Pc Building Simulator

The AMD Ryzen 7 5800X3D paired with the Intel Arc B390 ranks 2650th out of 3002 tested combinations in Pc Building Simulator. This places the combo in the bottom 12% of all tested configurations, indicating that while the CPU is a high-end desktop part, the integrated GPU holds the overall package back significantly. The ranking reflects a distinct mismatch: a processor that sits in the 80th percentile against all CPUs, paired with a graphics solution that sits in only the 9th percentile against all GPUs. In a simulation title where frame pacing and component interaction matter, this combination produces a playable but far from competitive experience, with the data showing that the GPU is the overwhelming bottleneck at every resolution tested.

How This Combo Ranks

The 2650th rank out of 3002 combos is a decisive statement about this pairing’s overall capability. In a field of over three thousand configurations, this combo lands in the bottom 12%, which is a clear indicator that the Arc B390’s integrated nature defines the experience. The CPU alone is a strong performer; its average benchmark score of 27896 places it in the 80th percentile of all CPUs, and its nearest rivals include the Intel Core i9-10900K with an average score of 27872 and a deltaPct of 0.1%, meaning the 5800X3D is effectively tied with that flagship desktop part. However, the GPU’s average benchmark score of just 1482, which places it in the 9th percentile, drags the entire system down. The deltaPct figures for the GPU’s nearest rivals—NVIDIA GeForce GT 520MX at 1.3%, GeForce 800M at 1.5%, GT 625 OEM at 2.5%, and GT 710 at 2.7%—show that the Arc B390 is competing with decade-old entry-level parts, not modern gaming hardware.

The disparity between the two components is stark. The CPU’s 3DMark 16-thread score of 7299 and Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 14317 demonstrate a processor capable of handling heavy simulation workloads, yet the GPU’s lone 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 score of 1482 shows a graphics solution that is fundamentally not designed for gaming at competitive levels. In Pc Building Simulator, a game that models system assembly and benchmarking, this combo’s rank is a direct consequence of the GPU’s limitations. The data shows that no amount of CPU headroom can compensate for a GPU that delivers sub-30 FPS at 4K on Medium settings. The rank of 2650 out of 3002 should be interpreted as a warning: this is a combo for productivity or light 2D workloads, not for serious gaming.

GPU Role

The Intel Arc B390 is an integrated graphics processor based on the Xe3-LPG architecture, built on a 3 nm process by Intel. Its memory configuration is entirely system-shared, meaning it has no dedicated VRAM and instead borrows from the system’s DDR4 memory pool. The memory bus width and bandwidth are listed as “System Shared” and “System Dependent,” respectively, which makes the GPU’s performance highly contingent on the rest of the system’s memory configuration. The base clock is 300 MHz, with a boost clock of 2500 MHz, and the GPU has 1536 shading units, 48 texture mapping units, and 24 raster operation units. It also includes 12 ray tracing cores, though this feature is unlikely to be exercised meaningfully in a simulation title like Pc Building Simulator.

The GPU’s FP32 performance is 7.680 TFLOPS, with a texture rate of 120.0 GTexel/s and a pixel rate of 60.00 GPixel/s. These specs are respectable for an integrated solution, but they are not competitive with even low-end discrete GPUs. The TDP is listed at 80 W, and the slot width is IGP, confirming that this is not a card that occupies a PCIe slot but rather a processor-integrated solution. In Pc Building Simulator, the GPU’s role is the primary limiter. At 1080p Low, the combo achieves 125 FPS, which is smooth, but at 1080p Ultra, the average drops to 59 FPS. At 4K, the GPU is overwhelmed, with the Ultra preset yielding only 20 FPS. The data indicates that the Arc B390’s shared memory architecture and limited ROPS (24) are the key constraints, as the CPU has ample headroom to spare. The GPU’s percentile rank of 9 versus the CPU’s rank of 80 confirms that the graphics solution is the weak link in this chain.

Resolution Scaling

The measured FPS data shows a predictable pattern of degradation as resolution increases, but the severity of the drop reveals the GPU-bound nature of this combo. At Low settings, the average FPS moves from 125 at 1080p to 79 at 1440p, a 36.8% reduction, and then to 41 at 4K, a further 48.1% reduction from the 1440p figure. This steep decline is characteristic of a GPU that is heavily dependent on pixel throughput, as the 24 ROPS and shared memory bandwidth become increasingly taxed at higher resolutions. The scaling from 1080p to 4K at Low settings results in a 67.2% overall drop in FPS, which is severe but expected for an integrated solution.

At Medium settings, the pattern is similar but with lower absolute numbers: 88 FPS at 1080p, 56 FPS at 1440p, and 29 FPS at 4K. The drop from 1080p to 1440p is 36.4%, and from 1440p to 4K is 48.2%, showing that the relative performance penalty of increasing resolution is consistent regardless of preset. At High settings, the averages are 62 FPS (1080p), 39 FPS (1440p), and 21 FPS (4K), with a 37.1% drop from 1080p to 1440p and a 46.2% drop from 1440p to 4K. At Ultra, the numbers are 59 FPS, 38 FPS, and 20 FPS, respectively, with the 1080p-to-1440p drop at 35.6% and the 1440p-to-4K drop at 47.4%. The consistency of these percentage drops across all settings strongly suggests that the limiting component is the GPU, as a CPU-bound scenario would show less dramatic scaling at higher resolutions.

The data also shows that the difference between 1440p and 4K is more punishing than the difference between 1080p and 1440p. For example, at Low settings, the gap from 1440p to 4K is 38 FPS, while the gap from 1080p to 1440p is 46 FPS, but the percentage loss is higher for the former. This non-linear scaling is typical of a GPU that is approaching its memory bandwidth limit, as the system-shared memory cannot keep up with the demands of 4K rendering. The conclusion is clear: this combo is only viable at 1080p, and even then, only at lower presets for a smooth experience.

Measured FPS Breakdown

The measured FPS data provides a complete picture of this combo’s performance across three resolutions and four settings presets. At 1920x1080, the lowest resolution tested, the combo delivers playable frame rates at all settings. Low settings produce an average of 125 FPS, which is excellent for a simulation game. Medium settings yield 88 FPS, with a minimum of 75 and a maximum of 102, indicating a stable frame delivery. High settings drop to 62 FPS, and Ultra settings produce 59 FPS. The 1080p results show that the CPU is more than capable of feeding the GPU at this resolution, as the frame rates are high enough to suggest that the GPU is still the bottleneck, but not to the point of making the game unplayable.

At 2560x1440, the performance takes a significant hit. Low settings average 79 FPS, which is still playable, but Medium drops to 56 FPS (min 47, max 64), High falls to 39 FPS, and Ultra bottoms out at 38 FPS. The 1440p Ultra number of 38 FPS is borderline for a simulation title, where consistent frame pacing is more important than raw speed. The minimum FPS of 47 at Medium settings suggests that there can be noticeable stutters in demanding scenes, but the average remains acceptable. At 3840x2160, the combo struggles considerably. Low settings yield 41 FPS, but Medium drops to 29 FPS (min 25, max 34), High falls to 21 FPS, and Ultra produces a mere 20 FPS. The 4K numbers are largely unplayable for a smooth experience, as sub-30 FPS averages will result in noticeable judder and input lag.

The data also shows that the difference between High and Ultra settings is minimal at every resolution. At 1080p, the gap is only 3 FPS (62 vs 59); at 1440p, it is 1 FPS (39 vs 38); and at 4K, it is 1 FPS (21 vs 20). This indicates that the Ultra preset adds visual fidelity without a significant performance cost, making it a better choice than High if the user wants the best visuals for the same frame rate. Conversely, the jump from Low to Medium is more substantial: at 1080p, it costs 37 FPS; at 1440p, 23 FPS; and at 4K, 12 FPS. This suggests that Medium is a more demanding step up from Low than Ultra is from High.

Settings Recommendations

Based on the measured FPS data, the optimal settings for this combo depend heavily on the target resolution. At 1080p, the Ultra preset is the clear recommendation, as it delivers 59 FPS, which is within 3 FPS of the High preset’s 62 FPS. Since the visual quality improvement from High to Ultra is typically noticeable in a simulation game, and the performance cost is negligible, there is no reason to choose High over Ultra at 1080p. The Medium preset offers 88 FPS, which is smoother, but the jump from Medium to Ultra only costs 29 FPS, making Ultra the best balance of visuals and performance for users with a 60 Hz monitor.

At 1440p, the situation is more nuanced. The Medium preset delivers 56 FPS, which is playable but not ideal for a smooth experience. The High and Ultra presets both hover around 38-39 FPS, which is below the 60 FPS threshold for smooth gameplay. For users who prioritize frame rate, Medium is the best choice, as it offers a 44% improvement over High (56 vs 39 FPS). For users who prioritize visuals, Ultra is acceptable, but the 38 FPS average may be too low for a game that involves frequent menu interactions and rapid camera movements. The data suggests that Medium at 1440p is the sweet spot for this combo, as it maintains a frame rate above 50 FPS while still offering a reasonable level of detail.

At 4K, the recommendations are grim. The Low preset yields 41 FPS, which is the only playable option, but even that is below the 60 FPS target. Medium drops to 29 FPS, and High and Ultra are both in the low 20s. The data indicates that 4K is not a viable resolution for this combo in Pc Building Simulator. The best experience at 4K would be to use Low settings and accept the lower visual quality, or to reduce the resolution to 1440p and use Medium settings for a much better experience. The measured rows show a clear trend: this combo is best served at 1080p with Ultra settings, where it delivers a near-60 FPS experience without compromising visual fidelity.

CPU Role

The AMD Ryzen 7 5800X3D is a high-end desktop processor based on the Zen 3 architecture, codenamed Vermeer, built on a 7 nm process by TSMC. It features 8 cores and 16 threads, with a base clock of 3.40 GHz and a boost clock of 4.50 GHz. The CPU’s defining feature is its large 96 MB shared L3 cache, which is a key advantage in simulation games that rely on complex data structures. The cache hierarchy includes 64 KB of L1 per core and 512 KB of L2 per core, and the CPU supports dual-channel DDR4 memory with a bandwidth of 51.2 GB/s. The TDP is 105 W, and it uses the AMD Socket AM4.

In Pc Building Simulator, the CPU’s role is largely secondary to the GPU, as the measured FPS data shows that the GPU is the limiting factor at all resolutions. However, the CPU’s strong multi-threaded performance ensures that it is not the bottleneck. The Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 14317 and 3DMark 16-thread score of 7299 indicate that the CPU can handle the game’s simulation logic without issue. The single-thread performance is also solid, with a Cinebench R23 score of 1452 and a Geekbench single-core score of 2017, which is important for games that rely on a single primary thread. The PassMark multi-thread score of 28309 and single-thread score of 3234 further confirm the CPU’s capability.

The CPU’s nearest rivals in the benchmark database include the AMD Ryzen 7 6800U (avgScore 27887, deltaPct 0), the Intel Core i9-10900K (avgScore 27872, deltaPct 0.1%), and the AMD Ryzen AI 5 PRO 340 (avgScore 27932, deltaPct -0.1%). These deltaPct values show that the 5800X3D is statistically tied with these processors, meaning its performance is on par with a modern mainstream laptop CPU and a previous-generation flagship desktop CPU. The PassMark data compression score of 329688 and floating point math score of 50100 are strong indicators of the CPU’s ability to handle the physics and logic computations typical of a simulation game. In summary, the CPU provides more than enough headroom, and the data shows that any performance issues in Pc Building Simulator are directly attributable to the GPU, not the processor.

FAQ

Q: What is the best resolution to play Pc Building Simulator with this combo?

A: Based on the measured FPS data, 1920x1080 is the only resolution where the combo achieves consistently playable frame rates across all settings, with averages ranging from 59 FPS at Ultra to 125 FPS at Low.

Q: How does this combo’s CPU compare to its nearest rivals?

A: The AMD Ryzen 7 5800X3D has an average benchmark score of 27896, which is nearly identical to the Intel Core i9-10900K (27872, deltaPct 0.1%) and the AMD Ryzen 7 6800U (27887, deltaPct 0), indicating comparable overall CPU performance.

Q: Is the Intel Arc B390 a dedicated graphics card?

A: No, the Intel Arc B390 is an integrated graphics processor (IGP) with a slot width of IGP, meaning it does not occupy a PCIe slot and shares system memory for its video memory.

Q: What is the FPS difference between High and Ultra settings at 1440p?

A: At 2560x1440, the High preset averages 39 FPS, while the Ultra preset averages 38 FPS, a difference of only 1 FPS, making Ultra a better choice for visual quality with negligible performance cost.

Q: How does the GPU’s performance rank against all GPUs?

A: The Intel Arc B390 has a percentile rank of 9 against all GPUs, with an average benchmark score of 1482, placing it in the bottom 9% of all tested graphics solutions.

Q: Does this combo have enough CPU power for 4K gaming?

A: Yes, the CPU is not the limiting factor at 4K; the CPU’s Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 14317 shows ample power, but the GPU’s 4K performance is poor, with the highest average being 41 FPS at Low settings.