishing returns at the top end.

Moving to 2560x1440, the performance drops across all presets. The Low preset averages 71 FPS, which is still playable. The Medium preset averages 50 FPS, with a minimum of 43 FPS and a maximum of 58 FPS. The High preset averages 36 FPS, and the Ultra preset averages 34 FPS. The pattern at 1440p mirrors 1080p, with Low being the only preset to break the 60 FPS barrier. The Medium preset's minimum of 43 FPS indicates that there can be noticeable dips in performance.

At 3840x2160, the system is unable to maintain playable frame rates on any preset. The Low preset averages 37 FPS, which is the best result at 4K. The Medium preset averages 26 FPS, with a minimum of 22 FPS and a maximum of 30 FPS. The High preset averages 19 FPS, and the Ultra preset averages 18 FPS. The data shows that 4K resolution is not a viable option for this hardware, as even the lowest settings produce a choppy experience. The minimum frame rate of 22 FPS at Medium 4K suggests that the system can stutter significantly under load.

The measured FPS data consistently shows that the system's performance is heavily dependent on resolution and settings. The only configuration that provides a high frame rate is 1080p Low. As the resolution and quality settings increase, the frame rate plummets, making the game unplayable at 4K and less smooth at 1440p with higher presets. The lack of min and max FPS data for many presets suggests that the testing focused on average performance, but the available data for Medium presets shows a reasonable level of consistency.

GPU Role

The Intel Arc B370 is the dominant factor in this system's performance, and its specifications explain the measured results. The GPU has a base clock of 300 MHz and a boost clock of 2400 MHz. Despite the high boost clock, the architecture is severely limited in other areas. It has 1280 shading units, 40 texture mapping units, and 20 raster output units. The pixel rate is 48.00 GPixel/s, and the texture rate is 96.00 GTexel/s. The FP32 performance is 6.144 TFLOPS, which is a low figure for a modern GPU.

The memory configuration is a major limitation. The Arc B370 uses System Shared memory, which means it relies on the system's DDR5 RAM rather than dedicated VRAM. The memory type, bus width, and bandwidth are all listed as "System Shared" or "System Dependent," indicating that performance will vary based on the system's memory configuration. This shared memory arrangement is likely a primary cause of the low benchmark scores. The GPU's 3DMark Steel Nomad score of 1184 places it in the 5th percentile, confirming its weak standing.

The GPU's performance relative to its rivals is telling. It is 0.2% slower than the ATI Mobility Radeon HD 5570 and 0.5% slower than the ATI Radeon HD 5770. These are legacy cards from a previous era, yet the Arc B370 cannot outperform them. This suggests that the GPU is not competitive even with older hardware. The low transistor count and die size are listed as "unknown," but the 25 W TDP and IGP slot width indicate that this is a low-power, integrated-class solution. The data shows that the GPU is the bottleneck, and its limited pixel throughput and shared memory are responsible for the low frame rates at higher resolutions.

CPU Role

The AMD Ryzen 5 7400F is a high-performance processor that is not the limiting factor in this configuration. It has 6 cores and 12 threads, with a base clock of 3.70 GHz and a boost clock of 4.70 GHz. The CPU is based on the Zen 4 architecture and is manufactured on a 5 nm process. It has a 32 MB shared L3 cache and supports DDR5 memory with a bandwidth of 83.2 GB/s. The CPU's benchmark scores are strong, with a Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 21765 and a single-core score of 3072. Its Passmark multi-thread score is 25645, and its single-thread score is 3689.

The CPU's percentile rank of 83 places it well above average. Its average benchmark score of 32750 is comparable to the Intel Core i5-14600T, which scores 32707, and the AMD Ryzen 7 PRO 6850H, which scores 32812. The Ryzen 5 7400F is essentially tied with these rivals, with a deltaPct of 0.1% versus the i5-14600T and -0.2% versus the Ryzen 7 PRO. This indicates that the CPU has plenty of computational headroom for a game like Pc Building Simulator.

The CPU's role in this combo is to feed the GPU with data, and it does so without issue. The measured frame rates show that the bottleneck is always the GPU, as evidenced by the steep performance drops at higher resolutions. The CPU's high single-thread performance of 309 in Cinebench R15 and 1290 in R20 ensures that it can handle the game's simulation logic and draw calls efficiently. The data confirms that the Ryzen 5 7400F is a capable processor that is being held back by the Intel Arc B370. Upgrading the GPU would likely yield significant performance gains, as the CPU has the capacity to support a much faster graphics card.