Pc Building Simulator

# CPU Role — cores, clocks, and how they relate to this game's results

The Intel Core i5-13400F is a 10-core, 16-thread processor built on Intel's Raptor Lake architecture using a 10 nm process node. Its base clock is 2.50 GHz with a boost clock of 4.60 GHz, and it carries a 65 W TDP. The CPU's cache hierarchy includes 80 KB of L1 cache per core, 1.25 MB of L2 cache per core, and a shared 20 MB L3 cache. This processor supports both DDR4 and DDR5 memory through a dual-channel memory bus, and it connects to the rest of the system via PCIe Gen 5 with 16 lanes from the CPU.

In benchmark testing, the i5-13400F demonstrates strong multithreaded performance. Its Cinebench R23 multicore score is 22604, while the single-core score is 3191. The Geekbench multicore result is 11068, with a single-core score of 1996. The 3DMark results show a clear scaling pattern: 1880 in the 2-thread test, 3459 in 4-thread, 5591 in 8-thread, and 7314 in the 16-thread test, which matches the max-thread score of 7307. This indicates that the processor's performance scales effectively up to its full thread count, which matters in a simulation game like PC Building Simulator that can leverage multiple cores for background computations.

The i5-13400F sits at the 77th percentile among all CPUs in the database, with an average benchmark score of 25292. Its nearest rivals include the AMD Ryzen 9 6900HS, which scores 25284 (a 0% delta), the Intel Core 5 120 at 25362 (-0.3% delta), the AMD Ryzen 5 5600X3D at 25365 (-0.3% delta), and the AMD Ryzen 7 6800H at 25201 (+0.4% delta). These deltas are all within a fraction of a percent, meaning the i5-13400F is effectively tied with these processors on average benchmark performance.

For a simulation game, the CPU's role is significant because these titles often simulate physics, logic, and system states across many objects. The i5-13400F's 16 threads provide ample parallel processing headroom. In PC Building Simulator specifically, the game's core loop involves assembling and managing PC components, which generates numerous discrete tasks that can be distributed across threads. The 77th percentile ranking suggests this CPU is well above the median for all processors, and its benchmark scores indicate it can handle the computational load without becoming the primary bottleneck at most settings.

# GPU Role — VRAM, clocks, and how they relate to this game's results

The Intel Arc B390 is an integrated graphics processor based on the Xe3-LPG architecture, built on a 3 nm process node. Its chip is codenamed Panther Lake, and it belongs to the Arc Graphics-M generation. The GPU has a base clock of 300 MHz and a boost clock of 2500 MHz. Its memory configuration is entirely system-shared, meaning the GPU uses the CPU's system RAM rather than dedicated VRAM. The memory bus width and bandwidth are likewise system-dependent, with bandwidth listed as "System Dependent."

The Arc B390 features 1536 shading units, 48 texture mapping units, and 24 render output units. It also includes 12 ray tracing cores. The pixel rate is 60.00 GPixel/s, and the texture rate is 120.0 GTexel/s. Floating-point performance is rated at 7.680 TFLOPS for FP32 and 15.36 TFLOPS for FP16 (at a 2:1 ratio). The GPU's TDP is 80 W, and it is classified as an IGP (integrated graphics processor) with a bus interface of IGP as well. It supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4.

In the database, the Arc B390's benchmark presence is minimal — it has only one recorded 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 score of 1482. This places it at the 9th percentile among all GPUs, which is a low ranking. Its nearest rivals are all older or lower-end NVIDIA parts: the GeForce GT 520MX scores 1463 (a 1.3% delta), the GeForce 800M scores 1460 (1.5% delta), the GeForce GT 625 OEM scores 1446 (2.5% delta), and the GeForce GT 710 scores 1443 (2.7% delta). The Arc B390 outperforms all four of these by a small margin, but all five GPUs are clustered within a 2.7% performance band.

Given that the Arc B390 relies on system-shared memory, its performance in PC Building Simulator is heavily dependent on the CPU's memory subsystem. The i5-13400F supports DDR4 and DDR5, but the actual bandwidth available to the GPU is system-dependent. This shared-memory architecture means the GPU's effective performance can vary based on the memory configuration, though the measured FPS data provides concrete results for this specific pairing. The GPU's low 9th percentile ranking indicates it is far below the median GPU, and in a simulation game that requires rendering a workspace, this GPU is likely to be the limiting factor at higher resolutions and settings.

# How This Combo Ranks

In PC Building Simulator, this combination of the Intel Core i5-13400F and the Intel Arc B390 ranks 2650 out of 3002 tested combos. This places it in the bottom 12% of all combinations, which is consistent with the GPU's very low 9th percentile ranking. The CPU is relatively strong at the 77th percentile, but the GPU pulls the overall combo ranking down substantially.

The rank of 2650 out of 3002 means that roughly 352 other combos perform worse, while 2649 perform better. This is a clear signal that the GPU is the dominant constraint. The CPU's high percentile (77) versus the GPU's low percentile (9) creates a significant imbalance. In a game like PC Building Simulator, where the visual rendering is handled by the GPU, the system's overall performance is capped by the Arc B390's capabilities.

The data indicates that this combo is not competitive with most other tested configurations. The i5-13400F's processing power is largely underutilized because the GPU cannot keep up with rendering demands at higher settings. However, the combo's rank is still above the very bottom, meaning there are some combinations that perform even worse. This could be due to older or weaker GPUs paired with equally capable or less capable CPUs.

# Measured FPS Breakdown

The measured FPS data covers three resolutions (1920x1080, 2560x1440, and 3840x2160) and four settings presets (Low, Medium, High, and Ultra). At 1080p, the Low preset delivers an average of 125 FPS, Medium drops to 88 FPS, High reaches 62 FPS, and Ultra falls to 59 FPS. The Medium preset has recorded minimum and maximum FPS of 75 and 102, respectively, while the other presets have no min/max data.

At 1440p, the Low preset averages 79 FPS, Medium averages 56 FPS (with a min of 47 and max of 64), High averages 39 FPS, and Ultra averages 38 FPS. At 4K, the Low preset averages 41 FPS, Medium averages 29 FPS (with a min of 25 and max of 34), High averages 21 FPS, and Ultra averages 20 FPS.

The pattern across resolutions and settings is consistent: FPS decreases as resolution increases and as settings quality increases. At 1080p Low, the system achieves 125 FPS, which is smooth for most gaming. At 1080p Ultra, it drops to 59 FPS, which is still playable but close to the edge of lower acceptability. At 1440p, the Low preset maintains 79 FPS, but Ultra drops to 38 FPS, which is marginal. At 4K, even the Low preset only reaches 41 FPS, and Ultra falls to 20 FPS, which is not smooth.

The delta between Low and Ultra at each resolution is notable. At 1080p, the difference is 66 FPS (125 to 59), a 53% drop. At 1440p, the difference is 41 FPS (79 to 38), a 52% drop. At 4K, the difference is 21 FPS (41 to 20), a 51% drop. This consistent proportional drop suggests that each settings tier imposes a similar relative cost on the GPU, regardless of resolution.

# Resolution Scaling

Resolution scaling reveals how FPS drops as pixel count increases, which indicates which component is the limiting factor. Moving from 1080p to 1440p, the Low preset drops from 125 FPS to 79 FPS, a 46 FPS reduction (37% lower). Medium drops from 88 to 56 FPS, a 32 FPS reduction (36% lower). High drops from 62 to 39 FPS, a 23 FPS reduction (37% lower). Ultra drops from 59 to 38 FPS, a 21 FPS reduction (36% lower). The consistent ~36-37% drop across all settings is a classic sign of GPU-limited performance, as the pixel count increases by 78% (from 2.07 million to 3.69 million pixels).

Moving from 1440p to 4K, the Low preset drops from 79 to 41 FPS, a 38 FPS reduction (48% lower). Medium drops from 56 to 29 FPS, a 27 FPS reduction (48% lower). High drops from 39 to 21 FPS, an 18 FPS reduction (46% lower). Ultra drops from 38 to 20 FPS, an 18 FPS reduction (47% lower). The pixel count increases by 125% (from 3.69 million to 8.29 million pixels), and the FPS drops by roughly half, which again indicates GPU-limited scaling.

The fact that the proportional FPS drop is nearly identical across all settings presets is important. If the CPU were the bottleneck, we would expect the FPS drop to be smaller at lower settings (where the GPU has less work) and larger at higher settings. Instead, the uniform drop indicates that the GPU is consistently the limiting factor at all resolutions and settings tested. The i5-13400F's strong multithreaded performance (22604 in Cinebench R23 multicore) is not being stressed by this game; the Arc B390's rendering capability is the ceiling.

The 4K Ultra result of 20 FPS is particularly telling. It shows that even with the CPU providing ample processing power, the GPU cannot render 4K Ultra at a playable frame rate. The 1080p Low result of 125 FPS, however, shows that the combo can handle light loads comfortably. The resolution scaling data clearly identifies the GPU as the limiting component in this pairing.

# FAQ

Q: What is the best resolution for this combo in PC Building Simulator?

A: At 1080p, the combo delivers 125 FPS on Low and 59 FPS on Ultra, making 1080p the only resolution where all presets exceed 30 FPS. At 1440p, Ultra drops to 38 FPS, and at 4K, even Low only reaches 41 FPS.

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

A: The i5-13400F has an average benchmark score of 25292, which is within 0.4% of the AMD Ryzen 9 6900HS (25284), the Intel Core 5 120 (25362), the AMD Ryzen 5 5600X3D (25365), and the AMD Ryzen 7 6800H (25201). All five processors are effectively tied in average performance.

Q: Is the GPU or CPU the bottleneck in this system?

A: The resolution scaling data shows a uniform FPS drop of roughly 36-37% from 1080p to 1440p and 46-48% from 1440p to 4K across all settings. This consistent drop indicates the GPU, with its 9th percentile ranking, is the limiting component, while the CPU sits at the 77th percentile.

Q: What FPS can I expect at 1440p Medium settings?

A: The measured data shows an average of 56 FPS at 2560x1440 with Medium settings, with a recorded minimum of 47 FPS and maximum of 64 FPS.

Q: How does the Arc B390 compare to its nearest rival GPUs?

A: The Arc B390 scores 1482 in 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12, which is 1.3% higher than the GeForce GT 520MX (1463), 1.5% higher than the GeForce 800M (1460), 2.5% higher than the GeForce GT 625 OEM (1446), and 2.7% higher than the GeForce GT 710 (1443).

Q: Is this combo suitable for 4K gaming?

A: The data shows 4K FPS ranging from 41 on Low to 20 on Ultra. The Low preset is marginally playable, but Medium (29 FPS), High (21 FPS), and Ultra (20 FPS) all fall below 30 FPS, indicating 4K is not a practical target for this combo.

# Settings Recommendations

Based on the measured FPS data, the optimal settings depend on the target resolution. At 1080p, the Low preset delivers 125 FPS, which is well above any playability threshold. The Medium preset at 88 FPS is also smooth, and even High at 62 FPS is acceptable. The Ultra preset at 59 FPS is still playable, but the drop from High to Ultra is only 3 FPS (62 to 59), so the visual gains from Ultra may not justify the performance cost.

At 1440p, the Low preset at 79 FPS is the best experience, as it remains smooth. Medium at 56 FPS is playable but approaching the threshold where frame pacing becomes noticeable. High at 39 FPS and Ultra at 38 FPS are both marginal; the 1 FPS difference between High and Ultra makes High the preferable choice if either is selected, but the data suggests Medium is the highest preset that maintains a reasonable frame rate.

At 4K, the Low preset at 41 FPS is the only option that exceeds 30 FPS. Medium at 29 FPS is borderline, and High at 21 FPS and Ultra at 20 FPS are both below playable thresholds. For 4K, Low is the recommended preset, and even then, the experience will be noticeably less smooth than at lower resolutions.

The data shows that the Medium preset at 1080p (88 FPS) and the Low preset at 1440p (79 FPS) offer the best balance of visual quality and performance, depending on the user's resolution preference. The Medium preset at 1080p has a recorded min FPS of 75 and max of 102, indicating consistent frame delivery. The Medium preset at 1440p has a min of 47 and max of 64, which shows more variance but remains within playable bounds.

For users prioritizing smoothness, 1080p Low at 125 FPS or 1080p Medium at 88 FPS are the strongest options. For users who need higher resolution, 1440p Low at 79 FPS is the clear recommendation, as stepping up to Medium at 56 FPS incurs a 29% FPS loss. The Ultra preset offers no meaningful advantage over High at any resolution, as the FPS differences are 3 FPS or less, making High the more sensible choice if visual quality is the priority.