Fivem

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

The Intel Core i5-14600K combines 14 physical cores with 20 threads, using a hybrid architecture that pairs performance cores with efficiency cores. Its base clock runs at 3.50 GHz, and it can boost up to 5.30 GHz, giving it the kind of single-thread headroom that multiplayer titles like Fivem often rely on for server-side simulation and entity updates. The chip is built on Intel's 10 nm process and features 24 MB of shared L3 cache, which helps with rapid data reuse across the many concurrent players and vehicles typical of Fivem servers.

Benchmark data places this CPU in the 93rd percentile among all processors, and its average benchmark score of 49166 sits nearly even with its nearest rivals. The AMD Ryzen 9 5950X trails by just 0.2 percent, while the Intel Core i5-14600KF (the unlocked, no-iGPU variant) is 0.4 percent ahead. The AMD EPYC 4345P leads by 0.9 percent, and the Intel Xeon Gold 5318H is 1 percent behind. These margins are tight, meaning the 14600K's multi-core muscle is competitive with high-end workstation parts, not just mainstream desktop chips.

In single-threaded workloads, the 14600K posts a Cinebench R23 single-core score of 4642 and a Geekbench single-core score of 2803. Multi-threaded results are equally strong: Cinebench R23 multi-core hits 32881, while Geekbench multi-core reaches 15846. For Fivem, which can be sensitive to both per-core performance and overall thread throughput in busy servers, this combination suggests the CPU is rarely the limiting factor at lower resolutions. The Passmark single-thread score of 4270 reinforces that the chip's high boost clock translates into real responsiveness.

The 14600K supports both DDR4 and DDR5 memory in dual-channel configuration, and it offers PCIe Gen 5 with 16 lanes from the CPU. Its 125 W TDP is typical for a high-performance desktop part. The integrated UHD Graphics 770 is present but irrelevant for gaming when a discrete GPU like the RX 6750 XT is installed. The chip launched with a $319 MSRP and has been in production since October 2023, so it represents a mature platform with mature drivers and BIOS support.

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

The AMD Radeon RX 6750 XT is built on the RDNA 2.0 architecture using TSMC's 7 nm process, with the Navi 22 chip containing 17,200 million transistors on a 335 mm² die. It features 12 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 192-bit bus, delivering 432.0 GB/s of bandwidth. The base clock is 2150 MHz, with a game clock of 2495 MHz and a boost clock of 2600 MHz. Memory runs at 2250 MHz, which translates to 18 Gbps effective.

This GPU sits in the 79th percentile among all graphics cards, with an average benchmark score of 35327. Its nearest rivals are a mixed bag: the AMD Radeon RX 5600M is 0.2 percent behind, the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5070 Ti Mobile is 0.3 percent ahead, the AMD Radeon 880M integrated solution is 0.9 percent ahead, and the desktop NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3080 leads by 1.3 percent. The fact that an integrated GPU like the 880M scores comparably in synthetic benchmarks highlights how different Fivem's real-world load can be from generic compute tests.

In gaming-specific metrics, the 6750 XT posts a Passmark G3D score of 20700 and a Passmark GPU Compute score of 9550. Its DirectX 12 score of 80 and DirectX 11 score of 180 are more modest, but those are synthetic micro-benchmarks. The card's 40 ray accelerators and 64 ROPs, combined with 2560 shading units, give it solid rasterization throughput. The 13.31 TFLOPS of FP32 compute and 166.4 GPixel/s pixel rate are respectable figures for a card in this class.

For Fivem specifically, the 12 GB VRAM buffer is generous — the game's custom assets, player skins, and vehicle mods can consume memory quickly, and 12 GB provides comfortable headroom. The 432 GB/s bandwidth ensures texture streaming stays smooth even at higher resolutions. The card's 250 W TDP and 600 W suggested PSU are typical for mid-range to upper-mid-range GPUs. It launched at $549 USD and has since been marked end-of-life, suggesting it's being phased out in favor of newer architectures, but its performance in this test remains relevant.

FAQ

Q: How does the Core i5-14600K compare to its closest CPU rival in raw performance?

A: The 14600K's average benchmark score of 49166 is virtually identical to the AMD Ryzen 9 5950X's 49062, a difference of just 0.2 percent. It sits 0.4 percent behind the i5-14600KF and 0.9 percent behind the AMD EPYC 4345P, while leading the Intel Xeon Gold 5318H by 1 percent.

Q: Is the RX 6750 XT's VRAM capacity sufficient for Fivem?

A: Yes, the 12 GB GDDR6 buffer with 432.0 GB/s bandwidth is ample for Fivem's custom content load. The card's memory clock of 2250 MHz (18 Gbps effective) and 192-bit bus width provide enough bandwidth for high-resolution textures and dense multiplayer scenes without VRAM-related stutters.

Q: What frame rate can I expect at 1080p with Ultra settings?

A: The measured data shows an average of 94.7 FPS at 1920x1080 with Ultra settings. Dropping to High settings raises the average to 125.4 FPS, while Medium reaches 158.9 FPS and Low hits 200.4 FPS. This indicates the GPU is the primary constraint at Ultra, but the CPU can push much higher frame rates when settings are reduced.

Q: How does the GPU's synthetic benchmark score relate to its Fivem performance?

A: The RX 6750 XT's Passmark G3D score of 20700 places it in the 79th percentile of all GPUs. In Fivem, this translates to playable frame rates at 1440p (64.3 FPS at Ultra) and 4K (38.1 FPS at Ultra). The card's real-world performance aligns well with its synthetic standing — strong mid-range, not flagship-tier.

Q: Which component limits performance at 4K resolution?

A: At 3840x2160, the GPU is the clear bottleneck. The average FPS drops from 200.4 at 1080p Low to 70.6 at 4K Low, a 65 percent reduction. The CPU's high single-core score (4270 in Passmark) means it can handle the game's logic, but the 6750 XT cannot maintain high frame rates at 4K Ultra, where it averages just 38.1 FPS.

Q: What is the overall ranking of this CPU+GPU combo in Fivem?

A: This combination ranks 859th out of 1792 tested combos in Fivem, placing it in the middle of the pack. This reflects the balanced nature of the pair — neither component is top-tier, but together they deliver playable performance across most resolution and settings combinations.

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

At 1920x1080, the combo shows its strongest performance. With Low settings, the average frame rate reaches 200.4 FPS, which is well above any high-refresh monitor's needs. Medium settings drop the average to 158.9 FPS, still extremely fluid. High settings produce 125.4 FPS, and Ultra settings bring the average down to 94.7 FPS. The scaling from Low to Ultra shows a 53 percent reduction in frame rate, indicating that the GPU is increasingly taxed as visual fidelity rises, but even at Ultra, the game remains very playable.

Moving to 2560x1440, the performance drops are noticeable but not severe. Low settings average 133 FPS, which is still excellent for competitive play. Medium settings deliver 105.4 FPS, and High settings hit 83.8 FPS. Ultra settings fall to 64.3 FPS, which is playable but no longer ideal for fast-paced multiplayer action. The transition from 1080p to 1440p costs roughly 34 percent of the frame rate at Low settings and 32 percent at Ultra, showing a consistent penalty across the settings spectrum.

At 3840x2160, the GPU's limits become apparent. Low settings average 70.6 FPS, which is playable but far from the 200 FPS seen at 1080p. Medium settings drop to 57.9 FPS, and High settings fall to 46.2 FPS. Ultra settings average just 38.1 FPS, which is below the 40 FPS threshold many players consider the minimum for smooth gameplay. The 4K Ultra result is 60 percent lower than the 1080p Ultra result, confirming that this card is not designed for 4K gaming at maximum settings.

The overall pattern is consistent: the RX 6750 XT handles 1080p and 1440p with authority, but 4K requires significant settings compromises to maintain playable frame rates. The CPU's performance headroom is evident at 1080p Low, where 200 FPS suggests the processor is not the limiting factor.

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

The frame rate scaling from 1080p to 4K varies by settings, revealing which component is under pressure. At Low settings, the average FPS drops from 200.4 at 1080p to 133 at 1440p and 70.6 at 4K. That's a 33.6 percent reduction from 1080p to 1440p, and a further 46.9 percent reduction from 1440p to 4K. The total drop from 1080p to 4K is 64.8 percent, which is close to what you'd expect when pixel count quadruples but GPU compute doesn't scale linearly.

At Ultra settings, the pattern is similar but with lower absolute values. The average FPS goes from 94.7 at 1080p to 64.3 at 1440p and 38.1 at 4K. The 1440p result is 32.1 percent lower than 1080p, and the 4K result is 40.7 percent lower than 1440p. The total drop from 1080p to 4K is 59.8 percent. Interestingly, the percentage drop is slightly smaller at Ultra than at Low, suggesting that at Ultra settings, the GPU is already near its compute limit even at 1080p, so the additional pixel load at higher resolutions has a relatively smaller proportional impact.

This scaling behavior points to the GPU as the primary bottleneck at higher resolutions. If the CPU were the limiting factor, we'd expect frame rates to stay relatively flat across resolutions because the game logic and draw call processing don't change with resolution. Instead, we see a continuous decline as resolution increases, which is the classic signature of GPU-bound performance. The CPU's high single-threaded score (4270 in Passmark) and strong multi-threaded results (38682 in Passmark) mean it can feed the GPU with data faster than the GPU can render at 4K.

The data also shows that the gap between settings widens at lower resolutions. At 1080p, the difference between Low (200.4 FPS) and Ultra (94.7 FPS) is 105.7 FPS. At 4K, that gap narrows to 32.5 FPS (70.6 vs 38.1). This compression at higher resolutions further confirms that the GPU's raw pixel throughput is the limiting factor — when the GPU is saturated at 4K, changing settings has less impact because the card is already working at maximum capacity. Players targeting high refresh rates should stick to 1080p, while 1440p offers a reasonable balance between visual quality and frame rate. 4K is only viable with Low or Medium settings, and even then, the results are modest.