Fivem

# Fivem Performance Analysis: AMD Ryzen AI Max+ 395 + AMD Radeon 760M

The AMD Ryzen AI Max+ 395 paired with the AMD Radeon 760M presents a distinctly asymmetric configuration for Fivem, where a top-tier 16-core CPU (95th percentile among all CPUs) is paired with an entry-level integrated GPU (35th percentile among all GPUs). Benchmark results confirm this imbalance: the combo ranks 2995th out of 3005 tested configurations, placing it in the bottom 0.3% of all combinations. The data reveals a system whose frame rates are overwhelmingly constrained by the GPU, with the CPU's substantial computational headroom largely untapped under Fivem's workload. This analysis breaks down the measured performance across resolutions and settings, examines the underlying hardware limitations, and provides context for what users can realistically expect from this pairing.

Resolution Scaling

The measured FPS data shows a steep and consistent decline as resolution increases from 1920x1080 to 3840x2160, with the gap between settings widening at higher pixel counts. At Low settings, average FPS drops from 54 at 1080p to 36 at 1440p (a 33% reduction), then further to 20 at 4K (a 44% reduction from 1440p). This pattern—where each resolution step costs roughly one-third to nearly half of the remaining performance—indicates that the Radeon 760M's pixel throughput is the limiting factor, not the CPU or memory bandwidth.

The Medium settings row provides the most complete data with min/max values, showing a similar trajectory: 43 FPS average at 1080p, 28 at 1440p, and 16 at 4K. The percentage drops between steps are 35% (1080p to 1440p) and 43% (1440p to 4K), respectively. This consistent degradation pattern suggests that Fivem's rendering load scales nearly linearly with pixel count, which is typical for a game that is not heavily optimized for high-resolution textures or advanced post-processing effects.

At High settings, the resolution scaling becomes even more punishing: 34 FPS at 1080p falls to 23 at 1440p (32% drop) and then to 13 at 4K (43% drop). Ultra settings show the most severe scaling, with 27 FPS at 1080p, 17 at 1440p, and just 10 at 4K. Notably, the 1080p-to-1440p drop at Ultra is 37%, while the 1440p-to-4K drop is 41%, indicating that the GPU is approaching its absolute limits at higher resolutions regardless of settings. The data strongly suggests that the Radeon 760M's 16 ROPs and 5.323 TFLOPS of FP32 compute are simply insufficient for 4K rendering in Fivem, where even Low settings yield only 20 FPS.

GPU Role

The AMD Radeon 760M is an integrated graphics solution built on the RDNA 3.0 architecture, fabricated on TSMC's 4 nm process with 25,390 million transistors on a 178 mm² die. Its clock speeds are rated at 800 MHz base and 2599 MHz boost, with a 15 W TDP that reflects its mobile, IGP-class positioning. The memory configuration is entirely system-dependent: the GPU uses "System Shared" memory with "System Dependent" bandwidth, meaning its performance is tied to the host CPU's LPDDR5X quad-channel memory subsystem, which provides 256.0 GB/s of bandwidth.

In Fivem, this shared-memory architecture creates a unique bottleneck dynamic. The Ryzen AI Max+ 395's 256.0 GB/s memory bandwidth is generous for an integrated platform, but the Radeon 760M's 512 shading units, 32 TMUs, and 16 ROPs are the hard ceiling. The pixel rate of 41.58 GPixel/s and texture rate of 83.17 GTexel/s are modest figures that directly explain the measured FPS drops. For instance, at 4K Ultra, the 10 FPS average suggests the GPU is spending most of its time on pixel shading and rasterization, with the 8 RT cores providing no meaningful benefit in this title.

Comparing to its nearest rivals, the Radeon 760M's average benchmark score of 6019 places it just 0.3% ahead of the AMD Radeon RX 6400 (6001) and 0.3% ahead of the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 770M (6000), while sitting 0.5% behind the NVIDIA Quadro P2000 (6049). These razor-thin margins—all within 0.5%—indicate that the 760M delivers performance essentially equivalent to a decade-old midrange discrete GPU. In Fivem, this translates to playable frame rates only at 1080p, with the GPU's 35th percentile ranking confirming its position in the lower third of all GPUs tested.

How This Combo Ranks

The combination of the Ryzen AI Max+ 395 and Radeon 760M achieves a combo rank of 2995 out of 3005 tested configurations, placing it in the bottom 10 configurations overall. This extremely low ranking is striking because the CPU component alone is exceptional: the Ryzen AI Max+ 395 sits in the 95th percentile among all CPUs, with an average benchmark score of 77740. Its nearest rivals include the AMD Ryzen Threadripper PRO 9945WX (76513, 1.6% behind), the AMD EPYC Embedded 8224P (76492, 1.6% behind), and the AMD Ryzen 9 8945HX (76212, 2% behind), while it trails the Intel Core i9-14900K (79097) by 1.7%.

The GPU, however, anchors the combo's ranking. With a 35th percentile placement and an average score of 6019, the Radeon 760M is a severe bottleneck that prevents the system from leveraging the CPU's capabilities. The data shows that in Fivem, the combo ranks 2995th out of 3005, meaning 99.7% of tested configurations outperform it. This is not a case of marginal underperformance—it is a fundamental mismatch where the integrated GPU's 15 W TDP and shared-memory design cannot sustain the frame rates that the CPU could theoretically support.

The deltaPct values for the CPU's rivals highlight how much headroom exists: the Ryzen AI Max+ 395 is within 2% of four high-end desktop and workstation processors, including the Core i9-14900K. Yet in Fivem, this CPU power is effectively wasted because the GPU saturates first. The benchmark results indicate that any of the CPU's nearest rivals paired with a discrete GPU would likely rank dramatically higher, but with the 760M, the system is consigned to near-bottom performance. This ranking underscores the importance of balanced hardware selection, particularly for a multiplayer game like Fivem that demands consistent frame delivery.

Settings Recommendations

Based on the measured FPS rows, the optimal settings for this combo depend heavily on the target resolution and the user's tolerance for frame rate variability. At 1920x1080, the Low preset delivers an average of 54 FPS, which is the only configuration that approaches smooth, competitive gameplay in a multiplayer environment. The Medium preset at 1080p yields 43 FPS average with a min of 36 and max of 49, which may be acceptable for less demanding scenarios but risks dips below 40 FPS during busy moments.

For 2560x1440, the data shows that Low settings provide 36 FPS average, which is borderline playable but likely to feel stuttery in action-heavy sequences. Medium at 1440p drops to 28 FPS (min 24, max 32), making it marginal for anything beyond casual exploration. High and Ultra at 1440p are not recommended, as they produce 23 and 17 FPS respectively—below the threshold for comfortable interaction. At 3840x2160, all settings are effectively unplayable, with Low at 20 FPS, Medium at 16 FPS (min 13, max 18), High at 13 FPS, and Ultra at 10 FPS.

The measured data suggests that the best experience is achieved at 1080p Low, where the 54 FPS average provides the most headroom above the 30 FPS minimum that most players consider acceptable. For users who prioritize visual quality over frame rate, 1080p Medium at 43 FPS is the highest preset that maintains an average above 40 FPS. The gap between Low and Medium at 1080p (11 FPS) is smaller than the gap between Medium and High (9 FPS), but the min FPS of 36 at Medium indicates that occasional drops will occur. The recommendation is clear: 1080p Low for competitive play, 1080p Medium for visual fidelity, and no resolution above 1440p for any setting.

Measured FPS Breakdown

At 1920x1080, the full settings range was tested with the following averages: Low produced 54 FPS, Medium produced 43 FPS (min 36, max 49), High produced 34 FPS, and Ultra produced 27 FPS. The 1080p results show a steady decline of roughly 8-11 FPS per settings tier, with the Low-to-Ultra spread of 27 FPS representing a 50% performance penalty for maximum visual quality. The Medium min of 36 FPS and max of 49 FPS indicate a 13 FPS variance, which is notable for a multiplayer title where frame consistency matters.

At 2560x1440, the averages were: Low 36 FPS, Medium 28 FPS (min 24, max 32), High 23 FPS, and Ultra 17 FPS. The settings spread narrows to 19 FPS (from 36 to 17), reflecting the GPU's diminishing ability to differentiate between quality levels as pixel count increases. The Medium min/max range of 24-32 FPS shows an 8 FPS variance, which is tighter than at 1080p but at a lower absolute level. None of the 1440p settings reach 40 FPS average, confirming that this resolution is only viable at Low for users who accept sub-40 FPS performance.

At 3840x2160, the averages were: Low 20 FPS, Medium 16 FPS (min 13, max 18), High 13 FPS, and Ultra 10 FPS. The settings spread compresses to just 10 FPS (from 20 to 10), demonstrating that at 4K, the Radeon 760M is so saturated that quality settings have minimal impact on performance. The Medium min of 13 FPS and max of 18 FPS show a 5 FPS variance, which is proportionally larger relative to the average. These 4K numbers are uniformly below playable thresholds, reinforcing that this resolution is not viable for this combo under any settings configuration.

FAQ

Q: What is the best resolution for this combo in Fivem?

A: The data shows that 1920x1080 is the only resolution where average FPS exceeds 50 (54 FPS at Low settings). At 2560x1440, the highest average is 36 FPS at Low, and at 3840x2160, the highest is 20 FPS at Low, making 1080p the clear choice for playable performance.

Q: How does the Radeon 760M compare to its closest GPU rivals?

A: The Radeon 760M's average benchmark score of 6019 is 0.3% ahead of the AMD Radeon RX 6400 (6001) and 0.3% ahead of the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 770M (6000), while being 0.5% behind the NVIDIA Quadro P2000 (6049). These differences are negligible, indicating near-identical performance.

Q: Is the Ryzen AI Max+ 395 CPU a bottleneck in this configuration?

A: No, the CPU is not the limiting factor. It ranks in the 95th percentile among all CPUs with an average score of 77740, and its nearest rivals are within 2% of its performance. The GPU, ranked in the 35th percentile, is the bottleneck in Fivem.

Q: What frame rates can I expect at 1080p Medium settings?

A: The measured data shows an average of 43 FPS at 1080p Medium, with a minimum of 36 FPS and a maximum of 49 FPS. This provides a playable experience but with occasional dips below 40 FPS during demanding scenes.

Q: How does this combo rank among all tested configurations?

A: The combo ranks 2995th out of 3005 tested combinations in Fivem, placing it in the bottom 0.3% of all systems. This low ranking is driven entirely by the GPU, not the CPU.

Q: Is 4K gaming viable with this hardware?

A: No, the data shows that at 3840x2160, even Low settings produce only 20 FPS average, and Ultra settings drop to 10 FPS. These frame rates are far below playable thresholds for a multiplayer game like Fivem.

CPU Role

The AMD Ryzen AI Max+ 395 is a 16-core, 32-thread processor based on the Zen 5 architecture (Strix Halo codename), fabricated on TSMC's 4 nm process. It operates at a base clock of 3.00 GHz with a boost clock of 5.10 GHz, within a 55 W TDP. The cache hierarchy is substantial: 80 KB of L1 per core, 1 MB of L2 per core, and 64 MB of shared L3 cache. Memory support is LPDDR5X over a quad-channel bus, providing 256.0 GB/s of bandwidth, with ECC support enabled. This CPU's benchmark results are impressive: a Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 35314 and single-core score of 2044, a Geekbench multi-core score of 20992 and single-core score of 2464, and a Passmark multi-thread score of 54934.

In Fivem, the CPU's role is largely underutilized due to the GPU bottleneck. The game's multiplayer nature typically demands strong single-thread performance, and the Ryzen AI Max+ 395 delivers this with a Passmark single-thread score of 4147 and a Cinebench R23 single-core score of 2044. The 64 MB of L3 cache is advantageous for handling the numerous entity updates and script processing in Fivem's multiplayer environments. However, the measured FPS data shows that even at 1080p Low—the least GPU-intensive configuration—the system achieves only 54 FPS, suggesting that the GPU is still the primary constraint.

The CPU's 95th percentile ranking and its proximity to processors like the Core i9-14900K (within 1.7%) indicate that it would not hinder performance in any reasonable Fivem scenario. The Passmark physics score of 3481 and data compression score of 690650 further confirm strong computational throughput. The real insight is that this CPU could support far higher frame rates if paired with a more capable GPU, but with the Radeon 760M, its headroom goes unused. For users considering this combo, the CPU is a long-term asset that would retain value in a future GPU upgrade, but in its current configuration, its capabilities are masked by the integrated graphics limitation.