Pc Building Simulator

# CPU Role — cores, clocks, and how they relate to this game's results

The Intel Core Ultra X9 388H is a 16-core, 16-thread mobile processor built on Intel's 3 nm Panther Lake architecture. Its base clock of 2.10 GHz can boost up to 5.10 GHz, providing a wide operating range that scales with workload demand. The processor's L3 cache totals 18 MB shared across all cores, with 192 KB of L1 and 3 MB of L2 per core, which helps maintain data locality during simulation-heavy tasks.

In synthetic benchmarks, this CPU achieves a Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 18,911 and a single-core score of 2,200.5. Its PassMark multi-thread score of 36,811 and single-thread score of 4,280 further illustrate balanced performance across both heavily threaded and lightly threaded scenarios. The CPU's overall average benchmark score of 44,466 places it at the 88th percentile of all CPUs tested, indicating strong general-purpose capability.

For a simulation game like Pc Building Simulator, the CPU's role is primarily in managing the game's logic, component compatibility checks, and system assembly calculations. The measured FPS data shows that at 1080p with Low settings, the combo reaches 262 FPS average, while at 4K Ultra it drops to 41 FPS. This spread suggests that at lower resolutions and settings, the CPU has sufficient headroom to feed the GPU, but at higher settings the workload shifts significantly.

Compared to its nearest rivals in the CPU benchmark database, the Ultra X9 388H is essentially tied with the AMD Ryzen 5 7500X3D (0.2% behind, deltaPct -0.2) and the Intel Core i9-13950HX (0.3% ahead, deltaPct 0.3). It also sits 0.4% ahead of the AMD Ryzen AI Max 385 and 0.5% ahead of the Intel Core i5-13600. These margins are negligible in real-world gaming terms, meaning the Ultra X9 388H competes at the same level as these established desktop and mobile parts.

The 16-thread configuration (16 cores, 16 threads, no hyperthreading) is notable. Many competing processors offer higher thread counts via simultaneous multithreading, but the Ultra X9's raw core count and high boost clock appear sufficient for this game's demands, as evidenced by the high FPS numbers at 1080p and 1440p.

# FAQ

Q: What is the CPU's overall performance percentile compared to all tested processors?

A: The Intel Core Ultra X9 388H ranks at the 88th percentile among all CPUs in the benchmark database, with an average benchmark score of 44,466.

Q: How does the CPU compare to its closest rival, the AMD Ryzen 5 7500X3D?

A: The Ultra X9 388H trails the Ryzen 5 7500X3D by just 0.2% in average benchmark score (44,466 vs. 44,573), making the two processors effectively equal in overall performance.

Q: What are the CPU's single-thread and multi-thread Cinebench R23 scores?

A: The CPU scores 2,200.5 in Cinebench R23 single-core and 18,911 in Cinebench R23 multi-core, showing strong performance in both lightly and heavily threaded workloads.

Q: What memory technology does this CPU support?

A: The Ultra X9 388H supports LPDDR5X memory over a dual-channel bus with a memory bandwidth of 153.6 GB/s.

Q: Does the CPU include integrated graphics?

A: Yes, it features the Arc B390 integrated graphics solution, though the measured FPS data in this page uses the discrete NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5070.

Q: What is the CPU's TDP and socket type?

A: The CPU has a TDP of 25 W and uses the Intel BGA 2540 socket, confirming its mobile market segment designation.

# How This Combo Ranks

The combination of the Intel Core Ultra X9 388H and NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5070 achieves a rank of 1,612 out of 3,002 tested combos in Pc Building Simulator. This places the combo in the 46th percentile of all tested system configurations, meaning roughly 54% of tested combos perform better in this specific game.

This mid-pack ranking is interesting given the individual component performance levels. The CPU sits at the 88th percentile among all CPUs, and the GPU ranks at the 82nd percentile among all GPUs. Yet the combo's overall ranking is much lower, suggesting that Pc Building Simulator does not heavily reward top-tier hardware in the same way that more demanding AAA titles might.

The gap between component percentiles and combo rank indicates that this game is likely more sensitive to other factors, such as memory configuration or storage speed, or that the game's engine has a performance ceiling that these high-end parts quickly hit. The measured FPS data supports this interpretation: at 1080p Low, the combo produces 262 FPS, which is far beyond what most displays can show, yet at 4K Ultra it falls to 41 FPS, showing that the game's rendering demands scale significantly with resolution and settings.

For context, the combo's rank of 1,612 out of 3,002 means there are 1,390 tested configurations that perform worse. This places the system in the upper-middle portion of the field, which is consistent with a high-end CPU and GPU pairing that is somewhat bottlenecked by the game's engine characteristics.

# Measured FPS Breakdown

The measured FPS data provides a comprehensive look at how this combo performs across three resolutions and four settings presets. All data is measured, not estimated.

1920x1080 (1080p):

• Low: 262 FPS average
• Medium: 186 FPS average, with a minimum of 158 and maximum of 214
• High: 131 FPS average
• Ultra: 125 FPS average

At 1080p, the combo delivers extremely high frame rates even at Ultra settings. The jump from Low to Medium costs 76 FPS (a 29% drop), while the jump from Medium to High costs 55 FPS (a 30% drop). The difference between High and Ultra is only 6 FPS (a 5% drop), suggesting diminishing returns at the highest preset.

2560x1440 (1440p):

• Low: 165 FPS average
• Medium: 117 FPS average, with a minimum of 100 and maximum of 135
• High: 83 FPS average
• Ultra: 79 FPS average

At 1440p, the frame rates remain highly playable across all settings. The scaling from Low to Medium costs 48 FPS (a 29% drop), Medium to High costs 34 FPS (a 29% drop), and High to Ultra costs only 4 FPS (a 5% drop). This mirrors the 1080p pattern, with Ultra providing marginal gains over High.

3840x2160 (4K):

• Low: 86 FPS average
• Medium: 61 FPS average, with a minimum of 52 and maximum of 70
• High: 43 FPS average
• Ultra: 41 FPS average

At 4K, the combo begins to show its limits. Low settings still produce a playable 86 FPS, but Medium drops to 61 FPS. High and Ultra fall to 43 and 41 FPS respectively, which are below the 60 FPS threshold many players prefer. The gap between High and Ultra narrows to just 2 FPS, indicating that Ultra provides almost no benefit over High at this resolution.

Across all resolutions, the Medium preset consistently shows the largest minimum-to-maximum FPS spread, suggesting more variable frame pacing at this setting. At 1080p Medium, the range spans 56 FPS (158 to 214), at 1440p Medium it spans 35 FPS (100 to 135), and at 4K Medium it spans 18 FPS (52 to 70).

# Resolution Scaling

Examining how FPS drops from 1080p to 4K reveals important insights about which component is limiting performance in Pc Building Simulator.

At Low settings, the combo produces 262 FPS at 1080p, 165 FPS at 1440p, and 86 FPS at 4K. Moving from 1080p to 1440p reduces frame rate by 37%, and from 1440p to 4K reduces it by 48%. The total drop from 1080p to 4K is 67%. This scaling pattern suggests that at Low settings, the GPU is handling the increased pixel count without being overwhelmed, but the CPU's performance ceiling becomes evident at 1080p where the frame rate exceeds 260 FPS.

At Medium settings, the FPS drops from 186 at 1080p to 117 at 1440p (a 37% drop) and then to 61 at 4K (a 48% drop from 1440p). The total drop is 67%. This consistent scaling between Low and Medium indicates that the GPU is the primary bottleneck at these settings, as the frame rate reduction closely tracks the increase in pixel count (1080p to 1440p is 1.78x pixels, 1440p to 4K is 2.25x pixels).

At High settings, the FPS drops from 131 at 1080p to 83 at 1440p (a 37% drop) and then to 43 at 4K (a 48% drop from 1440p). The total drop is 67%. This is nearly identical scaling to Low and Medium, suggesting that the game's rendering workload scales linearly with resolution regardless of quality preset.

At Ultra settings, the FPS drops from 125 at 1080p to 79 at 1440p (a 37% drop) and then to 41 at 4K (a 48% drop from 1440p). The total drop is 67%. Ultra follows the exact same scaling pattern as the other presets.

The consistent 67% total drop from 1080p to 4K across all settings presets strongly indicates that the GPU is the limiting component at higher resolutions. The CPU's performance is sufficient to maintain high frame rates at 1080p, but as resolution increases, the GPU's rendering workload grows proportionally, and the frame rate drops accordingly. At 4K Ultra, the combo produces 41 FPS, which is just below the minimum threshold for smooth gameplay in many titles.

# Settings Recommendations

Based on the measured FPS data, the optimal settings depend heavily on the target resolution and desired frame rate.

At 1080p, all settings presets produce frame rates well above 60 FPS. The Ultra preset delivers 125 FPS average, which is more than enough for smooth gameplay on most displays. However, the difference between High (131 FPS) and Ultra (125 FPS) is only 6 FPS, meaning Ultra provides negligible visual improvement for a 5% performance cost. Players with 144Hz or 165Hz displays might prefer High to maximize frame rate, while those with 60Hz displays can safely use Ultra without issue.

At 1440p, the Medium preset delivers 117 FPS average with a minimum of 100 FPS, providing a comfortable margin above 60 FPS. High drops to 83 FPS, and Ultra to 79 FPS. For the best balance of visual quality and performance, Medium is the recommended preset at this resolution. Players who prioritize visual fidelity can use High and still maintain frame rates above 75 FPS, but Ultra's 4 FPS improvement over High is not worth the additional rendering cost.

At 4K, the situation changes dramatically. Only the Low preset (86 FPS) achieves frame rates above 60 FPS. Medium drops to 61 FPS, which is borderline, while High (43 FPS) and Ultra (41 FPS) fall below the playable threshold for many users. For 4K gaming, the Low preset is the only option that guarantees smooth performance. Players with variable refresh rate displays might tolerate Medium's 61 FPS average, but the minimum of 52 FPS could cause noticeable stuttering in demanding scenes.

Across all resolutions, the data shows a consistent pattern: the difference between High and Ultra is minimal (5% or less), while the difference between Medium and High is substantial (29-30%). This indicates that the Ultra preset offers poor value in terms of performance per FPS gained. The recommended configuration is High settings at 1080p or 1440p, and Low or Medium at 4K depending on display refresh rate and sensitivity to frame drops.

# GPU Role

The NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5070 is built on the Blackwell 2.0 architecture using TSMC's 5 nm process. The GPU features 6,144 shading units, 192 texture mapping units, and 80 raster operations pipelines, along with 48 ray tracing cores and 192 tensor cores. Its boost clock reaches 2,512 MHz, providing substantial compute throughput for rendering tasks.

The GPU's memory subsystem consists of 12 GB of GDDR7 memory on a 192-bit bus, delivering 672.0 GB/s of bandwidth. This memory configuration is well-suited for 1080p and 1440p gaming, but at 4K, the 12 GB capacity may become a limiting factor in texture-heavy scenes. The GPU's FP32 performance is rated at 30.87 TFLOPS, with FP16 performance also at 30.87 TFLOPS (1:1 ratio).

In synthetic benchmarks, the RTX 5070 achieves a 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 score of 5,077, a Geekbench OpenCL score of 172,660, and a Geekbench Vulkan score of 178,923. Its PassMark G3D score of 29,137 and GPU Compute score of 15,787 further demonstrate its compute capabilities. The GPU's overall average benchmark score of 40,377 places it at the 82nd percentile of all GPUs tested.

Compared to its nearest rivals, the RTX 5070 is closely matched with the AMD Radeon Pro 580 (0.1% ahead, deltaPct 0.1), the AMD Radeon Pro WX 7100 (0.8% ahead, deltaPct 0.8), and the AMD Radeon Pro 5300 (1.2% behind, deltaPct -1.2). It also leads the NVIDIA RTX A500 Mobile by 2% (deltaPct 2). These rival comparisons highlight that the RTX 5070's raw compute scores are not dramatically higher than these older professional GPUs, yet in gaming scenarios, the RTX 5070's architecture provides significant advantages.

The GPU's role in Pc Building Simulator is primarily in rendering the 3D workspace, component models, and case visualization. The measured FPS data shows that at 1080p, the GPU can deliver up to 262 FPS at Low settings, indicating that it is not the limiting factor at lower resolutions. However, at 4K Ultra, the frame rate drops to 41 FPS, showing that the GPU's rendering workload at high resolutions and settings becomes the primary bottleneck.

The GPU's 250 W TDP and 600 W suggested PSU requirement indicate that this is a power-hungry component, but its dual-slot design and 245 mm length make it compatible with most mid-tower and full-tower cases. The 1x 16-pin power connector and PCIe 5.0 x16 interface ensure modern compatibility, while the display outputs (1x HDMI 2.1b and 3x DisplayPort 2.1b) support high refresh rate monitors and multi-display setups.