Pc Building Simulator

Resolution Scaling

The measured FPS data for Pc Building Simulator reveals a steep performance cliff as resolution increases, which is the classic signature of a GPU-bound scenario. At 1920x1080 with Low settings, the combo produces 107.7 FPS, but dropping the resolution to 3840x2160 at Low settings yields only 35.3 FPS. That is a 67.2% reduction in frame rate when moving from 1080p to 4K, indicating that pixel throughput is the dominant constraint rather than CPU processing power.

The scaling pattern is consistent across all settings presets. At High settings, the frame rate falls from 52.1 FPS at 1080p to 34.0 FPS at 1440p, then to 21.1 FPS at 4K. The Ultra preset shows an even more dramatic collapse: 50.2 FPS at 1080p, 31.1 FPS at 1440p, and just 15.0 FPS at 4K. This linear degradation with pixel count—roughly halving at each resolution step—confirms that the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650's rendering pipeline is saturated long before the Intel Core i7-13700K's 16 cores and 24 threads become relevant.

Interestingly, the gap between Low and Medium settings narrows as resolution climbs. At 1080p, the difference between Low (107.7 FPS) and Medium (75.2 FPS) is 32.5 FPS. At 4K, the same settings gap shrinks to 12.9 FPS (35.3 vs 22.4). This compression suggests that at higher resolutions, the GPU spends proportionally more time on fragment shading and memory bandwidth operations, leaving less headroom for the additional work that Medium settings demand. The 4 GB GDDR5 memory and 128.1 GB/s bandwidth become the limiting factors, not the shading units themselves.

GPU Role

The GTX 1650's specifications explain much of the observed behavior. With a base clock of 1485 MHz and boost clock of 1665 MHz, the GPU offers modest raw compute: 2.984 TFLOPS FP32 across 896 shading units. The 4 GB VRAM is the most consequential limitation for a simulation game like Pc Building Simulator, which tracks numerous assets and textures. At 4K Ultra, the combo manages only 15.0 FPS, which is effectively unplayable for any interactive purpose. Even at 1440p Ultra, the 31.1 FPS result falls below the threshold typically considered smooth.

The memory subsystem tells a similar story. The 128-bit bus width delivers 128.1 GB/s, but this bandwidth is shared across all rendering tasks. The pixel rate of 53.28 GPixel/s and texture rate of 93.24 GTexel/s are adequate for 1080p workloads but become bottlenecks at higher pixel counts. The GPU's percentile ranking of 43 against all GPUs places it in the lower-middle tier, and its nearest rivals—the RTX 3050 A Mobile (deltaPct -0.4) and AMD Radeon 550X (deltaPct -0.4)—are within half a percent in average benchmark score, confirming that this is not a high-end part.

The CPU side is dramatically overqualified for this pairing. The i7-13700K posts a Cinebench R23 multicore score of 39000 and a single-core score of 5505, placing it in the 93rd percentile of all CPUs. Its nearest rival, the i7-13700KF, is effectively identical (deltaPct -0.1). The CPU's 30 MB of shared L3 cache and 2 MB per-core L2 cache provide ample headroom for simulation logic, but the data shows this headroom goes unused—the frame rate is dictated entirely by GPU throughput at every resolution above 1080p Low.

FAQ

Q: Can this combo run Pc Building Simulator smoothly at 1080p?

A: Yes, at Low settings the combo achieves 107.7 FPS at 1920x1080. Medium settings produce 75.2 FPS, and High settings yield 52.1 FPS. All three are playable, though Ultra drops to 50.2 FPS.

Q: What happens at 4K resolution?

A: Performance collapses. Low settings manage 35.3 FPS, Medium falls to 22.4 FPS, High reaches 21.1 FPS, and Ultra drops to 15.0 FPS. None of these results are suitable for comfortable gameplay.

Q: Is the Intel Core i7-13700K the bottleneck in this system?

A: No. The CPU is in the 93rd percentile of all CPUs with a Cinebench R23 multicore score of 39000. The GPU is in the 43rd percentile, and frame rates scale almost entirely with resolution, indicating the GTX 1650 is the limiting component.

Q: How does the GPU compare to its closest rivals?

A: The GTX 1650 has an average benchmark score of 8713. The RTX 3050 A Mobile scores 8746 (deltaPct -0.4), the AMD Radeon 550X scores 8749 (deltaPct -0.4), and the Quadro P2200 scores 8671 (deltaPct 0.5). All are within 0.5% of each other.

Q: What is the best resolution for this combo?

A: 1920x1080 is the only resolution where all settings presets remain above 50 FPS. At 2560x1440, only Low (66.6 FPS) and Medium (45.8 FPS) are viable, while High and Ultra drop to 34.0 and 31.1 FPS respectively.

Q: Does the 4 GB VRAM cause issues?

A: The 4 GB GDDR5 memory with 128.1 GB/s bandwidth is the most likely culprit for the steep performance drop at 4K. The memory clock runs at 2001 MHz with 8 Gbps effective speed, but capacity and bandwidth are both insufficient for high-resolution textures in a simulation context.

How This Combo Ranks

This specific combination of Intel Core i7-13700K and NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 ranks 1732 out of 1769 tested combos in Pc Building Simulator. That places it in the bottom 2.1% of all configurations, which is a striking result given the CPU's strength. The i7-13700K alone sits at the 93rd percentile of all CPUs, but the pairing with a GPU at the 43rd percentile drags the overall system performance down dramatically.

The ranking disparity highlights a fundamental mismatch. The CPU's benchmarks—3DMark max threads score of 12412, PassMark multithread score of 45887, and Geekbench multicore score of 17731—indicate a processor capable of handling far more demanding workloads. Yet the GPU's PassMark G3D score of 7880 and 3DMark Steel Nomad score of 305 show a component designed for entry-level 1080p gaming at best. In a game like Pc Building Simulator, which is simulation-heavy but not graphically intense by modern standards, the GPU still becomes the ceiling.

The rank of 1732 out of 1769 means that 96.9% of tested combos outperform this one in this specific game. This is not a reflection of poor hardware quality—the GPU's nearest rivals all score within 0.5% of its average benchmark score—but rather a statement about the inherent limitation of pairing a flagship-class CPU with an entry-level GPU. The data suggests that any combo featuring a more balanced GPU would achieve substantially better frame rates, particularly at higher resolutions.

Settings Recommendations

The measured FPS data provides a clear hierarchy for playable settings. At 1920x1080, the Low preset delivers 107.7 FPS, which is far above the threshold for smooth gameplay. Medium settings still provide 75.2 FPS, offering a good balance between visual quality and performance. High settings at 52.1 FPS are acceptable for most users, and Ultra at 50.2 FPS is borderline but workable.

At 2560x1440, the picture changes. Low settings at 66.6 FPS remain comfortable, and Medium at 45.8 FPS is playable but not ideal. High (34.0 FPS) and Ultra (31.1 FPS) both fall below what most users would consider smooth, and the frame rate dips suggest inconsistent frame pacing. For 4K, no preset is recommended—even Low at 35.3 FPS will feel stuttery, and Ultra at 15.0 FPS is effectively a slideshow.

The optimal configuration for this combo is 1920x1080 with Medium settings. This yields 75.2 FPS, which provides a 43.5% improvement over High settings while maintaining a reasonable visual experience. The 32.5 FPS gap between Low and Medium at 1080p indicates that the GPU has headroom to handle Medium's additional workload without significant strain, whereas the jump from Medium to High costs 23.1 FPS, suggesting diminishing returns.

Measured FPS Breakdown

At 1920x1080, the full settings range was measured: Low achieves 107.7 FPS, Medium achieves 75.2 FPS, High achieves 52.1 FPS, and Ultra achieves 50.2 FPS. The difference between High and Ultra is only 1.9 FPS, indicating that Ultra's additional effects offer negligible visual benefit for a measurable performance cost.

At 2560x1440, the results are: Low at 66.6 FPS, Medium at 45.8 FPS, High at 34.0 FPS, and Ultra at 31.1 FPS. The gap between Low and Medium here is 20.8 FPS, while the gap between High and Ultra narrows to 2.9 FPS. This pattern repeats: the highest preset tier costs very little extra relative to High, but the step from Low to Medium is significant.

At 3840x2160, the measured values are: Low at 35.3 FPS, Medium at 22.4 FPS, High at 21.1 FPS, and Ultra at 15.0 FPS. Notably, Medium and High are nearly identical at this resolution (22.4 vs 21.1 FPS, a 1.3 FPS difference), suggesting that the GPU is so bandwidth-constrained that the rendering differences between these presets are masked. Ultra remains the outlier, dropping 6.1 FPS below Medium.

The data across all resolutions reveals a consistent pattern: the GTX 1650's performance ceiling is reached at 1080p Medium, and any attempt to push higher resolutions or settings results in disproportionately large frame rate penalties. The 4 GB VRAM and 128.1 GB/s bandwidth are the structural limits, and no CPU upgrade can overcome them in this title.