Pc Building Simulator

# Pc Building Simulator — AMD Ryzen 5 8400F + NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650

The data indicates that this combination of the AMD Ryzen 5 8400F and the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 lands near the very bottom of the tested field in Pc Building Simulator, ranking 1727 out of 1769 combos. This is a pairing where the GPU, an end-of-life Turing-based part, becomes the dominant constraint at nearly every resolution and settings level. The measured results show a system that is playable at 1080p with lower presets, but which struggles to maintain acceptable frame rates as resolution increases, making it fundamentally a 1080p-oriented configuration.

Resolution Scaling

The measured FPS data reveals a steep performance cliff as resolution climbs from 1920x1080 to 3840x2160, a pattern consistent with a GPU-bound system. At 1080p with Low settings, the combo achieves 106.3 FPS, which is the highest frame rate recorded across all tested configurations. Moving to 1440p Low drops the average to 68.6 FPS, a reduction of approximately 35% from the 1080p result. The jump to 4K Low further reduces performance to 35.2 FPS, which is roughly half of the 1440p figure and only a third of the 1080p Low score.

The scaling pattern becomes more pronounced at higher quality presets. At High settings, the frame rate falls from 54.9 FPS at 1080p to 36.0 FPS at 1440p, then to 19.7 FPS at 4K. This represents a 64% drop from 1080p to 4K at High, compared to a 67% drop at Low settings. The Ultra preset shows the most severe degradation: 50.5 FPS at 1080p, 30.1 FPS at 1440p, and just 14.5 FPS at 4K. The 4K Ultra result is below the threshold for consistent playability, indicating that the GPU's limited memory bandwidth and compute resources are overwhelmed by the higher pixel count.

The data suggests that the scaling from 1080p to 1440p is more forgiving than the step from 1440p to 4K. For instance, Medium settings show 76.9 FPS at 1080p, 45.4 FPS at 1440p, and 23.4 FPS at 4K. The proportional drop from 1440p to 4K is roughly 48%, while the drop from 1080p to 1440p is about 41%. This non-linear behavior points to the 4 GB VRAM buffer and the 128-bit memory interface becoming increasingly saturated at higher resolutions, where texture data and frame buffers demand more capacity than the card can efficiently handle.

GPU Role

The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 serves as the primary limiting component in this pairing, and its specifications clarify why the measured FPS numbers behave as they do. The card features 4 GB of GDDR5 memory on a 128-bit bus, delivering 128.1 GB/s of bandwidth. With a base clock of 1485 MHz and a boost clock of 1665 MHz, the GPU's 896 shading units produce a peak FP32 throughput of 2.984 TFLOPS. These figures place the GTX 1650 in the 43rd percentile of all GPUs in the benchmark database, with an average benchmark score of 8713.

The GPU's nearest rivals in the database include the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3050 A Mobile (avg score 8746, deltaPct -0.4), the AMD Radeon 550X (avg score 8749, deltaPct -0.4), and the NVIDIA Quadro P2200 (avg score 8671, deltaPct 0.5). The deltaPct values show that the GTX 1650 is within 0.5% of these parts, meaning it performs essentially identically to them in synthetic benchmarks. This clustering suggests that the GTX 1650's architecture, despite being from the Turing generation, offers compute capabilities that are comparable to a range of mobile and workstation parts from different generations.

In Pc Building Simulator specifically, the GPU's 4 GB memory capacity appears to be a decisive factor. At 1080p Ultra, the measured 50.5 FPS indicates the card can handle the game's highest preset at a modest but playable frame rate. However, the 4K Ultra result of 14.5 FPS shows a catastrophic drop that cannot be explained by raw compute alone. The 128-bit memory bus and 128.1 GB/s bandwidth likely struggle to feed the render pipeline at 4K, where texture fetch and memory latency become more critical. The card's 75 W TDP and lack of power connectors also point to a design intended for low-power systems, which further constrains its ability to sustain high clock speeds under load.

CPU Role

The AMD Ryzen 5 8400F is a modern 6-core, 12-thread processor based on the Zen 4 architecture, fabricated on a 4 nm process. With a base clock of 4.20 GHz and a boost clock of 4.70 GHz, this CPU offers strong single-threaded performance, as evidenced by its Cinebench R23 single-core score of 2943 and multi-core score of 20851. The processor's 16 MB of shared L3 cache and 83.2 GB/s of dual-channel DDR5 memory bandwidth provide ample headroom for gaming workloads.

In this pairing, the CPU's role is secondary to the GPU's limitations. The measured frame rates at 1080p Low (106.3 FPS) and 1080p Medium (76.9 FPS) suggest that the Ryzen 5 8400F is capable of feeding the GTX 1650 with enough draw calls to reach these levels, but the GPU becomes the bottleneck beyond that point. The CPU's benchmark data shows it ranks in the 82nd percentile of all CPUs, with an average benchmark score of 25064. Its nearest rivals include the AMD Ryzen 7 2700X (avg score 25057, deltaPct 0), the AMD Ryzen AI 5 PRO 340 (avg score 25099, deltaPct -0.1), and the AMD Ryzen 5 7500F (avg score 24993, deltaPct 0.3). These near-identical scores indicate that the 8400F delivers performance on par with a previous-generation 8-core processor, and slightly ahead of its 7500F sibling.

The CPU's 3DMark results further illustrate its capability: 16-thread score of 6091, 8-thread score of 5275, and single-thread score of 951. These numbers show strong scaling from 2 to 4 threads (1874 to 3563), but diminishing returns beyond 8 threads, which is typical for a 6-core part. In Pc Building Simulator, a simulation game that likely relies on single-threaded game logic and moderate multi-threading for physics and AI, the 8400F's single-thread performance is more than adequate. The bottleneck never shifts to the CPU within the measured settings; instead, the GPU consistently caps frame rates, as seen in the narrow FPS spread between Low and Ultra at any given resolution.

How This Combo Ranks

The combo ranks 1727 out of 1769 tested combinations in Pc Building Simulator, placing it in the bottom 2.4% of all pairings. This rank is driven almost entirely by the GPU's low percentile standing, as the CPU is comparatively strong. The GTX 1650's 43rd percentile rank among all GPUs means that most other graphics cards in the database outperform it, and the measured FPS data confirms this in-game. The combination of a high-end CPU with a low-end GPU creates a significant imbalance, where the processor's potential is wasted in most scenarios because the graphics card cannot keep pace.

The data shows that the Ryzen 5 8400F's nearest rival, the AMD Ryzen 7 2700X, has an identical average benchmark score (25057 vs 25064, deltaPct 0), yet the GPU difference would lead to vastly different gaming experiences. The GTX 1650's rivals, such as the RTX 3050 A Mobile and Radeon 550X, differ by only 0.4% in synthetic scores, but none of these parts would change the fundamental ranking for this game. The combo's rank is a reflection of the GPU's inability to deliver high frame rates at 1440p or 4K, regardless of the CPU's capabilities.

At 1080p, the combo achieves playable results: 54.9 FPS at High, 76.9 FPS at Medium, and 50.5 FPS at Ultra. These numbers suggest that the system can handle the game at its most common resolution, but the rank of 1727 indicates that the vast majority of other tested combos deliver better performance. The delta between this combo and higher-ranked ones is likely substantial, given that the GTX 1650 sits at the low end of the GPU performance spectrum. For a simulation game that may involve complex scene rendering and multiple viewports, this rank underscores the GPU's limitations.

Settings Recommendations

Based on the measured FPS rows, the optimal settings for this combo depend on the target resolution and desired frame rate. At 1920x1080, the Low preset delivers 106.3 FPS, which is smooth and well above the 60 FPS threshold. Medium settings reduce this to 76.9 FPS, still comfortably playable and likely offering a better visual experience. High settings at 54.9 FPS are borderline, while Ultra at 50.5 FPS dips below the 60 FPS mark, making it less desirable for competitive or fast-paced gameplay.

For users prioritizing a consistent 60 FPS experience at 1080p, the Medium preset is the recommended choice, as it provides a 76.9 FPS average with a significant visual upgrade over Low. The High preset at 54.9 FPS may be acceptable for slower-paced simulation gameplay, but the 22 FPS drop from Medium to High suggests diminishing returns. Ultra at 50.5 FPS offers only marginal visual gains over High while increasing the risk of frame drops during complex scenes.

At 2560x1440, the situation changes dramatically. The Low preset achieves 68.6 FPS, which is playable, but Medium drops to 45.4 FPS, and High falls to 36.0 FPS. Ultra at 30.1 FPS is below the threshold for smooth gameplay. Given these numbers, 1440p is only viable with Low settings, and even then, the 68.6 FPS average leaves little headroom for demanding scenes. For 4K, none of the presets provide acceptable performance: Low delivers 35.2 FPS, Medium 23.4 FPS, High 19.7 FPS, and Ultra 14.5 FPS. The 4K results are uniformly below playable levels, confirming that this combo is not suited for resolutions above 1080p.

The measured data indicates that the best balance of visual quality and performance is achieved at 1080p Medium, which offers more than double the frame rate of 4K Low while providing a richer visual presentation. Users who prefer higher settings should stick to 1080p High, accepting the 54.9 FPS average, while those who prioritize frame rate above all else should select 1080p Low. The 1440p and 4K presets are not recommended due to the GPU's memory and bandwidth constraints, which manifest as severe frame rate penalties even at Low settings.