Pc Building Simulator

How This Combo Ranks

The Intel Core i5-14400F paired with the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2070 SUPER lands at rank 2155 out of 3723 tested combos in Pc Building Simulator. That places it in the lower-middle portion of the database, roughly the 42nd percentile overall. This is not a top-tier pairing by any stretch, but it is far from the bottom; it sits in a zone where the system can play the game, though it will not dominate high-resolution or max-settings workloads.

What does that rank actually mean in practice? The data shows a combo that is more than capable at 1080p, solid at 1440p, and stretched at 4K. The rank reflects the balance between a modern 14th-gen CPU with strong multi-threading and a GPU that, while aging, still holds its own in lighter simulation titles. The CPU’s percentile versus all CPUs is 83, meaning it outperforms most processors in synthetic tests, while the GPU’s percentile versus all GPUs is 65, which is respectable but shows the graphics card is the weaker link in this pairing. In a game like Pc Building Simulator, which is not graphically intense, this gap matters less than it would in a AAA shooter, but it still shapes the FPS curve.

Compared to other combos in the database, this rank suggests the system is neither a bottleneck nightmare nor a performance sweet spot. It is a workable mid-range setup. The CPU’s nearest rivals in average benchmark score—like the AMD Ryzen 7 PRO 8840U at 0.1% ahead and the Intel Core i9-11900 at 0.2% ahead—show that the i5-14400F is essentially tied with those parts in raw compute. Meanwhile, the GPU’s nearest rivals, such as the Intel Arc B570 at 1.3% behind and the RTX 3070 Mobile at 1.2% behind, indicate the RTX 2070 SUPER is competitive at its level. For this game, the rank is a direct consequence of the GPU holding the combo back at higher resolutions, not the CPU.

CPU Role

The Intel Core i5-14400F brings 10 cores and 16 threads, split between performance and efficiency cores, with a base clock of 2.50 GHz and a boost clock of 4.70 GHz. This is a Raptor Lake-R part on the 10 nm process, and it supports both DDR4 and DDR5 memory across a dual-channel bus. The cache layout includes 80 KB of L1 per core, 1.25 MB of L2 per core, and a shared 20 MB L3 cache. That 20 MB of L3 is significant for a game like Pc Building Simulator, which involves managing many small assets and UI elements; the shared cache helps keep frequently accessed data close to the cores.

In synthetic benchmarks, the CPU posts a Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 21645 and a single-core score of 3055. The Geekbench multi-core score is 11268 with a single-core score of 2058. These numbers tell a story: the i5-14400F is a strong multi-threaded performer for its class, and its single-thread speed is more than adequate for simulation logic. In Pc Building Simulator, the workload is largely single-threaded in terms of game logic, but background tasks like asset loading and physics calculations can use multiple threads. The data shows that the CPU’s multi-core strength does not translate into FPS gains at higher resolutions, which indicates the game is not heavily CPU-bound at those settings.

The CPU’s bench percentile of 83 versus all CPUs reinforces that this is a top-quartile processor in general terms. Its average benchmark score of 32279 is nearly identical to the AMD Ryzen 7 PRO 8840U (32233, 0.1% ahead) and the Intel Core i9-11900 (32226, 0.2% ahead). In this game, the CPU never becomes the limiting factor until you drop resolution and settings to the point where the GPU can push extremely high frame rates. At 1080p Low, where the combo hits 248 FPS, the CPU’s single-thread performance is likely the ceiling, but the game still runs far beyond smooth. The 16 threads help with background compilation and workshop item loading, which are common in simulation games, so the CPU’s role here is to ensure no stutter from processing overhead.

GPU Role

The NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2070 SUPER is the older component in this pairing, based on the Turing architecture with a TU104 chip on TSMC’s 12 nm process. It has 2560 shading units, 160 texture mapping units, and 64 raster output units, along with 40 RT cores and 320 tensor cores. The memory configuration is 8 GB of GDDR6 on a 256-bit bus, providing 448.0 GB/s of bandwidth. Clocks are set at a base of 1605 MHz and a boost of 1770 MHz, with memory running at 1750 MHz (14 Gbps effective). The GPU’s FP32 performance is 9.062 TFLOPS, which is modest by modern standards but sufficient for a simulation title.

In synthetic tests, the RTX 2070 SUPER posts a Passmark G3D score of 18169 and a 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 score of 1651. Its percentile versus all GPUs is 65, which places it in the upper half but clearly behind newer mid-range parts. The nearest rivals in average benchmark score are telling: the Quadro M4000M is 1% ahead, the RTX 3070 Mobile is 1.2% ahead, and the Intel Arc B570 is 1.3% ahead. This means the RTX 2070 SUPER is effectively trading blows with entry-level current-gen cards, which is relevant for Pc Building Simulator because the game’s graphics demands are light. The GPU’s 8 GB of VRAM is not a constraint here, as the game’s textures are simple and the memory bus width of 256 bits is more than enough.

The GPU’s role in this combo becomes clear when you look at the FPS scaling. At 1080p, the GPU is the primary driver of performance, and it delivers. At 4K, the GPU’s limitations surface, with average FPS dropping below 60 at High settings. The GPU’s boost clock of 1770 MHz is not particularly high, but the card’s architecture handles this game’s DirectX 12 workload without issue. The 40 RT cores are irrelevant for this title, but the 320 tensor cores do not hurt. Overall, the GPU is the bottleneck at 1440p and above, and the data confirms that the CPU has headroom to spare.

Measured FPS Breakdown

At 1920x1080, the combo delivers strong results across all settings. Low settings hit an average of 248 FPS, which is excellent for any display. Medium settings drop to 175 FPS, with a minimum of 149 FPS and a maximum of 202 FPS. High settings reduce the average to 124 FPS, and Ultra settings bring it down to 118 FPS. The gap between High and Ultra is small—just 6 FPS—which suggests that Ultra is not adding much visual benefit for the performance cost at this resolution. The 1080p data shows that the system can push well beyond 60 FPS even at the highest quality preset, making it ideal for high-refresh-rate monitors.

Moving to 2560x1440, the numbers scale down predictably. Low settings produce an average of 156 FPS, which is still very smooth. Medium settings average 111 FPS, with a minimum of 94 FPS and a maximum of 127 FPS. High settings drop to 78 FPS, and Ultra settings fall to 74 FPS. The drop from Low to Medium is 45 FPS, while the drop from Medium to High is 33 FPS, and from High to Ultra is just 4 FPS. This pattern indicates that the GPU is starting to feel the load at 1440p, but the system remains playable at all settings. The minimum FPS of 94 at Medium shows that even in demanding scenes, the combo stays well above 60.

At 3840x2160, the GPU becomes the clear limiting factor. Low settings average 82 FPS, which is playable but not ideal for a 4K display. Medium settings average 58 FPS, with a minimum of 49 FPS and a maximum of 67 FPS. High settings drop to 41 FPS, and Ultra settings fall to 39 FPS. The jump from Low to Medium costs 24 FPS, and from Medium to High costs 17 FPS. The minimum FPS of 49 at Medium is below the 60 FPS threshold, which means there will be noticeable dips in busy scenes. At 4K, the only viable settings are Low or Medium, and even Medium is borderline.

Resolution Scaling

The FPS data reveals a clear scaling pattern from 1080p to 4K, and that pattern points directly at the GPU as the bottleneck. At 1080p High, the combo averages 124 FPS. At 1440p High, that drops to 78 FPS, a 37% reduction. At 4K High, it drops to 41 FPS, another 47% reduction from 1440p. The scaling is roughly linear with pixel count, which is the signature of a GPU-bound scenario. If the CPU were the limit, the FPS would not drop as much when resolution increases because the CPU workload stays constant.

Looking at Low settings, the trend is steeper. 1080p Low averages 248 FPS, 1440p Low drops to 156 FPS (a 37% reduction), and 4K Low drops to 82 FPS (a 47% reduction from 1440p). This suggests that even at Low settings, the GPU is still the primary constraint at higher resolutions. The CPU has enough headroom to handle the game logic at any resolution, but the RTX 2070 SUPER cannot keep up with the increasing pixel count. The 8 GB of VRAM is not the issue here; the raw compute power is.

The scaling from 1440p to 4K is particularly telling. At Medium settings, the FPS goes from 111 at 1440p to 58 at 4K, a 48% drop. At High settings, it goes from 78 to 41, a 47% drop. This consistency indicates that the GPU’s fill rate and shading units are the limiting factor. The CPU’s 10 cores and 20 MB of L3 cache are more than sufficient for this game, and the data shows no evidence of CPU bottlenecking at any resolution. For a user targeting 1440p, this combo is well-balanced; for 4K, it is clearly GPU-limited.

Settings Recommendations

Based on the measured rows, the best experience is at 1080p with High or Ultra settings. At 1080p Ultra, the average FPS is 118, which is well above the 60 FPS target and close to the 124 FPS at High. The 6 FPS difference between High and Ultra is negligible, so if you have a 144Hz monitor, either preset works. For maximum smoothness, Medium at 1080p offers 175 FPS, but the visual quality loss is noticeable. The sweet spot is Ultra at 1080p, as the performance cost over High is minimal and the game is a simulation where visual fidelity adds to the experience.

At 1440p, the recommendation is Medium or High. Medium averages 111 FPS with a minimum of 94 FPS, which is excellent for a 1440p display. High averages 78 FPS, which is still smooth but begins to approach the 60 FPS threshold in demanding scenes. Ultra drops to 74 FPS, and the 4 FPS difference from High is not worth the extra load. For a 144Hz 1440p monitor, Medium is the best choice; for a 60Hz display, High is fine. Low settings at 1440p (156 FPS) are unnecessary unless you prioritize frame rate over everything else.

At 4K, the options are limited. Low settings average 82 FPS, which is technically playable, but the visual quality is poor for a simulation game. Medium settings average 58 FPS, with a minimum of 49 FPS, which means you will experience dips below 60. High and Ultra are not viable, as they average 41 and 39 FPS respectively. If you must play at 4K, Medium is the only reasonable choice, and you should accept occasional frame drops. The data shows that this combo is not suited for 4K gaming, and the GPU is the reason. For the best overall experience, stick to 1080p Ultra or 1440p Medium, where the system delivers smooth, consistent performance.