Pc Building Simulator

# How This Combo Ranks

The AMD Ryzen 9 9900X paired with the Intel Arc B570 ranks 2402nd out of 3002 tested combos in Pc Building Simulator. This places it in the bottom 20% of all tested system configurations, which is a significant consideration given the component choices. The ranking reflects a substantial mismatch between the CPU's capabilities and the GPU's performance ceiling in this specific simulation title.

The combo's position in the database is heavily influenced by the GPU's overall standing — the Arc B570 sits at the 65th percentile among all GPUs, placing it in the upper-middle tier of graphics hardware. However, the CPU is dramatically more capable, ranking in the 92nd percentile among all processors. This gap between the two components' relative standings helps explain why the overall combo rank is so low: the system is bottlenecked by the graphics card in nearly every scenario this game presents.

Looking at the CPU's nearest rivals provides context for its raw processing power. The Ryzen 9 9900X posts an average benchmark score of 57498, which is nearly identical to the AMD EPYC 9015 at 57555 (a -0.1% difference) and the AMD EPYC 7313 at 57399 (a 0.2% advantage for the 9900X). Against Intel's Core i9-14900 at 58115, the 9900X trails by -1.1%, and it sits -1.4% behind the Xeon Platinum 8260M at 58323. These are marginal differences, confirming the CPU is a high-end performer.

The GPU's nearest rivals tell a different story. The Arc B570's average benchmark score of 20556 is effectively tied with the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3070 Mobile at 20534 (0.1% difference) and the Intel Arc A750 at 20582 (-0.1%). This places the B570 in a competitive but not dominant position within its GPU tier. The combination of a top-tier CPU with a mid-range GPU creates the low overall combo ranking observed in the data.

# GPU Role

The Intel Arc B570 brings 10 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 160-bit bus, delivering 380.0 GB/s of memory bandwidth. The GPU operates at a fixed 2500 MHz base and boost clock, with memory running at 2375 MHz (19 Gbps effective). These specifications position the card as a capable 1080p and entry-level 1440p solution, which aligns with the measured FPS data in Pc Building Simulator.

The GPU's compute capabilities include 2304 shading units, 144 TMUs, and 80 ROPs, providing 11.52 TFLOPS of FP32 performance. The card also features 18 ray tracing cores and supports DirectX 12 Ultimate, OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. For a simulation game like Pc Building Simulator, which is not graphically demanding by modern standards, these specs are more than adequate on paper — yet the measured results show the GPU struggling at higher resolutions.

The GPU's benchmark scores reinforce its mid-range positioning. Its PassMark G3D score of 14195 and 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 score of 2649 indicate solid but not exceptional performance. The Vulkan score of 96844 and OpenCL score of 83514 show reasonable compute throughput. The GPU sits at the 65th percentile among all GPUs, meaning roughly one-third of graphics cards outperform it.

In the context of Pc Building Simulator, the GPU becomes the primary performance limiter as resolution increases. At 1080p, the card delivers playable framerates across all settings, but the margin narrows considerably at 1440p and becomes problematic at 4K. The 10 GB VRAM capacity is sufficient for this game's texture requirements, so memory capacity is not the bottleneck — raw rasterization throughput is the constraint.

# Resolution Scaling

The measured FPS data reveals a clear pattern of performance degradation as resolution increases, with the GPU becoming progressively more dominant as the bottleneck. At 1920x1080 with High settings, the combo delivers 96 FPS average. Moving to 2560x1440 at the same settings drops performance to 61 FPS, a 36.5% reduction. At 3840x2160 High, the average falls to 32 FPS, which is a 66.7% reduction from the 1080p baseline.

Low settings show a similar scaling curve but with higher absolute numbers. The combo achieves 192 FPS at 1080p Low, 121 FPS at 1440p Low (a 37.0% drop), and 63 FPS at 4K Low (a 67.2% drop from 1080p). The consistency of these percentage drops across settings indicates that the GPU is operating at its performance ceiling regardless of graphical load — the framerate scales almost linearly with pixel count.

Medium settings provide the only complete FPS data with minimum and maximum values. At 1080p Medium, the average is 136 FPS with a minimum of 115 FPS and maximum of 156 FPS. At 1440p Medium, the average drops to 86 FPS with a range of 73 to 99 FPS. At 4K Medium, the average falls to 45 FPS with a range of 38 to 52 FPS. The narrow min-max ranges at each resolution suggest consistent frame pacing without severe stuttering.

Ultra settings show the most demanding scenario. The combo manages 91 FPS at 1080p Ultra, 58 FPS at 1440p Ultra, and only 30 FPS at 4K Ultra. The 4K Ultra result of 30 FPS is essentially at the threshold of playability, and the scaling from 1440p to 4K at Ultra settings shows a 48.3% performance drop, indicating the GPU is fully saturated.

The resolution scaling analysis clearly identifies the GPU as the limiting component. The Ryzen 9 9900X, with its 12 cores and 24 threads, is far more powerful than what this game requires at any resolution. The framerate drops between resolutions are consistent with GPU-bound performance, not CPU limitations.

# Settings Recommendations

For 1080p gaming, the data supports using Ultra settings as the optimal choice. The combo delivers 91 FPS average at 1080p Ultra, which is comfortably above the 60 FPS threshold for smooth gameplay. The step down to High settings only gains 5 FPS (96 vs 91), making Ultra the better visual experience with negligible performance cost.

At 1440p, High settings represent the best balance. The measured 61 FPS average at High is playable, while Medium delivers 86 FPS but with reduced visual quality. The jump from High to Ultra at this resolution costs 3 FPS (61 to 58), which is minor, but the High preset provides better visual fidelity than Medium while maintaining acceptable performance. For players who prioritize smoothness, Medium at 86 FPS is the safer choice, but High remains viable.

For 4K gaming, the situation is more constrained. Low settings at 63 FPS is the only configuration that consistently exceeds 60 FPS, making it the recommended choice for playable 4K performance. Medium settings at 45 FPS are borderline, and both High (32 FPS) and Ultra (30 FPS) fall below acceptable playability thresholds. Players with 4K displays should either accept Low settings or consider lowering the resolution to 1440p.

The performance differences between settings at each resolution show that the GPU's limited throughput is the constraining factor. At 1080p, the gap between Low (192 FPS) and Ultra (91 FPS) is substantial, but both are playable. At 4K, the gap between Low (63 FPS) and Ultra (30 FPS) spans the playability boundary, making settings selection critical.

# Measured FPS Breakdown

1920x1080:

• Low: 192 FPS average
• Medium: 136 FPS average, 115 FPS minimum, 156 FPS maximum
• High: 96 FPS average
• Ultra: 91 FPS average

At 1080p, the combo delivers excellent performance across all settings. The 192 FPS at Low demonstrates the CPU's ability to feed the GPU efficiently, while the 91 FPS at Ultra shows that even the most demanding settings remain highly playable. The Medium setting's min-max range of 115-156 FPS indicates stable frame delivery without significant dips.

2560x1440:

• Low: 121 FPS average
• Medium: 86 FPS average, 73 FPS minimum, 99 FPS maximum
• High: 61 FPS average
• Ultra: 58 FPS average

At 1440p, performance remains respectable but the GPU's limitations become visible. The 121 FPS at Low is still excellent, but the drop to 61 FPS at High shows a significant cost for visual fidelity. The Medium range of 73-99 FPS provides a smooth experience, while Ultra at 58 FPS hovers near the 60 FPS threshold.

3840x2160:

• Low: 63 FPS average
• Medium: 45 FPS average, 38 FPS minimum, 52 FPS maximum
• High: 32 FPS average
• Ultra: 30 FPS average

At 4K, the GPU is clearly overwhelmed by the pixel count. The 63 FPS at Low is the only playable result, while Medium's 38 FPS minimum falls well below smooth gameplay standards. High and Ultra at 32 FPS and 30 FPS respectively are effectively unplayable for most users.

The complete data set shows a predictable pattern: as resolution increases, the gap between settings narrows because the GPU becomes the limiting factor regardless of quality level. At 1080p, the difference between Low and Ultra is 101 FPS; at 1440p, it's 63 FPS; at 4K, it's only 33 FPS. This compression of performance at higher resolutions confirms GPU saturation.

# FAQ

Q: Is this combo capable of 60+ FPS at 1440p in Pc Building Simulator?

A: Yes, at Low and Medium settings. The combo delivers 121 FPS at 1440p Low and 86 FPS at 1440p Medium. At High settings, it drops to 61 FPS, which is just above the 60 FPS threshold, while Ultra produces 58 FPS.

Q: Can this system handle 4K gaming in this title?

A: Only at Low settings, where it achieves 63 FPS average. Medium settings produce 45 FPS, and both High (32 FPS) and Ultra (30 FPS) fall below acceptable playability levels.

Q: How does the Intel Arc B570 compare to its nearest GPU rivals?

A: The Arc B570 has an average benchmark score of 20556, which is 0.1% above the RTX 3070 Mobile (20534), -0.1% below the Arc A750 (20582), 0.4% above the Quadro M4000M (20480), and -0.5% below the R9 M390X (20662).

Q: What is the CPU's performance percentile and how does it rank?

A: The Ryzen 9 9900X sits in the 92nd percentile among all CPUs with an average benchmark score of 57498. It is -0.1% behind the EPYC 9015, 0.2% ahead of the EPYC 7313, -1.1% behind the Core i9-14900, and -1.4% behind the Xeon Platinum 8260M.

Q: What is the best settings configuration for a smooth 60 FPS experience?

A: At 1080p, Ultra settings deliver 91 FPS. At 1440p, High settings provide 61 FPS. At 4K, only Low settings exceed 60 FPS with 63 FPS. For 4K displays, dropping to 1440p and using High settings is recommended.

Q: Why does the combo rank so low despite having a high-end CPU?

A: The GPU is the limiting factor. The Arc B570 ranks in the 65th percentile among GPUs, while the CPU ranks in the 92nd percentile. In Pc Building Simulator, the GPU becomes saturated at higher resolutions, preventing the CPU from fully utilizing its capability.

# CPU Role

The AMD Ryzen 9 9900X is a 12-core, 24-thread processor based on the Zen 5 architecture (Granite Ridge), manufactured on TSMC's 4 nm process. It operates at a 4.40 GHz base clock and 5.60 GHz boost clock, with a 120 W TDP. The CPU supports DDR5 memory in dual-channel configuration with 89.6 GB/s bandwidth and connects via PCIe Gen 5 with 24 CPU lanes.

In Pc Building Simulator, the CPU's role is relatively minor compared to the GPU. The game is a simulation title that does not demand extreme processor resources, and the 9900X's capabilities far exceed what the game requires. The CPU's benchmark scores confirm its high-end status: Cinebench R23 multicore score of 32172 and single-core score of 2253, Geekbench multicore of 22174 and single-core of 3010, and PassMark multithread score of 54643.

The CPU's 3DMark scores show strong scaling across thread counts: 12552 for 16 threads, 9114 for 8 threads, 4886 for 4 threads, and 2519 for 2 threads. The single-thread score is 1286, while the max-thread score reaches 13929. This scaling demonstrates that the processor maintains efficiency across various workloads, but in Pc Building Simulator, even the 2-thread score of 2519 would be sufficient to avoid becoming a bottleneck.

The CPU sits in the 92nd percentile among all processors, placing it ahead of the vast majority of CPUs tested. Its nearest rivals include the AMD EPYC 9015 (57555 average score, -0.1% difference), AMD EPYC 7313 (57399, 0.2%), Intel Core i9-14900 (58115, -1.1%), and Intel Xeon Platinum 8260M (58323, -1.4%). These are all high-end server or desktop processors, confirming the 9900X's position in the upper echelon.

The evidence from measured FPS data indicates that the CPU is not the limiting factor at any resolution or settings level. The consistent framerate scaling with resolution changes points to GPU-bound performance throughout. If the CPU were the bottleneck, we would expect to see framerate plateaus regardless of resolution changes, particularly at lower settings where the GPU workload is reduced. The data shows no such plateaus — performance scales predictably with resolution, confirming the CPU has ample headroom in this game.