Fivem

FAQ

Q: Can this system run Fivem at 60 FPS on a 4K display?

A: No. The recorded data shows no playable settings at 3840x2160. The best result at 4K is 29 FPS on Low settings, which falls well below the 60 FPS playable threshold.

Q: What is the highest preset that maintains 60 FPS at 1080p?

A: Medium settings at 1920x1080 delivers an average of 63 FPS, making it the most demanding preset that clears the 60 FPS threshold. Low settings run at 80 FPS, while High drops to 50 FPS and Ultra falls to 39 FPS.

Q: How does the Intel Arc B370 compare to its nearest rivals?

A: The GPU sits at the 5th percentile among all GPUs. Its 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 score of 1184 is essentially tied with the ATI Mobility Radeon HD 5570 (1186, 0.2% faster), ATI Radeon HD 5770 (1190, 0.5% faster), and AMD Radeon HD 7650M (1192, 0.7% faster). The AMD FirePro M2000 trails slightly at 1168, which is 1.4% slower.

Q: Is the CPU a bottleneck for this game?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 5 225 ranks in the 85th percentile among all CPUs, with an average benchmark score of 36938. Its nearest rival, the AMD Ryzen 5 5600F, scores 36945, a 0% difference. The CPU is not the limiting factor; the GPU's low percentile ranking (5th) is the primary constraint.

Q: What resolution shows the largest FPS jump from Ultra to Low?

A: At 1920x1080, the gap between Ultra (39 FPS) and Low (80 FPS) is 41 FPS. At 2560x1440, the difference is 27 FPS (26 to 53). At 3840x2160, the difference is 15 FPS (14 to 29). Lower resolutions amplify the impact of preset changes.

Q: Does the system have any playable settings at 1440p?

A: No. At 2560x1440, all presets fail to reach 60 FPS. Low settings produce 53 FPS, Medium 41 FPS, High 33 FPS, and Ultra 26 FPS. None of these clear the playable threshold.

CPU and GPU Roles

The performance data for Fivem reveals a clear division of labor between the Intel Core Ultra 5 225 and the Intel Arc B370. Across all resolutions, the GPU emerges as the dominant constraint, while the CPU provides ample headroom. The CPU's 85th percentile ranking and strong multi-threaded scores (Cinebench R23 multi-core at 25891, single-core at 3655) suggest it can feed frames quickly. The GPU, sitting at the 5th percentile, cannot keep pace.

Resolution scaling tells the story. At 1920x1080, the system achieves 80 FPS on Low and 63 FPS on Medium. Dropping to 2560x1440, those same settings fall to 53 FPS and 41 FPS, reductions of 27 FPS and 22 FPS respectively. At 3840x2160, Low yields 29 FPS and Medium yields 23 FPS, further reductions of 24 FPS and 18 FPS. The consistent decline with each resolution step indicates pixel throughput is the limiting factor, a signature of GPU-bound performance.

Preset scaling reinforces this conclusion. At 1080p, moving from Low to Medium costs 17 FPS, from Medium to High costs 13 FPS, and from High to Ultra costs 11 FPS. At 1440p, the same transitions cost 12 FPS, 8 FPS, and 7 FPS. At 4K, they cost 6 FPS, 5 FPS, and 4 FPS. The diminishing absolute FPS losses at higher resolutions show that the GPU is already saturated; increasing settings has less relative impact when the baseline is low.

The CPU's role is supportive rather than decisive. Even at the lowest resolution and preset, where CPU load would be highest relative to GPU, the system reaches 80 FPS. This suggests the processor is not holding back performance. The recorded data shows no scenario where the CPU's capabilities, such as its 10 cores and 20 MB of shared L3 cache, become a bottleneck. Instead, every FPS ceiling is set by the GPU's modest compute resources, including its 1280 shading units and 6.144 TFLOPS FP32 throughput.

For players aiming at 1080p, the GPU is the sole gatekeeper. At 1440p and 4K, the gap between playable and unplayable widens, and no amount of CPU headroom can compensate. The Intel Arc B370's system-shared memory and 25 W TDP further indicate its integrated-class positioning, which aligns with the measured results.

Similar Performance Alternatives

For the Intel Core Ultra 5 225, the nearest rivals in the database are closely matched. The AMD Ryzen 5 5600F scores 36945, a 0% delta from the Intel chip's 36938. The AMD Ryzen 5 5500X3D scores 37018, 0.2% faster. The AMD Ryzen AI 7 PRO 450 scores 37093, 0.4% faster. The Intel Core i9-12900T scores 37112, 0.5% faster. Any of these CPUs would deliver near-identical frame pacing in Fivem, given that the GPU is the bottleneck. The differences are within measurement noise and would not alter the playability verdict at any resolution.

For the Intel Arc B370, the situation is stark. Its 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 score of 1184 places it alongside legacy discrete GPUs. The ATI Mobility Radeon HD 5570 (1186) and ATI Radeon HD 5770 (1190) are effectively identical, with deltas of 0.2% and 0.5% faster. The AMD Radeon HD 7650M (1192) is 0.7% faster. The AMD FirePro M2000 (1168) is 1.4% slower. These are all older parts, and the data suggests the B370 performs in their class. In Fivem, swapping the B370 for any of these would yield FPS figures within a few frames of the recorded averages, meaning none would unlock 60 FPS at 1440p or 4K.

The combination of a top-tier CPU with a bottom-tier GPU is unusual. The recorded data shows the system ranks 3420 out of 3707 combinations for this game, placing it in the bottom 8% of tested configs. The CPU's high percentile does not compensate for the GPU's low percentile. Users considering alternatives should focus on GPU upgrades first, as the CPU already exceeds the demands of Fivem at all settings.

The Verdict

This PC can run Fivem, but only at 1920x1080 with Low or Medium settings. The verdict data is unambiguous: at 3840x2160, no settings are playable; at 2560x1440, no settings are playable. At 1920x1080, the playable settings are Low and Medium, with Medium being the best option at 63 FPS average.

The 60 FPS threshold is the benchmark for playability. At 1080p Medium, the system clears it by 3 FPS. At 1080p Low, it clears it by 20 FPS. Every other preset and resolution combination fails. High settings at 1080p produce 50 FPS, a 10 FPS shortfall. Ultra at 1080p produces 39 FPS, a 21 FPS shortfall. At 1440p, even Low settings fall 7 FPS short of 60. At 4K, the best case is 29 FPS on Low, less than half the target.

The Intel Core Ultra 5 225 is more than adequate for this task. Its benchmark scores, including a Passmark single-thread score of 4412 and multi-thread score of 30459, indicate strong processing capability. The Intel Arc B370 is the limiting factor. Its 5th percentile GPU ranking and 1184 Steel Nomad score place it far below what Fivem requires for higher resolutions.

For users with 1080p displays, the system is functional but limited. Medium settings provide a playable experience with no frame drops below 54 FPS and peaks at 72 FPS. For users with 1440p or 4K displays, the system cannot deliver a playable experience at any setting. The recommendation is clear: stick to 1080p and Medium or lower settings, or upgrade the GPU.

Measured FPS Breakdown

At 3840x2160, the recorded averages are uniformly low. Ultra settings produce 14 FPS, High produces 18 FPS, Medium produces 23 FPS with a minimum of 20 FPS and maximum of 26 FPS, and Low produces 29 FPS. No preset at this resolution approaches the 60 FPS target. The spread from Ultra to Low is 15 FPS, indicating that even the lowest settings cannot salvage playability.

At 2560x1440, the results improve but remain below the threshold. Ultra averages 26 FPS, High averages 33 FPS, Medium averages 41 FPS with a range of 35 FPS minimum to 48 FPS maximum, and Low averages 53 FPS. The jump from Medium to Low is 12 FPS, the largest single step at this resolution. Still, the best case falls 7 FPS short of playable.

At 1920x1080, the system finds its only playable territory. Ultra averages 39 FPS, High averages 50 FPS, Medium averages 63 FPS with a minimum of 54 FPS and maximum of 72 FPS, and Low averages 80 FPS. The Medium preset is the sweet spot, staying above 60 FPS on average and never dropping below 54 FPS. Low is the safest choice for consistent performance, with a 20 FPS margin over the threshold. High and Ultra are not viable, missing the target by 10 FPS and 21 FPS respectively.

The minimum and maximum data points are only recorded for Medium settings at each resolution. At 1080p Medium, the 54 FPS minimum means occasional dips below 60 FPS, but the average stays healthy. At 1440p Medium, the 35 FPS minimum and 48 FPS maximum show a tight, low band. At 4K Medium, the 20 FPS minimum and 26 FPS maximum confirm severe performance limitations.

Best Settings per Resolution

At 3840x2160, there are no playable settings. The database records no preset that reaches 60 FPS, so the best settings field is null. Low at 29 FPS is the highest average, but it is not a playable configuration.

At 2560x1440, the same conclusion applies. No playable settings exist. Low at 53 FPS is the closest, but it falls short of the 60 FPS threshold. Users at this resolution must either lower their display resolution or upgrade hardware.

At 1920x1080, Medium is the best playable preset. It averages 63 FPS, clearing the 60 FPS target by 3 FPS. The minimum of 54 FPS and maximum of 72 FPS show acceptable variance. Low settings are also playable at 80 FPS average, providing a larger safety margin. High and Ultra are not recommended, as they average 50 FPS and 39 FPS respectively, both below the playable threshold.

For users prioritizing visual quality within playable bounds, Medium at 1080p is the optimal choice. It delivers the highest average FPS among playable settings while maintaining a stable range. For users who prefer smoother performance, Low at 1080p offers a 17 FPS advantage over Medium with reduced visual fidelity. No other resolution offers any playable options.