Pc Building Simulator

The Intel Core i5-12400F paired with the Intel Arc B370 lands at rank 2761 out of 3002 tested combos in Pc Building Simulator, placing it in the bottom 8% of all configurations. This is a simulation title with modest graphical demands, yet this combo struggles to deliver smooth frame rates at higher settings, clearly indicating that the Intel Arc B370 integrated graphics is the primary constraint. The CPU itself is a capable desktop processor, but the GPU’s low benchmark percentile foreshadows the performance ceiling observed in the measured FPS data.

How This Combo Ranks

The comboRankInGame of 2761 out of 3002 combos puts this configuration in the 92nd percentile from the bottom, meaning roughly 241 of every 3000 tested setups perform worse. For a game released in 2019 with simulation gameplay that does not typically stress high-end hardware, this ranking is surprisingly low. The data suggests that while the Intel Core i5-12400F has the processing headroom for everyday tasks, the Intel Arc B370’s integrated graphics architecture severely limits gaming output.

The Intel Arc B370 sits in the 5th percentile among all GPUs, with an average benchmark score of 1184 from the 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 test. Its nearest rivals are all legacy or low-end parts: the ATI Mobility Radeon HD 5570 scores 1186 (0.2% faster), the ATI Radeon HD 5770 scores 1190 (0.5% faster), and the AMD Radeon HD 7650M scores 1192 (0.7% faster). The only slower competitor in its immediate vicinity is the AMD FirePro M2000 at 1168, which is 1.4% behind. This places the Arc B370 in territory occupied by GPUs from over a decade ago, which explains why the combo struggles to maintain playable frame rates.

In contrast, the Intel Core i5-12400F sits in the 73rd percentile among all CPUs, with an average benchmark score of 19039. Its nearest rivals include the AMD Ryzen 5 7535HS (19047, 0% delta), the Intel Core 3 201E (19056, -0.1% delta), the Intel Core i5-1335U (18982, 0.3% delta), and the AMD EPYC 7773X (18979, 0.3% delta). The CPU’s strong showing in synthetic benchmarks—such as a Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 12380 and a single-core score of 1680—confirms that the processor is not the bottleneck in this pairing. The ranking discrepancy between CPU and GPU makes the performance picture clear: the i5-12400F is a mid-range desktop chip, while the Arc B370 is an entry-level integrated solution.

FAQ

Q: Why does this combo rank so low despite having a modern CPU?

A: The combo’s rank of 2761 out of 3002 is driven almost entirely by the GPU. The Intel Arc B370’s 5th percentile standing among all GPUs, with an average benchmark score of 1184, is the limiting factor. The CPU’s 73rd percentile ranking (average score 19039) shows it is more than adequate, but the GPU cannot translate that processing power into high frame rates in Pc Building Simulator.

Q: Is the Intel Core i5-12400F a strong processor for this game?

A: Yes, the CPU is well-suited for this title. The i5-12400F has 6 cores and 12 threads, with a base clock of 2.50 GHz and a boost clock of 4.40 GHz. Its Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 12380 and single-core score of 1680 place it in the 73rd percentile, and its nearest rivals include the AMD Ryzen 5 7535HS and Intel Core 3 201E, which are comparable modern parts.

Q: What is the best resolution for this combo?

A: At 1920x1080 with Low settings, the combo achieves 113 FPS average, which is the only measured configuration that exceeds 100 FPS. At 2560x1440 with Low settings, it drops to 71 FPS average. For 4K (3840x2160), even Low settings only yield 37 FPS, which is below the typical 60 FPS target.

Q: How does the Arc B370 compare to its closest GPU rivals?

A: The Arc B370’s average benchmark score of 1184 is within 1.4% of its four nearest rivals. The ATI Mobility Radeon HD 5570 (1186), ATI Radeon HD 5770 (1190), and AMD Radeon HD 7650M (1192) are all slightly faster, while the AMD FirePro M2000 (1168) is slightly slower. This indicates the Arc B370 performs roughly on par with early-2010s discrete GPUs.

Q: Does the game see a big FPS difference between High and Ultra settings?

A: The difference is small. At 1080p, High settings average 56 FPS while Ultra averages 54 FPS, a gap of only 2 FPS. At 1440p, High averages 36 FPS and Ultra averages 34 FPS. At 4K, High averages 19 FPS and Ultra averages 18 FPS. The scaling suggests the GPU is already saturated at High, so Ultra adds little visual cost but also little performance loss.

Q: Can this combo handle 4K gaming?

A: Not well. The best 4K result is 37 FPS on Low settings, which is the only 4K configuration above 30 FPS. Medium settings at 4K drop to 26 FPS, High to 19 FPS, and Ultra to 18 FPS. The Arc B370’s system shared memory and 6.144 TFLOPS FP32 performance are insufficient for fluid 4K gameplay in this title.

Resolution Scaling

The measured FPS data across three resolutions reveals a steep performance cliff that is characteristic of a GPU-bound scenario. At 1080p with Low settings, the combo achieves 113 FPS. Moving to 1440p Low drops that to 71 FPS, a 37% reduction, and 4K Low falls to 37 FPS, another 48% drop from 1440p. This scaling pattern shows that the Intel Arc B370’s rendering throughput diminishes rapidly as pixel count increases.

The same trend holds at higher settings. At Medium, 1080p delivers 80 FPS, 1440p drops to 50 FPS, and 4K drops to 26 FPS. At High, the progression is 56 FPS at 1080p, 36 FPS at 1440p, and 19 FPS at 4K. Ultra settings see 54 FPS at 1080p, 34 FPS at 1440p, and 18 FPS at 4K. The consistent halving of frame rates as resolution doubles indicates that the GPU is the limiting component at every settings level.

This resolution scaling behavior is typical of a processor that has ample headroom—the i5-12400F’s 6 cores and 12 threads are not being taxed by this simulation title. If the CPU were the bottleneck, we would expect smaller FPS differences between resolutions because the CPU workload would remain constant. Instead, the dramatic drops from 1080p to 4K point directly to the Arc B370’s limited pixel fill rate of 48.00 GPixel/s and texture rate of 96.00 GTexel/s. The GPU’s 25 W TDP and integrated nature further confirm that it is not designed for high-resolution gaming.

The 1080p to 1440p transition is particularly telling. At Low settings, the drop from 113 to 71 FPS represents a 37% performance loss, which is substantial. At 4K, the 37 FPS result on Low is barely above the 30 FPS minimum for playability. For users targeting 60 FPS, 1080p Low is the only resolution that comfortably achieves this goal, with 113 FPS providing a 53 FPS margin over the target.

Measured FPS Breakdown

At 1920x1080, the combo shows its best performance. Low settings deliver an average of 113 FPS, which is the highest measured result across all configurations. Medium settings produce 80 FPS average, with a minimum of 68 FPS and maximum of 92 FPS. High settings drop to 56 FPS average, and Ultra settings yield 54 FPS average. The gap between High and Ultra is only 2 FPS, suggesting that the visual upgrade from Ultra is not worth the extra GPU load.

At 2560x1440, performance falls noticeably. Low settings average 71 FPS, maintaining playability. Medium settings average 50 FPS, with a minimum of 43 FPS and maximum of 58 FPS. High settings drop to 36 FPS, and Ultra settings fall to 34 FPS. The 1440p results show that only Low and Medium settings can sustain frame rates above 30 FPS, with Medium hovering at the edge of smoothness.

At 3840x2160, the combo is largely out of its depth. Low settings average 37 FPS, which is the only 4K configuration above 30 FPS. Medium settings average 26 FPS, with a minimum of 22 FPS and maximum of 30 FPS. High settings drop to 19 FPS, and Ultra settings fall to 18 FPS. None of the 4K results approach the 60 FPS target, and even the 30 FPS floor is only barely met on Low.

The FPS deltas between settings are more pronounced at lower resolutions. At 1080p, the difference between Low and Ultra is 59 FPS, while at 4K it is only 19 FPS. This compression at higher resolutions indicates that the GPU is so heavily loaded that settings changes have diminishing returns. The Medium settings at each resolution provide the only configurations with both minimum and maximum FPS data, showing stable ranges: 68-92 FPS at 1080p, 43-58 FPS at 1440p, and 22-30 FPS at 4K.

Settings Recommendations

For users seeking the best experience with this combo, 1920x1080 with Low settings is the clear recommendation. The 113 FPS average provides a substantial buffer above the 60 FPS target, ensuring smooth gameplay even during busy simulation scenes. This configuration also leaves headroom for background tasks, which is relevant for a game about building PCs where users may have monitoring software open.

At 1440p, Low settings at 71 FPS is the only configuration that comfortably exceeds 60 FPS. Medium settings at 50 FPS are playable but may show occasional dips, given the 43 FPS minimum. Users with 1440p monitors should prioritize Low settings for the best balance of visual quality and performance, as the jump to Medium costs 21 FPS (a 30% reduction) for marginal visual gains.

For 4K displays, the data suggests avoiding this combo altogether unless the user accepts significant compromises. Low settings at 37 FPS are the only viable option, and even then, frame pacing may suffer in complex scenes. Medium settings at 26 FPS and High at 19 FPS are below the threshold for comfortable gameplay. The Ultra preset at 18 FPS is effectively a slideshow.

Considering the game’s simulation genre, where precise mouse control and system responsiveness matter more than fast-paced action, the 1080p Low configuration offers the best overall experience. The 113 FPS average ensures that UI interactions, part selection, and benchmarking in-game remain responsive. At 1440p, users should stick to Low settings, and at 4K, they should either lower the resolution or accept Low settings with reduced expectations.

CPU Role

The Intel Core i5-12400F is a 6-core, 12-thread processor based on the Alder Lake-S architecture, manufactured on Intel’s 10 nm process node. It has a base clock of 2.50 GHz and a boost clock of 4.40 GHz, with a TDP of 65 W. The CPU’s cache hierarchy includes 80 KB of L1 per core, 1.25 MB of L2 per core, and 18 MB of shared L3. It supports both DDR4 and DDR5 memory in a dual-channel configuration, and connects via Intel Socket 1700 with PCIe Gen 5 support (20 CPU lanes).

In synthetic benchmarks, the i5-12400F demonstrates solid multi-threaded performance. Its Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 12380 and single-core score of 1680 place it in the 73rd percentile among all CPUs. The Geekbench multi-core score of 9472 and single-core score of 1964 further confirm its capability. PassMark results show strong integer math (59995) and floating-point math (46759) scores, alongside a multi-thread score of 19433. These numbers indicate that the CPU can handle simulation workloads that involve complex system calculations, which are common in Pc Building Simulator.

However, the measured FPS data reveals that the CPU’s role in this game’s performance is secondary. The resolution scaling patterns—where FPS drops by roughly half when moving from 1080p to 4K—demonstrate that the GPU is the bottleneck. If the CPU were limiting performance, we would expect similar FPS across resolutions because the CPU’s workload per frame does not change with resolution. The fact that 1080p Low hits 113 FPS but 4K Low only reaches 37 FPS is definitive evidence that the Arc B370 cannot feed frames fast enough at higher pixel counts.

The i5-12400F’s 12 threads are likely underutilized in this title, as simulation games of this era rarely scale beyond a few cores. The CPU’s single-thread performance, evidenced by its 3DMark single-thread score of 909 and PassMark single-thread score of 3481, is more relevant for game logic and physics calculations. At 1080p Low, the CPU is clearly capable of exceeding 113 FPS, meaning the GPU is the hard ceiling. For users considering upgrades, replacing the Arc B370 with a discrete GPU would yield far larger gains than swapping the CPU, as the i5-12400F’s benchmark scores place it well above the 5th percentile GPU.