Fivem

The Intel Core i5-10400F paired with the Intel Arc B370 is a combination that ranks near the bottom of the database for Fivem, placing 2762nd out of 3005 tested combos. This is not a high-performance pairing for this multiplayer title; the data indicates a system that struggles to maintain smooth frame rates at higher resolutions and settings, though it can achieve playable results at 1080p with lowered quality presets. The analysis below breaks down the specific contributions of the CPU and GPU, the measured performance across settings, and what the scaling patterns reveal about system bottlenecks.

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

The Intel Core i5-10400F is a 10th Generation Comet Lake desktop processor with 6 cores and 12 threads. It operates at a base clock of 2.90 GHz and can boost up to 4.30 GHz. The processor has a 65 W TDP and is built on Intel's 14 nm process node. Cache configuration includes 64 KB of L1 per core, 256 KB of L2 per core, and 12 MB of shared L3 cache. Memory support is dual-channel DDR4 with a bandwidth of 42.7 GB/s, and the CPU connects via PCIe Gen 3 with 16 lanes.

In synthetic benchmarks, this CPU demonstrates respectable multi-threaded capability. For instance, it scores 10,283 in Cinebench R23 multi-core and 12,115 in PassMark multithread. Single-thread performance is moderate, with scores of 1,451 in Cinebench R23 single-core and 2,541 in PassMark single-thread. The CPU's percentile ranking against all processors is 68, meaning it outperforms roughly two-thirds of the database. Its average benchmark score is 14,185, which places it near the Intel Xeon 6756E (14,163, a 0.2% difference) and the AMD EPYC 7552 (14,115, a 0.5% difference). It is also slightly behind the Intel Core 7 160UL (14,232, a -0.3% delta) and the AMD Ryzen 3 7320C (14,277, a -0.6% delta).

For Fivem, a multiplayer title with significant simulation and scripting workloads, CPU performance is often critical. The 6-core/12-thread configuration provides enough parallelism for the game's logic, but the single-thread score of 688 in 3DMark single-thread suggests that per-core performance is a limiting factor. When examining the measured FPS data, the system produces 80 FPS at 1080p Low, but this drops to 50 FPS at 1080p High. The scaling from Low to High at 1080p (a 37.5% reduction) is substantial and points to the CPU's ability to feed the GPU becoming strained as more draw calls and physics calculations are introduced. At higher resolutions like 1440p, the CPU overhead remains constant, but the system still manages 53 FPS at Low, indicating that the processor is capable of driving frame rates in the mid-50s range when graphical load is minimal.

However, the data suggests that the i5-10400F is not the primary bottleneck in this pairing at lower resolutions. The drop from 80 FPS (1080p Low) to 53 FPS (1440p Low) is a 33.75% reduction, which is more than would be expected from a pure CPU limit. This implies that the GPU starts to become a factor even at Low settings when resolution increases. The CPU's 12 MB of L3 cache and dual-channel memory bandwidth are adequate for Fivem's needs, but the architecture is older, and benchmark results place it in the 68th percentile, which is solid but not exceptional. In the context of this game's results, the CPU provides a baseline of performance that allows for playable frame rates at 1080p, but it cannot compensate for the GPU's limitations at higher resolutions.

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 has a base clock of 300 MHz and a boost clock of 2400 MHz. Crucially, the GPU uses System Shared memory, meaning there is no dedicated VRAM; the memory size, type, bus width, and bandwidth are all listed as "System Shared" or "System Dependent." This is a fundamental limitation for gaming, as the GPU must compete with the CPU for memory bandwidth.

The GPU has 1280 shading units, 40 texture mapping units, and 20 raster operation pipelines. It also includes 10 ray tracing cores. The compute capabilities are modest: 6.144 TFLOPS for FP32 and 12.29 TFLOPS for FP16 (2:1). The pixel rate is 48.00 GPixel/s and the texture rate is 96.00 GTexel/s. The TDP is a low 25 W, and it has no power connectors or dedicated slot width, confirming its IGP status. In the single benchmark available (3DMark Steel Nomad DX12), it scores 1,184, which places it in the 5th percentile against all GPUs. Its nearest rivals include the ATI Mobility Radeon HD 5570 (1,186, a -0.2% delta) and the ATI Radeon HD 5770 (1,190, a -0.5% delta), showing that its raw compute performance is comparable to graphics cards from over a decade ago.

The GPU's role in Fivem is the dominant limiting factor. The measured FPS data shows that the system cannot achieve 60 FPS at any resolution above 1080p Low. At 1080p Low, it hits 80 FPS, but this is the only setting and resolution combination that exceeds 60 FPS. At 1080p Medium, the average drops to 63 FPS, which is just above the 60 FPS threshold, but with a minimum of 54 FPS. The lack of dedicated VRAM is likely the cause of severe performance degradation when texture quality is increased. The system shared memory architecture means that increasing the settings from Low to High at any resolution forces the GPU to use more system memory, which has limited bandwidth (42.7 GB/s on the CPU side).

The scaling from 1080p Low (80 FPS) to 1080p Ultra (39 FPS) shows a performance reduction of 51.25%. This is a massive drop, indicating that the GPU's shading units and memory bandwidth are quickly overwhelmed by the increased graphical load. The GPU's 5th percentile ranking confirms that it is one of the weakest components tested. When comparing the GPU's score of 1,184 to its nearest rival, the AMD FirePro M2000 (1,168, a 1.4% delta), it is clear that the Arc B370 is operating at a performance tier that is not designed for modern gaming at high settings. In Fivem, the GPU is the primary bottleneck, and the data shows that users must accept low resolutions and Low settings to achieve playable frame rates.

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

Based on the measured FPS rows, the optimal experience for this combo is at 1080p with the Low preset. This is the only configuration that delivers an average frame rate of 80 FPS, which provides a comfortable margin above standard 60 FPS displays. The Medium preset at 1080p yields an average of 63 FPS with a minimum of 54 FPS, which is playable but has occasional dips that could be noticeable in fast-paced multiplayer scenarios. The High preset at 1080p drops to 50 FPS, and the Ultra preset falls to 39 FPS, both of which are below the 60 FPS target.

At 1440p, the Low preset produces 53 FPS, which is borderline playable but not ideal. The Medium preset at 1440p averages 41 FPS with a minimum of 35 FPS, which is likely to feel choppy. The High and Ultra presets at 1440p are not recommended, with averages of 33 FPS and 26 FPS respectively. At 4K, all settings are effectively unplayable, with the Low preset achieving only 29 FPS and the Medium preset dropping to 23 FPS (minimum 20 FPS). The High preset at 4K averages 18 FPS, and the Ultra preset averages 14 FPS.

The data strongly suggests that users should prioritize resolution over graphical fidelity. Playing at 1080p with the Low preset is the only way to utilize the system's full potential. If the user has a 1440p monitor, the Low preset at 53 FPS is the best option, but it comes with a 33.75% performance penalty compared to 1080p Low. The Medium preset at 1080p offers a slight visual improvement over Low, but the 17 FPS drop (from 80 to 63) may not be worth the trade-off. There is no scenario where the Ultra preset is recommended, as the maximum average FPS across all resolutions is 39 FPS at 1080p, which is well below the threshold for smooth gameplay. The measured data indicates that the "best experience" is defined by frame rate stability, and only the 1080p Low preset provides both high averages and no recorded minimum FPS below 54 (which is the case for Medium).

How This Combo Ranks — use comboRankInGame vs other tested combos

The combination of the Intel Core i5-10400F and the Intel Arc B370 ranks 2762 out of 3005 tested combos in Fivem. This places it in the bottom 8.1% of all systems tested, which is a poor result. The rank of 2762 means that there are 2,761 other combinations that perform better in this game, and only 243 that perform worse. This is a clear indication that this hardware pairing is not suited for Fivem.

The low ranking is largely attributable to the GPU's performance. The GPU's 5th percentile ranking means that 95% of all GPUs in the database outperform it. While the CPU is in the 68th percentile, its performance is negated by the GPU's inability to render frames efficiently. The combo's rank is a reflection of the weakest link, which is the integrated graphics solution. Even though the CPU can process game logic at a moderate level, the GPU cannot translate that into high frame rates.

Compared to other combos, this system is at the bottom tier. The delta between the CPU and its nearest rivals (e.g., the Intel Core 7 160UL is 0.3% faster) is negligible, but the GPU's nearest rivals (e.g., the ATI Radeon HD 5770 is 0.5% faster) are all legacy parts. This suggests that the combo is competing with systems built around decade-old graphics hardware. In Fivem, which is a multiplayer game with a large world and many entities, the low combo rank indicates that users will likely experience significant performance issues, especially in crowded areas. The data shows that this is not a viable configuration for a smooth multiplayer experience, and the rank of 2762 out of 3005 is a definitive verdict on its capabilities.

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

The FPS scaling across resolutions reveals that the Intel Arc B370 is the dominant bottleneck. Starting at 1080p Low (80 FPS), moving to 1440p Low (53 FPS) results in a 33.75% drop. Moving from 1440p Low to 4K Low (29 FPS) results in a further 45.28% drop. The total reduction from 1080p Low to 4K Low is 63.75%. This steep decline is characteristic of a GPU-limited scenario, where the fixed computational resources (shading units, ROPs) are overwhelmed by the increasing pixel count.

If the CPU were the limiting factor, we would expect the FPS to remain relatively constant regardless of resolution, as the CPU's workload is independent of resolution. However, the data shows a clear downward trend as resolution increases. For example, at Low settings, the FPS drops from 80 to 53 to 29 as resolution goes from 1080p to 1440p to 4K. This is a 51 FPS difference between 1080p and 4K, which is a 63.75% reduction. This pattern is also present at other settings. At High settings, the FPS drops from 50 to 33 to 18, a 64% reduction from 1080p to 4K. At Medium settings, the FPS drops from 63 to 41 to 23, a 63.5% reduction.

The consistency of the percentage drops (approximately 63-64%) across all settings strongly indicates that the GPU is the limiting component. The CPU, with its 6 cores and 12 threads, is able to maintain its performance regardless of resolution, as evidenced by the fact that the FPS drops are proportional to the increase in pixels. The 4K resolution has 4 times the pixels of 1080p, and the measured FPS at Low settings (29) is roughly 36% of the 1080p Low FPS (80), which aligns with the GPU's pixel rate limitations. The GPU's pixel rate of 48.00 GPixel/s is insufficient for 4K rendering, and the data confirms this. The system shared memory also exacerbates the issue, as the GPU's memory bandwidth is "System Dependent" and cannot scale with resolution. Ultimately, the resolution scaling data proves that the Intel Arc B370 is the primary bottleneck, and upgrading the GPU would yield significant performance gains, while the CPU has headroom to support a more powerful graphics card.

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

The measured FPS data provides a comprehensive view of the system's performance across all test configurations.

1920x1080 (1080p):

• Low: Average 80 FPS. This is the peak performance for this combo, providing the only result above 80 FPS in the entire dataset.
• Medium: Average 63 FPS, with a minimum of 54 FPS and a maximum of 72 FPS. This is a playable range, but the minimum FPS indicates occasional stutters.
• High: Average 50 FPS. This is a noticeable drop from Medium, showing the GPU's struggle with higher quality textures and effects.
• Ultra: Average 39 FPS. This is below the 60 FPS threshold and is not recommended for smooth gameplay.

2560x1440 (1440p):

• Low: Average 53 FPS. This is the best result at this resolution, but it is 33.75% slower than the 1080p Low setting.
• Medium: Average 41 FPS, with a minimum of 35 FPS and a maximum of 48 FPS. The minimum FPS of 35 is likely to be noticeable as lag.
• High: Average 33 FPS. This is marginal for playability, but the frame pacing is likely inconsistent.
• Ultra: Average 26 FPS. This is below 30 FPS, which is generally considered the bare minimum for playability.

3840x2160 (4K):

• Low: Average 29 FPS. This is the only 4K setting that approaches 30 FPS, but it is still below the threshold for acceptable smoothness.
• Medium: Average 23 FPS, with a minimum of 20 FPS and a maximum of 26 FPS. The 20 FPS minimum is very low and indicates severe performance issues.
• High: Average 18 FPS. This is a slideshow and is unplayable.
• Ultra: Average 14 FPS. This is the worst result in the dataset, confirming that 4K is not a viable option for this hardware.

The data shows a clear pattern: the system can deliver 1080p Low at 80 FPS, but every other configuration either falls below 60 FPS or requires a significant resolution sacrifice. The Medium preset at 1080p (63 FPS) is the only other configuration that exceeds 60 FPS on average, but the 54 FPS minimum makes it a borderline case. The 1440p Low setting (53 FPS) is the best option for higher resolution displays, but the performance loss is substantial. The 4K results are uniformly poor, with the highest average being 29 FPS at Low settings. This breakdown confirms that the combo is only suitable for 1080p gaming at the lowest settings, and even then, it does not provide a consistent 60 FPS experience across all presets.