Pc Building Simulator

The Intel Core i5-12400F and NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 combination in Pc Building Simulator represents a pairing where the CPU’s robust multi-threaded architecture meets a GPU that is firmly positioned in the mid-range of the database’s performance percentile. The i5-12400F provides six cores and twelve threads, with a base clock of 2.50 GHz and a boost clock of 4.40 GHz. This foundation is critical for a simulation title, as the genre typically relies on heavy logic and asset calculations alongside rendering. The CPU’s benchmark data supports its capability here: it scores 5,912 in 3dmark_max_threads and 16,518 in Cinebench R23 multicore, placing it in the 77th percentile of all CPUs. Its nearest rival, the Intel Core i7-8700K, scores 19,210 on average, a mere 0.1% difference, indicating that the 12th-gen chip offers comparable computational muscle to that older flagship.

In the context of Pc Building Simulator’s measured results, the CPU’s role becomes clear when analyzing the low-resolution frame rates. At 1080p with Low settings, the combo delivers 108.8 FPS, suggesting that the processor is capable of feeding the GPU sufficiently to reach high refresh rates. The single-threaded performance, evidenced by a 3dmark_single_thread score of 909 and a Geekbench single-core score of 2,221, ensures that the game’s primary simulation loop does not become a bottleneck. The 18 MB of shared L3 cache and dual-channel memory support further aid in rapid data access for the many system components simulated simultaneously. However, the CPU’s 65 W TDP and Intel Socket 1700 mounting mean it operates efficiently, leaving headroom for the GPU to become the limiting factor as resolution increases, which the data confirms.

FAQ

Q: How does the Intel Core i5-12400F compare to its closest rival in synthetic benchmarks?

A: The i5-12400F’s average benchmark score is 19,221, which is essentially tied with the Intel Core i7-8700K at 19,210, showing a negligible delta of 0.1%. It is also 0.3% ahead of the Intel Core i5-1335U and 1.3% ahead of the AMD EPYC 7773X.

Q: What is the performance gap between the GTX 1650 and its nearest rival, the RTX 3050 A Mobile?

A: The GTX 1650 has an average benchmark score of 8,713, while the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3050 A Mobile scores 8,746. This puts the GTX 1650 0.4% behind that mobile part, a margin so small it is effectively negligible in real-world gaming.

Q: Is the GTX 1650 more aligned with Nvidia or AMD competitors in this database?

A: The data shows a tight cluster. The GTX 1650 is 0.4% behind the AMD Radeon 550X (8,749), 0.5% ahead of the NVIDIA Quadro P2200 (8,671), and 0.5% behind the AMD Radeon Pro WX 5100 (8,761). Performance is competitive across both brands.

Q: How does the CPU’s multi-threaded score relate to its gaming performance in this simulation?

A: The i5-12400F scores 16,518 in Cinebench R23 multicore and 19,433 in PassMark multithread. These scores suggest strong parallel processing capability, which helps maintain playable frame rates in Pc Building Simulator’s simulation-heavy environments, particularly at lower resolutions where the GPU is less stressed.

Q: What does the combo’s rank of 1676 out of 1769 indicate about its overall standing?

A: The data places this specific CPU-GPU pairing in the bottom percentile of all tested combinations for Pc Building Simulator. This is primarily due to the GPU’s 43rd percentile ranking, which drags down the overall experience despite the CPU’s 77th percentile performance.

Q: Does the GTX 1650’s DirectX feature level support the game’s requirements?

A: The GPU supports DirectX 12 (12_1), which is sufficient for modern titles. Its PassMark DirectX 12 score is 35, while its DirectX 11 score is 58, indicating that performance in older APIs might be stronger than in newer ones.

Resolution Scaling

The measured FPS data reveals a classic pattern of GPU-bound scaling in Pc Building Simulator, where the GTX 1650 becomes the primary limiting component as pixel count rises. Starting at 1080p, the combo achieves 108.8 FPS on Low settings, a figure that drops to 68.9 FPS at 1440p and then to 38.1 FPS at 4K. This represents a 65% reduction in frame rate from 1080p to 4K on Low settings, a steep decline that highlights the GPU’s 4 GB memory capacity and 128.1 GB/s bandwidth being overwhelmed by the higher resolution’s fill-rate demands. The CPU’s performance, by contrast, remains relatively constant, with its 3dmark_max_threads score of 5,912 suggesting it can handle the simulation logic at any resolution.

The scaling behavior becomes more pronounced at higher quality settings. At Ultra settings, the average FPS falls from 53.7 at 1080p to 30.5 at 1440p and finally to 17.8 at 4K. This shows a 67% drop from 1080p to 4K, similar to the Low setting’s drop, indicating that the GPU’s limitations are consistent regardless of the visual load. The 4K Ultra result of 17.8 FPS is below the playable threshold, while 1080p Ultra at 53.7 FPS is borderline smooth. The data suggests that the GTX 1650’s 896 shading units and 32 ROPs are simply insufficient for 4K rendering in this simulation, but the CPU is not the bottleneck in any scenario tested. The average FPS at 1080p Low (108.8) versus 4K Low (38.1) shows that the GPU’s performance scales nearly linearly with pixel count, confirming that the limiting component is the graphics card.

Measured FPS Breakdown

At 1920x1080, the combination delivers its most playable results. Low settings yield an average of 108.8 FPS, which is well above the 60 FPS target for smooth gameplay. Medium settings reduce this to 76.9 FPS, still comfortable, while High settings produce 56.9 FPS, dipping slightly below the 60 FPS mark. Ultra settings bring the average down to 53.7 FPS, which is playable but not ideal for high-refresh-rate monitors. The 16% drop from Low to Ultra at 1080p (108.8 to 53.7 FPS) shows that the GPU’s 4 GB memory is sufficient at this resolution, but the 2.984 TFLOPS of FP32 compute is a limiting factor for maximum fidelity.

Moving to 2560x1440, the performance drops become more pronounced. Low settings average 68.9 FPS, which is still smooth, but Medium falls to 45.6 FPS, and High drops to 34.1 FPS. Ultra settings at 1440p average just 30.5 FPS, which is below the 30 FPS console standard and indicates a stuttering experience. The scaling from Low to Ultra at 1440p shows a 56% reduction (68.9 to 30.5 FPS), a more severe drop than at 1080p, underscoring the GPU’s struggle with the increased pixel count. The 4 GB VRAM and 128-bit memory bus are likely causing texture thrashing at higher settings.

At 3840x2160, the results are largely unplayable. Low settings average 38.1 FPS, which is borderline, but Medium drops to 25.9 FPS, High to 18.6 FPS, and Ultra to 17.8 FPS. The 4K Low result is the only one approaching playability, and even it falls short of a stable 60 FPS. The gap between 1080p Low (108.8) and 4K Low (38.1) is a 65% loss, while the gap between 1080p Ultra (53.7) and 4K Ultra (17.8) is a 67% loss. This consistency suggests that the GPU is purely pixel-bound, with no CPU limitation interfering. The data indicates that for Pc Building Simulator, 1080p is the only resolution where this combo provides a consistently enjoyable experience across all settings.

GPU Role

The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 serves as the definitive bottleneck in this configuration for Pc Building Simulator. Its 4 GB of GDDR5 memory on a 128-bit bus provides a bandwidth of 128.1 GB/s, which is modest by modern standards. The GPU’s base clock of 1485 MHz and boost clock of 1665 MHz drive its 896 shading units, 56 TMUs, and 32 ROPs, resulting in a pixel rate of 53.28 GPixel/s and a texture rate of 93.24 GTexel/s. These specifications place the GTX 1650 in the 43rd percentile of all GPUs, with an average benchmark score of 8,713. Its nearest rival, the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3050 A Mobile, scores 8,746, a 0.4% difference, while the AMD Radeon 550X is also 0.4% ahead.

In the game’s measured results, the GPU’s role is evident in the frame rate scaling. At 1080p Low, the card achieves 108.8 FPS, showing that it can handle lighter loads. However, as settings increase, the GPU’s compute throughput becomes the limiting factor. The PassMark G3D score of 7,880 and DirectX 11 score of 58 suggest that the card is optimised for older APIs, which aligns with the game’s 2019 release date. The 4 GB memory is also a critical constraint; at 4K Ultra, the 17.8 FPS average indicates that the card is running out of VRAM and bandwidth, causing severe frame drops. The GPU’s 75 W TDP and lack of power connectors mean it is an efficient part, but that efficiency comes at the cost of raw performance. Ultimately, the GTX 1650 provides baseline playability at 1080p but fails to deliver a consistent experience at higher resolutions, confirming its role as the primary performance limiter in this pairing.