Pc Building Simulator

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

The measured frame rates reveal a dramatic scaling pattern as resolution climbs, one that clearly shifts the bottleneck between CPU and GPU. At 1080p with Low settings, this combination produces 472.8 FPS on average — an extraordinarily high figure that indicates the CPU is doing the heavy lifting while the GPU remains largely idle. Dropping to 1440p Low reduces that to 339.6 FPS, a 28% decline, and at 4K Low the average falls to 175 FPS, representing a 63% reduction from the 1080p baseline.

What makes this interesting is how the scaling changes with different quality presets. At Ultra settings, the frame rate at 1080p is 256.4 FPS, at 1440p it drops to 161.1 FPS (37% lower), and at 4K it reaches 85.1 FPS — a 67% reduction from 1080p. The percentage drop from 1440p to 4K is steeper at Ultra (47%) than at Low (48%), which is counterintuitive until you consider that the GPU is already more heavily utilized at Ultra even at lower resolutions.

The data suggests a classic two-phase bottleneck transition. At 1080p Low, the CPU is clearly the limiting factor — the RTX 5090 could likely push far beyond 472.8 FPS if the processor could feed it faster. As resolution increases and settings rise, the GPU becomes progressively more saturated. By 4K Ultra, the 85.1 FPS result indicates the GPU is now the primary constraint, with the CPU's ample headroom no longer masking the graphics card's workload.

Notably, the gap between High and Ultra at each resolution is relatively modest: 1.5 FPS at 4K (86.6 vs. 85.1), 10.1 FPS at 1440p (171.2 vs. 161.1), and 10.8 FPS at 1080p (267.2 vs. 256.4). This suggests that the visual uplift from High to Ultra comes at a disproportionately small performance cost, which is unusual for modern titles and speaks to the efficiency of this specific engine.

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

The Intel Core i9-14900K brings 24 cores and 32 threads to this pairing, running at a base clock of 3.20 GHz and boosting up to 6.00 GHz. This is a Raptor Lake-R architecture part built on Intel's 10 nm process, and its benchmark scores confirm it sits at the top of the consumer heap. The Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 49872 and single-core score of 7040 place it in the 97th percentile among all CPUs tested.

The game's dependence on CPU throughput becomes evident when examining the 1080p results. At Low settings, the 472.8 FPS average is nearly double the 1440p Low result of 339.6 FPS — a pattern that would not hold if the GPU were the limiting factor. This indicates that Pc Building Simulator has relatively light graphics demands at lower presets, allowing the CPU's multi-threading capabilities to shine. The 24-core configuration, with its 36 MB of shared L3 cache, appears well-suited to the simulation-heavy workload that typifies this genre.

Single-thread performance is equally important here. The boost clock of 6.00 GHz is among the highest available, and the Cinebench R23 single-core score of 7040 suggests that the game's main thread — often the bottleneck in simulation titles — is being served exceptionally well. The data shows that even at 4K High, the 86.6 FPS average remains respectable, which would be impossible if CPU single-thread performance were inadequate.

The CPU's nearest rivals in aggregate benchmarking include the AMD EPYC 7413 (0.3% lower score), the Intel Core i9-14900KF (0.7% higher), and the Intel Core Ultra 7 265KF (0.7% higher). These very small deltas indicate that the i9-14900K is squarely within the performance envelope of top-tier server and desktop parts, though the game's measured results would likely not differ meaningfully across these processors given the GPU's growing role at higher resolutions.

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

Examining the measured data across all twelve configurations, the most compelling balance between visual fidelity and frame rate emerges at 1440p High. At this setting, the combination produces 171.2 FPS on average — comfortably above the 144 Hz refresh rate that many high-end monitors offer, while still delivering the enhanced visual quality that High settings provide over Medium or Low.

For 4K users, the choice is more nuanced. High settings at 4K yield 86.6 FPS, while Ultra drops to 85.1 FPS — a negligible difference that makes Ultra the logical choice for 4K displays, assuming the user values the marginal visual improvements. The 1.5 FPS penalty is within measurement noise and effectively free performance for the highest quality preset.

At 1080p, the data shows that even Ultra settings provide 256.4 FPS, which far exceeds any display's refresh rate capabilities. Users with 1080p monitors could comfortably select Ultra and still have enormous headroom, making the lower presets unnecessary at this resolution unless maximizing frame rate for competitive play is a priority.

The Low preset, while producing the highest frame rates (472.8 FPS at 1080p, 339.6 at 1440p, 175 at 4K), sacrifices visual quality in ways that may not be justified given the ample performance available. The Medium preset offers a middle ground — 379.6 FPS at 1080p and 242.7 at 1440p — but the step up to High costs only 29% performance at 1440p (from 242.7 to 171.2 FPS) while presumably delivering noticeably better visuals.

For most users, the recommendation is clear: 1440p High is the sweet spot, with 4K Ultra as the alternative for those prioritizing resolution over frame rate. The measured data supports this without relying on speculation about unmeasured settings.

FAQ

Q: What is the highest average FPS recorded for this combination?

A: The highest measured average is 472.8 FPS, achieved at 1920x1080 resolution with Low settings. This drops to 339.6 FPS at 2560x1440 and 175 FPS at 3840x2160 under the same Low preset.

Q: How much performance is lost when moving from 1440p to 4K at High settings?

A: At High settings, the average frame rate falls from 171.2 FPS at 2560x1440 to 86.6 FPS at 3840x2160, representing approximately a 49% reduction in performance.

Q: Is the CPU or GPU more likely to be the bottleneck at 1080p Low?

A: The data indicates the CPU is the limiting factor at 1080p Low. The 472.8 FPS result is so high that the GPU — which ranks in the 94th percentile — is unlikely to be fully utilized, suggesting the i9-14900K's 24 cores and 6.00 GHz boost clock are the primary drivers of this performance.

Q: Does Ultra settings provide a significant frame rate penalty over High?

A: The penalty is minimal across all resolutions. At 1080p, Ultra delivers 256.4 FPS versus 267.2 FPS on High (4% difference). At 1440p, it's 161.1 versus 171.2 (5.9% difference). At 4K, the difference is just 1.5 FPS (86.6 vs. 85.1), making Ultra essentially free at that resolution.

Q: How does this combo rank among all tested combinations for this game?

A: The combination of Intel Core i9-14900K and NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5090 ranks 5th out of 1769 tested combinations for Pc Building Simulator, placing it in the top 0.3% of all hardware pairings evaluated.

Q: What is the frame rate difference between Low and Ultra at 1440p?

A: At 2560x1440, Low settings produce 339.6 FPS while Ultra produces 161.1 FPS, a difference of 178.5 FPS or approximately 53% lower performance at Ultra compared to Low.

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

The NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5090 is a Blackwell 2.0 architecture GPU built on TSMC's 5 nm process, featuring 32 GB of GDDR7 memory across a 512-bit bus. Its memory bandwidth of 1.79 TB/s is exceptional, and the boost clock of 2407 MHz with a base clock of 2017 MHz positions it as a top-tier graphics solution. The GPU's benchmark scores — including a 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 score of 14411 and a Passmark G3D score of 39650 — place it in the 94th percentile of all GPUs.

In Pc Building Simulator, the GPU's role becomes increasingly pronounced as resolution and settings rise. The transition from 1080p to 4K shows the GPU taking over as the primary bottleneck: at 4K Ultra, the 85.1 FPS result is likely constrained by the GPU's compute throughput rather than memory bandwidth, given that the 32 GB VRAM capacity far exceeds what this game would require at any settings. The 176 ROPs and 680 TMUs provide substantial fill-rate capabilities, reflected in the pixel rate of 423.6 GPixel/s and texture rate of 1,636.8 GTexel/s.

The GPU's nearest rivals in aggregate benchmarking include the RTX 5090 D (0.1% higher score), RTX 5050 Mobile (0.2% higher), and AMD Radeon PRO W6600 (1.3% higher). These remarkably small deltas suggest that the RTX 5090 is performing at the very edge of what's currently available, though the game's results would likely show minimal variation across these similarly-scoring GPUs.

At 4K, the GPU's workload becomes substantial — the 86.6 FPS at High and 85.1 at Ultra indicate that even this flagship card is being pushed. The fact that High and Ultra are so close at 4K suggests the game's engine is not heavily VRAM-dependent, and the 32 GB capacity is effectively unused headroom. The 512-bit memory bus and 1.79 TB/s bandwidth would be more relevant in memory-intensive scenarios, but this simulation title appears to scale primarily with compute and shader throughput.

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

At 1920x1080, the data shows a clear progression across presets. Low settings deliver 472.8 FPS, Medium drops to 379.6 FPS, High yields 267.2 FPS, and Ultra produces 256.4 FPS. The step from Low to Medium represents a 19.7% reduction, while Medium to High costs 29.6%, and High to Ultra is only 4% — illustrating how the engine handles the upper presets more efficiently.

At 2560x1440, the same pattern holds but with different magnitudes. Low runs at 339.6 FPS, Medium at 242.7 FPS, High at 171.2 FPS, and Ultra at 161.1 FPS. The Low-to-Medium drop is 28.5%, Medium-to-High is 29.5%, and High-to-Ultra is just 5.9%. The percentage cost of moving from Low to Medium increases with resolution, suggesting the GPU's role grows as pixel count rises.

At 3840x2160, the frame rates compress significantly. Low produces 175 FPS, Medium 125.3 FPS, High 86.6 FPS, and Ultra 85.1 FPS. Here, the Low-to-Medium reduction is 28.4%, Medium-to-High is 30.9%, and High-to-Ultra is just 1.7%. The near-identical High and Ultra results at 4K indicate the engine is hitting a hard performance ceiling, likely GPU compute-bound, where additional quality settings have minimal impact.

Comparing across resolutions at the same setting reveals the scaling factors. At Low, 1080p to 1440p drops FPS by 28%, and 1440p to 4K drops it by 48%. At High, those figures are 36% and 49% respectively. At Ultra, they are 37% and 47%. This consistency suggests the bottleneck shifts smoothly from CPU to GPU as resolution increases.

How This Combo Ranks — use comboRankInGame vs other tested combos

The combination of Intel Core i9-14900K and NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5090 achieves a rank of 5 out of 1,769 tested combinations for Pc Building Simulator. This places it in the 99.7th percentile of all hardware pairings evaluated for this game, meaning only four other combinations have produced better measured results.

Given the CPU's 97th percentile ranking among all processors and the GPU's 94th percentile ranking among all graphics cards, the top-5 finish is consistent with what the individual component benchmarks would suggest. The fact that this combo does not rank first overall — despite the CPU and GPU both being near the top of their respective charts — implies that the game may favor certain architectural characteristics or that other combinations of components achieve slightly better synergy in this specific workload.

The CPU's nearest rivals — the AMD EPYC 7413, Intel Core i9-14900KF, and Intel Core Ultra 7 265KF — all score within 0.9% of the i9-14900K in aggregate benchmarks. Similarly, the GPU's nearest rivals are within 1.6% of the RTX 5090's average score. These tiny margins mean that the rank of 5 could be influenced by very small performance differences, and swapping in any of these near-identical components might shift the result by a position or two.

The data indicates that this combination is fundamentally at the performance frontier for this simulation title. The 4K Ultra result of 85.1 FPS and 1440p Ultra result of 161.1 FPS represent the kind of performance that only a handful of tested configurations can match. For users seeking the highest possible frame rates in Pc Building Simulator, this pairing delivers results that are effectively at the ceiling of what current hardware can achieve, with only four untested (or differently-configured) combinations ranking higher.