Pc Building Simulator

How This Combo Ranks

The Intel Core i5-13400F paired with the AMD Radeon RX 7800 XT lands at rank 645 out of 1769 tested combos in Pc Building Simulator. That places this configuration in the 64th percentile among all tested pairings, meaning roughly two-thirds of the database combos deliver higher average frame rates in this specific simulation title. The ranking is respectable but not elite, which makes sense given the game's relatively light rendering demands.

What stands out immediately is how the combo's position compares to what the raw component benchmarks might suggest. The CPU sits in the 82nd percentile among all processors, while the GPU holds the 76th percentile among all graphics cards. Yet the in-game combo rank is lower than either component percentile, hinting that Pc Building Simulator may not fully saturate these parts. The data implies the game's engine or simulation logic creates a bottleneck that prevents the combo from achieving a ranking consistent with its hardware pedigree.

The nearest rival comparisons reinforce this impression. The CPU's average benchmark score of 25236 is essentially tied with the Intel Core i7-13620H at 25201 (a 0.1% delta) and the AMD Ryzen 5 5600X3D at 25365 (a -0.5% delta). These are all mid-to-high-end parts clustered within a narrow performance band, yet the i5-13400F's placement among them suggests the game doesn't heavily reward the extra cache or core configurations of its rivals. The GPU tells a similar story, with the RX 7800 XT's 32619 average score sitting within 0.7% of the AMD FirePro S10000 and NVIDIA T600 Mobile, both of which are far less mainstream gaming parts. This suggests that in Pc Building Simulator, the measured FPS is dictated more by the game's simulation overhead than by raw graphics throughput.

GPU Role

The Radeon RX 7800 XT brings 16 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 256-bit bus, delivering 624.1 GB/s of bandwidth. For a simulation game focused on PC assembly and benchmarking, this memory capacity is generous — the game's scenes are typically indoor environments with limited texture variety, so the 16 GB frame buffer rarely becomes a limiting factor. The card's base clock runs at 1295 MHz, boosting to 2430 MHz, with a game clock of 2124 MHz that represents the sustained frequency during typical workloads.

The GPU's RDNA 3.0 architecture with 3840 shading units and 60 ray accelerators provides substantial compute headroom. The measured FP32 throughput of 37.32 TFLOPS is far beyond what a simulation title like this requires. The benchmark results confirm this: the GPU's passmark G3D score of 24176 and 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 score of 4157 indicate strong raw performance, yet the in-game frame rates at lower settings suggest the GPU is often idle waiting on CPU-driven simulation logic. The pixel rate of 233.3 GPixel/s and texture rate of 583.2 GTexel/s are more than adequate for the game's relatively simple geometry.

At 4K Ultra settings, the GPU does become the primary constraint, with the average FPS dropping to 49.6. This is where the 16 GB memory and high bandwidth matter most, as the game's draw calls and object counts scale with resolution. The gap between Low and Ultra settings at 4K is stark — 111.8 FPS versus 49.6 FPS — indicating that the GPU's rendering pipeline is the bottleneck at the highest preset. However, at 1080p, even Ultra settings produce 155.3 FPS, which suggests the GPU has ample headroom when the CPU can keep up with the simulation tick rate.

Resolution Scaling

The measured FPS data reveals a clear scaling pattern across resolutions. From 1080p to 1440p, the frame rate drops by roughly 36% at each settings tier. From 1440p to 4K, the drop is more severe, averaging about 50% across all settings. This non-linear scaling strongly suggests that the CPU becomes the limiting factor at lower resolutions, while the GPU takes over as the primary constraint at 4K.

At 1080p Low, the combo achieves 328 FPS, which drops to 207.6 FPS at 1440p Low — a 36.7% reduction. Moving to 4K Low, the FPS falls to 111.8, another 46.2% drop. The pattern holds across all settings: High goes from 167 to 106.3 to 52.4 FPS across the three resolutions. The scaling from 1080p to 1440p is nearly linear with pixel count (1440p has 1.78x the pixels, and FPS drops to roughly 0.63x), indicating the GPU is being fed adequately by the CPU. However, the 1440p to 4K transition shows a steeper decline (4K has 2.25x the pixels of 1440p, but FPS drops to roughly 0.49x), which points to the GPU hitting its memory bandwidth or compute limits.

This resolution scaling behavior tells us that Pc Building Simulator is surprisingly demanding at high resolutions for a title of its genre. The game's UI elements, component models, and benchmarking scenes all render at full resolution, and the RX 7800 XT's 624.1 GB/s bandwidth appears to be the ceiling at 4K. Players targeting 4K will need to accept either Medium settings (77.3 FPS) or High settings (52.4 FPS) — both playable, but with a noticeable compromise in visual fidelity.

Measured FPS Breakdown

The complete FPS table shows consistent performance tiers across all resolutions. Starting at 1920x1080, the combo delivers 328 FPS at Low, 232.8 at Medium, 167 at High, and 155.3 at Ultra. The gap between High and Ultra is only 11.7 FPS, suggesting that Ultra adds marginal visual improvements that don't justify the performance cost at this resolution. At 1080p, even the most demanding preset clears 144 Hz refresh rates, making this combo suitable for high-refresh monitors.

Moving to 2560x1440, the numbers are 207.6 FPS at Low, 146.8 at Medium, 106.3 at High, and 99.4 at Ultra. The Medium preset at 1440p delivers frame rates that align with 144 Hz displays, while High and Ultra fall into the 100 FPS range. The delta between High and Ultra narrows further to 6.9 FPS, reinforcing that the Ultra preset offers diminishing returns.

At 3840x2160, the performance drops significantly: 111.8 FPS at Low, 77.3 at Medium, 52.4 at High, and 49.6 at Ultra. Here, the gap between High and Ultra shrinks to just 2.8 FPS, indicating that the GPU is saturated and the settings have minimal impact on the final frame rate. The jump from Low to Medium at 4K is 34.5 FPS, while Medium to High is 24.9 FPS — a clear diminishing returns curve. The data shows that 4K gaming with this combo requires careful settings selection, as the difference between the highest presets is negligible while the visual cost may not be.

FAQ

Q: How does this combo rank against other tested configurations in Pc Building Simulator?

A: It ranks 645th out of 1769 tested combos, placing it in the 64th percentile. The CPU and GPU individually rank in the 82nd and 76th percentiles respectively, but the in-game rank is lower, indicating the game doesn't fully utilize both components.

Q: What is the best resolution to play at with this hardware?

A: The data shows 2560x1440 at High settings provides 106.3 FPS, which balances visual quality with smooth gameplay. At 1080p, even Ultra settings deliver 155.3 FPS, while 4K at High drops to 52.4 FPS, which may be too low for some players.

Q: Is the 16 GB VRAM necessary for this game?

A: The 16 GB GDDR6 memory on the RX 7800 XT is more than sufficient. At 4K Ultra, the game only causes the GPU to drop to 49.6 FPS, and the bottleneck appears to be compute throughput rather than memory capacity, given the 624.1 GB/s bandwidth.

Q: Why does the Ultra preset offer such small gains over High?

A: At 1080p, the difference is 11.7 FPS (167 vs 155.3), and at 1440p it narrows to 6.9 FPS (106.3 vs 99.4). At 4K, the gap is just 2.8 FPS (52.4 vs 49.6), suggesting the Ultra preset adds effects that heavily tax the GPU without proportional visual returns.

Q: How does the CPU's performance compare to its closest rivals?

A: The i5-13400F scores 25236 on average, which is 0.1% higher than the Intel Core i7-13620H (25201) and 0.5% lower than the AMD Ryzen 5 5600X3D (25365). The differences are negligible, meaning the game won't favor one over the other.

Q: Can this combo achieve 4K 60 FPS in this game?

A: Only at Low settings, where it reaches 111.8 FPS. At Medium, it drops to 77.3 FPS, and at High it falls to 52.4 FPS, just below the 60 FPS target. Ultra produces 49.6 FPS, so 4K 60 FPS requires Low or Medium presets.

Settings Recommendations

The measured data points to a clear recommendation hierarchy depending on resolution. At 1080p, the Medium preset at 232.8 FPS offers an excellent balance, but even Ultra at 155.3 FPS exceeds most display refresh rates. The 76.8 FPS gap between Medium and Ultra (232.8 vs 155.3) suggests that the visual improvements from Ultra come at a steep cost, and for competitive benchmarking or smooth simulation, Medium is the sweet spot.

At 1440p, the High preset at 106.3 FPS is the recommended choice. It provides a 6.9 FPS advantage over Ultra (99.4 FPS) while likely offering nearly identical visual quality in a simulation game where the camera often views components and cases up close. For players with 144 Hz monitors, Medium at 146.8 FPS is the only preset that fully saturates the refresh rate, making it the choice for maximum smoothness. The jump from Low to Medium at 1440p is 60.8 FPS, while Medium to High is 40.5 FPS, indicating diminishing returns beyond Medium.

At 4K, the situation is more constrained. Medium at 77.3 FPS is the most balanced option, offering playable frame rates without the significant drop to High's 52.4 FPS. The 24.9 FPS difference between Medium and High at 4K is substantial, and given that High to Ultra only gains 2.8 FPS, there's no reason to select Ultra. Low at 111.8 FPS is viable for players prioritizing frame rate over visuals, but the 34.5 FPS gain from Medium to Low may not justify the visual downgrade in a game where reading component details matters. The data indicates that Medium at 4K is the optimal compromise, delivering nearly 78 FPS while retaining enough detail to identify parts and read benchmarks.

CPU Role

The Intel Core i5-13400F brings 10 cores and 16 threads from the Raptor Lake architecture, running at a base clock of 2.50 GHz and boosting to 4.60 GHz. The 20 MB shared L3 cache and 1.25 MB per-core L2 cache provide ample capacity for the game's simulation logic, which manages inventory, component statistics, and benchmarking calculations. The CPU's 65 W TDP and 10 nm process node make it an efficient choice, and its DDR4/DDR5 dual-channel memory support allows flexibility in system builds.

The benchmark data shows strong multi-threaded performance: a Cinebench R23 multicore score of 21279 and a 3DMark 16-thread score of 7314. The single-thread results are more modest — a Cinebench R23 single-core score of 3004 — which is typical for this class of processor. In Pc Building Simulator, the game's simulation loop likely relies on a mix of single-threaded logic (UI interactions, component state changes) and multi-threaded workloads (benchmark calculations, scene rendering). The 2-thread 3DMark score of 1880 and the 4-thread score of 3459 indicate that the CPU scales well with additional threads, which helps when the game runs multiple simulation tasks concurrently.

The CPU's percentile rank of 82 places it above the GPU's 76, and the measured FPS data confirms this hierarchy. At 1080p Low, the CPU can push 328 FPS, meaning the simulation logic isn't a limiting factor at lower resolutions. However, the game's thread usage appears capped, as the max-thread 3DMark score of 7307 is nearly identical to the 16-thread score of 7314, showing that the CPU's performance doesn't improve beyond 16 threads — a ceiling that matches the game's likely thread utilization. The CPU's nearest rival, the Intel Core i7-13620H, scores 25201 on average, a 0.1% difference, but the i5-13400F's desktop-oriented design with higher sustained clocks gives it a slight edge in this simulation title where consistent frame times matter more than peak throughput.