Fivem

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

The Intel Core i7-14700KF is a 20-core, 28-thread processor built on Intel's Raptor Lake architecture, with a base clock of 3.40 GHz and a boost clock of 5.60 GHz. This is a desktop-class chip with a 125W TDP, and its benchmark scores place it in the 96th percentile among all CPUs. The data shows a Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 44,557 and a single-core score of 6,290, while Geekbench reports 19,287 multi-core and 2,972 single-core results. These figures indicate an extremely capable processor for handling many simultaneous threads, which is relevant for Fivem's multiplayer environments where numerous entities, scripts, and player interactions can create significant CPU load.

The i7-14700KF sits close to several rivals in aggregate performance. Its average benchmark score of 70,104 is virtually identical to the Intel Core i7-14700K at 70,074 (0% deltaPct), and it trails the AMD Ryzen 9 9950X by only 0.4% (70,420). Interestingly, the Intel Xeon Platinum 8270 scores 71,056, which puts it 1.3% ahead of the i7-14700KF. This clustering suggests that the processor's raw compute headroom is not a limiting factor in this game; rather, the data implies that Fivem's performance ceiling at lower resolutions is governed by how efficiently the game engine distributes work across these many cores.

In the measured FPS results, the CPU's strength becomes apparent when examining the scaling from 1080p to higher resolutions. At 1080p Low settings, the combo achieves 126.5 FPS, which is a strong indicator that the processor can feed frames rapidly when the GPU is not the bottleneck. The fact that the CPU has 33 MB of shared L3 cache and 2 MB of L2 cache per core also helps with the unpredictable, object-heavy workloads typical of multiplayer roleplay servers. The benchmark data does not isolate CPU-only scores for Fivem, but the pattern of high frame rates at 1080p Low—where GPU load is minimal—suggests the processor is performing its role without creating a hard ceiling.

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

The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1660 Ti is a Turing-architecture GPU with 6 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 192-bit bus, providing 288.0 GB/s of bandwidth. Its base clock is 1500 MHz with a boost of 1770 MHz, and the memory runs at 12 Gbps effective. The card has 1,536 shading units, 96 TMUs, and 48 ROPs, with a pixel rate of 84.96 GPixel/s and a texture rate of 169.9 GTexel/s. Compute capability is rated at 5.437 TFLOPS for FP32. This GPU sits in the 55th percentile among all GPUs, with an average benchmark score of 13,925. Its nearest rivals include the AMD Radeon RX 570X (13,871, 0.4% ahead), the NVIDIA RTX A2000 Mobile (13,821, 0.8% behind), and the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 680 (13,812, 0.8% behind). The GTX 1660 Ti is essentially the performance midpoint in this small cluster.

The GPU's limited VRAM capacity becomes a critical factor when analyzing the 4K results. At 3840x2160, the frame rates drop dramatically across all settings, with High averaging just 29.8 FPS and Ultra falling to 22.8 FPS. This strong decline suggests that the 6 GB frame buffer is being saturated at 4K, forcing the card to manage memory more inefficiently. The bandwidth figure of 288.0 GB/s is moderate by modern standards, and the data indicates that this is a primary constraint at higher resolutions. At 1080p, however, the GPU performs more admirably: Low settings hit 126.5 FPS, and even Ultra maintains 63 FPS. The scaling from 1080p to 1440p shows a clear pattern—at High settings, FPS drops from 80.6 to 49, a substantial reduction that points to the GPU being the limiting component as resolution increases.

Settings Recommendations — which preset gives the best experience per the measured rows

The measured data provides a clear hierarchy of settings across three resolutions, and the optimal choice depends on the target frame rate. At 1080p, the Low preset delivers the highest average at 126.5 FPS, which is ideal for competitive play or high-refresh-rate monitors. Medium drops to 97.3 FPS, still smooth, while High reaches 80.6 FPS—all three are playable. Ultra falls to 63 FPS, which is acceptable but represents a significant 50% reduction from Low. For a balanced experience at 1080p, the data suggests Medium or High is the sweet spot, as they retain most of the visual fidelity while keeping frame rates well above 60 FPS.

At 1440p, the picture changes. Low produces 80 FPS, which is the only preset that comfortably exceeds 60 FPS. Medium averages 64.3 FPS, which is borderline but workable, while High drops to 49 FPS and Ultra to 38.4 FPS. The recommendation here is to use Low if maintaining high frame rates is the priority, or Medium if visual quality is more important and the user accepts occasional dips below 60. For 4K, the data is less encouraging: even Low only reaches 45.7 FPS, and High and Ultra fall to 29.8 and 22.8 FPS respectively. At this resolution, the best experience per the measured rows is Low, as it is the only preset that approaches playability, though users should expect a sub-60 FPS experience regardless of settings.

FAQ

Q: What is the average FPS at 1080p with High settings?

A: The measured average is 80.6 FPS, which sits between the Medium result of 97.3 FPS and the Ultra result of 63 FPS.

Q: How does the CPU's multi-core performance compare to its nearest rival?

A: The Intel Core i7-14700KF scores 70,104 on average, which is essentially tied with the Intel Core i7-14700K at 70,074 (0% deltaPct) and within 0.4% of the AMD Ryzen 9 9950X.

Q: Is this GPU capable of running Fivem at 4K?

A: The data shows that at 4K, even Low settings only achieve 45.7 FPS, while High and Ultra produce 29.8 and 22.8 FPS respectively, indicating that the GPU is not well-suited for 4K gaming in this title.

Q: What is the FPS difference between 1080p and 1440p at Medium settings?

A: The average FPS drops from 97.3 at 1080p to 64.3 at 1440p, a reduction of approximately 33 frames per second.

Q: How does the GPU's performance rank against all other GPUs?

A: The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1660 Ti is in the 55th percentile, with an average benchmark score of 13,925.

Q: What is the best preset for 1440p gaming according to the data?

A: Low settings at 80 FPS is the only preset that stays above 60 FPS, while Medium at 64.3 FPS is the highest quality option that remains playable.

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

The measured FPS data reveals a stark scaling pattern across the three tested resolutions. At 1080p Low, the combo achieves 126.5 FPS, but this falls to 80 FPS at 1440p and 45.7 FPS at 4K. The drop from 1080p to 1440p is a 36.8% reduction, while the drop from 1440p to 4K is a further 42.9% reduction. At High settings, the progression is 80.6 FPS at 1080p, 49 FPS at 1440p, and 29.8 FPS at 4K—a steeper decline that underscores the GPU's difficulty with higher pixel counts.

This scaling behavior indicates that the GPU is the primary limiting component at higher resolutions. If the CPU were the bottleneck, we would expect frame rates to remain relatively stable as resolution increases, since the processor's workload does not grow with pixel count. Instead, the data shows a near-linear relationship between pixel area and FPS, which is characteristic of a GPU-bound scenario. The 6 GB VRAM capacity likely exacerbates this, as the memory requirements at 4K exceed what the card can efficiently manage. At 1080p, however, the CPU's strength becomes more evident—the 126.5 FPS Low result implies that the processor can handle the game's logic and physics demands without imposing a hard frame rate cap. The transition from 1440p to 4K is particularly telling: at Low settings, the FPS drops from 80 to 45.7, a 42.9% decrease that aligns with the roughly 2.25x pixel increase from 1440p to 4K, confirming the GPU's role as the limiting factor.

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

At 1920x1080, the measured averages are as follows: Low settings produce 126.5 FPS, Medium produces 97.3 FPS, High produces 80.6 FPS, and Ultra produces 63 FPS. The spread from Low to Ultra is a 63.5 FPS difference, showing that the GPU has headroom at this resolution to accommodate significant visual upgrades. The progression from Low to Ultra is not linear—the gap between Low and Medium is 29.2 FPS, while the gap between Medium and High is 16.7 FPS, and between High and Ultra is 17.6 FPS.

Moving to 2560x1440, the numbers compress considerably: Low averages 80 FPS, Medium 64.3 FPS, High 49 FPS, and Ultra 38.4 FPS. The total spread is 41.6 FPS, narrower than at 1080p, which suggests that the GPU's resource limits are beginning to constrain higher settings. At 3840x2160, the results are: Low 45.7 FPS, Medium 37.9 FPS, High 29.8 FPS, and Ultra 22.8 FPS. The spread narrows further to 22.9 FPS, indicating that all presets are hitting similar performance ceilings due to the GPU's computational and memory bandwidth limits. Notably, the jump from Low to Medium at 4K is only 7.8 FPS, while the jump from High to Ultra is 7 FPS—these small differences suggest that the visual quality improvements from lower settings are not being fully realized because the GPU is already saturated.

How This Combo Ranks — use comboRankInGame vs other tested combos

The Intel Core i7-14700KF paired with the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1660 Ti ranks 1536th out of 1792 tested combos in Fivem, placing it in the bottom 14.3% of all configurations. This low ranking is striking given the CPU's strong benchmark performance—it sits in the 96th percentile among all CPUs—and the GPU's mid-pack standing at the 55th percentile. The data implies that the combination's overall performance is heavily dragged down by the GPU's limitations, particularly at higher resolutions where the 1660 Ti's 6 GB VRAM and 288.0 GB/s bandwidth become bottlenecks.

The ranking suggests that many other tested combos, likely those with more balanced or higher-tier GPUs, achieve better average frame rates in this game. The CPU's nearest rivals—the i7-14700K, AMD EPYC 9115, and Ryzen 9 9950X—all have similar compute scores, but when paired with more capable graphics cards, they would likely rank much higher. Conversely, the GPU's nearest rivals (RX 570X, Tesla K10, RTX A2000 Mobile) would produce similar or slightly different results when matched with this CPU. The 1536th rank out of 1792 combos indicates that this specific pairing is not optimal for Fivem, and the measured FPS data supports this: while 1080p Low hits 126.5 FPS, the inability to maintain playable frame rates at 4K across all settings limits the combo's overall utility. The CPU is clearly not the weak link here—it provides ample processing power—but the GPU's performance ceiling caps the system's potential in this multiplayer title.