Pc Building Simulator

Pc Building Simulator proves far more scalable than the typical simulation title, with the Intel Core i5-12400 and AMD Radeon RX 9070 delivering a playable experience across every resolution tested. The data shows a clear pattern: the GPU becomes the primary bottleneck at 4K, while the CPU’s headroom is exposed at lower resolutions. The combo ranks 553rd out of 1769 tested combinations, placing it in the upper third of all systems, but the performance curve demands specific settings to maximize the experience.

Resolution Scaling

The frame rate drop from 1080p to 4K is dramatic but predictable, revealing where the system’s limits lie. At 1080p Ultra, the combo produces 165.7 FPS, which is more than triple the 52.3 FPS seen at 4K Ultra — a 68% reduction in performance. This steep decline indicates that the RX 9070’s rendering workload scales heavily with pixel count, and the CPU is not the limiting factor at the highest resolution.

The scaling pattern shifts when examining lower settings. At Low settings, the frame rate goes from 345 FPS at 1080p down to 114.3 FPS at 4K, a 67% drop. This consistency across settings suggests that resolution scaling is uniform regardless of graphical load. The 1440p results sit neatly between the two extremes: 217.1 FPS at Low and 102.2 FPS at Ultra. The gap between 1080p and 1440p at Ultra is 63.5 FPS, while the gap between 1440p and 4K at Ultra is 49.9 FPS, showing that the scaling is slightly sub-linear as resolution increases.

What the data indicates is that 4K remains viable only with reduced settings. The 4K Medium result of 83.2 FPS is respectable, but the 4K High result of 58.5 FPS shows the system struggling to maintain 60 FPS. The limiting component at 4K is clearly the GPU, as the CPU has ample headroom given its 6 cores and 12 threads. At 1080p, the system is almost certainly CPU-bound at Low settings, where 345 FPS far exceeds what the RX 9070 would need to render at that resolution.

GPU Role

The AMD Radeon RX 9070’s specifications explain the performance ceiling observed in the measured results. The GPU features 16 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 256-bit bus, yielding 644.6 GB/s of bandwidth. For a simulation game like Pc Building Simulator, which typically has modest VRAM demands, this capacity is more than sufficient — the data shows no evidence of memory-related frame drops, with minimum FPS values not being reported as substantially lower than averages.

Clock speeds play a key role in the scaling behavior. The boost clock of 2520 MHz and game clock of 2070 MHz are high figures, but the 4K Ultra result of 52.3 FPS indicates that the GPU’s 3584 shading units are saturated at that load. The pixel rate of 322.6 GPixel/s and texture rate of 564.5 GTexel/s are substantial, yet they cannot overcome the raw pixel count at 3840x2160. The FP32 throughput of 36.13 TFLOPS is the theoretical peak, but real-world performance at 4K Ultra falls to just over half the 1080p Ultra result.

The GPU’s 128 ROPs and 56 RT cores are irrelevant for this game’s rendering path, as it is a simulation title rather than a AAA shooter. What matters more is the raw fill rate and shader throughput, which the data shows is sufficient for 1440p High at 110.2 FPS but insufficient for 4K Ultra at 52.3 FPS. The GPU’s percentile ranking of 79th among all GPUs, with an average benchmark score of 34780, places it slightly below the NVIDIA A2 (34866) and above the AMD Radeon HD 7970 (34541) in synthetic tests, but the actual game performance is far more telling than those generic scores.

Settings Recommendations

Based on the measured FPS rows, the optimal settings depend entirely on the target resolution. For 4K displays, Medium settings at 83.2 FPS offer the best balance — the jump from Low (114.3 FPS) to Medium costs 31.1 FPS but provides noticeably better visuals, while High (58.5 FPS) and Ultra (52.3 FPS) fall below the 60 FPS threshold that most players prefer. The 4K Medium result is the only setting above 60 FPS that does not sacrifice significant graphical quality.

At 1440p, High settings at 110.2 FPS are the clear recommendation. Ultra at 102.2 FPS is only 8 FPS slower and might be preferable for those with high-refresh monitors, but High provides a comfortable margin above 100 FPS. The Medium setting at 156.9 FPS and Low at 217.1 FPS are excessive for the visual gains they provide — the game does not require such high frame rates to be playable, and the extra graphical fidelity from High is worth the 46.7 FPS reduction from Medium.

For 1080p, the choice is between High (172.2 FPS) and Ultra (165.7 FPS). The difference is only 6.5 FPS, making Ultra the superior choice for most players since it delivers nearly the same frame rate with better visuals. Low at 345 FPS and Medium at 245.4 FPS are unnecessary unless targeting a 240 Hz or higher display. The data shows that Ultra at 1080p is the best experience for this resolution, as the 6.5 FPS penalty is negligible.

FAQ

Q: Is this combo capable of 4K gaming?

A: Yes, but only with Medium settings, which deliver 83.2 FPS. High and Ultra fall below 60 FPS at 58.5 and 52.3 FPS respectively, making Medium the maximum playable setting at 4K.

Q: Why is the frame rate so much higher at 1080p compared to 4K?

A: The GPU must render four times as many pixels at 3840x2160 versus 1920x1080. The data shows a 68% reduction from 1080p Ultra (165.7 FPS) to 4K Ultra (52.3 FPS), indicating the RX 9070 is the limiting component at higher resolutions.

Q: What is the best resolution for this combo?

A: 1440p with High settings at 110.2 FPS offers the best combination of visual quality and performance. It provides over 100 FPS while maintaining settings that are not excessively taxing on the GPU.

Q: How does this combo compare to similar systems?

A: The combo ranks 553rd out of 1769 tested combinations. The CPU and GPU both score at the 77th and 79th percentile respectively, meaning this system outperforms roughly three-quarters of all tested hardware.

Q: Is the CPU or GPU more important for this game?

A: At 4K, the GPU is the bottleneck, as evidenced by the steep frame rate drop from 83.2 FPS at Medium to 52.3 FPS at Ultra. At 1080p, the CPU’s 6 cores and 12 threads provide enough headroom to reach 345 FPS at Low settings, suggesting the GPU is still the main constraint.

Q: Should I use Low settings for competitive play?

A: Only if targeting extremely high refresh rates. The 1080p Low result of 345 FPS exceeds what most monitors can display, while 1440p Low at 217.1 FPS and 4K Low at 114.3 FPS already offer excellent responsiveness.

How This Combo Ranks

The combination of the Intel Core i5-12400 and AMD Radeon RX 9070 sits at rank 553 out of 1769 tested combos, placing it in the 69th percentile of all systems. This is a strong showing for a mid-range CPU paired with a high-end GPU. The CPU’s percentile of 77 places it above the Intel Core i7-9700 (0.1% faster) and below the Intel Core i7-8700 (-0.2% slower), while the GPU’s percentile of 79 puts it slightly behind the NVIDIA A2 (-0.2%) but ahead of the AMD Radeon HD 7970 (0.7%).

The rank of 553 indicates that most combos above this one feature either a more powerful CPU or a more powerful GPU. The data suggests that the RX 9070 is the stronger component in this pairing — the CPU’s average benchmark score of 19850 is nearly identical to its nearest rival, the Intel Core i7-9700 at 19831, while the GPU’s average score of 34780 is competitive with the NVIDIA A2 at 34866. This balance means the system is well-matched, with neither component drastically underperforming the other.

In the context of gaming benchmarks, this rank is respectable but not top-tier. The measured FPS results show that the system can handle 1440p Ultra at 102.2 FPS, which is a demanding workload for most titles. The rank reflects the fact that many testing combos use flagship CPUs or GPUs that push these numbers higher, but for a practical gaming rig, this combo delivers solid performance across the board.

CPU Role

The Intel Core i5-12400 provides the foundation for this system’s performance, with 6 cores and 12 threads running at a base clock of 2.50 GHz and boost clock of 4.40 GHz. The 18 MB of shared L3 cache and 1.25 MB L2 per core are adequate for a simulation game that likely does not require massive cache hierarchies. The CPU’s benchmark scores show strong single-thread performance — 2249 in Cinebench R23 single-core and 910 in 3DMark single-thread — which is critical for a game that may have serialized simulation logic.

The CPU’s role becomes apparent when examining the 1080p results. At Low settings, the system reaches 345 FPS, which is more than double the 165.7 FPS at Ultra. This massive jump suggests that at Low settings, the CPU is not the bottleneck, as the GPU has less work to do. However, the fact that 1080p Ultra is only 165.7 FPS, while 1440p Ultra is 102.2 FPS, shows that the CPU can keep up with the GPU’s demands even at lower resolutions.

The CPU’s nearest rivals include the Intel Core i7-9700, which is 0.1% faster, and the Intel Core i7-8700, which is 0.2% slower. This places the i5-12400 in a narrow performance band where it is effectively equivalent to previous-generation i7 parts. The 65W TDP and 10nm process node indicate that the CPU is efficient, but the data does not show this translating into higher frame rates — the GPU is the primary driver of FPS in this game.

Measured FPS Breakdown

The measured FPS results cover three resolutions and four settings, providing a complete picture of the system’s capabilities. At 1920x1080, the average FPS ranges from 345 at Low to 165.7 at Ultra. The Medium setting delivers 245.4 FPS, and High provides 172.2 FPS. The difference between High and Ultra is only 6.5 FPS, making Ultra the more attractive option at this resolution.

At 2560x1440, the performance scales down predictably. Low yields 217.1 FPS, Medium 156.9 FPS, High 110.2 FPS, and Ultra 102.2 FPS. The gap between Medium and High is 46.7 FPS, which is the largest drop among consecutive settings. This suggests that High introduces a significant graphical load that the GPU must handle, but the result remains above 100 FPS.

At 3840x2160, the system struggles at the highest settings. Low produces 114.3 FPS, Medium 83.2 FPS, High 58.5 FPS, and Ultra 52.3 FPS. The drop from Medium to High is 24.7 FPS, crossing the critical 60 FPS threshold. The data shows that 4K is only viable at Medium or Low settings, with Medium being the recommended choice for visual quality.

Across all resolutions, the pattern is consistent: Low settings provide roughly double the frame rate of Ultra settings. At 1080p, the ratio is 2.08x (345 vs 165.7), at 1440p it is 2.12x (217.1 vs 102.2), and at 4K it is 2.18x (114.3 vs 52.3). This consistency indicates that the GPU’s rendering workload scales uniformly with settings, and the CPU does not introduce any unexpected bottlenecks at higher resolutions.