Pc Building Simulator

FAQ

Q: What is the overall performance tier of the Intel Core Ultra 5 245 + Intel Arc B390 combo in Pc Building Simulator?

A: This combo ranks 2650 out of 3002 tested combinations, placing it in the lower third of all tested systems. The data indicates a system that can handle the game at lower resolutions and settings, but struggles at higher graphical demands.

Q: How does the Intel Core Ultra 5 245 compare to its closest rivals in synthetic benchmarks?

A: The CPU's average benchmark score is 48995. It sits within a tight cluster of rivals: it is 0.4% behind the AMD Ryzen 7 PRO 5755G and 0.5% behind the AMD Ryzen 9 7900, while it is 0.6% ahead of the Intel Xeon Gold 5318H and 0.8% ahead of the Intel Core i5-14600K.

Q: Where does the Intel Arc B390 stand relative to other GPUs in the benchmark database?

A: The GPU's percentile rank is 9, meaning it outperforms only 9% of all GPUs. Its 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 score of 1482 is just 1.3% above the NVIDIA GeForce GT 520MX and 2.7% above the NVIDIA GeForce GT 710, confirming its position as a very entry-level graphics solution.

Q: What is the best playable setting for a 1920x1080 resolution?

A: At 1920x1080, the Low preset achieves 125 FPS, and the Medium preset achieves 88 FPS. The High preset hits 62 FPS, while the Ultra preset dips to 59 FPS. The data suggests Medium is the best balance, delivering a high frame rate without the significant drop seen at High.

Q: Is the system capable of 4K gaming in Pc Building Simulator?

A: At 3840x2160, even the Low preset only produces an average of 41 FPS. The Medium preset drops to 29 FPS, and the High and Ultra presets fall to 21 and 20 FPS respectively. This indicates the system is not well-suited for 4K gaming in this title.

Q: What is the performance difference between the Low and Ultra presets at 1440p?

A: At 2560x1440, the Low preset delivers an average of 79 FPS. Switching to the Ultra preset reduces this to 38 FPS, representing a 52% decrease in average frame rate.

CPU Role

The Intel Core Ultra 5 245 is a 14-core, 14-thread processor from the Core Ultra Series 2, based on the Arrow Lake-S architecture. It has a base clock of 3.50 GHz and a boost clock of 5.10 GHz, with a 65W TDP. The processor features 24 MB of shared L3 cache and 3 MB of L2 cache per core, along with 192 KB of L1 cache per core. It supports DDR5 memory over a dual-channel bus with a bandwidth of 102.4 GB/s and includes integrated Arc Xe-LPG Graphics with 64 execution units.

In synthetic multi-threaded workloads, the CPU demonstrates solid performance. Its Cinebench R23 multi-core score is 32924, while its single-core score is 4648. In PassMark tests, it scores 38706 in multithread and 4394 in single-thread. It also shows strong results in specific workloads like data compression (400942) and floating point math (120548). The processor's average benchmark score of 48995 places it at the 90th percentile of all CPUs, indicating a strong processor relative to the broader market.

The CPU’s role in Pc Building Simulator is significant because the game simulates system assembly and benchmarking. While the GPU often bottlenecks at higher resolutions, the CPU's capabilities are more relevant at lower resolutions and settings where frame rates are higher. For instance, at 1920x1080 with Low settings, the system achieves 125 FPS, a frame rate where the CPU's processing power is more likely to be a contributing factor. The high single-thread score (4648 in Cinebench R23) suggests it can handle the simulation logic and UI interactions effectively. The processor's 14 cores and 14 threads provide ample parallel processing for any background tasks, but the game itself may not heavily utilize all cores. The data shows that this CPU is a strong performer on its own, but its potential is not fully realized in this game due to the GPU's limitations at higher settings.

GPU Role

The Intel Arc B390 is an integrated graphics processor (IGP) built on the Xe3-LPG architecture and is part of the Arc Graphics-M (Panther Lake) generation. It uses a 3 nm process and is fabricated by Intel. The GPU has a base clock of 300 MHz and a boost clock of 2500 MHz. It features 1536 shading units, 48 texture mapping units, 24 render output units, and 12 ray tracing cores. Its memory is "System Shared," meaning it relies on the system's main memory, and its bandwidth is "System Dependent." The GPU supports DirectX 12 Ultimate, OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4.

The Arc B390's benchmark results are extremely modest. It scores 1482 in the 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 test, placing it at the 9th percentile of all GPUs. Its nearest rivals are the NVIDIA GeForce GT 520MX (1.3% slower), the GeForce 800M (1.5% slower), the GeForce GT 625 OEM (2.5% slower), and the GeForce GT 710 (2.7% slower). These are all very old, low-end GPUs, confirming that the Arc B390 is positioned at the absolute entry level of performance.

In Pc Building Simulator, the GPU's performance is the primary limiting factor, especially at higher resolutions and settings. The data shows a clear pattern: as resolution and settings increase, frame rates plummet. At 1080p Low, the system gets 125 FPS, but at 4K Ultra, it manages only 20 FPS. This drop is directly attributable to the GPU's limited shading units (1536) and its dependence on shared system memory, which lacks the dedicated bandwidth of a discrete card. The GPU's 24 ROPs and 48 TMUs are also low, restricting pixel fill rate and texture filtering capabilities. While the CPU is a 90th-percentile performer, the GPU's 9th-percentile standing creates a severe bottleneck for this combo in graphically demanding scenarios. The "System Shared" memory means performance is also tied to the system's RAM speed and configuration, adding another layer of variability.

How This Combo Ranks

The Intel Core Ultra 5 245 + Intel Arc B390 combination ranks 2650 out of 3002 tested combos in Pc Building Simulator, placing it in the 12th percentile of all tested systems. This low ranking is a direct result of the GPU's weak performance, which severely limits the system's gaming capabilities despite the CPU's strength.

The data shows a massive imbalance between the two components. The CPU sits at the 90th percentile of all processors, while the GPU sits at the 9th percentile. This means the system is held back by its graphics solution in almost every gaming scenario. While the CPU can handle the simulation's computational demands, the GPU struggles to render frames at acceptable rates, particularly at higher resolutions.

This ranking indicates that in Pc Building Simulator, the combo is better suited for 1080p gaming at lower settings. The system's performance at 1080p Low (125 FPS) is strong, but this is an exception rather than the rule. As settings increase, the frame rate drops significantly. The system's ranking of 2650 out of 3002 suggests that many other combos, likely those with discrete entry-level GPUs, will outperform it. The data implies that the CPU would be better paired with a more capable GPU to unlock its potential, but as tested, the GPU is the definitive constraint.

Settings Recommendations

Based on the measured FPS data, the optimal experience for this combo in Pc Building Simulator is at 1920x1080 with the Medium preset. This configuration delivers an average of 88 FPS, with a minimum of 75 FPS and a maximum of 102 FPS. This provides a smooth, playable experience that is well above the 60 FPS threshold.

The Low preset at 1080p yields a higher average of 125 FPS, but the visual quality reduction may not be worth the extra frames. The High preset at 1080p drops to 62 FPS, which is still playable but provides less headroom for demanding scenes. The Ultra preset at 1080p averages 59 FPS, which is below the ideal 60 FPS target and shows the GPU's limitations.

At 2560x1440, the Medium preset is the only viable option, providing an average of 56 FPS with a minimum of 47 FPS. This is playable but not ideal. The Low preset at 1440p averages 79 FPS, but the visual downgrade is significant. The High and Ultra presets at 1440p produce averages of 39 and 38 FPS respectively, which are not smooth enough for a good experience.

At 3840x2160, no preset is recommended for a good experience. The Low preset averages 41 FPS, and all other presets fall below 30 FPS. The data strongly suggests avoiding 4K with this GPU.

The best balance of visual quality and performance is the Medium preset at 1920x1080. It offers a frame rate well above the playable threshold while maintaining a moderate level of graphical fidelity. For users prioritizing maximum smoothness, the Low preset at 1080p is the best choice, but the Medium preset is the recommended default.

Measured FPS Breakdown

The measured FPS data provides a clear picture of the system's performance across resolutions and settings.

3840x2160 (4K):

At 4K, the system is heavily GPU-bound, and performance is poor across all settings.

• Ultra: The average FPS is 20.
• High: The average FPS is 21.
• Medium: The average FPS is 29, with a minimum of 25 and a maximum of 34.
• Low: The average FPS is 41.

The drop from Low to Medium is 12 FPS, and from Medium to High is 8 FPS. This shows that even the lowest settings cannot achieve a playable frame rate at 4K.

2560x1440 (1440p):

At 1440p, the system offers a mix of playable and unplayable results.

• Ultra: The average FPS is 38.
• High: The average FPS is 39.
• Medium: The average FPS is 56, with a minimum of 47 and a maximum of 64.
• Low: The average FPS is 79.

The Medium preset is the only one that consistently stays near or above 50 FPS. The Low preset is the most playable at 79 FPS, but the visual compromise is significant. The High and Ultra presets are 50% slower than Low.

1920x1080 (1080p):

At 1080p, the system shows its best results, with playable frame rates across all settings.

• Ultra: The average FPS is 59.
• High: The average FPS is 62.
• Medium: The average FPS is 88, with a minimum of 75 and a maximum of 102.
• Low: The average FPS is 125.

The jump from High to Medium is 26 FPS, an improvement of 42%. The jump from Medium to Low is 37 FPS, an improvement of 42%. This shows that the GPU scales well with lower settings, but the differences between High and Ultra are minimal (3 FPS), suggesting that Ultra provides no tangible benefit over High at this resolution.

The data confirms a clear pattern: the system is only suitable for 1080p gaming, and the Medium preset offers the most balanced experience. Higher resolutions expose the GPU's weaknesses, and even the lowest settings cannot compensate.