Pc Building Simulator

How This Combo Ranks

The Intel Core i5-13400F paired with the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4070 Ti SUPER holds the 210th position out of 1769 tested combinations in Pc Building Simulator. This places the combo in the top 12% of all tested configurations, a strong result that reflects the balance between the two components. The CPU itself sits at the 82nd percentile against all processors, while the GPU achieves the 86th percentile against all graphics cards, suggesting both parts are performing near the upper tier of their respective categories.

Looking at the CPU’s direct rivals, the i5-13400F posts an average benchmark score of 25236. This is virtually identical to the Intel Core i7-13620H, which scores 25201 (a delta of only 0.1%), and just 0.5% behind the AMD Ryzen 5 5600X3D at 25365. The CPU also edges out the AMD EPYC 9474F (25103) and the AMD Ryzen AI 5 PRO 340 (25099), both by 0.5%. These margins are negligible in real-world gaming, meaning the i5-13400F is operating at parity with its closest competitors. The GPU follows a similar pattern: the RTX 4070 Ti SUPER scores 48704 on average, sitting 1.6% above the NVIDIA RTX A2000 (47915) and 2% above the RTX A1000 Mobile (47743), while trailing the NVIDIA CMP 50HX (49071) by 0.7% and the Intel Arc A550M (49737) by 2.1%.

What matters for the game’s ranking is that this combination lands well within the top quartile of tested systems. The data indicates that neither component is a bottleneck in Pc Building Simulator; instead, the pairing delivers consistently high frame rates across all tested settings and resolutions.

GPU Role

The RTX 4070 Ti SUPER brings substantial resources to this simulation title. Its 16 GB of GDDR6X memory on a 256-bit bus provides 672.3 GB/s of bandwidth, which is more than sufficient for the asset-loading patterns typical of a building and management sim. The GPU’s memory clock runs at 1313 MHz (effective 21 Gbps), and the core operates between a base of 2340 MHz and a boost of 2610 MHz. These clocks are not particularly high for the Ada Lovelace architecture, but the sheer number of execution units—8448 shading units, 264 texture mapping units, and 96 raster output units—compensates with raw throughput.

In Pc Building Simulator, the GPU’s role becomes more pronounced at higher resolutions. At 1080p, the CPU can feed frames fast enough that the GPU is rarely the limiting factor; at 4K, however, the GPU’s fill-rate and memory bandwidth start to govern performance. The pixel rate of 250.6 GPixel/s and texture rate of 689.0 GTexel/s are key metrics here. The data shows that moving from High to Ultra settings at 4K only drops the average FPS from 70.5 to 70.9 (a negligible difference), which suggests the GPU is not being pushed to its limits by the game’s visual fidelity at that tier. Instead, the larger gap appears between Low and Medium, where the 4K average jumps from 143.6 down to 100.6—a 30% reduction that indicates the Medium preset engages more GPU-heavy effects.

The GPU’s 44.10 TFLOPS of FP32 compute and support for DirectX 12 Ultimate mean it can handle any modern rendering feature the game might use. In this title, though, the benchmarks show that even the Ultra preset at 4K remains playable, which reflects the GPU’s headroom.

Resolution Scaling

The measured FPS data reveals a clear scaling pattern as resolution increases. At 1080p, the combo delivers outstanding performance across all presets: 368 FPS on Low, 310.2 on Medium, 215.4 on High, and 205.3 on Ultra. Moving to 1440p, the averages drop to 274.1 (Low), 194.8 (Medium), 136.7 (High), and 129 (Ultra). At 4K, the numbers fall further to 143.6 (Low), 100.6 (Medium), 70.5 (High), and 70.9 (Ultra).

The scaling factor between 1080p and 4K varies by preset, which tells us about the limiting component. For Low settings, the 4K average (143.6) is 39% of the 1080p figure (368). For Medium, it is 32.4% (100.6 vs 310.2). For High, it is 32.7% (70.5 vs 215.4). For Ultra, it is 34.5% (70.9 vs 205.3). These ratios are consistent with a GPU-bound scenario at higher resolutions. If the CPU were the bottleneck, we would expect the 4K-to-1080p ratio to be much higher (closer to 50–60%), because the CPU work per frame does not scale with resolution. Instead, the frame rate drops proportionally to the pixel count increase (4x), which is the signature of a GPU-limited workload.

At 1080p, the gap between Low and Ultra is 162.7 FPS (from 368 to 205.3), a 44% reduction. At 4K, the same comparison shows a much smaller absolute gap of 72.7 FPS (from 143.6 to 70.9), a 51% reduction. This indicates that at 4K, the GPU is working hard enough that settings changes have a proportionally similar impact, but the absolute frame rate headroom is smaller. The takeaway: this combo is capable of high refresh-rate gaming at 1080p and 1440p, while 4K is more suited to 60–100 FPS territory depending on the preset.

Settings Recommendations

Based on the measured rows, the optimal preset depends on the target refresh rate and resolution. At 1080p, the Ultra preset delivers 205.3 FPS, which is far beyond any standard monitor’s refresh rate. Even the High preset at 215.4 FPS offers no practical advantage over Ultra, so players with 144Hz or 165Hz displays should choose Ultra for maximum visual quality. The Medium preset at 310.2 FPS is excessive unless targeting a 240Hz+ panel, and Low at 368 FPS provides no visual benefit.

At 1440p, the Ultra preset averages 129 FPS, which is sufficient for a 120Hz display. High comes in at 136.7 FPS, a marginal 7.7 FPS increase, making Ultra the better choice for image quality. Medium at 194.8 FPS supports 165Hz displays, but the visual trade-off from High to Medium is substantial in a game where reading text and UI elements matters. Low at 274.1 FPS is only relevant for esports-style competitive play, which is not the target audience for a simulation title.

At 4K, the situation changes. The High preset delivers 70.5 FPS, which is playable on a 60Hz display but not ideal for a 120Hz panel. The Ultra preset at 70.9 FPS is statistically identical to High (a 0.4 FPS difference), meaning there is no reason to choose High over Ultra at 4K. Medium at 100.6 FPS is the best option for a 100Hz or 120Hz display, offering a 42.6% improvement over Ultra while still maintaining a reasonable visual quality. Low at 143.6 FPS is smooth but sacrifices too much visual fidelity for a simulation game where detail matters. The data suggests that 4K Ultra is the sweet spot for visual quality, while 4K Medium is the choice for higher frame rates.

Measured FPS Breakdown

The complete set of measured results is as follows:

1080p (1920x1080):

• Low: 368 FPS
• Medium: 310.2 FPS
• High: 215.4 FPS
• Ultra: 205.3 FPS

1440p (2560x1440):

• Low: 274.1 FPS
• Medium: 194.8 FPS
• High: 136.7 FPS
• Ultra: 129 FPS

4K (3840x2160):

• Low: 143.6 FPS
• Medium: 100.6 FPS
• High: 70.5 FPS
• Ultra: 70.9 FPS

The most striking observation is the near-identical performance between High and Ultra at 4K (70.5 vs 70.9 FPS). This suggests that the Ultra preset in Pc Building Simulator does not impose a significant additional GPU load over High at that resolution, possibly because the game’s Ultra settings rely on CPU-side simulation logic rather than GPU-heavy effects. In contrast, the jump from Low to Medium at 4K is substantial: 143.6 to 100.6 FPS, a 43 FPS drop. This indicates that Medium enables GPU-intensive features like higher-resolution textures or ambient occlusion, which are the primary cost drivers.

At 1440p, the pattern is similar but with more headroom. The gap between Medium (194.8) and High (136.7) is 58.1 FPS, which is larger than the 4K gap of 30.1 FPS between the same presets. This is expected, as the GPU has more spare capacity at 1440p, making settings changes more impactful in absolute terms.

At 1080p, the combo is clearly CPU-limited at Low and Medium settings. The jump from Low (368) to Medium (310.2) is only 57.8 FPS, while Medium to High drops by 94.8 FPS. The High to Ultra drop is just 10.1 FPS. This pattern—where the first settings tier has the smallest impact—indicates that at 1080p, the CPU can feed frames faster than the GPU can render them on Low, but as settings increase, the GPU becomes the limiting factor. The i5-13400F’s 10 cores and 16 threads with a boost clock of 4.60 GHz are sufficient to avoid bottlenecking the RTX 4070 Ti SUPER in this title, even at 1080p Low where the frame rate exceeds 360 FPS.

For users targeting a 144Hz monitor, the data shows that 4K Medium (100.6 FPS) falls short, but 1440p Ultra (129 FPS) and 1080p Ultra (205.3 FPS) both clear the threshold comfortably. For 60Hz displays, 4K Ultra (70.9 FPS) provides a smooth experience with maximum visual fidelity. The combo’s ranking at 210 out of 1769 reflects this versatility: it is not the absolute fastest configuration, but it offers consistent, high-quality performance across all tested scenarios.