Fivem

Resolution Scaling

The measured FPS data for Fivem shows a clear and predictable scaling pattern as resolution increases, but the shape of that curve reveals important information about where the bottleneck sits. At 1920x1080 with Low settings, the combo delivers 164.8 FPS, which drops to 110.3 FPS at 2560x1440 and further to 57.7 FPS at 3840x2160. That is a 65% reduction from 1080p to 4K at Low settings, indicating that the GPU is increasingly stressed as pixel count rises.

Moving to High settings, the pattern shifts. At 1080p High the system produces 102.1 FPS, at 1440p High it falls to 68.7 FPS, and at 4K High it reaches only 38.2 FPS. The percentage drop from 1080p to 4K at High is roughly 63%, similar to the Low setting drop. This consistency across settings suggests that resolution scaling is the dominant factor in performance degradation, rather than any particular graphics feature level.

The Ultra preset tells a more constrained story. At 1080p Ultra the system manages 78.8 FPS, at 1440p Ultra it drops to 53.7 FPS, and at 4K Ultra it falls to 30.7 FPS. The gap between 1440p and 4K at Ultra is particularly steep, with the 4K result falling below 31 FPS, which would be noticeable in gameplay. The data indicates that the Radeon RX 6650 XT is the primary limiting component at 4K across all settings, as even Low settings cannot maintain 60 FPS at that resolution.

CPU Role

The AMD Ryzen 7 5700X brings 8 cores and 16 threads based on the Zen 3 architecture, with a base clock of 3.40 GHz and a boost clock of 4.60 GHz. This processor sits in the 83rd percentile among all CPUs tested, with an average benchmark score of 26214. Its nearest rivals include the Intel Core i9-11900KF with a deltaPct of 0.1 and the AMD Ryzen 7 PRO 6850U with a deltaPct of -0.2, placing it in a tightly contested performance band.

For a multiplayer title like Fivem, the CPU's thread handling and single-core performance matter significantly. The 3DMark single-thread score of 921 and the 2-thread score of 1821 indicate solid per-core capability, while the 16-thread score of 6858 shows that the processor scales well with additional threads. The Cinebench R23 multicore score of 22620 and single-core score of 3193 reinforce this picture of balanced performance.

The data suggests that the CPU is not the limiting factor in most measured scenarios. At 1080p Low, the system reaches 164.8 FPS, which is high enough that the GPU is likely the constraint. However, the gap between Low and Ultra at 1080p — from 164.8 FPS down to 78.8 FPS — shows that the GPU workload increases substantially with settings, while the CPU maintains its output. The Ryzen 7 5700X's 32 MB of shared L3 cache and dual-channel DDR4 memory support at 51.2 GB/s provide adequate bandwidth for this game's demands.

How This Combo Ranks

The combination of the AMD Ryzen 7 5700X with the AMD Radeon RX 6650 XT achieves a combo rank of 1160 out of 1792 tested combinations in Fivem. This places the pairing in the lower-middle portion of the overall ranking distribution, which is notable given the individual component performance levels.

The GPU's percentile ranking of 72 among all GPUs, with an average benchmark score of 29024, is lower than the CPU's 83rd percentile standing. This disparity suggests that the GPU is the weaker link in this pairing for Fivem specifically. The RX 6650 XT's nearest rivals include the AMD Radeon RX 6800M with a deltaPct of 0 and the AMD Radeon RX 470 with a deltaPct of 0.1, showing that the card performs in a narrow band around its peers.

The combo rank of 1160 out of 1792 indicates that many other pairings deliver higher frame rates in this game. This is partly explained by the GPU's mid-range positioning and partly by Fivem's particular performance characteristics, which appear to favor combinations with stronger graphics hardware. The CPU's competitive benchmark scores do not translate into a high combo ranking, reinforcing that the GPU is the performance ceiling for this pairing.

Measured FPS Breakdown

At 1920x1080, the measured results span a wide range. Low settings produce 164.8 FPS, Medium yields 130.4 FPS, High delivers 102.1 FPS, and Ultra drops to 78.8 FPS. The step from Low to Medium costs 34.4 FPS, while the step from Medium to High costs 28.3 FPS, and from High to Ultra costs 23.3 FPS. Each settings tier reduces performance by a similar absolute amount, suggesting a linear relationship between preset level and GPU workload at this resolution.

At 2560x1440, the results compress somewhat. Low settings deliver 110.3 FPS, Medium produces 87.7 FPS, High reaches 68.7 FPS, and Ultra falls to 53.7 FPS. The gaps between settings are smaller in absolute terms than at 1080p, with the Low-to-Medium drop being 22.6 FPS and the High-to-Ultra drop being 15.0 FPS. This compression indicates that the GPU is becoming more saturated at 1440p, reducing the headroom for settings-driven performance differences.

At 3840x2160, the performance falls significantly across all presets. Low settings achieve 57.7 FPS, Medium reaches 47.1 FPS, High produces 38.2 FPS, and Ultra drops to 30.7 FPS. The gap between Low and Ultra at 4K is 27.0 FPS, which is similar in magnitude to the 1080p gap but represents a much larger proportional difference relative to the baseline. The 4K results show that only Low settings approach playable frame rates, while Ultra dips below 31 FPS.

GPU Role

The AMD Radeon RX 6650 XT is built on the RDNA 2.0 architecture with the Navi 23 chip, featuring 2048 shading units and 64 ROPs. Its memory configuration includes 8 GB of GDDR6 on a 128-bit bus, delivering 280.3 GB/s of bandwidth. The GPU's base clock is 2055 MHz with a boost clock of 2635 MHz, and its game clock is rated at 2410 MHz.

The GPU's benchmark results show a 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 score of 1859 and a Passmark G3D score of 17166. Its Vulkan score of 93769 and OpenCL score of 87548 indicate competent compute performance. The GPU sits in the 72nd percentile among all GPUs, with its nearest rival being the AMD Radeon RX 6800M at a deltaPct of 0, meaning the two cards perform nearly identically in aggregate benchmarks.

The measured FPS data confirms that the GPU is the primary constraint at higher resolutions. At 4K, even Low settings only reach 57.7 FPS, and the card's 8 GB VRAM and 128-bit memory bus appear insufficient for maintaining high frame rates at that pixel count. The 280.3 GB/s bandwidth is a limiting factor when texture and geometry demands increase with resolution, explaining the steep drop from 1440p to 4K across all settings.

Settings Recommendations

Based on the measured FPS rows, the optimal settings depend on the target resolution and desired frame rate. At 1920x1080, the High preset delivers 102.1 FPS, which is comfortably above 60 FPS and provides a good balance between visual quality and performance. Ultra at 1080p achieves 78.8 FPS, still playable but with diminishing returns over High.

At 2560x1440, the Medium preset produces 87.7 FPS, offering the best combination of smoothness and fidelity. High at 1440p reaches 68.7 FPS, which remains above 60 FPS, but Medium provides a 19.0 FPS improvement with only a modest visual trade-off. Low at 1440p delivers 110.3 FPS, which is suitable for competitive play where frame rate takes priority.

At 3840x2160, Low settings are the only viable option, yielding 57.7 FPS. Medium at 4K drops to 47.1 FPS, which falls below the 60 FPS threshold and may introduce noticeable stutter in a multiplayer environment. High and Ultra at 4K are not recommended, as they produce 38.2 FPS and 30.7 FPS respectively, which are below playable thresholds for this genre.

The data indicates that the best overall experience for this combo is 1080p High or 1440p Medium, depending on the user's display and preference for visual quality versus frame rate. For users prioritizing maximum performance, 1080p Low at 164.8 FPS is the peak measured result. The measured rows show no scenario where Ultra settings provide an advantage over the lower presets in terms of playability, making Ultra the least recommended option across all resolutions.