Fivem

FAQ

Q: What is the measured performance of the AMD Ryzen 5 2600 + AMD Radeon RX 6650 XT combo in Fivem?

A: Benchmark data shows the combination achieves an average of 104.5 FPS at 1080p High settings, 69.0 FPS at 1440p High, and 38.1 FPS at 4K High. The lowest measured result is 26.3 FPS at 4K Ultra, while the highest is 164.5 FPS at 1080p Low.

Q: How does this CPU compare to its nearest rivals in general benchmarks?

A: The Ryzen 5 2600 holds an average benchmark score of 19616, placing it in the 77th percentile of all CPUs. Its closest competitor, the Intel Core i5-1345U, scores 19691, which is 0.4% higher. The AMD Ryzen 5 7530U trails by 0.6%, scoring 19508.

Q: What is the GPU's standing relative to other graphics cards?

A: The Radeon RX 6650 XT achieves an average benchmark score of 29024, placing it in the 72nd percentile of all GPUs. The AMD Radeon RX 6800M scores nearly identically at 29011, a 0% delta, while the Intel Arc A370M scores 29175, which is 0.5% higher.

Q: What is the best FPS result recorded for this hardware in Fivem?

A: The highest measured average frame rate is 164.5 FPS, achieved at 1920x1080 with Low settings. The second-best result is 133.3 FPS at the same resolution with Medium settings.

Q: What is the most demanding configuration tested?

A: The most demanding configuration is 3840x2160 with Ultra settings, which yields only 26.3 FPS. This is the lowest result across all tested combinations and represents a significant drop from the 4K High result of 38.1 FPS.

Q: How does the combo rank among all tested hardware combinations in Fivem?

A: This specific CPU and GPU pairing ranks 1127th out of 1792 total combinations tested in the game's benchmark database. The data is marked as measured, not estimated.

CPU Role

The AMD Ryzen 5 2600 is a 6-core, 12-thread processor from the 2000 series, built on the Zen architecture with a 12 nm process. It operates with a base clock of 3.40 GHz and a boost clock of 3.90 GHz, and it supports DDR4 memory over a dual-channel bus with 46.9 GB/s of bandwidth. The CPU's benchmark scores show a multi-threaded Cinebench R23 result of 11186 and a single-core result of 1579, which places the chip in the 77th percentile overall.

In Fivem, the CPU's role becomes evident when examining the frame rate scaling across settings at a fixed resolution. At 1080p, dropping from Ultra to Low increases the average FPS from 82.9 to 164.5, a difference of 81.6 FPS. This wide gap indicates that the CPU is not the sole bottleneck at lower settings, as the GPU has more headroom to render frames quickly. However, the Ryzen 5 2600's single-thread performance, reflected in its Cinebench R20 single-core score of 663, is a limiting factor in a multiplayer game like Fivem, where server-side scripts and many player entities can strain individual cores.

The CPU's memory bandwidth of 46.9 GB/s is modest by modern standards, and the L3 cache is 16 MB shared across all cores. These specifications suggest that the processor can handle the game's logic but may struggle to feed the GPU at very high frame rates. The data supports this: at 1080p Low, the system reaches 164.5 FPS, but the jump from Low to Medium only reduces performance to 133.3 FPS, while High drops to 104.5 FPS. The scaling is roughly linear from Low to High, indicating that the CPU and GPU are both contributing to the performance envelope.

Compared to its nearest rivals, the Ryzen 5 2600's average benchmark score of 19616 is nearly identical to the Intel Core i5-1345U (19691, -0.4%) and the AMD Ryzen 5 7530U (19508, 0.6%). This means that in general compute tasks, the CPU is competitive, but in Fivem, the specific instruction mix and thread scheduling determine the outcome. The CPU's PassMark single-thread score of 2239 provides a reference point for how it handles the game's primary thread, which is often the bottleneck in multiplayer scenarios.

GPU Role

The AMD Radeon RX 6650 XT is built on the RDNA 2.0 architecture using a 7 nm process from TSMC, with the Navi 23 chip containing 11,060 million transistors. It features 8 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 128-bit bus, delivering 280.3 GB/s of bandwidth. The GPU's base clock is 2055 MHz, with a game clock of 2410 MHz and a boost clock of 2635 MHz. Its compute capabilities include 10.79 TFLOPS of FP32 performance and 32 ray tracing cores.

In Fivem, the GPU's role becomes dominant at higher resolutions and settings. At 4K Ultra, the system delivers only 26.3 FPS, which is below playable thresholds. The 8 GB VRAM allocation is likely a factor here, as the game at 4K with high textures can exceed this capacity, causing the GPU to manage memory more slowly. The memory bandwidth of 280.3 GB/s is adequate for 1080p and 1440p, but at 4K, the pixel throughput demand increases, and the GPU's 64 ROPs and 168.6 GPixel/s fill rate become limiting.

The GPU's benchmark scores confirm its mid-range positioning. It scores 17166 in PassMark G3D and 7532 in PassMark GPU Compute, placing it in the 72nd percentile of all GPUs. Its nearest rival, the AMD Radeon RX 6800M, scores 29011, a 0% delta, which indicates that the two cards are nearly identical in average performance. However, in Fivem, the RX 6650 XT's behavior is tied to the settings and resolution, as seen in the measured data.

At 1440p, the GPU shows its strength. The system achieves 109.2 FPS at Low settings, which is a 57.8% improvement over the 4K Low result of 59.6 FPS. This suggests that the GPU is the primary driver at 1440p and below, as the CPU can keep up with the frame generation. The gap between Medium and High at 1440p is 16.7 FPS (85.7 to 69.0), which is a smaller relative drop than at 4K, indicating that the GPU's shading units and texture units are handling the load efficiently.

Measured FPS Breakdown

The measured FPS data for Fivem with this hardware combination covers three resolutions and four settings levels, providing a complete picture of performance scaling.

At 1920x1080, the results are as follows: Low settings produce an average of 164.5 FPS, Medium produces 133.3 FPS, High produces 104.5 FPS, and Ultra produces 82.9 FPS. The difference between Low and Ultra is 81.6 FPS, which is a 49.6% reduction from the lowest settings. The step from Low to Medium is a 31.2 FPS drop, while the step from Medium to High is a 28.8 FPS drop, and the step from High to Ultra is a 21.6 FPS drop. This shows a diminishing return pattern, where each higher setting tier costs less absolute performance at 1080p.

At 2560x1440, the data shows: Low settings yield 109.2 FPS, Medium yields 85.7 FPS, High yields 69.0 FPS, and Ultra yields 54.1 FPS. The total drop from Low to Ultra is 55.1 FPS, which is a 50.5% reduction. The absolute differences between tiers are 23.5 FPS (Low to Medium), 16.7 FPS (Medium to High), and 14.9 FPS (High to Ultra). This pattern is similar to 1080p but with smaller absolute gaps, indicating that the GPU is becoming more of a limiting factor as resolution increases.

At 3840x2160, the results are: Low settings produce 59.6 FPS, Medium produces 49.7 FPS, High produces 38.1 FPS, and Ultra produces 26.3 FPS. The total drop from Low to Ultra is 33.3 FPS, which is a 55.9% reduction. The absolute differences are 9.9 FPS (Low to Medium), 11.6 FPS (Medium to High), and 11.8 FPS (High to Ultra). Here, the gaps between settings are more consistent, suggesting that the GPU is heavily loaded at all settings levels, and each additional effect or texture quality increment has a similar cost.

The data also shows that the combo's overall rank in Fivem is 1127 out of 1792 combinations, which places it in the lower-middle range of tested systems. This ranking is influenced by the CPU's modest single-thread performance and the GPU's mid-range capabilities, which together limit the system's ability to maintain high frame rates at demanding settings.

Resolution Scaling

Resolution scaling reveals how the system's limiting component shifts as pixel count increases. At 1080p Low, the system achieves 164.5 FPS. Moving to 1440p Low drops performance to 109.2 FPS, a 33.6% reduction. Moving further to 4K Low yields 59.6 FPS, a 45.4% reduction from 1440p. This pattern shows that the GPU is becoming the primary bottleneck at higher resolutions, as the pixel throughput demand increases faster than the CPU's ability to feed frames.

At 1080p Ultra, the system produces 82.9 FPS. At 1440p Ultra, it drops to 54.1 FPS, a 34.7% reduction. At 4K Ultra, it falls to 26.3 FPS, a 51.4% reduction from 1440p. The increasing percentage drop as resolution rises is a clear indicator that the GPU's fill rate and memory bandwidth are the limiting factors at Ultra settings. The 8 GB VRAM capacity is also a concern at 4K Ultra, as the game's texture and geometry data can exceed this limit, causing performance to degrade.

The data also shows that the CPU's influence is strongest at 1080p with lower settings. The difference between 1080p Low (164.5 FPS) and 1080p Medium (133.3 FPS) is 31.2 FPS, which is a larger absolute gap than the 4K Low to Medium difference of 9.9 FPS. This suggests that at 1080p Low, the GPU is not fully saturated, and the CPU's ability to issue draw calls and process game logic is the limiting factor. As settings increase, the GPU's workload grows, and the CPU has more time to prepare frames, reducing its role as the bottleneck.

A useful comparison is the 4K Low result of 59.6 FPS versus the 1080p High result of 104.5 FPS. Both represent similar visual quality trade-offs, but the 4K result is 43.0% lower. This indicates that the resolution increase has a more significant impact on performance than the settings increase, which is expected given the GPU's memory bandwidth of 280.3 GB/s and its 128-bit bus. The system is not well-suited for 4K gaming, but it handles 1440p and 1080p with acceptable performance across most settings.

Settings Recommendations

Based on the measured FPS data, the optimal settings for this hardware depend on the target resolution and desired frame rate. For a 60 FPS baseline, the system can achieve this at 1080p with Ultra settings (82.9 FPS), 1440p with High settings (69.0 FPS), and 4K with Low settings (59.6 FPS). This means that users with 1080p displays can comfortably use Ultra settings, while 1440p users should stick to High to maintain a smooth experience.

For 1440p displays, the data shows that Medium settings (85.7 FPS) provide a significant margin above 60 FPS, while High settings (69.0 FPS) are still playable but closer to the threshold. Ultra settings (54.1 FPS) fall below 60 FPS, making them less desirable for competitive play. The recommendation for 1440p is Medium or High, depending on whether visual fidelity or frame rate consistency is prioritized.

At 4K, the system struggles to maintain 60 FPS even at Low settings (59.6 FPS). Medium settings (49.7 FPS) and High settings (38.1 FPS) are below 60 FPS, and Ultra settings (26.3 FPS) are not playable for most users. For 4K users, the only viable option is Low settings, which barely reaches 60 FPS. Alternatively, users could reduce the resolution to 1440p and use High settings for a better balance of visuals and performance.

For users seeking the highest frame rates, 1080p Low settings deliver 164.5 FPS, which is ideal for high-refresh-rate monitors. The jump to Medium (133.3 FPS) still provides a high frame rate while improving visual quality. The data suggests that the best overall experience for most users is 1080p with Medium or High settings, as these provide a strong balance between frame rate and visual fidelity without pushing the GPU to its limits. The measured results indicate that this hardware is best suited for 1080p gaming, with acceptable performance at 1440p for less demanding settings.