Pc Building Simulator

Pc Building Simulator places almost no strain on modern high-end hardware, but the combination of the 16-core AMD Ryzen AI Max+ 395 and the integrated AMD Radeon 880M still produces a clear, measurable performance profile. The data shows a system that ranks near the very bottom of all tested combos for this title, but that ranking is less about raw capability and more about the fact that this is an integrated graphics solution competing in a database filled with discrete GPUs. The measured frames per second tell a practical story: this combo is entirely playable at 1080p with the right settings, becomes marginal at 1440p, and falls below playable thresholds at 4K. This analysis breaks down exactly what those numbers mean for someone building a system around these two components.

How This Combo Ranks

The combo ranks 2932 out of 3002 tested combinations for Pc Building Simulator. That places it in the bottom 2.3% of all systems in the database for this specific game. The percentile is low, and the data confirms it is not a performance leader. However, context matters. Pc Building Simulator is a simulation title with modest graphical demands, so even a low-ranked combo can deliver acceptable frame rates at mainstream resolutions. The ranking reflects the Radeon 880M’s position as an integrated part, not a discrete graphics card. The GPU’s percentile vs all GPUs is 43, meaning it sits in the lower half of all graphics processors tested, and its average benchmark score of 8436 puts it in company with older mobile discrete parts.

The CPU, by contrast, is a heavyweight. The Ryzen AI Max+ 395 scores in the 95th percentile vs all CPUs, with an average benchmark score of 77740. Its nearest rivals in the database include the AMD Ryzen Threadripper PRO 9945WX (avg score 76513, deltaPct 1.6), the AMD EPYC Embedded 8224P (avg score 76492, deltaPct 1.6), the Intel Core i9-14900K (avg score 79097, deltaPct -1.7), and the AMD Ryzen 9 8945HX (avg score 76212, deltaPct 2). The Ryzen AI Max+ 395 is essentially neck-and-neck with the Threadripper PRO and the i9-14900K, trailing the Intel part by just 1.7% and leading the 8945HX by 2%. That is an extraordinary CPU for a mobile platform, but in this game, the CPU is not the bottleneck. The combo’s low rank is almost entirely attributable to the integrated GPU. The data indicates that pairing this CPU with a discrete graphics card would dramatically change the combo’s standing, but for this specific pairing, the integrated Radeon 880M defines the experience.

GPU Role

The AMD Radeon 880M is an integrated graphics processor based on the RDNA 3.5 architecture, built on a 4 nm process at TSMC. It features 768 shading units, 48 texture mapping units, and 16 raster operation pipelines. The chip has 12 ray tracing cores, and its FP32 performance is rated at 4.454 TFLOPS. The GPU operates at a base clock of 400 MHz and boosts to 2900 MHz. Memory is system shared, meaning the GPU pulls from the same LPDDR5X pool as the CPU, with bandwidth described as system dependent. In this configuration, the memory bus is quad-channel, and the CPU’s memory bandwidth is listed at 256.0 GB/s, so the GPU has access to that same bandwidth, but the exact allocation is not specified.

In Pc Building Simulator, the GPU’s role is the primary limiter. The measured FPS numbers show a clear pattern: at every resolution, lowering settings from Ultra to Low increases frame rates substantially. At 1080p, the average FPS goes from 50 on Ultra to 105 on Low. At 1440p, it goes from 32 on Ultra to 66 on Low. At 4K, it goes from 16 on Ultra to 35 on Low. That scaling is typical of a GPU-bound scenario. The CPU has enough headroom to feed the GPU at all settings, but the GPU’s compute and memory bandwidth simply cannot keep up with higher resolutions and quality presets. The Radeon 880M’s benchmark scores reinforce this. Its 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 score is 535, its Geekbench OpenCL score is 31285, and its Geekbench Vulkan score is 40006. PassMark G3D score is 7615, while G2D is 969. These are modest numbers for a modern GPU.

The GPU’s nearest rivals in the database are the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 675MX (avg score 8427, deltaPct 0.1), the NVIDIA GeForce MX330 (avg score 8458, deltaPct -0.3), the AMD Radeon HD 8870M (avg score 8462, deltaPct -0.3), and the AMD Radeon R9 M375X (avg score 8325, deltaPct 1.3). The Radeon 880M’s average benchmark score of 8436 is within 0.3% of the GTX 675MX and MX330. That means the integrated part performs like a low-end discrete GPU from several generations ago. For Pc Building Simulator, that level of performance is sufficient for 1080p gaming at medium settings, but it will not handle 4K or high refresh rate 1440p. The 12 ray tracing cores are present, but the low FP32 throughput and shared memory bandwidth mean ray tracing is unlikely to be a practical feature in this title.

Resolution Scaling

The measured FPS data reveals how the system scales across three resolutions: 1920x1080, 2560x1440, and 3840x2160. At Low settings, the average FPS drops from 105 at 1080p to 66 at 1440p, a 37% reduction, and then to 35 at 4K, another 47% reduction from 1440p. At Medium settings, the averages are 74, 47, and 25 respectively. At High settings, the averages are 52, 33, and 17. At Ultra settings, the averages are 50, 32, and 16. The pattern is consistent: each step up in resolution roughly halves the frame rate, which is a classic sign of a GPU that is bandwidth or fill-rate limited.

The scaling from 1080p to 1440p is less severe than from 1440p to 4K. At Low settings, 1080p to 1440p loses 39 FPS, while 1440p to 4K loses 31 FPS. The percentage drop is steeper at higher resolutions because the pixel count increase is larger. Going from 1080p to 1440p increases pixels by about 78%, while going from 1440p to 4K increases pixels by about 125%. The fact that the FPS does not drop proportionally to pixel count suggests the GPU is not purely pixel-bound at lower resolutions; it may be limited by other factors like draw calls or CPU overhead at 1080p Low. However, the overall trend is clear: this combo is built for 1080p, and anything beyond that requires significant settings compromises.

At 4K, even Low settings only produce 35 average FPS, which is below the 60 FPS target most builders would want. The Ultra preset at 4K produces 16 FPS, which is essentially unplayable. At 1440p, Low settings achieve 66 FPS, which is playable, but Medium drops to 47 FPS, and High falls to 33 FPS. The data indicates that the limiting component at all resolutions is the integrated GPU. The CPU is not the constraint because the frame rates scale so predictably with resolution and settings. If the CPU were the bottleneck, we would see similar FPS across different resolutions at the same settings. Instead, higher resolutions consistently reduce FPS, proving the GPU is the limiting factor.

Measured FPS Breakdown

At 1920x1080, the combo delivers its best results. On Low settings, the average FPS is 105. That is smooth and well above the 60 FPS threshold for most displays. Medium settings produce 74 FPS average, with a minimum of 63 and a maximum of 85. That is still very playable, and the minimum frame rate staying above 60 is a good sign for consistency. High settings drop to 52 FPS average, which is acceptable for a simulation game but not ideal for fast-paced action. Ultra settings produce 50 FPS average, which is nearly identical to High, suggesting diminishing returns beyond Medium. The gap between Low and Medium is 31 FPS, while the gap between Medium and High is 22 FPS, and between High and Ultra is only 2 FPS. That means the GPU has headroom at Low, but it starts to hit a wall around Medium, and pushing to High or Ultra yields little benefit for the visual cost.

At 2560x1440, the numbers drop significantly. Low settings average 66 FPS, which is still playable, but the margin for error is thinner. Medium settings average 47 FPS, with a minimum of 40 and a maximum of 54. That is borderline; some players will find it acceptable, but others will notice the dips. High settings average 33 FPS, and Ultra averages 32 FPS. Both are below the 60 FPS target and will feel sluggish. The pattern mirrors 1080p: Low is the only setting that breaks 60 FPS, and Medium is the highest playable option for most users. The delta between Low and Medium is 19 FPS, between Medium and High is 14 FPS, and between High and Ultra is 1 FPS. Ultra offers almost nothing over High at 1440p.

At 3840x2160, the combo struggles. Low settings average 35 FPS, which is below 60 FPS and will feel choppy in a game that requires precise mouse movements. Medium averages 25 FPS, with a minimum of 21 and a maximum of 28. High averages 17 FPS, and Ultra averages 16 FPS. None of these are playable for a smooth experience. The data shows that 4K is simply out of reach for this integrated GPU, even at the lowest settings. The drop from Low to Medium is 10 FPS, from Medium to High is 8 FPS, and from High to Ultra is 1 FPS. The GPU is so overwhelmed at 4K that settings changes have less impact than at lower resolutions, because the pixel fill rate is the dominant constraint.

Settings Recommendations

For the best experience, the data points to 1080p Medium as the sweet spot. The average FPS is 74, with a minimum of 63 and a maximum of 85. That keeps the frame rate above 60 at all times, which is important for a simulation game where you are moving a mouse around a 3D environment. The minimum of 63 means there are no severe stutters, and the maximum of 85 shows there is headroom for occasional scene complexity. Compared to Low settings at 105 FPS, Medium offers a significant visual upgrade for a 31 FPS cost. Compared to High at 52 FPS, Medium is 22 FPS faster, and the visual difference between Medium and High in a game like Pc Building Simulator is likely minor, as the title is not graphically demanding.

If a player prioritizes frame rate above all else, 1080p Low at 105 FPS is the choice. That is well above 60 FPS and even exceeds 100 FPS, which would be smooth on a 100 Hz or 120 Hz display. However, Low settings will make textures and lighting look flat, which detracts from the immersion of building and inspecting PCs. The data suggests that Medium is the better trade-off because it maintains a 60+ FPS minimum while providing better visual quality. At 1440p, the only playable option is Low at 66 FPS. That is above 60 FPS, but just barely, and any scene complexity could cause dips below that threshold. Medium at 47 FPS is a gamble, and High or Ultra at 33 FPS or 32 FPS is not recommended for a smooth experience. At 4K, no setting is recommended. Low at 35 FPS is too slow for a mouse-driven interface, and the game will feel laggy.

The measured rows show that Ultra settings are essentially a trap for this combo. At every resolution, Ultra produces almost the same FPS as High, but with no meaningful benefit. At 1080p, Ultra is 50 FPS versus High’s 52. At 1440p, Ultra is 32 versus High’s 33. At 4K, Ultra is 16 versus High’s 17. The extra visual features in Ultra are not worth the performance cost, because the GPU is already maxed out. Medium is the highest preset that offers a real performance headroom. For a game like Pc Building Simulator, which is about managing components and not about high-octane action, a stable 60+ FPS at 1080p Medium is the recommended target. The data supports that as the best balance of smoothness and visual fidelity.

CPU Role

The AMD Ryzen AI Max+ 395 is a 16-core, 32-thread processor based on the Zen 5 architecture, codenamed Strix Halo. It has a base clock of 3.00 GHz and a boost clock of 5.10 GHz. The CPU is built on a 4 nm process at TSMC, with a die size of 2x 70.6 mm². The cache hierarchy includes 80 KB of L1 per core, 1 MB of L2 per core, and 64 MB of shared L3. The memory support is LPDDR5X over a quad-channel bus, with a memory bandwidth of 256.0 GB/s. The TDP is rated at 55 watts, and the socket is AMD Socket FP11. The integrated graphics on the CPU is listed as Radeon 8060S, but the measured FPS in this combo uses the Radeon 880M, which is a separate IGP part.

In Pc Building Simulator, the CPU is not the bottleneck. The benchmark scores show a processor that is competitive with desktop flagships. The Cinebench R23 multicore score is 35314, and single-core is 2044. Geekbench multicore is 20992, and single-core is 2464. PassMark multithread is 54934, and single-thread is 4147. These are high numbers, and the nearest rivals include the Intel Core i9-14900K, which the Ryzen AI Max+ 395 trails by only 1.7% in average benchmark score. The CPU’s percentile vs all CPUs is 95, meaning it outperforms 95% of all processors in the database. For a simulation game that likely has light CPU demands, this processor is overkill.

The data supports this interpretation. If the CPU were the limiting factor, we would expect similar frame rates across different resolutions, because the CPU workload would remain constant. Instead, the FPS drops sharply as resolution increases, which is the signature of a GPU bottleneck. At 1080p Low, the CPU can push 105 FPS, but at 4K Low, it only manages 35 FPS. The CPU is not holding the system back; the GPU is. The 16 cores and 32 threads are more than sufficient for Pc Building Simulator, and the 5.10 GHz boost clock ensures that even single-threaded tasks like game logic or UI updates run quickly. The memory bandwidth of 256.0 GB/s is also shared with the GPU, so the CPU’s memory access is not a limiting factor in this title.

The CPU’s role in this combo is to provide a stable platform for the integrated GPU. With a high-end CPU like this, the GPU has no CPU-induced stalls to worry about. The measured FPS numbers are as high as the GPU can produce, not as high as the CPU could allow. For someone using this combo, the CPU is future-proof in a way that the GPU is not. If a discrete GPU were added later, the Ryzen AI Max+ 395 would not hold it back in a game like Pc Building Simulator. The CPU’s average benchmark score of 77740 and its 95th percentile ranking confirm it is a top-tier part. The GPU, by contrast, is a 43rd percentile part, and that mismatch is the reason the combo ranks so low overall. In this specific game, the CPU is a silent partner, doing its job without complaint, while the GPU determines the playable settings and resolutions.