Pc Building Simulator

Pc Building Simulator is a simulation title where the benchmark data shows the Intel Core Ultra 7 265 and NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4090 combination delivering exceptional frame rates across all tested configurations. The measured results indicate that this pairing is overwhelmingly GPU-bound at lower resolutions, with the CPU's 20-core and 20-thread configuration proving more than sufficient to feed the RTX 4090's massive rendering capabilities. The data reveals a clear hierarchy where the Ultra preset provides the most visually demanding experience at 82 FPS in 4K, while the Low preset at 1080p reaches 473 FPS, demonstrating the enormous performance headroom available with this hardware combination.

The measured FPS data shows that this system ranks 60th out of 3002 total combinations tested in this game, placing it in the top 2% of all possible configurations. The CPU achieves a 93rd percentile ranking among all processors, while the GPU sits at an 88th percentile among all graphics cards, indicating that both components are high-performing but the processor is relatively stronger in its respective field. The combination of a 3 nm Arrow Lake-S processor with a 5 nm Ada Lovelace GPU creates a balanced platform that excels in this simulation genre, where CPU physics calculations and GPU rendering workloads both play significant roles.

Settings Recommendations

The benchmark data provides clear guidance on which preset delivers the optimal balance of visual fidelity and performance for this hardware combination. At 4K resolution, the Medium preset emerges as the recommended choice, delivering 121 FPS average with a minimum of 103 FPS and a maximum of 140 FPS. This represents a 39 FPS improvement over Ultra settings while maintaining the minimum frame rate above 100 FPS, which is crucial for smooth gameplay in a simulation title where consistent frame delivery matters more than raw maximums.

For users prioritizing maximum visual quality, the Ultra preset at 4K produces 82 FPS average, which remains playable but dips below the 100 FPS threshold that many simulation enthusiasts prefer. The High preset at 4K delivers 86 FPS, only 4 FPS higher than Ultra, making it a marginal improvement that does not justify the visual quality loss. The Low preset at 4K reaches 171 FPS, but this configuration sacrifices significant visual fidelity for a frame rate increase that most users would not notice on standard 60Hz displays.

At 1440p resolution, the Medium preset again provides the best experience with 232 FPS average, minimum 197 FPS, and maximum 267 FPS. This configuration maintains frame rates well above the refresh rates of even the most demanding 1440p gaming monitors. The Ultra preset at 1440p delivers 156 FPS, which remains excellent for high-refresh displays, while High at 164 FPS shows that the gap between these two settings is minimal at this resolution. The Low preset at 328 FPS is overkill for virtually any display available.

The 1080p resolution data shows that all presets exceed 247 FPS, with Medium at 368 FPS, High at 260 FPS, and Low at 473 FPS. At this resolution, the Ultra preset at 247 FPS remains the recommended choice for users with high-refresh 1080p monitors, as it provides the best visual quality while still exceeding the refresh rate capabilities of all but the most extreme gaming displays. The Medium preset at 368 FPS offers headroom for users with 360Hz monitors, but the visual quality trade-off is significant.

GPU Role

The NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4090 serves as the primary rendering engine in this configuration, and the benchmark data shows its capabilities scaling directly with resolution demands. The GPU features 24 GB of GDDR6X memory on a 384-bit bus, providing 1.01 TB/s of bandwidth that proves essential for handling the texture and geometry loads in Pc Building Simulator's detailed component models. The memory operates at 1313 MHz with 21 Gbps effective speed, and the GPU's base clock of 2235 MHz boosts to 2520 MHz under load.

The RTX 4090's compute capabilities are substantial, with 16384 shading units, 512 TMUs, and 176 ROPs driving the rendering pipeline. The 128 RT cores and 512 tensor cores provide hardware acceleration for ray-traced effects and DLSS processing, though the benchmark data does not specifically isolate these workloads. The GPU's FP32 performance of 82.58 TFLOPS and texture rate of 1,290.2 GTexel/s indicate that raw rasterization performance is the primary strength, which aligns with the simulation genre's emphasis on detailed 3D component rendering.

The measured FPS data demonstrates the GPU's performance scaling across resolutions. At 4K Ultra, the RTX 4090 produces 82 FPS, while at 1080p Ultra it reaches 247 FPS, representing a threefold increase in frame rate when resolution drops by a factor of four. This scaling pattern indicates that the GPU is the limiting component at higher resolutions, as the CPU's performance headroom becomes less relevant when pixel count increases. The GPU's 88th percentile ranking among all graphics cards, with an average benchmark score of 60347, places it near the AMD Radeon Pro W6600M with a -2.5% delta and the Intel Arc Pro A60 with a 0% delta.

The RTX 4090's launch MSRP is 1,599 USD, and its production status is listed as end-of-life, with the GeForce 50 series as its successor. The GPU's predecessor is the GeForce 30 series, and its power requirements include a 450 W TDP with a suggested 850 W PSU, though these figures are not directly reflected in the gaming benchmark results. The triple-slot cooler and 304 mm length indicate a physically large card that requires substantial case clearance, but the measured performance justifies the size for users seeking maximum frame rates in simulation titles.

CPU Role

The Intel Core Ultra 7 265 processor provides the computational foundation for this system, and its 20 cores and 20 threads are directly relevant to Pc Building Simulator's simulation workloads. The CPU operates at a base clock of 2.40 GHz with a boost clock of 5.30 GHz, and its Arrow Lake-S architecture on a 3 nm TSMC process node houses 17,800 million transistors on a 243 mm² die. The processor's cache hierarchy includes 192 KB L1 per core, 3 MB L2 per core, and 30 MB shared L3, which supports the rapid data access required for physics calculations and component interaction simulations.

The CPU's benchmark results show strong multi-threaded performance, with a Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 42216 and a single-core score of 5960. The PassMark multi-thread score of 49682 and single-thread score of 4689 further confirm the processor's balanced capabilities. The data compression score of 522983 and floating-point math score of 172776 indicate that the CPU excels at the type of mathematical computations that simulation games frequently require. The processor achieves a 93rd percentile ranking among all CPUs, with an average benchmark score of 64640.

The CPU's nearest rivals demonstrate its competitive positioning. The AMD EPYC 4464P scores 64823, representing a -0.3% delta, while the Intel Core Ultra 7 265F scores 64438 at 0.3% delta. The AMD EPYC 7343 at 64202 shows a 0.7% delta, and the AMD EPYC 9124 at 65104 shows a -0.7% delta. These comparisons indicate that the Ultra 7 265 sits in a tightly contested performance band where differences between processors are minimal, but the data shows that the CPU is more than capable of supporting the RTX 4090 in this game.

The CPU's memory support includes DDR5 with dual-channel configuration and 102.4 GB/s bandwidth, which provides sufficient data throughput for the simulation's memory-intensive workloads. The processor supports PCIe Gen 5 with 20 lanes from the CPU, and its integrated Arc Xe-LPG Graphics 32EU provides basic display output capabilities, though the discrete RTX 4090 handles all gaming rendering. The 65 W TDP reflects the processor's efficiency, and its launch MSRP of $394 positions it as a mid-range offering in Intel's Core Ultra Series 2 lineup.

FAQ

Q: What is the best resolution and settings combination for this hardware in Pc Building Simulator?

A: The data shows that 4K Medium provides the best balance, delivering 121 FPS average with a 103 FPS minimum. This configuration offers 39 FPS more than Ultra settings while maintaining frame rates above 100 FPS, which is ideal for smooth simulation gameplay.

Q: How does the CPU compare to its nearest rivals in terms of overall benchmark performance?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 7 265 scores 64640 on average, placing it within 0.7% of the AMD EPYC 7343 and within 0.3% of the Intel Core Ultra 7 265F. The AMD EPYC 9124 is 0.7% faster, while the AMD EPYC 4464P is 0.3% faster.

Q: Does the RTX 4090 become the limiting factor at higher resolutions?

A: Yes, the data shows that at 1080p Ultra the system achieves 247 FPS, while at 4K Ultra it drops to 82 FPS, a 67% reduction. This performance scaling pattern indicates that the GPU is the primary bottleneck as pixel count increases.

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

A: At 1440p, Low settings produce 328 FPS while Ultra produces 156 FPS, representing a 172 FPS difference. The Medium preset at 232 FPS offers the best compromise between visual quality and frame rate.

Q: How does this system rank among all tested combinations for this game?

A: The combination ranks 60th out of 3002 total combinations, placing it in the top 2% of all tested configurations. This ranking reflects both the CPU's 93rd percentile and GPU's 88th percentile performance among their respective components.

Q: What minimum frame rates can be expected at 4K Medium settings?

A: The data shows a minimum of 103 FPS at 4K Medium, with an average of 121 FPS and a maximum of 140 FPS. This minimum frame rate ensures consistent performance without significant drops during intensive simulation sequences.

Resolution Scaling

The measured FPS data reveals distinct scaling patterns across the three tested resolutions, providing insight into which component limits performance at each setting level. At Ultra settings, the frame rate drops from 247 FPS at 1080p to 156 FPS at 1440p and finally 82 FPS at 4K. This represents a 37% reduction from 1080p to 1440p and a 47% reduction from 1440p to 4K, demonstrating accelerating performance degradation as resolution increases.

The Medium settings show similar scaling behavior, with 368 FPS at 1080p dropping to 232 FPS at 1440p (37% reduction) and then 121 FPS at 4K (48% reduction). The Low settings follow the same pattern, with 473 FPS at 1080p, 328 FPS at 1440p (31% reduction), and 171 FPS at 4K (48% reduction). High settings show 260 FPS at 1080p, 164 FPS at 1440p (37% reduction), and 86 FPS at 4K (48% reduction).

The consistent ~37% reduction from 1080p to 1440p and ~48% reduction from 1440p to 4K across all settings indicates that the GPU is the primary limiting component at higher resolutions. The CPU's performance headroom is demonstrated by the fact that at 1080p, even the most demanding Ultra settings achieve 247 FPS, which is well above the refresh rates of typical monitors. The GPU's pixel rate of 443.5 GPixel/s and texture rate of 1,290.2 GTexel/s provide the rendering bandwidth necessary for these high frame rates, but the demands of 4K resolution eventually overwhelm the GPU's capabilities.

The resolution scaling data also reveals that the CPU becomes less relevant as resolution increases. At 1080p, the difference between Low and Ultra settings is 226 FPS (473 vs 247), while at 4K, this difference shrinks to 89 FPS (171 vs 82). This compression of the settings range at higher resolutions confirms that GPU rendering becomes the dominant bottleneck, while at 1080p, the CPU's ability to feed the GPU becomes more critical.

Measured FPS Breakdown

The complete measured FPS dataset for this combination provides a comprehensive view of performance across all tested configurations. At 3840x2160 resolution, the Ultra preset delivers 82 FPS average, the High preset achieves 86 FPS, the Medium preset produces 121 FPS with a minimum of 103 FPS and maximum of 140 FPS, and the Low preset reaches 171 FPS. These four data points show a clear progression where reducing visual quality yields significant frame rate improvements, with the largest jump occurring between Medium and Low settings.

At 2560x1440 resolution, the Ultra preset achieves 156 FPS, High reaches 164 FPS, Medium produces 232 FPS with a minimum of 197 FPS and maximum of 267 FPS, and Low delivers 328 FPS. The 1440p data shows that even the most demanding Ultra settings maintain frame rates well above 144Hz, making this resolution ideal for high-refresh gaming monitors. The Medium preset's minimum of 197 FPS ensures that even the most demanding simulation sequences never drop below the threshold for smooth gameplay on 144Hz displays.

At 1920x1080 resolution, the Ultra preset delivers 247 FPS, High achieves 260 FPS, Medium produces 368 FPS with a minimum of 313 FPS and maximum of 423 FPS, and Low reaches 473 FPS. The 1080p data reveals that this system is capable of driving even the most extreme 360Hz gaming monitors at Medium settings, while the Ultra preset's 247 FPS exceeds the maximum refresh rates of all commercially available displays. The Medium preset's minimum of 313 FPS indicates that frame rates never drop below this level during the most demanding simulation scenarios.

The FPS data shows consistent relationships between settings levels across all resolutions. The difference between Ultra and High settings averages 5-8 FPS across resolutions, while the difference between Medium and Low ranges from 50-105 FPS. This suggests that the transition from Ultra to High provides minimal performance gains, while dropping from Medium to Low offers substantial frame rate improvements but with significant visual quality sacrifices. The measured data represents actual performance from this specific hardware combination, with the system ranking 60th out of 3002 tested combinations in this game.