Fivem

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

The Intel Core i5-13400F is a 10-core, 16-thread Raptor Lake desktop processor with a base clock of 2.50 GHz and a boost clock of 4.60 GHz. It shares a 20 MB L3 cache across all cores, with 1.25 MB L2 and 80 KB L1 per core. This configuration places the chip in the 82nd percentile against all CPUs, with an average benchmark score of 25,236. In synthetic testing, it delivers 21,279 in Cinebench R23 multi-core and 3,004 in single-core, while 3DMark 16-thread and single-thread scores reach 7,314 and 960, respectively.

For Fivem, a multiplayer game that relies heavily on server-side simulation and physics, the CPU's multi-threaded throughput matters more than raw single-core speed. The measured frame rates show a clear pattern: at 1080p Low, the combo hits 124.9 FPS, but at 1080p Ultra it drops to 61 FPS — a 51% reduction that is far steeper than what a GPU-bound scenario would produce. The data indicates the i5-13400F is not the limiting factor at lower settings; its 16 threads and 4.60 GHz boost clock provide ample headroom for the game's simulation logic. However, at higher settings, the GPU begins to struggle, and the CPU's role shifts to maintaining minimum frame pacing under load.

The nearest rivals in the CPU benchmark database reinforce this position. The Intel Core i7-13620H scores 25,201, a 0.1% delta, while the AMD Ryzen 5 5600X3D scores 25,365, a -0.5% delta. The i5-13400F sits effectively in the middle of this pack, with a 0.5% advantage over both the AMD EPYC 9474F (25,103) and the AMD Ryzen AI 5 PRO 340 (25,099). None of these rivals show a meaningful gap, meaning the i5-13400F's performance profile is consistent with its peers — it is a strong mid-range part that will not bottleneck a GTX 1660 Ti in Fivem at any tested setting.

Settings Recommendations

The measured FPS data provides a clear verdict on the best preset for this combination. At 1080p, the Low preset delivers 124.9 FPS, Medium delivers 100.5 FPS, High delivers 75.7 FPS, and Ultra drops to 61 FPS. The jump from Low to Medium costs 24.4 FPS (19.5%), while the jump from Medium to High costs another 24.8 FPS (24.7%). The High to Ultra transition is comparatively milder at 14.7 FPS (19.4%). For competitive multiplayer play, the Low preset is the only option that keeps frame rates above the 120 FPS threshold, which is critical for smooth camera movement and fast target acquisition.

At 1440p, the picture shifts. Low produces 80 FPS, Medium 62.4 FPS, High 51.3 FPS, and Ultra 40.4 FPS. The Medium preset at 1440p offers the best balance, delivering 62.4 FPS — just above the 60 FPS playability floor — while retaining visual fidelity over Low. High at 1440p drops to 51.3 FPS, which is playable but noticeably less smooth. For 4K, none of the presets reach 60 FPS: Low achieves 43.2 FPS, Medium 38.2 FPS, High 25.3 FPS, and Ultra 20.4 FPS. The recommendation is to use Low at 4K for the least compromised experience, but even then, the 43.2 FPS average is well below ideal.

The data shows that the Medium preset at 1080p is the sweet spot for most users, as it retains 100.5 FPS while improving visual quality over Low. For those prioritizing frame rate above all, Low at 1080p is the clear choice. At higher resolutions, the GPU becomes the bottleneck, and settings reductions yield diminishing returns — dropping from High to Low at 4K only recovers 17.9 FPS (from 25.3 to 43.2), whereas the same drop at 1080p recovers 49.2 FPS (from 75.7 to 124.9).

FAQ

Q: What is the best preset for 1080p gaming with this CPU/GPU combo?

A: The Low preset delivers the highest average FPS at 124.9, which is 24.4 FPS more than Medium (100.5 FPS). If visual quality matters, Medium at 100.5 FPS is the strongest balance, but Low is the only preset that keeps frame rates above 120.

Q: Can this combo handle 1440p gaming in Fivem?

A: Yes, but with caveats. The Low preset at 1440p averages 80 FPS, which is smooth. Medium averages 62.4 FPS, which is just above the 60 FPS threshold. High (51.3 FPS) and Ultra (40.4 FPS) are playable but will show visible stutter during busy scenes.

Q: Is 4K viable with the GTX 1660 Ti in this game?

A: Not at playable frame rates for most users. The best 4K result is Low at 43.2 FPS. Medium drops to 38.2, High to 25.3, and Ultra to 20.4. The GPU's 6 GB VRAM and 288.0 GB/s bandwidth are insufficient for a smooth 4K experience.

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

A: The i5-13400F scores 25,236 on average, which is 0.1% ahead of the Intel Core i7-13620H (25,201), 0.5% behind the AMD Ryzen 5 5600X3D (25,365), and 0.5% ahead of both the AMD EPYC 9474F (25,103) and AMD Ryzen AI 5 PRO 340 (25,099). These deltas are negligible in real-world gaming.

Q: Does the CPU bottleneck the GPU at any resolution?

A: At 1080p Low, the combo reaches 124.9 FPS, which is close to the practical limit for a GTX 1660 Ti. At higher resolutions, frame rates drop significantly (e.g., 43.2 FPS at 4K Low), indicating the GPU is the limiting component. The CPU only becomes a factor at very low settings and high frame rates.

Q: What is the launch MSRP of this CPU?

A: The Intel Core i5-13400F had a launch MSRP of $196.

How This Combo Ranks

The Intel Core i5-13400F + NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1660 Ti combination ranks 1588th out of 1792 tested combos in Fivem, placing it in the bottom 11% of all configurations. This is a low ranking that reflects the GPU's age and limited VRAM rather than the CPU's capabilities. The i5-13400F is a strong processor — its 82nd percentile CPU ranking and an average benchmark score of 25,236 put it above most rivals — but the GTX 1660 Ti is the weak link.

The GPU sits in the 55th percentile against all GPUs, with an average benchmark score of 13,925. Its nearest rivals include the AMD Radeon RX 570X (13,871, 0.4% delta), the NVIDIA Tesla K10 (14,029, -0.7% delta), the NVIDIA RTX A2000 Mobile (13,821, 0.8% delta), and the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 680 (13,812, 0.8% delta). These deltas are all within 1%, meaning the GTX 1660 Ti is statistically indistinguishable from these older or mobile parts in synthetic benchmarks. The 1588th combo rank is consistent with a GPU that is competitive with 2012-era desktop hardware and 2020-era mobile parts.

The data shows that the combo's rank is driven almost entirely by the GPU. If the CPU were swapped for a weaker part, the ranking would likely improve because the GPU would still be the bottleneck. Conversely, pairing the GTX 1660 Ti with a slower CPU would produce similar frame rates in this game, as the GPU cannot push beyond its 5.437 TFLOPS FP32 throughput at higher settings.

GPU Role

The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1660 Ti is a Turing-architecture GPU built on TSMC's 12 nm process, with 6 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 192-bit bus delivering 288.0 GB/s bandwidth. Its base clock is 1500 MHz with a boost of 1770 MHz, and it features 1,536 shading units, 96 TMUs, and 48 ROPs. The GPU's FP32 throughput is 5.437 TFLOPS, with a pixel rate of 84.96 GPixel/s and a texture rate of 169.9 GTexel/s. It supports DirectX 12 (12_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4.

In Fivem, the GPU's role is dominant at higher resolutions and settings. At 4K Ultra, the combo averages 20.4 FPS, which is 79% lower than the 1080p Low result of 124.9 FPS. This massive drop is not a CPU limitation — the i5-13400F has no trouble feeding the GPU at these frame rates. Instead, the GTX 1660 Ti's 6 GB VRAM and 288.0 GB/s bandwidth are insufficient for the texture and shading demands of Fivem at 4K. The GPU's 55th percentile ranking and its nearest rival deltas (all within 0.8%) confirm it is a mid-range part that struggles with high-resolution workloads.

The GPU's benchmark scores reinforce this assessment. In PassMark G3D, it scores 12,871, while its OpenCL score is 60,863 and Vulkan score is 58,014. The DirectX 12 score of 51 is notably lower than the DirectX 11 score of 103, which suggests the Turing architecture's DX12 path is not fully optimized for this workload. This is relevant for Fivem, which uses a modified version of the RAGE engine that has historically favored DX11-style rendering.

Measured FPS Breakdown

At 1920x1080, the measured results show a clear progression: Low averages 124.9 FPS, Medium averages 100.5 FPS, High averages 75.7 FPS, and Ultra averages 61 FPS. The spread from Low to Ultra is 63.9 FPS, or a 51.2% drop. The most significant single-step loss occurs between Medium and High, where the average FPS falls by 24.8 points. This indicates that the High preset introduces rendering features that disproportionately tax the GTX 1660 Ti.

At 2560x1440, the averages are 80 FPS on Low, 62.4 FPS on Medium, 51.3 FPS on High, and 40.4 FPS on Ultra. The drop from Low to Medium is 17.6 FPS (22%), from Medium to High is 11.1 FPS (17.8%), and from High to Ultra is 10.9 FPS (21.3%). The 1440p results are more uniform, suggesting the GPU is becoming the primary bottleneck across all settings.

At 3840x2160, the averages are 43.2 FPS on Low, 38.2 FPS on Medium, 25.3 FPS on High, and 20.4 FPS on Ultra. The difference between Low and Medium is only 5 FPS (11.6%), while the jump from Medium to High is a 12.9 FPS drop (33.8%). At 4K, the GPU's memory bandwidth and pixel fill rate are severely taxed, and even the Low preset cannot maintain a comfortable frame rate.

Resolution Scaling

The FPS drop from 1080p to 4K is dramatic across all settings. On Low, the average FPS falls from 124.9 at 1080p to 43.2 at 4K, a 65.4% reduction. On Medium, it falls from 100.5 to 38.2, a 62% reduction. On High, it falls from 75.7 to 25.3, a 66.6% reduction. On Ultra, it falls from 61 to 20.4, a 66.6% reduction. The consistency of these percentages — all between 62% and 66.6% — indicates a purely GPU-bound scenario.

The data shows that the limiting component at 1080p is the CPU, as the GPU can push well above 100 FPS on Low settings. At 1440p, the balance shifts, with the GPU becoming the primary constraint. At 4K, the GPU is unequivocally the bottleneck, as evidenced by the fact that reducing settings from Ultra to Low only recovers 22.8 FPS (from 20.4 to 43.2), whereas the same settings reduction at 1080p recovers 63.9 FPS (from 61 to 124.9).

This scaling behavior is typical for a GPU with 6 GB VRAM and 288.0 GB/s bandwidth. The 4K resolution requires roughly four times the pixel throughput of 1080p, and the GTX 1660 Ti's 84.96 GPixel/s pixel rate cannot keep pace. The CPU, by contrast, shows no signs of strain at any resolution — its 10 cores and 16 threads are more than sufficient for Fivem's simulation workload. The conclusion is straightforward: if you want higher frame rates, lower the resolution first; settings tweaks at 4K yield minimal gains.