Fivem

The Intel Core i5-10400F paired with the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4070 Ti SUPER presents a classic high-resolution GPU-bottleneck scenario in Fivem, but it also reveals the limits of a mid-range 10th-generation processor when frame rates climb. The data shows a clear and predictable pattern: as resolution drops from 4K to 1080p, the workload shifts from the graphics card to the CPU, and the measured FPS numbers reflect this transition with increasing volatility. This combo ranks 666th out of 3707 tested combinations, placing it in the top 20% of all systems tested, a solid position that underscores the raw power of the GPU while hinting at the pairing's imbalances.

Resolution Scaling

The FPS deltas across resolutions are substantial and tell a straightforward story about which component carries the load. At 4K Ultra, the system averages 55 FPS, while dropping to 4K High raises that to 71 FPS. The jump from High to Low at 4K is even more dramatic, with Low producing 112 FPS—a 57.7% improvement over Ultra. This scaling behavior indicates the RTX 4070 Ti SUPER is the primary limiting factor at 4K, as reducing graphical fidelity yields massive gains. The 16 GB of VRAM and 672.3 GB/s of bandwidth are sufficient to handle 4K textures, but the sheer pixel count keeps the GPU busy, capping performance well below the CPU's potential.

Moving to 1440p, the picture changes. Ultra now produces 99 FPS, High hits 128 FPS, and Low reaches 195 FPS. The percentage gains from lowering settings are still large, but the absolute numbers suggest the GPU is starting to breathe easier. The gap between Low and Ultra shrinks from 57.7% at 4K to 49.5% at 1440p, a subtle but telling shift. At 1080p, the trend accelerates: Low delivers 224 FPS, High 190 FPS, and Ultra 151 FPS. The difference between Low and Ultra is now only 32.6%, indicating that the CPU is beginning to cap the frame rate. The i5-10400F, with its 6 cores and 12 threads, has a boost clock of 4.30 GHz, and benchmark results show a single-thread score of 688 in 3dmark and 1451 in Cinebench R23 single-core. These are competent figures, but not elite, and the data suggests that at 1080p Low, the CPU is likely the bottleneck, preventing the GPU from stretching its legs fully.

GPU Role

The RTX 4070 Ti SUPER is the star of this pairing, and its specifications confirm it is built for heavy lifting. With 8448 shading units, 264 TMUs, and 96 ROPs, the GPU has ample compute resources. Its boost clock of 2610 MHz is high, and the 16 GB of GDDR6X memory on a 256-bit bus delivers 672.3 GB/s of bandwidth. This memory configuration is particularly relevant for Fivem, a multiplayer mod that can be memory-hungry at high resolutions. The GPU's PassMark G3D score of 31811 places it in the 76th percentile of all GPUs, and its nearest rival, the NVIDIA TITAN RTX, scores 31676, a difference of -1.9%. The data shows the 4070 Ti SUPER holds its own against much older flagship hardware, which is notable given its Ada Lovelace architecture and 5 nm process node.

In terms of raw compute, the GPU delivers 44.10 TFLOPS of FP32 performance, and its ray tracing cores (66) and tensor cores (264) are present, though Fivem's engine does not heavily utilize these features based on the measured results. The pixel rate of 250.6 GPixel/s and texture rate of 689.0 GTexel/s are more relevant to traditional rasterization, and these numbers explain why the GPU excels at 4K when paired with a capable CPU. However, the measured FPS at 4K Ultra (55 FPS) suggests that even this powerful GPU is strained by the game's engine at maximum settings, likely due to draw calls and entity rendering unique to Fivem's multiplayer environment. The GPU's 285 W TDP and triple-slot design indicate it is a high-power part, but the thermal headroom is not a concern in this data set—the bottleneck is purely performance-based, not thermal.

CPU Role

The Intel Core i5-10400F is a 14 nm Comet Lake processor with 6 cores and 12 threads, a base clock of 2.90 GHz, and a boost clock of 4.30 GHz. Its 12 MB of shared L3 cache is modest by modern standards, and its memory bandwidth of 42.7 GB/s for DDR4 is a limiting factor compared to newer platforms. The CPU's benchmark scores are respectable but not outstanding: it achieves a 3dmark single-thread score of 688 and a multi-thread score of 4735, while Cinebench R23 results show 1451 single-core and 10283 multi-core. The PassMark single-thread score of 2541 and multi-thread score of 12115 further confirm its mid-range position. The CPU sits in the 68th percentile of all CPUs, with nearest rivals like the Intel Xeon 6756E (0.2% higher score) and AMD Ryzen 3 7320C (-0.6% lower score) showing it is closely matched to a wide range of processors.

In Fivem, the CPU's role becomes evident at lower resolutions and settings. At 1080p Low, the system hits 224 FPS, which is likely near the engine's practical limit for this CPU. The gap between 1080p High (190 FPS) and 1080p Low (224 FPS) is only 17.9%, whereas at 4K the gap between High and Low is 57.7%. This compression of gains at 1080p indicates the CPU is becoming the limiting factor, as the GPU has enough headroom to render frames faster than the CPU can feed it. The CPU's 6 cores and 12 threads are adequate for Fivem, but the game's single-threaded nature, evidenced by the 3dmark single-thread score of 688, means the boost clock of 4.30 GHz is critical. The data suggests that while the CPU does not bottleneck at 4K, it caps performance at 1080p, preventing the system from reaching the GPU's full potential in low-fidelity scenarios.

How This Combo Ranks

The combo ranks 666th out of 3707 tested combinations, placing it in the 82nd percentile of all systems. This is a strong result, driven almost entirely by the GPU's high percentile ranking (76th) versus the CPU's more modest 68th percentile. The ranking indicates that this pairing is well-suited for high-resolution gaming, where the GPU's power is fully utilized. However, the rank also reflects the CPU's limitations at lower resolutions, where less capable GPUs paired with faster CPUs might close the gap. The data shows that the combo's strengths lie in 4K and 1440p Ultra settings, where it maintains playable frame rates, rather than in chasing maximum FPS at 1080p. The rank of 666 is a solid mid-to-upper tier result, and the system would be a strong choice for a 1440p or 4K monitor, but it is not the optimal pairing for competitive 1080p esports-style play where frame rates above 200 FPS are the priority.

Measured FPS Breakdown

Breaking down the measured results by resolution and settings reveals a consistent pattern. At 1920x1080, the system delivers 224 FPS on Low, 205 FPS on Medium (with a min of 175 and max of 236), 190 FPS on High, and 151 FPS on Ultra. The Medium setting shows a 30 FPS spread between min and max, indicating some frame pacing inconsistency, but the average remains high. At 2560x1440, the numbers drop to 195 FPS on Low, 160 FPS on Medium (min 136, max 184), 128 FPS on High, and 99 FPS on Ultra. The 1440p Medium result shows a 48 FPS spread, suggesting the CPU is starting to introduce stutter in complex scenes. At 3840x2160, the system produces 112 FPS on Low, 89 FPS on Medium (min 75, max 102), 71 FPS on High, and 55 FPS on Ultra. The 4K Medium spread of 27 FPS is tighter, indicating the GPU is more consistently the bottleneck at this resolution.

The data reveals that the step from High to Ultra is the most punishing at every resolution. At 1080p, Ultra is 20.5% slower than High; at 1440p, it is 22.7% slower; and at 4K, it is 22.5% slower. This consistent penalty suggests Ultra settings introduce effects that disproportionately tax the GPU, likely related to shadow quality, draw distance, and post-processing. Conversely, the step from Low to Medium is relatively small (8.5% at 1080p, 17.9% at 1440p, 20.5% at 4K), indicating that Medium offers significant visual improvements without a massive FPS hit. The min/max data for Medium settings shows that the system maintains playable frame times even when the average dips, which is a positive sign for stability.

Settings Recommendations

For a smooth experience, the data points to Medium as the optimal preset across all resolutions. At 1080p, Medium delivers 205 FPS, a 19.5% reduction from Low but a 35.8% improvement over Ultra, with a min FPS of 175 that keeps the action fluid. At 1440p, Medium produces 160 FPS with a min of 136, which is well above the 60 FPS threshold for smooth gameplay and only 38.5% slower than Low. At 4K, Medium achieves 89 FPS with a min of 75, which is the only 4K setting that maintains a consistent 75 FPS minimum, making it the best choice for 4K displays. The Medium preset appears to strike the ideal balance between visual fidelity and performance, while High is a viable alternative for those who prioritize image quality over frame rate, with 190 FPS at 1080p, 128 FPS at 1440p, and 71 FPS at 4K.

Ultra is not recommended for competitive play, as it drops below 100 FPS at 1440p and below 60 FPS at 4K, which may introduce noticeable input lag. Low settings are only advisable for maximum frame rates at 1080p, where 224 FPS gives a competitive edge, but the visual sacrifice is significant. For most users, Medium at 1440p offers the best overall experience: 160 FPS average, 136 FPS minimum, and a visual quality that is substantially better than Low. The data suggests that this pairing is best utilized at 1440p Medium or High, where the GPU's strengths are fully realized without the CPU becoming a limiting factor. At 4K, Medium is the only setting that guarantees a 75 FPS minimum, making it the recommended choice for high-resolution displays.