Pc Building Simulator

GPU Role — VRAM, clocks, and how they relate to this game's results

The NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4090 in this combo brings 24 GB of GDDR6X memory on a 384-bit bus, delivering 1.01 TB/s of bandwidth. For a simulation title like Pc Building Simulator, this memory configuration is far beyond what the game's asset streaming demands, but the sheer bandwidth explains why the GPU never appears to be a bottleneck at lower resolutions. The base clock of 2235 MHz and boost clock of 2520 MHz, combined with 16384 shading units, provide raw compute headroom that the measured frames clearly exploit.

At 4K Ultra, the combo holds 83.7 FPS, which is identical to the 4K High result. This plateau suggests the game's Ultra preset is not adding meaningful GPU work over High — both settings hit the same average. The RTX 4090's 128 RT cores and 512 tensor cores are largely idle in this simulation genre, yet the FP32 throughput of 82.58 TFLOPS still drives the 385.3 FPS observed at 1080p Low. The data indicates that even a modestly demanding scene at 4K leaves this GPU with headroom; the 170.9 FPS at 4K Low versus 83.7 FPS at 4K High shows a 2x performance swing purely from setting changes, not resolution stress.

The 24 GB VRAM capacity is effectively a non-factor here. Pc Building Simulator's scene complexity, based on the measured rows, does not scale with memory footprint in a way that would differentiate 16 GB from 24 GB. Instead, the GPU's clock behavior and shader count determine the outcome. The 443.5 GPixel/s pixel rate and 1,290.2 GTexel/s texture rate suggest that fill-rate-bound scenarios would emerge only at 4K with heavy post-processing, yet the Ultra preset's identical FPS to High points to a CPU-side limit or a game engine cap rather than GPU exhaustion.

FAQ

Q: Why does the 4K Ultra average (83.7 FPS) exactly match the 4K High average (83.7 FPS)?

A: The measured data shows identical averages for both presets at 3840x2160. This implies the Ultra preset in Pc Building Simulator adds no additional GPU workload over High for this combo, or the game engine reaches a frame pacing ceiling at that resolution.

Q: Is the RTX 4090 the limiting factor at 1080p?

A: No. At 1920x1080 Low, the combo reaches 385.3 FPS, while 1080p Ultra drops to 247.6 FPS. The gap between Low and Ultra at the same resolution is 137.7 FPS, which is larger than the resolution-based drop from 1080p to 1440p at Ultra (247.6 to 158.4 FPS). This indicates the GPU has ample headroom and the CPU or engine limits the top end.

Q: How does the RTX 4090's benchmark percentile compare to its in-game ranking?

A: The GPU sits in the 91st percentile against all GPUs with an average benchmark score of 66473. In Pc Building Simulator, the full combo (CPU+GPU) ranks 38th out of 1769 tested combos, placing it in the top 2.1% of all pairings — a stronger relative position than the GPU's standalone percentile.

Q: What is the performance delta between the RTX 4090 and its nearest rival?

A: The nearest rival is the NVIDIA Tesla T4 with an average score of 66733, which is 0.4% higher. Conversely, the AMD Radeon Pro Vega 56 scores 67097, 0.9% higher. The RTX 4090's closest competitors are all within 1.3% of its average score, showing extremely tight benchmark clustering among these workstation-class cards.

Q: Does the 6-core CPU bottleneck the 4090 at any resolution?

A: The data suggests yes at 1080p. The Ryzen 5 7500F's max-thread benchmark score is 6379, and its Cinebench R23 multi-core score is 22799. At 1080p Low, the 385.3 FPS average likely approaches the CPU's frame generation ceiling, since moving to 1440p Low only drops to 328.8 FPS — a 14.7% decrease, far less than the 2.25x pixel increase.

Q: What does the 4K Low result (170.9 FPS) tell us about scaling efficiency?

A: Compared to 1080p Low (385.3 FPS), the 4K Low average is 55.6% lower. This drop is less than the 4x pixel count increase, meaning the game is not purely fill-rate bound at Low settings. The GPU's 1.01 TB/s bandwidth and 24 GB memory help maintain performance despite the resolution jump.

Settings Recommendations

The measured rows reveal that High and Ultra produce identical results at 4K (83.7 FPS both), so there is no reason to run Ultra at that resolution unless visual fidelity differences exist beyond the frame rate data. At 2560x1440, High delivers 164.8 FPS versus Ultra's 158.4 FPS — a negligible 4% penalty for Ultra. The 1080p results show a similar pattern: High at 258.4 FPS and Ultra at 247.6 FPS are within 4.2% of each other.

The most efficient choice appears to be the High preset. At 1440p, High gives 164.8 FPS, which is 6.4 FPS higher than Ultra and only 68.6 FPS lower than Medium's 233.4 FPS. For 4K gaming, High is the clear winner because it matches Ultra's frame rate exactly while theoretically reducing GPU load. Medium at 4K provides 124.3 FPS — a 48.4% improvement over High — but the visual difference between Medium and High in a simulation game may be less impactful than the frame rate gain suggests.

Low settings are only advisable for extreme refresh rate monitors. At 1080p Low, the 385.3 FPS exceeds any current display's refresh rate, making it functionally useless. The 1440p Low result of 328.8 FPS similarly overshoots practical needs. For a balanced experience, High at 1440p (164.8 FPS) or High at 4K (83.7 FPS) are the optimal measured configurations, depending on display capability.

How This Combo Ranks

The AMD Ryzen 5 7500F + RTX 4090 combination ranks 38th out of 1769 tested combos in Pc Building Simulator. This top 2.1% placement is notable because the CPU sits in only the 82nd percentile against all CPUs, while the GPU is in the 91st percentile. The combo ranking exceeds both individual component percentiles, suggesting the game is more sensitive to GPU performance than CPU in most scenarios.

The CPU's nearest rival, the Intel Core i7-11850H, has an average score of 24974, which is 0.1% lower than the 7500F's 24993. The AMD Ryzen 7 2700X scores 25057, only 0.3% higher. These deltas are within benchmark noise, meaning the CPU's contribution to the combo ranking is not from raw compute dominance but from adequate single-thread performance (Cinebench R23 single-core score of 3218).

The RTX 4090's nearest rival, the Tesla T4, scores 66733 versus the 4090's 66473 — a 0.4% difference. Yet the 4090's 24 GB VRAM and 82.58 TFLOPS FP32 throughput likely provide better real-world gaming performance than the benchmark clustering suggests. The combo's 38th rank out of 1769 indicates that only 37 other pairings (likely featuring newer or more specialized hardware) outperform this configuration in Pc Building Simulator.

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

The AMD Ryzen 5 7500F brings 6 cores and 12 threads based on Zen 4 architecture, with a base clock of 3.70 GHz and boost clock of 5.00 GHz. Its 32 MB shared L3 cache and 83.2 GB/s memory bandwidth provide the memory subsystem needed to feed the RTX 4090's frame output. The 65 W TDP is low, but this CPU's single-thread performance — a 3dmark single-thread score of 974 and Geekbench single-core of 2759 — is what matters most for a simulation game.

The 1080p results expose the CPU's influence. At 1080p Low, the combo achieves 385.3 FPS, but at 1440p Low it drops to 328.8 FPS. If the GPU were the sole bottleneck, the 2.25x pixel increase from 1080p to 1440p would cause a much larger FPS drop than the observed 14.7% reduction. This pattern indicates that at 1080p, the CPU's 6 cores are generating frames as fast as the game logic allows, and the GPU is waiting.

The Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 22799 and passmark multithread score of 26825 show solid parallel capability, but Pc Building Simulator likely uses only a few threads for game simulation. The 3dmark 2-thread score of 1902 versus the max-thread score of 6379 suggests that scaling beyond 4 threads (score of 3621) is poor — the 8-thread score of 5372 is only 41% higher than 4 threads. This game's engine appears to favor clock speed over core count, which the 5.00 GHz boost clock serves well.

Measured FPS Breakdown — resolution by resolution, settings by settings, exact numbers

At 1920x1080, the combo delivers 385.3 FPS on Low, 337.9 FPS on Medium, 258.4 FPS on High, and 247.6 FPS on Ultra. The progression from Low to Medium is a 12.3% drop, Medium to High is a 23.5% drop, and High to Ultra is only a 4.2% drop. The diminishing impact of the Ultra preset is evident at this resolution.

Moving to 2560x1440, the numbers are 328.8 FPS on Low, 233.4 FPS on Medium, 164.8 FPS on High, and 158.4 FPS on Ultra. The Low-to-Medium gap widens to 29.0%, while High-to-Ultra remains tight at 3.9%. The resolution increase from 1080p to 1440p costs 14.7% at Low, 30.9% at Medium, 36.2% at High, and 36.0% at Ultra.

At 3840x2160, the results are 170.9 FPS on Low, 124.3 FPS on Medium, and 83.7 FPS on both High and Ultra. The 1440p-to-4K transition reduces FPS by 48.0% at Low, 46.7% at Medium, 49.2% at High, and 47.2% at Ultra. The consistency of this ~47-49% drop across settings suggests a uniform bottleneck — likely memory bandwidth or pixel throughput — rather than a setting-specific effect.

Resolution Scaling — how FPS drops from 1080p to 4K and what it says about the limiting component

From 1080p Low (385.3 FPS) to 4K Low (170.9 FPS), the frame rate falls by 55.6%. This is a significant drop but notably less than the 75% reduction that pure pixel-count scaling would predict (1080p has 2.07 million pixels, 4K has 8.29 million, so 4x the pixels should yield ~25% FPS if perfectly fill-rate bound). The fact that the drop is only 55.6% indicates that at Low settings, the CPU or game logic limits performance at 1080p, masking the GPU's true scaling potential.

For Medium settings, the 1080p-to-4K drop is 63.2% (337.9 to 124.3 FPS). This is closer to pixel-bound behavior, suggesting that Medium adds enough shader work to engage the GPU more fully. At High settings, the drop is 67.6% (258.4 to 83.7 FPS), and at Ultra it is 66.2% (247.6 to 83.7 FPS). The High and Ultra settings show near-identical scaling patterns, reinforcing that these presets impose similar GPU workloads.

The 4K High and Ultra results being exactly equal (83.7 FPS) while 1440p High (164.8) and Ultra (158.4) differ by 6.4 FPS suggests that at 4K, the game hits a hard frame pacing limit or the GPU's pixel throughput saturates at 83.7 FPS regardless of the Ultra-specific effects. The RTX 4090's pixel rate of 443.5 GPixel/s should theoretically handle 4K at much higher rates, but the game engine's draw call overhead or CPU single-thread limit at 4K may be the true constraint. The data points to a hybrid bottleneck: CPU-limited at low resolutions and settings, transitioning to a GPU or engine limit at 4K Ultra — with the two meeting at that 83.7 FPS ceiling.