Fivem

Fivem’s performance profile with the Intel Core i5-11400F and NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4090 is defined by a stark contrast: the CPU’s mid-range capabilities against the GPU’s top-tier processing power. The measured results show a configuration that delivers high frame rates across the board, yet the scaling patterns reveal where the bottleneck lies at different resolutions and settings. This analysis walks through the data to explain how this pairing behaves, what it means for playability, and how it stacks up against other tested combinations.

Resolution Scaling

The frame rate drop from 1080p to 4K is dramatic and tells a clear story about which component is the limiting factor at each step. At 1080p with Low settings, the combo produces 262 FPS. Moving to 1440p Low drops that to 228 FPS, a reduction of 34 FPS or roughly 13%. Stepping up to 4K Low yields 135 FPS, which is 127 FPS lower than 1080p Low, representing a 48% decrease. This pattern indicates that at lower resolutions, the CPU is holding back the system, preventing the RTX 4090 from reaching even higher frame rates. The 1080p and 1440p numbers are so high that they suggest the i5-11400F is nearing its limit, especially given its 6 cores and 12 threads.

The scaling pattern becomes more pronounced at higher settings. With High settings, the drop from 1080p (222 FPS) to 1440p (153 FPS) is 69 FPS, a 31% reduction. From 1440p to 4K, the drop is 68 FPS, from 153 to 85, which is a 44% reduction. This shows that as the graphical load increases, the GPU begins to take on more of the work, but the CPU still plays a significant role. The Ultra preset tells the most revealing story: 1080p Ultra runs at 180 FPS, 1440p Ultra at 119 FPS, and 4K Ultra at 66 FPS. The 4K Ultra result is the closest this combo gets to GPU-bound behavior, with the RTX 4090 finally being taxed enough to show a more typical scaling curve.

The data indicates that at 1080p and 1440p, the Intel Core i5-11400F is the primary constraint. Its 2.60 GHz base clock and 4.40 GHz boost clock, combined with 12 MB of L3 cache, are sufficient for high frame rates but not for pushing beyond the 250 FPS range. The RTX 4090, with its 24 GB of GDDR6X memory and 1.01 TB/s bandwidth, is clearly capable of far more, as evidenced by the 262 FPS at 1080p Low. The bottleneck shifts only at 4K Ultra, where the GPU’s 82.58 TFLOPS of FP32 performance is fully engaged. In summary, this is a CPU-limited combo at lower resolutions, transitioning to a more balanced state at 4K with higher settings.

Settings Recommendations

The measured rows provide a clear hierarchy for settings, and the data suggests that the Medium preset offers the most balanced experience across all resolutions. At 1080p, Medium produces 241 FPS, which is only 21 FPS less than Low (262 FPS) but represents a significant visual upgrade over Low. The jump from Medium to High at 1080p costs 19 FPS (241 to 222), and High to Ultra costs another 42 FPS (222 to 180). The Ultra preset at 1080p is still playable, but the 180 FPS result is well below the 262 FPS ceiling seen at Low, indicating diminishing returns.

At 1440p, Medium is again the sweet spot. It delivers 191 FPS, which is 37 FPS less than Low (228 FPS) but 38 FPS more than High (153 FPS). The Medium preset also has the only recorded minimum and maximum FPS data in the entire set at this resolution, with a min of 163 FPS and a max of 220 FPS. This suggests a stable frame time distribution. The 1440p Ultra preset drops to 119 FPS, which is still smooth but represents a 38% reduction from Medium. For 4K, Medium produces 106 FPS with a min of 90 and max of 122. This is the only 4K row with min/max data, and it shows a 16 FPS variance, which is acceptable for most players. High at 4K drops to 85 FPS, and Ultra falls to 66 FPS.

The recommendation based on the data is to use Medium settings. It offers the best frame rate per visual quality step, especially at 1440p and 4K. Low settings provide a marginal FPS boost but at a visible quality cost. High settings offer a modest improvement over Medium but at a significant FPS penalty, particularly at 4K where the drop from Medium to High is 21 FPS. Ultra is only advisable for players with high refresh rate 1080p monitors who prioritize visuals over frame rate, as the 180 FPS result is still competitive. For the majority of use cases, Medium is the optimal choice.

GPU Role

The NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4090 is the dominant component in this pairing, but the data shows that its full potential is rarely reached. The GPU’s specs are impressive: 16,384 shading units, 512 TMUs, and 176 ROPs, running at a base clock of 2235 MHz and a boost clock of 2520 MHz. Memory is 24 GB of GDDR6X on a 384-bit bus, providing 1.01 TB/s of bandwidth. This configuration is designed for extreme workloads, and its 88th percentile rank among all GPUs confirms its status.

In Fivem, the RTX 4090’s role is to handle the graphical overhead, but it is often waiting on the CPU. The evidence is in the scaling: at 1080p Low, the GPU produces 262 FPS, but at 1080p Ultra, it only reaches 180 FPS. This 82 FPS difference is due to the increased shading and texture work, but the GPU is not the limiting factor at 1080p. The 4K results are more telling. At 4K Ultra, the combo achieves 66 FPS, which is a 73% drop from 1080p Ultra (180 FPS). This is a much larger drop than what would be expected from pure resolution scaling, indicating that the CPU is still contributing to the bottleneck even at 4K.

The GPU’s memory and bandwidth are not stressed in this game. The 24 GB of VRAM is far more than Fivem requires, and the 1.01 TB/s bandwidth is sufficient for the 4K Ultra settings. The GPU’s compute capabilities, 82.58 TFLOPS of FP32, are also underutilized, as the frame rates are not limited by pixel throughput or texture rate. The RTX 4090’s performance in this context is constrained by the CPU’s ability to feed it data. The GPU’s benchmark scores, such as 38,194 in Passmark G3D and 26,613 in GPU Compute, show its raw power, but Fivem’s results are more modest. The GPU is performing above the 60,347 average benchmark score, but the CPU is holding it back from achieving its maximum possible frame rates.

How This Combo Ranks

The combo of the Intel Core i5-11400F and NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4090 ranks 215th out of 3,707 tested combinations in Fivem. This places it in the top 5.8% of all systems tested for this game, which is a strong showing. The rank reflects the balance between the two components, and the data suggests that this position is primarily due to the CPU’s limitations.

The CPU’s percentile is 71, meaning it performs better than 71% of all CPUs in the database. Its average benchmark score is 17,177, which is close to its nearest rivals. The AMD EPYC 7H12 scores 17,120 (0.3% higher), the Intel Core i5-12450H scores 17,239 (0.4% lower), and the AMD Ryzen 3 PRO 8300G scores 17,278 (0.6% lower). These small deltas indicate that the i5-11400F is in a tight performance band, and its 6 cores and 12 threads are competitive with these alternatives. However, the RTX 4090’s percentile is 88, and its average benchmark score of 60,347 is far above its nearest rivals, such as the Intel Arc Pro A60 (60,326, 0% delta) and the AMD Radeon Pro W6600M (61,896, -2.5% delta).

The combo rank of 215 suggests that the GPU is doing most of the heavy lifting, but the CPU is preventing a higher placement. If the system had a more powerful CPU, the rank would likely be higher, given the RTX 4090’s immense capability. The data shows that this combo is not bottlenecked by the GPU in most scenarios, but the CPU’s 14 nm process and 65 W TDP limit its ability to sustain the highest frame rates. The rank is respectable, but it is a clear indicator that the CPU is the weaker link in this pairing.

CPU Role

The Intel Core i5-11400F is a 6-core, 12-thread processor based on the Rocket Lake architecture. It has a base clock of 2.60 GHz and a boost clock of 4.40 GHz, with 12 MB of shared L3 cache. Its 71st percentile ranking and average benchmark score of 17,177 show that it is a solid mid-range CPU, but it is outclassed by the RTX 4090 in this configuration.

In Fivem, the CPU’s role is to manage game logic, physics, and draw calls. The data shows that this is where the bottleneck occurs. At 1080p Low, the CPU is maxed out, producing 262 FPS. The CPU’s single-thread performance, as measured by Cinebench R23 single-core (2,024) and Passmark single-thread (2,981), is adequate, but the game’s multi-threaded demands are not fully met by the 6 cores. The CPU’s multi-thread scores, such as Cinebench R23 multi-core (14,340) and Geekbench multi-core (7,737), are moderate, but they are not enough to push frame rates beyond the 262 FPS ceiling.

The CPU’s memory bandwidth of 51.2 GB/s is another factor. This is a dual-channel DDR4 setup, which is standard for this generation, but it is not as fast as the GPU’s 1.01 TB/s. This mismatch can cause data transfer delays, especially at higher resolutions where more data needs to be processed. The CPU’s 14 nm process node also contributes to its limitations, as it is less efficient than the GPU’s 5 nm process. The CPU’s boost clock of 4.40 GHz is reached under load, but the 65 W TDP limits sustained performance. The data indicates that the CPU is the primary constraint, and upgrading to a more powerful processor would yield higher frame rates, particularly at 1080p and 1440p.

Measured FPS Breakdown

The measured FPS data provides a complete picture of the combo’s performance across all settings and resolutions. At 1080p, the results are as follows: Low averages 262 FPS, Medium averages 241 FPS with a minimum of 205 and a maximum of 277, High averages 222 FPS, and Ultra averages 180 FPS. The Medium preset shows the most stable frame times, with a 72 FPS variance between min and max, which is acceptable for a game running at over 240 FPS. The Low preset has no min/max data, but the 262 FPS average is the highest of any configuration.

At 1440p, the data shows: Low averages 228 FPS, Medium averages 191 FPS with a minimum of 163 and a maximum of 220, High averages 153 FPS, and Ultra averages 119 FPS. The Medium preset here has a 57 FPS variance, which is tighter than at 1080p, indicating better frame pacing. The drop from Low to Medium is 37 FPS, and from Medium to High is 38 FPS, showing a consistent cost per settings tier. The Ultra preset is 72 FPS lower than Low, which is a significant penalty.

At 4K, the results are: Low averages 135 FPS, Medium averages 106 FPS with a minimum of 90 and a maximum of 122, High averages 85 FPS, and Ultra averages 66 FPS. The Medium preset has a 32 FPS variance, which is the smallest of any Medium preset across resolutions, indicating that the GPU is more evenly loaded at this resolution. The drop from Low to Medium is 29 FPS, from Medium to High is 21 FPS, and from High to Ultra is 19 FPS. This shows that the cost of each settings tier is more consistent at 4K than at lower resolutions, which is a sign that the system is becoming more GPU-bound. The 4K Ultra result of 66 FPS is the lowest average in the entire dataset, but it is still playable.

FAQ

Q: What is the highest average FPS this combo achieves in Fivem?

A: The highest average FPS is 262, achieved at 1920x1080 resolution with Low settings.

Q: At which resolution and settings does this combo show the most stable frame times?

A: The 3840x2160 Medium preset shows the smallest variance, with a minimum of 90 FPS and a maximum of 122 FPS, a 32 FPS spread.

Q: How does the Intel Core i5-11400F perform relative to its nearest rivals?

A: The CPU has an average benchmark score of 17,177, which is 0.3% higher than the AMD EPYC 7H12 (17,120) and 0.6% lower than the AMD Ryzen 3 PRO 8300G (17,278).

Q: What is the combo rank for this CPU and GPU pairing in Fivem?

A: The combo ranks 215th out of 3,707 tested combinations, placing it in the top 5.8% of all systems.

Q: Is the GPU or CPU the limiting factor at 4K Ultra settings?

A: At 4K Ultra, the combo produces 66 FPS, and the data suggests the system is becoming more GPU-bound, but the CPU still contributes to the bottleneck given the large drop from 1080p Ultra.

Q: What is the frame rate difference between Low and Ultra settings at 1440p?

A: At 2560x1440, Low settings produce 228 FPS, while Ultra settings produce 119 FPS, a difference of 109 FPS.