Pc Building Simulator

Settings Recommendations

For this configuration, the measured data points to Medium settings as the practical ceiling for a consistently playable experience. At 1920x1080, Medium delivers 76.5 FPS, which is comfortably above the 60 FPS threshold most builders target for a simulation title. The jump from Low to Medium costs 31.3 FPS (from 107.8 down to 76.5), but the visual fidelity improvement in a game centered on inspecting components and building systems is substantial. High settings at 1080p drop to 54.5 FPS, which is playable but leaves little headroom for scene complexity or background tasks. Ultra at 1080p is the worst choice here: it delivers 52.5 FPS, only 2 FPS below High, meaning the extra settings overhead buys almost nothing measurable.

At 2560x1440, the decision changes. Medium produces 48.1 FPS, which is borderline for a simulation where menu navigation and part selection dominate. Low at 1440p hits 69.2 FPS and is the only setting that keeps the experience smooth at this resolution. High (33.6 FPS) and Ultra (33.7 FPS) are nearly identical, both falling into the range where the game feels sluggish. The data suggests that if you own a 1440p monitor, Low is the only viable preset, and even then, expect occasional dips when the scene gets busy with multiple case fans and liquid cooling loops.

For 4K, the measured results are essentially a warning label. Every preset at 3840x2160 sits below 36 FPS, with Low at 35.3 FPS being the best case. Ultra at 4K collapses to 18.4 FPS. This combination is not suited for 4K gaming under any settings. The practical recommendation is clear: run 1080p Medium for the best balance, or 1080p Low if you want maximum frame rate headroom. The 1440p Low preset is a fallback for those who prioritize resolution over smoothness, but the 1080p Medium setting is the sweet spot in the measured data.

CPU Role

The Intel Core i5-12400 brings six cores and twelve threads to this simulation, with a base clock of 2.50 GHz and a boost clock of 4.40 GHz. In CPU-centric benchmarks, this processor shows a strong single-thread profile: it scores 910 in 3dmark_single_thread and 2249 in cinebench_r23_singlecore. That matters for Pc Building Simulator because the game's UI, part compatibility checks, and menu navigation rely heavily on single-threaded responsiveness. The multi-threaded results are also solid — 15935 in cinebench_r23_multicore and 5890 in 3dmark_max_threads — which helps when the simulation calculates power draw, thermal output, or boot sequences for multiple components simultaneously.

The benchmark data places this CPU at the 77th percentile among all tested processors, with an average benchmark score of 19850. Its nearest rivals in aggregate performance are the Intel Core i7-9700 (19831, 0.1% ahead), the Intel Core i7-8700 (19894, 0.2% behind), and the Intel Core i5-11600K (19771, 0.4% ahead). In practical terms, the i5-12400 sits in a narrow performance band where the differences between these CPUs are within measurement noise. For a game like Pc Building Simulator, which is not demanding on core counts — the genre leans on simulation logic rather than massive parallel workloads — the 6-core/12-thread configuration is more than adequate.

The 18 MB of shared L3 cache and the Alder Lake architecture with its 10 nm process contribute to the processor's efficiency, but the measured FPS data shows that this CPU is rarely the bottleneck. At 1080p Low, the system hits 107.8 FPS, which is well beyond what the GPU should manage, indicating the CPU can feed frames at a high rate. The single-thread score of 3456 in PassMark reinforces that this chip handles the game's logic without breaking a sweat. The data indicates that the CPU has headroom left on the table; it is not the limiting factor in any of the measured presets.

GPU Role

The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 is the clear performance limiter in this pairing. Built on the Turing architecture with a 12 nm process, this GPU packs 896 shading units, 56 texture mapping units, and 32 ROPs. Its memory configuration is 4 GB of GDDR5 on a 128-bit bus with 128.1 GB/s of bandwidth. The base clock runs at 1485 MHz with a boost up to 1665 MHz, and memory operates at 2001 MHz (8 Gbps effective). This is an entry-level card that sits at the 43rd percentile among all GPUs, with an average benchmark score of 8713.

The GPU's nearest rivals show how tightly packed this performance tier is: the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3050 A Mobile (8746, 0.4% ahead), the AMD Radeon 550X (8749, 0.4% ahead), and the NVIDIA Quadro P2200 (8671, 0.5% behind). The GTX 1650 is essentially at parity with these parts in aggregate benchmarks, which means the measured FPS results are representative of a specific performance class. The PassMark G3D score of 7880 and the DirectX 11 score of 58 indicate that this is a DirectX 11-era workhorse, not a modern high-end part.

In Pc Building Simulator, the GPU's role is to render the 3D viewport where you assemble systems and view component details. The 4 GB VRAM is sufficient for this game's textures, which are not demanding, but the raw compute power is limited. The FP32 performance of 2.984 TFLOPS and the pixel rate of 53.28 GPixel/s set a hard ceiling on resolution scaling. The measured FPS data confirms this: at 1080p Ultra, the GPU produces 52.5 FPS, and at 4K Ultra it falls to 18.4 FPS. The card's 75 W TDP and lack of power connectors make it an easy drop-in upgrade, but the performance envelope is what it is — this is a 1080p-class GPU, and the data shows it struggles beyond that.

How This Combo Ranks

This combination of Intel Core i5-12400 and NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 ranks 1692 out of 1769 tested combos in Pc Building Simulator. That places it in the bottom 5% of all configurations, a position driven entirely by the GPU's limitations. The CPU's percentile (77th) is far stronger than the GPU's (43rd), and the aggregate benchmark discrepancy — 19850 for the CPU versus 8713 for the GPU — shows a significant imbalance. The combo rank reflects the weakest link, and here, the GTX 1650 drags the entire system down.

What this ranking means in practice is that the CPU is capable of much more, but the GPU prevents the system from reaching higher performance tiers. The measured FPS data supports this: at 1080p Low, the system reaches 107.8 FPS, which is respectable, but at 1080p Ultra it drops to 52.5 FPS. The CPU's single-thread strength (910 in 3dmark_single_thread) and multi-thread capability (5890 in 3dmark_max_threads) are not the constraint. If paired with a stronger GPU, this CPU could push far higher frame rates, but as measured, the combo sits near the bottom of the database.

The ranking also indicates that most tested combinations outperform this pairing, which is expected given the GTX 1650's age and tier. For a simulation game that rewards smooth camera movement and quick part snapping, this combo's rank means you will need to compromise on settings or resolution to get a playable experience. The data does not show this as a balanced build — it is a CPU-heavy pairing with a GPU that holds it back from the upper half of the rankings.

Resolution Scaling

The FPS drop from 1080p to 4K is steep and reveals the GPU-bound nature of this system. At Medium settings, the average FPS goes from 76.5 at 1920x1080 to 48.1 at 2560x1440, then plummets to 26.8 at 3840x2160. That is a 65% reduction from 1080p to 4K at Medium. At High settings, the progression is 54.5 (1080p) to 33.6 (1440p) to 15.4 (4K), a 72% drop. The pattern is consistent: each resolution step roughly halves the frame rate, which is the classic signature of a GPU that runs out of pixel throughput and memory bandwidth.

The 128.1 GB/s of memory bandwidth and 4 GB VRAM are the culprits. At 4K, the GPU must move far more pixels through the ROPs, and the 53.28 GPixel/s pixel rate simply cannot keep up. The data shows that the gap between Low and Ultra settings widens as resolution increases. At 1080p, the difference between Low (107.8 FPS) and Ultra (52.5 FPS) is 55.3 FPS. At 4K, the difference between Low (35.3 FPS) and Ultra (18.4 FPS) is only 16.9 FPS. This narrowing indicates that at higher resolutions, the GPU is so saturated that settings changes have diminishing returns — the bottleneck is raw pixel throughput, not shader complexity.

The CPU is not contributing to this scaling pattern. The i5-12400's performance is resolution-independent; it processes the game logic at the same speed regardless of output resolution. The measured FPS at 1080p Low (107.8) versus 1440p Low (69.2) versus 4K Low (35.3) shows a clear GPU-limited scaling curve. If the CPU were the limit, the frame rate would stay flat across resolutions. This is not the case, so the data points squarely at the GTX 1650 as the component that determines resolution viability. For 4K, the answer is no; for 1440p, only Low settings are viable; for 1080p, Medium is the practical maximum.

Measured FPS Breakdown

At 1920x1080, the full settings range is usable, with varying quality. Low produces 107.8 FPS, Medium 76.5 FPS, High 54.5 FPS, and Ultra 52.5 FPS. The step from High to Ultra is negligible (only 2 FPS), so there is no reason to select Ultra over High at this resolution. The step from Medium to High costs 22 FPS, which is significant, and the visual gain in a simulation game may not justify it. Low at 107.8 FPS gives maximum smoothness, ideal for rapid part swapping, but Medium at 76.5 FPS is the balanced choice, offering better visual detail while staying well above 60 FPS.

At 2560x1440, the measured values are Low 69.2 FPS, Medium 48.1 FPS, High 33.6 FPS, and Ultra 33.7 FPS. The High and Ultra results are effectively identical, which suggests the GPU is hitting a hard limit regardless of the extra settings. Medium at 48.1 FPS is playable but not smooth, and the 21.1 FPS drop from Low to Medium is steep. Low at 69.2 FPS is the only preset that maintains a fluid experience at this resolution. The data shows that 1440p is viable only at the lowest settings, and even then, the frame rate is lower than 1080p Ultra, so resolution is not a free upgrade here.

At 3840x2160, the results are Low 35.3 FPS, Medium 26.8 FPS, High 15.4 FPS, and Ultra 18.4 FPS. The High and Ultra values are inverted from the expected order — Ultra (18.4 FPS) is actually 3 FPS higher than High (15.4 FPS), which is within measurement variance but highlights how unstable the GPU is at this resolution. None of these numbers are playable for a simulation that requires precise cursor movement. The 4K data is a clear indicator that this combo should remain at 1080p, where the GTX 1650 can at least approach playable frame rates. The measured breakdown confirms the settings recommendation: 1080p Medium is the optimal preset, with 1080p Low as the fallback for higher frame rates, and all other resolutions or settings are compromises that the hardware cannot support.