Evolve

FAQ

Q: Can the Intel Core i5-9400 and AMD Radeon RX 9070 XT combination run Evolve at 4K resolution?

A: Yes, at 4K the combo delivers playable performance on High, Low, and Medium settings, with High being the best playable preset at 63 FPS average. Ultra settings at 4K fall below the 60 FPS threshold, averaging 40.2 FPS.

Q: What is the best settings preset for 1440p gaming with this combo?

A: At 2560x1440, all four tested presets (Low, Medium, High, Ultra) exceed 60 FPS. Ultra is the best playable setting, delivering an average of 76.5 FPS.

Q: How does this combo rank among all tested system configurations in Evolve?

A: The combination ranks 1065th out of 3700 tested combos in the database for this game, placing it in the upper third of all recorded configurations.

Q: Which component is more demanding in Evolve based on the measured data?

A: The benchmark results indicate the GPU is the dominant factor. At 1080p Ultra, the system achieves 109.3 FPS, while at 4K Ultra it drops to 40.2 FPS, showing heavy resolution scaling that points to GPU-bound performance.

Q: Is the RX 9070 XT a strong performer relative to other GPUs in the database?

A: The GPU sits at the 55th percentile among all GPUs, with an average benchmark score of 13543. Its closest rivals in the database include the AMD Radeon HD 7770M (0.1% slower), NVIDIA GeForce GTX 570 (0.2% slower), and NVIDIA P106-090 (0.5% slower).

Q: How does the i5-9400 compare to its nearest CPU rivals in synthetic benchmarks?

A: The i5-9400 scores 2254 on average across benchmark tests. Its nearest rival, the Intel Core i7-1068NG7, scores 2259 (0.2% higher), while the AMD Ryzen 5 PRO 1500 scores 2246 (0.4% lower).

CPU and GPU Roles

The measured FPS data across resolutions reveals a clear division of labor between the Intel Core i5-9400 and the AMD Radeon RX 9070 XT. Evolve is a 2015 FPS title, and the scaling patterns suggest the GPU carries most of the rendering load, but the CPU still matters at lower resolutions and higher framerates.

At 1920x1080, the system produces framerates between 109.3 FPS on Ultra and 209.4 FPS on Low. This spread of 100 FPS between presets indicates that graphics settings heavily influence performance, which is typical of GPU-bound scenarios. The jump from Low to Medium costs only 18.3 FPS (from 209.4 to 191.1), while the jump from Medium to High costs 31.8 FPS (from 191.1 to 159.3). The largest penalty comes from moving to Ultra, which drops 50 FPS compared to High. These diminishing returns point to the GPU working progressively harder as visual fidelity increases.

At 2560x1440, the same pattern holds but with lower absolute numbers. Low settings produce 172.4 FPS, Medium 134 FPS, High 107.9 FPS, and Ultra 76.5 FPS. The gap between Low and Ultra is 95.9 FPS, slightly smaller than at 1080p but still substantial. The fact that even Ultra at 1440p stays above 60 FPS suggests the RX 9070 XT has ample headroom for this older title at mainstream resolutions.

At 3840x2160, the picture changes dramatically. Ultra settings collapse to 40.2 FPS, a 36.3 FPS drop from High's 63 FPS. Medium manages 80 FPS, and Low reaches 100.4 FPS. The 4K Ultra result is the only sub-60 FPS reading in the entire dataset. This indicates that at 4K with maximum settings, the GPU's fill rate and memory bandwidth become limiting factors. The RX 9070 XT has 16 GB of GDDR6 memory and 644.6 GB/s bandwidth, but the 4K Ultra workload still exceeds its comfortable envelope for this game.

The resolution scaling tells a story of GPU dominance. Moving from 1080p Ultra to 1440p Ultra costs 32.8 FPS (from 109.3 to 76.5), and moving from 1440p Ultra to 4K Ultra costs another 36.3 FPS (from 76.5 to 40.2). This consistent degradation with pixel count increase is the signature of a GPU-bound workload. The CPU, with its 6 cores and 6 threads, is not the bottleneck at any resolution because even the lowest GPU-bound framerates stay far above what the i5-9400's 47th percentile standing would suggest as a limiting factor.

The data also shows that the game responds strongly to preset changes at every resolution, which reinforces that the GPU is the primary driver. A CPU-bound scenario would show smaller FPS differences between Low and Ultra presets, since those settings mostly affect GPU work. The 169.2 FPS gap between 1080p Low and 4K Ultra is almost entirely attributable to GPU rendering load.

How This Combo Ranks

The Intel Core i5-9400 and AMD Radeon RX 9070 XT combination ranks 1065th out of 3700 tested combos in Evolve, placing it in the 71st percentile of all recorded configurations. This is a strong result for a game released in 2015, and it reflects the GPU's modern architecture (RDNA 4.0, 4 nm process) being well-suited to older DirectX 12 titles.

The rank is likely driven by the GPU's raw throughput. The RX 9070 XT has 4096 shading units, 256 texture mapping units, and 128 raster operations pipelines, with a pixel rate of 380.2 GPixel/s and a texture rate of 760.3 GTexel/s. These specifications translate to 48.66 TFLOPS of FP32 performance, which is more than enough for a game from 2015. The GPU's 55th percentile standing among all GPUs in the database, combined with the i5-9400's 47th percentile CPU standing, produces a system that outperforms the majority of tested combinations.

The 3700 combos in the database include a wide range of hardware generations, and the i5-9400's 6-core, 6-thread configuration from 2018 is still competitive for this title. The CPU's boost clock of 4.10 GHz and 9 MB of shared L3 cache provide adequate single-thread performance for game logic and draw call submission. The measured FPS at 1080p Low (209.4) approaches the refresh rate limits of most monitors, and even at 4K High (63) the system clears the playable threshold.

The rank also benefits from the GPU's memory configuration. The 16 GB of GDDR6 on a 256-bit bus delivers 644.6 GB/s of bandwidth, which prevents texture streaming bottlenecks even at 4K. Older games like Evolve rarely consume more than 8 GB of VRAM, so the RX 9070 XT operates well within its memory capacity.

The Verdict

This PC can run Evolve, and it does so with room to spare at most settings. The verdict by resolution is clear: at 1920x1080, every preset from Low to Ultra clears 60 FPS, with Ultra averaging 109.3 FPS. At 2560x1440, the same is true, with Ultra averaging 76.5 FPS. At 3840x2160, the system maintains 60 FPS on High, Medium, and Low, but Ultra falls short at 40.2 FPS.

For gamers targeting 1080p, this combo is overkill for Evolve. Even the most demanding preset produces more than 100 FPS, which means the game will feel smooth on high-refresh-rate displays. The 209.4 FPS on Low settings approaches the practical limit of most gaming monitors and indicates the system is nowhere near its ceiling.

For 1440p users, the system is equally capable. Ultra settings at 76.5 FPS provide a comfortable margin above the 60 FPS playable threshold, and the 107.9 FPS on High gives additional headroom for demanding scenes. This resolution is the sweet spot for this combination, balancing visual quality with high framerates.

For 4K users, the system is playable but requires settings management. High settings at 63 FPS are the best option, providing just above the 60 FPS threshold. Medium settings at 80 FPS offer a safety margin, while Low at 100.4 FPS is available for users who prioritize framerate over visuals. Ultra at 40.2 FPS is not recommended for smooth gameplay, though it may be acceptable for slower-paced moments.

The playable threshold in the database is 60 FPS, and this system exceeds it in 11 out of 12 tested configurations. The only failure is 4K Ultra, which is an extreme combination of high pixel count and maximum visual fidelity. For a 2015 game, this is an excellent result, especially considering the GPU's 55th percentile ranking and the CPU's 47th percentile ranking.

Measured FPS Breakdown

At 1920x1080, the recorded average FPS values are as follows:

• Low: 209.4 FPS average
• Medium: 191.1 FPS average
• High: 159.3 FPS average
• Ultra: 109.3 FPS average

The 1080p results show a steady decline as settings increase. The gap between Medium and High is 31.8 FPS, the largest single-step drop in this resolution. The gap between Low and Medium is 18.3 FPS, and between High and Ultra is 50 FPS. This last drop is the most severe, indicating that Ultra settings introduce significant additional GPU load.

At 2560x1440, the recorded average FPS values are:

• Low: 172.4 FPS average
• Medium: 134 FPS average
• High: 107.9 FPS average
• Ultra: 76.5 FPS average

The 1440p results follow the same pattern but with lower absolute numbers. The step from Medium to High costs 26.1 FPS, and from High to Ultra costs 31.4 FPS. The step from Low to Medium costs 38.4 FPS, which is the largest single-step drop at this resolution.

At 3840x2160, the recorded average FPS values are:

• Low: 100.4 FPS average
• Medium: 80 FPS average
• High: 63 FPS average
• Ultra: 40.2 FPS average

The 4K results show the steepest degradation curve. The step from Low to Medium costs 20.4 FPS, from Medium to High costs 17 FPS, and from High to Ultra costs 22.8 FPS. The 4K Ultra result is the only sub-60 FPS reading in the entire dataset, and it falls 19.8 FPS below the playable threshold.

The database records only average FPS values for this game, with no minimum or maximum framerate data available. This means the analysis is based on mean performance, which can mask occasional stutters or framerate dips. However, the consistently high averages across most settings suggest that the system maintains stable performance.

Best Settings per Resolution

At 1920x1080, the most demanding preset that stays at or above 60 FPS is Ultra, with an average of 109.3 FPS. This is the maximum settings configuration, and it provides nearly double the playable threshold.

At 2560x1440, the most demanding playable preset is also Ultra, averaging 76.5 FPS. This gives a 16.5 FPS margin above the 60 FPS threshold, which should absorb most transient framerate drops during intense gameplay.

At 3840x2160, the most demanding playable preset is High, averaging 63 FPS. This is a slim 3 FPS margin above the threshold, so users who prefer a safety buffer might choose Medium at 80 FPS instead. High provides the best visual quality while still technically clearing the playability bar.

The best settings per resolution reflect the GPU's scaling behavior. At 1080p and 1440p, the system has enough headroom to run maximum settings comfortably. At 4K, the GPU's limits become apparent, and users must compromise between visual fidelity and framerate.

Similar Performance Alternatives

The database identifies four CPU rivals that would behave similarly to the Intel Core i5-9400. The closest is the Intel Core i7-1068NG7, with an average benchmark score of 2259, just 0.2% higher than the i5-9400's 2254. The Intel Core i7-10710U scores 2248, 0.3% lower. The AMD Ryzen 5 PRO 1500 scores 2246, 0.4% lower. The Intel Core i3-10305 scores 2264, 0.4% higher.

These CPUs span different generations and price points, but their synthetic benchmark scores are nearly identical. In Evolve, which is not heavily CPU-threaded, any of these processors would likely produce similar framerates when paired with the same GPU. The differences of less than 1% are within measurement noise and would not be perceptible in gameplay.

The GPU rivals are more varied. The AMD Radeon HD 7770M scores 13536, 0.1% lower than the RX 9070 XT's 13543. The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 570 scores 13515, 0.2% lower. The NVIDIA P106-090 scores 13470, 0.5% lower. The AMD Radeon Pro 555 scores 13407, 1% lower.

These GPU alternatives are all older or lower-tier parts, yet their average benchmark scores are remarkably close to the RX 9070 XT. This is because the average benchmark score includes a mix of synthetic tests, some of which may not fully exercise the RX 9070 XT's modern features. In Evolve specifically, the RX 9070 XT's RDNA 4.0 architecture and 16 GB of VRAM would likely provide better real-world performance than these older rivals, despite the similar aggregate scores.

For users considering a similar system, the Intel Core i7-1068NG7 or Intel Core i3-10305 would be the closest CPU alternatives, while the AMD Radeon HD 7770M or NVIDIA GeForce GTX 570 would be the closest GPU alternatives by benchmark score. However, the RX 9070 XT's feature set, including DirectX 12 Ultimate support and 48.66 TFLOPS of FP32 performance, makes it a more future-proof choice for newer games.