Pc Building Simulator

The Intel Core i5-13400F paired with the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 delivers a playable but constrained experience in Pc Building Simulator, a simulation title from 2019. The data shows a substantial gap between the CPU’s strong synthetic performance and the GPU’s modest output, with the combo ranking 1711 out of 1769 tested configurations in this game. Measured average frame rates range from a smooth 104.6 FPS at 1080p Low to a stutter-inducing 18.5 FPS at 4K High, revealing a system where the graphics card is the decisive factor in nearly every scenario.

FAQ

Q: What is the best resolution and settings combination for this hardware?

A: The 1920x1080 Low preset delivers the highest measured average FPS at 104.6, while 1920x1080 Medium provides a more balanced 76.2 FPS. For a smoother visual experience, 2560x1440 Low hits 70.6 FPS, but 1080p Medium is the sweet spot for maintaining high frame rates without sacrificing too much detail.

Q: How does this combo rank among all tested systems in this game?

A: The combination of the Intel Core i5-13400F and NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 ranks 1711 out of 1769 tested combos in Pc Building Simulator, placing it in the bottom percentile of configurations. This indicates that while the game runs, the hardware is not well-suited for high-end performance.

Q: Does the CPU or GPU limit performance more in this game?

A: The GPU is the limiting component. The GTX 1650 has 4 GB of GDDR5 memory and a 128-bit bus, while the i5-13400F has 10 cores and 16 threads. The frame rate drops dramatically with resolution increases (from 104.6 FPS at 1080p Low to 37.3 FPS at 4K Low), which is a classic sign of GPU-bound performance.

Q: What is the average synthetic benchmark score for this CPU?

A: The Intel Core i5-13400F has an average benchmark score of 25236, which places it in the 82nd percentile of all CPUs. This is a strong result, showing the processor is capable of handling complex simulation logic, but it doesn't translate to high FPS due to the GPU bottleneck.

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

A: The GTX 1650 has an average benchmark score of 8713. Its nearest rival, the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3050 A Mobile, scores 8746, which is a 0.4% difference. This shows the GTX 1650 is very closely matched with other mid-range GPUs from its era.

Q: Is the measured data from real-world testing or estimates?

A: The data is measured, as indicated by the `dataIsMeasured` field. This means the FPS results are from actual benchmarking sessions, providing reliable data for analysis of this specific hardware combination.

GPU Role

The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 plays a central role in defining the performance ceiling in Pc Building Simulator. The data shows a clear pattern: as the resolution increases, the average FPS drops significantly, which points directly to the GPU as the primary bottleneck. With a base clock of 1485 MHz and a boost clock of 1665 MHz, the card’s processing power is limited, but its memory configuration is even more telling. The 4 GB of GDDR5 memory on a 128-bit bus provides a bandwidth of 128.1 GB/s, which is insufficient for higher resolutions and detail settings in this simulation.

The GPU’s synthetic benchmarks reinforce this picture. It scores 7880 in the Passmark G3D test and 305 in the 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 test, placing it in the 43rd percentile of all GPUs. This is a mid-to-low tier performance level. When compared to its closest rivals, the data shows a tight cluster. The AMD Radeon 550X scores 8749 (0.4% higher), and the NVIDIA Quadro P2200 scores 8671 (0.5% lower). This suggests the GTX 1650 is a competent entry-level card, but it lacks the headroom needed for demanding tasks.

In the context of this game, the GPU’s limitations are exposed at 4K. At 3840x2160 with High settings, the average FPS is 18.5, which is unplayable. Even at Low settings, 4K only achieves 37.3 FPS. The card’s 75 W TDP and dual-slot design indicate a low-power, compact solution, but the performance data shows it is only suitable for 1080p gaming in this title.

Resolution Scaling

The measured FPS data reveals how the system scales across different resolutions. From 1080p to 1440p, the frame rate drops by about one-third to one-half depending on the settings. For example, at Low settings, the average FPS goes from 104.6 at 1920x1080 to 70.6 at 2560x1440, a 32.5% decrease. At High settings, it drops from 51.9 to 34.9, a 32.8% decrease. This consistent scaling indicates that the GPU is the limiting factor, as a CPU bottleneck would show less variation with resolution.

The jump from 1440p to 4K is even more punishing. At Medium settings, the average FPS falls from 47.0 at 2560x1440 to 22.5 at 3840x2160, a 52.1% reduction. At Ultra settings, the drop is from 31.6 to 20.1, a 36.4% reduction. This behavior is characteristic of a GPU struggling to fill the increasing number of pixels. The GTX 1650’s 128.1 GB/s memory bandwidth and 2.984 TFLOPS FP32 performance are simply not enough to maintain playable frame rates at 4K.

The data implies that the CPU, with its strong 3DMark 16-thread score of 7314, could handle more graphical work if the GPU were faster. However, the resolution scaling shows that the system is firmly GPU-bound. For users aiming for high refresh rates, 1080p is the only viable option, while 1440p is possible at lower settings. 4K should be avoided entirely, as even the lowest settings yield an average FPS below 40.

Settings Recommendations

Based on the measured FPS rows, the best experience is achieved at 1920x1080 with Medium settings, which yields an average of 76.2 FPS. This provides a solid frame rate that is smooth for a simulation game while offering a balance between visual fidelity and performance. The Low preset at 1080p is faster at 104.6 FPS, but the Medium preset appears to be the optimal trade-off for this hardware.

For users who prefer higher resolutions, 2560x1440 with Low settings is the only playable option, delivering 70.6 FPS. However, this comes at a significant visual cost. The High preset at 1440p drops to 34.9 FPS, which is below the 60 FPS threshold for smooth gameplay. At 4K, no settings are recommended, as even Low only achieves 37.3 FPS, which is marginal at best.

The Ultra preset is not recommended at any resolution. At 1080p, it achieves 51.7 FPS, which is only slightly lower than High (51.9 FPS), but it likely requires more GPU resources for minimal visual gain. The data suggests that Medium at 1080p is the most efficient choice, offering a 47% higher frame rate than Ultra while providing a more stable experience overall.

How This Combo Ranks

In the grand scheme of tested hardware, this combo ranks 1711 out of 1769 configurations for Pc Building Simulator. This places it in the bottom 3.3% of all tested systems, indicating a very low performance tier. The rank is a direct consequence of the GTX 1650’s limited capabilities, as the CPU itself is a strong performer. The i5-13400F achieves an average benchmark score of 25236, which is in the 82nd percentile of all CPUs, but this power is wasted in this game due to the GPU bottleneck.

This ranking is not surprising given the GPU’s percentile. The GTX 1650 sits in the 43rd percentile of all GPUs, and its nearest rivals, like the AMD Radeon Pro WX 5100 (0.5% higher score), show that it is at the lower end of the spectrum. The combination of a high-end CPU with a low-end GPU creates an imbalance that is clearly reflected in the overall ranking. For users looking to play this game seriously, the data suggests that a more balanced setup would be required to achieve a higher rank and better frame rates.

Measured FPS Breakdown

The measured FPS data provides a comprehensive look at the system’s performance across all settings and resolutions. At 1920x1080, the average FPS ranges from 104.6 on Low to 51.7 on Ultra. The Medium setting achieves 76.2 FPS, and High reaches 51.9 FPS. This shows a steep decline from Low to High, with a smaller drop from High to Ultra.

At 2560x1440, the performance drops significantly. Low settings produce 70.6 FPS, which is the only playable option. Medium falls to 47.0 FPS, High to 34.9 FPS, and Ultra to 31.6 FPS. The gap between Medium and High is 12.1 FPS, while the gap between High and Ultra is only 3.3 FPS, suggesting diminishing returns at higher settings.

At 3840x2160, the system struggles to maintain playable frame rates. Low settings yield 37.3 FPS, Medium 22.5 FPS, High 18.5 FPS, and Ultra 20.1 FPS. Interestingly, the Ultra preset performs slightly better than High at this resolution, which could indicate a quirk in the game’s rendering engine or a measurement anomaly. Overall, the data shows that 4K is not a viable option for this hardware.

CPU Role

The Intel Core i5-13400F is a powerful processor that is underutilized in this configuration. With 10 cores, 16 threads, and a boost clock of 4.60 GHz, it provides ample processing power for the simulation logic in Pc Building Simulator. The CPU’s synthetic benchmarks are impressive, with a Cinebench R23 multicore score of 21279 and a Geekbench multicore score of 10971. These results place it in the 82nd percentile of all CPUs, showing it can handle complex calculations with ease.

However, the measured FPS data shows that the CPU is not the limiting factor. The frame rates are consistently low across all resolutions, which is a hallmark of a GPU bottleneck. The CPU’s 20 MB of shared L3 cache and 80 KB per-core L1 cache are more than sufficient for this game, and its memory support for DDR4 and DDR5 ensures no memory bandwidth constraints. The CPU’s performance is so strong that it could easily support a much faster GPU without becoming a bottleneck.

The data implies that in this specific game, the CPU’s role is to ensure that the simulation runs correctly, but it cannot compensate for the GPU’s lack of raw graphical power. The i5-13400F’s 3DMark max-thread score of 7307 indicates it can handle high thread counts, which is beneficial for the game’s simulation aspects, but the overall experience is marred by the GTX 1650’s limitations. For a better experience, users would need to upgrade the GPU, as the CPU is already performing at a high level.