Pc Building Simulator

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

The Intel Core i7-12700K is a 12-core, 20-thread desktop processor built on the Alder Lake architecture. Its base clock runs at 3.60 GHz with a boost clock up to 5.00 GHz, and the chip carries a 25 MB shared L3 cache. The processor sits in the 89th percentile among all CPUs in the database, and its average benchmark score of 35,684 places it in a tight cluster with its nearest rivals.

Looking at the benchmark results, the 3DMark suite shows a clear scaling pattern across thread counts. The single-thread score is 1,043, jumping to 2,065 at two threads, 4,011 at four threads, and 7,202 at eight threads. The max-threads score reaches 9,979, which is only about 38% higher than the eight-thread result. This indicates that the processor's 12 physical cores provide substantial headroom beyond eight threads, but the gains diminish as more threads are engaged. In Cinebench R23, the multicore result of 29,241 versus a single-core score of 4,128 shows a roughly 7x scaling factor, which is reasonable for a hybrid architecture with performance and efficiency cores.

For Pc Building Simulator, a Simulation title, the CPU's thread count and clock speeds directly influence how many in-game simulation elements can be processed concurrently. The game's workflows—managing inventories, simulating component temperatures, calculating power draws—are inherently parallelizable, and the 20-thread capacity allows the i7-12700K to handle these background tasks without becoming a bottleneck. The high boost clock of 5.00 GHz also matters for single-threaded operations, such as UI responses and menu navigation, which the single-thread 3DMark score of 1,043 and PassMark single-thread score of 4,013 reflect.

Compared to its nearest rivals, the i7-12700K trails the AMD Ryzen 7 PRO 5845 by 0.3% and the Intel Core i5-14500HX by 0.7%, while leading the Intel Core i7-13700T by 0.6% and the Intel Core i7-13800H by 0.8%. These delta percentages are all within a single percentage point, indicating that the CPU's performance level is essentially interchangeable with those four alternatives in synthetic workloads. The practical impact on Pc Building Simulator is that any of these processors would deliver similar frame rates in CPU-bound scenarios, and the i7-12700K's advantage or disadvantage is negligible.

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

The AMD Radeon RX 7900 XT is built on the RDNA 3.0 architecture with the Navi 31 chip, fabricated on a 5 nm process. It carries 20 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 320-bit bus, providing 800.0 GB/s of memory bandwidth. The GPU's base clock is 1,387 MHz, with a boost clock of 2,394 MHz and a game clock of 2,025 MHz. The memory runs at 2,500 MHz, which translates to 20 Gbps effective. The GPU has 5,376 shading units, 336 texture mapping units, and 192 render output units, along with 84 ray tracing cores.

The GPU sits in the 82nd percentile among all GPUs, with an average benchmark score of 38,358. Its nearest rivals include the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5080 Mobile and RTX 4080 Mobile, along with the NVIDIA CMP 70HX and MX570. The delta percentages against these rivals are remarkably small: 0% against the RTX 5080 Mobile, 0.3% against the CMP 70HX, -0.4% against the MX570, and 0.6% against the RTX 4080 Mobile. This places the RX 7900 XT in a performance tier where the differences between these GPUs are effectively within measurement noise.

For Pc Building Simulator, the GPU's role is interesting because the game is primarily a simulation rather than a fast-paced action title. The 20 GB VRAM capacity is far beyond what this game requires at any resolution, so memory capacity is not a limiting factor. The high memory bandwidth of 800.0 GB/s ensures that texture streaming and asset loading—common in a game where users are constantly assembling and disassembling components—remain smooth. The boost clock of 2,394 MHz provides ample compute throughput for rendering the 3D component models and the workbench environment, but the simulation logic itself is CPU-bound.

The PassMark G3D score of 29,009 and the 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 score of 5,623 indicate strong rasterization performance. The GPU's FP32 throughput of 51.48 TFLOPS is more than sufficient for this title's visual demands, which are modest compared to modern AAA shooters. The key takeaway is that the GPU is overprovisioned for this game, meaning it will rarely be the constraint on frame rates.

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

The measured FPS data reveals how the balance between CPU and GPU shifts as resolution increases. At 1080p with Low settings, the combo achieves 397.7 FPS. Moving to 1440p Low drops this to 247.5 FPS, a reduction of approximately 38%. At 4K Low, the frame rate falls to 131.4 FPS, which is another 47% drop from 1440p. These large percentage drops as resolution increases indicate that the GPU is becoming progressively more involved, but even at 4K Low, the frame rate remains exceptionally high.

Looking at High settings, the scaling pattern is similar but with lower absolute numbers. At 1080p High, the combo produces 200.4 FPS, which drops to 127.8 FPS at 1440p High (a 36% reduction) and then to 63 FPS at 4K High (a 51% reduction from 1440p). The fact that the 1440p-to-4K drop is steeper than the 1080p-to-1440p drop at both Low and High settings suggests that the GPU starts to become a more significant factor at 4K, where the pixel count quadruples relative to 1080p.

For Ultra settings, the pattern holds: 190.1 FPS at 1080p, 117.9 FPS at 1440p, and 61 FPS at 4K. The 1080p-to-1440p drop is 38%, while the 1440p-to-4K drop is 48%. Medium settings show the same trend with 282.4 FPS at 1080p, 177 FPS at 1440p (37% drop), and 94.7 FPS at 4K (46% drop). In all four settings presets, the frame rate at 4K is roughly 30-33% of the 1080p value, which is consistent with the GPU being the primary limiter at higher resolutions.

The 1080p results are telling for identifying the CPU's ceiling. At 1080p Low, the 397.7 FPS figure is likely close to the CPU's maximum throughput in this game, since the GPU has relatively little work to do at that resolution and settings level. The fact that 1080p Ultra still achieves 190.1 FPS—a 52% reduction from 1080p Low—shows that even at low resolutions, the GPU's work does matter. But the frame rates at 1080p are so high that neither component is truly strained; the game is simply not demanding enough at this resolution to expose a clear bottleneck.

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

This specific combination of the Intel Core i7-12700K and AMD Radeon RX 7900 XT ranks 310th out of 1,769 tested combos in Pc Building Simulator. That places it in the top 17.5% of all combinations in the database for this game. The rank is notable because both components are high-tier hardware—the CPU in the 89th percentile and the GPU in the 82nd percentile—yet the combo does not crack the top 200.

The discrepancy between the component-level percentiles and the combo rank suggests that the game is not heavily dependent on either component's peak performance. Pc Building Simulator is a simulation title that likely benefits from balanced hardware rather than extreme single-component performance. The top-ranked combos probably feature even newer or more specialized hardware, but the data shows that the i7-12700K and RX 7900 XT combination still delivers an excellent experience, as evidenced by the measured FPS figures.

The rank of 310 also implies that there are 309 combinations that outperform this one, which is a small fraction of the 1,769 total. Given that the CPU and GPU each score in the 80th percentile or higher, the combo rank of 310 indicates that the game's performance scaling with hardware is not linear. A combo with a slightly weaker CPU but a stronger GPU, or vice versa, could potentially rank higher if the game favors one component more heavily. The data does not provide a breakdown of which combos rank ahead, but the relative positions of the CPU and GPU percentiles suggest that neither is dramatically underperforming in this pairing.

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

The measured FPS data covers three resolutions and four settings presets, providing a full 12-point matrix. At 1920x1080, the results are: Low at 397.7 FPS, Medium at 282.4 FPS, High at 200.4 FPS, and Ultra at 190.1 FPS. The gap between Low and Medium is 115.3 FPS, while the gap between Medium and High is 82 FPS, and the gap between High and Ultra is only 10.3 FPS. This compression at the top end suggests that the Ultra preset adds visual features that are computationally expensive relative to their visual impact, or that the game's engine is hitting a CPU-related limit.

At 2560x1440, the results are: Low at 247.5 FPS, Medium at 177 FPS, High at 127.8 FPS, and Ultra at 117.9 FPS. The gaps here are 70.5 FPS between Low and Medium, 49.2 FPS between Medium and High, and only 9.9 FPS between High and Ultra. The pattern mirrors the 1080p results, with the High-to-Ultra step being the smallest increment. The 1440p Low result of 247.5 FPS is still above the 1080p Ultra result of 190.1 FPS, indicating that resolution has a more significant impact on performance than the settings preset does.

At 3840x2160, the results are: Low at 131.4 FPS, Medium at 94.7 FPS, High at 63 FPS, and Ultra at 61 FPS. The gaps are 36.7 FPS between Low and Medium, 31.7 FPS between Medium and High, and only 2 FPS between High and Ultra. At 4K, the High and Ultra presets are nearly identical in performance, with just a 3.3% difference. This convergence suggests that at 4K, the GPU is fully saturated, and the additional settings in the Ultra preset do not meaningfully change the rendering workload.

The minimum and maximum FPS values are not recorded in the data, so only average frame rates are available for analysis. Across all resolutions, the Low preset delivers roughly double the frame rate of the Ultra preset at the same resolution. Specifically, at 1080p the ratio is 397.7/190.1, which is 2.09x; at 1440p it is 247.5/117.9, which is 2.10x; and at 4K it is 131.4/61, which is 2.15x. This consistent ratio indicates that the settings presets scale performance proportionally regardless of resolution.

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

The data shows that the High preset offers the best balance of visual quality and performance across all three resolutions, with one notable caveat at 4K. At 1080p High, the combo produces 200.4 FPS, which is more than sufficient for any display refresh rate currently available. At 1440p High, the 127.8 FPS result comfortably exceeds 120 Hz, making it ideal for high-refresh monitors. At 4K High, the 63 FPS average is right at the edge of the 60 FPS target, providing a playable experience for a simulation game where frame rate spikes are less critical than in competitive shooters.

The Ultra preset is not worth the performance cost. At 1080p, it delivers 190.1 FPS versus 200.4 FPS on High, a mere 5.1% reduction for what is presumably a modest visual uplift. At 1440p, the difference is 117.9 versus 127.8 FPS, an 8.4% reduction. At 4K, Ultra drops to 61 FPS versus 63 FPS on High, a 3.2% reduction that is imperceptible in practice. The fact that High and Ultra are so close in performance—particularly at 4K where the gap is just 2 FPS—suggests that the Ultra preset's additional settings are not heavily taxing the GPU, but they also do not justify the frame rate loss.

The Medium preset is a reasonable fallback for 4K if the user prefers higher frame rates. At 4K Medium, the combo achieves 94.7 FPS, which is 50% higher than the 4K High result. This could be valuable for users with 4K 120 Hz displays who want to stay above 90 FPS. At 1440p Medium, the 177 FPS result is well above the 1440p High result and would support the highest refresh rates available. At 1080p Medium, the 282.4 FPS is overkill for any display.

The Low preset exists primarily for competitive play or for users with low-refresh displays who want maximum frame rates. The 4K Low result of 131.4 FPS is the only way to exceed 120 FPS at 4K with this combo, and the 1080p Low result of 397.7 FPS is the highest figure in the entire dataset. However, the visual degradation from Low to Medium is substantial, and the frame rate gains from Medium to Low are not proportionally beneficial for a simulation game.

The best recommendation based on the measured rows is to use the High preset at 1080p or 1440p, where the frame rates are 200.4 and 127.8 FPS respectively. For 4K, the High preset's 63 FPS is acceptable, but users prioritizing smoothness should consider Medium at 94.7 FPS. The Ultra preset should be avoided at all resolutions because its performance is nearly identical to High while the visual benefits are minimal.