Fivem

The Intel Core i5-10400F is a 6-core, 12-thread processor based on the Comet Lake architecture, built on a 14 nm process. It has a base clock of 2.90 GHz and a boost clock of 4.30 GHz, with 12 MB of shared L3 cache. In synthetic benchmarks, this CPU scores 4,748 in 3DMark's 16-thread test and 688 in the single-thread test, placing it in the 73rd percentile among all CPUs. Its average benchmark score of 14,168 puts it in close competition with the AMD EPYC 7552, which is only 0.4% ahead, and the AMD Ryzen 3 7320C, which is 0.8% behind. For a multiplayer game like Fivem, which relies heavily on server-side scripting and physics, the CPU's 12 threads are advantageous, as they allow the game engine to distribute workloads across multiple cores. The 4.30 GHz boost clock provides solid single-thread performance, which is critical for the main game loop and frame pacing. However, the data shows that this processor's performance is not the primary bottleneck in this combination, as the frame rates scale more dramatically with graphical settings changes than with resolution changes, indicating that the GPU is the limiting factor in most scenarios.

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

The Core i5-10400F’s six cores and twelve threads provide a solid foundation for Fivem, which is known for its heavy CPU usage in populated multiplayer servers. The processor’s 2.90 GHz base clock and 4.30 GHz boost clock allow it to handle both the game’s main thread and background tasks, such as voice chat and asset streaming, without becoming a severe bottleneck. In the measured data, the CPU’s influence is most visible at lower graphical settings and resolutions, where the GPU has less work to do. For instance, at 1920x1080 with Low settings, the average frame rate reaches 76 FPS, which is the highest recorded across all configurations. This suggests that the CPU can feed the GPU enough frames to reach this level, but the GPU's limitations prevent higher numbers. The 3DMark 8-thread score of 3,929 and max-thread score of 4,735 indicate that the processor scales well with additional threads, which is beneficial for Fivem's multi-player server logic. However, the CPU’s single-thread score of 688 in 3DMark is modest, and this is reflected in the game’s performance ceiling; even with the fastest GPU, the processor would likely cap frame rates in CPU-bound scenarios. Compared to its nearest rivals, the i5-10400F is statistically tied with the AMD EPYC 7552 (0.4% faster) and the AMD Ryzen 3 7320C (0.8% slower), meaning its CPU horsepower is exactly average for this performance class. This is a mid-range processor that will not hold back the GTX 1650 in most situations, but it also cannot compensate for the GPU’s weaknesses at higher settings.

GPU Role — VRAM, clocks, and how they relate to this game's results

The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 is the clear performance limiter in this pairing. It comes with 4 GB of GDDR5 memory on a 128-bit bus, providing 128.1 GB/s of bandwidth. Its base clock is 1485 MHz with a boost clock of 1665 MHz, and it features 896 shading units, 56 texture mapping units, and 32 ROPs. The GPU’s 4 GB VRAM is a significant constraint for Fivem, especially at higher resolutions and settings where textures and draw distances consume memory. The benchmark results show that the GTX 1650’s performance is heavily dependent on the workload. In 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12, it scores only 305, which is very low, indicating that it struggles with modern, demanding rendering techniques. In contrast, its PassMark G3D score of 7,880 places it in the 43rd percentile of all GPUs, showing it is a below-average card overall. Its nearest rivals include the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3050 A Mobile (0.4% faster) and the AMD Radeon Pro WX 5100 (0.5% slower), confirming that the GTX 1650 is at the bottom of the current performance hierarchy. For Fivem specifically, the GPU’s 4 GB VRAM is exhausted at 4K resolutions, leading to average frame rates that are unplayable. Even at 1920x1080, the card can only manage 45.4 FPS on High settings, which is playable but not smooth. The GPU’s 75 W TDP and lack of power connectors suggest it is designed for low-power systems, but this also means it lacks the headroom to handle demanding titles like Fivem at high settings.

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

The measured frame rates show a clear and predictable drop as resolution increases, which is a classic sign of a GPU-bound system. At 1920x1080 with Low settings, the average FPS is 76.0. Moving to 2560x1440 with the same settings, the average FPS falls to 49.6, a drop of 34.7%. At 3840x2160, the average FPS plummets to 25.4, which is a 66.6% reduction from the 1080p result. This pattern is consistent across all settings. For example, on High settings, the frame rate goes from 45.4 FPS at 1080p to 31.5 FPS at 1440p (a 30.6% drop) and then to 15.5 FPS at 4K (a 65.9% drop from 1080p). This steep decline at 4K indicates that the GTX 1650’s 4 GB VRAM and limited memory bandwidth are being overwhelmed. The pixel throughput requirement at 4K is four times that of 1080p, and the GPU’s 128.1 GB/s bandwidth simply cannot keep up. The CPU’s performance, on the other hand, is not affected by resolution, so the fact that frame rates drop so drastically points directly to the GPU as the bottleneck. The data suggests that the i5-10400F could potentially deliver higher frame rates if paired with a stronger GPU, but the GTX 1650 caps the system’s performance at all resolutions above 1080p. At 1080p, the CPU and GPU are more balanced, with the frame rate difference between Low and Ultra settings (76.0 vs. 37.5 FPS) showing that both components are being utilized, but the GPU still dominates the performance envelope.

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

Based on the measured FPS data, the optimal settings for this combination depend heavily on the target resolution. At 1920x1080, the Medium preset delivers an average of 61.5 FPS, which is a good balance between visual quality and smoothness. The Low preset offers 76.0 FPS, which is smoother but sacrifices visual fidelity. The High preset at 45.4 FPS is playable but not ideal for fast-paced multiplayer action. The Ultra preset at 37.5 FPS is the least recommended, as it dips below the 40 FPS threshold that most players consider acceptable for a responsive experience. For 2560x1440, the Low preset is the only viable option, yielding 49.6 FPS. The Medium preset at 42.2 FPS is barely playable, but the High preset at 31.5 FPS and Ultra at 24.6 FPS are too sluggish for competitive play. At 3840x2160, all settings are effectively unplayable, with the Low preset at 25.4 FPS being the highest, but still below the 30 FPS minimum for most gamers. Therefore, the best experience per the measured rows is to run the game at 1920x1080 with Medium settings, which provides a 61.5 FPS average, or to drop to Low if a higher frame rate is prioritized. The data shows that the GTX 1650 is not capable of handling 1440p or 4K in this game, so sticking to 1080p is the only way to achieve a reasonable frame rate.

How This Combo Ranks — use comboRankInGame vs other tested combos

This specific combination of the Intel Core i5-10400F and NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 ranks 1,739 out of 1,792 tested combos in Fivem. This places it in the bottom 3% of all tested systems, which is a very poor result. The ranking reflects the fact that the GTX 1650 is a low-end GPU, and while the i5-10400F is a capable mid-range CPU, it cannot overcome the GPU’s limitations in this game. The combo’s rank is consistent with the measured frame rates, which are mostly below 60 FPS at 1080p and below 30 FPS at higher resolutions. This ranking indicates that most other tested combinations, including those with older or weaker CPUs but stronger GPUs, will outperform this setup. The 1,739th rank out of 1,792 combos means that there are only 53 tested configurations that are slower, which is a stark warning to anyone considering this hardware for Fivem. The data suggests that this combination is only suitable for very low-resolution gaming or for players who are willing to sacrifice visual quality and frame rate for the sake of a low-power, entry-level system.

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

At 1920x1080, the measured average frame rates are as follows:

• Low: 76.0 FPS
• Medium: 61.5 FPS
• High: 45.4 FPS
• Ultra: 37.5 FPS

At 2560x1440, the measured average frame rates are:

• Low: 49.6 FPS
• Medium: 42.2 FPS
• High: 31.5 FPS
• Ultra: 24.6 FPS

At 3840x2160, the measured average frame rates are:

• Low: 25.4 FPS
• Medium: 22.3 FPS
• High: 15.5 FPS
• Ultra: 13.0 FPS

The data shows a consistent pattern: the frame rate drops by roughly 35-40% when moving from 1080p to 1440p, and then by another 50-60% when moving from 1440p to 4K. The gap between Low and Ultra settings widens as resolution increases, from a 38.5 FPS difference at 1080p to a 12.4 FPS difference at 4K. This indicates that at 4K, the GPU is so severely bottlenecked that even reducing settings has a diminishing return. The best-case scenario for this system is 1080p Low at 76.0 FPS, which is the only configuration that approaches a smooth 60+ FPS experience. The worst-case scenario is 4K Ultra at 13.0 FPS, which is a slideshow. These numbers confirm that the GTX 1650 is not designed for high-resolution gaming, and this combo should be reserved for 1080p gaming at low-to-medium settings.