Fivem

# FAQ

Q: What is the overall performance ranking of the Intel Core i5-10400F paired with the AMD Radeon RX 9070 XT in Fivem?

A: This combination ranks 1028 out of 3707 tested combos in Fivem, placing it in the upper third of all tested configurations. The data indicates the pairing is competitive, though not at the very top tier of tested hardware.

Q: How does the Intel Core i5-10400F compare to its nearest CPU rivals in synthetic benchmarks?

A: The i5-10400F has an average benchmark score of 14185, which is within 0.6% of its closest rivals. It sits 0.2% above the Intel Xeon 6756E (14163), 0.5% above the AMD EPYC 7552 (14115), but trails the Intel Core 7 160UL by 0.3% (14232) and the AMD Ryzen 3 7320C by 0.6% (14277). In practical terms, these are essentially performance ties.

Q: What is the GPU's standing relative to other graphics cards based on the PassMark G3D benchmark?

A: The RX 9070 XT scores 26795 in PassMark G3D, placing it in the 55th percentile of all GPUs. Its nearest rival is the AMD Radeon HD 7770M (13536), which it beats by 0.1%, and it also edges out the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 570 (13515) by 0.2% and the NVIDIA P106-090 (13470) by 0.5%.

Q: What are the memory specifications of the RX 9070 XT, and how do they influence Fivem at high resolutions?

A: The GPU features 16 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 256-bit bus with 644.6 GB/s bandwidth. This substantial memory configuration helps maintain playable frame rates at 4K, where the card delivers 60 FPS on High settings and 47 FPS on Ultra.

Q: What is the CPU's threading capability, and does it support Fivem's multiplayer workloads?

A: The i5-10400F offers 6 cores and 12 threads, with a base clock of 2.90 GHz and boost up to 4.30 GHz. Its multi-threaded performance in Cinebench R23 reaches 10283 points, which is adequate for Fivem's mixed single-thread and multi-thread demands typical of multiplayer servers.

Q: How does the RX 9070 XT's ray tracing hardware contribute to Fivem?

A: The GPU includes 64 dedicated ray tracing cores and supports DirectX 12 Ultimate, but Fivem's measured data does not indicate that ray tracing is a significant factor. The performance deltas between settings presets are more closely tied to traditional rasterization workloads.

# GPU Role

The AMD Radeon RX 9070 XT brings formidable raw specifications to Fivem. Its 4096 shading units operate at a boost clock of 2970 MHz, pushing a peak FP32 throughput of 48.66 TFLOPS. The 128 ROPs deliver a pixel rate of 380.2 GPixel/s, and the 256 TMUs provide a texture rate of 760.3 GTexel/s. These figures suggest the GPU is capable of handling high geometric complexity and texture detail simultaneously, which matters in Fivem's dense urban environments.

The memory subsystem is equally notable: 16 GB of GDDR6 on a 256-bit bus yields 644.6 GB/s of bandwidth. This is critical for Fivem because the game often streams large texture sets and player customizations in multiplayer scenarios. At 4K resolution, the measured data shows the GPU's memory bandwidth becomes a determining factor. The card delivers 60 FPS on High settings but drops to 47 FPS on Ultra, indicating that the extra memory pressure from Ultra settings impacts performance more than the raw compute capabilities.

Interestingly, the GPU's benchmark percentile (55th) does not reflect its gaming performance in Fivem particularly well. In synthetic tests like 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12, it scores 7260, and in Geekbench Vulkan it reaches 65879. These scores place it near rivals like the AMD Radeon HD 7770M and NVIDIA GeForce GTX 570 in overall GPU rankings, but the measured Fivem results show far stronger gaming performance than those legacy cards would suggest. The data implies that Fivem's engine is well-optimized for the RX 9070 XT's RDNA 4.0 architecture, particularly its 64 RT cores and advanced geometry processing.

The clock behavior deserves attention. The boost clock of 2970 MHz is notably high, and the game clock of 2400 MHz represents a more sustained operational frequency. In Fivem, where frame pacing can vary due to network and simulation ticks, this high sustained clock helps maintain consistent frame times. The 95 FPS at 4K Low settings demonstrates that even at low settings, the GPU's clock speed and memory bandwidth allow for significant headroom. When settings scale to Medium at 4K, the average drops to 75 FPS, suggesting the GPU is being tasked more heavily with shading and texture work.

# CPU Role

The Intel Core i5-10400F is a 6-core, 12-thread processor based on the Comet Lake architecture, manufactured on Intel's 14 nm process. Its base clock of 2.90 GHz can boost to 4.30 GHz, and it carries 12 MB of shared L3 cache. The CPU's memory support is DDR4 with dual-channel configuration, delivering 42.7 GB/s of bandwidth. This memory bandwidth is modest by modern standards, but Fivem's performance data suggests it is sufficient for the game's requirements.

In single-threaded workloads, the i5-10400F scores 1451 in Cinebench R23 and 688 in 3DMark single-thread. These scores are indicative of solid, if not exceptional, per-core performance. Fivem is known for being sensitive to single-thread performance in its simulation and scripting layers, so these numbers are relevant. The CPU's 68th percentile ranking among all CPUs places it above the median, and its nearest rivals show deltas of less than 1%, meaning that in synthetic tests, the i5-10400F is effectively interchangeable with a cluster of other processors.

The multi-threaded performance tells a more nuanced story. The CPU achieves 10283 in Cinebench R23 multicore and 12115 in PassMark multithread. These results indicate that the 12 threads provide meaningful scaling for Fivem's background tasks, such as AI traffic simulation, physics, and audio processing. The 3DMark scores show a progression from 1350 in 2-thread to 4735 in max-thread tests, with the 8-thread score of 3929 representing most of the available scaling. This suggests that Fivem's workload, which typically uses 4-8 threads effectively, aligns well with the CPU's capabilities.

The CPU's PCIe Gen 3 interface (16 lanes) is worth noting. While the RX 9070 XT supports PCIe 5.0, the i5-10400F can only provide Gen 3 bandwidth. In Fivem, this does not appear to be a limiting factor based on the measured FPS, but it could theoretically constrain data transfer in texture-heavy scenes. The 65 W TDP indicates efficient power draw, which allows the CPU to sustain boost clocks without thermal throttling in most systems. For Fivem, where frame times can be affected by CPU bottlenecks in crowded multiplayer areas, the i5-10400F's balanced single-thread and multi-thread performance provides a stable foundation.

# How This Combo Ranks

The combination of the Intel Core i5-10400F and AMD Radeon RX 9070 XT achieves a rank of 1028 out of 3707 tested combos in Fivem. This places the pairing in the top 28% of all tested configurations, which is a strong result given that the CPU is not a high-end part. The GPU carries most of the performance weight, and the data supports this interpretation.

To contextualize the rank, consider that the CPU's synthetic average score of 14185 places it in the 68th percentile of all CPUs, while the GPU's PassMark G3D score of 26795 places it in the 55th percentile of all GPUs. Despite the GPU's mid-pack percentile, the combo rank in Fivem is higher than either component's individual percentile would suggest. This indicates that Fivem's engine favors the specific combination of this CPU and GPU, likely due to the GPU's high boost clocks and the CPU's adequate thread count for the game's simulation load.

The rank suggests that there are 1027 combos that perform better, but there are also 2679 combos that perform worse. This positions the i5-10400F + RX 9070 XT as a solid mid-upper tier pairing. The data does not reveal which specific combos rank higher, but the implication is that systems with faster CPUs or more powerful GPUs would be needed to improve the ranking. For Fivem, where the GPU is typically the primary bottleneck at higher resolutions, the RX 9070 XT's performance is the more significant contributor to this rank.

# Measured FPS Breakdown

At 1080p resolution, the data reveals a wide spread across settings. Low settings deliver 224 FPS average, while Medium drops to 205 FPS (with a minimum of 174 and maximum of 236). High settings reduce the average to 164 FPS, and Ultra brings it down to 127 FPS. The progression from Low to Ultra shows a total reduction of 97 FPS, or approximately 43% lower performance at the highest settings. The Medium setting's min/max range of 174-236 FPS indicates variable frame pacing, likely due to CPU involvement in scene complexity.

Moving to 1440p, the performance scaling is consistent but shows the GPU becoming more stressed. Low settings yield 171 FPS, Medium delivers 135 FPS (with a range of 115-155), High produces 108 FPS, and Ultra falls to 84 FPS. The drop from 1080p Low to 1440p Low is 53 FPS (from 224 to 171), representing a 24% reduction. This is less than the 29% reduction seen from 1080p High to 1440p High (164 to 108 FPS), suggesting that the GPU's shading load increases disproportionately with settings.

At 4K, the performance becomes more constrained. Low settings still manage a respectable 95 FPS, but Medium drops to 75 FPS (with a range of 64-86), High falls to 60 FPS, and Ultra dips to 47 FPS. The 4K Medium min of 64 FPS is notable, as it indicates that even at Medium settings, the GPU cannot always maintain smooth frame times. The difference between 1080p Ultra (127 FPS) and 4K Ultra (47 FPS) is 80 FPS, a 63% reduction that underscores the GPU's diminishing returns at extreme resolutions.

The medium settings across all resolutions show the most interesting pattern. At 1080p, Medium delivers 205 FPS, which is 81 FPS more than 1080p High. At 1440p, the gap narrows to 27 FPS (135 vs 108), and at 4K, it shrinks to 15 FPS (75 vs 60). This suggests that as resolution increases, the GPU's pixel throughput becomes the limiting factor, and the difference between settings presets matters less in absolute terms.

# Settings Recommendations

Based on the measured FPS data, the optimal settings preset depends on the target resolution and desired frame rate. At 1080p, the Medium preset delivers 205 FPS average, which is more than sufficient for high-refresh-rate monitors. The High preset at 164 FPS is also viable, but the 41 FPS difference between Medium and High is substantial. Given that Medium shows a minimum of 174 FPS, it offers a more consistent experience than High, which does not report a minimum but likely drops below 164 FPS in demanding scenes.

For 1440p, the High preset at 108 FPS is the best balance between visual quality and performance. The Medium preset at 135 FPS provides more headroom, but the visual uplift from High may be worth the 27 FPS sacrifice. The Ultra preset at 84 FPS is playable but approaches the threshold where frame drops become noticeable in fast-paced multiplayer action. The data suggests that High is the sweet spot for 1440p, as it maintains triple-digit FPS while providing better texture and shadow quality.

At 4K, the choice is more constrained. High settings at 60 FPS exactly hit the typical 60 Hz refresh rate, making it the recommended preset for a smooth experience. Medium at 75 FPS offers a buffer above 60 FPS, but the visual difference from High may be apparent. Ultra at 47 FPS is below the 60 FPS threshold and should be avoided for competitive play. The Low preset at 95 FPS is viable for maximum frame rate, but the visual reduction is significant. For most users at 4K, High settings provide the best experience per the measured rows.

# Resolution Scaling

The FPS drop from 1080p to 4K reveals the limiting component in this pairing. At Low settings, the progression is 224 FPS at 1080p, 171 FPS at 1440p, and 95 FPS at 4K. This represents a 58% reduction from 1080p to 4K (129 FPS loss). At High settings, the numbers are 164 FPS, 108 FPS, and 60 FPS, a 63% reduction (104 FPS loss). At Ultra, the figures are 127 FPS, 84 FPS, and 47 FPS, a 63% reduction (80 FPS loss).

The consistency of the percentage drop (58-63%) across settings indicates that the GPU is the primary bottleneck when resolution increases. If the CPU were the limiting factor, the drop from 1080p to 4K would be smaller, because the CPU's workload remains constant regardless of resolution. The fact that FPS decreases by roughly 60% when pixel count increases by 400% (from 2.07 million pixels at 1080p to 8.29 million at 4K) shows that the GPU is scaling with pixel throughput, which is expected for a GPU-bound scenario.

However, the absolute FPS values tell a more nuanced story. At 1080p Low, the CPU may be limiting, as 224 FPS is high but not maximally high for this GPU. The 4K Low result of 95 FPS suggests that even at Low settings, the GPU is being pushed hard enough to reduce FPS significantly. The fact that 4K High delivers exactly 60 FPS could indicate that the GPU's pixel rate of 380.2 GPixel/s is a hard ceiling for this game's rendering path.

The data also shows that the gap between 1440p and 4K is larger than the gap between 1080p and 1440p in percentage terms. From 1080p to 1440p, FPS drops by 24-34% depending on settings. From 1440p to 4K, FPS drops by 44-45%. This steeper decline at higher resolutions reinforces that the RX 9070 XT's memory bandwidth of 644.6 GB/s becomes increasingly strained as pixel count grows, making the GPU the definitive limiting component at 4K.