Pc Building Simulator

Pc Building Simulator is a simulation title that rewards component fidelity, and the measured data for the Intel Core i5-12400F paired with the AMD Radeon RX 6800 XT shows a combination that scales predictably with resolution and settings. The benchmark results indicate this combo handles the game’s demands with headroom, though the relationship between CPU and GPU workload shifts noticeably as you move from 1080p to 4K.

How This Combo Ranks

The combo ranks 1125th out of 3723 tested combinations in this game, placing it in the upper third of all systems evaluated. That percentile position suggests a well-balanced pairing, but the rank alone doesn't tell the full story. The CPU sits at the 73rd percentile against all processors, while the GPU ranks higher at the 85th percentile against all graphics cards. This 12-point gap hints that the graphics card is the stronger component in this pairing, and the frame rate data supports that interpretation.

Looking at the CPU's nearest rivals, the data shows a tight cluster. The AMD Ryzen 5 7535HS scores 19047 average benchmark points, essentially matching the i5-12400F's 19039 points with a 0% delta. The Intel Core 3 201E scores 19056 (-0.1%), the Intel Core i5-1335U scores 18982 (+0.3%), and the AMD EPYC 7773X also scores 18979 (+0.3%). This means the i5-12400F is performing within a hair of several very different processor designs — a mobile Ryzen, a low-power Intel part, and a server EPYC chip — which suggests that Pc Building Simulator's CPU workload is not particularly sensitive to core count or architecture once a baseline level of single-thread performance exists.

For the GPU, the RX 6800 XT's nearest rivals tell a different story. The NVIDIA RTX A1000 Mobile scores 47743 (1.5% lower than our GPU's 48477), while the Intel Arc A550M scores 49737 (-2.5%), the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5070 Ti scores 49957 (-3%), and the AMD Radeon RX Vega 64 scores 50001 (-3%). The RX 6800 XT is sandwiched between a mobile workstation card and newer desktop parts, which indicates it remains competitive in raw benchmark terms despite being from an earlier generation.

FAQ

Q: How does this combo perform at 1440p, the most common gaming resolution?

A: At 2560x1440 with Medium settings, the system delivers 153 average FPS with a minimum of 130 and maximum of 176 FPS. At High settings, it drops to 108 average FPS, while Ultra settings show 103 average FPS. All of these are well above 60 FPS, indicating smooth gameplay across the quality spectrum.

Q: Is the CPU or GPU the limiting factor in this game?

A: The evidence points to the GPU being the primary limiter at higher resolutions. At 4K Ultra, the combo produces 54 FPS, while at 4K Low it reaches 113 FPS — a 109% increase from lowering settings. At 1080p Low, the system hits 342 FPS, which suggests the CPU has significant headroom that the GPU cannot fully utilize at lower resolutions.

Q: What is the best settings preset for a 60 FPS target at 4K?

A: The data shows that at 3840x2160, Medium settings deliver 80 average FPS (minimum 68, maximum 92), while High settings give 56 FPS and Ultra gives 54 FPS. For a consistent 60 FPS experience, Medium settings at 4K are the safest choice, as the minimum FPS of 68 stays above the target.

Q: How does the 16 GB of VRAM on the RX 6800 XT affect this game?

A: With 16 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 256-bit bus providing 512.0 GB/s bandwidth, the card has ample memory capacity for Pc Building Simulator. The game's simulation nature likely doesn't stress VRAM heavily, but the high bandwidth helps maintain consistent frame delivery when many objects are rendered simultaneously.

Q: Does the i5-12400F's 6-core/12-thread configuration hold back performance?

A: The CPU benchmarks show strong multi-threaded capability (Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 12380) and solid single-thread performance (1680 in Cinebench R23 single-core). Given that the frame rate scales dramatically with resolution changes, the CPU does not appear to be the bottleneck even at low settings where CPU load would be highest.

Q: What is the combo's overall rank compared to the total number of tested systems?

A: It ranks 1125 out of 3723 total combos, placing it in the 70th percentile of all tested systems for this game. This is a strong showing, though not elite-tier, which aligns with the mid-range CPU and high-end GPU pairing.

GPU Role

The AMD Radeon RX 6800 XT is the dominant component in this pairing, and its specifications explain why. The GPU operates with a base clock of 1825 MHz, a game clock of 2015 MHz, and a boost clock of 2250 MHz. The memory runs at 2000 MHz with 16 Gbps effective speed, delivering 512.0 GB/s of bandwidth across a 256-bit bus. With 4608 shading units, 288 texture mapping units, and 128 raster operation units, the card has substantial parallel processing capability.

The GPU's 16 GB of GDDR6 memory is particularly relevant for a simulation game like Pc Building Simulator, where users might have many assets loaded simultaneously. The 72 ray tracing cores suggest future-proofing for games that use DXR, though this specific title likely doesn't heavily utilize ray tracing given its 2019 release date. The 20.74 TFLOPS of FP32 compute power gives the card headroom for complex physics calculations that simulation games often require.

Benchmark results place this GPU at the 85th percentile against all graphics cards, with an average benchmark score of 48477. The nearest rival comparisons show it trades blows with newer parts: it's 1.5% ahead of the RTX A1000 Mobile, 2.5% behind the Arc A550M, 3% behind the RTX 5070 Ti, and 3% behind the RX Vega 64. This suggests the RX 6800 XT still holds its own against current-generation hardware, which is remarkable for a card from the RDNA 2 generation.

The measured FPS data shows the GPU's workload scaling as expected. At 1080p, the card delivers 342 FPS on Low settings but only 163 FPS on Ultra — a 52% performance drop from settings alone. This indicates that even at 1080p, the GPU is doing meaningful work, and the settings presets have a significant impact on frame rates.

Measured FPS Breakdown

At 1920x1080, the system shows remarkable performance across all settings. Low settings produce 342 average FPS, Medium delivers 242 average FPS (with a range of 206 to 278 FPS), High achieves 171 average FPS, and Ultra still manages 163 average FPS. The gap between Low and Ultra is 179 FPS, which represents a 52% reduction in frame rate when maxing out quality settings.

Moving to 2560x1440, the performance remains strong but shows more differentiation between settings. Low settings deliver 216 average FPS, Medium provides 153 average FPS (ranging from 130 to 176 FPS), High drops to 108 average FPS, and Ultra sits at 103 average FPS. The difference between Low and Ultra here is 113 FPS, a 52% reduction that mirrors the 1080p scaling.

At 3840x2160, the frame rates finally approach the limits of smooth gameplay. Low settings still produce 113 average FPS, but Medium drops to 80 average FPS (with a minimum of 68 and maximum of 92 FPS). High settings yield only 56 average FPS, and Ultra falls to 54 average FPS. The delta between Low and Ultra at 4K is 59 FPS, which is a 52% reduction — the same proportional drop seen at lower resolutions.

The consistency of the percentage drop across resolutions suggests that the game's settings presets affect GPU load in a linear fashion, regardless of resolution. The minimum FPS values recorded only for Medium settings show that at 1080p, the minimum of 206 FPS is still far above playable thresholds, while at 4K, the minimum of 68 FPS remains above 60 but leaves less headroom for demanding scenes.

Resolution Scaling

The frame rate progression from 1080p to 4K reveals clear scaling patterns. At Low settings, the system delivers 342 FPS at 1080p, 216 FPS at 1440p, and 113 FPS at 4K. This represents a 37% drop from 1080p to 1440p, and a 48% drop from 1440p to 4K. The total reduction from 1080p to 4K is 67%, which is close to what you'd expect from the pixel count increase (4K has 4x the pixels of 1080p, but the scaling is not linear due to other bottlenecks).

At Medium settings, the progression is 242 FPS at 1080p, 153 FPS at 1440p, and 80 FPS at 4K. The percentage drops are 37% and 48% respectively, matching the Low settings pattern almost exactly. High settings show 171 FPS at 1080p, 108 FPS at 1440p, and 56 FPS at 4K — again a 37% drop then a 48% drop. Ultra settings follow the same pattern: 163 FPS at 1080p, 103 FPS at 1440p, and 54 FPS at 4K.

This consistent scaling pattern indicates that the limiting component remains the same across all resolutions. Since the percentage drops are identical regardless of settings, the bottleneck is resolution-dependent (GPU-bound) rather than settings-dependent (potentially CPU-bound). The fact that 1080p Low produces 342 FPS while 1080p Ultra produces only 163 FPS suggests that even at the lowest resolution, the GPU is still the primary constraint — a CPU-limited scenario would show similar frame rates across different settings at the same resolution.

The practical implication is that this combo can handle 1440p at Ultra settings with 103 FPS, which is ideal for high-refresh-rate monitors. At 4K, the system drops below 60 FPS on High and Ultra settings, which means 4K gaming requires Medium settings or lower for a consistent 60 FPS experience.

Settings Recommendations

For the best balance of visual quality and performance, the data points to Medium settings as the sweet spot. At 1440p Medium, the system delivers 153 average FPS with a minimum of 130 FPS, which is far above the 60 FPS threshold and provides headroom for demanding scenes. At 4K Medium, the system produces 80 average FPS with a minimum of 68 FPS, which keeps gameplay smooth even in complex scenarios.

Ultra settings at 1440p deliver 103 average FPS and represent a viable alternative if visual fidelity is the priority. The difference between High and Ultra at 1440p is only 5 FPS (108 vs 103), which suggests the Ultra preset is worth enabling since the performance cost is minimal. However, at 4K, the difference between High and Ultra is only 2 FPS (56 vs 54), and both are below 60 FPS, making them poor choices for smooth gameplay.

Low settings are difficult to recommend for this game given the hardware's capability. Even at 4K Low, the system produces 113 FPS, which is more than adequate, but the visual downgrade is unnecessary when Medium settings at 4K still deliver 80 FPS. The 33 FPS difference between Low and Medium at 4K (113 vs 80) is a reasonable trade-off for the visual improvement.

For users with high-refresh-rate 1440p monitors, Medium settings at 1440p (153 FPS) or even High settings (108 FPS) provide excellent experiences. The minimum FPS of 130 at 1440p Medium ensures that even the most demanding scenes won't drop below the refresh rate of common 144Hz displays. At 4K, Medium settings are the recommended choice, as the minimum of 68 FPS provides a comfortable margin above 60 FPS.

CPU Role

The Intel Core i5-12400F provides the computational foundation for this pairing, and its specifications show why it doesn't become a bottleneck in Pc Building Simulator. With 6 cores and 12 threads running at a base clock of 2.50 GHz and boost clock of 4.40 GHz, this Alder Lake-S processor offers strong single-threaded performance that simulation games often prefer. The 18 MB of shared L3 cache and 1.25 MB per-core L2 cache provide ample data storage for game logic calculations.

The CPU's benchmark results confirm its capability. Cinebench R23 scores of 1680 single-core and 12380 multi-core place it well above the minimum requirements for modern games. The 3DMark scores show scaling from 909 single-thread to 5912 max-threads, indicating good multi-threading efficiency. The PassMark single-thread score of 3481 and multi-thread score of 19433 further validate its performance profile.

The CPU's percentile ranking of 73rd against all processors, combined with its average benchmark score of 19039, places it in a competitive position. The nearest rival data shows it performing within 0.3% of several very different processors, which is remarkable given the diversity of those rivals — a mobile APU, an embedded chip, a low-power laptop part, and a server processor. This suggests that Pc Building Simulator's CPU workload is not demanding enough to differentiate between these processors meaningfully.

The key observation is that the CPU does not appear to limit frame rates at any resolution. At 1080p Low settings, where CPU load would be highest relative to GPU load, the system still produces 342 FPS. If the CPU were the bottleneck, we would expect to see similar or identical frame rates across different settings at the same resolution, but the data shows a 52% reduction from Low to Ultra at every resolution. This confirms the GPU is the limiting factor, and the i5-12400F has sufficient headroom to feed the RX 6800 XT even at maximum frame rates.