Pc Building Simulator

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

The Intel Core i5-14600K is a 14-core, 20-thread processor built on Intel's Raptor Lake architecture, fabricated on a 10 nm process with a 257 mm² die size. It operates at a base clock of 3.50 GHz and reaches a boost clock of 5.30 GHz, with a thermal design power of 125 W. This is a desktop-class part with an unlocked multiplier, supporting both DDR4 and DDR5 memory across a dual-channel bus, and it integrates UHD Graphics 770 as a fallback solution.

For a simulation title like Pc Building Simulator, the CPU's role is substantial. The game's logic-heavy simulation of components, temperatures, and power draw relies heavily on single-threaded responsiveness, which the 5.30 GHz boost clock directly addresses. The processor's benchmark data underscores its strength: a Cinebench R23 single-core score of 2064 and a multi-core score of 24491, alongside a Geekbench single-core result of 2491 and multi-core of 16673. The Passmark single-thread score of 4270 further confirms that this chip excels at the type of rapid, sequential calculations that simulation games require.

In the measured FPS data, the CPU's influence becomes apparent when comparing frame rates across settings at a fixed resolution. At 1080p, the jump from Low to Ultra settings yields a drop from 113 FPS to 54 FPS, which indicates that the GPU is the primary scaling factor. However, the CPU's ample single-core headroom ensures that even at Ultra settings, the processor never becomes the bottleneck—the 54 FPS floor is a GPU limitation, not a CPU one. The processor's 90th percentile ranking among all CPUs places it far above the GPU's 5th percentile ranking, reinforcing that this combo's performance ceiling is dictated by graphics hardware.

The CPU's 24 MB of shared L3 cache and 2 MB L2 per core provide the data locality needed for simulation state management. With Passmark data compression at 482020 and integer math at 125737, the processor handles the repetitive arithmetic and memory access patterns typical of a building simulator without strain. The 14 cores (likely a hybrid arrangement of performance and efficiency cores) allow background tasks—such as OS overhead or streaming—to run without stealing cycles from the game's main thread. Benchmark results show the CPU is roughly equivalent to the Intel Xeon Gold 5318H (deltaPct -0.2%) and AMD EPYC 4345P (deltaPct 0.3%), placing it in a performance tier that is overkill for this title's demands.

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

The Intel Arc B370 is an integrated graphics solution based on the Xe3-LPG architecture, built on a 3 nm process. It operates with a base clock of 300 MHz and a boost clock of 2400 MHz, with a thermal design power of just 25 W. Critically, this GPU has no dedicated VRAM—its memory size, type, and bus width are all "System Shared," meaning it borrows from system RAM, and its bandwidth is "System Dependent." This architecture choice fundamentally shapes its performance profile.

The B370's compute resources are modest: 1280 shading units, 40 texture mapping units, and 20 raster output units, along with 10 ray tracing cores. Its peak pixel rate is 48.00 GPixel/s and texture rate is 96.00 GTexel/s, with FP32 throughput of 6.144 TFLOPS. In the 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 test, it scores 1184, placing it in the 5th percentile of all GPUs. Its nearest rivals are legacy parts like the ATI Mobility Radeon HD 5570 (deltaPct -0.2%), ATI Radeon HD 5770 (deltaPct -0.5%), and AMD Radeon HD 7650M (deltaPct -0.7%), which are all a decade or more old. This places the B370 firmly in entry-level territory.

In Pc Building Simulator, the GPU's limitations are starkly visible. At 1080p Ultra, the combo manages 54 FPS, but at 1440p Ultra it falls to 34 FPS, and at 4K Ultra it collapses to 18 FPS. The shared memory architecture means that at higher resolutions, the GPU competes with the CPU for memory bandwidth, exacerbating the performance drop. The 25 W power envelope and lack of dedicated VRAM make this a part that is suited for light or older titles, not demanding simulations. The GPU's 5th percentile ranking versus the CPU's 90th percentile creates a severe imbalance—this is a system where the graphics solution is the unequivocal performance limiter, and the CPU's capabilities are largely untapped in this workload.

# Settings Recommendations — which preset gives the best experience per the measured rows

The measured FPS data provides a clear picture of how settings affect performance across resolutions. At 1080p, the Low preset delivers 113 FPS, Medium provides 80 FPS (with a minimum of 68 and maximum of 92), High yields 56 FPS, and Ultra drops to 54 FPS. The jump from Low to Medium is a 33 FPS reduction, while the jump from Medium to High is a 24 FPS reduction, and High to Ultra is only a 2 FPS reduction. This suggests that the High preset offers diminishing returns over Medium, while Ultra adds minimal visual benefit for a negligible frame cost.

At 1440p, the pattern shifts. Low delivers 71 FPS, Medium 50 FPS (min 43, max 58), High 36 FPS, and Ultra 34 FPS. The step from High to Ultra is again small (2 FPS), but the step from Medium to High is a substantial 14 FPS loss. For a smoother experience, Medium at 1440p provides a playable 50 FPS with a tight frame range. At 4K, all presets fall below 40 FPS: Low 37 FPS, Medium 26 FPS (min 22, max 30), High 19 FPS, and Ultra 18 FPS. Only Low approaches playability, and even then, the 37 FPS average is marginal.

The optimal experience per the measured rows is 1080p Medium, which delivers 80 FPS with a minimum of 68 FPS—ensuring no significant frame dips below 60. This preset balances visual quality with performance, as the 68 FPS minimum indicates consistent frame pacing. At 1440p, Medium is the best compromise, offering 50 FPS average with a 43 FPS minimum, which is acceptable for a simulation game where precision matters more than reflex timing. At 4K, Low is the only viable preset, but the 37 FPS average will feel sluggish; users prioritizing resolution over frame rate may accept it, but the data suggests 1440p Medium is the sweet spot for a quality experience.

# How This Combo Ranks — use comboRankInGame vs other tested combos

This specific pairing of Intel Core i5-14600K and Intel Arc B370 ranks 2761 out of 3002 tested combos in Pc Building Simulator, placing it in the bottom 8% of all configurations. This rank reflects the severe GPU bottleneck: the CPU is a high-end part (90th percentile), but the GPU is a 5th percentile integrated solution. The combination produces a system that underperforms even modest discrete GPU setups.

The rank becomes more meaningful when considering the CPU's rivals. The i5-14600K sits within 1% of the Intel Xeon Gold 5318H, AMD EPYC 4345P, Intel Core Ultra 5 245HX, and Intel Core Ultra 5 245 in average benchmark scores. Yet, pairing any of these capable processors with the B370 would yield nearly identical in-game results, because the GPU is the limiting factor. The combo's rank is thus a reflection of the GPU's standing, not the CPU's. Meanwhile, the GPU's nearest rivals—the ATI Mobility Radeon HD 5570 and ATI Radeon HD 5770—are parts from the early 2010s, confirming that the B370 performs at a level that is outdated by modern standards. The 2761st rank out of 3002 combos indicates that most other tested configurations, even those with lower-tier CPUs, outperform this pairing due to superior graphics hardware.

# FAQ

Q: What is the best resolution and settings for this combo based on the data?

A: The data shows 1080p Medium as the optimal configuration, delivering 80 FPS average with a 68 FPS minimum. This is the only measured setting that maintains a minimum above 60 FPS, ensuring smooth gameplay.

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

A: The Intel Core i5-14600K has an average benchmark score of 48618, which is 0.2% below the Intel Xeon Gold 5318H, 0.3% above the AMD EPYC 4345P, 0.7% above the Intel Core Ultra 5 245HX, and 0.8% below the Intel Core Ultra 5 245.

Q: Is the Intel Arc B370 capable of running the game at 4K?

A: At 4K, the B370 only achieves acceptable frame rates on Low settings (37 FPS). Medium drops to 26 FPS, High to 19 FPS, and Ultra to 18 FPS. None of these are ideal for smooth play, but Low is the only playable option.

Q: What is the GPU's performance percentile compared to the CPU's?

A: The Intel Arc B370 sits at the 5th percentile of all GPUs, while the Intel Core i5-14600K sits at the 90th percentile of all CPUs. This massive gap indicates the GPU is the primary bottleneck in this system.

Q: How does the frame rate change from 1080p to 1440p at the same settings?

A: At High settings, the frame rate drops from 56 FPS at 1080p to 36 FPS at 1440p, a 20 FPS reduction. At Low settings, it drops from 113 FPS to 71 FPS, a 42 FPS reduction, showing that lower settings exacerbate the resolution scaling penalty.

Q: What are the minimum and maximum FPS values recorded at Medium settings across resolutions?

A: At 1080p Medium, the range is 68-92 FPS. At 1440p Medium, it is 43-58 FPS. At 4K Medium, it is 22-30 FPS. These ranges show consistent frame pacing at lower resolutions, but wider relative variance at 4K.

# Measured FPS Breakdown — resolution by resolution, settings by settings, exact numbers

The measured FPS data for the Intel Core i5-14600K and Intel Arc B370 combination in Pc Building Simulator is as follows:

3840x2160 (4K):

• Low: 37 FPS average
• Medium: 26 FPS average (minimum 22, maximum 30)
• High: 19 FPS average
• Ultra: 18 FPS average

2560x1440 (1440p):

• Low: 71 FPS average
• Medium: 50 FPS average (minimum 43, maximum 58)
• High: 36 FPS average
• Ultra: 34 FPS average

1920x1080 (1080p):

• Low: 113 FPS average
• Medium: 80 FPS average (minimum 68, maximum 92)
• High: 56 FPS average
• Ultra: 54 FPS average

The data reveals a consistent pattern: the gap between High and Ultra is always narrow (1-2 FPS), while the gap between Medium and High is substantial at higher resolutions. At 1080p, the step from Medium to High costs 24 FPS, but from High to Ultra only 2 FPS. At 1440p, Medium to High costs 14 FPS, High to Ultra only 2 FPS. At 4K, Medium to High costs 7 FPS, High to Ultra only 1 FPS. This indicates that the Ultra preset offers negligible benefits over High at any resolution, likely due to the GPU's limited shading and texture resources being saturated.

The minimum and maximum FPS values at Medium settings provide insight into frame pacing. At 1080p, the 68-92 FPS range spans 24 FPS, which is 30% of the average—a moderate variance. At 1440p, the 43-58 FPS range spans 15 FPS, also 30% of the average. At 4K, the 22-30 FPS range spans 8 FPS, which is 31% of the average. This consistent relative variance suggests the frame time distribution is stable across resolutions, with no sudden stutters, but the low absolute values at 4K make any variance more noticeable.

# Resolution Scaling — how FPS drops from 1080p to 4K and what it says about the limiting component

The resolution scaling behavior of this combo is telling. At Low settings, the frame rate drops from 113 FPS at 1080p to 71 FPS at 1440p (a 37% reduction) and then to 37 FPS at 4K (a 67% reduction from 1080p). At High settings, the drop is from 56 FPS at 1080p to 36 FPS at 1440p (a 36% reduction) and then to 19 FPS at 4K (a 66% reduction from 1080p). The percentage drops are nearly identical across settings, which is a hallmark of a GPU-bound scenario—the CPU's frame generation capability is not the limiting factor, since the same relative drop occurs regardless of graphics load.

The absolute frame counts tell a clearer story. At 1080p Low, the system produces 113 FPS, which is 2.1x the 4K Low result of 37 FPS. At 1080p High, it produces 56 FPS, which is 2.9x the 4K High result of 19 FPS. The increasing multiplier at higher settings (2.1x at Low vs 2.9x at High) indicates that as the GPU becomes more stressed with higher-quality rendering, the resolution penalty grows disproportionately. This is characteristic of a GPU with limited shading units and memory bandwidth—the B370's 1280 shading units and system-shared memory are overwhelmed by the 4x pixel count of 4K versus 1080p.

The data points strongly to the GPU as the limiting component. The CPU, with its 90th percentile ranking and high single-thread performance, could easily drive higher frame rates if paired with a stronger GPU. The fact that the frame rate scales linearly with resolution (and does so uniformly across settings) means the B370's fixed compute resources are the bottleneck. At 1080p, the GPU is already near its limits at High settings (56 FPS), and the jump to 4K simply exposes its inability to handle higher pixel throughput. For users of this combo, the practical takeaway is that 1080p is the intended operating resolution, with 1440p only viable on Low or Medium settings, and 4K offering a degraded experience on any preset. The CPU's headroom remains unused, underscoring a fundamental mismatch in this configuration.