Pc Building Simulator

Pc Building Simulator is a simulation title that asks players to assemble and troubleshoot virtual PCs, and the data measures how the Intel Core Ultra 7 165H paired with the AMD Radeon 890M integrated graphics handles that workload. This combination ranks 2822nd out of 3002 tested combos in this specific game, placing it in the lower tier of systems evaluated, with benchmark results indicating a playable but not high-performance experience depending heavily on resolution and quality settings.

How This Combo Ranks

The combo’s position at 2822 out of 3002 tested configurations places it in the bottom 6% of all tested systems for Pc Building Simulator. That rank is a direct consequence of the GPU’s modest standing among all graphics processors—the AMD Radeon 890M sits at the 45th percentile versus all GPUs, with an average benchmark score of 9210. The CPU, by contrast, is far stronger relatively: the Intel Core Ultra 7 165H lands at the 84th percentile versus all CPUs, with an average benchmark score of 34083. The pairing of a high-percentile processor with a mid-range integrated GPU creates an imbalance where the graphics solution becomes the primary constraint in this simulation title.

Looking at the nearest rivals for the GPU clarifies the playing field. The Radeon 890M’s average score of 9210 is within 0.1% of the AMD Radeon Vega 8’s 9221—essentially a statistical tie. It trails the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 960 by 0.7% (9273) and the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 465 by 0.9% (9294), while sitting 1% behind the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 850M (9302). These deltas are all sub-1%, meaning the 890M performs nearly identically to those older discrete GPUs in aggregate benchmarks. For Pc Building Simulator specifically, that translates into frame rates that hover near playability thresholds at lower settings but fall short at higher presets.

On the CPU side, the Core Ultra 7 165H’s 34083 average score places it in close company with several rivals. It is 0.3% ahead of the Intel Core Ultra 5 338H (33989), 0.4% behind the AMD EPYC 4244P (34220), 0.4% behind the AMD Ryzen AI 7 350 (34222), and 0.5% behind the AMD Ryzen 7 3700X (34260). These differences are negligible in practice, suggesting the CPU delivers compute performance comparable to a range of desktop and mobile processors. In Pc Building Simulator, where the workload involves menu navigation, component selection, and 3D rendering of a virtual workspace, the CPU’s relative strength means it is rarely the bottleneck—the data shows frame rates scaling more with resolution and settings than with CPU-bound tasks.

GPU Role

The AMD Radeon 890M is an integrated graphics processor built on the RDNA 3.5 architecture, fabricated on a 4 nm process at TSMC. Its chip, codenamed Strix Point, contains 34,000 million transistors on a 233 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 145.9 million per square millimeter. The GPU operates with a base clock of 400 MHz and a boost clock of 2900 MHz, with a TDP of 15 W. Memory is system-shared, meaning the GPU draws from the host system’s RAM rather than dedicated VRAM—the memory size, type, and bus width are all listed as system shared, with bandwidth described as system dependent.

For Pc Building Simulator, the 890M’s specifications translate into measurable but limited performance. The GPU has 1024 shading units, 64 texture mapping units, and 32 raster operation units, along with 16 ray tracing cores. Its pixel rate is 92.80 GPixel/s, texture rate is 185.6 GTexel/s, and FP32 throughput is 5.939 TFLOPS (with FP16 at the same 5.939 TFLOPS, a 1:1 ratio). These figures place it in the range of entry-level discrete GPUs from several generations ago, as evidenced by its benchmark scores: 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 yields 590, Geekbench OpenCL scores 37254, and Geekbench Vulkan scores 40808. Passmark results show G3D at 8076 and GPU compute at 4157.

In this game, the GPU’s role is decisive. At 1080p Low, the combo reaches 111 FPS average, but at 4K Ultra, it falls to 17 FPS. The GPU’s 45th percentile standing among all GPUs aligns with these results—it is capable of smooth frame rates only when the rendering load is reduced. The integrated nature of the 890M means it shares power and thermal budget with the CPU, but the data does not isolate that effect; what is clear is that the GPU’s compute resources, while modest, are sufficient for Pc Building Simulator’s low-intensity scenes at lower settings.

Resolution Scaling

The measured FPS data reveals a steep performance drop as resolution increases, which is characteristic of a GPU-bound scenario. At High settings, the average frame rate falls from 55 FPS at 1920x1080 to 35 FPS at 2560x1440—a 36% reduction—and then to 18 FPS at 3840x2160, a further 49% drop from 1440p. This pattern indicates that the Radeon 890M is the limiting component; if the CPU were the bottleneck, resolution scaling would show much smaller frame rate differences.

Low settings tell a similar story with higher absolute numbers. At 1080p Low, the combo achieves 111 FPS average, which drops to 70 FPS at 1440p (a 37% decrease) and 37 FPS at 4K (a 47% decrease from 1440p). Medium settings show 79 FPS at 1080p, 50 FPS at 1440p, and 26 FPS at 4K—the same proportional decline. Ultra settings, the most demanding preset, yield 53 FPS at 1080p, 33 FPS at 1440p, and 17 FPS at 4K.

The consistency of these percentage drops across settings reinforces the conclusion that resolution is the dominant variable. Doubling the pixel count from 1080p to 4K (a 4x increase in pixels) roughly halves or thirds the frame rate at every preset. This is textbook GPU-bound behavior: the integrated GPU’s shading units, TMUs, and ROPs are saturated by the increased pixel workload, and the CPU’s compute headroom cannot compensate. For players targeting 4K, the data shows only Low settings approach playability at 37 FPS, and that is borderline. At 1440p, Medium settings deliver 50 FPS, which is acceptable for a simulation genre that does not demand twitch reflexes. At 1080p, even Ultra hits 53 FPS, making it the only resolution where the full quality range is usable.

Settings Recommendations

Based on the measured rows, the optimal balance of visual quality and frame rate depends on the target resolution. At 1920x1080, the Medium preset delivers 79 FPS average, with minimums of 67 FPS and maximums of 90 FPS—this is the sweet spot, offering smooth performance with only a modest visual step down from High (55 FPS). High at 1080p is still playable at 55 FPS, but the 24 FPS gap between Medium and High suggests diminishing returns from the extra quality settings. Ultra at 1080p drops to 53 FPS, nearly identical to High, so there is little reason to choose Ultra over High at this resolution unless the visual differences justify a 2 FPS loss.

At 2560x1440, the recommendation shifts to Low settings, which produce 70 FPS average. Medium at 1440p yields 50 FPS (minimum 42, maximum 57), which is playable but noticeably less smooth. High drops to 35 FPS, and Ultra to 33 FPS—both below the threshold for comfortable gameplay in a simulation where menu interactions and 3D camera movement need responsiveness. The data indicates that 1440p Low is the best experience: it maintains a 70 FPS average while avoiding the sub-60 FPS territory of Medium and above.

At 3840x2160, only Low settings approach playability at 37 FPS average. Medium falls to 26 FPS (minimum 22, maximum 30), High to 18 FPS, and Ultra to 17 FPS. None of these higher presets provide a smooth experience; even Low at 4K is marginal. For players with 4K displays, the data strongly suggests dropping to 1440p or 1080p for a better frame rate, or accepting Low settings at 4K with the understanding that motion will not be fluid. Across all resolutions, the pattern is clear: Medium is the highest preset that consistently stays above 60 FPS, and only at 1080p.

Measured FPS Breakdown

The full dataset provides exact numbers for every resolution and settings combination tested. At 1920x1080, Low settings achieve 111 FPS average, the highest recorded value in the entire set. Medium at 1080p averages 79 FPS, with a minimum of 67 FPS and a maximum of 90 FPS—these are the only measured minimum and maximum values provided, indicating a stable frame time distribution. High at 1080p averages 55 FPS, while Ultra averages 53 FPS, a surprisingly small 2 FPS difference that suggests the Ultra preset adds little over High for this game’s rendering workload.

Moving to 2560x1440, Low settings average 70 FPS, a 41 FPS drop from 1080p Low. Medium at 1440p averages 50 FPS, with minimum 42 FPS and maximum 57 FPS, maintaining the same 8 FPS spread between min and max as the 1080p Medium result. High at 1440p averages 35 FPS, and Ultra averages 33 FPS—again, a narrow 2 FPS gap between High and Ultra, mirroring the 1080p pattern. The consistency of this High-to-Ultra delta across resolutions suggests the Ultra preset’s additional settings have minimal impact on the GPU load.

At 3840x2160, the numbers become marginal for playability. Low settings average 37 FPS, which is the only 4K result above 30 FPS. Medium averages 26 FPS, with minimum 22 FPS and maximum 30 FPS—the maximum barely touches 30 FPS, meaning even the best-case frame times are not smooth. High averages 18 FPS, and Ultra averages 17 FPS, both firmly in slideshow territory. The drop from Low to Medium at 4K is 11 FPS (37 to 26), while from Medium to High is 8 FPS (26 to 18), and from High to Ultra is just 1 FPS (18 to 17). This diminishing impact at higher settings indicates the GPU is already saturated at Medium 4K.

The scaling between resolutions at a fixed setting shows the GPU’s limits clearly. For Low settings, 1080p yields 111 FPS, 1440p yields 70 FPS (63% of 1080p), and 4K yields 37 FPS (53% of 1440p). For Medium, the progression is 79 to 50 to 26 FPS. For High, it is 55 to 35 to 18 FPS. For Ultra, it is 53 to 33 to 17 FPS. In every case, the 1440p-to-4K drop is proportionally larger than the 1080p-to-1440p drop, consistent with the 4K resolution quadrupling the pixel count relative to 1080p while the GPU’s rendering resources remain constant.

CPU Role

The Intel Core Ultra 7 165H is a 16-core, 22-thread mobile processor from the Core Ultra Series 1, built on Intel’s Meteor Lake architecture using a 7 nm process. Its base clock is 3.80 GHz with a boost clock of 5.00 GHz, and it carries a TDP of 28 W. The CPU supports DDR5 memory (dependent on motherboard), dual-channel memory bus, and has a memory bandwidth of 89.6 GB/s. Cache is organized as 112 KB L1 per core, 2 MB L2 per core, and 24 MB shared L3. The processor integrates Arc Xe-LPG 128EU graphics, which is separate from the discrete AMD Radeon 890M used in this combo’s testing. It has PCIe Gen 5 with 8 lanes (CPU only), and its launch MSRP is $460.

In Pc Building Simulator, the CPU’s role is secondary to the GPU based on the frame rate data. The processor’s benchmark results show strong compute capability: Cinebench R15 multicore scores 2641 and singlecore 257; R20 multicore scores 9233 and singlecore 1303; R23 multicore scores 14551 and singlecore 1759. Passmark results include multithread at 25933, single thread at 3509, integer math at 89415, floating point math at 66273, and data compression at 291161. These scores place the CPU at the 84th percentile versus all CPUs, indicating it outperforms the majority of processors on the market.

The CPU’s nearest rivals reinforce its standing. It is 0.3% ahead of the Intel Core Ultra 5 338H (average score 33989) and 0.4% behind the AMD EPYC 4244P (34220), the AMD Ryzen AI 7 350 (34222), and the AMD Ryzen 7 3700X (34260). These sub-1% deltas mean the 165H is effectively on par with those processors in aggregate benchmarks. For Pc Building Simulator, which is a simulation title that involves physics calculations for component placement and system boot sequences, the CPU’s 16 cores and 22 threads provide ample headroom—the frame rate scaling with resolution confirms that the CPU is not the limiting factor.

The evidence for CPU headroom lies in the resolution scaling data. If the CPU were the bottleneck, lowering resolution would not increase frame rates significantly because the CPU would still be processing the same game logic. But the data shows 1080p Low at 111 FPS versus 4K Low at 37 FPS—a threefold increase from resolution reduction alone. This indicates the GPU is the constraining component across all settings. The CPU’s high percentile ranking and strong Cinebench and Passmark scores support this interpretation: it has more than enough compute to feed the Radeon 890M’s modest rendering throughput. In practical terms, players using this combo should focus their settings adjustments on resolution and graphics quality rather than CPU-related options, as the processor is unlikely to be the source of frame rate drops in this title.