Pc Building Simulator

This CPU and GPU pairing is heavily skewed, and the benchmark data confirms it: the Intel Core i7-14700KF is a top-tier processor, while the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 is a modest entry-level graphics card. In Pc Building Simulator, the measured FPS scales almost entirely with resolution and settings, revealing that the GTX 1650 is the definitive limiting factor. At 4K Ultra, the combo struggles to reach playable frame rates, while at 1080p Low, it delivers smooth performance, showing the game is far more dependent on the GPU than the CPU in this configuration.

Resolution Scaling

The data shows a dramatic and predictable drop in performance as resolution increases, which is the classic signature of a GPU-bound scenario. At 1080p Low, the system averages 107 FPS. Moving to 1440p Low, that figure falls to 68 FPS, a reduction of 39 FPS. At 4K Low, the average further drops to 35 FPS, which is roughly half of the 1440p result and only a third of the 1080p result. This steep decline is directly attributable to the GTX 1650's limited pixel throughput and memory bandwidth, which are insufficient to feed a 4K display.

The scaling pattern is consistent across all settings presets. For High settings, the average FPS goes from 54 at 1080p to 34 at 1440p and then to 18 at 4K. The gap between 1080p and 1440p is 20 FPS, while the gap between 1440p and 4K is 16 FPS. This indicates that the absolute performance loss per resolution step is relatively stable, but the percentage drop becomes more severe at higher resolutions because the starting frame rate is lower. In percentage terms, 4K High is just 33% of the 1080p High performance.

The most telling data point is the Ultra preset. At 1080p Ultra, the system averages 51 FPS. At 1440p Ultra, it drops to 32 FPS. At 4K Ultra, it falls to a nearly unplayable 17 FPS. The difference between 1080p and 4K Ultra is a 34 FPS loss, which is a 67% reduction. This steep drop-off is a clear indicator that the GTX 1650's 4 GB of VRAM and 128-bit memory bus are overwhelmed by the demands of 4K rendering, even in a simulation game that is not typically considered graphically intensive.

The data suggests that the CPU is not the bottleneck at any resolution. If the i7-14700KF were the limiting factor, the frame rates would remain relatively flat across resolutions, as CPU workload is resolution-independent. Instead, the FPS scales inversely with pixel count, proving that the GTX 1650 is working at its maximum capacity even at 1080p. The 4K results are so low that they are effectively unusable for a smooth experience, while the 1080p results are the only ones that approach what could be considered a fluid frame rate.

CPU Role

The Intel Core i7-14700KF is a 20-core, 28-thread processor based on the Raptor Lake architecture, with a base clock of 3.40 GHz and a boost clock of 5.60 GHz. This is an exceptionally powerful CPU, as evidenced by its 94th percentile ranking among all CPUs and a Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 44167. In this specific game, however, the CPU’s extensive resources are largely underutilized. The benchmark results show that the processor is not the performance limiter, as the FPS varies wildly with GPU settings and resolution.

The i7-14700KF’s nearest rivals include the AMD Ryzen 7 9700F, which scores 0.2% higher on average, and the AMD Ryzen 9 7940HX, which scores 0.4% higher. It is also 1% behind the Intel Core Ultra 7 265K. These deltas are minuscule, indicating that the i7-14700KF is at the very top of the performance stack for synthetic benchmarks. However, in Pc Building Simulator, this raw compute power does not translate into high frame rates because the game’s simulation logic and rendering are not heavily threaded, and the GPU cannot keep up with the CPU's output.

The CPU’s large L3 cache of 33 MB and support for DDR4 and DDR5 memory are features that would benefit a more powerful GPU. In this pairing, the CPU is likely idle waiting for the GTX 1650 to complete its rendering tasks. The data implies that the game is not CPU-intensive, as the 107 FPS at 1080p Low is a respectable score that does not stress the processor. If the game were CPU-bound, we would expect to see similar FPS numbers across all resolutions, but the sharp decline to 35 FPS at 4K Low definitively rules that out.

The 125W TDP and Intel Socket 1700 platform indicate a high-power desktop part designed for demanding workloads. Yet, in this benchmark, its role is to provide a stable foundation that never becomes a bottleneck. The real story is that the GPU is holding back the entire system. The i7-14700KF has more than enough headroom to push a much faster graphics card, and the measured FPS in this game does not reflect the CPU's true capability.

GPU Role

The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 is a Turing-architecture GPU with 896 shading units, 4 GB of GDDR5 memory on a 128-bit bus, and a bandwidth of 128.1 GB/s. Its base clock is 1485 MHz with a boost clock of 1665 MHz. This GPU sits in the 40th percentile of all GPUs, which is a low standing, and its nearest rivals include the Intel UHD Graphics 750 (0.4% higher) and the AMD Radeon R7 350 (0.6% higher). The data shows that the GTX 1650 is the primary reason for the low FPS figures in this pairing.

The GPU’s memory configuration is particularly problematic for higher resolutions. With only 4 GB of VRAM, the card is likely exceeding its memory capacity at 1440p and 4K, leading to significant performance degradation. The benchmark results support this: at 4K Medium, the average FPS is 25 with a minimum of 21 and a maximum of 29, showing not only low performance but also frame time inconsistency. The GTX 1650’s 128-bit memory bus is a severe limitation, as it cannot provide the data throughput required for high-resolution textures and effects.

The GPU’s PassMark G3D score is 7880, which is low compared to modern cards. Its FP32 performance is 2.984 TFLOPS, which is insufficient for demanding modern titles at high settings. In Pc Building Simulator, the game’s visuals are relatively simple, but the GTX 1650 still struggles to maintain 60 FPS at 1080p High, averaging only 54 FPS. This indicates that the card is already at its limits at the most common gaming resolution.

The 75W TDP and lack of power connectors highlight that this is a low-power card not designed for high-end gaming. The data suggests that the GTX 1650 is a capable card for 1080p gaming at low to medium settings in older or less demanding titles, but it is out of its depth at 1440p and 4K. The measured FPS at 4K Ultra (17 FPS) is a clear indication that the card is overwhelmed, and even at 1440p High (34 FPS), the experience would be stuttery and unpleasant.

Measured FPS Breakdown

The measured FPS data provides a comprehensive look at the combo’s performance across three resolutions and four settings presets. At 1920x1080, the results are as follows: Low averages 107 FPS, Medium averages 76 FPS (with a range of 65 to 88), High averages 54 FPS, and Ultra averages 51 FPS. This shows a clear progression, with Low being the only preset that provides a high refresh rate experience. The jump from Low to Medium is a 31 FPS drop, which is significant, while the drop from High to Ultra is only 3 FPS, indicating diminishing returns at the top end.

At 2560x1440, the performance halves. Low averages 68 FPS, which is still playable, but Medium drops to 48 FPS (with a range of 41 to 55), High falls to 34 FPS, and Ultra averages 32 FPS. The gap between Low and Medium is 20 FPS, and the gap between High and Ultra is only 2 FPS. This suggests that the Ultra preset is not much more demanding than High in terms of FPS cost, but the baseline performance is already too low for a smooth experience.

At 3840x2160, the results are largely unusable. Low averages 35 FPS, Medium averages 25 FPS (with a range of 21 to 29), High averages 18 FPS, and Ultra averages 17 FPS. The difference between High and Ultra is just 1 FPS, showing that the GPU is completely saturated. Even at Low settings, the 35 FPS average is below the threshold for a comfortable gaming experience, and the 18 FPS at High is a slideshow. The data indicates that 4K is not a viable option for this combo.

The min and max FPS values for Medium settings show that the frame pacing is unstable. At 1080p, the range is 65 to 88 FPS, a spread of 23 FPS. At 1440p, the range is 41 to 55 FPS, a spread of 14 FPS. At 4K, the range is 21 to 29 FPS, a spread of 8 FPS. This suggests that the GPU is struggling to maintain consistent frame times, especially at higher resolutions where the memory bandwidth is the bottleneck.

How This Combo Ranks

In the grand scheme of tested combinations, this pairing ranks 3598 out of 3723 combos. This places it in the bottom 3.4% of all tested systems, which is a very poor showing. The rank is a direct reflection of the GTX 1650's low performance, as the CPU is one of the best available. The comboRankInGame field shows that the system is severely limited by its weakest component, and the overall experience is not representative of the CPU's capabilities.

The high rank number (3598) indicates that the vast majority of other tested combos perform better in this game. This is expected, as the GTX 1650 is an entry-level GPU that was released in 2019 and is now end-of-life. The i7-14700KF, on the other hand, is a high-end processor from 2023. The mismatch between these two components is extreme, and the benchmark data confirms that the GPU is the sole reason for the poor ranking.

The low percentile for the GPU (40th) and the high percentile for the CPU (94th) create a system that is unbalanced. The data suggests that this combo would be better suited for CPU-intensive tasks like video editing or software compilation, rather than gaming. In Pc Building Simulator, the game’s simulation aspects might benefit from the CPU, but the rendering pipeline is entirely dependent on the GPU, which fails to deliver.

Settings Recommendations

Based on the measured FPS data, the optimal settings for this combo are at 1080p with the Low preset. This is the only configuration that achieves an average FPS above 100 (107 FPS), providing a smooth and responsive experience. The Medium preset at 1080p is also acceptable, with an average of 76 FPS, but the 31 FPS cost over Low is substantial, and the minimum FPS of 65 might dip below the refresh rate of some monitors.

For users who prioritize visual quality over frame rate, the High preset at 1080p is the maximum viable option, averaging 54 FPS. The Ultra preset at 1080p offers only a 3 FPS improvement over High, which is not worth the potential stability issues. At 1440p, the Low preset is the only playable option, averaging 68 FPS, but even this is a significant step down from 1080p Low.

The data strongly advises against using any preset at 4K resolution. Even at Low settings, the 35 FPS average is below the standard for smooth gameplay. The Medium, High, and Ultra presets at 4K all fall below 30 FPS, making them unsuitable for anything other than static screenshots. The best experience is unequivocally at 1920x1080 with Low settings, where the GTX 1650 can stretch its legs and provide a frame rate that does not feel compromised. If visual fidelity is a priority, the High preset at 1080p is the highest that should be considered, but the user must accept that the frame rate will hover just above 50 FPS.