Pc Building Simulator

# How This Combo Ranks

The AMD Ryzen 9 9900X3D paired with the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3070 ranks 1,233rd out of 3,002 tested combinations in Pc Building Simulator. That places this pairing in the 59th percentile of all tested combos, meaning roughly 41% of configurations deliver higher average frame rates in this simulation title. The ranking is respectable but not elite, reflecting a balanced mid-to-upper tier pairing rather than a top-tier enthusiast setup.

Benchmark results indicate the CPU is the stronger component of this duo. The Ryzen 9 9900X3D sits in the 91st percentile versus all CPUs, with an average benchmark score of 54,762. Its nearest rival, the Intel Core Ultra 5 245KF, scores 55,093, a delta of -0.6%, meaning the AMD chip trails by less than 1%. The Intel Core Ultra 5 245K comes in at 54,053 (1.3% behind), the Intel Xeon 6505P at 53,701 (2% behind), and the Intel Core i7-14700F at 53,620 (2.1% behind). The 9900X3D essentially trades blows with these competitors, holding a slight edge over three of them while narrowly losing to one.

The RTX 3070, by contrast, sits in the 61st percentile versus all GPUs with an average benchmark score of 17,208. Its nearest rival, the AMD Radeon RX 7600 XT, scores 17,083, a delta of 0.7% in favor of the NVIDIA card. The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 690 posts 17,037 (1% behind), and the AMD Radeon HD 7970M scores 17,019 (1.1% behind). The NVIDIA Tesla K40c actually outperforms the 3070 by 1.5%, scoring 17,468. These tight deltas show the RTX 3070 is competitive with its immediate peers, though its percentile ranking suggests many GPUs sit above it.

The combo's overall rank reflects how these two components interact in Pc Building Simulator specifically. Given the CPU's strong 91st percentile standing and the GPU's more modest 61st percentile, the data implies the graphics card is the limiting factor in most scenarios. This is a common pattern in simulation games, where frame pacing often depends more heavily on the rendering workload than on CPU physics or logic calculations.

# GPU Role

The NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3070 brings 8 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 256-bit bus, delivering 448.0 GB/s of bandwidth. Memory clock runs at 1750 MHz, translating to 14 Gbps effective. The GPU's base clock is 1500 MHz with a boost of 1725 MHz, and it draws 220 W of power. Built on Samsung's 8 nm process with 17,400 million transistors on a 392 mm² die, the GA104 chip houses 5,888 shading units, 184 texture mapping units, and 96 raster output units. It also includes 46 ray tracing cores and 184 tensor cores, though Pc Building Simulator's workload likely does not stress these specialized units heavily.

In terms of compute throughput, the RTX 3070 delivers 20.31 TFLOPS for both FP32 and FP16 (1:1 ratio). Pixel rate is 165.6 GPixel/s and texture rate is 317.4 GTexel/s. These figures suggest the card can handle modern rendering demands, but the 8 GB VRAM capacity may become a constraint at higher resolutions and settings in more demanding titles. For Pc Building Simulator, a game that revolves around assembling and testing PC components rather than rendering vast open worlds, the 8 GB allocation appears sufficient based on measured results.

The measured FPS data shows the RTX 3070 scaling predictably across settings. At 1080p, average frame rates range from 302 FPS on Low to 144 FPS on Ultra. At 1440p, the spread narrows to 191 FPS on Low and 91 FPS on Ultra. At 4K, the range compresses further to 100 FPS on Low and 47 FPS on Ultra. This pattern indicates the GPU's rendering capabilities are being exercised progressively as resolution increases, with the 4K Ultra figure of 47 FPS suggesting the card is nearing its practical limits in this configuration.

The GPU's 61st percentile ranking versus all GPUs, combined with its average benchmark score of 17,208, positions it as a competent but not exceptional performer. Its nearest rival deltas of 0.7% to 1.5% show that small performance differences separate it from immediate competitors, meaning the 3070's standing in this game is more about consistent execution than raw dominance.

# FAQ

Q: What is the best resolution for this combo in Pc Building Simulator?

A: Based on measured data, 1440p High delivers 95 FPS average, which is smooth for most displays. At 4K High, the average drops to 50 FPS, which may be borderline depending on refresh rate preferences. The 1080p High figure of 151 FPS offers the best balance of visual quality and headroom.

Q: How does the RTX 3070 compare to its closest rival in this game?

A: The RTX 3070's average benchmark score is 17,208, while the AMD Radeon RX 7600 XT scores 17,083, a delta of 0.7% in favor of the NVIDIA card. The NVIDIA Tesla K40c actually leads by 1.5% with a score of 17,468, showing the 3070 is competitive but not dominant among its peers.

Q: Is the Ryzen 9 9900X3D holding back the RTX 3070?

A: The CPU ranks in the 91st percentile versus all CPUs with an average benchmark score of 54,762, while the GPU sits in the 61st percentile with a score of 17,208. The data suggests the GPU is more likely the bottleneck, especially at higher resolutions where frame rates drop more sharply.

Q: What frame rates can I expect at 1080p with Ultra settings?

A: The measured average is 144 FPS at 1920x1080 with Ultra settings. This is slightly lower than the 151 FPS at High settings, indicating the Ultra preset imposes a modest additional rendering load.

Q: How does the CPU's multi-threaded performance compare to its rivals?

A: The Ryzen 9 9900X3D scores 47,737 in Cinebench R23 multicore and 22,884 in Geekbench multicore. Its nearest rival, the Intel Core Ultra 5 245KF, has an average score of 55,093, a delta of -0.6%, meaning the AMD chip trails by less than 1% in overall average benchmark performance.

Q: Does the GPU's 8 GB VRAM cause issues at 4K?

A: The measured data shows 4K Ultra averaging 47 FPS and 4K Medium averaging 71 FPS with a minimum of 60 FPS. While 8 GB may be limiting in other titles, Pc Building Simulator's 4K results do not indicate severe VRAM-related stuttering based on available data.

# Measured FPS Breakdown

At 1920x1080, the combo delivers 302 FPS on Low settings, which is the highest measured average across all configurations. Medium settings produce 214 FPS with a minimum of 182 FPS and a maximum of 246 FPS. High settings yield 151 FPS, while Ultra settings drop to 144 FPS. The progression from Low to Ultra shows a 52.3% reduction in frame rate, from 302 FPS down to 144 FPS, indicating the Ultra preset imposes a significant but not crippling performance cost.

Moving to 2560x1440, the numbers scale downward as expected. Low settings average 191 FPS, Medium averages 135 FPS with a minimum of 115 FPS and a maximum of 155 FPS, High averages 95 FPS, and Ultra averages 91 FPS. The gap between High and Ultra narrows considerably at this resolution, with only a 4 FPS difference, whereas at 1080p the gap was 7 FPS. This suggests the GPU is becoming more of a limiting factor at 1440p, flattening the performance curve between higher presets.

At 3840x2160, the results show more pronounced drops. Low settings average 100 FPS, Medium averages 71 FPS with a minimum of 60 FPS and a maximum of 81 FPS, High averages 50 FPS, and Ultra averages 47 FPS. The transition from Low to Medium costs 29 FPS, while the step from Medium to High costs 21 FPS, and High to Ultra costs only 3 FPS. This pattern indicates that at 4K, the Ultra preset offers marginal visual gains over High for a negligible performance penalty, making High the more sensible choice for maintaining playable frame rates.

The Medium preset at each resolution provides the only measured minimum and maximum values, offering the most complete picture of frame time consistency. At 1080p Medium, the range spans 182 to 246 FPS, a 64 FPS spread. At 1440p Medium, the range narrows to 115 to 155 FPS, a 40 FPS spread. At 4K Medium, the range is 60 to 81 FPS, a 21 FPS spread. This tightening of the frame time distribution at higher resolutions suggests the GPU's workload becomes more uniform as it becomes the primary bottleneck.

# Resolution Scaling

The measured data reveals how frame rates scale from 1080p to 4K across different settings. At Low settings, the progression is 302 FPS at 1080p, 191 FPS at 1440p, and 100 FPS at 4K. This represents a 36.8% drop from 1080p to 1440p and a further 47.6% drop from 1440p to 4K, for a total reduction of 66.9% from 1080p to 4K. The scaling is roughly consistent with pixel count increases, suggesting the GPU is the limiting factor even at Low settings.

At Medium settings, the averages are 214 FPS at 1080p, 135 FPS at 1440p, and 71 FPS at 4K. The drop from 1080p to 1440p is 36.9%, nearly identical to the Low preset's 36.8%. However, the drop from 1440p to 4K is 47.4%, slightly less than Low's 47.6%. This consistency indicates the Medium preset's additional effects do not fundamentally change the scaling behavior.

High settings show 151 FPS at 1080p, 95 FPS at 1440p, and 50 FPS at 4K. The 1080p to 1440p reduction is 37.1%, while 1440p to 4K is 47.4%. Ultra settings follow a similar pattern: 144 FPS at 1080p, 91 FPS at 1440p, and 47 FPS at 4K, with drops of 36.8% and 48.4% respectively.

The uniformity of these scaling percentages across all four settings presets is striking. Whether on Low or Ultra, the frame rate drops roughly 37% when moving from 1080p to 1440p and another 47-48% when moving from 1440p to 4K. This consistent scaling pattern strongly implies that the GPU is the performance limiter in this combo, as CPU-bound scenarios would typically show less severe degradation at higher resolutions. The CPU's 91st percentile ranking versus the GPU's 61st percentile supports this interpretation, as the 9900X3D has ample headroom to feed the 3070 at any resolution.

# CPU Role

The AMD Ryzen 9 9900X3D is a 12-core, 24-thread processor based on the Zen 5 architecture, codenamed Granite Ridge. It operates on the AMD Socket AM5 platform with a base clock of 4.40 GHz and a boost clock of 5.50 GHz. The CPU features 128 MB of L3 cache, 1 MB of L2 cache per core, and 80 KB of L1 cache per core. It supports DDR5 memory in a dual-channel configuration with 89.6 GB/s of bandwidth and includes Radeon integrated graphics, though the discrete RTX 3070 handles all rendering in this test.

The CPU's benchmark results show strong multi-threaded performance. Cinebench R23 multicore scores 47,737, while Geekbench multicore reaches 22,884. Passmark multithread scores 56,154, and 3DMark max threads hits 13,795. Single-threaded performance is also solid, with Cinebench R23 singlecore at 6,739, Geekbench singlecore at 3,041, and Passmark singlethread at 4,646. These figures place the 9900X3D in the 91st percentile versus all CPUs.

In Pc Building Simulator, the CPU's role appears secondary to the GPU based on the scaling analysis. The consistent frame rate drops across resolutions point to GPU limitation, meaning the 9900X3D is likely not the bottleneck in any measured configuration. The CPU's 12 cores and 24 threads provide substantial parallel processing capacity, which is particularly relevant for a simulation game that may need to track multiple system components and their interactions.

The nearest rival comparison shows the 9900X3D's average benchmark score of 54,762 is nearly identical to the Intel Core Ultra 5 245KF's 55,093, a delta of -0.6%. This places the AMD chip within 1% of its closest competitor, indicating the performance difference between these CPUs is negligible in most workloads. The 9900X3D does hold advantages over the Intel Core Ultra 5 245K (1.3% ahead), Intel Xeon 6505P (2% ahead), and Intel Core i7-14700F (2.1% ahead), though these margins are small enough to be considered noise in real-world gaming.

# Settings Recommendations

Based on the measured FPS data, the optimal settings preset depends on the target resolution and desired frame rate. At 1080p, all four presets deliver playable frame rates, with Low at 302 FPS, Medium at 214 FPS, High at 151 FPS, and Ultra at 144 FPS. For users with 144 Hz or 165 Hz monitors, the High preset at 151 FPS provides a smooth experience with substantial visual quality improvements over Medium. The Ultra preset's 144 FPS is nearly identical, making High the recommended choice for its slightly better performance with presumably similar visual output.

At 1440p, the recommendation shifts. High averages 95 FPS and Ultra averages 91 FPS, both of which are suitable for 60 Hz displays but may be insufficient for high-refresh-rate monitors. Medium averages 135 FPS, offering a significant performance boost over High while likely maintaining acceptable visual quality. For 1440p users with 120 Hz or 144 Hz displays, the Medium preset at 135 FPS is the best choice, as it provides headroom above typical refresh rates. Users prioritizing visual fidelity over frame rate could select High at 95 FPS, but the 40 FPS difference between Medium and High makes Medium the more balanced recommendation.

At 4K, the performance landscape changes dramatically. Ultra averages 47 FPS and High averages 50 FPS, both of which fall below the 60 FPS threshold for smooth gameplay on most displays. Medium averages 71 FPS with a minimum of 60 FPS, making it the only preset that consistently maintains playable frame rates at this resolution. Low averages 100 FPS but likely sacrifices significant visual quality. For 4K users, the Medium preset is the clear recommendation, as it delivers 71 FPS average with a 60 FPS minimum, ensuring no drops below the standard 60 Hz refresh rate.

The frame time consistency data from the Medium preset supports this recommendation. At 4K Medium, the minimum of 60 FPS and maximum of 81 FPS show a tight 21 FPS range, indicating stable performance without major stutters. The 1440p Medium range of 115 to 155 FPS (40 FPS spread) and 1080p Medium range of 182 to 246 FPS (64 FPS spread) show that consistency improves as resolution increases, which is counterintuitive but reinforces the GPU-bound nature of this workload. Overall, the data suggests Medium settings across all resolutions provide the best balance of performance and stability, with High being a viable alternative at 1080p and 1440p for users prioritizing visual quality.