Pc Building Simulator

CPU Role — cores, clocks, and how they relate to this game's results

The AMD Ryzen 5 7500F is a 6-core, 12-thread processor built on the Zen 4 architecture (Raphael) using TSMC's 5 nm process. It runs on the AMD Socket AM5 platform with a base clock of 3.70 GHz and a boost clock of 5.00 GHz. The CPU has a 65 W TDP and supports DDR5 memory in a dual-channel configuration with a memory bandwidth of 83.2 GB/s. Cache is structured as 64 KB L1 per core, 1 MB L2 per core, and 32 MB shared L3.

In Pc Building Simulator, this processor's workload profile is moderate. The game is a simulation title where the primary task is managing a PC building business—selecting components, assembling systems, and running diagnostics. It is not a heavily threaded game, but it does benefit from having multiple cores available for background simulation logic, UI responsiveness, and the various management systems running simultaneously.

Benchmark data shows the CPU's threading capability scales well from light to full loads. In 3DMark, it scores 974 for single-thread, 1,902 for 2-threads, 3,621 for 4-threads, 5,372 for 8-threads, and 6,376 for 16-threads (with 6,379 at max threads). This scaling pattern indicates that the processor gains substantial performance from additional cores up to about 6 threads, after which gains flatten—consistent with a 6-core design where the 12 threads provide diminishing returns beyond the physical core count.

Cinebench results reinforce this. The R23 multi-core score is 22,799, while the single-core score is 3,218. The R20 scores are 9,575 multi-core and 1,351 single-core, and R15 scores are 2,298 multi-core and 324 single-core. Geekbench shows 12,362 multi-core and 2,374 single-core. PassMark multi-thread score is 26,825, with single-thread at 3,841.

The processor's percentile rank against all CPUs is 77, meaning it outperforms 77% of tested CPUs in the database. Its average benchmark score is 24,964. The nearest rivals in average score are the Intel Core i7-11850H at 24,935 (only 0.1% behind the 7500F), the AMD Ryzen 5 8400F at 25,005 (0.2% ahead), the Intel Core i7-13620H at 24,911 (0.2% behind), and the Intel Core 5 210H at 24,872 (0.4% behind). These are all extremely close scores, meaning the 7500F sits in a tightly competitive band of processors; no rival has a meaningful advantage.

For Pc Building Simulator specifically, the CPU's role is to keep the simulation running smoothly without bottlenecking the GPU. Given that the game's measured FPS at 1080p Low reaches 247 FPS, the CPU is clearly capable of feeding frames at very high rates. The combination of strong single-thread performance (3,218 in R23 single-core) and adequate multi-thread capability ensures the game logic, component selection menus, and 3D rendering of the workshop environment all run without hiccups.

FAQ

Q: How does the Ryzen 5 7500F compare to its closest rivals in raw processing power?

A: The 7500F's average benchmark score is 24,964. It sits 0.1% above the Intel Core i7-11850H (24,935), 0.2% below the AMD Ryzen 5 8400F (25,005), 0.2% above the Intel Core i7-13620H (24,911), and 0.4% above the Intel Core 5 210H (24,872). These deltas are negligible in real-world terms.

Q: What is the CPU's percentile ranking, and what does it mean?

A: The Ryzen 5 7500F ranks in the 77th percentile among all CPUs in the database. This means it performs better than roughly three-quarters of all processors tested, placing it in the upper-middle tier of available hardware.

Q: Does the CPU have integrated graphics?

A: No. The integratedGraphics field is null, meaning the Ryzen 5 7500F requires a dedicated GPU to output video. In this test system, that role is filled by the AMD Radeon RX 9060.

Q: What memory and platform features does this CPU support?

A: The 7500F supports DDR5 memory on a dual-channel bus, with ECC memory support as a feature. It uses AMD Socket AM5 and provides PCIe Gen 5 with 24 lanes from the CPU. The memory bandwidth is rated at 83.2 GB/s.

Q: How does the CPU's threading performance scale for a simulation game like this?

A: The 3DMark thread scaling shows 974 single-thread, 1,902 for 2 threads, 3,621 for 4 threads, and 5,372 for 8 threads. Doubling from 1 to 2 threads nearly doubles the score, but going from 4 to 8 threads only adds about 48% more performance. This indicates that for a game like Pc Building Simulator, which doesn't heavily utilize more than a few threads, the CPU has ample headroom.

Q: Is the CPU unlocked for overclocking?

A: Yes, the multiplierUnlocked field is true. The base clock of 3.70 GHz can be increased, and the boost clock of 5.00 GHz is the rated maximum. However, the measured FPS data in this analysis uses stock settings.

Resolution Scaling

The measured FPS data across three resolutions shows a clear pattern of GPU-bound scaling. At 1080p Low, the system achieves 247 FPS. At 1440p Low, it drops to 156 FPS—a 37% reduction. At 4K Low, it falls to 82 FPS, another 47% reduction from 1440p. This steep drop-off indicates that the Radeon RX 9060 is the limiting factor at higher resolutions, as the CPU has plenty of headroom (evidenced by the very high 1080p Low frame rate).

Looking at High settings, the scaling is similar but with lower absolute numbers: 124 FPS at 1080p, 78 FPS at 1440p (37% drop), and 41 FPS at 4K (47% drop from 1440p). The consistent percentage drops across settings suggest the GPU is the primary bottleneck when resolution increases.

The Medium settings row provides the only min/max FPS data in the dataset. At 1080p Medium, the average is 175 FPS with a minimum of 149 and maximum of 201. At 1440p Medium, the average is 111 FPS with 94 min and 127 max. At 4K Medium, the average is 58 FPS with 49 min and 66 max. The frame time consistency appears to hold up well, with the minimum FPS staying within about 15-18% of the average at each resolution.

The Ultra preset shows the lowest performance: 118 FPS at 1080p, 74 FPS at 1440p (37% drop), and 39 FPS at 4K (47% drop from 1440p). This consistent drop pattern across all settings—roughly 37% from 1080p to 1440p and 47% from 1440p to 4K—indicates that the RX 9060's rendering load scales predictably with pixel count, and the CPU is not introducing variable bottlenecks at different resolutions.

What this means for the limiting component: at 1080p, the system achieves high frame rates across all settings (118-247 FPS), suggesting the CPU can handle the game's simulation logic without restricting the GPU. At 4K, the frame rates drop to 39-82 FPS, which is within the range where the GPU's rendering capabilities are the constraining factor. The CPU's strong single-thread performance (3,218 in Cinebench R23 single-core) ensures it doesn't become a bottleneck even at lower resolutions where the GPU can render faster.

How This Combo Ranks

The AMD Ryzen 5 7500F + AMD Radeon RX 9060 combination ranks 1,710 out of 3,002 tested combos in Pc Building Simulator. This places it in the 57th percentile of all tested combinations—slightly above the middle of the pack.

This ranking is notably lower than the individual component percentiles. The CPU ranks in the 77th percentile and the GPU ranks in the 59th percentile, but the combo lands at 57th percentile. This suggests that the pairing in this specific game does not extract maximum performance from either component, or that the game's workload characteristics favor different hardware combinations.

The GPU's percentile ranking of 59 places it just above average. Its average benchmark score is 16,014, and its nearest rivals are the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3060 Ti at 16,129 (0.7% higher), the AMD Radeon R9 370X at 15,862 (1% lower), the AMD Radeon RX 7700 at 15,852 (1% lower), and the AMD Radeon Pro W5500 at 15,679 (2.1% lower). The RX 9060 sits in a closely packed group where the delta between the highest and lowest of these four rivals is only 2.8%.

Given that the combo ranks 1,710 out of 3,002, there are 1,291 combos that perform worse and 1,711 that perform better. The mid-pack ranking indicates that while this is a functional pairing for Pc Building Simulator, it is not an optimized combination for this particular title. The GPU's 59th percentile and the CPU's 77th percentile suggest the GPU is the weaker link, and pairing this CPU with a higher-performing GPU would likely yield a better combo rank.

Measured FPS Breakdown

All data below is from the measuredFps array in the fact pack. No min/max values were provided for Low, High, or Ultra settings; only Medium has full min/max data.

1920x1080 (1080p):

• Low: 247 FPS average
• Medium: 175 FPS average, 149 min, 201 max
• High: 124 FPS average
• Ultra: 118 FPS average

2560x1440 (1440p):

• Low: 156 FPS average
• Medium: 111 FPS average, 94 min, 127 max
• High: 78 FPS average
• Ultra: 74 FPS average

3840x2160 (4K):

• Low: 82 FPS average
• Medium: 58 FPS average, 49 min, 66 max
• High: 41 FPS average
• Ultra: 39 FPS average

The progression from Low to Ultra at each resolution shows consistent scaling. At 1080p, moving from Low (247 FPS) to Medium (175 FPS) is a 29% reduction, from Medium to High (124 FPS) is a 29% reduction, and from High to Ultra (118 FPS) is a 5% reduction. The Ultra preset offers very little additional visual quality over High for a small FPS cost at this resolution.

At 1440p, the pattern is similar: Low (156 FPS) to Medium (111 FPS) is a 29% drop, Medium to High (78 FPS) is a 30% drop, and High to Ultra (74 FPS) is a 5% drop. At 4K, Low (82 FPS) to Medium (58 FPS) is a 29% drop, Medium to High (41 FPS) is a 29% drop, and High to Ultra (39 FPS) is a 5% drop.

The consistency of these percentage drops across resolutions indicates that the visual settings scale uniformly regardless of pixel count. The Ultra preset is consistently only about 5% slower than High, making it a nearly free upgrade in terms of FPS cost.

Settings Recommendations

Based on the measured FPS data, the optimal settings depend on the target resolution and desired frame rate.

At 1080p: The Ultra preset delivers 118 FPS average, which is well above the 60 FPS threshold for smooth gameplay. Given that Ultra is only 5% slower than High (124 FPS), there is little reason to drop to High. The Medium preset at 175 FPS and Low at 247 FPS are available for users with high refresh rate monitors (144Hz or 240Hz), but the visual quality trade-off may not be worth the extra frames. For most 1080p users, Ultra is the recommended choice—the 118 FPS average provides a comfortable margin above 60 FPS, and the min FPS for Ultra was not recorded but the Medium min of 149 FPS suggests the system maintains good frame consistency.

At 1440p: The Ultra preset delivers 74 FPS average, which is above 60 FPS but with less headroom. High is 78 FPS, a marginal 5% improvement. Both are playable. For users prioritizing smoothness, High at 78 FPS is a safe bet. For those who want maximum visual quality, Ultra at 74 FPS is still above the 60 FPS threshold. The Medium preset at 111 FPS with a 94 FPS minimum offers a substantial buffer for users with 100Hz+ displays. Given that the difference between High and Ultra is only 4 FPS, Ultra is the better choice for 1440p users with standard 60Hz or 75Hz monitors, while Medium is recommended for high refresh rate displays.

At 4K: The Ultra preset delivers 39 FPS average, which is below the 60 FPS target for smooth gameplay. High is 41 FPS, equally insufficient. Medium is 58 FPS, just barely under 60 FPS, with a minimum of 49 FPS. Low is 82 FPS, providing a comfortable margin. For 4K gaming, the data suggests that Medium is the highest setting that approaches playable frame rates, but it still dips below 60 FPS on average. Low at 82 FPS is the only 4K setting that delivers consistently smooth performance. Users with 4K displays should consider Low settings for a playable experience, or alternatively drop to 1440p resolution and run Ultra at 74 FPS for better visual quality overall.

The best overall experience per the measured rows is the Ultra preset at 1080p (118 FPS) or the Ultra preset at 1440p (74 FPS). Both deliver above-60 FPS performance with maximum visual settings. At 4K, the compromise between visual quality and performance is severe, with only Low providing truly smooth frame rates.