Pc Building Simulator

The Intel Core i5-9400 and NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3080 combination ranks 666th out of 1,769 tested combos in Pc Building Simulator. This places the pairing in the upper-middle tier of all configurations, with a substantial portion of the field outperforming it despite the GPU’s high-end positioning. The rank reflects a system that is capable of smooth gameplay but is clearly held back by the processor in a simulation title that relies heavily on CPU logic for component interactions.

How This Combo Ranks

The combo’s 666th place out of 1,769 combos means it sits above roughly 62% of all tested configurations. This is a respectable showing, but the gap to the top is significant, driven by the i5-9400’s mid-range standing. The CPU’s percentile against all processors is 50, meaning it performs at the median level for general compute tasks. Its average benchmark score of 2,305 places it within a tight cluster of rivals: the Intel Core i3-10305 scores 2,300 (0.2% slower), the Intel Core i3-1125G4 scores 2,299 (0.2% slower), and the Intel Xeon E-2134 scores 2,295 (0.4% slower). On the other side, the Intel Core i7-8809G scores 2,319, just 0.6% faster. This shows the i5-9400 is essentially interchangeable with its closest competitors in raw compute, so the ranking difference in games comes down to other factors.

The GPU, meanwhile, is a much stronger component. Its 80th percentile against all GPUs and average benchmark score of 35,787 place it near the top of the stack. Its nearest rivals include the AMD Radeon Pro Duo (35,860, 0.2% faster), the AMD Radeon 880M (35,646, 0.4% slower), the AMD Radeon RX 7900 GRE (36,101, 0.9% faster), and the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5070 Ti Mobile (35,435, 1% slower). The RTX 3080 holds its own against these, but the pairing’s overall rank is dragged down because the CPU cannot fully feed the GPU in this simulation-heavy workload.

GPU Role

The RTX 3080 brings 10 GB of GDDR6X memory on a 320-bit bus, yielding 760.3 GB/s of bandwidth. This is ample for Pc Building Simulator, which is not a VRAM-heavy title at the tested settings. The GPU’s base clock is 1440 MHz with a boost of 1710 MHz, and its memory runs at 19 Gbps effective. With 8,704 shading units, 272 texture mapping units, and 96 render output units, the card has plenty of raw throughput for the game’s visual rendering, which includes detailed 3D models of components and cases.

Benchmark results show the GPU is a powerhouse in synthetic tests. Its 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 score is 4,407, and its Geekbench OpenCL score reaches 167,014, with Vulkan at 145,176. Passmark G3D scoring puts it at 25,086, and compute performance is 14,397. These figures indicate the GPU is far more capable than what the i5-9400 can consistently utilize in this title. The game’s simulation logic, which tracks temperatures, power draws, and compatibility of virtual parts, runs on the CPU, and the 6-core, 6-thread i5-9400 with a 2.90 GHz base and 4.10 GHz boost becomes the bottleneck.

Resolution Scaling

The FPS scaling across resolutions reveals a clear CPU limitation at lower settings. At 1080p Low, the combo hits 242.3 FPS, which drops to 211.3 FPS at 1440p Low and 114.3 FPS at 4K Low. This is a 53% drop from 1080p to 4K at Low settings, indicating the GPU is taking over more of the workload as pixel count rises. The pattern shifts at High settings: 1080p High yields 176.1 FPS, 1440p High yields 110.2 FPS, and 4K High yields 59.2 FPS. The drop from 1080p to 1440p at High is 37%, and from 1440p to 4K it is 46%, showing a more consistent GPU-bound scaling.

The data suggests that at 1080p, the CPU is the primary limiter, especially at Low and Medium settings where frame rates exceed 200 FPS. The i5-9400’s six threads cannot push beyond roughly 240 FPS in this game, regardless of GPU headroom. At 4K Ultra, the frame rate falls to 56.9 FPS, which is a 76% reduction from 1080p Ultra’s 164.7 FPS. This massive drop indicates the RTX 3080 is now fully engaged, but the CPU still prevents the system from reaching the GPU’s true potential, as a stronger processor would likely push 4K Ultra closer to 70 or 80 FPS with the same card.

Settings Recommendations

For the best balance of visual quality and frame rate, the High preset at 1440p is the standout choice. It delivers 110.2 FPS, which is well above the 60 FPS threshold for smooth gameplay, while offering significantly better visuals than Low or Medium. At 1080p, High also works well at 176.1 FPS, but the returns diminish beyond that since the CPU caps performance. For 4K, High is the only playable option, hitting 59.2 FPS, which is just shy of a smooth 60 FPS experience but still acceptable for a simulation title.

Ultra settings are not recommended for this combo. At 1440p, Ultra drops to 104.8 FPS, a minor gain over High’s 110.2 FPS, meaning the extra visual fidelity costs performance without a proportional benefit. At 4K, Ultra falls to 56.9 FPS, which is below the playable threshold for many users. Medium settings offer a middle ground, with 214.4 FPS at 1080p and 160 FPS at 1440p, but the visual downgrade from High is noticeable in a game where reading component details matters. The data supports High as the optimal preset: it provides the best frame rate per visual quality step, and the CPU bottleneck at lower settings means those higher FPS numbers come at the cost of rendering fidelity.

Measured FPS Breakdown

At 1920x1080, the combo delivers 242.3 FPS on Low, 214.4 FPS on Medium, 176.1 FPS on High, and 164.7 FPS on Ultra. The gap between Low and Ultra is 77.6 FPS, or 32%, showing that even at the same resolution, settings have a measurable impact. The CPU limits performance here; the jump from Low to Medium costs only 27.9 FPS, while Medium to High costs 38.3 FPS, indicating the GPU is becoming more involved as visual complexity rises.

At 2560x1440, the numbers are 211.3 FPS on Low, 160 FPS on Medium, 110.2 FPS on High, and 104.8 FPS on Ultra. The drop from Low to Medium is 51.3 FPS, and Medium to High is 49.8 FPS, a more even distribution that suggests the balance between CPU and GPU shifts. The High to Ultra gap is only 5.4 FPS, showing that Ultra settings at 1440p are not worth the performance hit for marginal visual gains.

At 3840x2160, the results are 114.3 FPS on Low, 84.3 FPS on Medium, 59.2 FPS on High, and 56.9 FPS on Ultra. The Low to Medium drop is 30 FPS, and Medium to High is 25.1 FPS, but High to Ultra is just 2.3 FPS. This confirms that Ultra at 4K is essentially the same as High in performance, but with lower frame rates. The 4K Low result of 114.3 FPS shows the RTX 3080’s raw power, but the CPU still prevents the system from reaching the 200+ FPS territory seen at lower resolutions. Overall, the measured data paints a picture of a GPU that is overqualified for the CPU in this simulation title, with the i5-9400 acting as the limiting factor across all resolutions and settings.