Pc Building Simulator

This analysis examines the Intel Core i5-10400F paired with the AMD Radeon RX 6750 XT specifically within Pc Building Simulator. The data shows a combination that is heavily skewed toward GPU performance, where the processor provides enough headroom for the graphics card to operate at its full potential, particularly at higher resolutions. The measured results reveal a clear hierarchy of performance across settings, with some interesting implications for how the workload scales.

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 a 14 nm process. It operates with a base clock of 2.90 GHz and a boost clock of 4.30 GHz, drawing a 65 W TDP. The CPU has a 12 MB shared L3 cache and supports dual-channel DDR4 memory with a bandwidth of 42.7 GB/s. In synthetic benchmarks, the chip scores 4324 points in Cinebench R20 multi-core and 610 points in single-core, while Geekbench results show 5783 multi-core and 1454 single-core. Its Passmark multithread score is 12115, with a single-thread score of 2541.

Benchmark results indicate that this processor sits at the 73rd percentile against all CPUs, with an average benchmark score of 14168. Its nearest rivals in the database include the AMD EPYC 7552 with a score of 14115 (a 0.4% gap), the AMD Ryzen 3 7320C at 14277 (-0.8%), and the Intel Core i5-8500 at 14332 (-1.1%). This positioning suggests the i5-10400F is a solid mid-range performer, but for Pc Building Simulator, the CPU's role appears secondary. The game is a simulation, but the measured FPS data shows that at 1080p with Low settings, the system achieves 257 FPS, which is far beyond what a CPU-bound title would typically show if the processor were a bottleneck.

The data implies that the CPU is not the limiting factor in this configuration. At 1080p Low, the frame rate is so high that the workload is likely still GPU-limited, or at least balanced, because the CPU's 12 threads can easily handle the game's logic. The single-core performance, as evidenced by the 3DMark single-thread score of 688 and Cinebench R15 single-core of 146, is sufficient to feed the GPU. As resolution increases to 1440p and 4K, the CPU's relative importance diminishes further, as the pixel throughput demands on the GPU grow exponentially. The processor's 73rd percentile ranking means it is ahead of a significant portion of the market, and in a game like this, that headroom prevents it from dragging down the GPU's output.

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

The AMD Radeon RX 6750 XT is the clear driver of performance in this pairing. It features 12 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 192-bit bus, delivering a bandwidth of 432.0 GB/s. The GPU has a base clock of 2150 MHz, a game clock of 2495 MHz, and a boost clock of 2600 MHz. Its memory runs at 2250 MHz, which translates to 18 Gbps effective. The card is built on the RDNA 2.0 architecture with a 7 nm process, containing 2560 shading units, 160 TMUs, and 64 ROPs, along with 40 ray tracing cores. Its peak FP32 performance is 13.31 TFLOPS.

The GPU's benchmark scores show a Passmark G3D score of 20700 and a Geekbench Vulkan score of 109310, with a percentile rank of 79 against all GPUs and an average benchmark score of 35327. Its nearest rivals include the AMD Radeon RX 5600M with a score of 35264 (0.2% difference), the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5070 Ti Mobile at 35435 (-0.3%), and the AMD Radeon 880M at 35646 (-0.9%). This places the RX 6750 XT in a competitive position, slightly behind the RTX 3080 which scores 35787 (-1.3%).

The GPU's role in Pc Building Simulator is dominant, as evidenced by the scaling of FPS with settings. At 4K, the average FPS drops from 95.7 on Low to 44.8 on High and 46.4 on Ultra, showing that the GPU's compute and memory bandwidth are the primary constraints. The 12 GB VRAM is ample for this game, as the frame rates do not show a catastrophic drop that would indicate memory capacity issues; instead, the decline is gradual and consistent with raw shading and texture throughput. The boost clock of 2600 MHz is crucial, as the game appears to be highly sensitive to GPU clock speed, given the large FPS swings between Low and Ultra presets at every resolution.

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

The measured data offers a clear picture of the trade-offs between visual quality and frame rate. At 1920x1080, the Low preset achieves 257 FPS, while Medium drops to 202 FPS, High to 142.5 FPS, and Ultra to 134.6 FPS. The jump from Low to Medium costs 55 FPS, but the jump from High to Ultra only costs 7.9 FPS. This suggests that the Ultra preset is surprisingly efficient relative to High, offering a marginal FPS penalty for likely better visuals. For competitive or high-refresh-rate gameplay, the Medium preset at 1080p is a strong choice, delivering over 200 FPS while presumably improving visual fidelity over Low.

At 2560x1440, the pattern holds. Low yields 177.2 FPS, Medium drops to 125.8 FPS, High to 89.2 FPS, and Ultra to 85.8 FPS. The Medium preset here provides a balanced experience, with frame rates well above 120 Hz, which is ideal for most users. For a more visually demanding experience, Ultra at 1440p is still playable at 85.8 FPS, but the 3.4 FPS difference between High and Ultra is negligible, making High the more sensible choice if aiming for a smoother 90+ FPS experience.

At 3840x2160, the situation changes dramatically. Low produces 95.7 FPS, but Medium falls to 65.2 FPS, and High/Ultra drop to 44.8 and 46.4 FPS, respectively. The data indicates that at 4K, the GPU is heavily taxed, and the Low preset is the only one that maintains a comfortable frame rate. Medium is borderline playable, but High and Ultra fall below the 60 FPS threshold. The recommendation is to use Low at 4K for a responsive experience, or drop to 1440p with Ultra if visual fidelity is the priority. The data shows that the best balance of performance and quality for this combo is the Medium preset at 1440p, which offers 125.8 FPS and a significant visual upgrade over Low.

FAQ

Q: Is the Intel Core i5-10400F a bottleneck for the AMD Radeon RX 6750 XT in this game?

A: No, the data does not indicate a CPU bottleneck. At 1080p Low, the system reaches 257 FPS, and the FPS scaling with resolution and settings tracks GPU load, not CPU limits. The CPU's 73rd percentile ranking and 12 threads provide ample headroom.

Q: What is the best resolution to play Pc Building Simulator at with this hardware?

A: The data suggests 2560x1440 is the sweet spot. At Medium settings, it achieves 125.8 FPS, which is a good balance between visual quality and performance, while 1080p offers higher frame rates but less detail, and 4K drops below 60 FPS on High settings.

Q: How does the Ultra preset compare to High in terms of frame rate?

A: The performance difference is minimal. At 1080p, Ultra is 134.6 FPS versus 142.5 FPS on High, a difference of 7.9 FPS. At 1440p, the gap is 3.4 FPS (85.8 vs 89.2), and at 4K, Ultra is actually slightly faster than High (46.4 vs 44.8), which is within measurement variance.

Q: Can this system handle 4K gaming in Pc Building Simulator?

A: It can, but with compromises. The Low preset at 4K achieves 95.7 FPS, which is excellent, but the Medium preset drops to 65.2 FPS, and High/Ultra fall to around 45 FPS. For a 4K experience, Low is the only preset that consistently delivers high frame rates.

Q: Why does the frame rate drop so much from 1080p to 4K?

A: The drop is due to the GPU's rendering load. At 4K, the RX 6750 XT must process over four times the pixels of 1080p, and the data shows a corresponding decline. The CPU's performance is not the cause, as the same CPU can achieve 257 FPS at 1080p Low.

Q: How does this GPU compare to its nearest rivals in terms of raw score?

A: The RX 6750 XT has an average benchmark score of 35327, which is nearly identical to the AMD Radeon RX 5600M (35264) and the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5070 Ti Mobile (35435). It is slightly behind the RTX 3080, which scores 35787.

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

The measured FPS data shows a consistent and steep decline as resolution increases, which is a classic sign of GPU-bound performance. At Low settings, the frame rate drops from 257 FPS at 1080p to 177.2 FPS at 1440p, a 31% decrease, and then to 95.7 FPS at 4K, a further 46% decrease from 1440p. This scaling is not linear with pixel count, but it indicates that the GPU's shading units and memory bandwidth are being saturated.

At High settings, the decline is similar: 142.5 FPS at 1080p, 89.2 FPS at 1440p, and 44.8 FPS at 4K. The percentage drop from 1080p to 4K is roughly 69%, which is substantial. The fact that the FPS roughly halves when moving from 1080p to 4K across all settings (except Low, where it drops by about 63%) suggests that the GPU is the primary limiting component. If the CPU were the bottleneck, we would expect the FPS to remain relatively flat as resolution increases, because the CPU's workload would not change. Instead, the data shows a clear inverse relationship between resolution and FPS, which is the signature of a GPU-limited scenario.

The implication is that the i5-10400F has more than enough processing power for this game, even at high frame rates. The RX 6750 XT is the component that dictates the playable settings at each resolution. The data also reveals that the gap between Low and Ultra settings widens with resolution, from a 122.4 FPS difference at 1080p to a 49.3 FPS difference at 4K, further confirming that the GPU's rasterization capabilities are the deciding factor.

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

The complete measured FPS table for this combo is as follows. At 1920x1080, the system produces an average of 257 FPS on Low, 202 FPS on Medium, 142.5 FPS on High, and 134.6 FPS on Ultra. Moving to 2560x1440, the averages are 177.2 FPS on Low, 125.8 FPS on Medium, 89.2 FPS on High, and 85.8 FPS on Ultra. At 3840x2160, the averages drop to 95.7 FPS on Low, 65.2 FPS on Medium, 44.8 FPS on High, and 46.4 FPS on Ultra.

The data shows that the relative performance difference between Low and Medium is large at every resolution, typically a 20-30% drop in FPS. The difference between High and Ultra is much smaller, often less than 5%, which suggests that the Ultra preset may be adding effects that are not heavily taxing the GPU. Notably, at 4K, the Ultra preset actually outperforms High by 1.6 FPS, which is likely within the margin of error but indicates that the two presets are nearly identical in cost. The game is playable at 60 FPS or above on Low and Medium settings at 1440p and 4K, but High and Ultra require 1080p or lower to maintain high frame rates.

How This Combo Ranks — use comboRankInGame vs other tested combos

In the database of tested configurations, this specific combination of the Intel Core i5-10400F and the AMD Radeon RX 6750 XT ranks 896th out of 1769 total combos. This places it in the middle of the pack, which is surprising given the strong GPU performance. The rank of 896 suggests that there are many other combos that achieve higher average FPS in Pc Building Simulator, likely due to more powerful CPUs or GPUs. However, the ranking is relative to all tested combos, which may include high-end systems with RTX 4090-class GPUs or top-tier Ryzen 9 processors.

The data indicates that this combo's performance is not at the top tier, but it is by no means weak. The 73rd percentile CPU and 79th percentile GPU are above average, yet the combination rank is around the 50th percentile (896/1769). This discrepancy suggests that Pc Building Simulator may be more sensitive to certain hardware characteristics than others, or that the game's engine favors specific configurations. The rank implies that while the individual components are solid, the pairing does not unlock exceptional performance in this title compared to other tested combos. It is a competent mid-range setup, but users seeking top-tier frame rates in this simulation may need to look at higher-end hardware combinations that rank higher in the database.