Pc Building Simulator

# Pc Building Simulator — Intel Core Ultra 7 265HX + NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4080

The data for Pc Building Simulator shows a combination that behaves differently from most GPU-bound titles, with the Intel Core Ultra 7 265HX and NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4080 producing frame rates that scale almost linearly with resolution but compress dramatically as settings rise. The measured FPS array reveals a system that is clearly CPU-limited at lower settings and GPU-limited at higher settings, making this an unusual case study in bottleneck dynamics within a simulation genre that typically favors processor throughput.

Resolution Scaling

The FPS drop from 1080p to 4K follows a pattern that reveals the limiting component at each step. At Low settings, the average frame rate falls from 337 FPS at 1920x1080 to 213 FPS at 2560x1440 — a 37% reduction — and then to 111 FPS at 3840x2160, a further 48% drop. This steep decline indicates that even at Low settings, the RTX 4080's rendering capabilities are being progressively taxed as pixel count rises, yet the absolute numbers remain so high that the CPU's 20 cores and 20 threads are still feeding frames faster than the GPU can display them at 1440p and above.

Moving to Medium settings, the scaling becomes more linear: 239 FPS at 1080p, 151 FPS at 1440p (a 37% decrease), and 79 FPS at 4K (a 48% decrease from 1440p). The consistency of these percentages across Low and Medium suggests that the GPU is the primary limiter at both settings, with the CPU's 5.30 GHz boost clock providing ample headroom. However, at High settings, the pattern shifts: 169 FPS at 1080p drops to 106 FPS at 1440p (37% down) and then to 56 FPS at 4K (47% down). The relative stability of the percentage drops across all settings implies that resolution scaling is uniform, but the absolute frame rates at 4K High (56 FPS) approach the threshold where gameplay smoothness becomes questionable.

Ultra settings tell a similar story with slightly lower figures: 161 FPS at 1080p, 101 FPS at 1440p, and 53 FPS at 4K. The gap between High and Ultra at each resolution is remarkably small — only 8 FPS at 1080p, 5 FPS at 1440p, and 3 FPS at 4K — which suggests that the Ultra preset adds visual features that are not particularly demanding on this hardware. The data implies that the limiting component shifts from CPU at Low settings to GPU at Ultra, with the crossover occurring somewhere between Medium and High at 1080p, where the CPU's single-thread performance (Cinebench R23 single-core score of 5737) begins to matter less than the GPU's raw throughput.

GPU Role

The NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4080's 16 GB of GDDR6X memory on a 256-bit bus delivers 716.8 GB/s of bandwidth, which is directly relevant to Pc Building Simulator's texture-heavy rendering at 4K. The measured FPS at 3840x2160 Ultra (53 FPS) versus 1080p Ultra (161 FPS) shows a 67% performance reduction when pixel count quadruples, which is less than the theoretical 75% penalty — indicating that memory bandwidth is not the sole constraint, but rather the GPU's compute units (9728 shading units, 304 TMUs, 112 ROPs) are scaling reasonably well with resolution.

The clock behavior matters here: the RTX 4080's base clock of 2205 MHz and boost clock of 2505 MHz, combined with a 320 W TDP, suggest that thermal headroom is sufficient to maintain boost frequencies during extended simulation sessions. The 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 score of 6567 and Passmark G3D score of 34457 place this GPU in the 86th percentile among all GPUs, and its nearest rival — the RTX 4080 SUPER at a 0.1% delta — confirms that this card is essentially at parity with its successor in synthetic benchmarks. However, the measured FPS in Pc Building Simulator shows that the GPU is not the bottleneck at 1080p Low (337 FPS), where the CPU's Passmark single-thread score of 4500 becomes the relevant metric.

The VRAM capacity of 16 GB is worth noting because Pc Building Simulator involves managing multiple graphics cards simultaneously, and the 4K Ultra results (53 FPS) suggest that memory allocation is not spilling into system RAM — the frame rates would degrade more severely if VRAM were exhausted. The GDDR6X memory at 22.4 Gbps effective provides sufficient bandwidth for the game's asset streaming, but the data shows diminishing returns: moving from Medium to Ultra at 4K costs 26 FPS (79 to 53), while moving from Low to Medium at 4K costs 32 FPS (111 to 79). This nonlinear relationship indicates that the GPU's texture units (304 TMUs) and ROPs (112) are handling the increased shader complexity gracefully, but the pixel fill rate of 280.6 GPixel/s becomes a limiting factor at 4K Ultra.

Settings Recommendations

Based on the measured rows, the Medium preset at 2560x1440 delivers the best balance of visual quality and performance, with an average of 151 FPS and a minimum of 128 FPS that ensures consistent frame pacing. The data shows that High settings at 1440p (106 FPS) are playable but represent a 30% performance hit over Medium, while Ultra at 1440p (101 FPS) offers only 5 FPS more than High — a marginal gain that does not justify the additional GPU load. At 1080p, Medium (239 FPS) is the sweet spot for high-refresh displays, with the minimum of 203 FPS ensuring that even the most complex simulation scenes stay above 200 FPS.

For 4K users, the Medium preset (79 FPS average, 67 FPS minimum) is the only viable option for smooth gameplay, as High (56 FPS) and Ultra (53 FPS) both dip below the 60 FPS threshold that most players consider acceptable for a simulation title. The Low preset at 4K (111 FPS) is technically playable but sacrifices too much visual fidelity for a game that is about building and inspecting systems. The data suggests that the RTX 4080's 16 GB VRAM and 48.74 TFLOPS FP32 compute are sufficient for Medium settings at 4K, but the gap between Medium and High (23 FPS at 4K) indicates that the High preset introduces effects that disproportionately impact performance without proportional visual benefit.

The frame time consistency, visible in the min-max ranges for Medium settings, further supports this recommendation: at 1440p Medium, the 128-173 FPS range shows only a 30% variance, while at 1080p Medium, the 203-275 FPS range shows a 35% variance. This suggests that Medium settings provide predictable performance across all resolutions, making it the safest choice for a game where frame drops during complex assembly sequences could affect the user experience.

FAQ

Q: Why does the FPS drop so much from 1080p to 4K at Low settings (337 to 111 FPS)?

A: The 67% reduction in frame rate when moving from 1080p to 4K indicates that even at Low settings, the RTX 4080's pixel throughput (280.6 GPixel/s) becomes the limiting factor. The CPU's 20 cores and 20 threads can generate frames faster than the GPU can render them at 4K, so the GPU becomes the bottleneck despite the low graphical load.

Q: Is this combination better suited for 1080p or 1440p gaming in Pc Building Simulator?

A: The data shows that 1440p Medium (151 FPS) and 1440p High (106 FPS) both provide excellent performance, while 1080p Ultra (161 FPS) is only 10 FPS faster than 1440p Medium. Given the minimal performance difference, 1440p is the better choice as it offers significantly more screen detail without sacrificing smoothness.

Q: How does the RTX 4080 compare to its nearest rival in synthetic benchmarks?

A: The RTX 4080 has an average benchmark score of 54247, which is 0.1% higher than the RTX 4080 SUPER (54209). This places the 4080 in the 86th percentile of all GPUs, with the AMD Radeon Pro W5700X being 1.1% slower and the AMD Radeon RX 6750 GRE 12 GB being 2.6% slower.

Q: What is the minimum FPS at 4K Medium, and is it stable?

A: At 3840x2160 Medium, the minimum FPS is 67 with an average of 79 and a maximum of 91. The 12 FPS gap between minimum and average suggests relatively stable frame pacing, though the 24 FPS range from minimum to maximum indicates some variance during complex scenes.

Q: Does the CPU hold back the GPU at any resolution?

A: At 1080p Low, the 337 FPS average is likely CPU-limited, as the GPU's raw performance would allow higher frame rates. The Core Ultra 7 265HX's Passmark single-thread score of 4500 and Cinebench R23 single-core score of 5737 are strong, but they cap frame generation at this level. At higher resolutions, the GPU becomes the limiting component.

Q: How does Ultra compare to High in terms of FPS cost?

A: At every resolution, Ultra is only 5-8 FPS slower than High: 161 vs 169 FPS at 1080p, 101 vs 106 FPS at 1440p, and 53 vs 56 FPS at 4K. This small difference suggests that the Ultra preset's additional features are not computationally expensive, making it a reasonable choice if visual quality is prioritized.

CPU Role

The Intel Core Ultra 7 265HX's 20 cores and 20 threads (no hyperthreading) with a base clock of 2.60 GHz and boost clock of 5.30 GHz provide substantial computational headroom for Pc Building Simulator's simulation logic. The Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 40642 and single-core score of 5737 place this CPU in the 93rd percentile of all processors, with its nearest rival — the Intel Core i7-13790F — scoring 63080 (0.1% higher) and the AMD Ryzen AI 7 450G scoring 63331 (0.2% lower). This tight grouping indicates that the 265HX is competitive with desktop-class CPUs despite being a mobile part with a 55 W TDP.

The CPU's role becomes evident when examining the FPS data at 1080p Low: 337 FPS is far beyond what the RTX 4080 would deliver if it were the bottleneck, suggesting that the CPU's 5.30 GHz boost clock is driving frame generation. The Passmark multi-thread score of 47985 and data compression score of 511817 are particularly relevant for a game that simulates system building, where component interactions and resource allocation are constantly calculated. The 30 MB of shared L3 cache and 3 MB per-core L2 cache provide fast access to simulation state data, while the 102.4 GB/s memory bandwidth on dual-channel DDR5 ensures that memory latency does not impede the CPU's ability to feed the GPU.

The comparison to the Core Ultra 7 255HX, which scores 62738 (0.7% lower), shows that the 265HX's slightly higher boost clock and identical core count provide a marginal advantage. However, in Pc Building Simulator specifically, the measured FPS at Ultra settings (161 FPS at 1080p) suggests that the CPU is never the primary limiter at high graphical presets — the GPU's 48.74 TFLOPS FP32 compute and 761.5 GTexel/s texture rate are what determine final frame rates. The CPU's Passmark physics score of 2978 and find prime numbers score of 406 indicate moderate integer performance that is sufficient for this simulation genre, but the data implies that a weaker CPU would not significantly reduce frame rates at 1440p or 4K.

Measured FPS Breakdown

At 1920x1080, the measured averages range from 337 FPS at Low to 161 FPS at Ultra. The Low setting produces 337 FPS, Medium produces 239 FPS (with a 203-275 FPS range), High produces 169 FPS, and Ultra produces 161 FPS. The 98 FPS gap between Low and Medium is substantial, suggesting that Medium introduces significant shading effects that tax the GPU's 9728 shading units. The 8 FPS difference between High and Ultra at this resolution is minimal, indicating that Ultra's incremental features are not GPU-intensive at 1080p.

At 2560x1440, the averages are 213 FPS at Low, 151 FPS at Medium (128-173 FPS range), 106 FPS at High, and 101 FPS at Ultra. The 62 FPS drop from Low to Medium mirrors the 98 FPS drop at 1080p, but the percentage change is similar (29% vs 29%), confirming resolution-independent scaling of settings. The 5 FPS difference between High and Ultra persists at 1440p, reinforcing that Ultra offers diminishing returns.

At 3840x2160, the averages are 111 FPS at Low, 79 FPS at Medium (67-91 FPS range), 56 FPS at High, and 53 FPS at Ultra. The 32 FPS drop from Low to Medium at 4K is proportionally larger than at lower resolutions, indicating that the GPU's pixel fill rate (280.6 GPixel/s) becomes a factor. The 3 FPS difference between High and Ultra at 4K is the smallest across all resolutions, suggesting that Ultra's overhead is nearly negligible at this pixel count.

The Medium settings provide the only complete min-max data across all resolutions, showing a consistent 30-35% variance between minimum and maximum FPS. This variance is likely due to scene complexity fluctuations in the simulation, where building multiple components simultaneously causes temporary FPS dips. The data shows that at 1080p Medium, the minimum of 203 FPS is still far above the 60 FPS threshold, while at 4K Medium, the minimum of 67 FPS barely exceeds it.

How This Combo Ranks

The combination of the Intel Core Ultra 7 265HX and NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4080 ranks 908th out of 3002 tested combos in Pc Building Simulator, placing it in the top 30% of all configurations. This ranking is notably lower than what the individual component percentiles might suggest — the CPU is in the 93rd percentile and the GPU is in the 86th percentile — which implies that the game's performance is not purely hardware-bound but also depends on other factors such as memory configuration and driver optimization.

The rank of 908 out of 3002 means that approximately 70% of tested combos perform better in this specific game. This is surprising given the hardware's synthetic benchmark scores, and it suggests that Pc Building Simulator may favor CPUs with higher single-thread performance or GPUs with different architectural strengths. The RTX 4080's nearest rival, the RTX 4080 SUPER (0.1% higher average score), would likely rank similarly, indicating that the 908th position is not due to a weak GPU but rather to the game's specific rendering requirements.

The data shows that this combo is well above the median combo (1501st place), but the gap between the 86th percentile GPU and the 30th percentile game ranking suggests that other combinations with lower-tier GPUs but higher-end CPUs might achieve better results. The CPU's 20 cores and 20 threads are abundant for a simulation game, but the Passmark single-thread score of 4500, while strong, may not be exceptional enough to push this combo higher. The combination's rank of 908 indicates that it is a capable performer, but not a top-tier configuration for Pc Building Simulator, and users seeking higher rankings might consider pairing a more powerful GPU or a CPU with higher single-core performance.