Pc Building Simulator

# PC Building Simulator — Intel Core Ultra 5 245 + NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4090

This combination pairs a 14-core Intel Core Ultra 5 245 (Arrow Lake-S, base 3.50 GHz, boost 5.10 GHz) with an NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4090 (Ada Lovelace, 24 GB GDDR6X, 384-bit bus). In PC Building Simulator, this combo ranks 65th out of 3,002 tested combinations, placing it in the top 2.2% of all tested systems. The CPU sits at the 90th percentile among all processors, while the GPU ranks at the 88th percentile among all graphics cards — a balanced pairing where neither component dramatically outclasses the other in synthetic averages. The measured frame rates across three resolutions and four quality presets reveal a system that can handle even the most demanding settings with ease, though the scaling patterns show where each component takes the lead.

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

The Intel Core Ultra 5 245 brings 14 cores and 14 threads to the table, with a base clock of 3.50 GHz and a boost of 5.10 GHz. This is a desktop part on the Intel Socket 1851 platform, built on a 3 nm TSMC process with 17,800 million transistors across a 243 mm² die. The cache hierarchy includes 192 KB L1 per core, 3 MB L2 per core, and 24 MB of shared L3 cache. Memory support is DDR5 with dual-channel configuration and 102.4 GB/s bandwidth, plus ECC support — features that align well with a simulation title that can be sensitive to memory throughput and stability.

In synthetic benchmarks, the CPU posts a Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 32,924 and a single-core score of 4,648. The PassMark multi-thread score of 38,706 and single-thread score of 4,394 reinforce a pattern of strong, well-rounded performance. Its average benchmark score of 48,995 places it just 0.4% behind the AMD Ryzen 7 PRO 5755G and 0.5% behind the AMD Ryzen 9 7900, while edging out the Intel Xeon Gold 5318H by 0.6% and the Intel Core i5-14600K by 0.8%. These are tight margins — the Ultra 5 245 sits in a performance band where rival CPUs trade blows within a single percentage point.

For PC Building Simulator specifically, the CPU’s role is substantial. The game simulates component installation, boot sequences, and system diagnostics — workloads that involve physics calculations, data processing, and interleaved logic that can scale with core count. The PassMark physics score of 2,569 and data compression score of 400,942 indicate strong integer and floating-point throughput, which matters when the game calculates system stability and performance metrics based on your virtual components. The 14-core/14-thread configuration (no hyperthreading) means each core handles one thread, and the 5.10 GHz boost ensures snappy single-threaded responses during menu navigation and component selection.

The nearest rival comparisons show the CPU is not a bottleneck in most scenarios. The data shows that at 1080p Low, the combo hits 462 FPS — a frame rate where even the strongest CPU would be taxed in a simulation title, yet the Ultra 5 245 keeps up. At 4K Ultra, the frame rate drops to 82 FPS, which is far more GPU-limited, but the CPU still needs to feed the RTX 4090 with enough draw calls and simulation updates. Given that the CPU’s average score is within 1% of the i5-14600K (a popular gaming choice), the practical difference in this game would be negligible — the measured FPS data confirms this by showing no obvious CPU-related stutter or min-FPS anomalies in the available data (the only min/max values provided are for Medium settings across all resolutions).

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

The measured FPS data provides clear guidance on settings selection. At every resolution, the jump from Low to Medium is substantial, and the jump from Medium to High is more modest. The gap from High to Ultra is the smallest, suggesting diminishing returns at the top end. For 1080p, the Low preset delivers 462 FPS, Medium 368 FPS, High 260 FPS, and Ultra 247 FPS. The Medium preset at 368 FPS still offers enormous headroom above the 60 FPS target, while High at 260 FPS and Ultra at 247 FPS are nearly identical — the visual quality difference between High and Ultra is not worth the 13 FPS cost.

At 1440p, the pattern holds: Low hits 328 FPS, Medium 232 FPS (with a min of 197 and max of 267), High 164 FPS, and Ultra 156 FPS. The Medium preset's min FPS of 197 is still far above any display's refresh rate, so even the occasional dip remains imperceptible. For most users, Medium at 1440p offers the best balance — the 232 FPS average leaves massive margin for any scene complexity, and the min FPS of 197 ensures no stutter. High at 164 FPS is also excellent, but the step up from Medium to High costs 68 FPS (a 29% drop) for what is typically a modest visual improvement in a simulation game that mostly renders menus, workbenches, and PC cases.

At 4K, the choices tighten. Low delivers 171 FPS, Medium 121 FPS (min 103, max 140), High 86 FPS, and Ultra 82 FPS. The Medium preset at 4K is the sweet spot — 121 FPS average with a min of 103 FPS means you never drop below 100 FPS, which is outstanding for 4K. High at 86 FPS is still smooth, but you lose 35 FPS (29%) compared to Medium. Ultra at 82 FPS is only 4 FPS lower than High, so if you want maximum visual fidelity at 4K, Ultra is nearly free compared to High. However, given that the game is a simulation where you're often looking at static or slowly-moving scenes, the difference between 82 and 121 FPS may not be perceptible — but the frame rate headroom from Medium provides safety for scenes with many components on screen.

The recommendation is clear: use Medium for the best experience at all resolutions. At 1080p and 1440p, Medium gives you such high FPS that any other setting is unnecessary. At 4K, Medium's 121 FPS with a 103 FPS floor is superior to High's 86 FPS — the 35 FPS difference is more valuable than the visual upgrade in a game where you're often zoomed into a case interior. Ultra is only worth considering at 4K if you have a 120 Hz display and prefer maximum detail, since the 82 FPS average still clears the 60 FPS threshold.

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

The FPS scaling across resolutions reveals a system that is GPU-limited at higher settings but CPU-limited at lower settings. At Low settings, the drop from 1080p (462 FPS) to 1440p (328 FPS) is 134 FPS (29% reduction), and from 1440p to 4K (171 FPS) is 157 FPS (48% reduction). This steep scaling — where 4K Low is only 37% of 1080p Low — indicates that even at Low settings, the GPU is becoming the bottleneck at higher resolutions, because the pixel fill rate and memory bandwidth demands increase geometrically while the CPU workload stays roughly constant. The RTX 4090’s 1.01 TB/s memory bandwidth and 82.58 TFLOPS FP32 performance are being taxed as resolution climbs.

At Medium settings, the scaling is similar: 1080p (368 FPS) → 1440p (232 FPS) is a 136 FPS drop (37%), and 1440p → 4K (121 FPS) is a 111 FPS drop (48%). The consistent ~30-40% reduction per resolution step suggests the GPU is the primary limiter, since the CPU can feed frames at well over 300 FPS even at 1080p Medium. The min FPS data at Medium shows 313 at 1080p, 197 at 1440p, and 103 at 4K — the min FPS scales proportionally with the average, confirming a stable GPU-bound workload without CPU-induced hitches.

At High settings, the scaling becomes more pronounced: 1080p (260 FPS) → 1440p (164 FPS) is a 96 FPS drop (37%), and 1440p → 4K (86 FPS) is a 78 FPS drop (48%). At Ultra, 1080p (247 FPS) → 1440p (156 FPS) is a 91 FPS drop (37%), and 1440p → 4K (82 FPS) is a 74 FPS drop (47%). The fact that High and Ultra produce nearly identical FPS at each resolution (260 vs 247 at 1080p, 164 vs 156 at 1440p, 86 vs 82 at 4K) suggests that the game’s Ultra preset adds effects that are not heavily taxing on the RTX 4090’s massive compute resources — the difference is only 5-6% across the board.

The limiting component is clearly the GPU at 4K, but the CPU still matters at lower resolutions. At 1080p Low, the 462 FPS figure is likely near the CPU’s practical limit for this game engine — even the strongest CPUs rarely exceed 500 FPS in simulation titles with heavy single-threaded logic. The CPU’s single-thread score of 4,394 in PassMark and 468 in Cinebench R15 single-core suggest it can sustain high frame rates, but the 462 FPS at 1080p Low may be approaching the engine’s CPU-bound ceiling. The data does not show a scenario where the CPU limits FPS below 200 at any resolution, so for practical gaming (60-240 Hz displays), the CPU is never the bottleneck.

How This Combo Ranks — use comboRankInGame vs other tested combos

This Intel Core Ultra 5 245 + RTX 4090 combination ranks 65th out of 3,002 tested combos in PC Building Simulator. That places it in the top 2.2% of all systems tested — a strong result that reflects the RTX 4090’s status as an end-of-life flagship GPU paired with a capable mid-range CPU. However, the rank is not higher (e.g., top 10 or top 20) because the CPU, while strong, is not the absolute fastest available. The 14-core Ultra 5 245 with a 90th percentile CPU ranking is good, but there are CPUs with higher average scores that would push this combo higher in the rankings.

The GPU’s 88th percentile ranking is slightly lower than its reputation might suggest, due to the benchmark database including workstation and prosumer cards that score higher in compute tests. But in this game, the RTX 4090’s 38,194 PassMark G3D score and 26,613 GPU compute score are more than sufficient — the measured FPS data shows the combo outperforming the vast majority of systems. The rank of 65 means there are 64 combos that achieve higher FPS in this game; those would almost certainly pair the RTX 4090 with faster CPUs like the Core Ultra 9 series or Ryzen 9 X3D parts.

The nearest rival data for the CPU shows that the Ultra 5 245’s average score of 48,995 is within 1% of several alternatives. If you were to swap in an AMD Ryzen 9 7900 (0.5% faster average), the combo rank would likely improve marginally, but not enough to change the overall experience — the FPS differences would be within the margin of error. Similarly, the GPU’s nearest rivals (Intel Arc Pro A60, AMD Radeon Pro Vega 48) have nearly identical average scores but are not gaming-oriented cards; the RTX 4090’s actual gaming performance in this title is far superior to what those workstation cards would deliver, despite the similar synthetic averages. The rank of 65 is a solid, predictable result for this pairing — it confirms that the combo is well-matched for high-refresh-rate 1440p and smooth 4K gaming, without the CPU or GPU being a glaring weak point.

FAQ

Q: Is the Intel Core Ultra 5 245 a bottleneck for the RTX 4090 in this game?

A: The data shows no practical bottleneck. At 1080p Low, the combo achieves 462 FPS, which is likely near the engine’s CPU limit, but at 4K Ultra, the 82 FPS is clearly GPU-limited. The CPU’s average benchmark score is within 1% of the Intel Core i5-14600K, a proven gaming CPU, so it feeds the RTX 4090 adequately.

Q: What settings should I use for a 144 Hz 1440p monitor?

A: Medium settings at 1440p deliver 232 FPS average with a 197 FPS minimum — far above 144 Hz. High settings at 164 FPS also stay above 144 Hz, so either works. Medium is recommended for maximum headroom, while High is fine if you prefer better visuals and still have 20 FPS of margin.

Q: Can this combo handle 4K gaming at 60 FPS?

A: Yes, easily. At 4K Medium, the average is 121 FPS with a minimum of 103 FPS, which is nearly double the 60 FPS target. Even 4K Ultra at 82 FPS average maintains a comfortable 22 FPS margin above 60 FPS, so you can run maximum settings without concern.

Q: How does this combo compare to using a cheaper CPU with the same RTX 4090?

A: The CPU’s nearest rivals (AMD Ryzen 7 PRO 5755G, Ryzen 9 7900, Intel Core i5-14600K) all score within 1% of the Ultra 5 245 in synthetic benchmarks. In practice, the FPS differences in this game would be minimal — likely less than 5% at any resolution. The Ultra 5 245’s 14 cores and 5.10 GHz boost are sufficient to avoid bottlenecking the GPU.

Q: Does the RTX 4090’s end-of-life status matter for this game?

A: The production status is end-of-life, meaning it’s no longer manufactured, but the measured FPS data shows it still performs excellently. The GPU’s 24 GB GDDR6X memory and 1.01 TB/s bandwidth are future-proof for simulation titles, and the 82 FPS at 4K Ultra demonstrates it can handle current demands without issue.

Q: Is the 65th place ranking out of 3,002 combos a good result?

A: Yes — this is in the top 2.2% of all tested combinations. The ranking means 64 combos perform better, but those almost certainly use higher-end CPUs (e.g., flagship 16+ core parts) paired with the same GPU. For the price of the Ultra 5 245, the performance is exceptional.

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

1920x1080 (1080p):

• Low: 462 FPS average
• Medium: 368 FPS average (min 313, max 423)
• High: 260 FPS average
• Ultra: 247 FPS average

2560x1440 (1440p):

• Low: 328 FPS average
• Medium: 232 FPS average (min 197, max 267)
• High: 164 FPS average
• Ultra: 156 FPS average

3840x2160 (4K):

• Low: 171 FPS average
• Medium: 121 FPS average (min 103, max 140)
• High: 86 FPS average
• Ultra: 82 FPS average

The data shows a consistent pattern: Low settings roughly double the FPS of High settings at each resolution. At 1080p, Low (462) is 1.78x High (260); at 1440p, Low (328) is 2.0x High (164); at 4K, Low (171) is 1.99x High (86). This suggests the game’s Low preset removes GPU-intensive effects that scale linearly with resolution. The Medium preset is the only one with min/max FPS data, and the min values (313 at 1080p, 197 at 1440p, 103 at 4K) show that frame time consistency is excellent — the worst-case dips are still above 100 FPS at 4K, which is a strong indicator of smooth gameplay. The gap between High and Ultra is consistently small (13 FPS at 1080p, 8 FPS at 1440p, 4 FPS at 4K), meaning Ultra is nearly free in performance terms — the visual upgrade may be subtle, but the FPS cost is minimal. For those seeking maximum frame rates, Low at 1080p (462 FPS) is the peak, but for a balance of visuals and speed, Medium at each resolution provides the best combination of high averages and safe minimums.