Pc Building Simulator

# Pc Building Simulator — Intel Core Ultra 7 265 + NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5090 D

Pc Building Simulator is a simulation title that scales unusually well with hardware, and the combination of the Intel Core Ultra 7 265 and the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5090 D produces a dataset that reveals clear bottlenecks at different resolutions. The measured FPS ranges from a low of 89 frames per second at 4K Ultra to a high of 473 frames per second at 1080p Low, with the scaling pattern showing that this pairing is heavily GPU-limited at lower resolutions and progressively more balanced as resolution increases. This analysis breaks down the resolution scaling, the individual roles of the GPU and CPU, the exact measured frame rates, and practical settings recommendations based solely on the provided data.

Resolution Scaling

The FPS drop from 1080p to 4K is dramatic and consistent across all settings presets, indicating that the RTX 5090 D is the primary performance driver at lower resolutions while the CPU becomes more relevant as pixel count rises. At High settings, the average FPS falls from 284 at 1080p to 179 at 1440p (a 37% reduction), and then to 94 at 4K (a 67% reduction from 1080p). This steep decline shows that even a top-tier GPU like the RTX 5090 D cannot maintain high frame rates at 4K in this simulation title, which is likely due to the game's heavy reliance on GPU compute for rendering the detailed PC component models and the simulation's physics calculations.

At Low settings, the scaling is even more pronounced: 473 FPS at 1080p drops to 358 at 1440p (a 24% reduction) and then to 187 at 4K (a 60% reduction from 1080p). The fact that 1080p Low produces nearly 500 FPS suggests that the CPU is not the limiting factor at this resolution — the frame rate is so high that the GPU has headroom to spare, and the bottleneck shifts to the CPU's ability to feed the render pipeline. However, at 4K Low, the 187 FPS figure indicates that the GPU is now the primary constraint, as reducing settings does not proportionally increase frame rates at this resolution.

The Medium settings row provides the only complete dataset with min and max FPS values, which helps illustrate the scaling pattern. At 1080p Medium, the average is 402 FPS with a minimum of 342 and maximum of 462. Moving to 1440p Medium drops the average to 254 FPS (a 37% reduction) with a min of 216 and max of 292. At 4K Medium, the average falls to 133 FPS (a 67% reduction from 1080p) with a min of 113 and max of 153. The consistent percentage drops across settings — roughly 37% from 1080p to 1440p and another 47% from 1440p to 4K at Medium — suggest that the scaling is resolution-bound rather than settings-bound, which is typical for a game that is primarily GPU-limited at higher pixel counts.

The Ultra preset shows the same pattern: 270 FPS at 1080p, 171 FPS at 1440p (a 37% reduction), and 89 FPS at 4K (a 67% reduction from 1080p). The fact that Ultra and High produce very similar frame rates at each resolution (270 vs 284 at 1080p, 171 vs 179 at 1440p, 89 vs 94 at 4K) indicates that the additional visual effects in Ultra have a minimal performance cost, and the bottleneck is elsewhere. This suggests that for this game, the resolution is the dominant factor in determining frame rate, not the quality preset, which is an important consideration for settings recommendations.

GPU Role

The NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5090 D is a massive GPU with 32 GB of GDDR7 memory on a 512-bit bus, delivering 1.79 TB/s of bandwidth. Its base clock is 2017 MHz with a boost clock of 2407 MHz, and the memory runs at 1750 MHz (28 Gbps effective). The GPU has 21,760 shading units, 680 texture mapping units, and 176 raster output units, along with 170 RT cores and 680 tensor cores. These specifications place it in the 92nd percentile of all GPUs in the database, with an average benchmark score of 77,712. Its nearest rivals include the AMD Radeon RX 6650M XT (1.1% faster), the AMD Radeon RX 6850M XT (1.6% slower), and two NVIDIA Tesla P100 variants (2.1% and 2.4% slower), showing that the 5090 D sits in a tight performance cluster at the top of the charts.

For Pc Building Simulator, the GPU's role is significant but not overwhelming at lower resolutions. The measured FPS at 1080p across all settings — 473 at Low, 402 at Medium, 284 at High, and 270 at Ultra — shows that the GPU has enough raw power to push frame rates well beyond what most displays can show. However, the fact that 1080p Low produces 473 FPS while 1080p Ultra produces 270 FPS indicates that the settings preset does have a measurable impact on GPU load, even if the percentage difference is smaller than the resolution scaling. The 32 GB of VRAM is far more than this simulation game needs, as the game's asset sizes are modest compared to modern AAA titles, but the sheer bandwidth and compute power help maintain high frame rates at 4K.

The GPU's DirectX 12 Ultimate support and Vulkan 1.4 compatibility are relevant for Pc Building Simulator, which runs on a modern engine. The benchmark results show a 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 score of 14,326, a Geekbench OpenCL score of 310,674, and a Geekbench Vulkan score of 376,915. The Passmark G3D score of 44,065 and GPU compute score of 28,396 further confirm that this is a top-tier graphics card. At 4K, the GPU becomes the limiting factor — the 89 FPS at Ultra and 94 FPS at High show that even this powerful GPU cannot maintain high refresh rates at 4K in this simulation, which suggests the game has significant rendering demands at high pixel counts. The pixel rate of 423.6 GPixel/s and texture rate of 1,636.8 GTexel/s are substantial, but the game's simulation elements and the need to render multiple detailed components simultaneously likely tax the GPU heavily at 4K.

CPU Role

The Intel Core Ultra 7 265 is a 20-core, 20-thread processor based on the Arrow Lake architecture, built on TSMC's 3 nm process node. It has a base clock of 2.40 GHz and a boost clock of 5.30 GHz, with 192 KB of L1 cache per core, 3 MB of L2 cache per core, and 30 MB of shared L3 cache. The CPU supports DDR5 memory on a dual-channel bus with 102.4 GB/s of bandwidth, and it has integrated Arc Xe-LPG Graphics with 32 execution units. It sits in the 93rd percentile of all CPUs in the database, with an average benchmark score of 64,640. Its nearest rivals include the AMD EPYC 4464P (0.3% slower), the Intel Core Ultra 7 265F (0.3% faster), the AMD EPYC 7343 (0.7% faster), and the AMD EPYC 9124 (0.7% slower), showing that it performs in a very tight cluster with several server-class processors.

For Pc Building Simulator, the CPU's role is most evident at 1080p, where frame rates exceed 400 FPS. At 1080p Low, the 473 FPS average suggests that the CPU is capable of feeding the GPU with enough draw calls and simulation updates to maintain extremely high frame rates. The CPU's Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 42,216 and single-core score of 5,960 indicate strong performance in both multithreaded and single-threaded workloads, which is important for a simulation game that likely uses multiple threads for different systems (component simulation, physics, UI). The Passmark multithread score of 49,682 and single-thread score of 4,689 further confirm the CPU's capability.

The key observation is that at 1080p, the frame rate difference between Low (473 FPS) and Ultra (270 FPS) is 43%, which suggests that the CPU is not the bottleneck even at the highest settings. However, the fact that 1080p Ultra produces 270 FPS while 4K Ultra produces 89 FPS — a 67% reduction — indicates that the GPU becomes the limiting factor as resolution increases. This means the CPU has sufficient headroom to handle the game's simulation logic at all resolutions, and the performance ceiling is set by the GPU at higher pixel counts. The CPU's 20 cores and 20 threads are likely overkill for this game, but the high single-thread performance (boost clock of 5.30 GHz) helps ensure smooth frame pacing in a title that may not be perfectly multithreaded.

Measured FPS Breakdown

The measured FPS data provides a complete picture of performance across three resolutions and four settings presets. At 1920x1080, the average FPS ranges from 473 at Low to 270 at Ultra. The Medium preset shows an average of 402 FPS with a minimum of 342 and maximum of 462, while High produces 284 FPS. The gap between Low and Medium is 71 FPS (15%), between Medium and High is 118 FPS (29%), and between High and Ultra is 14 FPS (5%). This pattern shows that the biggest performance hit comes from moving from Medium to High, while Ultra adds minimal additional cost over High.

At 2560x1440, the average FPS ranges from 358 at Low to 171 at Ultra. The Medium preset averages 254 FPS with a minimum of 216 and maximum of 292, while High produces 179 FPS. The gap between Low and Medium is 104 FPS (29%), between Medium and High is 75 FPS (30%), and between High and Ultra is 8 FPS (4%). The percentage drops from 1080p to 1440p are consistent: Low drops 24%, Medium drops 37%, High drops 37%, and Ultra drops 37%. This consistency indicates that the performance scaling is primarily resolution-driven rather than settings-driven.

At 3840x2160, the average FPS ranges from 187 at Low to 89 at Ultra. The Medium preset averages 133 FPS with a minimum of 113 and maximum of 153, while High produces 94 FPS. The gap between Low and Medium is 54 FPS (29%), between Medium and High is 39 FPS (29%), and between High and Ultra is 5 FPS (5%). The percentage drops from 1440p to 4K are: Low drops 48%, Medium drops 48%, High drops 47%, and Ultra drops 48%. This uniform drop of roughly 48% across all settings reinforces that the GPU is the limiting factor at 4K, regardless of quality preset.

The complete dataset shows that the only settings with min/max values are Medium at all three resolutions, which provides a useful consistency check. At 1080p Medium, the range is 342-462 FPS (a 120 FPS spread). At 1440p Medium, the range is 216-292 FPS (a 76 FPS spread). At 4K Medium, the range is 113-153 FPS (a 40 FPS spread). The narrowing range at higher resolutions suggests that the frame time variance decreases as the GPU becomes more loaded, which is typical for simulation games where the CPU-side simulation has more consistent timing when the GPU is the bottleneck.

FAQ

Q: What is the best resolution to play Pc Building Simulator with this hardware?

A: Based on the measured data, 1440p High provides an excellent balance with 179 FPS average, which is well above the refresh rate of most monitors. At 4K, the best option is High at 94 FPS, which is playable but not high-refresh-rate territory. The data shows that 1080p produces frame rates beyond 270 FPS at all settings, which is unnecessary for most displays.

Q: How much performance is lost by moving from 1080p to 4K?

A: The data shows a consistent 67% reduction in average FPS from 1080p to 4K across High, Medium, and Ultra settings. For example, at High settings, the FPS drops from 284 to 94, and at Medium, it drops from 402 to 133. At Low settings, the drop is 60% (from 473 to 187).

Q: Is the RTX 5090 D the bottleneck at 4K?

A: Yes, the data strongly indicates this. At 4K, all settings presets produce frame rates between 89 and 187 FPS, and the percentage drop from 1440p is nearly identical (47-48%) across all settings. This uniformity suggests the GPU is the limiting factor, as reducing settings does not proportionally increase performance at 4K.

Q: How does the Ultra preset compare to High in terms of performance?

A: The performance difference between High and Ultra is minimal. At 1080p, Ultra is 14 FPS slower (284 vs 270, a 5% drop). At 1440p, Ultra is 8 FPS slower (179 vs 171, a 4% drop). At 4K, Ultra is 5 FPS slower (94 vs 89, a 5% drop). This suggests that Ultra adds little visual benefit for the performance cost.

Q: Is the CPU holding back performance at 1080p?

A: The data suggests the CPU is not a significant bottleneck. At 1080p Low, the system achieves 473 FPS, which is extremely high. The fact that frame rates scale consistently with resolution (67% drop from 1080p to 4K) indicates that the GPU is the primary limiter at higher resolutions, while the CPU has ample headroom at all resolutions.

Q: What is the best settings preset for 4K gaming?

A: At 4K, the High preset offers the best balance in the measured data, with 94 FPS average. The Ultra preset only drops to 89 FPS (5% slower), so if visual quality is a priority, Ultra is viable. However, the Low preset at 187 FPS shows that reducing settings can significantly boost 4K performance, which may be preferable for high-refresh-rate displays.

Settings Recommendations

Based on the measured FPS data, the optimal settings preset depends heavily on the target resolution and display refresh rate. At 1080p, all settings presets produce frame rates above 270 FPS, which exceeds the refresh rate of virtually all monitors. The data shows that High (284 FPS) and Ultra (270 FPS) are nearly identical in performance, with only a 5% difference. Since the Ultra preset provides the highest visual quality at a minimal performance cost, it is the recommended choice for 1080p displays, provided the display can take advantage of the high frame rate.

At 1440p, the Medium preset (254 FPS) and High preset (179 FPS) both offer excellent performance for high-refresh-rate displays (144Hz or 165Hz). The data shows that the step from Medium to High costs 75 FPS (30%), which is significant. For 144Hz displays, the High preset at 179 FPS provides a comfortable margin above the refresh rate, and the Ultra preset at 171 FPS is also viable with only an 8 FPS difference from High. For 165Hz displays, the High preset remains the best choice, as the 179 FPS average stays above the refresh rate. The Medium preset at 254 FPS is overkill for most displays but provides the largest headroom for frame time spikes, as indicated by the min FPS of 216.

At 4K, the situation is more nuanced. The High preset at 94 FPS is the best choice for 60Hz displays, providing a comfortable margin above 60 FPS. For 120Hz displays, the High preset at 94 FPS is below the refresh rate, so players must choose between the Low preset at 187 FPS (which provides a solid 120Hz experience) or the Medium preset at 133 FPS (which is above 120Hz but with less headroom). The data shows that the Low preset at 4K provides more than double the frame rate of Ultra (187 vs 89 FPS), which is a massive difference. For competitive play or high-refresh-rate 4K displays, the Low preset is the recommended choice, as the visual quality trade-off is acceptable given the performance gain.

The Medium preset at 4K (133 FPS) is the only preset with complete min/max data, showing a range of 113-153 FPS. This suggests that the Medium preset provides consistent frame times at 4K, with the minimum FPS still above 60. For players who want a balance between visual quality and performance at 4K, the Medium preset is a strong choice, particularly for 120Hz displays where the 133 FPS average provides a reasonable margin. The Ultra preset at 89 FPS is only recommended for players with 60Hz displays who prioritize maximum visual quality, as the 5% performance difference from High is negligible. Overall, the data indicates that the High preset is the sweet spot for most scenarios, offering the best balance of visual quality and performance across all three resolutions, with 284 FPS at 1080p, 179 FPS at 1440p, and 94 FPS at 4K.