Pc Building Simulator

# Pc Building Simulator with Intel Core Ultra 7 265 + NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650

Pc Building Simulator places unusual demands on a system, mixing menu-driven CPU logic with real-time 3D renders of components and workspaces. This particular pairing — a flagship 20-core desktop processor from 2025 alongside a 2019 entry-level GPU — creates a stark performance imbalance. The data shows a combo ranking of 2904 out of 3002 tested system combinations, placing it in the bottom 3% of configurations. The benchmark results consistently show the GPU as the limiting factor across every resolution and settings preset, with CPU headroom that goes largely unused.

FAQ

Q: How does this combo rank in Pc Building Simulator?

A: The combination ranks 2904 out of 3002 tested combos, placing it near the very bottom of the database. This low ranking reflects the GPU's 40th percentile standing among all GPUs, which bottlenecks the system despite the CPU's 93rd percentile performance.

Q: What is the GPU's memory configuration and how does it affect gameplay?

A: The GTX 1650 comes with 4 GB of GDDR5 memory on a 128-bit bus, delivering 128.1 GB/s of bandwidth. The GPU operates at a base clock of 1485 MHz and a boost clock of 1665 MHz. In this game, the 4 GB capacity proves adequate for the measured settings, but the memory bandwidth limits performance at higher resolutions.

Q: What CPU is paired with this GPU, and what are its core specifications?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 7 265 is a 20-core, 20-thread processor based on Arrow Lake architecture, built on a 3 nm TSMC process. It runs at a 2.40 GHz base clock with a 5.30 GHz boost clock, and includes 30 MB of shared L3 cache. The CPU scores 42216 in Cinebench R23 multi-core and 5960 in single-core tests.

Q: What is the best measured performance this combo achieves?

A: The highest average FPS recorded is 107 at 1920x1080 with Low settings. At 2560x1440 Low, the average drops to 68 FPS, while at 3840x2160 Low, it falls to 35 FPS. Ultra settings yield 51 FPS at 1080p, 32 FPS at 1440p, and 17 FPS at 4K.

Q: How does the GPU compare to its nearest rivals in benchmark scores?

A: The GTX 1650 has an average benchmark score of 7472, sitting 0.3% ahead of the AMD Radeon HD 8850M and 0.4% ahead of the Intel UHD Graphics 750. It trails the Intel Arc A310 by 1% and the AMD Radeon R7 350 by 0.6%. These margins are extremely tight, indicating the GTX 1650 performs within a narrow band of similar-class hardware.

Q: Is the CPU's performance being fully utilized in this game?

A: The data suggests not. The CPU's nearest rival is the AMD EPYC 4464P, which scores 64823 on average versus 64640 for the Core Ultra 7 265, a negligible 0.3% difference. With such massive CPU headroom and the GPU ranking in the 40th percentile, the measured FPS figures reflect GPU-bound scenarios.

How This Combo Ranks

The combo rank of 2904 out of 3002 tested configurations tells a clear story: this is a severely unbalanced pairing for Pc Building Simulator. Only 98 tested combos perform worse. The CPU alone sits in the 93rd percentile among all processors, while the GPU languishes in the 40th percentile. That gap — a 53-point percentile spread — creates a bottleneck that dominates every benchmark result.

Looking at the CPU's benchmark position reinforces this imbalance. The Core Ultra 7 265 achieves an average benchmark score of 64640, which places it 0.3% below the AMD EPYC 4464P and 0.7% below the AMD EPYC 9124, but 0.3% above the Intel Core Ultra 7 265F and 0.7% above the AMD EPYC 7343. These rival comparisons show the CPU operating at the top of its class, yet the system's overall rank reflects the GPU's much weaker standing.

The GPU's nearest rivals include integrated graphics solutions like the Intel UHD Graphics 750, which trails by only 0.4%. That proximity to integrated graphics is telling: the GTX 1650 sits just barely above what many CPUs can do on their own. In Pc Building Simulator, where the 3D component viewer and workspace rendering are modest, this GPU class is the limiting factor. The combo's low rank is therefore not a reflection of poor individual components, but of a fundamental mismatch between CPU capability and GPU throughput.

GPU Role

The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 is the decisive component in this pairing. With 4 GB of GDDR5 memory, a 128-bit memory bus, and 128.1 GB/s of bandwidth, the GPU has just enough resources for 1080p gaming in this title. The memory clock runs at 2001 MHz, translating to 8 Gbps effective, while the GPU core operates between 1485 MHz base and 1665 MHz boost. These figures place the GTX 1650 at the 40th percentile of all GPUs, an entry-level position.

The GPU's compute specifications are modest: 896 shading units, 56 texture mapping units, and 32 ROPs. Its FP32 performance is 2.984 TFLOPS, with a texture rate of 93.24 GTexel/s and a pixel rate of 53.28 GPixel/s. The card draws 75 W TDP and requires no external power connectors, with a suggested PSU of 250 W. It uses a PCIe 3.0 x16 interface and supports DirectX 12 (12_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4.

Benchmark results for the GPU show a Passmark G3D score of 7880, with specific API tests scoring 58 in DirectX 11, 39 in DirectX 10, 35 in DirectX 12, and 124 in DirectX 9. The Geekbench OpenCL score is 29629, and the Vulkan score is 33042. The 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 score is 305. These numbers place the GTX 1650 in a tight cluster with its nearest rivals: 0.3% ahead of the AMD Radeon HD 8850M, 0.4% ahead of the Intel UHD Graphics 750, 0.6% ahead of the AMD Radeon R7 350, and 1% behind the Intel Arc A310.

In Pc Building Simulator, the GPU's 4 GB memory capacity does not appear to cause a hard ceiling, as the game's assets are not demanding. The bottleneck appears instead in raw throughput: the measured FPS scales consistently with resolution, showing a pattern typical of GPU-bound workloads. The 128.1 GB/s bandwidth is the likely constraint, as higher resolutions demand more memory traffic per frame.

Measured FPS Breakdown

The measured FPS data provides a complete picture of performance across three resolutions and four settings levels. At 1920x1080, the combo delivers playable frame rates: 107 FPS average on Low, 76 FPS on Medium with a range of 65 to 88 FPS, 54 FPS on High, and 51 FPS on Ultra. The drop from Low to Ultra is a 52% reduction, from 107 to 51 FPS, showing the GPU's sensitivity to settings changes.

At 2560x1440, performance takes a significant step down. Low settings yield 68 FPS average, Medium drops to 48 FPS with a 41 to 55 FPS range, High produces 34 FPS, and Ultra falls to 32 FPS. The gap between Low and Ultra at this resolution is 53%, nearly identical to the 1080p scaling. However, the absolute numbers are much lower: 68 FPS at 1440p Low versus 107 FPS at 1080p Low, a 36% reduction.

The 3840x2160 results are largely unplayable. Low settings achieve 35 FPS average, Medium drops to 25 FPS with a 21 to 29 FPS range, High falls to 18 FPS, and Ultra bottoms out at 17 FPS. The scaling from 1080p Low to 4K Low is stark: 107 to 35 FPS, a 67% reduction. At Ultra settings, the drop is from 51 FPS at 1080p to 17 FPS at 4K, a 67% reduction as well.

The only rows with min/max data are Medium settings across all three resolutions. At 1080p Medium, the range is 65 to 88 FPS, a 23 FPS spread. At 1440p Medium, the range tightens to 41 to 55 FPS, a 14 FPS spread. At 4K Medium, the range is 21 to 29 FPS, an 8 FPS spread. This narrowing range at higher resolutions suggests the GPU becomes more consistently saturated as resolution increases, leaving less variance in frame times.

CPU Role

The Intel Core Ultra 7 265 is a 20-core, 20-thread processor from the Core Ultra Series 2, based on Arrow Lake architecture fabricated on TSMC's 3 nm process. It runs at a 2.40 GHz base clock, boosts to 5.30 GHz, and carries 30 MB of shared L3 cache along with 192 KB of L1 and 3 MB of L2 per core. The CPU supports DDR5 memory in dual-channel configuration, providing 102.4 GB/s of memory bandwidth, and connects via PCIe Gen 5 with 20 CPU lanes.

The CPU's benchmark scores are exceptional. Cinebench R23 multi-core yields 42216, while single-core scores 5960. Cinebench R20 shows 6268 multi-core and 884 single-core, and R15 shows 4255 and 600. Passmark results include a multithread score of 49682, single-thread of 4689, and a physics score of 2923. The CPU's average benchmark score is 64640, placing it at the 93rd percentile of all CPUs.

Against its nearest rivals, the Core Ultra 7 265 is essentially tied with the AMD EPYC 4464P, which scores 64823, a 0.3% difference. It also sits 0.3% above the Intel Core Ultra 7 265F (64438), 0.7% above the AMD EPYC 7343 (64202), and 0.7% below the AMD EPYC 9124 (65104). These rivals are all server-class chips, highlighting the Core Ultra 7 265's positioning at the top of consumer desktop performance.

In Pc Building Simulator, this CPU power is largely irrelevant to the measured results. The game's simulation and menu logic are not heavily threaded, and the 3D rendering workload is GPU-bound. The FPS differences between settings presets at any given resolution are entirely attributable to GPU workload changes. The CPU's 20 cores and 5.30 GHz boost clock provide enormous headroom that the GTX 1650 cannot utilize; the data shows no scenario where CPU performance becomes a limiting factor.

The CPU's integrated Arc Xe-LPG Graphics 32EU is present but unused in this configuration. The 65 W TDP and $394 launch MSRP position this as a mainstream-to-performance desktop chip, but its pairing with a 75 W GPU creates an extreme imbalance where the CPU sits idle waiting for the GPU to catch up.

Settings Recommendations

The measured FPS data provides clear guidance on which settings presets offer the best experience. At 1920x1080, the most common resolution, Low settings deliver 107 FPS average, which is well above the 60 FPS threshold for smooth gameplay. However, Medium settings at 76 FPS average, with a 65 to 88 FPS range, provide a significantly better visual experience while maintaining frame rates above 60 FPS. The jump from Low to Medium costs 31 FPS but likely improves visual fidelity substantially. High settings at 54 FPS and Ultra at 51 FPS fall below the 60 FPS mark, making them less ideal for fluid interaction.

At 2560x1440, the recommendation shifts. Low settings produce 68 FPS average, which is playable but not comfortable. Medium settings drop to 48 FPS average, with a 41 to 55 FPS range, which is borderline for this simulation-style game. High settings at 34 FPS and Ultra at 32 FPS are too low for a responsive experience, particularly when navigating the 3D workspace. For 1440p, Low is the only preset that stays above 60 FPS, making it the practical choice despite the visual compromise.

The 3840x2160 results offer no playable options. Low settings at 35 FPS, Medium at 25 FPS, High at 18 FPS, and Ultra at 17 FPS are all below acceptable thresholds. Even the best 4K result, 35 FPS on Low, would feel sluggish for interactive work. Users with 4K displays should consider running the game at a lower resolution instead.

The best overall experience per the measured rows is 1920x1080 with Medium settings. This preset delivers 76 FPS average, which comfortably exceeds 60 FPS, while providing better visual quality than Low. The 65 FPS minimum ensures that even demanding scenes stay above playable thresholds. For users prioritizing maximum visual quality, High at 54 FPS is a viable alternative, but the 22 FPS drop from Medium represents a significant smoothness penalty. Ultra at 51 FPS offers no meaningful advantage over High, making it the least efficient choice. The data clearly shows Medium at 1080p as the sweet spot for this combo.