Pc Building Simulator

Pc Building Simulator presents an unusual hardware challenge: it is a simulation title where the rendering workload is modest, but the underlying system demands are distinct. Benchmark results for the Intel Core Ultra 9 290K Plus paired with the Intel Arc B370 show a configuration that is heavily bottlenecked by its graphics component, with performance scaling directly tied to the GPU's capabilities rather than the CPU's substantial processing power. The data indicates that this combo is playable only at 1080p with reduced settings, and the experience degrades rapidly at higher resolutions, making it a niche pairing for users prioritizing CPU-centric tasks over graphical fidelity.

FAQ

Q: What is the overall performance ranking of this CPU and GPU combo in Pc Building Simulator?

A: The combination of the Intel Core Ultra 9 290K Plus and Intel Arc B370 ranks 2761 out of 3002 tested combos for this game, placing it in the bottom 8% of all configurations. This low rank is primarily due to the GPU's weak performance, which holds back the otherwise top-tier CPU.

Q: How does the Intel Arc B370 compare to its closest rivals in raw GPU benchmarks?

A: The Arc B370's average 3DMark Steel Nomad score of 1184 is statistically tied with its nearest competitors. It is 0.2% slower than the ATI Mobility Radeon HD 5570 (score 1186) and 0.5% slower than the ATI Radeon HD 5770 (score 1190), while being 1.4% faster than the AMD FirePro M2000 (score 1168). These deltas indicate that the B370's graphics performance is on par with very old, entry-level discrete GPUs.

Q: Is the Intel Core Ultra 9 290K Plus a high-performing processor relative to other CPUs?

A: Yes, the CPU data shows it is a top-tier part. It achieves an average benchmark score of 84003, placing it in the 96th percentile of all CPUs. It also edges out its nearest rival, the Intel Core Ultra 9 285K (avg score 83807), by a 0.2% margin and the AMD EPYC 4584PX (avg score 83090) by 1.1%.

Q: What is the best frame rate achievable with this hardware at 1080p?

A: The highest average frame rate recorded is 113 FPS, but this is only achieved at 1920x1080 with Low settings. At the more visually demanding Medium preset, the average drops to 80 FPS, and at High and Ultra, it falls to 56 FPS and 54 FPS, respectively.

Q: Can this system handle 4K gaming in Pc Building Simulator?

A: No, the data shows it cannot. At 3840x2160 with Ultra settings, the average frame rate is only 18 FPS, which is unplayable. Even dropping to Low settings at 4K only yields an average of 37 FPS, which is still below the threshold for a smooth experience.

Q: Does the CPU's performance have a significant impact on the game's frame rates?

A: Based on the measured FPS data, the CPU's impact appears minimal. The frame rates scale almost exclusively with resolution and settings changes, which are GPU-bound workloads. The CPU's massive processing power (e.g., a Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 51731) is not a limiting factor in this game's results, as the GPU is clearly the performance ceiling.

GPU Role

The Intel Arc B370 is the primary determinant of performance in Pc Building Simulator, and its specifications reveal why. The GPU operates with a base clock of 300 MHz and a boost clock of 2400 MHz, utilizing the Xe3-LPG architecture on a 3 nm process. Critically, it has System Shared memory, meaning it has no dedicated VRAM and relies on the system's main memory (DDR5) for its framebuffer. Its memory bandwidth is listed as "System Dependent," which means performance is tied to the CPU's dual-channel memory bus and its 115.2 GB/s bandwidth.

This shared memory configuration directly impacts game performance. The GPU's 1280 shading units, 40 TMUs, and 20 ROPs provide a theoretical pixel rate of 48.00 GPixel/s and a texture rate of 96.00 GTexel/s. However, the lack of dedicated, high-bandwidth VRAM is a severe bottleneck. In Pc Building Simulator, which involves rendering a 3D environment, the GPU's need to access system memory for textures and frame buffers creates a performance ceiling. This is reflected in its 3DMark Steel Nomad score of just 1184, which places it in the 5th percentile of all GPUs.

This weak graphics core is the primary reason for the low frame rates. The GPU's nearest rivals, such as the ATI Radeon HD 5770 with a score of 1190, are over a decade old, confirming that its graphics processing power is not suitable for modern gaming demands. The benchmark results show that the GPU's capability is the single greatest constraint on this system's gaming performance, and its shared memory architecture exacerbates the issue by introducing system-level latency and bandwidth contention.

Resolution Scaling

The measured FPS data shows a clear and steep performance drop as resolution increases, which is a classic symptom of a GPU-bound system. At 1080p with High settings, the system averages 56 FPS. Moving to 1440p at the same settings drops the average to 36 FPS, a 35.7% decrease. At 4K with High settings, the average collapses to 19 FPS, which is a 66.1% drop from the 1080p result.

This scaling pattern highlights the limiting component. When the resolution increases, the number of pixels the GPU must process grows exponentially. The Arc B370, with its limited ROP count and shared memory bandwidth, cannot handle this increased workload. The CPU, with its 24 cores and 24 threads boosting up to 5.80 GHz, is not the bottleneck; it is idle or underutilized while the GPU struggles to fill the frame buffer.

The data from the Low settings confirms this analysis. At 1080p Low, the system hits 113 FPS. At 1440p Low, it drops to 71 FPS (a 37.2% decrease), and at 4K Low, it falls to 37 FPS (a 67.3% decrease from 1080p). The near-identical percentage drops across different settings presets (High and Low) indicate that the resolution scaling penalty is independent of the visual complexity settings. The GPU is so weak that even the smallest pixel count increase at 4K overwhelms it, resulting in a sub-60 FPS experience regardless of the quality preset.

Measured FPS Breakdown

The benchmark data provides a comprehensive look at the system's performance across three resolutions and four settings presets.

1920x1080 (1080p):

• Low: The only playable setting, achieving an average of 113 FPS. This is the most responsive configuration and the only one that comfortably exceeds 60 FPS.
• Medium: The average drops to 80 FPS, with a minimum of 68 FPS and a maximum of 92 FPS. This is still a playable range, offering a smoother visual experience than Low but with a 29.2% performance hit.
• High: The average falls to 56 FPS. This is borderline playable, but the data shows it is below the 60 FPS target.
• Ultra: The average is 54 FPS, only marginally lower than High, indicating the GPU is already saturated by the High preset's demands.

2560x1440 (1440p):

• Low: Achieves an average of 71 FPS, making it the only 1440p setting that is consistently smooth.
• Medium: The average is 50 FPS, with a minimum of 43 FPS and a maximum of 58 FPS. This is noticeable less fluid than the 1080p Medium result.
• High: The average drops to 36 FPS, which is a significant step down and is not ideal for a smooth experience.
• Ultra: The average falls to 34 FPS. The gap between High and Ultra is small (2 FPS), confirming the GPU is the limiting factor.

3840x2160 (4K):

• Low: Achieves an average of 37 FPS. While technically playable, it is below the 60 FPS standard and would exhibit noticeable stutter.
• Medium: The average is 26 FPS, with a minimum of 22 FPS and a maximum of 30 FPS. This is a slideshow-like experience.
• High: The average is 19 FPS, which is unplayable.
• Ultra: The average is 18 FPS, which is also unplayable. The 4K results are uniformly poor, showing that the GPU lacks the pixel throughput and memory bandwidth for this resolution.

Settings Recommendations

Based on the measured FPS rows, the optimal experience for this configuration is at 1920x1080 with the Medium preset. This setting provides an 80 FPS average with a minimum of 68 FPS, ensuring that frame pacing remains above the playable threshold. It is a 29.2% drop from the 113 FPS on Low, but it offers a significantly improved visual quality, which is the point of the game, without sacrificing the smoothness of the simulation.

The High preset at 1080p is not recommended. The 56 FPS average is below the 60 FPS target and provides only a marginal visual uplift over Medium. The Ultra preset is also not recommended, as it yields only 54 FPS, showing that the GPU's performance ceiling has been hit. The difference between High and Ultra is a mere 2 FPS, indicating that the extra graphical features are not worth the performance cost.

For users who prioritize a high frame rate over visual fidelity, the 1080p Low preset (113 FPS) is the only way to achieve a very fluid simulation. However, for the best balance of visuals and performance, 1080p Medium is the clear choice. At 1440p, users must settle for the Low preset (71 FPS) to get a playable frame rate. All 4K settings are effectively unplayable, with the best result being 37 FPS on Low, which is still not a smooth experience.

CPU Role

The Intel Core Ultra 9 290K Plus is an exceptionally powerful processor, but its role in this game's performance is largely passive. The CPU features 24 cores and 24 threads, with a base clock of 3.70 GHz and a boost clock of 5.80 GHz. It is built on a 3 nm process and has a 36 MB shared L3 cache. Its benchmark scores are impressive, including a Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 51731 and a single-core score of 7303, placing it in the 96th percentile of all CPUs.

However, the measured FPS data for Pc Building Simulator shows that this processing power does not translate into high frame rates. The frame rates are consistently low and scale with GPU-related factors like resolution, not CPU-related factors. The CPU's nearest rivals, such as the Intel Core Ultra 9 285K, have an average score only 0.2% lower, but this difference has no bearing on the game's performance.

The bottleneck is unequivocally the Intel Arc B370. The CPU is capable of feeding the GPU with data far faster than the GPU can render it. This is a classic case of a massive CPU-GPU performance disparity. The CPU's high thread count and clock speeds are irrelevant when the GPU can only produce an average of 54 FPS at 1080p Ultra. The data suggests that even a much older, slower CPU would achieve similar frame rates in this game, as the GPU's limitations would still be the primary constraint. The CPU's role is to ensure the simulation logic and physics run without hitches, which it does with headroom to spare, but it cannot compensate for the GPU's lack of graphical horsepower.