Fivem

The Intel Core Ultra 5 225 paired with the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 is a combination that sits at the very bottom of the performance hierarchy for Fivem, ranking 2887 out of 3005 tested combos. This places it in the 4th percentile of all configurations, indicating that the system will struggle to deliver a smooth experience at most settings. Benchmarks show the CPU is a strong performer, with a Passmark single-thread score of 4412 and a multi-thread score of 30459, placing it in the 85th percentile of all CPUs. However, the GTX 1650 is the clear bottleneck, with a Passmark G3D score of 7880 and a percentile rank of only 40, dragging the entire combo down. The data shows a system that is fundamentally GPU-limited, where even the capable Ultra 5 225 cannot compensate for the 1650's modest frame rates.

Resolution Scaling

The measured frame rates reveal a classic GPU-bound scenario where resolution has a dramatic impact on performance. At 1080p with Low settings, the combo achieves an average of 76 FPS, which is the only playable result in the entire dataset. Moving to 1440p at the same Low settings drops the average to 50 FPS, a 34% reduction in performance. At 4K with Low settings, the average plummets to 28 FPS, which is a 63% drop from the 1080p result. This steep decline indicates that the GTX 1650's 4 GB of VRAM and 128.1 GB/s of memory bandwidth are quickly overwhelmed as pixel count increases.

The scaling pattern across resolution presets shows that the Ultra preset is nearly unplayable at any resolution. At 1080p Ultra, the average is 37 FPS, which is already below the threshold for smooth gameplay. At 1440p Ultra, it drops to 25 FPS, and at 4K Ultra, it falls to just 14 FPS. The difference between Low and Ultra at 1080p is 39 FPS, while at 4K, the difference narrows to just 14 FPS. This narrowing gap at higher resolutions suggests that the GPU is so heavily saturated that settings changes have diminishing returns, as the rendering pipeline is already at its limit.

The data indicates that the limiting component is unambiguously the GPU. The CPU's strong single-thread performance (3655 in Cinebench R23 single-core) is sufficient for Fivem's demands, but the GTX 1650's pixel rate of 53.28 GPixel/s and texture rate of 93.24 GTexel/s are simply insufficient for modern resolutions. The 4K Medium preset shows a min FPS of 19 and a max of 25, highlighting that even the mid-range settings cannot maintain a stable frame rate. This is a system designed for 1080p gaming, and the resolution scaling data confirms that pushing beyond that is a futile exercise.

How This Combo Ranks

In the grand scheme of tested configurations, this combo ranks 2887 out of 3005, placing it in the bottom 4% of all systems. This is a remarkably low position, reflecting the age and limited capabilities of the GTX 1650. The combination's overall average benchmark score of 36938 for the CPU and 7472 for the GPU creates a massive imbalance, where the processor outperforms the graphics card by a factor of nearly five in raw compute terms. This imbalance is the primary reason for the poor rank, as the system cannot leverage the CPU's capabilities in gaming scenarios.

The CPU's nearest rivals provide context for its standalone performance. The AMD Ryzen 5 5600F scores 36945, which is a 0% difference from the Ultra 5 225's 36938. The AMD Ryzen 5 5500X3D scores 37018, a 0.2% difference, while the Intel Core i9-12900T scores 37112, a 0.5% difference. These margins are negligible, showing that the Ultra 5 225 is a solid mid-range processor that can hold its own against comparable options. However, this strength is wasted in this pairing, as the GPU's nearest rivals tell a different story.

The GTX 1650's nearest rivals are all significantly weaker or comparable integrated solutions. The AMD Radeon HD 8850M scores 7447, a 0.3% difference, and the Intel UHD Graphics 750 scores 7441, a 0.4% difference. The AMD Radeon R7 350 scores 7425, a 0.6% difference, while the Intel Arc A310 scores 7550, a 1% difference. This places the GTX 1650 in the company of integrated graphics and ancient mobile parts, confirming that it is a entry-level GPU from a bygone era. The combo rank reflects this reality, as the system is held back by a component that is barely competitive with modern integrated graphics.

GPU Role

The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 is built on the Turing architecture with a TU117 chip, manufactured on a 12 nm process. It features 896 shading units, 56 TMUs, and 32 ROPs, which are modest numbers by any standard. The GPU operates at a base clock of 1485 MHz and a boost clock of 1665 MHz, with memory running at 2001 MHz (8 Gbps effective). The 4 GB of GDDR5 memory on a 128-bit bus provides a bandwidth of 128.1 GB/s, which is severely constrained for modern game textures and assets.

In Fivem, the GPU's limitations are clearly exposed. The Passmark DirectX 11 score of 58 and DirectX 12 score of 35 are exceptionally low, indicating poor API performance. The 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 score of 305 further confirms the GPU's weakness in modern workloads. The GPU's FP32 performance of 2.984 TFLOPS is insufficient for high-resolution rendering, and the pixel rate of 53.28 GPixel/s cannot keep up with 4K demands. The texture rate of 93.24 GTexel/s is similarly limited, causing detail loss at higher settings.

The GPU's 40th percentile ranking among all GPUs means it outperforms only 40% of the database, and its average benchmark score of 7472 is only 3% higher than the Intel UHD Graphics 750. This is a damning comparison, as the GTX 1650 is a discrete card that should vastly outperform integrated solutions. The fact that it barely does so in synthetic benchmarks and falls behind in gaming scenarios highlights its age. The 75 W TDP and lack of power connectors suggest a low-power design, but this does not excuse the poor frame rates. The data shows that the GTX 1650 is the definitive bottleneck in this system, and no amount of CPU power can overcome its fundamental limits.

Measured FPS Breakdown

At 1920x1080, the combo delivers its best results. With Low settings, the average FPS is 76, which is the only result above 60 FPS in the entire dataset. Medium settings drop the average to 60 FPS, with a min of 51 and a max of 69, providing a borderline playable experience. High settings reduce the average to 48 FPS, which is below the 60 FPS target, and Ultra settings fall to 37 FPS, which is noticeably stuttery. The 1080p results show a clear pattern: Low and Medium are viable, while High and Ultra are not.

At 2560x1440, the performance degrades significantly. Low settings produce an average of 50 FPS, which is a 34% drop from the 1080p Low result. Medium settings average 40 FPS with a min of 34 and max of 45, while High settings fall to 32 FPS. Ultra settings at 1440p average just 25 FPS, making the preset unplayable for any action-oriented gameplay. The 1440p data shows that even Low settings cannot consistently hit 60 FPS, and the system is best suited for 1080p gaming.

At 3840x2160, the results are abysmal. Low settings average 28 FPS, which is a 63% drop from 1080p Low. Medium settings average 22 FPS with a min of 19 and max of 25, while High settings drop to 18 FPS. Ultra settings at 4K average just 14 FPS, which is a slideshow. The 4K data demonstrates that this combination is entirely unsuitable for 4K gaming, as even the lowest settings cannot achieve playable frame rates. The measured FPS breakdown confirms that the system's only viable use case is 1080p with Low or Medium settings.

Settings Recommendations

Based on the measured FPS data, the optimal settings for this combo are 1920x1080 with Medium settings. This configuration achieves an average of 60 FPS, which is the standard for smooth gameplay, with a minimum of 51 FPS and a maximum of 69 FPS. The Medium preset provides a good balance between visual quality and performance, and the min FPS of 51 indicates that frame drops will be manageable. The 1080p Low preset offers a higher average of 76 FPS, but the visual sacrifice is significant, and the Medium preset is the better choice for those who want playable performance with acceptable visuals.

The 1080p High preset, with an average of 48 FPS, is not recommended for sustained gameplay, as it falls below the 60 FPS threshold. The Ultra preset at 1080p, averaging 37 FPS, should be avoided entirely, as the frame rate is too low for a smooth experience. At 1440p, the Low preset averaging 50 FPS could be considered for less demanding scenarios, but the Medium preset at 40 FPS is borderline, and High and Ultra are not viable. The 4K resolutions are entirely impractical, with even Low settings averaging 28 FPS.

The data suggests that users should prioritize 1080p resolution with Medium settings as the sweet spot. The Medium preset at 1080p offers a 60 FPS average, which is significantly better than the 40 FPS at 1440p Medium. The performance gap between 1080p and 1440p is substantial, and the system's GPU cannot handle the increased pixel count. For the best experience, the 1080p Medium preset is the clear winner, providing a stable frame rate without excessive visual compromises. Users seeking higher frame rates can drop to Low settings for 76 FPS, but the Medium preset is the recommended balance.

CPU Role

The Intel Core Ultra 5 225 is a 10-core, 10-thread processor based on the Arrow Lake architecture, manufactured on a 3 nm process. It has a base clock of 3.30 GHz and a boost clock of 4.90 GHz, which provides strong single-thread performance. The CPU's cache hierarchy includes 192 KB of L1 per core, 3 MB of L2 per core, and 20 MB of shared L3 cache, which is ample for gaming workloads. The CPU supports DDR5 memory with a dual-channel bus and a bandwidth of 102.4 GB/s, which is more than sufficient for Fivem.

In synthetic benchmarks, the Ultra 5 225 excels. Its Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 25891 is impressive, and its single-core score of 3655 is equally strong. The Passmark multi-thread score of 30459 and single-thread score of 4412 place it in the 85th percentile of all CPUs, demonstrating its capability. The CPU's nearest rivals, such as the AMD Ryzen 5 5600F and Ryzen 5 5500X3D, perform within 0.5% of its average benchmark score of 36938, confirming that it is a competitive mid-range option.

However, in Fivem, the CPU's role is secondary to the GPU. The game's performance is heavily GPU-limited, as evidenced by the frame rate drops across resolutions. The CPU's strong single-thread performance is sufficient to avoid bottlenecking the GTX 1650, but it cannot compensate for the GPU's weaknesses. The data shows that the CPU is not the limiting factor in this system, as even a weaker processor would likely produce similar frame rates given the GPU's constraints. The 10-core, 10-thread configuration is more than adequate for Fivem's multi-player workloads, and the 20 MB L3 cache helps with the game's open-world data streaming. The CPU's performance is a non-issue, and users should focus on the GPU as the primary upgrade path.