Fivem

The AMD Ryzen 5 2600 paired with the Intel Arc B370 produces a highly specific performance profile in Fivem, one defined by a stark contrast between a capable multi-threaded processor and a very limited integrated graphics solution. The data reveals a system that is fundamentally bound by its GPU at almost every turn, with the CPU’s strengths largely left untapped. This analysis breaks down the measured results, placing them in context against the hardware’s known capabilities and its standing among other tested combinations.

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

The AMD Ryzen 5 2600 is a 6-core, 12-thread processor based on the Zen architecture, with a base clock of 3.40 GHz and a boost clock of 3.90 GHz. It accesses 16 MB of shared L3 cache and supports dual-channel DDR4 memory. In synthetic benchmarks, this CPU demonstrates solid multi-threaded performance, scoring 1248 points in Cinebench R15 multi-core and 5648 in Geekbench multi-core. Its single-thread capabilities are more modest, with a Geekbench single-core score of 1154 and a Cinebench R15 single-core score of 157.3. The processor’s overall average benchmark score of 21484 places it at the 75th percentile of all CPUs, indicating it is a reasonably strong performer in general computing tasks.

In the context of Fivem, a multiplayer modification that relies heavily on server-side scripting and physics simulation, the CPU’s multi-threading is often more critical than in single-player titles. The Ryzen 5 2600’s 12 threads should theoretically provide ample headroom for these workloads. However, the measured FPS in this combination tells a different story. At 1080p Low, the system achieves 80 FPS, which suggests the CPU is capable of feeding frames at a moderate rate. But when the resolution is increased, the FPS plummets in a way that clearly implicates the graphics solution as the primary bottleneck, not the processor. The CPU is likely not being fully utilized, as its performance is being constrained by the GPU’s inability to render frames quickly enough.

The data implies that the Ryzen 5 2600’s potential is largely wasted in this pairing. Its nearest rivals, such as the Intel Core Ultra 5 228V (0.2% faster) and the Intel Core i9-11900H (0.5% faster), have similar average scores, but the Arc B370’s limitations prevent the 2600 from demonstrating any meaningful advantage. The CPU’s 65 W TDP and 12 nm process node are not relevant to the in-game results, but its ability to handle complex game logic is. The fact that the FPS does not scale well with resolution suggests that the CPU is not the limiting factor; instead, the performance ceiling is set by the GPU, leaving the Ryzen 5 2600’s compute resources underutilized.

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

The Intel Arc B370 is an integrated graphics processor (IGP) based on the Xe3-LPG architecture, manufactured on a 3 nm process. It features a base clock of 300 MHz and a boost clock of 2400 MHz. Crucially, its memory configuration is "System Shared," meaning it has no dedicated VRAM and instead relies on the system’s main memory. The memory bandwidth is also "System Dependent," which means performance is heavily influenced by the speed and configuration of the host system’s RAM. With 1280 shading units, 40 TMUs, and 20 ROPs, the GPU’s theoretical compute power is rated at 6.144 TFLOPS for FP32 operations. Its pixel rate is 48.00 GPixel/s and texture rate is 96.00 GTexel/s.

This GPU’s performance is decidedly entry-level. Its average benchmark score in 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 is 1184, which places it at the 5th percentile of all GPUs. This is a very low standing, and its nearest rivals include the ATI Mobility Radeon HD 5570 (-0.2%) and the ATI Radeon HD 5770 (-0.5%), both of which are much older parts. The Arc B370’s performance profile in Fivem confirms this: at 1080p Low, it manages 80 FPS, but at 1080p Ultra, it drops to 39 FPS. This is a clear indication that the GPU is the primary bottleneck, especially as the resolution and settings are increased.

The shared memory architecture is a significant factor. In a game like Fivem, which often features a dense open world with many entities, the GPU’s reliance on system memory can cause performance dips. The lack of dedicated VRAM means that texture data and frame buffers must be moved over the system bus, which is slower than dedicated video memory. The measured FPS data supports this: the system cannot maintain high frame rates at higher resolutions, likely due to memory bandwidth constraints. The GPU’s 25 W TDP and IGP slot width also indicate that it is not designed for high-end gaming, making its performance in this test unsurprising.

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

The measured FPS across resolutions provides a clear picture of the system’s scaling behavior. At 1080p Low, the system achieves 80 FPS. Moving to 1440p Low, the average FPS drops to 53, a 33.75% reduction. At 4K Low, the average is 29 FPS, a further 45.28% drop from 1440p. This pattern is consistent across all settings, indicating a severe scaling penalty as resolution increases.

At 1080p Medium, the average FPS is 63. This drops to 41 FPS at 1440p Medium (a 34.92% reduction) and 23 FPS at 4K Medium (a 43.90% reduction). Similarly, at High settings, the system averages 50 FPS at 1080p, 33 FPS at 1440p (a 34% drop), and 18 FPS at 4K (a 45.45% drop). The Ultra preset shows the same trend, with 39 FPS at 1080p, 26 FPS at 1440p (a 33.33% drop), and 14 FPS at 4K (a 46.15% drop).

This scaling pattern is a classic sign of a GPU-bound system. When the GPU is the limiting factor, increasing the resolution (which increases the pixel count and shading workload) causes a nearly linear drop in frame rate. If the CPU were the bottleneck, we would expect to see similar FPS at 1080p and 1440p, because the CPU’s workload does not change significantly with resolution. The data shows a near-constant percentage drop (roughly 33-34% from 1080p to 1440p, and 44-46% from 1440p to 4K) across all settings. This consistency strongly implies that the Intel Arc B370’s rendering capabilities, not the Ryzen 5 2600’s processing power, are dictating the performance ceiling. The system is unable to maintain playable frame rates at 4K, even on Low settings, where it only hits 29 FPS.

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

Based on the measured data, the optimal settings for this combination depend heavily on the user’s target resolution and tolerance for frame rate dips. The data shows that the system is capable of playable frame rates at 1080p, but struggles at higher resolutions.

At 1080p, the Low preset delivers the highest average FPS at 80, which is a smooth, playable experience for most users. The Medium preset provides a more balanced experience with 63 FPS, which is still above 60 FPS and should offer better visual fidelity. The High preset drops to 50 FPS, which is still playable but may feel less fluid. The Ultra preset at 39 FPS is at the edge of playability and may feel stuttery in fast-paced multiplayer scenarios. For 1080p, the Medium preset appears to be the best choice, offering a good balance between the 63 FPS average and improved visuals over Low.

At 1440p, the situation becomes more challenging. The Low preset yields 53 FPS, which is acceptable but not ideal. The Medium preset drops to 41 FPS, which is on the lower end of playable. High and Ultra presets at 33 FPS and 26 FPS, respectively, are not recommended for a smooth experience. For 1440p, the Low preset is the only one that provides a consistently playable frame rate.

At 4K, the results are poor across the board. The Low preset barely reaches 29 FPS, while the Medium preset is at 23 FPS. High and Ultra presets are effectively unplayable at 18 and 14 FPS. The data indicates that 4K gaming is not a viable option for this hardware combination. The best experience at 4K would be the Low preset, but even that is far from ideal. The measured data suggests that users should stick to 1080p with Medium or Low settings for the best overall experience.

How This Combo Ranks — use comboRankInGame vs other tested combos

In the grand scheme of tested hardware combinations for Fivem, this pairing of AMD Ryzen 5 2600 and Intel Arc B370 ranks very low. The data indicates a combo rank of 2762 out of 3005 tested combos. This places it in the bottom 8% of all systems tested, meaning it is outperformed by the vast majority of other configurations.

This low ranking is almost entirely attributable to the Intel Arc B370’s weak performance. The GPU’s 5th percentile standing among all GPUs is a strong indicator of its limitations. While the Ryzen 5 2600 is a competent CPU, ranking in the 75th percentile, it cannot compensate for the GPU’s deficiencies in a graphics-intensive game like Fivem. The combination is effectively held back by its weakest link.

The ranking suggests that many other CPU-GPU pairings, even those with older or less capable CPUs, will likely deliver better performance in Fivem because they are paired with more powerful discrete graphics cards. The data implies that this specific combo is not well-suited for the game, and users would need to significantly lower their expectations regarding resolution and graphical fidelity to achieve a playable experience. The fact that the combo ranks so low, despite having a decent CPU, highlights how critical the GPU is to overall gaming performance in this title.

FAQ

Q: Is the AMD Ryzen 5 2600 or the Intel Arc B370 the main bottleneck in Fivem?

A: The data strongly indicates the Intel Arc B370 is the primary bottleneck. The FPS drops consistently by roughly 33-34% when moving from 1080p to 1440p, and by another 44-46% from 1440p to 4K, across all settings. This is a classic GPU-bound scaling pattern, as the CPU’s workload does not change much with resolution. Furthermore, the GPU ranks at the 5th percentile of all GPUs, whereas the CPU ranks at the 75th percentile.

Q: What is the best resolution and settings combination for a playable experience?

A: Based on the measured averages, the best experience is at 1920x1080 with the Medium preset, which yields an average of 63 FPS. This provides a good balance between visual quality and frame rate. The Low preset at 1080p offers a higher 80 FPS but with lower visual fidelity. At higher resolutions, frame rates become less consistent and may fall below playable thresholds.

Q: How does this combo compare to its nearest rivals in terms of overall hardware score?

A: The Intel Arc B370’s average benchmark score of 1184 is nearly identical to its nearest rivals, such as the ATI Mobility Radeon HD 5570 (1186, -0.2% faster) and the ATI Radeon HD 5770 (1190, -0.5% faster). The AMD Ryzen 5 2600’s average score of 21484 is also very close to its rivals, like the Intel Core Ultra 5 228V (21440, 0.2% slower) and the Intel Core i9-11900H (21367, 0.5% slower). This indicates the components are individually on par with their immediate competitors, but the combo’s in-game rank of 2762 out of 3005 suggests the pairing is less effective than many others.

Q: What is the highest average FPS this combination can achieve in Fivem?

A: The highest average FPS recorded in the measured data is 80 FPS, achieved at a resolution of 1920x1080 with the Low settings preset.

Q: Is the Intel Arc B370’s shared memory a likely cause for its performance?

A: The GPU’s memory is listed as "System Shared" with a bandwidth of "System Dependent." This means it has no dedicated VRAM and relies on system memory, which is typically slower. The severe performance drops at higher resolutions are consistent with the GPU struggling to manage memory bandwidth, especially as the demand for texture data and frame buffers increases with resolution.

Q: What is the average FPS at 4K Ultra settings?

A: The measured average FPS for this combination at 3840x2160 with the Ultra preset is 14 FPS, which is unplayable.

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

The following table presents the exact measured average FPS values from the FACT PACK for all tested resolution and settings combinations. Where available, min and max FPS values are also included.

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

| :--------- | :------- | :---------- | :------ | :------ |

| 3840x2160 | High | 18 | - | - |

| 3840x2160 | Low | 29 | - | - |

| 3840x2160 | Medium | 23 | 20 | 26 |

| 3840x2160 | Ultra | 14 | - | - |

| 2560x1440 | High | 33 | - | - |

| 2560x1440 | Low | 53 | - | - |

| 2560x1440 | Medium | 41 | 35 | 48 |

| 2560x1440 | Ultra | 26 | - | - |

| 1920x1080 | High | 50 | - | - |

| 1920x1080 | Low | 80 | - | - |

| 1920x1080 | Medium | 63 | 54 | 72 |

| 1920x1080 | Ultra | 39 | - | - |

The data shows a clear and consistent degradation in performance as resolution and settings increase. The only configuration that maintains an average above 60 FPS is 1080p Low, with 1080p Medium coming close at 63 FPS. All other combinations fall below this threshold, with 4K resolutions proving to be particularly demanding. The min and max FPS values for the Medium presets show a notable variance, indicating potential for stutter in gameplay, especially at higher resolutions.