Pc Building Simulator

Pc Building Simulator, a simulation title focused on assembling and testing virtual hardware, presents a unique challenge for the Intel Core Ultra 7 165H and AMD Radeon 760M combination. The measured data reveals a system that is heavily constrained by its integrated graphics, resulting in a performance profile that is only suitable for the lowest graphical settings at mainstream resolutions. The benchmark results indicate a fundamental imbalance, where a capable 16-core processor is paired with an iGPU that severely limits the overall gaming experience.

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

The Intel Core Ultra 7 165H is a 16-core, 22-thread mobile processor based on the Meteor Lake architecture, built on Intel's 7 nm process node. It operates with a base clock of 3.80 GHz and a boost clock of 5.00 GHz, with a TDP of 28 W. This configuration provides substantial multi-threaded performance, as evidenced by its Cinebench R23 multicore score of 14551 and a Passmark multithread score of 25933. The processor sits in the 84th percentile of all CPUs, indicating strong computational power, and its average benchmark score of 34083 places it in close competition with the AMD Ryzen 7 3700X, which trails by a mere 0.5%.

In the context of Pc Building Simulator, the CPU's role is significant for simulating the system's logical operations, but the game's frame rate is not determined by this processor. The data shows that even with a substantial 16-core CPU, the game's performance is dictated by the graphics solution. The 24 MB of shared L3 cache and the dual-channel memory bandwidth of 89.6 GB/s provide a solid foundation for system tasks, but these resources do not translate into high frame rates when the integrated GPU is the bottleneck. The processor's high single-core score of 1759 in Cinebench R23 would be an asset for simulation logic, but the measured FPS across all settings and resolutions shows that the CPU is rarely the limiting factor.

The benchmark results indicate that the CPU is more than capable of feeding the iGPU with data. The gap between the Low and Ultra settings at 1080p is 41 FPS (from 77 to 36), which is a direct result of the GPU's workload, not a CPU limitation. The processor's performance, relative to its rivals like the Intel Core Ultra 5 338H (which it beats by 0.3%), is irrelevant to the final frame rate in this specific game. The CPU's job is to run the simulation and issue draw calls, and the data confirms it does so without creating a bottleneck, as the FPS scales with graphical demands rather than remaining flat due to CPU constraints.

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

The AMD Radeon 760M is an integrated graphics processor (IGP) based on the RDNA 3.0 architecture, built on a 4 nm process node by TSMC. It features 512 shading units, 32 TMUs, and 16 ROPs, with a boost clock of 2599 MHz. Its memory is "System Shared," meaning it relies on the system's RAM for both capacity and bandwidth, which is described as "System Dependent." This is a critical limitation for gaming performance. The GPU's compute power is 5.323 TFLOPS, but its performance percentile is low, sitting at just the 35th percentile of all GPUs.

The Radeon 760M's benchmark scores reveal its modest capability. Its Passmark G3D score is 5310, which puts it in a dead heat with the discrete NVIDIA GeForce GTX 770M (0.3% difference) and AMD Radeon RX 6400 (0.3% difference). This places its performance level at that of an older entry-level discrete graphics card, which is insufficient for modern gaming at high settings. In Pc Building Simulator, the GPU is the primary driver of frame rate. The measured data shows a clear correlation: as the graphical settings increase, the FPS drops significantly at all resolutions, confirming that the 760M is the sole determinant of performance.

The lack of dedicated VRAM means the GPU must contend with the CPU for memory bandwidth, which is a major handicap. The benchmark results show that the GPU is overwhelmed by even Medium settings at 1080p, yielding an average of 54 FPS. At Ultra settings, the average drops to 36 FPS, indicating that the 760M's 16 ROPs and limited memory subsystem are unable to handle the increased pixel and texture workload. The GPU's role is to render the simulation's visuals, and the data shows it can only do so acceptably at the lowest settings.

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

The resolution scaling data provides a clear picture of the system's bottleneck. At Low settings, the average frame rate drops from 77 FPS at 1080p to 48 FPS at 1440p, a 37.7% decrease, and further to 25 FPS at 4K, a 67.5% decrease from the 1080p baseline. This substantial drop with increasing resolution is a classic symptom of a GPU-limited system. The CPU's workload does not scale with resolution, but the GPU's does, and the Radeon 760M is quickly overwhelmed.

This pattern is consistent across all settings. At High settings, the FPS drops from 38 at 1080p to 24 at 1440p to 13 at 4K. The scaling from 1440p to 4K at High settings shows a 45.8% performance loss, which is more severe than the 36.8% loss from 1080p to 1440p. This indicates that the GPU's memory bandwidth and compute resources are being exhausted at higher resolutions. The data suggests that the system is not balanced; the CPU has ample headroom, but the GPU is the limiting component, causing a significant performance penalty as the pixel count increases.

The frame pacing data for Medium settings shows a similar trend, with the minimum FPS at 1080p being 46 and the maximum being 62. At 1440p, the minimum drops to 29 and the maximum to 39. The average FPS at 4K for Medium settings is 18, which is unplayable. These numbers confirm that the iGPU's performance scales inversely with resolution, and the system's capability is firmly anchored to its graphics solution. For a playable experience, the resolution must be kept at 1080p, and even then, only at the lowest settings.

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

Based on the measured data, the only viable configuration for a smooth experience is 1080p with Low settings. This preset yields an average of 77 FPS, which is the only measured setting to break the 60 FPS threshold. This is the recommended setting for a playable experience. The 1080p Medium preset provides an average of 54 FPS, which is playable but not ideal for fast-paced action, and its minimum of 46 FPS suggests occasional dips that could be noticeable. The data shows that all other settings and resolutions result in average frame rates below 50 FPS.

At 1440p, the best option is Low settings, which yields an average of 48 FPS. This is borderline playable, but the 1080p Low setting offers a significantly better experience with a 60% higher frame rate. The 4K resolution is not recommended, as even the Low preset only achieves an average of 25 FPS, which is well below the threshold for smooth gameplay. The Medium preset at 4K yields an average of 18 FPS, and the High and Ultra presets drop to 13 and 12 FPS, respectively, making them effectively static images.

The data indicates that the "best experience" is a trade-off between visual fidelity and playability. The High settings at 1080p (38 FPS) and 1440p (24 FPS) are not smooth enough for a satisfying experience. Therefore, the recommendation is to prioritize frame rate over visual details. The 1080p Low preset is the clear winner, offering a playable frame rate that is more than double the 4K Ultra setting (12 FPS). The system is simply not powerful enough to handle higher presets, and users should stick to the lowest settings to achieve a reasonable performance level.

How This Combo Ranks — use comboRankInGame vs other tested combos

This specific combination of the Intel Core Ultra 7 165H and AMD Radeon 760M ranks at position 2992 out of 3002 tested combos in Pc Building Simulator. This places it in the bottom 0.3% of all tested systems, indicating that it is one of the least capable configurations for this game. The ranking is a direct reflection of the GPU's performance, as the CPU's high percentile (84th) is negated by the GPU's low percentile (35th).

The combo's rank of 2992 is a severe indictment of its gaming capability. Out of 3002 combos, only 10 are slower. This means that almost every other processor and graphics card pairing tested will provide a better frame rate in this game. The data shows that the CPU's strength does not compensate for the GPU's weakness. The system is effectively a productivity machine with a gaming afterthought, and its ranking in this benchmark reflects that reality.

The poor ranking is not a surprise given the measured FPS data. With a maximum average of 77 FPS at 1080p Low, the system is outperformed by most discrete GPUs from the past several generations. The combination of a high-end mobile CPU and a low-end integrated GPU is a mismatch for gaming, and the benchmark results confirm this. The rank of 2992 serves as a stark warning to any user considering this configuration for a gaming workload, as the data indicates it will deliver a subpar experience in this title.

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

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

3840x2160 (4K)

• Ultra: The average frame rate is 12 FPS. This is the lowest recorded score and is unplayable.
• High: The average frame rate is 13 FPS, which is marginally better than Ultra but still far too low for any practical use.
• Medium: The average frame rate is 18 FPS, with a minimum of 15 FPS and a maximum of 21 FPS. This setting shows some variance but remains well below the playable threshold.
• Low: The average frame rate is 25 FPS. This is the best result at 4K, but it is still below 30 FPS, indicating a stuttery and unpleasant experience.

2560x1440 (1440p)

• Ultra: The average frame rate is 23 FPS, which is a slight improvement over 4K but still unplayable.
• High: The average frame rate is 24 FPS, which is nearly identical to the Ultra setting and remains too low for smooth gameplay.
• Medium: The average frame rate is 34 FPS, with a minimum of 29 FPS and a maximum of 39 FPS. This is a playable range for some, but the dips below 30 FPS are concerning.
• Low: The average frame rate is 48 FPS. This is the only playable setting at 1440p, offering a moderate level of performance.

1920x1080 (1080p)

• Ultra: The average frame rate is 36 FPS. This is playable but not smooth, and the demanding nature of the setting will likely cause noticeable stutters.
• High: The average frame rate is 38 FPS, which is a marginal improvement over Ultra and remains in the same playable-but-not-ideal category.
• Medium: The average frame rate is 54 FPS, with a minimum of 46 FPS and a maximum of 62 FPS. This is a good balance of visual quality and performance, providing a mostly smooth experience.
• Low: The average frame rate is 77 FPS. This is the only setting that provides a consistently smooth and responsive experience, making it the definitive choice for this system.

The data unequivocally shows that the system's performance degrades rapidly with increased resolution and settings. The 1080p Low setting is the only configuration that delivers a frame rate above 60 FPS, and all other options fall below this standard, making them less desirable for a fluid gaming experience.