Pc Building Simulator

The Intel Core i5-9400 paired with the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3050 4 GB lands in the lower tier of tested configurations for Pc Building Simulator, holding rank 1593 out of 1769 combos. This places the pairing in roughly the 10th percentile of all tested systems, indicating that while it can run the simulation, it does so with less headroom than most other hardware combinations in the database. The combination of a six-core Coffee Lake CPU from 2018 and an entry-level Ampere GPU from 2022 produces a system that is functional but far from exemplary, with the data showing a clear ceiling on performance that becomes more restrictive as resolution and quality settings increase.

How This Combo Ranks

The rank of 1593 out of 1769 tested combos places this system firmly in the bottom 10% of the database for Pc Building Simulator. This is not a surprising outcome given the hardware profile: the i5-9400 is a mainstream six-thread processor that sits at the 50th percentile against all CPUs, while the RTX 3050 4 GB also sits at the 50th percentile against all GPUs. When two mid-pack components combine in a simulation title, the result tends to be a system that handles the game’s demands without excelling. The CPU’s benchmark data reinforces this middling position, with a Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 7969 and a single-core score of 1125, figures that place it adjacent to the Intel Core i3-10305 (deltaPct 0.2) and the Intel Core i3-1125G4 (deltaPct 0.2). The i5-9400 is technically 0.4% ahead of the Intel Xeon E-2134 and 0.6% behind the Intel Core i7-8809G, but these margins are negligible in real-world gaming scenarios. For Pc Building Simulator, the data suggests that the CPU is sufficient to feed the GPU at lower resolutions, but the overall combo rank indicates that higher-end pairings in the database deliver substantially better frame rates across the board.

GPU Role

The NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3050 4 GB is the primary driver of visual performance in this combo, and its specifications reveal why the system struggles at higher settings. The GPU features a base clock of 1545 MHz and a boost clock of 1740 MHz, paired with 4 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 128-bit bus, yielding a memory bandwidth of 192.0 GB/s. This is a modest memory configuration for modern titles, and the 4 GB capacity becomes a limiting factor in Pc Building Simulator, which appears to scale its memory demands with resolution and quality. The GPU’s 2048 shading units, 64 texture mapping units, and 32 render output units provide a baseline that can produce 55.68 GPixel/s and 111.4 GTexel/s, but these figures translate to playable frame rates only at lower settings. The 7.127 TFLOPS of FP32 performance is adequate for 1080p gaming, but the data shows that the card’s performance collapses at 4K Ultra, where it averages just 27 FPS. The 90 W TDP and the suggested 250 W PSU indicate this is an efficiency-focused card, but efficiency does not compensate for the lack of raw throughput when the game’s visual load increases. The 16 RT cores and 64 tensor cores are present but largely irrelevant for a simulation title that does not heavily utilize ray tracing or DLSS, meaning the card’s traditional rasterization performance is what matters most here.

Settings Recommendations

Based on the measured frame rates, the optimal experience for this combo is achieved at 1080p with Low settings, where the system delivers an average of 156.8 FPS. This is the only configuration in the entire dataset that exceeds 150 FPS, and it provides the smoothest gameplay by a significant margin. At 1080p Medium, the average drops to 113.3 FPS, which remains highly playable and offers better visual fidelity without sacrificing responsiveness. The jump to 1080p High yields 81.6 FPS, still respectable, but the Ultra preset at 1080p falls to 73.8 FPS, which is the first sign of strain. For users prioritizing visual quality over raw frame rate, 1440p Medium at 71.1 FPS is the sweet spot, as it balances the simulation’s interface and component models with acceptable smoothness. Anything above 1440p Medium results in averages below 50 FPS, which is suboptimal for a game that requires precise mouse movements and menu navigation. The data clearly indicates that this system is best suited for 1080p or 1440p gaming with conservative settings, and pushing to 4K should only be attempted at Low, where the 54.3 FPS average is the sole playable 4K option.

Measured FPS Breakdown

The measured FPS data reveals a consistent pattern across resolutions and settings. At 1920x1080, the system produces a range of 73.8 FPS (Ultra) to 156.8 FPS (Low), with Medium at 113.3 FPS and High at 81.6 FPS. This shows a drop of 83 FPS between Low and Ultra, indicating that the GPU is the primary bottleneck at this resolution, as the CPU can maintain high frame rates when the GPU load is minimal. Moving to 2560x1440, the averages shift downward: Low delivers 98.7 FPS, Medium 71.1 FPS, High 49.2 FPS, and Ultra 47.7 FPS. The gap between Low and Ultra here is 51 FPS, which is smaller than at 1080p, suggesting that the GPU is becoming more saturated and the CPU’s role is diminishing. At 3840x2160, the system struggles noticeably: Low produces 54.3 FPS, Medium 34.4 FPS, High 28.6 FPS, and Ultra 27 FPS. The difference between Low and Ultra at 4K is just 27.3 FPS, which indicates that the GPU is fully maxed out at this resolution, and the CPU has little influence on the final frame rate. The jump from 1080p Low to 4K Low represents a 65.2% reduction in performance, while the same jump at Ultra represents a 63.4% reduction, showing that the scaling is relatively consistent across settings.

Resolution Scaling

The resolution scaling from 1080p to 4K provides insight into which component is limiting performance at each stage. From 1080p Low (156.8 FPS) to 1440p Low (98.7 FPS), the frame rate drops by 37.1%, which is a substantial decrease that points to the GPU’s memory bandwidth and pixel throughput being the primary constraint. From 1440p Low to 4K Low (54.3 FPS), the drop is 45%, an even steeper decline that further confirms the GPU is the limiting factor. At Ultra settings, the progression is 73.8 FPS (1080p) to 47.7 FPS (1440p) to 27 FPS (4K), with drops of 35.4% and 43.4% respectively. These percentages indicate that the RTX 3050 4 GB is simply not equipped to handle the pixel count at 4K, regardless of quality preset. The CPU’s influence is most apparent at 1080p Low, where the 156.8 FPS figure suggests the i5-9400 can push well beyond 150 FPS in this title when the GPU is not overloaded. However, as resolution increases, the GPU becomes the sole bottleneck, and the CPU’s six cores and six threads are left with idle capacity. The data shows that the 4 GB VRAM is likely a contributing factor at 4K, as the game may be exceeding the memory capacity, causing the GPU to fall back on slower memory operations. For this combo, the optimal operating range is clearly 1080p to 1440p, where the GPU can maintain playable frame rates without hitting its memory or bandwidth limits, and the CPU can provide a stable frame delivery. Beyond that range, the system’s performance degrades predictably, and the measured results make it clear that 4K gaming is not a realistic expectation for this hardware pairing.