Pc Building Simulator

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

The measured FPS data for Pc Building Simulator reveals a steep performance curve as resolution climbs, and the pattern strongly suggests the GPU becomes the dominant bottleneck at higher pixel counts. At 1920x1080 with Low settings, the combo delivers 230.1 FPS, but dropping to 2560x1440 Low reduces that to 142.2 FPS — a 38% loss. Pushing further to 3840x2160 Low yields 74.4 FPS, which is another 48% reduction from the 1440p figure. The scaling is not linear; each resolution step exacts a heavier toll, which is typical when the render target outgrows what the graphics processor can fill.

The picture becomes even clearer when examining Ultra settings. At 1080p Ultra, the system manages 105.5 FPS. At 1440p Ultra, that falls to 67 FPS — a 36% drop. At 4K Ultra, the average bottoms out at 37.6 FPS, a 44% reduction from the 1440p result. Notice that the percentage loss from 1440p to 4K is larger than the loss from 1080p to 1440p, which indicates that the GPU is running out of headroom as pixel count increases. If the CPU were the limiting factor, we would expect the FPS to plateau or decline more gently at higher resolutions, since the processor workload stays roughly constant while the GPU work multiplies.

The gap between Low and Ultra settings at each resolution reinforces this interpretation. At 1080p, the difference between Low (230.1 FPS) and Ultra (105.5 FPS) is a massive 124.6 FPS swing, showing that the GPU has ample capacity at lower settings but gets saturated as graphical complexity rises. At 4K, the Low-to-Ultra spread narrows to 36.8 FPS (74.4 down to 37.6), which suggests the GPU is already near its limit even at Low settings. This is a classic signature of a GPU-bound scenario: raising settings at high resolution produces diminishing returns because the renderer is already struggling to fill every pixel.

What does this imply for the i5-12400 + RX 7600 pairing? The data shows the CPU is not the primary constraint in this title, at least not at the resolutions tested. At 1080p Low, the system reaches 230.1 FPS, which is high enough that even a modest processor could keep up. The fact that FPS scales so dramatically with resolution indicates the Radeon RX 7600 is doing the heavy lifting, and its 8 GB VRAM and 128-bit memory bus are likely contributing to the steep drops at 4K. The 288.0 GB/s bandwidth is adequate for 1080p and 1440p, but the 4K data suggests the memory subsystem is being pushed hard.

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

The Intel Core i5-12400 brings six cores and twelve threads to this pairing, with a base clock of 2.50 GHz and a boost clock of 4.40 GHz. This is a mid-range Alder Lake-S part on the Intel Socket 1700 platform, built on a 10 nm process. The 18 MB shared L3 cache and 1.25 MB per-core L2 cache provide ample on-die storage for game logic and asset streaming. In Pc Building Simulator, a simulation title that likely involves complex systems tracking, the CPU's multi-threaded performance matters, but the benchmark data shows the GPU dominates the FPS curve.

The CPU's benchmark scores place it in the 77th percentile against all tested processors, with an average benchmark score of 19850. Its nearest rival, the Intel Core i7-9700, scores 19831, which is essentially identical (0.1% delta). The i5-12400 also edges out the Core i7-8700 by 0.2% and trails the AMD Ryzen Threadripper PRO 5995WX by only 0.4%. These margins are negligible in real-world gaming, which means the i5-12400 is not holding back the RX 7600 in this title. The single-thread score of 910 in 3DMark and the Cinebench R23 single-core result of 2249 indicate strong per-core performance, which is often more important than raw core counts in simulation games that may not scale perfectly across all threads.

The 12 threads available on this chip are sufficient for a game like Pc Building Simulator, which likely does not push beyond a handful of active threads. The PassMark multi-thread score of 18747 and the Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 15935 show solid all-core capability, but the FPS data does not reveal any CPU-induced stutters or frame drops that would suggest thread saturation. At 1080p Low, the system hits 230.1 FPS, and even at 4K Ultra, the average stays above 37 FPS — neither result points to the CPU as the weak link. The 65 W TDP also suggests this processor runs cool enough to sustain boost clocks without thermal throttling, which would be necessary to maintain consistent frame delivery.

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

The AMD Radeon RX 7600 is the star of this pairing, and its specifications explain much of the observed behavior. Built on the RDNA 3.0 architecture with the Navi 33 chip, this GPU operates at a base clock of 1720 MHz and boosts up to 2655 MHz, with a game clock of 2250 MHz. The 8 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 128-bit bus delivers 288.0 GB/s of bandwidth. The 2048 shading units and 64 ROPs provide the raw compute necessary to push pixels, while the 32 ray accelerators add hardware support for ray-traced effects if the game uses them.

The GPU's benchmark profile places it in the 63rd percentile against all GPUs, with an average benchmark score of 20258. Its nearest rival, the AMD Radeon RX 7600 XT, scores 20146, which is only 0.6% lower — an anomaly given the XT variant typically offers more memory. The RX 7600 also sits just 1.3% behind the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3070 Mobile and 1.5% behind the Intel Arc B570. These tight margins suggest the RX 7600 is well-positioned in its class, but the 4K results reveal a clear limitation: the 8 GB VRAM buffer is likely insufficient for high-resolution textures in a simulation game that may load many assets simultaneously.

The measured FPS at 4K Ultra (37.6) versus 4K Low (74.4) shows a 49% performance penalty from increasing settings, which is a larger relative drop than at 1080p (54% penalty, from 230.1 to 105.5). This indicates that the GPU's memory bandwidth and capacity are being strained at 4K, especially with higher settings that demand more texture data and shader complexity. The 21.75 TFLOPS FP32 performance is respectable for 1080p and 1440p gaming, but the 128-bit memory interface becomes a bottleneck at 4K, where the 288.0 GB/s bandwidth is spread across four times as many pixels as 1080p.

How This Combo Ranks — use comboRankInGame vs other tested combos

In the database of tested combinations for Pc Building Simulator, this Intel Core i5-12400 + AMD Radeon RX 7600 pairing ranks 1205 out of 1769 total combos. That places it in the bottom third of all tested systems, which might seem surprising given the individual components' respectable benchmark scores. The CPU sits in the 77th percentile and the GPU in the 63rd percentile, yet their combination lands in the 32nd percentile (1205/1769). This discrepancy suggests the game is particularly demanding on the graphics subsystem, and the RX 7600's 8 GB VRAM may be a limiting factor that drags down the overall ranking.

Comparatively, the CPU's nearest rivals all score within 0.4% of each other, meaning the processor choice has minimal impact on the combo ranking. The GPU's nearest rivals are also tightly clustered, with the RX 7600 sitting just 0.6% above the RX 7600 XT and 1.3% below the RTX 3070 Mobile. This implies that swapping in a slightly stronger GPU would not dramatically improve the ranking unless it also brought more VRAM or a wider memory bus. The 1205th rank is a function of the GPU's absolute performance at higher resolutions, not a failure of the CPU-GPU balance.

The data suggests that this combo is best suited for 1080p or 1440p gaming, where it performs admirably, but it falls behind in 4K scenarios that stress the memory subsystem. The rank of 1205 out of 1769 indicates that most other tested combos deliver higher average FPS in this title, likely because they pair more powerful GPUs with similar or better CPUs. For a simulation game that may not be heavily optimized for multi-threading, the i5-12400's strong single-core performance is adequate, but the GPU's 8 GB frame buffer is the bottleneck that limits the combo's standing.

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

The measured FPS data provides a complete picture across three resolutions and four settings levels. At 1920x1080, the system achieves 230.1 FPS on Low settings, 159.4 FPS on Medium, 111.7 FPS on High, and 105.5 FPS on Ultra. This shows a clear progression where each settings tier exacts a performance cost, with the largest single drop occurring between Low and Medium (70.7 FPS). The gap between High and Ultra is smaller (6.2 FPS), suggesting diminishing returns from the highest settings tier at 1080p.

Moving to 2560x1440, the averages are 142.2 FPS on Low, 102.9 FPS on Medium, 74 FPS on High, and 67 FPS on Ultra. The drop from 1080p to 1440p at each settings level is roughly 38-40%, which is consistent across all tiers. The Low-to-Ultra spread at 1440p is 75.2 FPS, slightly smaller than the 124.6 FPS spread at 1080p, indicating that the GPU is starting to feel the pressure from the higher pixel count.

At 3840x2160, the results are 74.4 FPS on Low, 51.8 FPS on Medium, 39 FPS on High, and 37.6 FPS on Ultra. The Low-to-Ultra spread narrows to 36.8 FPS, and the difference between High and Ultra is just 1.4 FPS — nearly negligible. This suggests that at 4K, the GPU is so constrained that raising settings from High to Ultra adds little visual benefit while costing precious frames. The 4K Low result of 74.4 FPS is still playable, but the Ultra result of 37.6 FPS falls below the 60 FPS threshold that many players consider smooth.

FAQ

Q: Is this combo capable of 60 FPS at 1440p with high settings?

A: Yes. At 2560x1440 with High settings, the system averages 74 FPS, which is comfortably above the 60 FPS target. Even at Ultra settings, the 67 FPS average remains playable.

Q: What is the best resolution for this pairing?

A: The data shows 1920x1080 as the strongest choice, with averages from 105.5 FPS on Ultra to 230.1 FPS on Low. At 1440p, the system stays above 67 FPS across all settings, making it viable, but 4K Ultra drops to 37.6 FPS, which is not ideal.

Q: How does the CPU compare to its nearest rivals?

A: The i5-12400 scores an average of 19850, which is 0.1% above the Intel Core i7-9700 (19831), 0.2% above the Intel Core i7-8700 (19894), and 0.4% above the Intel Core i5-11600K (19771). These differences are negligible in gaming.

Q: Is the GPU more important than the CPU in this game?

A: Yes. The FPS scaling from 1080p to 4K shows that the GPU is the limiting factor. At 1080p Low, the system hits 230.1 FPS, but at 4K Ultra, it falls to 37.6 FPS, indicating the graphics card cannot keep up with the pixel workload.

Q: What settings should be avoided at 4K?

A: The data suggests avoiding Ultra at 3840x2160, as it yields only 37.6 FPS. Even High settings produce just 39 FPS, which is below the 60 FPS threshold. Low settings at 4K (74.4 FPS) are the only configuration that maintains smooth gameplay.

Q: How does the combo rank among all tested configurations?

A: This pairing ranks 1205 out of 1769 tested combos in Pc Building Simulator, placing it in the lower third of all systems. The GPU's 8 GB VRAM and 128-bit bus likely contribute to this ranking at higher resolutions.

Settings Recommendations

For the best experience with this Intel Core i5-12400 + AMD Radeon RX 7600 combo, the data points to 1920x1080 as the sweet spot. At this resolution, even Ultra settings deliver 105.5 FPS, which is smooth and visually rich. If the player prefers higher frame rates, dropping to High settings yields 111.7 FPS with only a slight visual trade-off. Medium settings at 159.4 FPS would benefit esports-style play, while Low at 230.1 FPS is only useful for extreme competitive scenarios where every frame counts.

At 2560x1440, the recommendation shifts to High or Ultra, with averages of 74 FPS and 67 FPS respectively. Both remain above the 60 FPS threshold, so players can enjoy the higher resolution without sacrificing playability. Medium at 102.9 FPS is also viable if the player wants extra headroom, but the visual difference between Medium and High is worth the small FPS cost. Low at 142.2 FPS is unnecessary unless the player prioritizes refresh rate over fidelity.

The 3840x2160 resolution is the most challenging. The data shows that Low settings (74.4 FPS) are the only configuration that consistently stays above 60 FPS. Medium (51.8 FPS) and High (39 FPS) are playable but may feel less responsive, while Ultra (37.6 FPS) is best avoided for any serious gaming session. For a simulation game where players may spend long periods managing systems, the extra resolution at 4K is not worth the performance hit — 1440p High or Ultra provides a better balance of visual quality and frame rate. If 4K is a must, stick to Low settings and accept the compromise.