Evolve

The Intel Core i5-9400 is a 6-core, 6-thread desktop processor based on the Coffee Lake architecture, with a base clock of 2.90 GHz and a boost clock of 4.10 GHz. Its 9 MB of shared L3 cache and 42.7 GB/s of dual-channel DDR4 memory bandwidth position it as a mid-range CPU from its generation, a fact reflected in its 50th percentile ranking against all CPUs in the benchmark database. The Radeon RX 9070 XT, built on the RDNA 4.0 architecture, is a far more robust component; it features 4096 shading units, 64 ray-tracing cores, and a massive 16 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 256-bit bus, delivering 644.6 GB/s of bandwidth. The pairing of a 2018-era 6-thread CPU with a 2025-era flagship GPU creates a significant performance imbalance in Evolve, a 2015 FPS title. The measured FPS data indicates that at 1080p, the CPU is the primary determinant of performance, as the GPU has significant headroom. However, as resolution increases to 4K, the workload shifts heavily onto the GPU, and the frame rate drops in a pattern that reveals the bottleneck transitioning from the processor to the graphics card.

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

The i5-9400's 6 cores and 6 threads are the minimum configuration typically required for modern gaming, but in Evolve, the data suggests this is sufficient to avoid catastrophic stuttering. The processor's single-core performance, as measured by a Cinebench R23 score of 1125, is crucial for the game's primary game-thread logic. The boost clock of 4.10 GHz helps maintain responsiveness in scenes with multiple monsters and hunters on screen. However, the processor's overall compute capability, indicated by a Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 7969, is not the limiting factor in this pairing at lower resolutions; rather, the CPU's ability to feed the GPU with draw calls is what caps the frame rate.

At 1080p with Low settings, the combo achieves 209.4 FPS. This number is telling: it is far beyond the 60 FPS target and suggests that the CPU is doing its job adequately, but the frame rate is not scaling as high as the GPU's raw power would allow. The Radeon RX 9070 XT is capable of much higher frame rates in less CPU-bound scenarios, as evidenced by its 82nd percentile ranking among all GPUs. The i5-9400, with its 50th percentile ranking, is the weaker link. The data shows that the frame rate ceiling at 1080p is approximately 209 FPS, which is likely the CPU's instruction-issue limit for this game engine, rather than a GPU constraint. When the settings are raised to Ultra at 1080p, the frame rate drops to 109.3 FPS, a reduction of nearly 100 FPS. This drop is too steep to be explained solely by the GPU's workload increase; it indicates that the CPU is also struggling with the increased number of draw calls and physics calculations that higher settings impose.

The processor's 6 threads are fully utilized by the game's multi-threaded rendering tasks, but the lack of hyper-threading means that any single-thread bottleneck will directly impact the frame pacing. The Cinebench R15 single-core score of 113 is a low absolute number, but in a game from 2015, it is adequate. The real insight from the CPU data is that the i5-9400 is not a bottleneck at 4K Ultra where the GPU is clearly the limiting factor, but it is the primary limiter at 1080p Low. This is a classic case of a mid-range CPU pairing with a top-tier GPU, where the CPU's 6 cores are enough to keep the game playable but not enough to unlock the GPU's full potential in CPU-light scenarios.

FAQ — 4-6 Q&A pairs answerable from FACT PACK data

Q: What is the maximum average frame rate achievable with this combo, and at what settings?

A: The highest measured average frame rate is 209.4 FPS, achieved at 1920x1080 resolution with Low settings.

Q: How does the i5-9400 compare to its closest rival in the database?

A: The i5-9400's average benchmark score is 2305, which is 0.2% higher than the Intel Core i3-10305's score of 2300, making them statistically equivalent in synthetic workloads.

Q: Is the Radeon RX 9070 XT a high-performing GPU relative to all others in the database?

A: Yes, the RX 9070 XT has a percentile ranking of 82 among all GPUs, indicating it outperforms the vast majority of graphics cards that have been benchmarked.

Q: What is the frame rate difference between High and Ultra settings at 1440p?

A: At 2560x1440, the High preset yields 107.9 FPS on average, while the Ultra preset drops to 76.5 FPS, a decrease of 31.4 FPS.

Q: Does the combo maintain 60 FPS at 4K resolution with any settings?

A: Yes, at 3840x2160 with High settings, the average FPS is 63. The Low preset achieves 100.4 FPS, and the Medium preset achieves 80 FPS, but the Ultra preset falls below 60 FPS at 40.2 FPS.

Q: How many total combos does this specific CPU-GPU pairing rank against in Evolve?

A: The combo ranks 517th out of 1695 tested combos for this game, placing it in the top third of all systems tested.

Resolution Scaling — how FPS drops from 1080p to 4K and what it says about the limiting component

The measured FPS data provides a clear picture of how the system's performance scales with resolution. At 1080p High, the average FPS is 159.3. Moving to 1440p High, that number drops to 107.9 FPS, a reduction of 32.3%. Moving further to 4K High, the average FPS is 63, which is a 60.4% drop from the 1440p figure and a 60.5% drop from the 1080p figure. This scaling pattern is steep and indicates that the GPU is becoming the primary bottleneck as resolution increases.

The story is different at Low settings. At 1080p Low, the system pushes 209.4 FPS. At 1440p Low, it achieves 172.4 FPS, a drop of only 17.7%. At 4K Low, it still manages 100.4 FPS. The percentage drop from 1080p to 4K at Low settings is 52.1%, which is less severe than the 60.5% drop at High settings. This suggests that at Low settings, the GPU is still not fully saturated at 1080p and 1440p, and the CPU is holding the frame rate back. The fact that 1080p Low (209.4 FPS) and 1440p Low (172.4 FPS) are both above 170 FPS indicates the CPU is the primary limiter at these settings, as the GPU has enough headroom to render faster if the CPU could supply data faster.

At Ultra settings, the scaling is even more pronounced. The 1080p Ultra average is 109.3 FPS, 1440p Ultra drops to 76.5 FPS, and 4K Ultra falls to 40.2 FPS. The drop from 1080p to 4K is 63.2%, which is the steepest of any preset. This is expected, as Ultra settings tax the GPU's fill rate and memory bandwidth the hardest. The RX 9070 XT's 644.6 GB/s of memory bandwidth is being pushed to its limits at 4K Ultra, and the 16 GB of VRAM is likely being fully utilized. The data clearly shows that at 4K Ultra, the GPU is the definitive bottleneck, as the frame rate is below the CPU's threshold that we saw at lower resolutions.

How This Combo Ranks — use comboRankInGame vs other tested combos

The combination of the Intel Core i5-9400 and the AMD Radeon RX 9070 XT ranks 517th out of 1695 tested combos in Evolve. This places the pairing in the 69th percentile of all systems tested, meaning it outperforms approximately 69% of the other CPU-GPU combinations in the database for this specific game. Given that the GPU is a top-tier part (82nd percentile) and the CPU is a mid-range part (50th percentile), this ranking makes sense. The ranking is dragged down by the CPU's limitations in CPU-bound scenarios, but it is still a high ranking overall due to the GPU's immense power in GPU-bound scenarios.

The data shows that the combo's ranking is likely higher than what the CPU alone would achieve with a weaker GPU, but lower than what the GPU alone could achieve with a stronger CPU. The 517th rank out of 1695 is a solid result, but it is not a top-tier performance. For comparison, the GPU's nearest rival, the AMD Radeon Pro 575, has an average score that is 0.1% higher than the RX 9070 XT, indicating that the GPU is performing as expected. The CPU's nearest rival, the Intel Core i3-10305, is within 0.2% of the i5-9400's average score, showing that the CPU is also performing as expected. The bottleneck is the interaction between the two, not a defect in either part. The combination's rank is a reflection of the 6-core CPU's ability to keep up with a 4096-shader GPU in a 2015 title that may not be heavily multi-threaded.

Settings Recommendations — which preset gives the best experience per the measured rows

For a 60 FPS target, the ideal settings depend on the resolution. At 4K, the High preset is the only one that exceeds 60 FPS, with an average of 63 FPS. The Ultra preset falls well below this at 40.2 FPS, making it unplayable for a smooth experience. At 1440p, the High preset delivers a comfortable 107.9 FPS, and even the Ultra preset at 76.5 FPS is above the 60 FPS threshold, providing a high-fidelity option. At 1080p, all presets are above 100 FPS, with the Ultra preset providing 109.3 FPS, which is a good balance of visual quality and performance.

For a 144 Hz monitor, the 1080p Low preset is the only one that comes close to hitting that target, with an average of 209.4 FPS. The 1080p Medium preset at 191.1 FPS is also well above 144 FPS and would be a better visual choice. At 1440p, the Low preset at 172.4 FPS is the only option that reaches 144 FPS, while the High preset at 107.9 FPS is below the threshold. The best overall experience, balancing visual fidelity and high frame rates, is the 1080p Medium preset. It provides 191.1 FPS, which is a massive margin over the 60 FPS target and offers better textures and effects than Low. The Ultra preset at 1080p is also viable at 109.3 FPS, but the drop from Medium to Ultra is significant, and the visual difference may not justify the 81.8 FPS loss. The data suggests that the Medium preset is the sweet spot for this combo at 1080p, and High is the optimal choice for 1440p and 4K.

Measured FPS Breakdown — resolution by resolution, settings by settings, exact numbers

The following data is directly from the measured FPS table for the Evolve game with this hardware configuration. At 1920x1080, the average frame rates are as follows: Low settings achieve 209.4 FPS, Medium settings achieve 191.1 FPS, High settings achieve 159.3 FPS, and Ultra settings achieve 109.3 FPS. This shows a steady decline in performance as visual fidelity increases, with the steepest drop occurring between High and Ultra, a difference of 50 FPS.

Moving to 2560x1440, the frame rates scale down accordingly: Low settings produce 172.4 FPS, Medium settings produce 134 FPS, High settings produce 107.9 FPS, and Ultra settings produce 76.5 FPS. At this resolution, all presets except Ultra remain above the 100 FPS mark, indicating that the GPU still has ample power to spare. The drop from 1080p to 1440p at each setting is roughly consistent, averaging around 30-40 FPS, which is a typical scaling factor.

At the highest resolution, 3840x2160, the performance drops significantly. The Low preset yields 100.4 FPS, the Medium preset yields 80 FPS, the High preset yields 63 FPS, and the Ultra preset yields 40.2 FPS. This is the only resolution where the Ultra preset falls below the 60 FPS threshold, making it unsuitable for smooth gameplay. The High preset at 4K, at 63 FPS, is just barely playable, but it is the maximum settings that can be used for a consistent 60 FPS experience. The data shows a clear pattern: the system is capable of high frame rates at 1080p and 1440p with any settings, but at 4K, the GPU becomes the limiting factor, and only the lower presets can maintain high frame rates.