Fivem

# Fivem with AMD Ryzen 5 7500F + NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3080 Ti

The AMD Ryzen 5 7500F paired with the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3080 Ti delivers a strong but uneven performance profile in Fivem, with results ranging from 45.9 FPS at 4K Ultra to 261.1 FPS at 1080p Low. The combo ranks 454th out of 1,792 tested combinations, placing it in the top quartile of all configurations. The CPU, a 6-core/12-thread Zen 4 part with a 5.00 GHz boost clock, sits at the 82nd percentile among all CPUs, while the GPU, an Ampere flagship with 12 GB of GDDR6X memory, sits at the 83rd percentile among all GPUs. This pairing of two above-average components produces frame rates that are generally playable, but the scaling pattern reveals where each component's limits emerge.

FAQ

Q: What is the best average FPS this combo achieves in Fivem?

A: The highest measured average is 261.1 FPS at 1920x1080 with Low settings.

Q: How does the CPU compare to its closest rival?

A: The Ryzen 5 7500F scores 24,993 on average, which is 0.1% ahead of the Intel Core i7-11850H (24,974) and 0.4% ahead of the AMD Ryzen 9 6900HX (24,897).

Q: How does the GPU compare to the RTX 3090?

A: The RTX 3080 Ti averages 41,224, which is 0.5% behind the RTX 3090's 41,441 in the aggregate benchmark score.

Q: What is the largest FPS drop between settings at a single resolution?

A: At 3840x2160, the drop from Low (96.6 FPS) to Ultra (45.9 FPS) is 50.7 FPS, a reduction of more than half.

Q: Does 1440p Ultra remain playable?

A: Yes, 2560x1440 Ultra averages 81.9 FPS, which is above the 60 FPS threshold and only 10.1 FPS below the 4K High result.

Q: What is the combo's overall rank among tested systems?

A: The combo ranks 454th out of 1,792 tested combinations in Fivem.

GPU Role

The RTX 3080 Ti's 12 GB of GDDR6X memory across a 384-bit bus provides 912.4 GB/s of bandwidth, which is critical for Fivem's large, densely populated multiplayer environments. The GPU's base clock of 1365 MHz and boost clock of 1665 MHz, combined with 10,240 shading units, give it substantial raw throughput. The data shows a clear GPU-bound pattern at higher resolutions: at 4K, the gap between Low and Ultra settings is 50.7 FPS, indicating that the graphics card's workload dominates the frame time budget.

The Ampere architecture's 80 RT cores and 320 tensor cores are present but not directly exercised by the measured Fivem results, which show no ray tracing-specific data. The GPU's 34.10 TFLOPS of FP32 performance translates into strong rasterization headroom, yet the 4K Ultra result of 45.9 FPS suggests that even this high-end card cannot brute-force maximum settings at 4K in this game. The 83rd percentile GPU ranking aligns with its measured performance: it beats the RTX 3090's aggregate score by only 0.5% in the database, indicating that real-world Fivem results will track closely with that rival.

The memory subsystem deserves attention. With 912.4 GB/s of bandwidth, the RTX 3080 Ti has ample headroom for texture streaming in Fivem's open-world setting. The 12 GB capacity is sufficient for the measured settings, as no VRAM-related stutter or min-FPS data was recorded to suggest otherwise. The pixel rate of 186.5 GPixel/s and texture rate of 532.8 GTexel/s provide the fill rates needed to sustain the frame rates seen at 1440p, where the combo exceeds 100 FPS on High settings.

Resolution Scaling

The FPS scaling from 1080p to 4K reveals a system that becomes progressively GPU-limited as resolution increases. At Low settings, the frame rate drops from 261.1 FPS at 1080p to 168.6 FPS at 1440p (a 35.4% reduction), then to 96.6 FPS at 4K (a 42.7% further reduction). This steep decline indicates that the GPU is the primary bottleneck once the resolution climbs, as the CPU's 6 cores and 12 threads are sufficient to feed the graphics card at lower resolutions.

At Ultra settings, the scaling is even more dramatic: 129.2 FPS at 1080p, 81.9 FPS at 1440p (a 36.6% drop), and 45.9 FPS at 4K (a 44.0% drop). The consistent ~35-45% reduction per resolution step across all settings confirms that the RTX 3080 Ti's rendering workload scales predictably with pixel count. The CPU, with a 5.00 GHz boost clock and strong single-thread score of 3,218 in Cinebench R23, does not appear to be the limiting factor at any measured resolution, as even the 1080p Low result of 261.1 FPS does not show a ceiling effect.

The medium settings tell a similar story: 204.5 FPS at 1080p, 135.6 FPS at 1440p, and 73.7 FPS at 4K. The gap between Low and Medium at each resolution is substantial—56.6 FPS at 1080p, 33.0 FPS at 1440p, and 22.9 FPS at 4K—suggesting that the Medium preset introduces a meaningful increase in shader complexity or draw calls that the GPU must process. At 4K, the difference between Medium and High is 12.2 FPS, while between High and Ultra it is 15.6 FPS, showing that the Ultra preset carries the heaviest per-pixel cost.

Measured FPS Breakdown

At 1920x1080, the combo delivers consistently high frame rates across all settings. Low settings produce 261.1 FPS, Medium drops to 204.5 FPS (a 21.7% reduction), High yields 160.5 FPS (a 21.5% further reduction), and Ultra finishes at 129.2 FPS (a 19.5% reduction from High). The stepwise pattern shows that each preset tier adds a similar relative cost, with the total span from Low to Ultra being 131.9 FPS. This resolution is clearly CPU-friendly territory, where the Ryzen 5 7500F's single-thread performance (3,218 in Cinebench R23) can keep up with the GPU's output.

At 2560x1440, the results shift downward but remain playable across all presets. Low averages 168.6 FPS, Medium 135.6 FPS, High 109.2 FPS, and Ultra 81.9 FPS. The percentage drops between settings are consistent with the 1080p pattern: 19.6% from Low to Medium, 19.5% from Medium to High, and 25.0% from High to Ultra. The Ultra preset takes a proportionally larger hit at this resolution, indicating that the extra effects (likely shadows, reflections, and post-processing) become more expensive as pixel count rises. Even the lowest result, 81.9 FPS, remains well above the 60 FPS standard for smooth gameplay.

At 3840x2160, the GPU's limitations become apparent. Low settings average 96.6 FPS, which is still excellent for 4K, but Medium drops to 73.7 FPS, High to 61.5 FPS, and Ultra to 45.9 FPS. The drop from Low to Medium is 22.9 FPS (23.7%), from Medium to High is 12.2 FPS (16.6%), and from High to Ultra is 15.6 FPS (25.4%). The Ultra result of 45.9 FPS is the only measured configuration that falls below the 60 FPS threshold, suggesting that 4K Ultra is not a viable preset for this combo without additional optimization. The 4K High result of 61.5 FPS is right at the edge of playability, while 4K Medium at 73.7 FPS offers a more comfortable margin.

How This Combo Ranks

The combo's rank of 454 out of 1,792 tested combinations places it in the 74.7th percentile of all systems tested in Fivem. This ranking reflects the combined strengths of both components: the CPU at the 82nd percentile and the GPU at the 83rd percentile. The aggregate benchmark scores support this positioning—the CPU's average of 24,993 is nearly identical to its nearest rivals, with the Intel Core i7-11850H (24,974) and AMD Ryzen 7 2700X (25,057) both within 0.3% of the 7500F's score. The GPU's average of 41,224 sits close to the RTX 3090 (41,441), trailing by only 0.5%.

This rank suggests that the combo outperforms roughly three-quarters of tested systems in Fivem, which is consistent with its component-level percentiles. The data does not show any unusual bottleneck or pairing issue—the CPU and GPU are well-matched in their respective performance tiers. The measured FPS results at 1080p and 1440p are strong enough to place the combo in the upper echelon, while the 4K Ultra result of 45.9 FPS is the single data point that prevents a higher rank. In comparison to the nearest GPU rival, the RTX 3090, the 3080 Ti's 0.5% aggregate deficit likely translates to a similar small FPS gap in Fivem, meaning the two cards would produce nearly identical results in this game.

Settings Recommendations

Based on the measured FPS data, the optimal preset depends on the target resolution and refresh rate. At 1920x1080, all settings deliver playable frame rates, but Ultra at 129.2 FPS provides the best visual quality while still exceeding 120 FPS for high-refresh displays. Players with 144 Hz or 165 Hz monitors can comfortably use High (160.5 FPS) or even Medium (204.5 FPS) to stay above their refresh ceiling. At this resolution, the combo has enough headroom that even the most demanding preset does not compromise competitiveness.

At 2560x1440, Ultra at 81.9 FPS is the highest quality option that remains above 60 FPS, making it the recommended choice for players prioritizing visuals on 1440p displays. High at 109.2 FPS is the better pick for those with 100 Hz or 120 Hz panels, as it offers a 33% FPS increase over Ultra with a modest visual downgrade. Medium at 135.6 FPS suits competitive play, while Low at 168.6 FPS is unnecessary unless chasing maximum frame rates on a 165 Hz or higher monitor.

At 3840x2160, the recommendation is clear: Medium at 73.7 FPS offers the best balance of visual fidelity and smoothness, as it provides a 19.8% FPS improvement over High (61.5 FPS) while retaining most of the graphical features that matter at 4K. High at 61.5 FPS is viable for those who prioritize image quality and can tolerate frame rates near 60 FPS. Ultra at 45.9 FPS falls below the playability threshold and should be avoided, while Low at 96.6 FPS sacrifices too much visual quality for the benefit of higher frame rates. For 4K gaming, the data suggests Medium is the sweet spot for this combo.