Pc Building Simulator

How This Combo Ranks

The combination of the Intel Core i7-14700K and NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4080 holds rank 207 out of 3,723 tested combos in Pc Building Simulator. That places this pairing in the top 5.6% of all configurations tested, a strong showing for a simulation title that rarely stresses high-end hardware to its limits. The data indicates this combo sits comfortably in the upper tier, though not at the very peak—the top 206 combos outperform it, likely featuring newer or more specialized components.

The ranking reflects the balance between the CPU and GPU in this specific workload. Pc Building Simulator is a simulation game where frame rates depend on both component throughput and the game's engine efficiency. With the i7-14700K's 20 cores and the RTX 4080's 9,728 shading units, the combo delivers consistent performance across all tested settings. The rank of 207 against 3,722 other pairings suggests that while this is a high-end setup, there are diminishing returns beyond this point—the game simply does not require more raw power to run smoothly.

Benchmark scores corroborate this positioning. The CPU scores 69,355 on average across all benchmarks, placing it in the 94th percentile of all CPUs. The GPU averages 54,247 across its benchmark suite, sitting in the 86th percentile of all GPUs. Neither component is the absolute fastest available, but both are well above average, which explains the strong but not record-breaking combo rank.

FAQ

Q: How does the Intel Core i7-14700K compare to its closest rivals in CPU benchmarks?

A: The i7-14700K averages 69,355 points, which is 0.1% ahead of the AMD EPYC 9115 (69,288) and 0.2% behind the AMD Ryzen 9 7950X (69,515). It trails the AMD Ryzen 9 7940HX by 0.7% (69,875) and the AMD Ryzen 7 9700F by 0.9% (69,996). The differences are minimal, indicating near-parity among these top-tier processors.

Q: What is the RTX 4080's standing relative to its nearest GPU rivals?

A: The RTX 4080 averages 54,247 points, which is 0.1% ahead of the RTX 4080 SUPER (54,209). It outperforms the AMD Radeon Pro W5700X by 1.1% (54,828) and the AMD Radeon RX 6750 GRE 12 GB by 2.6% (55,698). The AMD Radeon 8060S leads by 2.7% (55,757). These deltas are small, showing the 4080 is competitive within its class.

Q: What frame rates can this combo achieve at 1080p?

A: At 1920x1080, the combo delivers 449 FPS on Low settings, 333 FPS on Medium (with minimums of 283 and maximums of 383), 235 FPS on High, and 224 FPS on Ultra. The gap between High and Ultra is only 11 FPS, suggesting the Ultra preset adds visual fidelity without a major performance penalty at this resolution.

Q: How does performance scale from 1080p to 4K?

A: At High settings, frame rates drop from 235 FPS at 1080p to 148 FPS at 1440p and 78 FPS at 4K. This represents a 37% reduction from 1080p to 1440p and a 47% further reduction from 1440p to 4K. The scaling is consistent with GPU-bound workloads as pixel count increases.

Q: Is the RTX 4080 still in production?

A: No, the RTX 4080 is marked as End-of-life in production status. It was released on 2022-09-19 and has been succeeded by the GeForce 50 series. Its predecessor was the GeForce 30 series.

Q: What memory configuration does the i7-14700K support?

A: The CPU supports both DDR4 and DDR5 memory in a dual-channel configuration. It also supports ECC memory. The L3 cache is 33 MB shared, with 80 KB L1 per core and 2 MB L2 per core.

Resolution Scaling

The measured FPS data reveals a clear pattern of performance scaling across the three tested resolutions. At 1920x1080, the combo achieves its highest frame rates across all settings, with Low hitting 449 FPS and Ultra still delivering 224 FPS. Moving to 2560x1440, those numbers drop to 297 FPS on Low and 141 FPS on Ultra. At 3840x2160, the figures fall further to 155 FPS on Low and 74 FPS on Ultra.

The scaling factor between 1080p and 1440p is approximately 1.6x across settings—dividing 1080p FPS by 1440p FPS yields 1.51 for Low, 1.59 for Medium, 1.59 for High, and 1.59 for Ultra. This consistency indicates the performance drop is proportional to the increase in pixel count, which is 1.78x (from 2,073,600 pixels to 3,686,400). The slightly lower-than-pixel-count scaling suggests some CPU involvement remains at 1440p, but the GPU is becoming the primary limiter.

From 1440p to 4K, the scaling factor is approximately 1.9x—dividing 1440p FPS by 4K FPS yields 1.92 for Low, 1.91 for Medium, 1.90 for High, and 1.91 for Ultra. The pixel count increases 2.25x (from 3,686,400 to 8,294,400), so the actual performance drop is less severe than the pixel increase would suggest. This indicates the RTX 4080's 716.8 GB/s memory bandwidth and 280.6 GPixel/s pixel rate are sufficient to handle 4K without collapsing frame rates.

The limiting component shifts as resolution increases. At 1080p, the frame rates of 224-449 FPS are so high that the CPU's 20 cores and 28 threads are likely the bottleneck—the game engine cannot process frames fast enough to fully utilize the GPU. At 1440p, the balance shifts toward the GPU, though the CPU still contributes. At 4K, the GPU is clearly the limiting factor, as evidenced by the 74-155 FPS range, which aligns with the RTX 4080's capabilities in a simulation title.

The Medium setting provides the most telling data, as it includes minimum and maximum FPS values. At 4K Medium, the range is 93-126 FPS with an average of 110 FPS. At 1440p Medium, the range expands to 179-242 FPS with an average of 210 FPS. At 1080p Medium, the range is 283-383 FPS with an average of 333 FPS. The increasing spread at lower resolutions indicates more frame time variance, likely caused by CPU-related hitches that become less noticeable when the GPU is the bottleneck.

Settings Recommendations

The measured data supports different optimal settings depending on the target resolution. At 1920x1080, the Ultra preset delivers 224 FPS, which is more than sufficient for any display. The drop from High (235 FPS) to Ultra (224 FPS) is only 11 FPS, or about 4.7%, making Ultra the clear choice for visual quality without sacrificing smoothness. The Low preset's 449 FPS is unnecessary for practical use, and even Medium at 333 FPS offers no tangible benefit over Ultra for most users.

At 2560x1440, the recommendation shifts slightly. Ultra delivers 141 FPS, which remains above the 120 FPS threshold for high-refresh-rate gaming. High settings produce 148 FPS, a marginal 7 FPS improvement. Both are viable, but Ultra provides better visual fidelity with minimal performance cost. Medium at 210 FPS and Low at 297 FPS are only relevant for users with 240 Hz or higher displays who prioritize frame rate over visuals. Given that the game is a simulation, visual clarity for reading component details and UI elements may be more valuable than extreme frame rates.

At 3840x2160, the choices become more consequential. Ultra delivers 74 FPS, which is playable but may not feel perfectly smooth on 120 Hz or 144 Hz displays. High settings improve this to 78 FPS, a modest 5.4% gain. Medium jumps to 110 FPS (with a minimum of 93 FPS), which is a significant improvement and likely the sweet spot for 4K gaming. Low settings at 155 FPS are available for competitive play, but the visual downgrade in a simulation game is substantial. The data suggests Medium at 4K offers the best balance—the 110 FPS average is 41% higher than Ultra, while the visual difference between Medium and Ultra is often imperceptible in slower-paced simulation gameplay.

For users with variable refresh rate displays, the Medium preset at any resolution provides the most stable experience. The minimum FPS values at Medium (93 FPS at 4K, 179 FPS at 1440p, 283 FPS at 1080p) are all high enough to avoid noticeable stutter. The other presets lack minimum FPS data, but the averages suggest they would also remain playable. Overall, the data recommends Medium at 4K, Ultra at 1440p, and Ultra at 1080p for the best experience per the measured rows.

Measured FPS Breakdown

At 1920x1080, the combo delivers the following averages: Low settings produce 449 FPS, Medium produces 333 FPS with a range of 283 to 383 FPS, High produces 235 FPS, and Ultra produces 224 FPS. The progression from Low to Ultra shows a 50.1% reduction in frame rate, from 449 to 224 FPS. The step from Medium to High represents the largest single drop at 98 FPS (29.4%), while the step from High to Ultra is only 11 FPS (4.7%). This non-linear scaling suggests that the High and Ultra presets share similar rendering workloads in this game, with Ultra adding only minor effects that cost little performance.

At 2560x1440, the averages are: Low at 297 FPS, Medium at 210 FPS (range 179-242), High at 148 FPS, and Ultra at 141 FPS. The reduction from Low to Ultra is 52.5%, slightly larger than at 1080p. The Medium-to-High drop is 62 FPS (29.5%), again the largest step, while High-to-Ultra is only 7 FPS (4.7%). The consistency of these percentages across resolutions indicates the preset differences scale uniformly with pixel count.

At 3840x2160, the averages are: Low at 155 FPS, Medium at 110 FPS (range 93-126), High at 78 FPS, and Ultra at 74 FPS. The Low-to-Ultra reduction is 52.3%, matching the pattern at other resolutions. The Medium-to-High drop is 32 FPS (29.1%), and High-to-Ultra is 4 FPS (5.1%). The absolute frame rates at 4K are roughly one-third of those at 1080p for each preset, confirming the GPU as the dominant bottleneck at higher resolutions.

The Medium preset is the only one with full min-max data across all resolutions. The spread between minimum and maximum FPS widens as resolution decreases: 33 FPS at 4K (93 to 126), 63 FPS at 1440p (179 to 242), and 100 FPS at 1080p (283 to 383). This widening spread at lower resolutions indicates that CPU-related frame time spikes become more visible when the GPU is not the limiter, though even the smallest minimum (283 FPS at 1080p) remains far above playable thresholds.

Comparing presets across resolutions, the relative performance is remarkably consistent. Low at 4K (155 FPS) slightly exceeds Ultra at 1440p (141 FPS), and Medium at 4K (110 FPS) falls between Low and Medium at 1440p (297 and 210 FPS respectively). This overlap suggests that users can trade resolution and settings flexibly—for instance, 4K Medium provides a better experience than 1440p Ultra for users prioritizing resolution, while 1440p Ultra offers higher frame rates for competitive play.

CPU Role

The Intel Core i7-14700K brings 20 cores and 28 threads to this combo, built on the Raptor Lake architecture with a 10 nm process from Intel. The base clock runs at 3.40 GHz with a boost clock of 5.60 GHz, and the CPU has an unlocked multiplier for overclocking. The L3 cache totals 33 MB shared across all cores, with 80 KB L1 and 2 MB L2 per core. The die size is 257 mm², and the CPU supports both DDR4 and DDR5 memory in dual-channel mode.

In Pc Building Simulator, the CPU's role is primarily in game logic, UI updates, and physics calculations rather than rendering. The high frame rates observed at 1080p—449 FPS on Low—indicate that the CPU can process frames far faster than the GPU can render them at lower resolutions. The PassMark multithread score of 52,392 and Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 33,440.5 reflect the CPU's strong multi-threaded performance, which helps in simulation games that may use multiple threads for different subsystems.

The CPU's single-thread performance is also relevant. A Geekbench single-core score of 2,569 and PassMark single-thread score of 4,472 suggest that individual thread performance is strong, which matters for games that have a primary simulation thread. The boost clock of 5.60 GHz provides the headroom needed for such workloads, and the 94th percentile ranking among all CPUs confirms that this processor is well above average for both multi-threaded and single-threaded tasks.

The nearest CPU rivals show how close the top tier is. The AMD EPYC 9115 scores 69,288 (0.1% behind), the AMD Ryzen 9 7950X scores 69,515 (0.2% ahead), the AMD Ryzen 9 7940HX scores 69,875 (0.7% ahead), and the AMD Ryzen 7 9700F scores 69,996 (0.9% ahead). These deltas are within measurement noise, meaning the i7-14700K is effectively tied with these processors in average benchmark performance. The choice among them would depend on platform features rather than raw speed.

In the context of Pc Building Simulator, the CPU's 20 cores are more than sufficient. The game likely does not scale perfectly across all 28 threads, but the high single-thread performance ensures that any primary simulation thread runs efficiently. The 125 W TDP and support for DDR4/DDR5 memory give users flexibility in system design, though the combo's performance suggests memory bandwidth is not a limiting factor at any tested resolution.

GPU Role

The NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4080 is built on the Ada Lovelace architecture with a 5 nm process from TSMC. The chip, designated AD103, contains 45,900 million transistors on a 379 mm² die. The GPU has 9,728 shading units, 304 tensor cores, 76 RT cores, 304 TMUs, and 112 ROPs. The base clock is 2205 MHz with a boost clock of 2505 MHz, and the memory clock runs at 1400 MHz with 22.4 Gbps effective speed.

Memory configuration is substantial: 16 GB of GDDR6X on a 256-bit bus provides 716.8 GB/s of bandwidth. This is critical for 4K gaming, where texture data and frame buffers demand high bandwidth. The pixel rate of 280.6 GPixel/s and texture rate of 761.5 GTexel/s further support high-resolution rendering. The GPU's FP32 performance of 48.74 TFLOPS indicates strong compute capability, though Pc Building Simulator is unlikely to leverage this fully.

The RTX 4080's benchmark results place it in the 86th percentile of all GPUs, with an average score of 54,247. The 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 score of 6,567 and Geekbench Vulkan score of 263,779 show solid API performance. The PassMark G3D score of 34,457 and G2D score of 1,239 indicate good general-purpose graphics capability. The GPU's power draw is rated at 320 W TDP, with a suggested PSU of 700 W.

Comparing to rivals, the RTX 4080 is nearly identical to the RTX 4080 SUPER (54,209, 0.1% ahead). It beats the AMD Radeon Pro W5700X (54,828, 1.1% behind) and the AMD Radeon RX 6750 GRE 12 GB (55,698, 2.6% behind), but trails the AMD Radeon 8060S (55,757, 2.7% behind). These small deltas mean the 4080 is competitively positioned, though it is now end-of-life, having been succeeded by the GeForce 50 series.

In Pc Building Simulator, the GPU's role becomes dominant at higher resolutions. The 4K results—74 FPS on Ultra and 78 FPS on High—show that the GPU is the primary limiter at 3840x2160. The 16 GB VRAM is ample for this game, which is unlikely to exceed 8 GB even at 4K Ultra. The 256-bit memory bus and 716.8 GB/s bandwidth prevent memory bottlenecks, as evidenced by the smooth scaling from 1440p to 4K.

The GPU's triple-slot design and 16-pin power connector indicate a high-power card, but the 700 W suggested PSU is reasonable for a system with the i7-14700K. The display outputs (1x HDMI 2.1, 3x DisplayPort 1.4a) support multi-monitor setups, which simulation game enthusiasts may use for extended desktops. The card's dimensions—310 mm length, 140 mm height, 61 mm width—require a spacious case, but this is typical for high-end GPUs.

Overall, the RTX 4080's performance in this game is characterized by strong 4K capability (74-155 FPS depending on settings) and excellent 1440p performance (141-297 FPS). The GPU does not bottleneck at 1080p, where frame rates exceed 224 FPS even on Ultra. The data confirms that for Pc Building Simulator, the RTX 4080 is more than adequate, and the combo's rank of 207 out of 3,723 reflects this balance of CPU and GPU power.