Pc Building Simulator

# Pc Building Simulator: Intel Core i7-14700KF + NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4080

This combination of the Intel Core i7-14700KF and NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4080 places at rank 206 out of 3723 tested combos in Pc Building Simulator, putting it in the top 5.5% of all configurations evaluated. The pairing leverages a 20-core, 28-thread Raptor Lake Refresh processor with a 16 GB Ada Lovelace GPU to deliver frame rates that are consistently high across all settings tiers, though the data reveals interesting scaling characteristics that define where this combo excels and where it leaves performance on the table.

How This Combo Ranks

The combo rank of 206 out of 3723 is a strong showing, but it is not a top-tier position. The data indicates that roughly 94.5% of tested combinations deliver lower average performance in this simulation title, yet a meaningful number of combos outperform this pairing. The RTX 4080's percentile rank among all GPUs is 86, meaning it sits above 86% of graphics cards in the database. The CPU's percentile rank of 94 places it above 94% of all processors. The fact that the combo rank (94.5th percentile) is closer to the GPU's percentile than the CPU's suggests that in Pc Building Simulator, the graphics card is the more binding constraint on overall performance.

The nearest rival GPUs show this RTX 4080 is tightly clustered with its immediate successors and peers. The RTX 4080 SUPER scores 0.1% higher on average, which is within measurement noise. The AMD Radeon Pro W5700X is 1.1% behind, while the AMD Radeon RX 6750 GRE 12 GB trails by 2.6%. The AMD Radeon 8060S is 2.7% lower. These small deltas indicate that the RTX 4080 sits in a performance band where incremental gains are minimal, and the observed FPS in this game will be dominated by other factors such as driver optimization and API overhead rather than raw compute headroom.

On the CPU side, the i7-14700KF's average benchmark score of 70163 puts it 0.2% ahead of the AMD Ryzen 7 9700F, 0.4% ahead of the AMD Ryzen 9 7940HX, and 0.9% ahead of the AMD Ryzen 9 7950X. The Intel Core Ultra 7 265K is 1% faster. These are all sub-1% differences, meaning the processor is effectively at parity with its closest competitors in general compute workloads. The combination rank therefore reflects a well-balanced system where neither component is dramatically outclassing the other, but the GPU's 86th percentile positioning relative to the CPU's 94th percentile hints that a stronger graphics card would yield more benefit than a stronger processor.

GPU Role

The NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4080 brings 16 GB of GDDR6X memory on a 256-bit bus, delivering 716.8 GB/s of bandwidth. The GPU runs at a base clock of 2205 MHz with a boost clock of 2505 MHz, and memory operates at 22.4 Gbps effective. With 9728 shading units, 304 TMUs, and 112 ROPs, the card is capable of 48.74 TFLOPS of FP32 compute. These specifications are directly relevant to Pc Building Simulator's rendering load, which is primarily GPU-bound at higher resolutions.

The measured FPS data shows the GPU's memory capacity is never stressed at any settings level — even at 4K Ultra, the average frame rate of 74 FPS indicates the card is compute-limited rather than memory-limited. The 16 GB frame buffer is more than sufficient for a simulation game of this era, as evidenced by the fact that dropping from Ultra to High at 4K only improves performance by 4 FPS (from 74 to 78), suggesting that the Ultra preset's additional effects are hitting the GPU's shading and rasterization throughput rather than its memory subsystem.

The RTX 4080's nearest rival, the RTX 4080 SUPER, is only 0.1% faster on average. This means the non-SUPER variant is effectively at parity, and users should not expect meaningful differences between the two in this title. The card's 86th percentile ranking among all GPUs indicates it is a high-end part, but not the absolute fastest available. For Pc Building Simulator, which does not heavily utilize ray tracing or DLSS per the measured data, the RTX 4080's raw rasterization performance is what drives the observed frame rates, and that performance is substantial but not class-leading.

Resolution Scaling

The frame rate scaling across resolutions reveals a clear GPU-bound pattern. At 1080p Low, the combo produces 450 FPS, which drops to 297 FPS at 1440p Low (a 34% reduction) and then to 155 FPS at 4K Low (a 48% reduction from 1440p). This scaling is roughly consistent with pixel count increases: 1440p has 1.78x the pixels of 1080p, and 4K has 2.25x the pixels of 1440p. The actual FPS drops are less severe than the pixel count increases, indicating that the CPU is providing enough headroom to keep the GPU fed at lower resolutions.

At High settings, the scaling is similar but slightly steeper. Moving from 1080p High at 235 FPS to 1440p High at 148 FPS is a 37% drop, and then to 4K High at 78 FPS is a 47% drop. The 4K High result of 78 FPS suggests that the GPU is becoming the limiting factor more decisively at this resolution, as the frame rate approaches the 74 FPS seen at 4K Ultra. At 1080p and 1440p, the gap between High and Ultra settings is 11 FPS and 7 FPS respectively, but at 4K it narrows to just 4 FPS — evidence that the GPU is saturating at higher resolutions.

The Medium settings row provides min and max FPS data, which is useful for understanding frame pacing. At 1080p Medium, the average is 333 FPS with a min of 283 and max of 383, showing a spread of 100 FPS. At 1440p Medium, the average drops to 210 FPS with a min of 179 and max of 242, a spread of 63 FPS. At 4K Medium, the average is 110 FPS with a min of 93 and max of 126, a spread of 33 FPS. The narrowing spread at higher resolutions indicates that the GPU is working closer to its limit, reducing the variance that CPU and memory latency would otherwise introduce. This is classic GPU-bound behavior — as resolution increases, the GPU becomes the bottleneck and frame time consistency improves relative to the average.

Settings Recommendations

The measured data shows that Medium settings offer the best balance of performance and visual fidelity across all three resolutions. At 1080p, Medium delivers 333 FPS versus 235 FPS at High and 224 FPS at Ultra — the jump from Medium to High costs 98 FPS, while the jump from High to Ultra only costs 11 FPS. The fidelity gain from Medium to High is typically more significant in simulation games than the gain from High to Ultra, so the 42% performance penalty for High over Medium is not justified unless the display refresh rate demands it.

At 1440p, Medium produces 210 FPS, which is above the refresh rate of most high-end monitors. High settings at 148 FPS still provides excellent smoothness, and Ultra at 141 FPS is nearly identical. The data suggests that at 1440p, High is the sweet spot — the 62 FPS penalty from Medium to High is acceptable for the visual improvement, and the drop from High to Ultra is negligible at just 7 FPS.

At 4K, the situation changes. Medium at 110 FPS is playable and smooth, while High at 78 FPS is still above 60 FPS but noticeably lower. Ultra at 74 FPS is within 4 FPS of High, meaning there is no reason to choose High over Ultra at 4K — the Ultra preset provides better visuals for essentially the same performance. The recommendation is to use Medium at 4K if frame rate headroom is desired, or Ultra if visual quality takes priority, since the difference between High and Ultra is negligible.

Measured FPS Breakdown

At 1920x1080, the combo delivers 450 FPS at Low settings, 333 FPS at Medium (min 283, max 383), 235 FPS at High, and 224 FPS at Ultra. The gap between Low and Medium is 117 FPS, while the gap between Medium and High is 98 FPS, and between High and Ultra is just 11 FPS. This indicates that the Ultra preset adds very little additional load over High at 1080p, suggesting the CPU is the limiting factor at this resolution.

At 2560x1440, the results are 297 FPS at Low, 210 FPS at Medium (min 179, max 242), 148 FPS at High, and 141 FPS at Ultra. The scaling from Low to Medium is a 87 FPS drop, Medium to High is 62 FPS, and High to Ultra is only 7 FPS. The diminishing returns from High to Ultra are even more pronounced at 1440p.

At 3840x2160, the performance is 155 FPS at Low, 110 FPS at Medium (min 93, max 126), 78 FPS at High, and 74 FPS at Ultra. The Low to Medium drop is 45 FPS, Medium to High is 32 FPS, and High to Ultra is 4 FPS. The 4K Ultra result of 74 FPS is the lowest measured value in the entire dataset, but it remains comfortably above 60 FPS. The min FPS of 93 at Medium 4K shows that even in demanding scenes, the combo does not drop below 93 FPS at Medium settings.

CPU Role

The Intel Core i7-14700KF features 20 cores and 28 threads with a base clock of 3.40 GHz and a boost clock of 5.60 GHz. The Raptor Lake Refresh architecture uses a 10 nm process, and the CPU includes 33 MB of shared L3 cache with 2 MB of L2 cache per core. The processor supports DDR4 and DDR5 memory across a dual-channel bus, and its 125 W TDP is modest for a 20-core part. The CPU's benchmark scores include a Cinebench R23 multicore result of 44167 and a single-core result of 6235, which are strong numbers that place it in the 94th percentile of all CPUs.

In Pc Building Simulator, the CPU's role is evident at lower resolutions. At 1080p Low, the combo hits 450 FPS, which is likely near the game's engine limit. The fact that 1080p Ultra (224 FPS) is only 11 FPS lower than 1080p High (235 FPS) suggests that the game is not heavily CPU-bound at these settings — if it were, the difference between High and Ultra would be larger as the GPU load increases. The CPU's 28 threads provide ample parallelism for a simulation game that may spawn many logical threads for component interactions and physics.

The CPU's nearest rivals show it is within 1% of the AMD Ryzen 9 7950X and the Intel Core Ultra 7 265K in average benchmark score. This means that swapping the i7-14700KF for any of these alternatives would produce no measurable difference in Pc Building Simulator frame rates. The bottleneck analysis from the resolution scaling data confirms that at 4K, the GPU is the limiting component, while at 1080p, the system is likely hitting engine-level frame rate caps rather than CPU compute limits. The CPU's 94th percentile ranking versus the GPU's 86th percentile suggests that this combo is slightly CPU-heavy, meaning a less powerful processor could achieve similar results without sacrificing FPS.

FAQ

Q: Is this combo better suited for 1080p, 1440p, or 4K gaming in Pc Building Simulator?

A: The data shows strong performance at all resolutions, but the most balanced experience is at 1440p, where High settings deliver 148 FPS and Ultra delivers 141 FPS. At 4K, Ultra runs at 74 FPS, which is playable but leaves less headroom. At 1080p, frame rates exceed 224 FPS at Ultra, which is excessive for most displays.

Q: How does the RTX 4080 compare to its closest GPU rival in this game?

A: The RTX 4080 SUPER is only 0.1% faster on average in benchmark scores. The AMD Radeon Pro W5700X is 1.1% slower, the AMD Radeon RX 6750 GRE 12 GB is 2.6% slower, and the AMD Radeon 8060S is 2.7% slower. These differences are small enough that real-world FPS in Pc Building Simulator would be nearly identical.

Q: What is the best settings preset to use with this hardware?

A: At 1440p, High settings provide 148 FPS, which is the recommended balance. At 4K, Medium at 110 FPS offers the best headroom, though Ultra at 74 FPS is also viable. At 1080p, Medium at 333 FPS is more than sufficient, and the jump to High or Ultra adds little practical benefit.

Q: Is the CPU or GPU the limiting factor at 4K?

A: The data indicates the GPU is the primary bottleneck at 4K. The frame rate drop from 1440p High (148 FPS) to 4K High (78 FPS) is 47%, closely matching the pixel count increase of 125%. The CPU's 94th percentile ranking versus the GPU's 86th percentile further supports this conclusion.

Q: Does the 16 GB VRAM on the RTX 4080 ever become a limitation in this game?

A: No. Even at 4K Ultra, the combo achieves 74 FPS, and the frame rate differences between settings presets at 4K are small (4 FPS between High and Ultra). This suggests the GPU's compute throughput, not its memory capacity, is the limiting factor.

Q: How does this combo rank relative to all tested configurations?

A: It ranks 206th out of 3723 tested combos, placing it in the top 5.5% of all configurations. The CPU is in the 94th percentile of all processors, and the GPU is in the 86th percentile of all graphics cards.