Fivem

The benchmark data for Fivem on the Intel Core Ultra 9 290K Plus paired with the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5050 reveals a system that scales predictably with resolution, but whose performance ceiling is firmly dictated by the GPU. Across the three tested resolutions, the data shows a clear pattern: 1080p and 1440p provide ample headroom for high framerates, while 4K demands significant settings compromises to maintain the 60 FPS playability threshold.

Best Settings per Resolution

The most demanding preset that maintains an average of at least 60 FPS varies sharply by resolution, according to the measured data. At 1920x1080, the system clears the 60 FPS bar even at the highest visual quality. The Ultra preset delivers an average of 82 FPS, making it the best settings choice at this resolution. The data shows a comfortable margin above the 60 FPS threshold, suggesting that even with demanding multiplayer scenes, the frame rate should remain fluid.

Moving to 2560x1440, the ceiling drops. The High preset achieves an average of 70 FPS, which is the most demanding playable option. The Ultra preset falls to 54 FPS average, missing the 60 FPS target. This indicates that at 1440p, users must sacrifice Ultra details for High to keep the experience smooth.

At 3840x2160, the situation becomes restrictive. Only the Low preset manages to stay at or above 60 FPS, with an average of 61 FPS. The Medium preset averages 48 FPS, while High and Ultra drop to 39 FPS and 30 FPS respectively. The data implies that 4K gaming with this combination requires a significant visual downgrade to remain playable, and even then, the 61 FPS average leaves little headroom for frame-time spikes.

CPU and GPU Roles

The scaling between resolutions and presets points to the GPU as the primary bottleneck in this configuration. Comparing the average FPS across resolutions at the same settings shows a steep decline as pixel count rises. For the High preset, the frame rate drops from 106 FPS at 1080p to 70 FPS at 1440p, and then to 39 FPS at 4K. This near-linear relationship with pixel throughput strongly implicates the graphics card as the limiting factor.

The CPU’s role appears minimal in this workload, given the massive headroom it provides. The Intel Core Ultra 9 290K Plus is a 24-core, 24-thread processor with a boost clock of 5.80 GHz and a Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 51731. Such a processor is unlikely to bottleneck a GPU that sits in the 66th percentile of all GPUs. The data supports this interpretation: at 1080p Low, the system hits 168 FPS, a figure that would typically be CPU-limited in many games, but here it still shows no sign of CPU constraint.

The Ultra preset at 1440p illustrates the GPU load more distinctly. It averages 54 FPS, which is 16 FPS lower than High at the same resolution. This 23% reduction in performance for a single settings tier indicates that the GPU is struggling with the increased shading and texture work. In contrast, the CPU’s compute capabilities, as measured by its Passmark multi-thread score of 60860, remain largely underutilized. The data suggests that upgrading the GPU would yield far greater performance gains than any CPU change.

Measured FPS Breakdown

The measured FPS data provides a complete picture of the system’s performance envelope. At 1920x1080, the Low preset produces an average of 168 FPS. Medium improves the visual quality while still delivering 132 FPS average, with a minimum of 112 FPS and a maximum of 152 FPS. High reaches 106 FPS average, and Ultra settles at 82 FPS average. All presets at this resolution exceed the 60 FPS threshold comfortably.

At 2560x1440, the averages step down in a predictable manner. Low runs at 110 FPS, Medium at 87 FPS (with a min of 74 FPS and max of 100 FPS), and High at 70 FPS. Ultra drops below the threshold to 54 FPS. The minimum FPS data for Medium shows a 13 FPS gap from the average, indicating some frame-time variance, but the 74 FPS minimum still clears the playability bar.

The 3840x2160 results show the system’s limits. Low averages 61 FPS, which is barely playable. Medium averages 48 FPS with a minimum of 41 FPS and a maximum of 56 FPS, showing that even the minimum dips well below the 60 FPS target. High drops to 39 FPS, and Ultra falls to 30 FPS. The absence of min/max data for Low, High, and Ultra at this resolution leaves some uncertainty about frame pacing, but the averages alone indicate a challenging experience at higher settings.

The Verdict

The verdictByResolution data provides clear guidance on what this PC can run. For 1920x1080, every preset is playable, and the Ultra setting with an average of 82 FPS is the recommended choice. The system handles 1080p gaming with significant overhead.

At 2560x1440, the PC can run the game at High, Medium, or Low settings, with High being the best option at 70 FPS average. The Ultra preset is not playable, falling short of the 60 FPS threshold with a 54 FPS average.

For 3840x2160, only the Low preset is playable, achieving an average of 61 FPS. This is a marginal pass, and the lack of min/max data for this preset makes it difficult to assess frame consistency. Users seeking 4K playability must accept Low settings and may still encounter occasional dips below 60 FPS. Overall, this combo is best suited for 1080p and 1440p gaming, with 4K available only in a heavily reduced visual state.

FAQ

Q: Can this PC run Fivem at 4K with High settings?

A: No. The measured average FPS at 3840x2160 with High settings is 39 FPS, which is well below the 60 FPS playable threshold.

Q: What is the best playable preset at 2560x1440?

A: The High preset is the most demanding option that stays at or above 60 FPS, with an average of 70 FPS. The Ultra preset falls to 54 FPS and is not playable.

Q: Does the CPU or GPU limit performance in this game?

A: The data indicates the GPU is the limiting factor. FPS scales steeply with resolution, while the CPU’s high benchmark scores suggest it has ample headroom.

Q: What average FPS does the Ultra preset achieve at 1920x1080?

A: The Ultra preset at 1920x1080 delivers an average of 82 FPS, which is above the 60 FPS threshold.

Q: Is there a playable preset at 3840x2160?

A: Yes, the Low preset averages 61 FPS, which just clears the playable threshold. No other preset at this resolution reaches 60 FPS.

Q: How does the RTX 5050 compare to its nearest rivals in benchmark scores?

A: The RTX 5050 has an average benchmark score of 21035, which is 0.6% below the AMD Radeon RX Vega M GL, 1% below the AMD Radeon HD 8970M, and 1.6% above the AMD Radeon RX 5600 XT.

How This Combo Ranks

The combination of the Intel Core Ultra 9 290K Plus and the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5050 ranks 2275 out of 3707 tested combos for Fivem. This places it in the lower-middle portion of the database, which aligns with the GPU’s modest performance tier. The CPU is a top-tier part, ranking in the 96th percentile of all CPUs, but the GPU’s 66th percentile ranking drags the overall combo down. In a game like Fivem, where framerates are heavily GPU-bound at higher resolutions, this ranking makes sense. The system is far more capable at 1080p than at 4K, and its overall standing reflects that imbalance.

Similar Performance Alternatives

The nearest rivals for the CPU and GPU provide a sense of what other hardware would behave similarly. For the Intel Core Ultra 9 290K Plus, the closest match is the Intel Core Ultra 9 285K, which has an average benchmark score of 83807, just 0.2% lower. The AMD EPYC 4584PX (83090, 1.1% lower) and AMD EPYC 9135 (82980, 1.2% lower) are also nearby, while the AMD EPYC 7F72 scores 85072, which is 1.3% higher. These CPUs would offer nearly identical compute performance in Fivem, meaning the frame rates would be essentially unchanged.

For the GPU, the nearest rivals are clustered very close. The AMD Radeon RX Vega M GL scores 21153, which is 0.6% higher than the RTX 5050. The AMD Radeon HD 8970M scores 21237, 1% higher, and the NVIDIA RTX A4000 Mobile scores 21379, 1.6% higher. The AMD Radeon RX 5600 XT is the only rival that scores lower, at 20713, which is 1.6% below. Swapping the RTX 5050 for any of these cards would result in within-2% performance differences, making them all viable alternatives for similar FPS in Fivem. The data suggests that users with any of these GPUs would see nearly identical results at each resolution and preset combination.