Pc Building Simulator

The Intel Core i5-9400 and AMD Radeon RX 6600 XT pairing in Pc Building Simulator presents a study in imbalance, where the CPU’s six physical cores without hyper-threading provide a stable foundation, yet the GPU’s performance headroom is dramatically curtailed at higher resolutions. The i5-9400 operates with a base clock of 2.90 GHz and a boost clock of 4.10 GHz, supported by a 9 MB shared L3 cache. These specifications are modest by modern standards, placing the processor in the 47th percentile against all CPUs. In this simulation title, the CPU’s role is largely about maintaining a consistent frame pacing foundation, rather than pushing extreme physics or AI calculations. The benchmark data indicates that at 1080p with Low settings, the system achieves an average of 225 FPS, a figure that suggests the CPU is not the primary bottleneck at lower graphical loads. However, as resolution and settings increase, the workload shifts heavily onto the GPU, and the CPU’s influence on the final frame rate diminishes, a common trait in simulation games where asset streaming and game logic are less demanding than in fast-paced shooters.

The i5-9400’s single-core performance, as measured by a Cinebench R23 score of 935, is adequate for handling the game’s simulation tick rate, but its multi-core score of 6629 reveals that it is not a powerhouse for heavily threaded workloads. When compared to its nearest rivals, the data shows the i5-9400 sits nearly level with the Intel Core i7-1068NG7, trailing by only 0.2%, and ahead of the Intel Core i7-10710U by 0.3%. This tight grouping in the 2246–2264 average score range implies that the CPU’s performance envelope is well-understood and not a differentiator in this game. The processor’s memory bandwidth of 42.7 GB/s over a dual-channel DDR4 bus is sufficient for the game’s data transfer needs, but it does not offer the excess capacity that might be seen in higher-end parts. Ultimately, the CPU is a capable, if unremarkable, partner that provides enough throughput to avoid severe frame drops, but it does not boost the experience beyond what the GPU can deliver.

GPU Role

The AMD Radeon RX 6600 XT is the undisputed performance driver in this configuration, and its specifications paint a picture of a mid-range card with significant rasterization power. Built on the RDNA 2.0 architecture with a Navi 23 chip, the GPU features 8 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 128-bit bus, delivering 256.0 GB/s of bandwidth. Its boost clock reaches 2589 MHz, allowing for substantial compute throughput, with a pixel rate of 165.7 GPixel/s and a texture rate of 331.4 GTexel/s. The card’s 70th percentile ranking among all GPUs, combined with an average benchmark score of 24442, indicates it is a solid performer, yet the measured FPS data in Pc Building Simulator reveals a steep performance cliff as resolution climbs.

The GPU’s memory capacity and bandwidth are sufficient for 1080p and 1440p gaming, but at 4K, the card begins to struggle. The benchmark results show that at 3840x2160 with Ultra settings, the average FPS drops to just 35, a figure that is playable but far from smooth. This is not a memory capacity issue, as 8 GB is adequate for this title, but rather a raw compute limitation. The RX 6600 XT’s nearest rivals, including the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1630 (0.7% lower avg score) and the Intel Arc A350M (0.8% higher), are all in a similar performance tier, confirming that this card is not designed for high-refresh-rate 4K gaming. The data shows that moving from Low to Ultra at 4K cuts performance by more than half, from 74 FPS to 35 FPS, which strongly suggests that the GPU’s shader throughput and memory bandwidth are the limiting factors at higher fidelity settings. In contrast, at 1080p, the card has ample headroom, achieving 225 FPS on Low settings, which indicates that the CPU becomes the bottleneck at that resolution, not the GPU.

FAQ

Q: Is the Intel Core i5-9400 a bottleneck for the RX 6600 XT in this game?

A: The data suggests the i5-9400 can be a limiting factor at lower resolutions. At 1080p with Low settings, the system hits 225 FPS, which is likely near the CPU’s maximum frame output. However, at 1440p and 4K, the GPU becomes the primary constraint, as seen by the significant FPS drops at higher settings, meaning the CPU is less of a bottleneck at those resolutions.

Q: How does the RX 6600 XT perform at 1440p with High settings?

A: Benchmark results show an average of 71 FPS at 2560x1440 with High settings. This is a playable frame rate for a simulation title, indicating the GPU can handle this resolution well without needing to lower graphical fidelity substantially.

Q: What is the best resolution for this combo to maintain a 60+ FPS average?

A: Based on the measured data, 1440p with Medium settings yields 100 FPS, and 1080p with High settings achieves 112 FPS. To stay above 60 FPS at 4K, you must choose Low settings, which averages 74 FPS, but this requires a significant visual compromise.

Q: How does the CPU compare to its closest rivals in overall benchmark scores?

A: The i5-9400’s average benchmark score is 2254, which is nearly identical to the Intel Core i7-1068NG7 (2259, -0.2% delta) and Intel Core i7-10710U (2248, +0.3% delta). This indicates that the CPU’s performance is within a statistical tie with these alternatives.

Q: Does the RX 6600 XT’s 8 GB VRAM cause any issues in this game?

A: No, the 8 GB of GDDR6 memory is not a limiting factor in Pc Building Simulator. The performance drops at 4K are more attributable to the GPU’s compute capability rather than memory capacity, as the card’s bandwidth of 256.0 GB/s is adequate for this simulation title.

Q: What is the GPU’s percentile ranking compared to all other graphics cards?

A: The RX 6600 XT sits in the 70th percentile of all GPUs, which places it above the majority of cards. However, its nearest rivals, such as the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2080 SUPER (1.1% higher avg score), show that it is not at the top tier of performance.

Settings Recommendations

For players seeking the best balance between visual quality and smooth frame rates, the 1440p Medium preset is the optimal choice. The measured data shows an average of 100 FPS at 2560x1440 with Medium settings, with a minimum of 85 FPS and a maximum of 115 FPS. This frame rate range is well above the 60 FPS threshold for a fluid experience, while still offering a significant visual upgrade over the Low preset. The Medium settings at this resolution appear to be the sweet spot, as they leverage the GPU’s capabilities without pushing it into the steep performance drop seen at High and Ultra settings. For users with a 1080p monitor, the High preset at 112 FPS is also excellent, but the Medium preset at 159 FPS provides an even greater margin of performance, ensuring that any complex simulation scenes do not cause noticeable hitches.

At 4K, the situation is more challenging. The Low preset averages 74 FPS, which is playable, but the Medium preset drops to 52 FPS, and Ultra falls to 35 FPS. Therefore, if a player insists on 4K, the Low preset is the only option that maintains a frame rate above 60 FPS. However, the visual fidelity at Low settings is substantially reduced, so it is recommended to use a 1440p monitor for this combo to enjoy a better visual experience without sacrificing performance. The data clearly indicates that the GPU’s compute limits are exposed at 4K, and no amount of settings tweaking will overcome the hardware’s raw throughput constraints.

How This Combo Ranks

This specific combination of the Intel Core i5-9400 and AMD Radeon RX 6600 XT ranks 2652 out of 3723 tested combos in Pc Building Simulator. This places it in the lower-middle tier of all possible pairings, which is somewhat surprising given the GPU’s individual 70th percentile ranking. The rank suggests that while the GPU is capable, the CPU drags down the overall potential of the system in this game. The i5-9400’s 47th percentile ranking indicates it is an average processor, and when paired with a stronger GPU, the CPU’s limitations at lower resolutions can prevent the system from reaching its full potential. The combo’s rank implies that there are 1071 other tested configurations that perform better, likely featuring more balanced CPU-GPU pairings where the CPU can keep pace with the GPU’s output at 1080p.

The data shows that the system’s performance is heavily dependent on the resolution and settings chosen. At 1080p Low, the combo achieves 225 FPS, which is a very high frame rate, but this is likely CPU-bound. At 4K Ultra, it drops to 35 FPS, which is GPU-bound. The rank of 2652 suggests that this combo is not optimized for any single resolution, but rather offers a broad range of playable settings without excelling at any one. Compared to other combos, it is likely that systems with a more powerful CPU, such as a higher-end Intel Core i7 or AMD Ryzen 7, would rank higher, even with the same GPU, due to the CPU’s ability to push higher frame rates at 1080p. The ranking also implies that this is a mid-range build that is suitable for 1440p gaming, but not for competitive 1080p high-refresh-rate play or 4K gaming.

Measured FPS Breakdown

The measured FPS data provides a comprehensive view of the system’s capabilities across three resolutions and four settings. At 1920x1080, the system performs exceptionally well. The Low preset averages 225 FPS, which is an extremely high frame rate, likely limited by the CPU’s single-threaded performance. The Medium preset averages 159 FPS, with a minimum of 135 FPS and a maximum of 183 FPS, showing consistent frame pacing. High settings average 112 FPS, and Ultra settings average 107 FPS. The difference between High and Ultra is minimal at 5 FPS, suggesting that the Ultra preset’s additional effects are not taxing the GPU heavily at this resolution. The CPU is the primary limiter here, as the GPU has ample headroom.

Moving to 2560x1440, the FPS figures drop significantly, but remain playable. The Low preset averages 142 FPS, which is still very high. Medium averages 100 FPS, with a minimum of 85 FPS and a maximum of 115 FPS. High settings average 71 FPS, which is a 41% drop from Medium, indicating that the GPU is starting to feel the load. Ultra settings average 67 FPS, which is close to the High preset, with only a 4 FPS difference. At this resolution, the GPU is becoming the bottleneck, but it still delivers playable frame rates at all settings. The transition from Low to High at 1440p costs 71 FPS, showing a significant performance penalty for higher fidelity.

At 3840x2160, the system’s limitations are fully exposed. The Low preset averages 74 FPS, which is the only playable option. Medium averages 52 FPS, with a minimum of 45 FPS and a maximum of 60 FPS, dipping below the 60 FPS threshold. High settings average 37 FPS, and Ultra settings average 35 FPS, both of which are not smooth. The GPU is completely overwhelmed at this resolution, and the data shows that the RX 6600 XT is not designed for 4K gaming in this title. The step from Low to Medium at 4K costs 22 FPS, a 30% drop, while the step from Medium to High costs 15 FPS, a 29% drop. This consistent degradation highlights the GPU’s compute and bandwidth limits.

Resolution Scaling

The scaling of FPS across resolutions reveals critical insights into which component is the limiting factor. From 1080p to 1440p, the average FPS across all settings drops by roughly 37% (e.g., High settings go from 112 to 71 FPS, a 36.6% reduction). This drop is substantial, but it is expected as the pixel count increases by 78% (from 2.07 million to 3.69 million pixels). The fact that the FPS does not scale linearly with pixel count suggests that the GPU is still managing the load well, but the CPU’s influence is waning. From 1440p to 4K, the FPS drops even more dramatically. For example, High settings go from 71 to 37 FPS, a 47.9% reduction, while the pixel count increases by 125% (from 3.69 million to 8.29 million pixels). This non-linear drop indicates that the GPU is severely bandwidth-limited and cannot maintain its efficiency at 4K.

The data strongly implies that the GPU is the primary limiting component at 4K, while the CPU is the limiting factor at 1080p. At 1080p Low, the system achieves 225 FPS, which is a high frame rate that is likely CPU-bound. If the GPU were the limit, we would expect to see a smaller drop when moving from 1080p to 1440p, but the consistent ~37% drop across all settings suggests the GPU is being pushed harder. However, the fact that the 1080p Ultra setting (107 FPS) is only 5% faster than 1440p Ultra (67 FPS) shows a less severe drop, indicating that at Ultra settings, the GPU is already near its limit even at 1080p. This suggests that the CPU can only push the GPU so far, and beyond a certain point, the GPU’s raw throughput becomes the bottleneck. The scaling pattern shows a system that is well-balanced at 1440p Medium, where neither component is severely limiting, but at the extremes—1080p Low and 4K Ultra—the imbalance becomes clear.