Pc Building Simulator

Pc Building Simulator places the Intel Core i5-10400F and AMD Radeon RX 5700 XT in the 1283rd position out of 1769 tested combinations, a result that reflects the hardware's mid-range standing in 2025. The measured frame rates across resolutions and presets show a pairing that is consistently capable but never dominant, with performance scaling that reveals a clear hierarchy between the CPU and GPU workloads.

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

The Intel Core i5-10400F is a 6-core, 12-thread processor based on the Comet Lake architecture, built on Intel's 14 nm process. It operates with a base clock of 2.90 GHz and a boost clock of 4.30 GHz, with a 65 W TDP. The chip includes 12 MB of shared L3 cache and per-core L1 and L2 caches of 64 KB and 256 KB respectively. Memory support is dual-channel DDR4 with a bandwidth of 42.7 GB/s, and the CPU connects to the system via PCIe Gen 3 with 16 lanes.

In terms of raw compute, the i5-10400F posts a Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 10297 and a single-core score of 1453. Its PassMark multithread score is 12115, while the single-thread score reaches 2541. These numbers place the CPU at the 73rd percentile among all processors, with an average benchmark score of 14168. The nearest rivals in the database include the AMD EPYC 7552 at 14115 (0.4% slower), the AMD Ryzen 3 7320C at 14277 (0.8% faster), the Intel Core i5-8500 at 14332 (1.1% faster), and the AMD Ryzen Embedded V2546 at 14336 (1.2% faster). This tight grouping shows the i5-10400F sits squarely in a competitive band of mid-range chips.

For Pc Building Simulator, the CPU's role is primarily about maintaining a stable simulation loop. The game's logic involves managing components, temperatures, and system builds, which benefits from multi-threaded throughput. The 6-core/12-thread configuration provides ample parallelism for these tasks, and the boost clock of 4.30 GHz ensures responsive single-threaded operations when navigating menus or adjusting settings. The data shows that at 1080p Low settings, the combo reaches 224.7 FPS, indicating the CPU is not a bottleneck at lower graphical loads. However, as resolution and settings increase, the frame rate drops in a pattern that points to the GPU becoming the limiting factor, which is typical for a simulation title where CPU overhead is moderate.

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

The AMD Radeon RX 5700 XT is built on the Navi 10 chip with RDNA 1.0 architecture, manufactured on TSMC's 7 nm process. It has 8 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 256-bit bus, delivering a bandwidth of 448.0 GB/s. The GPU's base clock is 1605 MHz, with a boost clock of 1905 MHz and a game clock of 1755 MHz. Memory runs at 1750 MHz, or 14 Gbps effective. The card contains 2560 shading units, 160 texture mapping units, and 64 raster operation units, with a pixel rate of 121.9 GPixel/s and a texture rate of 304.8 GTexel/s. FP32 performance is rated at 9.754 TFLOPS, and the card has a 225 W TDP requiring a 550 W suggested PSU.

The RX 5700 XT holds the 68th percentile among all GPUs, with an average benchmark score of 24731. Its nearest rivals are the NVIDIA RTX A5000 Mobile at 24763 (0.1% faster), the Intel Arc A350M at 24647 (0.3% slower), the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5060 Mobile at 24592 (0.6% slower), and the NVIDIA Quadro RTX 5000 at 24519 (0.9% slower). This clustering again indicates a mid-tier GPU that is competitive with its immediate peers but not exceptional.

In Pc Building Simulator, the GPU handles rendering of the 3D workspace, including case models, component visuals, and the simulated PC builds. The 8 GB VRAM is sufficient for the game's textures at all tested settings, even at 4K Ultra where the frame rate drops to 35 FPS. The boost clock of 1905 MHz provides adequate throughput for the simulation's relatively modest graphical demands. The measured results show that at 1080p Ultra, the combo achieves 107 FPS, but at 4K Ultra, it falls to 35 FPS, a reduction that indicates the GPU is being stressed heavily at higher resolutions. At 4K Low, the frame rate recovers to 75.3 FPS, showing that the GPU can handle the resolution when graphical load is reduced, but the scaling from Low to Ultra at 4K is severe.

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

The measured FPS data reveals a consistent pattern of degradation as resolution increases, which is characteristic of a GPU-bound scenario. Starting at 1080p with Low settings, the combo delivers 224.7 FPS. Moving to 1440p Low, this drops to 143.1 FPS, a 36.3% reduction. At 4K Low, the frame rate falls further to 75.3 FPS, another 47.4% decrease from 1440p. This steep decline across resolutions at the same settings indicates that the GPU's fill rate and memory bandwidth are the primary constraints, as the CPU workload does not scale with resolution.

At High settings, the same pattern emerges. The 1080p result is 113.4 FPS, which drops to 68.2 FPS at 1440p (a 39.9% reduction) and then to 37.6 FPS at 4K (a 44.9% reduction from 1440p). The drop from 1080p to 4K at High settings is 66.8%, from 113.4 to 37.6 FPS. This indicates that even at High settings, the GPU is the limiting factor, as the CPU's 6 cores and 12 threads can handle the simulation logic regardless of pixel count.

The scaling from Low to Ultra at each resolution further confirms this. At 1080p, the difference between Low (224.7 FPS) and Ultra (107 FPS) is 52.4%, showing a significant impact from graphical settings. At 4K, the difference between Low (75.3 FPS) and Ultra (35 FPS) is 53.5%, a similar proportional drop. This consistency suggests that the GPU is saturated at higher settings, and the CPU is not the bottleneck even at 1080p Ultra where 107 FPS is still well above playable thresholds. The data points to a system where the RX 5700 XT is the limiting component across all tested configurations, with the i5-10400F providing sufficient headroom.

How This Combo Ranks — use comboRankInGame vs other tested combos

The combination of the Intel Core i5-10400F and AMD Radeon RX 5700 XT ranks 1283rd out of 1769 tested combos in Pc Building Simulator. This places the pairing in the bottom 27.5% of all configurations, which is a notable position given the individual component percentiles. The CPU sits at the 73rd percentile, and the GPU at the 68th percentile, yet the combo rank is lower than either component's individual standing. This discrepancy suggests that the game's performance profile does not favor this particular pairing, possibly due to the simulation's reliance on specific CPU features or the GPU's architectural limitations.

The rank of 1283 out of 1769 indicates that most other tested combinations deliver better average frame rates in this game. The data shows that the combo's performance is adequate for playable frame rates at most settings, but it is not competitive with higher-end configurations. The nearest rivals for the CPU are all within 1.2% of its average score, and the GPU's rivals are within 0.9%, yet the combo rank reflects a broader comparison across all hardware. This suggests that while the individual components are well-matched in terms of their benchmark scores, the combination does not translate to a top-tier gaming experience in Pc Building Simulator.

The measured FPS at 1080p Ultra is 107, which is a solid result, but the rank indicates that many other combos achieve higher frame rates. The combination's position is likely influenced by the GPU's 8 GB VRAM and its performance at higher resolutions, where the 4K Ultra result of 35 FPS is below the 60 FPS threshold that many users consider smooth. The data shows that the combo is best suited for 1080p and 1440p gaming, with 4K being playable only at Low or Medium settings.

Settings Recommendations — which preset gives the best experience per the measured rows

Based on the measured FPS data, the optimal settings for this combo depend on the target resolution and desired frame rate. At 1080p, the High preset delivers 113.4 FPS, which is well above the 60 FPS threshold and offers a good balance between visual quality and performance. The Ultra preset at 1080p drops to 107 FPS, a marginal 5.6% reduction, so either High or Ultra is viable depending on the user's preference for visual fidelity. The Medium preset at 155.9 FPS provides a significant performance boost, but the visual difference between Medium and High may not justify the frame rate increase for most users.

At 1440p, the High preset delivers 68.2 FPS, which is playable but close to the 60 FPS threshold. The Medium preset achieves 102 FPS, offering a smoother experience with only a slight reduction in visual quality compared to High. The Ultra preset at 1440p drops to 65.9 FPS, which is still playable, but the drop from High to Ultra is marginal at 3.4%, making High the better choice for stability. The Low preset at 143.1 FPS is excessive for most users, as the visual quality is significantly reduced for no practical benefit.

At 4K, the situation is more constrained. The High preset delivers 37.6 FPS, which is below the 60 FPS threshold and may feel sluggish. The Medium preset at 52.6 FPS is closer to playable, but still not smooth. The Low preset at 75.3 FPS is the only 4K option that provides a comfortable frame rate, but it requires significant visual compromises. The Ultra preset at 35 FPS is not recommended, as the performance is too low for a smooth experience. The data suggests that for 4K, users should stick to Low or Medium settings, while 1080p and 1440p offer more flexibility.

The best overall experience per the measured rows is at 1080p with High settings, delivering 113.4 FPS with good visual quality. For users with 1440p monitors, the Medium preset at 102 FPS is the sweet spot, offering a smooth frame rate without sacrificing too much detail. At 4K, the Low preset at 75.3 FPS is the only viable option for a playable experience, but users should consider lowering resolution if visual fidelity is a priority.

Measured FPS Breakdown — resolution by resolution, settings by settings, exact numbers

The measured FPS data provides a comprehensive view of the combo's performance across three resolutions and four settings presets. At 1920x1080, the Low preset achieves 224.7 FPS, the Medium preset reaches 155.9 FPS, the High preset delivers 113.4 FPS, and the Ultra preset produces 107 FPS. The progression from Low to Ultra shows a steady decline of 52.4%, with the largest single drop occurring between Low and Medium at 30.7%.

At 2560x1440, the Low preset delivers 143.1 FPS, the Medium preset achieves 102 FPS, the High preset produces 68.2 FPS, and the Ultra preset delivers 65.9 FPS. The drop from Low to Ultra is 53.9%, with the most significant reduction between Medium and High at 33.1%. The difference between High and Ultra at 1440p is only 3.4%, indicating that the Ultra preset offers minimal visual improvement for the performance cost.

At 3840x2160, the Low preset reaches 75.3 FPS, the Medium preset delivers 52.6 FPS, the High preset produces 37.6 FPS, and the Ultra preset achieves 35 FPS. The decline from Low to Ultra is 53.5%, with the steepest drop between Medium and High at 28.5%. The difference between High and Ultra at 4K is 7.4%, which is slightly larger than at 1440p but still modest.

Across all resolutions, the Low to Medium transition costs roughly 30-31% of performance, the Medium to High transition costs 27-33%, and the High to Ultra transition costs 3-7%. This pattern indicates that the Ultra preset offers diminishing returns at all resolutions, making High the most efficient choice for visual quality per frame. The data also shows that 4K performance is only viable at Low settings, where the 75.3 FPS result is acceptable, while 1080p and 1440p offer playable frame rates across all settings presets.