Pc Building Simulator

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

The measured FPS data for Pc Building Simulator reveals a sharp, predictable scaling pattern as resolution climbs. At 1080p Low, the combo of AMD Ryzen 9 5950X and NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3070 produces 299.9 FPS. Moving to 1440p Low drops that to 190.4 FPS — a 36.5% reduction. At 4K Low, the average falls to 97.6 FPS, which is roughly half of the 1440p figure and just under a third of the 1080p result. This steep decline is the classic signature of a GPU-bound workload at higher resolutions.

The pattern holds across every settings tier. At High settings, the frame rate goes from 149.6 FPS at 1080p, to 94.9 FPS at 1440p, to 50.6 FPS at 4K. Ultra settings follow the same trajectory: 142.5 FPS at 1080p, 90.5 FPS at 1440p, and 46.2 FPS at 4K. In every case, the jump from 1080p to 1440p costs roughly 35-37% of the frame rate, while the jump from 1440p to 4K costs another 47-49%. The consistency of these ratios across all four quality presets strongly suggests that the RTX 3070's rendering pipeline — not the CPU — is the dominant constraint as pixel count rises.

What is curious is the relatively small gap between High and Ultra at each resolution. At 1080p, High delivers 149.6 FPS while Ultra manages 142.5 FPS — a difference of just 4.8%. At 4K, the gap is slightly larger at 8.7% (50.6 vs 46.2 FPS). This indicates that the Ultra preset's additional effects are not particularly expensive in this simulation game, or that the engine is already saturating some other bottleneck. The data implies that if you are chasing maximum visual fidelity, the cost of moving from High to Ultra is modest compared to the cost of moving up a resolution tier.

The scaling also reveals that at 1080p, the CPU's 16 cores and 32 threads are likely not the limiting factor — the 299.9 FPS ceiling at Low settings is far above typical display refresh rates. Even at 4K Ultra, the 46.2 FPS average is playable for a simulation title, though it sits below the 60 FPS threshold many players target. This combination of a top-tier 16-core processor and a mid-range Ampere GPU creates a system where resolution is the primary lever on performance.

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

The RTX 3070 brings 8 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 256-bit bus, with a memory bandwidth of 448.0 GB/s. Its base clock is 1500 MHz with a boost of 1725 MHz, and the memory runs at 1750 MHz (14 Gbps effective). These specifications place the card in the 72nd percentile of all GPUs, with an average benchmark score of 28238. Its nearest rivals include the AMD Radeon RX 6600 XT (0.9% ahead) and the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 980 Ti (1% ahead), which puts the 3070 in a tightly contested performance band.

In Pc Building Simulator, the GPU's role becomes clearer when examining the settings scaling at a fixed resolution. At 1080p, moving from Low (299.9 FPS) to Medium (213.9 FPS) costs 28.7% of performance. High (149.6 FPS) costs another 30.1% off Medium, and Ultra (142.5 FPS) is only 4.7% below High. This non-linear curve — where the biggest penalty comes from Low to Medium, then Medium to High, with Ultra being nearly free — suggests that the game's higher presets are not uniformly demanding. The 8 GB VRAM capacity appears sufficient, as there is no sudden collapse at 4K Ultra that would indicate memory swapping; the 46.2 FPS result at 4K Ultra is consistent with the scaling pattern seen at lower resolutions.

The 3070's 5888 shading units, 184 texture mapping units, and 96 ROPs provide ample geometry and pixel throughput for a simulation game that likely emphasizes CPU-side logic over complex GPU effects. The FP32 performance of 20.31 TFLOPS is respectable, but the benchmark results show that the card's real-world gaming performance in this title is more modest. The passmark G3D score of 22214 and DirectX 12 score of 85 suggest that the card handles modern APIs competently without being exceptional.

When compared to its nearest GPU rivals, the RTX 3070's position in this game is not dominant. The AMD FirePro S7150 scores 0.6% higher on average, while the Radeon RX 6600 XT is 0.9% ahead. This narrow margin indicates that in Pc Building Simulator, the GPU is not the star of the show — the measured FPS at 1080p Ultra (142.5) is high enough that the CPU's contribution becomes more relevant for maintaining frame pacing in a simulation with many entities.

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

The AMD Ryzen 9 5950X is a 16-core, 32-thread processor built on TSMC's 7 nm process, with a base clock of 3.40 GHz and a boost clock of 4.90 GHz. It sits in the 93rd percentile of all CPUs, with an average benchmark score of 49062. Its closest rival is the Intel Core i5-14600K, which scores just 0.2% higher — a statistical tie. The 5950X's 64 MB of L3 cache and dual-channel DDR4 memory support with 51.2 GB/s bandwidth provide ample headroom for simulation workloads.

In Pc Building Simulator, the CPU's influence is most visible at lower resolutions where the GPU is less stressed. At 1080p Low, the 299.9 FPS result is likely near the engine's simulation tick rate or the CPU's ability to feed draw calls. The 16 cores and 32 threads are overkill for a game that probably uses only a few threads for the core simulation loop, but the high boost clock of 4.90 GHz ensures that single-threaded performance is strong. The 3dmark single-thread score of 944 and Cinebench R23 single-core score of 5450 confirm that this processor excels at lightly-threaded tasks.

The multi-threaded benchmarks are exceptional — Cinebench R23 multicore hits 38607, and Passmark multithread reaches 45424. However, these scores are unlikely to translate directly into gaming FPS for a simulation game. The data shows that at 1080p Ultra, the combo produces 142.5 FPS, which is 4.7% lower than High (149.6 FPS). If the CPU were the bottleneck at 1080p, we would expect the Ultra and High results to be closer together, as the GPU would be idling. Instead, the consistent gap between presets at 1080p suggests the GPU is still doing meaningful work.

The 5950X's 93rd percentile ranking and its near-tie with the i5-14600K (which has far fewer cores) hint that raw core count is not the differentiator here. The 5950X's 16 cores might help with background tasks or streaming, but for Pc Building Simulator's core loop, the 4.90 GHz boost clock and 64 MB L3 cache are more relevant. The data implies that this CPU is not the limiting factor at any resolution tested — the FPS drops are too consistent with GPU-bound scaling. If the CPU were the constraint, we would see the 4K results plateau relative to 1080p, which they do not.

FAQ

Q: What is the highest average FPS this combo achieves in Pc Building Simulator?

A: The highest measured average is 299.9 FPS at 1920x1080 with Low settings. This is the only row that approaches the 300 FPS mark; the next closest is 213.9 FPS at 1080p Medium.

Q: How much performance is lost when moving from 1080p to 4K at Ultra settings?

A: At Ultra, the 1080p average is 142.5 FPS, while the 4K average is 46.2 FPS. This represents a 67.6% reduction in frame rate, confirming that 4K Ultra is the most demanding configuration tested.

Q: Is the Ryzen 9 5950X significantly faster than its nearest rival in synthetic benchmarks?

A: No. The 5950X has an average benchmark score of 49062, while the Intel Core i5-14600K scores 49166 — a delta of -0.2%. The AMD EPYC 4345P is 1.1% ahead, making this a very tight race.

Q: Does the RTX 3070 outclass its nearest GPU rivals in average synthetic score?

A: The RTX 3070 scores 28238 on average. The AMD Radeon RX 6600 XT scores 27985 (0.9% behind), and the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 980 Ti scores 27956 (1% behind). The 3070 is ahead, but by less than a single percentage point.

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

A: At 1440p, High delivers 94.9 FPS, and Ultra delivers 90.5 FPS. The difference is 4.4 FPS, or approximately 4.6% slower on Ultra.

Q: How does the combo rank among all tested combinations in this game?

A: The combo ranks 815th out of 1769 tested combinations. This places it in the middle of the pack, which is curious given the high-end CPU and solid GPU.

How This Combo Ranks

The combo of AMD Ryzen 9 5950X and NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3070 ranks 815th out of 1769 tested combos in Pc Building Simulator. That is the 46th percentile — a middle-of-the-road result that seems surprising given the CPU's 93rd percentile standing and the GPU's 72nd percentile. The data suggests that this game does not heavily reward the 5950X's massive core count, nor does it fully utilize the RTX 3070's capabilities.

The rank implies that many combos with less powerful CPUs but stronger GPUs achieve higher FPS in this title. The 5950X's nearest rival, the Intel Core i5-14600K, scores nearly identically in synthetic benchmarks, which suggests that a pairing with a more powerful GPU (e.g., a higher-tier Ampere or Ada card) would likely rank higher. The 3070's own nearest rivals — the RX 6600 XT and GTX 980 Ti — are within 1% in synthetic scores, meaning the GPU is not a differentiator against those alternatives.

This middle ranking also indicates that Pc Building Simulator is not a demanding title for modern hardware. The 4K Ultra result of 46.2 FPS is low enough to be a concern for 60 FPS displays, but the 1440p Ultra result of 90.5 FPS is solid. The combo's rank of 815 suggests that there are over 800 other combos that perform better, but also nearly 954 that perform worse. For a simulation game that likely spends most of its time in menus or building interfaces, the actual in-game rendering may not be the primary use case, which could explain why the rank is not higher.

Measured FPS Breakdown

1920x1080 (1080p):

• Low: 299.9 FPS
• Medium: 213.9 FPS
• High: 149.6 FPS
• Ultra: 142.5 FPS

2560x1440 (1440p):

• Low: 190.4 FPS
• Medium: 137.2 FPS
• High: 94.9 FPS
• Ultra: 90.5 FPS

3840x2160 (4K):

• Low: 97.6 FPS
• Medium: 72.7 FPS
• High: 50.6 FPS
• Ultra: 46.2 FPS

The data shows a clear hierarchy: 1080p Low is the only configuration above 290 FPS, and 4K Ultra is the only one below 47 FPS. The gap between Low and Medium is consistently the largest at each resolution — 86 FPS at 1080p, 53.2 FPS at 1440p, and 24.9 FPS at 4K. The gap between Medium and High is also significant: 64.3 FPS at 1080p, 42.3 FPS at 1440p, and 22.1 FPS at 4K. However, the gap between High and Ultra is minimal — 7.1 FPS at 1080p, 4.4 FPS at 1440p, and 4.4 FPS at 4K. This pattern holds across all resolutions, indicating that the Ultra preset adds very little rendering cost over High in this game.

Settings Recommendations

Based on the measured FPS rows, the optimal settings depend on your target display. For a 60 Hz display at 1080p, the High preset (149.6 FPS) provides more than double the needed frame rate, so you could comfortably enable Ultra (142.5 FPS) without any perceptible downside. At 1440p, High (94.9 FPS) is the sweet spot for 60 Hz — it clears 90 FPS with headroom, while Ultra (90.5 FPS) is nearly identical and also viable. For 4K, the situation is tighter: High (50.6 FPS) and Ultra (46.2 FPS) both fall below 60 FPS, so you would need to drop to Medium (72.7 FPS) for a 60 Hz display, or accept a lower frame rate on High.

The data strongly suggests that the Ultra preset is not worth the marginal cost. At every resolution, the difference between High and Ultra is less than 5%, while the difference between Medium and High is 30-45%. If you are trying to maximize visual quality without sacrificing frame rate, High is the recommended preset — it delivers 149.6 FPS at 1080p, 94.9 FPS at 1440p, and 50.6 FPS at 4K. For higher refresh rate displays at 1080p, Medium (213.9 FPS) is the best option for 144 Hz, while Low (299.9 FPS) is only necessary for 240 Hz or above. At 1440p, only Low (190.4 FPS) can feed a 165 Hz panel, while Medium (137.2 FPS) suits a 144 Hz display. The takeaway is that this combo handles 1080p and 1440p with ease at most settings, but 4K requires dropping to Medium for smooth 60 FPS gameplay.