Pc Building Simulator

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

The AMD Ryzen 7 5700 brings substantial multi-threaded capability to this simulation title, featuring 8 cores and 16 threads running on the Zen 3 architecture. Its base clock of 3.70 GHz can boost up to 4.60 GHz, which provides the kind of responsive single-thread performance that simulation games typically leverage for game logic and physics calculations. The processor's L3 cache totals 16 MB, and with a TDP of 65 W on the AMD Socket AM4 platform, it represents a power-efficient choice for sustained workloads.

Benchmark data positions this CPU in the 78th percentile among all tested processors, with an average benchmark score of 25,517. In synthetic tests, the CPU demonstrates strong scaling from 2 threads (3dmark score of 1,762) up to 8 threads (5,585) and near-maximum threads (6,617), indicating good thread utilization. The multi-threaded performance is particularly evident in Cinebench R23, where the multicore score reaches 20,655, while the single-core score of 2,916 shows competent per-thread capability. PassMark's multithread score of 24,303 and single-thread score of 3,296 reinforce this balanced profile.

In the context of Pc Building Simulator, the CPU's role appears to be less about raw computational muscle and more about maintaining consistent frame pacing. The game's simulation mechanics, which track component compatibility and system building logic, benefit from the CPU's 16 threads, but the measured frame rates across all settings and resolutions suggest that the GPU becomes the primary bottleneck at higher visual fidelity levels.

# How This Combo Ranks

The combination of the AMD Ryzen 7 5700 with the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 ranks 3,598 out of 3,723 tested combos in this game. This places the pairing in the bottom 3.4% of all configurations tested, a position that reflects the GPU's modest performance tier more than the CPU's capabilities. The CPU alone sits in the 78th percentile, but the overall combo rank indicates that the graphics card is severely limiting the system's gaming potential in this title.

The GPU's individual standing reinforces this interpretation. The GTX 1650 falls in the 40th percentile among all GPUs, with an average benchmark score of 7,472. Its nearest rivals include the AMD Radeon HD 8850M (0.3% ahead), Intel UHD Graphics 750 (0.4% ahead), and AMD Radeon R7 350 (0.6% ahead), while the Intel Arc A310 trails by 1%. This clustering around the 7,400–7,550 score range places the GTX 1650 in decidedly entry-level territory, which explains why even a strong CPU cannot boost the combo ranking.

The disparity between CPU percentile (78) and GPU percentile (40) is significant. A system with a top-quartile processor paired with a bottom-half graphics card will inherently struggle in GPU-bound scenarios, and the measured FPS data confirms this dynamic. The combo rank of 3,598 out of 3,723 should be interpreted as a warning that this configuration is not optimized for gaming performance in this title, despite the CPU's capability.

# Resolution Scaling

Examining the measured FPS across resolutions reveals a clear pattern of GPU-limited performance. At 1080p with Low settings, the system achieves 107 FPS, but this drops to 68 FPS at 1440p and 35 FPS at 4K. This represents a 36% decrease from 1080p to 1440p, and a further 49% decrease from 1440p to 4K. The scaling is not linear, which indicates that the GPU's 4 GB of GDDR5 memory and 128-bit memory bus (128.1 GB/s bandwidth) become increasingly inadequate as pixel count rises.

At Medium settings, the pattern continues: 76 FPS at 1080p, 48 FPS at 1440p, and 25 FPS at 4K. The 4K Medium result includes a minimum FPS of 21 and maximum of 29, showing notable frame variance. High settings produce 54 FPS at 1080p, 34 FPS at 1440p, and 18 FPS at 4K. Ultra settings follow the same trend with 51 FPS at 1080p, 32 FPS at 1440p, and 17 FPS at 4K.

The resolution scaling strongly suggests that the CPU is not the limiting factor here. If the CPU were the bottleneck, we would expect to see more consistent FPS across resolutions, particularly at lower settings where GPU load decreases. Instead, the dramatic FPS drops as resolution increases point squarely at the GTX 1650's limited pixel throughput and memory bandwidth. The 1080p results show the CPU can push frame rates above 100 FPS at Low settings, but the GPU cannot maintain this performance at higher resolutions.

# FAQ

Q: Why does the combo rank so poorly (3,598 out of 3,723) when the CPU is in the 78th percentile?

A: The ranking reflects the combined system performance, and the GPU's 40th percentile placement drags the overall score down. The GTX 1650's average benchmark score of 7,472 is only 0.3% above the AMD Radeon HD 8850M, showing it competes with much older hardware. A high-performing CPU cannot compensate for a GPU that is fundamentally limited in pixel throughput and memory bandwidth.

Q: What is the best resolution to play this game with this combo?

A: The data shows 1080p is the only resolution where playable frame rates are consistently achieved. At Low settings, the system reaches 107 FPS, and even at Ultra settings it maintains 51 FPS. At 1440p, only Low settings break 60 FPS (68 FPS), while all other settings fall below 48 FPS. At 4K, every setting produces 35 FPS or lower, which is below playable thresholds for most users.

Q: How does the CPU compare to its nearest rivals in synthetic benchmarks?

A: The Ryzen 7 5700's average benchmark score of 25,517 is nearly identical to its closest competitors. The Intel Xeon D-2752TER scores 25,530 (0.1% higher), the AMD Ryzen 5 7640U scores 25,485 (0.1% lower), and the AMD Ryzen 5 6600H scores 25,550 (0.1% higher). The AMD Ryzen 7 5825U is 0.3% lower at 25,446. These differences are negligible and indicate the CPU is well-matched against its peers.

Q: Does the GPU have enough VRAM for this game?

A: The GTX 1650 comes with 4 GB of GDDR5 memory on a 128-bit bus. While this is sufficient for 1080p gaming, the resolution scaling data suggests that 4K performance suffers significantly. At 4K Medium, the average FPS drops to 25, and at 4K Ultra it falls to 17. The memory bandwidth of 128.1 GB/s appears insufficient for 4K textures and geometry, contributing to the severe FPS drops at higher resolutions.

Q: What settings should be avoided at each resolution?

A: At 4K, all settings produce average FPS below 35, making even Low settings (35 FPS) marginal. At 1440p, Ultra (32 FPS) and High (34 FPS) are below 60 FPS, while Medium (48 FPS) and Low (68 FPS) are more viable. At 1080p, all settings remain above 50 FPS, with Ultra (51 FPS) being the lowest performer and Low (107 FPS) the highest.

Q: Is the CPU's single-thread performance adequate for this game?

A: The CPU's single-thread scores are respectable: 901 in 3dmark single-thread, 2,916 in Cinebench R23 single-core, and 3,296 in PassMark single-thread. Given that simulation games often rely on single-threaded game logic, these scores appear sufficient. The fact that 1080p Low produces 107 FPS indicates that CPU single-thread performance is not a limiting factor in this configuration.

# GPU Role

The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 is the clear performance bottleneck in this system. Built on the Turing architecture with a TU117 chip at 12 nm, this GPU features 896 shading units, 56 texture mapping units, and 32 ROPs. Its base clock of 1,485 MHz boosts to 1,665 MHz, with memory running at 2,001 MHz (8 Gbps effective) across a 128-bit bus for 128.1 GB/s of bandwidth. The 4 GB GDDR5 frame buffer is modest by modern standards, and the GPU's 75 W TDP with no power connectors underscores its entry-level positioning.

In synthetic benchmarks, the GTX 1650 achieves a PassMark G3D score of 7,880 and a 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 score of 305. Its PassMark DirectX 11 score of 58 and DirectX 12 score of 35 highlight its limited API-level performance in modern workloads. The GPU's nearest rivals include the AMD Radeon HD 8850M (0.3% ahead), Intel UHD Graphics 750 (0.4% ahead), AMD Radeon R7 350 (0.6% ahead), and Intel Arc A310 (1% behind), placing it in a cluster of low-to-mid-range hardware.

The GPU's 40th percentile ranking among all GPUs, with an average benchmark score of 7,472, aligns with the measured gameplay performance. The FP32 throughput of 2.984 TFLOPS and pixel rate of 53.28 GPixel/s are adequate for 1080p gaming at moderate settings but fall short for higher resolutions. The texture rate of 93.24 GTexel/s and the 4 GB memory capacity become limiting factors as resolution and settings increase.

# Settings Recommendations

Based on the measured FPS data, the optimal experience with this combo depends heavily on resolution targets. At 1080p, the system can handle Ultra settings at 51 FPS average, though users prioritizing frame rate may prefer High (54 FPS) or Medium (76 FPS). The Medium setting at 1080p offers the best balance between visual quality and performance, with a minimum FPS of 65 and maximum of 88, indicating stable frame delivery.

At 1440p, the recommendation shifts to Low settings, which produce 68 FPS average. Medium settings at 1440p drop to 48 FPS (minimum 41, maximum 55), which may still be acceptable for a simulation game where precise timing is less critical. However, High (34 FPS) and Ultra (32 FPS) at 1440p fall below the 60 FPS threshold and are not recommended for smooth gameplay.

At 4K, no setting provides a fully playable experience. Low settings reach 35 FPS average, Medium drops to 25 FPS, and both High (18 FPS) and Ultra (17 FPS) are effectively unplayable. For users with 4K displays, the data suggests either lowering the render resolution or accepting that this GPU cannot deliver acceptable performance at native 4K. The Medium setting at 4K does provide a minimum FPS of 21 and maximum of 29, but this variance is too high for consistent gameplay.

# Measured FPS Breakdown

The complete FPS dataset reveals the system's performance envelope across all tested configurations.

1920x1080:

• Low: 107 FPS average
• Medium: 76 FPS average (minimum 65, maximum 88)
• High: 54 FPS average
• Ultra: 51 FPS average

2560x1440:

• Low: 68 FPS average
• Medium: 48 FPS average (minimum 41, maximum 55)
• High: 34 FPS average
• Ultra: 32 FPS average

3840x2160:

• Low: 35 FPS average
• Medium: 25 FPS average (minimum 21, maximum 29)
• High: 18 FPS average
• Ultra: 17 FPS average

The 1080p results demonstrate that the system can deliver smooth gameplay at all settings, with Low providing a 107 FPS average that exceeds most displays' refresh rates. The step from Low to Medium at 1080p incurs a 29% performance drop (107 to 76 FPS), while the step from Medium to High costs another 29% (76 to 54 FPS). The High to Ultra transition is comparatively minor at 6% (54 to 51 FPS), suggesting diminishing returns from the highest settings.

At 1440p, the Low setting's 68 FPS average is the only configuration that maintains fluid gameplay. The Medium setting at 1440p retains playability at 48 FPS, but the minimum of 41 FPS indicates occasional dips that may be noticeable. The High and Ultra settings at 1440p perform similarly to 4K Medium, all hovering in the 32–34 FPS range.

The 4K results are uniformly poor, with even Low settings falling to 35 FPS. The gap between 1080p Low (107 FPS) and 4K Low (35 FPS) represents a 67% performance reduction, highlighting the GPU's inability to handle the 4x pixel count increase from 1080p. The 4K Medium result includes the only min/max data at that resolution (21–29 FPS), showing tight but consistently low frame rates that would result in a stuttering experience.

Across all resolutions, the pattern is consistent: the GTX 1650's 4 GB VRAM and 128-bit memory interface create a hard ceiling on performance that becomes increasingly restrictive as resolution and settings increase. The CPU demonstrates it can deliver high frame rates at 1080p Low, but the GPU cannot sustain those rates at higher resolutions, making this combo best suited for 1080p gaming at Medium to High settings.