Pc Building Simulator

The benchmark data for Pc Building Simulator with the Intel Core i5-9400 and NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 reveals a pairing that is decisively GPU-bound at higher resolutions, yet surprisingly capable at 1080p. The results show a clear performance hierarchy where the GTX 1650's 4 GB VRAM and modest compute power become the primary constraint as pixel count increases, while the six-core i5-9400 provides a stable foundation that never appears to bottleneck the frame rate.

Resolution Scaling

The frame rate drop from 1920x1080 to 3840x2160 is dramatic and tells a clear story about which component is limiting performance. At High settings, the average FPS falls from 51.5 at 1080p to 36.6 at 1440p, a reduction of 14.9 FPS, and then plummets to 20.6 at 4K, representing a 60% loss from the 1080p baseline. This steep decline is a textbook indicator of a GPU-limited scenario, where the rendering load increases exponentially with resolution.

The scaling pattern is consistent across all settings presets. At Low settings, the drop is even more pronounced in absolute terms: 107.1 FPS at 1080p falls to 68.1 at 1440p and then to 37.7 at 4K. The fact that even at Low settings the 4K result is below 40 FPS confirms that the GTX 1650 simply does not have the pixel throughput to handle 3840x2160, regardless of how much the visual load is reduced.

The data suggests that the i5-9400 is not the limiting factor in this equation. At 1080p Low, the system achieves 107.1 FPS, which is high enough that any CPU bottleneck would likely manifest as inconsistent frame pacing or a ceiling below this level. Since the CPU has six cores and six threads with a boost clock of 4.10 GHz, it has sufficient single-thread performance for a simulation title like this, which typically does not scale perfectly across many cores.

GPU Role

The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 is the clear performance arbiter in this combination. Its 4 GB of GDDR5 memory on a 128-bit bus provides 128.1 GB/s of bandwidth, which is adequate for 1080p but becomes strained at higher resolutions where larger textures and buffers demand more memory capacity. The 4K High result of 20.6 FPS strongly suggests that memory capacity or bandwidth is being taxed, as the average frame rate drops below what the GPU's compute power alone would predict.

The GPU's clock behavior, with a base of 1485 MHz and a boost of 1665 MHz, is typical for a 75 W part that draws power from the PCIe slot alone. The TU117 chip, built on a 12 nm process at TSMC, delivers 2.984 TFLOPS of FP32 performance. This compute figure, combined with 896 shading units and 32 ROPs, explains why the card struggles to maintain playable frame rates at 4K Ultra (18.5 FPS) but can deliver 107.1 FPS at 1080p Low.

The GTX 1650's percentile ranking of 43 against all GPUs places it in the lower-middle tier, which aligns with the measured results. Its nearest rival, the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3050 A Mobile, scores only 0.4% higher on average, indicating that this desktop card is competitive with a mobile part from a newer generation. The AMD Radeon 550X, with a delta of -0.4%, is essentially equivalent in raw benchmark terms.

How This Combo Ranks

In the specific context of Pc Building Simulator, this CPU-GPU combination ranks 1661 out of 1769 tested combos, placing it in the bottom 6% of all pairings. This low rank is primarily attributable to the GTX 1650's limited capabilities, as the i5-9400 alone performs at the 50th percentile among all CPUs. The combo's ranking suggests that most other tested configurations, even those with older or weaker CPUs, tend to include more powerful graphics cards.

The GPU's average benchmark score of 8713 places it just 0.5% below the AMD Radeon Pro WX 5100 and 0.4% below the RTX 3050 A Mobile. This tight clustering around the 8700-8800 score range indicates that the GTX 1650 is at the very edge of a performance tier, and any small improvement in GPU selection would likely move the combo significantly up the rankings. The CPU's average score of 2305 is within 0.6% of the Intel Core i7-8809G, which shows that the i5-9400 is not a weak link in this pairing.

Measured FPS Breakdown

At 1920x1080, the GTX 1650 delivers a playable experience across most settings. Low settings produce 107.1 FPS, which is smooth for any title. Medium settings drop to 78.5 FPS, still well above the 60 FPS threshold. High settings yield 51.5 FPS, which is borderline but acceptable for a simulation game where precise timing is less critical. Ultra settings produce 52.3 FPS, nearly identical to High, which is an unusual result that suggests the Ultra preset may not add significant GPU load over High in this particular game.

Moving to 2560x1440, the performance degradation is significant but not catastrophic. Low settings maintain 68.1 FPS, which is still playable. Medium settings fall to 48.5 FPS, and High settings drop to 36.6 FPS. Ultra settings bottom out at 32.6 FPS, which is below the generally accepted threshold for smooth gameplay. The gap between Low and Medium at this resolution is 19.6 FPS, while the gap between Medium and High is 11.9 FPS, indicating diminishing returns as settings increase.

At 3840x2160, none of the presets achieve playable frame rates. Low settings produce 37.7 FPS, Medium yields 27.3 FPS, High drops to 20.6 FPS, and Ultra falls to 18.5 FPS. Even the lowest settings preset cannot reach 40 FPS, making 4K essentially unusable with this GPU. The data clearly shows that this resolution should be avoided entirely.

FAQ

Q: Is this combo suitable for 1080p gaming in Pc Building Simulator?

A: Yes, at 1920x1080 the combo achieves 107.1 FPS on Low, 78.5 FPS on Medium, and 51.5 FPS on High. These results indicate that 1080p is the intended resolution for this pairing, with Low and Medium presets providing the best frame rate headroom.

Q: How does the GTX 1650 compare to its nearest GPU rivals?

A: The GTX 1650 has an average benchmark score of 8713, which is 0.4% lower than the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3050 A Mobile and 0.5% higher than the NVIDIA Quadro P2200. It performs essentially on par with the AMD Radeon 550X, which scores 8749.

Q: What is the performance difference between 1080p High and 1080p Ultra?

A: The measured data shows 51.5 FPS on High and 52.3 FPS on Ultra at 1920x1080, a difference of only 0.8 FPS. This suggests that the Ultra preset does not impose a significantly higher rendering load than High in this game.

Q: Can this system handle 1440p gaming?

A: At 2560x1440, Low settings produce 68.1 FPS, which is playable. However, Medium drops to 48.5 FPS and High to 36.6 FPS. Users seeking 1440p should stick to Low or Medium presets for acceptable performance.

Q: Is the i5-9400 a bottleneck for the GTX 1650?

A: The data does not indicate a CPU bottleneck. The i5-9400 scores at the 50th percentile among all CPUs with an average benchmark of 2305, and the frame rates scale predictably with resolution and settings, which is characteristic of a GPU-limited system.

Q: What is the absolute worst case scenario for this combo?

A: The worst measured result is 18.5 FPS at 3840x2160 with Ultra settings. This combination of resolution and preset should be avoided entirely, as even Low settings at 4K only reach 37.7 FPS.

CPU Role

The Intel Core i5-9400 provides six physical cores and six threads, with a base clock of 2.90 GHz and a boost clock of 4.10 GHz. This configuration, built on the Coffee Lake architecture with a 14 nm process, delivers a Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 7969 and a single-core score of 1125. In Pc Building Simulator, which is a simulation title that typically relies on single-thread performance for game logic and physics, the boost clock of 4.10 GHz is likely the more important specification.

The CPU's 9 MB of shared L3 cache and 64 KB L1 cache per core provide adequate data locality for this genre. The memory bandwidth of 42.7 GB/s from dual-channel DDR4 is sufficient to feed the GTX 1650's 128.1 GB/s of graphics memory bandwidth without creating a system-level bottleneck. The data shows that at 1080p Low, the system reaches 107.1 FPS, which is a strong indicator that the CPU can keep up with the GPU's output at lower resolutions.

The i5-9400's nearest CPU rival, the Intel Core i3-10305, scores 2300 versus the i5's 2305, a negligible 0.2% difference. This close competition suggests that the i5-9400 offers no meaningful advantage over a newer i3 in this context, reinforcing that the GPU is the primary driver of gaming performance.

Settings Recommendations

For the best experience at 1920x1080, the Medium preset offers the optimal balance of visual quality and performance, delivering 78.5 FPS. This is comfortably above the 60 FPS threshold and provides a significant visual upgrade over Low settings, which run at 107.1 FPS. The High preset at 51.5 FPS is acceptable for players who prioritize visuals over frame rate, but the near-identical performance of Ultra (52.3 FPS) means there is no reason to select Ultra over High.

At 2560x1440, the Low preset at 68.1 FPS is the only configuration that maintains smooth gameplay. Medium at 48.5 FPS is playable but may feel less responsive, while High at 36.6 FPS and Ultra at 32.6 FPS are below the 40 FPS threshold for comfortable play. Users with 1440p monitors should accept the visual compromises of Low settings or reduce the resolution to 1080p.

For 3840x2160, the data provides no viable options. The highest frame rate at this resolution is 37.7 FPS on Low settings, which is still below playable thresholds. The recommendation is to avoid 4K entirely with this GPU, as even the lowest settings cannot deliver a smooth experience. The GTX 1650's 4 GB VRAM and 128.1 GB/s bandwidth are simply insufficient for 4K rendering in this title.