Pc Building Simulator

The Intel Core i5-10400F paired with the Intel Arc B370 delivers a strictly entry-level experience in Pc Building Simulator, landing at rank 2761 out of 3002 tested combos. This places the pairing in the bottom 8% of all configurations, with measured frame rates that range from a playable 113 FPS average at 1080p Low to a slideshow-like 18 FPS average at 4K Ultra. The data shows a system that is clearly CPU-capable for simulation tasks but hamstrung by a GPU that ranks in the 5th percentile among all graphics cards. The following analysis breaks down exactly what this combination offers, where its strengths and weaknesses lie, and which settings provide the most usable experience.

FAQ

Q: What is the overall performance ranking of this CPU and GPU combo in Pc Building Simulator?

A: The combo ranks 2761st out of 3002 tested combinations, placing it in the bottom portion of all tested systems. This represents a percentile position of roughly 8% from the bottom, indicating that the vast majority of other hardware pairings deliver higher frame rates in this game.

Q: How does the Intel Core i5-10400F compare to its nearest rival processors?

A: The i5-10400F has an average benchmark score of 14185, which puts it nearly identical to the Intel Xeon 6756E (14163, 0.2% ahead of the Xeon). It is 0.3% behind the Intel Core 7 160UL (14232), 0.5% ahead of the AMD EPYC 7552 (14115), and 0.6% behind the AMD Ryzen 3 7320C (14277). The processor sits in the 68th percentile among all CPUs, showing it is a solid mid-tier performer.

Q: What is the GPU's benchmark standing relative to other graphics cards?

A: The Intel Arc B370 scores 1184 in the 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 test, which places it in the 5th percentile of all GPUs. Its nearest rivals are the ATI Mobility Radeon HD 5570 (1186, 0.2% ahead of the Arc), ATI Radeon HD 5770 (1190, 0.5% ahead), AMD Radeon HD 7650M (1192, 0.7% ahead), and AMD FirePro M2000 (1168, 1.4% behind the Arc). This is clearly a very low-end graphics solution.

Q: What is the best frame rate achieved by this combo at any resolution?

A: The highest average FPS recorded is 113 at 1920x1080 with Low settings. The next best is 80 FPS average at 1080p Medium, followed by 71 FPS at 2560x1440 Low. All other configurations fall below 60 FPS average.

Q: Is 4K gaming viable with this hardware?

A: No. At 3840x2160, the highest average frame rate achieved is 37 FPS on Low settings. High and Ultra settings drop to 19 and 18 FPS averages respectively, which are unplayable. Medium at 4K yields 26 FPS average with a minimum of 22 and maximum of 30.

Q: Does the CPU show any bottleneck potential in this game?

A: The CPU's benchmark scores suggest it is not the primary limitation. The i5-10400F scores 10283 in Cinebench R23 multi-core and 4318 in Cinebench R20 multi-core, with a single-core R23 score of 1451. Given that the GPU ranks in the 5th percentile, the graphics card is overwhelmingly the performance ceiling in this pairing.

GPU Role

The Intel Arc B370 is the definitive performance limiter in this configuration. Built on the Xe3-LPG architecture with a 3 nm process and the Panther Lake chip, this GPU is designed as an integrated graphics solution (IGP) with a 25 W TDP and no power connectors. Its clock speeds are listed with a base of 300 MHz and a boost of 2400 MHz, but the memory configuration is entirely "System Shared" — meaning there is no dedicated VRAM. The bus width is also "System Shared," and bandwidth is listed as "System Dependent," which means the GPU relies on the system's main memory, a significant handicap for gaming.

The GPU's compute resources are modest: 1280 shading units, 40 texture mapping units, 20 render output units, and 10 ray tracing cores. Its pixel rate is 48.00 GPixel/s and texture rate is 96.00 GTexel/s, with FP32 performance of 6.144 TFLOPS. The 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 score of 1184 puts this card in the 5th percentile of all GPUs, directly alongside decade-old parts like the ATI Radeon HD 5770 (1190) and ATI Mobility Radeon HD 5570 (1186). The data indicates that this GPU is not designed for modern gaming workloads; its performance profile is closer to basic display output than to a discrete gaming card.

In Pc Building Simulator, the GPU's limitations manifest clearly across resolutions. At 1920x1080, the difference between Low and Ultra settings is dramatic: 113 FPS average at Low versus 54 FPS at Ultra. This 59 FPS gap shows that the GPU's fill rate and shader throughput are quickly saturated as settings increase. At 2560x1440, the pattern continues with 71 FPS at Low and 34 FPS at Ultra. At 4K, the GPU is completely overwhelmed, with even Low settings only producing 37 FPS average and Ultra falling to 18 FPS. The measured data shows no configuration where this GPU can maintain a smooth 60 FPS at 1440p or above.

The memory situation compounds the problem. With no dedicated VRAM, the GPU must share system memory bandwidth, which is "System Dependent." This architecture works for light desktop use but struggles under gaming load, especially at higher resolutions where texture data exceeds what the shared memory can efficiently handle. The 25 W TDP confirms this is a power-efficient but low-throughput part, far removed from the 100+ W discrete GPUs typically found in gaming rigs.

CPU Role

The Intel Core i5-10400F provides a stark contrast to the GPU's limitations. This 6-core, 12-thread processor from the Comet Lake architecture (14 nm process) has a base clock of 2.90 GHz and a boost clock of 4.30 GHz. Its cache hierarchy includes 64 KB L1 per core, 256 KB L2 per core, and 12 MB shared L3 cache. Memory support is DDR4 with dual-channel configuration and 42.7 GB/s bandwidth. The CPU sits in the 68th percentile among all processors, with an average benchmark score of 14185.

Benchmark results show a well-rounded performer. In Cinebench R23, the CPU scores 10283 multi-core and 1451 single-core. Cinebench R20 shows 4318 multi-core and 609 single-core. Geekbench scores are 6257 multi-core and 1420 single-core. PassMark results include 12115 multithread, 2541 single-thread, 41471 integer math, and 25956 floating point math. These numbers indicate a CPU that can handle simulation and productivity tasks competently, though it is not a top-tier gaming processor by modern standards.

For a game like Pc Building Simulator, which is a simulation title, the CPU's multi-threaded performance is relevant. The 3DMark 16-thread score of 4748 and max-thread score of 4735 suggest the processor scales well with multi-threaded workloads. The 12 threads from 6 physical cores provide enough parallelism for simulation logic, which often involves many concurrent calculations. The 4.30 GHz boost clock helps with single-threaded tasks, as evidenced by the 3DMark single-thread score of 688 and PassMark single-thread score of 2541.

However, the CPU's role in the measured FPS is secondary. The nearest rival data shows the i5-10400F performing nearly identically to the Intel Xeon 6756E (0.2% difference) and AMD EPYC 7552 (0.5% difference), all of which are server-class parts. This suggests the CPU is not a bottleneck; instead, the GPU's 5th percentile ranking dictates the frame rates. In the measured data, the CPU's 6 cores and 12 threads are more than sufficient to feed this weak GPU, meaning that upgrading the GPU would yield far larger performance gains than upgrading the CPU.

The CPU's memory bandwidth of 42.7 GB/s is another factor, though again limited by the GPU's shared memory architecture. The dual-channel DDR4 support is standard for the era, and the 12 MB L3 cache helps reduce memory latency for frequently accessed data. The 65 W TDP makes it an efficient part, but its age (release date of 2020-04-29) shows in its 14 nm process node compared to the GPU's 3 nm process.

How This Combo Ranks

The combo's rank of 2761 out of 3002 tested combos places it in the bottom 8% of all configurations tested for Pc Building Simulator. This is a poor showing, driven almost entirely by the GPU's low performance. The CPU's 68th percentile ranking among all CPUs suggests it is a reasonably capable part, but the GPU's 5th percentile ranking drags the entire system down.

To contextualize the rank: if 3002 combos were arranged in order of performance, this combo would sit just 241 spots from the very bottom. The data implies that only 241 other combinations perform worse, meaning this system is outclassed by roughly 92% of all tested hardware pairings. This rank is particularly notable because the CPU is not the limiting factor — the i5-10400F benchmarks near server-class Xeon and EPYC parts, showing it can handle demanding workloads. The Arc B370, by contrast, benchmarks near GPUs from the early 2010s, making it the clear performance anchor.

The gap between CPU and GPU capability is stark. The CPU's nearest rivals (Intel Xeon 6756E, Intel Core 7 160UL, AMD EPYC 7552, AMD Ryzen 3 7320C) are all processors that would typically be paired with discrete gaming GPUs. The GPU's nearest rivals (ATI Mobility Radeon HD 5570, ATI Radeon HD 5770, AMD Radeon HD 7650M, AMD FirePro M2000) are all legacy parts that are not capable of modern gaming at playable frame rates. This mismatch results in a system where the CPU waits for the GPU to catch up, a classic bottleneck scenario where the graphics card is the sole constraint.

This ranking suggests that for Pc Building Simulator specifically, even modestly better GPUs would dramatically improve the combo's position. The measured FPS data supports this: the system cannot break 60 FPS at 1080p Ultra or 1440p High, and cannot reach 30 FPS at 4K Medium. The rank of 2761 is a direct reflection of these inadequate frame rates.

Measured FPS Breakdown

The measured FPS data provides a complete picture of this combo's performance across three resolutions and four settings presets, totaling 12 distinct configurations. All data is measured, not estimated, and the game is Pc Building Simulator.

At 1920x1080, the best-case scenario for this combo:

• Low settings: 113 FPS average — the only configuration that exceeds 100 FPS, and the single highest average in the entire dataset.
• Medium settings: 80 FPS average, with a minimum of 68 FPS and maximum of 92 FPS — a smooth experience with no major dips.
• High settings: 56 FPS average — playable but below the 60 FPS target.
• Ultra settings: 54 FPS average — barely playable, with no min/max data provided.

At 2560x1440, performance drops noticeably:

• Low settings: 71 FPS average — still playable, a 37% drop from 1080p Low.
• Medium settings: 50 FPS average, with a minimum of 43 FPS and maximum of 58 FPS — the minimum is below the playable threshold.
• High settings: 36 FPS average — a significant drop, showing the GPU struggling with higher resolution.
• Ultra settings: 34 FPS average — below 35 FPS, which is marginal at best.

At 3840x2160, the combo is effectively unusable:

• Low settings: 37 FPS average — the only 4K configuration that breaks 30 FPS.
• Medium settings: 26 FPS average, with a minimum of 22 FPS and maximum of 30 FPS — stuttery and unpleasant.
• High settings: 19 FPS average — not playable.
• Ultra settings: 18 FPS average — the worst result in the dataset.

The pattern is consistent: each step up in resolution halves the frame rate at the same settings, and each step up in settings at the same resolution reduces FPS by roughly 20-30%. The gap between Low and Ultra at 1080p is 59 FPS (113 vs 54), at 1440p is 37 FPS (71 vs 34), and at 4K is 19 FPS (37 vs 18). This shows the GPU's performance scales poorly with both resolution and settings, typical of a shared-memory IGP.

The Medium settings at each resolution provide the only data with min/max FPS recorded. At 1080p, the 68-92 FPS range shows relative stability. At 1440p, the 43-58 FPS range shows more variance, with minimums dipping below 45 FPS. At 4K, the 22-30 FPS range is consistently low, with no configuration reaching 31 FPS. This min/max data suggests that the GPU's frame pacing degrades as resolution increases, likely due to the shared memory bandwidth becoming a bottleneck.

Settings Recommendations

Based on the measured FPS data, the optimal settings for this combo depend entirely on the target resolution and acceptable frame rate floor.

For a 60 FPS target, the only viable option is 1920x1080 with Low settings, which delivers 113 FPS average. This provides a significant headroom above 60 FPS, ensuring smooth gameplay even in demanding scenes. 1080p Medium is the next best, with 80 FPS average, but the 68 FPS minimum shows it can dip below 70 FPS under load. Both options are excellent for a game like Pc Building Simulator, which does not require twitch reflexes.

For a 30 FPS target, more options open up:

• 1920x1080 Ultra (54 FPS) — exceeds 30 FPS with room to spare, though it is 50% slower than Medium.
• 2560x1440 Low (71 FPS) — well above 30 FPS, making it the best 1440p option.
• 2560x1440 Medium (50 FPS) — playable with a 43 FPS minimum.
• 2560x1440 High (36 FPS) — meets the 30 FPS target but with minimal headroom.
• 3840x2160 Low (37 FPS) — the only 4K option that reaches 30 FPS.

For a playable minimum of 45 FPS, the choices narrow: 1080p Low (113 FPS), 1080p Medium (80 FPS, 68 min), 1080p High (56 FPS), 1440p Low (71 FPS), and 1440p Medium (50 FPS, 43 min — borderline). Anything else risks dropping below 45 FPS.

The data clearly shows that 1920x1080 Medium is the sweet spot for this combo. It delivers 80 FPS average with a minimum of 68 FPS, meaning the frame rate stays above 60 FPS in nearly all situations. The jump from Medium to High at 1080p costs 24 FPS (80 to 56), a 30% performance drop for what is typically a modest visual improvement in a simulation game. Conversely, the jump from Low to Medium at 1080p costs 33 FPS (113 to 80), but the visual quality improvement is often worth it for a game that involves reading text and managing interfaces.

For users with a 1440p monitor, 2560x1440 Low is the recommended choice, offering 71 FPS average. The step to Medium drops to 50 FPS, which is still playable but shows noticeable slowdowns (43 FPS minimum). 1440p High and Ultra are not recommended as they fall below 40 FPS.

At 4K, the recommendation is to avoid this resolution entirely. Even Low settings only achieve 37 FPS, and Medium drops to 26 FPS with a 22 FPS minimum. The minimum frame rates at 4K are below the threshold for comfortable play, and the shared memory architecture causes visible stuttering. If forced to play at 4K, Low settings are the only option, but the experience will be subpar.

The pattern across all resolutions is clear: this combo performs best at Low or Medium settings, with High and Ultra reserved only for 1080p where the FPS remains above 50. The GPU's 5th percentile ranking means that visual quality must be sacrificed to achieve playable frame rates at higher resolutions. For the best balance of visual quality and performance, 1080p Medium is the clear winner, with 1440p Low as a secondary option for those who prioritize resolution over settings.