Fivem

The Intel Core i5-10400F paired with the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 is a combination that targets 1080p gaming, and the recorded data for Fivem reflects that positioning. This pairing sits near the bottom of the database’s tested combinations, ranking 3604 out of 3707 combos for this specific title. The benchmark results show a clear performance ceiling, with playable performance only achievable at 1920x1080 on lower presets. The measurements below provide a detailed look at how this hardware handles the game across resolutions and settings.

Measured FPS Breakdown

At 3840x2160, the combination struggles to produce playable frame rates regardless of settings. The High preset delivers an average of 15.5 FPS, which is far below the 60 FPS playability threshold. Dropping to Medium improves the average to 22.3 FPS, while the Low preset reaches 25.4 FPS. The Ultra preset is the least performant, with an average of 13 FPS. None of these results come close to a smooth experience, and the data indicates that 4K is entirely out of reach for this hardware in Fivem.

Moving to 2560x1440, the situation improves but remains below the playability threshold. The High preset records an average of 31.5 FPS, while Medium reaches 42.2 FPS. The Low preset comes closest to playable territory with an average of 49.6 FPS, but it still falls short of 60 FPS. The Ultra preset drops to an average of 24.6 FPS. Across all settings at this resolution, the frame rates are consistent with a hardware configuration that cannot sustain smooth gameplay.

At 1920x1080, the data shows a more viable experience. The Low preset achieves an average of 76 FPS, which clears the 60 FPS threshold with headroom. The Medium preset averages 61.5 FPS, just above the playability line. However, the High preset drops to an average of 45.4 FPS, and the Ultra preset falls to 37.5 FPS. The measured results indicate that only the two lowest presets at 1080p deliver acceptable performance, and the gap between Medium and High is substantial, suggesting a steep scaling cost for higher visual quality.

Similar Performance Alternatives

The CPU’s nearest rivals in the database show that the Core i5-10400F is closely matched by several other processors. The Intel Xeon 6756E has an average score of 14163, which is 0.2 percent lower than the i5-10400F’s average of 14185. The AMD EPYC 7552 scores 14115, a 0.5 percent deficit. On the other side, the Intel Core 7 160UL scores 14232, which is 0.3 percent higher, and the AMD Ryzen 3 7320C scores 14277, 0.6 percent higher. These deltas are minor, meaning that swapping the CPU for any of these alternatives would result in nearly identical frame rates in Fivem, as the processing load is not the primary bottleneck.

For the GPU, the GeForce GTX 1650 sits in a similar position among its nearest rivals. The AMD Radeon HD 8850M has an average score of 7447, which is 0.3 percent lower than the GTX 1650’s 7472. The Intel UHD Graphics 750 scores 7441, a 0.4 percent deficit, and the AMD Radeon R7 350 scores 7425, a 0.6 percent deficit. The Intel Arc A310 is the closest competitor, with a score of 7550, which is 1 percent higher. These differences are negligible in practice, so a system with any of these GPUs would produce similar FPS results in Fivem, with the GTX 1650 holding a slight edge over most of its direct peers.

How This Combo Ranks

The combo rank of 3604 out of 3707 tested combinations places this hardware in the bottom 3 percent of the database for Fivem. This is a low standing, driven primarily by the GPU’s limited performance rather than the CPU. The Core i5-10400F has a percentile rank of 68 among all CPUs, indicating it is a mid-range processor that can handle modern workloads. In contrast, the GTX 1650 has a percentile rank of 40 among all GPUs, showing it is below average. The combination of a relatively capable CPU and a weaker GPU means that the graphics card is the limiting factor in Fivem, and the low overall rank reflects that imbalance.

The database shows that this combo is not competitive with most other tested pairings. Only 103 combinations rank lower, and those are likely to feature even older or less capable hardware. For Fivem, which is a multiplayer title that can be sensitive to both CPU and GPU performance, this combo’s low rank indicates that users should expect modest frame rates and will need to compromise on settings to achieve playability.

The Verdict

The recorded verdict data is clear: this PC cannot run Fivem at 60 FPS in 4K or 1440p. At 3840x2160, there are no playable settings, meaning every preset falls below the 60 FPS threshold. The best average at this resolution is 25.4 FPS on Low, which is less than half of what is needed. Similarly, at 2560x1440, no settings are playable, with the Low preset reaching only 49.6 FPS. The hardware simply does not have enough graphical horsepower to push these resolutions to a smooth frame rate.

At 1920x1080, the answer changes. The Low preset delivers 76 FPS, and the Medium preset delivers 61.5 FPS, both of which clear the playability threshold. The High and Ultra presets, however, fall below 60 FPS with averages of 45.4 and 37.5 FPS, respectively. The best playable setting is Medium, which achieves an average of 61.5 FPS. This means that a user can play Fivem at 1080p, but only if they are willing to use the two lower presets. For anyone expecting high or ultra settings at 1080p, this computer will not meet that expectation.

CPU and GPU Roles

The benchmark data reveals how the CPU and GPU each contribute to performance in Fivem. The Core i5-10400F has a strong synthetic benchmark profile, with a Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 10283 and a single-core score of 1451. These numbers indicate that the CPU is not a weak link for this game. The GPU, on the other hand, has a Passmark G3D score of 7880, which is modest for modern gaming. In Fivem, the GPU is the primary constraint, as evidenced by the steep drop in frame rates when moving from 1080p to 1440p and then to 4K.

At 1920x1080, the scaling between presets shows the GPU’s limits. The Low preset runs at 76 FPS, but High drops to 45.4 FPS, a 40 percent reduction. This indicates that the GPU is heavily taxed by higher settings. At 2560x1440, the Low preset falls to 49.6 FPS, a 35 percent drop from the same preset at 1080p. This resolution scaling further confirms that the GPU is the bottleneck. The CPU’s role is less visible in the FPS data, but its 68th percentile ranking suggests it has enough headroom to feed the GPU without becoming a limiting factor in most scenarios.

At 3840x2160, the GPU is completely overwhelmed. The Low preset only achieves 25.4 FPS, and the Ultra preset drops to 13 FPS. These numbers are so low that even a faster CPU would not help, as the GPU is rendering far more pixels than it can handle. The data suggests that for this game, the GPU matters more at every resolution, and the CPU’s contribution is secondary.

Best Settings per Resolution

At 3840x2160, there is no best setting because no preset reaches the 60 FPS threshold. The database records no playable settings for this resolution, so users should avoid 4K entirely with this hardware.

At 2560x1440, the same situation applies. No settings are playable, and the highest average is 49.6 FPS on Low. This is below the playability line, so 1440p is not a viable option for smooth gameplay.

At 1920x1080, the best playable setting is Medium, which achieves an average of 61.5 FPS. This is the most demanding preset that stays at or above 60 FPS. The Low preset is also playable at 76 FPS, but Medium offers a better visual experience while still clearing the threshold. Users can run the game at 1080p with Medium settings and expect a stable frame rate. The High and Ultra presets, with averages of 45.4 and 37.5 FPS, are not recommended for play, as they fall short of the 60 FPS target. For this combo, the optimal configuration is 1080p with Medium settings, which balances visual quality and performance.