Pc Building Simulator

Pc Building Simulator, a simulation title focused on PC assembly rather than high-octane action, still imposes a clear hardware ceiling on the Intel Core Ultra 9 185H and AMD Radeon 760M combination. The measured performance data indicates this is a severely GPU-limited pairing at higher resolutions, with the integrated Radeon 760M acting as the primary bottleneck. Across the board, frame rates are low, and the path to a playable experience requires aggressive settings and resolution reductions, with the data showing playability only emerges at 1080p with Low settings.

Resolution Scaling

The frame rate drop from 1080p to 4K is steep and reveals a classic case of a GPU struggling to keep up with pixel throughput. At 1080p High settings, the combo produces an average of 38 FPS. Moving to 1440p High, that average falls to 24 FPS, a 37% reduction. The jump to 4K High is even more punishing, with the average plummeting to 13 FPS, a 66% drop from the 1080p figure. This scaling pattern is not linear; the performance cost per pixel increases dramatically as resolution rises, indicating the Radeon 760M's compute and memory bandwidth are being saturated long before the CPU becomes a factor.

The trend holds across all settings presets. At Low settings, the 1080p average of 77 FPS drops to 48 FPS at 1440p (a 38% decrease) and then to 25 FPS at 4K (a 68% drop from 1080p). Medium settings show a similar trajectory: 54 FPS at 1080p, 34 FPS at 1440p, and 18 FPS at 4K. Even at Ultra, where the CPU might be expected to shoulder more load, the resolution scaling remains brutal: 36 FPS at 1080p falls to 23 FPS at 1440p and then to 12 FPS at 4K. The consistent ~65-70% performance loss between 1080p and 4K strongly suggests that the limiting component is the GPU, as its fillrate and memory subsystem are overwhelmed by the increasing number of pixels.

The 1440p to 4K transition is particularly illustrative. For High settings, the drop is from 24 FPS to 13 FPS, a 46% reduction. For Low settings, the drop is from 48 FPS to 25 FPS, a 48% reduction. This consistent halving of frame rate when pixel count roughly doubles confirms that the Radeon 760M's execution resources are the hard constraint. The data does not show any scenario where the resolution scaling flattens out, which would indicate a CPU bottleneck; instead, the FPS continues to fall precipitously, underscoring that the integrated GPU is the sole performance limiter in this title.

GPU Role

The AMD Radeon 760M is an integrated graphics processor based on the RDNA 3.0 architecture, built on a 4 nm process. It operates with a base clock of 800 MHz and a boost clock of 2599 MHz, and it leverages system memory, with bandwidth listed as "System Dependent." Its raw compute capability is rated at 5.323 TFLOPS for FP32 operations. In the context of Pc Building Simulator, these specifications translate to underwhelming real-world results. The GPU's benchmark percentile of 35 versus all GPUs indicates it is in the lower third of performance, which aligns with the measured FPS. The data shows a PassMark G3D score of 5310 and a 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 score of 400, both of which are low figures that corroborate the gaming performance.

The comparison to its nearest rivals in the benchmark database is telling. The Radeon 760M has an average benchmark score of 6019, which is essentially identical to the AMD Radeon RX 6400 (6001, deltaPct 0.3%), the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 770M (6000, deltaPct 0.3%), and the NVIDIA RTX PRO 6000 Blackwell Server (5996, deltaPct 0.4%). It is only 0.5% behind the NVIDIA Quadro P2000 (6049). This clustering shows that while the 760M is an integrated part, its theoretical compute is on par with some older discrete entry-level GPUs. However, the "System Shared" memory and lack of dedicated VRAM likely impact sustained performance in a way that synthetic scores do not fully capture, leading to the low frame rates observed in the game.

The GPU's memory configuration is "System Shared," with a bus width also listed as "System Shared." This is a critical weakness for gaming. Without dedicated video memory, the GPU must compete with the CPU for bandwidth to system RAM, which is a known performance inhibitor. The 16 ROPs and 32 TMUs are modest numbers, and the pixel rate of 41.58 GPixel/s and texture rate of 83.17 GTexel/s are low enough to explain the resolution scaling seen in the data. The 4K Ultra result of 12 FPS is a direct consequence of the GPU's inability to process the required pixel and texture data in real-time. The GPU is definitively the primary bottleneck, and no amount of CPU headroom can compensate for its throughput limitations in this simulation.

CPU Role

The Intel Core Ultra 9 185H is a high-end mobile processor from the Core Ultra Series 1, featuring 16 cores and 22 threads. It has a base clock of 3.90 GHz and a boost clock of 5.10 GHz, with a 24 MB shared L3 cache. It is built on Intel's 7 nm process and carries a TDP of 45 W. This is a powerful CPU, evidenced by its strong synthetic benchmark results: a Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 17984.5 and a single-core score of 1810.5, along with a Geekbench multi-core score of 11657. Its percentile versus all CPUs is 85, placing it in the top 15% of processors. In a game like Pc Building Simulator, which involves managing system components and running diagnostics, the CPU's logic and physics simulation are relevant, but the benchmark data shows its role is secondary to the GPU.

The CPU's performance is nearly identical to its nearest rivals, according to the database. Its average benchmark score is 35670, which is only 0.1% below the AMD Ryzen AI 7 PRO 350 (35719) and 0.2% below the Intel Core 7 250H (35728). This places it in a tight performance cluster, indicating that its processing power is competitive with other modern chips. However, this processing power is not being utilized in Pc Building Simulator. The measured FPS data shows no scenario where the CPU becomes the limiting factor. Even at 1080p Low settings, where the GPU load is lightest and the CPU would be most likely to bottleneck, the combo only achieves 77 FPS, which is far below the CPU's capability to produce.

The evidence for a GPU bottleneck is that the frame rates scale almost entirely with resolution and settings, which are GPU-bound variables. The CPU's 22 threads and 5.10 GHz boost clock are more than sufficient to handle the game's simulation logic. The PassMark physics score of 1956 and the multi-thread score of 29376 further confirm the CPU's strength. If the CPU were the bottleneck, we would expect to see similar frame rates across different resolutions, but the data shows a clear and consistent drop as resolution increases. Therefore, the data indicates the Core Ultra 9 185H is effectively idle in this scenario, waiting on the Radeon 760M to render frames. The CPU is a non-factor in limiting performance, and the user's experience is entirely dictated by the integrated GPU's output.

Measured FPS Breakdown

The measured FPS data provides a complete picture of the combo's performance across the three standard resolutions and four quality presets. At 1920x1080, the results range from a playable 77 FPS at Low settings to a borderline 36 FPS at Ultra. The Medium preset offers a middle ground at 54 FPS, with a minimum of 46 FPS and a maximum of 62 FPS, indicating some frame pacing variance but a generally stable experience. High settings at 1080p yield 38 FPS, which is a significant drop from Medium and highlights the cost of higher-quality textures and effects on the integrated GPU.

Moving to 2560x1440, all presets become less viable. Low settings produce an average of 48 FPS, which is acceptable but not smooth. Medium settings drop to 34 FPS, with a min of 29 FPS and a max of 39 FPS, showing that the system is struggling to maintain a consistent frame rate. High settings fall to 24 FPS, and Ultra bottoms out at 23 FPS. These figures are all below the 30 FPS threshold for smooth gameplay, making 1440p a poor choice for this hardware combination.

At 3840x2160, the results are largely unplayable. Low settings are the only preset to break the 20 FPS barrier, achieving an average of 25 FPS. Medium settings average 18 FPS, with a min of 15 and a max of 21 FPS. High settings average 13 FPS, and Ultra drops to 12 FPS. None of these 4K results are suitable for actual gaming; they are more akin to a slideshow. The data shows a clear step-down in performance at each resolution tier, reinforcing the conclusion that the Radeon 760M is overwhelmed by the pixel count at 1440p and 4K.

How This Combo Ranks

The combination of the Intel Core Ultra 9 185H and AMD Radeon 760M ranks 2992 out of 3002 tested combos in Pc Building Simulator. This places it in the bottom 0.3% of all configurations, making it one of the lowest-performing pairings in the database. This rank is a direct reflection of the GPU's limitations, as the CPU is a high-end part. The rank is not a measure of the CPU's capability, but rather the overall gaming performance of the system, which is dragged down by the integrated graphics.

This ranking is particularly poor when considering the CPU's 85th percentile standing. The pairing represents a significant mismatch where a top-tier mobile processor is coupled with a bottom-tier GPU. The benchmark data shows that the CPU's performance is wasted in this configuration for gaming purposes. The combo's rank of 2992 indicates that almost every other combination of CPU and GPU in the database delivers better frame rates in this specific game. This is a crucial data point for any user considering this hardware, as it signals that the gaming experience will be severely compromised, regardless of the CPU's processing power. The data suggests that for Pc Building Simulator, this is one of the worst possible configurations available.

Settings Recommendations

Based on the measured FPS data, the only way to achieve a playable experience with this hardware is to prioritize frame rate over visual fidelity. The 1080p Low preset is the only configuration that comes close to a smooth 60 FPS, delivering an average of 77 FPS. This is the recommended starting point for any user who wants to play the game without significant stuttering. The 1080p Medium preset, at 54 FPS, is a viable alternative if a user can tolerate a lower frame rate for better visuals, but it is still below the 60 FPS target.

For users who prefer higher resolutions, the data is clear: 1440p and 4K are not recommended. The 1440p Low preset at 48 FPS is the only option above 30 FPS, but it is still a compromise. All other presets at 1440p, and all presets at 4K, fall below 30 FPS, rendering the game effectively unplayable. The High and Ultra presets at any resolution are particularly poor choices, with 1080p High at 38 FPS and 1080p Ultra at 36 FPS, both of which are below the standard for smooth motion.

The data indicates that the best experience is achieved by setting the resolution to 1920x1080 and the preset to Low. This yields a playable frame rate of 77 FPS, which is the highest score measured. If a user wants to sacrifice some smoothness for improved image quality, the Medium preset at 1080p, with its 54 FPS average and 46 FPS minimum, is the next best option. The Ultra preset at 1080p is not advisable, as its 36 FPS average is too low for a consistent experience. In summary, the measured rows suggest that users should stick to 1080p and the Low or Medium presets to get the most out of this hardware, as any attempt to raise the resolution or settings will result in a significant and unacceptable performance penalty.