Evolve

Evolve, a cooperative FPS released on 2015-02-09, is not a demanding game by modern standards, but this combination of an Intel Core i5-9400 and an NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1070 still has to manage a balance between CPU geometry and GPU shading. The measured data shows this setup delivers playable frame rates at 1080p and 1440p, but at 4K it quickly falls below 50 FPS. The combo rank of 3053 out of 3700 tested configurations places it among the lower half of systems, in line with the 47th percentile scores of both the CPU and GPU. The i5-9400’s six cores and nine megabytes of L3 cache, paired with the GTX 1070’s 8GB of GDDR5 memory, produce a typical mid-range experience—capable at mainstream resolutions, but struggling with high-preset enthusiast settings.

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

The Intel Core i5-9400 is a six-core, six-thread processor based on Coffee Lake with a 2.90 GHz base clock and 4.10 GHz boost. It shows 9 MB shared L3 cache, a dual-channel memory interface, and a 65W thermal envelope. In synthetic benchmarks it scores 99 in single-core Cinebench R20 (392 points) and 2784 in multi-core, while its overall average benchmark score is 2254. That sits at the 47th percentile of all CPUs and sees a slight edge over the nearest rivals: the Core i7-1068NG7 scores 2259 (0.2% behind), the Core i3-10305 has 2264 (0.4% behind), while the Core i7-10710U (2248, 0.3% ahead) and Ryzen 5 PRO 1500 (2246, 0.4% ahead) are nearly identical.

In Evolve, the CPU is rarely the bottleneck at default settings. The most demanding scenario for the processor is at 1080p with Low settings, where the system reaches 132 FPS average. That high frame total indicates that the i5-9400 can keep up with the GTX 1070 even when the GPU is under little load. At 2.9 GHz base and 4.1 GHz boost, the core clock is moderate but the architecture’s six full cores handle Evolve’s update and physics threads without stalling. Only when settings ramp up does the GPU dominate the frame time; the CPU’s role then falls to delivering a consistent frame pacing, which the 132 FPS low preset shows it is capable of.

However, the CPU’s single‑thread performance is not exceptional. The Cinebench R23 single‑core score of 935 and the Geekbench single‑core figure of 1389 align with a processor designed for mainstream desktops. Evolve is which supports older multi‑core scaling, so the 9400’s thread count is adequate. Compared to its rivals, the 9400 is within 0.4% of all four nearest CPUs in average score, meaning none of those chips would produce a noticeable difference in Evolve’s frame rates. The measured frame data at 2560×1440 and 1920×1080 confirms that, while CPU effort remains a secondary factor, the main limiter is found in the graphics processor.

GPU Role — VRAM, clocks, and how they relate to this game's results

The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1070 is based on the Pascal architecture with a 1,506 MHz base and 1,683 MHz boost core clock. It has 8 GB GDDR5 memory on a 256‑bit bus, yielding a bandwidth of 256.3 GB/s and an effective memory rate of 8 Gbps. The graphics card’s compute power is 6.4 TFLOPS, with 1920 shading units, 120 TMUs, and 64 ROPs. In benchmark suites it achieves a PassMark G3D score of 13,498 and a PassMark DirectX 9 score of 197, but its overall average benchmark score is 9,780 at the 47th percentile of all GPUs. Its closest hardware is the AMD FirePro W5000 (9,803, 0.2% behind), the Quadro M2000M (9,832, 0.5% behind), the Tesla M10 (9,724, 0.6% ahead), and the Tesla C2070 (9,716, 0.7% ahead).

In Evolve, the podium’s measurable performance scales sharply with resolution. At 1920×1080, the medium preset averages 102 FPS (min 87, max 117), and the high preset yields 80 FPS. At 2560×1440 the medium drops to 68 FPS (min 58, max 79) and high to 54. At 3840×2160 the medium only manages 39 FPS (min 33, max 45) – a clear indication the GPU is struggling to fill the huge array of pixels. The 8 GB GDDR5 is sufficient for the game’s looks and the memory bandwidth is 256.3 GB/s, which at 1080p is ample; the sharp drop from 1080p to 4K indicates a saturated bandwidth and pixel fill rate, not a capacity shortfall.

Because the low preset at 4K still hits only 50 FPS average, and the ultra preset (which increases shadow, shading, and effects) dips to 21 FPS, the 1070’s functional limit is even modest 4K gaming. Its end-of-life status and 9th‑generation rivals doom it for high‑detail 4K runs. For this game, the 1070’s nominal boost clock of 1683 MHz is ramped by the card’s cooling headroom, but the measured frame times demonstrate a strong resolution‑sensitivity, so the GPU is the performance ceiling across the measured range.

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

The raw data shows a clear picture of GPU scaling. At Low settings, the average FPS moves from 132 at 1080p, to 88 at 1440p, to 50 at 4K. That is a 33% reduction from 1080p to 1440p, and another 43% from 1440p to 4K. Similarly, at High settings the frame rate drops from 80 (1080p) to 54 (1440p) to 31 (4K) — a 32% and 43% reduction respectively. The Medium settings, which have full min/max data, show the same pattern: 102 (1080p), 68 (1440p), 39 (4K), with min-frame values declining from 87 to 47.

This behavior is the signature of a GPU‑bounded system. If the CPU were the limiter, the frame rate would be nearly constant across resolutions, but here each pixel-count multiples (1080p ≈ 2.0M, 1440p ≈ 3.7M, 4K ≈ 8.3M) sees a proportional decline. For example, the pixel density ratio between 1440p and 4K is ~2.25x, and the observed FPS at High settings drops by 43% (from 54 to 31), close to the pixel count ratio of 20. The i5-9400 has sufficient four‑core headroom to feed the just‑described range — its 9 MB L3 and 4.1 GHz boost can easily supply the draw‑calls required at 1080p and 1080p‑class workloads; the scaling curves across settings confirm the GPU is the sole pressure point.

At the low preset, the CPU does become more visible because the GPU’s Completion time is short, but even then 132 FPS indicates the 9400 can hit that target without causing a bottleneck. In contrast, the Ultra setting scales most steeply, dropping from 55 at 1080p to 21 at 4K, a 62% reduction—an effect of the card’s shading units and ROPs being saturated by the algorithmic complexity of the Ultra preset. Therefore, the measured data lets us determine that the system is GPU‑extrapolation limited; any judgment about potential CPU upgrades would not recover 4K performance.

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

The benchmark results are summarized in the table below. All numbers are average, and the min/max values are only reported for the Medium preset.

| Resolution | Settings | Average FPS | Min | Max |

|------------|----------|-------------|-----|-----|

| 1920x1080 | Low | 132 | | |

| | Medium | 102 | 87 | 117 |

| | High | 80 | | |

| | Ultra | 55 | | |

| ---------- |----------|-------------|-----|-----|

| 2560x1440 | Low | 88 | | |

| | Medium | 68 | 58 | 79 |

| | High | 54 | | |

| | Ultra | 37 | | |

| ----------|----------|-------------|-----|-----|

| 3840x2160 | Low | 50 | | |

| | Medium | 39 | 33 | 45 |

| | High | 31 | | |

| | Ultra | 21 | | |

At 1080p, every preset delivers playable frame rates. The Low preset achieves 132 FPS, which is ideal for a 144 Hz display, while Medium hits 102 FPS with a minimum of 87 FPS (again competitive). High drops to 80 FPS (still a smooth and responsive condition), and Ultra stays at 55 FPS, below the 60 FPS threshold for serious play. Moving to 1440p, the situation changes: Low is still at 88 FPS, Medium at 68 (min 58), High at 54, and Ultra at 37. Only Low and Medium are as smooth; High is borderline, and Ultra is subject to noticeable shader dips. At 4K, no recover: Low yields 50, Medium 39 (min 33), High 31, and Ultra 21 – none reach 50 percent of a fluid 60 FPS target.

The min/max data for the three Medium presets shows a narrow brow that this preset preserves good balance (e.g., 87–117 at 1080p, 58–79 at 1440p, 33–45 at 4K). That indicates the GTX 1070 produces consistent frame pacing at Medium, without any stutter caused by CPR capacity. In contrast, the low and high presets (which lack min/max) are less stable but still average the values _______ in the table.

How the i5-9400 GTX 1070 Combination Compares

The nearest rivals of the CPU and GPU provide context. In average benchmark scores, the i6-9400 (a TWEE total of 2252) is within a quarter of a percent of the four listed chips. None of those would tangibly alter Evolve’s measured FPS. The GTX 1070 of course compares similarly: the rival GPUs are workstations and cloud accelerators, not gaming cards; the 1070’s 9,800 points sit at the 47th percentile of all GPUs, with FirePro W5000 (9,803 / -0.2%), Quadro M2000M (9,832 / -0.5%), Tesla M10 (9,724 / +0.6%), and Tesla C2070 (9,716 / +0.7%). But given they are not running Evolve, the ranking only underlines that the 1070 is a mid‑range GPU of the Pascal era.

Overall, this combo ranks 3053rd out of 3700 in the database, which places it in the bottom 18% of all tested systems. That is exactly aligned with the 47th percentiles of both components; the system is not for high‑enthusiast settings, but it is capable of a fluid 1080p experience.

FAQ

Q: What is the highest achievable average frame rate with this configuration?

A: The maximum measured is 132 FPS, obtained at 1920x1080 with Low settings. That is the only preset that exceeds a 130‑FPS average.

Q: Can I get 60 FPS consistently at 1440p?

A: Only the Low setting does (88 FPS). Medium averages 68 FPS but its 1% low is 58 FPS, which means a strict 60 FPS minimum might occasionally be missed. High is at 54, and Ultra is at 37.

Q: Is the GTX 1070 capable of 4K 60 FPS in Evolve?

A: No. Even the Low preset only averages 50 FPS; Medium, High, and Ultra deliver 39, 31, and 21 FPS respectively. The limiting factor is the GPU’s shading power, not the memory (8 GB is not a denial at 4K).

Q: Why the Ultra preset drops so much?

A: Evidences from the 4K and 1440p data: Ultra settings impose a heavy shading load that consumes the GPU’s computational resources, causing average frame rates to fall to 55 (1080p), 37 (1440p), and 21 (4K), with 1080p Ultra dipping 35% lower than High.

Q: Would upgrading the CPU improve FPS?

A: Since the frame scaling from 1080p to 4K matches the pixel count, the GPU is the primary limit. At 1920x1080 Low, the CPU sustains 132 FPS. Upgrading the CPU would not affect the Ultra or High results at any resolution because the GPU is saturated; only at low settings a faster CPU might push higher than the 132 data point.

Q: Is the memory of 8 GB VRAM enough for Evolve’s high texture packs?

A: Qualitatively, the 8 GB residence exceeds the game’s typical use; the bandwidth of 256.3 GB/s is more than enough for 1080p and 1440p presets. No VRAM‑related figures exist in the measured results, but the dropoff at 4K is from processing load, not out‑of‑memory errors.

Settings Recommendations — which preset gives the most playable experience

The measured evidence directly leads to a practical pointer: for a 60 FPS target, stick to 1920x1080 with High settings. That preset averages 80 FPS, leaves room for multiview –ession, and looks noticeably better than the Medium preset. If you have a 60 Hz panel and want a stricter lock, the Medium preset at 1080p holds a 102 FPS average with min of 87, so that is the safest choice. Ultra should be avoided unless your monitor runs at 50 or 55 FPS, because it dips to 55 average.

At 2560x1440, the trade‑off shifts. For a 60 FPS chase, the Medium preset is the only one that can reach the proximity of 60 (min 58, average 68). High is playable on a 75 Hz display at 54, but if you need smoothness, choose Medium. Low setting offers 88 FPS but at the cost of visual depth.

For 4K, the system falls short of smoothness. The Low preset gives 50 FPS average, which is playable if turning off anti‑aliasing and lowering view distance. Anything above Low results in sub‑40 frame pacing. Therefore, if you own a 4K monitor, the recommendation is to set the in‑game resolution to 1440p (scaled) and keep the preset at High.

In all cases, the Ultra preset selected by the engine is not recommended; the performance loss is typically 20 – 30% compared to High, while the image quality gains in Evolve are not proportional. The direct trend suggests that custom settings with shadows set to High and reflections off will yield the best balance, but only the four measured presets are available in the data.

Final Word

This overview covers the effects of the CPU and GPU, the scaling across resolutions, and the frame‑rate numbers for each preset. The i5‑9400 + GTX 1070 handles Evolve acceptably at 1080p Medium‑to‑High, is borderline at 1440p Medium, and is not adequate for non‑tiny outlines at 4K.