Pc Building Simulator

Resolution Scaling

The measured FPS data for Pc Building Simulator with the Intel Core i5-12400F and AMD Radeon RX 6650 XT reveals a clear pattern: this is a GPU-bound scenario at higher resolutions, but at 1080p the CPU begins to show its influence. Moving from 1920x1080 to 2560x1440 on Ultra settings, average FPS drops from 111 to 70, a 37% reduction. Pushing further to 3840x2160 on Ultra, the average falls to 37 FPS, which represents a 67% drop from the 1080p figure. These scaling ratios indicate that the Radeon RX 6650 XT is the primary limiting factor as resolution increases, with its 8 GB of GDDR6 memory and 128-bit bus width being taxed heavily at 4K.

At Low settings, the scaling story shifts. The 1080p Low preset delivers 234 FPS, while 1440p Low produces 147 FPS, and 4K Low still manages 77 FPS. The 1080p-to-4K drop of 67% at Low settings mirrors the Ultra scaling almost exactly, which reinforces that the GPU's raw throughput, not memory capacity, is the constraining factor. However, the absolute numbers at 1080p Low (234 FPS) suggest the CPU is near its limit; the i5-12400F's 6 cores and 12 threads boost to 4.40 GHz, and at such high frame rates, the processor's single-thread performance becomes relevant. The 3DMark single-thread score of 909 and PassMark single-thread score of 3481 indicate competent but not elite per-core performance.

The Medium preset shows the most interesting scaling behavior. At 1080p Medium, the average is 165 FPS with a minimum of 141 and maximum of 190. At 1440p Medium, the average drops to 104 FPS (min 89, max 120), and at 4K Medium, it falls to 55 FPS (min 46, max 63). This 67% reduction from 1080p to 4K at Medium settings again points to GPU dominance. The frame time consistency, as evidenced by the min-max ranges, remains tight even at 4K Medium (46-63 FPS), suggesting no severe stuttering or CPU bottleneck spikes.

What does this mean for the limiting component? At 1080p, the GPU is still the primary constraint, but the CPU's headroom is shrinking. The gap between Low and Ultra at 1080p is 123 FPS (234 vs 111), which shows the GPU has substantial performance headroom when graphical load is reduced. Had the CPU been the bottleneck, this gap would be much smaller. The i5-12400F's 65W TDP and Alder Lake architecture provide enough compute for this simulation game, but the data suggests that pairing this CPU with a more powerful GPU would yield diminishing returns at 1080p, while at 4K, the RX 6650 XT is clearly the limiting factor.

FAQ

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

A: Based on the measured data, 2560x1440 offers the best balance. At High settings, 1440p delivers 74 FPS average, which is well within smooth gameplay territory. At 4K High, the average drops to 39 FPS, which may feel sluggish for a simulation game that benefits from responsive camera controls and UI interactions.

Q: How much performance is lost when moving from 1080p to 4K?

A: At Ultra settings, the average FPS falls from 111 at 1920x1080 to 37 at 3840x2160, a 67% reduction. At Low settings, the drop is from 234 FPS to 77 FPS, also a 67% reduction. The consistent scaling percentage across settings indicates the GPU is the dominant bottleneck at higher resolutions.

Q: Should I use the Ultra preset or stick with High?

A: The data shows Ultra provides only 6% more average FPS than High at 1080p (117 vs 111), but at 4K, Ultra drops to 37 FPS compared to High's 39 FPS. The small differences suggest that Ultra's additional graphical features cost performance without proportional visual gains in this simulation title.

Q: How does the CPU's core count affect performance in this game?

A: The i5-12400F has 6 cores and 12 threads. Its multi-threaded benchmarks (Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 12380, Geekbench multi-core of 9472) are strong, but Pc Building Simulator appears to be more GPU-bound based on the scaling data. The CPU's 4.40 GHz boost clock and 18 MB of shared L3 cache are sufficient to avoid becoming the primary bottleneck at standard resolutions.

Q: Is 8 GB of VRAM sufficient for 4K gaming in this title?

A: The 4K results suggest the RX 6650 XT's 8 GB GDDR6 memory is adequate but not ideal. At 4K Ultra, the average FPS is 37, while at 4K Low it rises to 77. The significant jump from Ultra to Low at 4K (from 37 to 77 FPS) indicates that texture and shader load, which consume VRAM bandwidth, heavily impact performance.

Q: What frame rates can I expect at 1440p with Medium settings?

A: The measured data shows 104 FPS average at 2560x1440 Medium, with a minimum of 89 FPS and a maximum of 120 FPS. This is the most consistent frame rate window in the entire dataset, making it a strong recommendation for smooth gameplay.

CPU Role

The Intel Core i5-12400F plays a supporting but necessary role in this configuration. With 6 physical cores and 12 threads, it provides adequate parallelism for a simulation game that manages inventory, physics, and UI elements. The CPU's base clock of 2.50 GHz and boost clock of 4.40 GHz represent a wide frequency range, allowing it to scale up when the GPU is not fully saturated. The 3DMark 16-thread score of 5895 and max-thread score of 5912 show that the processor's performance does not degrade significantly under full load, which is important for maintaining consistent frame times during complex simulation states.

The single-thread performance is where this CPU distinguishes itself from lower-tier options. A 3DMark single-thread score of 909 and Cinebench R23 single-core score of 1680 indicate strong per-core efficiency, which matters for game logic and draw call submission that cannot always be parallelized. The PassMark single-thread score of 3481 corroborates this assessment. In Pc Building Simulator, where the player interacts with individual components and the simulation updates in real-time, this single-thread capability helps prevent CPU-side stalls that could cause frame hitches.

Comparing to its nearest rivals in the benchmark database, the i5-12400F sits at the 73rd percentile among all CPUs. Its average benchmark score of 19039 is nearly identical to the AMD Ryzen 5 7535HS (19047, 0% delta) and the Intel Core 3 201E (19056, -0.1% delta). The Intel Core i5-1335U (18982, 0.3% delta) and AMD EPYC 7773X (18979, 0.3% delta) are also within a fraction of a percent. This clustering indicates that the i5-12400F delivers performance comparable to both mobile and server parts in synthetic workloads, though its gaming behavior in this specific title is more dependent on the GPU pairing.

The L3 cache configuration of 18 MB shared across all cores is generous for a mid-range desktop part. This cache size helps keep frequently accessed game data close to the cores, reducing memory latency. The dual-channel memory support, while not quantified in terms of bandwidth in the measured FPS data, is standard for this platform and does not appear to create a bottleneck given the observed frame rates. The CPU's 65W TDP suggests it can sustain boost clocks without thermal throttling in most standard cases, which is consistent with the stable high frame rates observed at 1080p Low (234 FPS average).

How This Combo Ranks

The combination of the Intel Core i5-12400F and AMD Radeon RX 6650 XT ranks 2431 out of 3723 tested combos in Pc Building Simulator. This places it in the 35th percentile of all combinations, meaning approximately 65% of tested hardware pairings outperform it in this specific game. Given that the GPU sits at the 65th percentile among all GPUs and the CPU at the 73rd percentile, the combo ranking is lower than either component's individual percentile would suggest. This discrepancy indicates that Pc Building Simulator may not fully utilize the strengths of this particular pairing, or that the game's performance ceiling is limited by other factors such as memory bandwidth or API overhead.

The GPU's nearest rivals in the benchmark database help contextualize its performance. The NVIDIA Tesla K40m (average score 19885, -0.6% delta) and AMD FirePro W7000 (19905, -0.7% delta) are slightly ahead, while the AMD FirePro D300 (19637, 0.7% delta) and NVIDIA Quadro K5200 (19602, 0.8% delta) are slightly behind. These are all professional or workstation-class GPUs, which underscores that the RX 6650 XT's raw compute performance is competitive with much older and more specialized hardware. However, in gaming workloads like Pc Building Simulator, the gaming-specific features of the RX 6650 XT, such as DirectX 12 Ultimate support and 32 ray tracing cores, may not provide the same advantage as they would in more graphically intensive titles.

The combo rank of 2431 out of 3723 suggests that while this pairing is far from the bottom of the pack, it is not a top-tier combination for this game. The measured FPS data reveals that at 1080p Ultra, the system achieves 111 FPS, which is solid for most users. But at 4K Ultra, the 37 FPS average is below the 60 FPS threshold that many players consider the minimum for smooth gameplay. This aligns with the GPU's 65th percentile ranking — it is a capable mid-range card, but not a high-end solution. The CPU's 73rd percentile ranking is higher, indicating that the processor has more headroom than the GPU in this pairing.

The deltaPct values among the GPU's nearest rivals are all within 1% of each other, showing that the RX 6650 XT is tightly grouped with these professional cards in synthetic benchmarks. Yet in Pc Building Simulator, the gaming-specific architecture of the RX 6650 XT, with its 2048 shading units and 64 ROPs, should theoretically provide better gaming performance than these older workstation parts. The fact that the combo ranks in the 35th percentile suggests that the game's engine may not fully exploit the GPU's capabilities, possibly due to the simulation-heavy nature of the title.

Settings Recommendations

Based on the measured FPS rows, the optimal settings for this hardware depend heavily on the target resolution. At 1920x1080, the High preset delivers 117 FPS average, which is only 5% lower than Ultra's 111 FPS — wait, that is inverted. Rechecking the data: 1080p High shows 117 FPS, 1080p Ultra shows 111 FPS, so High is actually 5% faster than Ultra. This is an unusual result that suggests Ultra settings may introduce inefficiencies that reduce performance without visual benefit. The Low preset at 1080p achieves 234 FPS, while Medium hits 165 FPS, so High represents the sweet spot for frame rate versus visual fidelity at this resolution.

At 2560x1440, the High preset yields 74 FPS, which is above the 60 FPS threshold for smooth gameplay. The Medium preset at 1440p produces 104 FPS with a tight min-max range of 89-120 FPS, making it the most stable option for high-refresh-rate monitors. The Ultra preset at 1440p drops to 70 FPS, which is still playable but leaves less headroom for scene complexity spikes. The Low preset at 1440p reaches 147 FPS, which could be used for competitive play or extremely high refresh rate displays, but the visual quality trade-off is likely not worth it for a simulation game where reading component details matters.

At 3840x2160, the situation is more constrained. The High preset delivers 39 FPS, which is below the 60 FPS threshold. The Medium preset offers 55 FPS (min 46, max 63), which is borderline but may be acceptable for a slower-paced simulation game. The Low preset at 4K achieves 77 FPS, which is smooth but sacrifices significant visual quality. For 4K users, the Medium preset is the recommended choice because it provides the best balance between playability and visual fidelity, with the 46 FPS minimum still being tolerable for this genre. The Ultra preset at 4K (37 FPS) is not recommended as the performance cost outweighs any visual improvements.

The overall recommendation is to use High settings at 1080p or 1440p, and Medium settings at 4K. The data shows that High at 1440p (74 FPS) offers a better experience than Ultra at 4K (37 FPS) or even Medium at 4K (55 FPS), making 1440p the practical ceiling for this combination. For players with 1080p displays, the High preset provides 117 FPS, which is an excellent experience for a simulation game. The Ultra preset's marginal frame rate difference (111 FPS at 1080p) does not justify any potential visual enhancements, especially given that High outperforms Ultra in this specific measurement.

Measured FPS Breakdown

At 1920x1080, the complete dataset shows the following average frame rates across presets: Low achieves 234 FPS, Medium achieves 165 FPS (minimum 141, maximum 190), High achieves 117 FPS, and Ultra achieves 111 FPS. The progression from Low to Medium represents a 29% reduction (from 234 to 165), while Medium to High is a 29% reduction (from 165 to 117), and High to Ultra is a 5% reduction (from 117 to 111). The diminishing returns between High and Ultra are stark, suggesting that Ultra settings add graphical features that have minimal impact on the game's visual presentation but still consume GPU resources.

At 2560x1440, the measured averages are: Low at 147 FPS, Medium at 104 FPS (minimum 89, maximum 120), High at 74 FPS, and Ultra at 70 FPS. The scaling from Low to Medium is a 29% drop (from 147 to 104), which matches the 1080p scaling pattern exactly. Medium to High is a 29% drop (from 104 to 74), again consistent with the 1080p pattern. High to Ultra is a 5% drop (from 74 to 70), which mirrors the 1080p High-to-Ultra gap. This consistent scaling across resolutions indicates that the game's settings tiers have uniform performance costs regardless of resolution.

At 3840x2160, the measured averages are: Low at 77 FPS, Medium at 55 FPS (minimum 46, maximum 63), High at 39 FPS, and Ultra at 37 FPS. The Low-to-Medium drop is 29% (from 77 to 55), again matching the pattern. Medium to High is a 29% drop (from 55 to 39), and High to Ultra is a 5% drop (from 39 to 37). The consistency of these percentage drops across all three resolutions is remarkable — every resolution shows exactly 29% reductions for each settings tier upgrade, and 5% for the final High-to-Ultra step. This uniformity suggests the game engine applies settings changes in a linear fashion, and the GPU's performance scaling is predictable.

The min-max data available only for Medium settings provides insight into frame time consistency. At 1080p Medium, the range is 141-190 FPS (a 35% spread from min to max), at 1440p Medium it is 89-120 FPS (a 35% spread), and at 4K Medium it is 46-63 FPS (a 37% spread). These similar ranges indicate that the game's frame time variability scales proportionally with resolution, and the system does not exhibit disproportionate stuttering at higher resolutions. The 4K Medium minimum of 46 FPS is notably above the 30 FPS threshold commonly considered the absolute minimum for playability, providing a safety margin for scene complexity spikes.

The overall performance envelope of this combination spans from 37 FPS (4K Ultra) to 234 FPS (1080p Low), a 6.3x range. This broad range gives users significant flexibility in choosing their preferred balance of visual quality and frame rate. For the most demanding visual settings at 4K, the system falls short of 60 FPS, but for the majority of use cases at 1080p or 1440p, it delivers smooth performance across all presets. The data confirms that this is a well-matched mid-range pairing for a simulation game, with the GPU being the limiting factor at high resolutions and the CPU providing sufficient headroom at lower resolutions.