Fivem

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

The measured FPS data for Fivem reveals a dramatic performance cliff as resolution climbs, pointing squarely at the GPU as the primary constraint. At 1920x1080 with Low settings, the combo produces 76.2 FPS, but moving to 2560x1440 drops that to 47.3 FPS — a 38% reduction. Pushing further to 3840x2160 at Low settings yields just 29.7 FPS, another 37% decline from the 1440p figure. This scaling pattern is characteristic of a system where the graphics card is saturated long before the processor breaks a sweat.

The High preset tells an even starker story. At 1080p High, the system manages 50.3 FPS. At 1440p High, that falls to 31.9 FPS, and at 4K High it collapses to 14.7 FPS. The gap between Low and High at 4K is 15 FPS, whereas at 1080p that same settings gap is 25.9 FPS. This narrowing delta at higher resolutions indicates that the GTX 1650's compute resources are being exhausted, leaving less headroom for visual quality adjustments as pixel count rises.

What does this imply about the limiting component? The CPU, an Intel Core i5-13400F with 10 cores and 16 threads, is not the bottleneck here. If it were, we would expect FPS to remain relatively flat across resolutions, since the CPU workload in Fivem is largely resolution-independent. Instead, the consistent and steep FPS declines at every settings tier as resolution increases confirm that the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650, with its 4 GB of GDDR5 memory and 128-bit bus, is the component determining playability. The 4K Ultra result of 12.1 FPS is barely interactive, while 1080p Low at 76.2 FPS is smooth — an enormous spread that underscores how resolution-sensitive this pairing is.

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

The GTX 1650's specifications directly explain the measured frame rates. Its 4 GB memory capacity is modest by modern standards, and Fivem's open-world multiplayer environments with many player models and vehicles can pressure that allocation. The memory runs at 2001 MHz with 8 Gbps effective speed, delivering 128.1 GB/s of bandwidth across a 128-bit interface. This bandwidth figure is a plausible ceiling for texture streaming in dense areas, which may contribute to the steep FPS penalty seen when moving from Medium to High settings at any given resolution.

Clock speeds tell a similar story. The base clock is 1485 MHz with a boost of 1665 MHz, and the card achieves a pixel rate of 53.28 GPixel/s with a texture rate of 93.24 GTexel/s. At 1080p Medium, the combo hits 62.5 FPS, but at 1080p Ultra it drops to 39.6 FPS. The Ultra preset likely pushes shading units — of which there are 896 — to their limit, especially with the FP32 throughput of 2.984 TFLOPS. Fivem's multiplayer servers often have inconsistent optimization, so the GPU's raw fillrate becomes the deciding factor when shadows, reflections, and draw distances are maxed out.

The GPU's benchmark scores corroborate its midrange standing. Its passmark G3D score is 7880, and its percentileVsAllGpus is 43, meaning it outperforms less than half of all GPUs in the database. This is a card designed for 1080p gaming at medium details, and the measured FPS data aligns perfectly with that positioning. At 1440p and above, the 4 GB VRAM and 128-bit bus become liabilities, as evidenced by the sub-30 FPS results at 4K Low and the 12.1 FPS at 4K Ultra. The data suggests that the GTX 1650's role in this combo is to provide playable frame rates only at 1080p, with higher resolutions reserved for static scenes or screenshot purposes.

FAQ

Q: Is the Intel Core i5-13400F holding back the GTX 1650 in Fivem?

A: The benchmark data does not indicate CPU limitation. At 1080p Low, the system reaches 76.2 FPS, and at 1080p Ultra it drops to 39.6 FPS — a 36.6 FPS swing that tracks GPU workload. If the CPU were the bottleneck, FPS would remain similar across settings. The i5-13400F has a passmark multithread score of 25032 and a single-thread score of 3634, placing it in the 82nd percentile among all CPUs, which is far above the GPU's 43rd percentile.

Q: What is the best resolution for this combo in Fivem?

A: Based on the measured rows, 1920x1080 is the only resolution where all settings tiers remain playable. At 1080p Low the average is 76.2 FPS, Medium yields 62.5 FPS, High gives 50.3 FPS, and even Ultra manages 39.6 FPS. At 1440p, the Ultra preset drops to 25.8 FPS, and at 4K, every preset except Low falls below 21 FPS.

Q: How much FPS is lost when going from Low to Ultra at 1080p?

A: The difference is 36.6 FPS. Low averages 76.2 FPS, while Ultra averages 39.6 FPS. This represents a 48% reduction in frame rate for the highest visual quality, which is a significant trade-off for a card with 4 GB of VRAM.

Q: Does the GTX 1650's VRAM capacity affect 4K performance?

A: The 4 GB memory size is a plausible contributor to the poor 4K results. At 3840x2160, the system averages 29.7 FPS on Low, 20 FPS on Medium, 14.7 FPS on High, and 12.1 FPS on Ultra. These numbers suggest the GPU is running out of memory bandwidth and capacity, as the 128.1 GB/s bandwidth is insufficient for high-resolution texture streaming in a multiplayer context.

Q: How does the i5-13400F compare to its nearest rivals in synthetic benchmarks?

A: The i5-13400F has an avgBenchmarkScore of 25236. Its nearest rival, the Intel Core i7-13620H, scores 25201 with a deltaPct of 0.1, meaning the i5 is essentially tied. The AMD Ryzen 5 5600X3D scores 25365 with a deltaPct of -0.5, indicating the i5 is 0.5% behind. These are negligible differences, confirming the CPU is a strong performer relative to its peers.

Q: What is the combo's overall ranking among tested systems in Fivem?

A: The combo ranks 1722 out of 1792 tested combos in Fivem. This places it in the bottom 4% of all configurations, which is consistent with the GTX 1650's low percentile ranking and the measured FPS data showing sub-optimal performance at higher resolutions.

Settings Recommendations

The measured data points to a clear hierarchy for this combo in Fivem. For 1080p, the Medium preset at 62.5 FPS offers the best balance between visual fidelity and smoothness. It is 13.7 FPS faster than High (50.3 FPS) and still 22.9 FPS below the Low preset's 76.2 FPS, meaning Medium retains enough graphical detail while keeping frame rates well above playable thresholds. The Ultra preset at 39.6 FPS is borderline, but for players who prioritize image quality over responsiveness, it remains an option at 1080p.

At 1440p, the situation changes. Low settings produce 47.3 FPS, which is acceptable for casual play, but Medium drops to 39.8 FPS and High to 31.9 FPS. The Ultra preset at 25.8 FPS is likely too choppy for competitive multiplayer scenarios. For 1440p, the data suggests Low is the only reliable choice, with Medium being tolerable if the player can accept occasional frame drops.

4K is not a viable gaming resolution for this combo. Even Low settings only achieve 29.7 FPS, and every other preset falls below 21 FPS. The recommendation is to avoid 4K entirely, as the 4 GB VRAM and 128-bit bus cannot sustain playable frame rates. If a player must use 4K, Low settings are the sole option, but the experience will be suboptimal.

Across all resolutions, the pattern is consistent: the GTX 1650's performance ceiling is at 1080p Medium, and any attempt to push higher resolutions or settings results in diminishing returns. The 39.8 FPS at 1440p Medium versus 62.5 FPS at 1080p Medium is a 22.7 FPS difference, highlighting that resolution scaling has a far greater impact than settings tweaks.

How This Combo Ranks

The combo's rank of 1722 out of 1792 tested configurations in Fivem is a sobering statistic. It places this system in the bottom 4% of all tested combos, which is a direct reflection of the GTX 1650's limitations. The GPU's percentileVsAllGpus of 43 means it beats only 43% of all GPUs in the database, and its avgBenchmarkScore of 8713 is modest. The nearest GPU rivals include the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3050 A Mobile (score 8746, deltaPct -0.4) and the AMD Radeon 550X (score 8749, deltaPct -0.4), which are essentially statistical ties. This suggests the GTX 1650 is performing at its expected level, not underperforming.

In contrast, the CPU's percentileVsAllCpus of 82 and avgBenchmarkScore of 25236 place it well above average. This imbalance — a top-tier CPU paired with an entry-level GPU — is the root cause of the low combo rank. The i5-13400F could easily drive a much more powerful graphics card in Fivem, but the GTX 1650 becomes the limiting factor at every resolution above 1080p. The rank of 1722 out of 1792 indicates that the vast majority of tested combos achieve higher frame rates in this game, likely due to more balanced GPU selections.

The data implies that this combo is a mismatched pairing for Fivem. The CPU has headroom to spare, as evidenced by its 3dmark_max_threads score of 7307 and cinebench r23 multicore score of 21279, but the GPU cannot translate that processing power into frame rates. Players with this combo should expect to be at the low end of the performance spectrum in multiplayer sessions, where many other systems will have a significant advantage.

Measured FPS Breakdown

At 1920x1080, the full settings ladder is available and mostly playable. Low settings produce an average of 76.2 FPS, the highest measured result for this combo. Medium settings deliver 62.5 FPS, a 13.7 FPS drop. High settings yield 50.3 FPS, another 12.2 FPS reduction. Ultra settings bottom out at 39.6 FPS, which is 36.6 FPS below Low. This 1080p range spans from smooth to marginally playable, with all four presets above 30 FPS.

Moving to 2560x1440, the performance declines across the board. Low settings average 47.3 FPS, a 28.9 FPS drop from the 1080p Low result. Medium settings produce 39.8 FPS, High gives 31.9 FPS, and Ultra falls to 25.8 FPS. The gap between Low and Ultra at 1440p is 21.5 FPS, which is smaller than the 36.6 FPS gap at 1080p, indicating that the GPU is running closer to its limits at this resolution.

At 3840x2160, the results are uniformly poor. Low settings average 29.7 FPS, the only preset above 20 FPS. Medium settings drop to 20 FPS, High to 14.7 FPS, and Ultra to 12.1 FPS. The difference between Low and Ultra at 4K is 17.6 FPS, but all values are below the threshold for smooth gameplay. The 4K Low result is 46.5 FPS lower than the 1080p Low result, demonstrating the severe impact of pixel count on this GPU.

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

The Intel Core i5-13400F brings substantial processing power to this combo, though its capabilities are largely unrealized in Fivem due to the GPU constraint. The CPU features 10 cores and 16 threads, with a base clock of 2.50 GHz and a boost clock of 4.60 GHz. This configuration is well-suited for multi-threaded workloads, as evidenced by its cinebench r23 multicore score of 21279 and passmark multithread score of 25032. The 20 MB of shared L3 cache provides ample space for game data, and the 3dmark_max_threads score of 7307 confirms strong scaling across all threads.

In Fivem, the CPU's role is to handle game logic, player positions, and network synchronization in a multiplayer environment. The i5-13400F's 16 threads are more than sufficient for these tasks, and its single-thread performance — a geekbench singlecore score of 2301 and a passmark single_thread score of 3634 — ensures that even latency-sensitive operations are processed quickly. The data shows no evidence of CPU bottlenecking: at 1080p Low, the system achieves 76.2 FPS, which is likely near the game's engine limit for this GPU, and the FPS drops consistently with increased GPU load.

The CPU's nearest rivals in synthetic benchmarks include the Intel Core i7-13620H (deltaPct 0.1), the AMD Ryzen 5 5600X3D (deltaPct -0.5), and the AMD EPYC 9474F (deltaPct 0.5). These tiny percentage differences indicate that the i5-13400F is squarely in the middle of its performance class. Yet in Fivem, this CPU's strength is wasted because the GTX 1650 cannot produce enough frames to stress the processor. The 82nd percentile ranking among all CPUs versus the 43rd percentile for the GPU creates a clear mismatch. If the graphics card were upgraded, the i5-13400F would likely allow significantly higher frame rates, but with the current GPU, the CPU remains underutilized, as shown by the fact that increasing resolution causes FPS to plummet despite the CPU's ample headroom.