Fivem

The Intel Core Ultra 7 155H and AMD Radeon RX 7900M combination delivers a compelling, if uneven, experience in Fivem, with performance heavily dependent on the chosen settings and resolution. The data shows a system capable of very high frame rates at 1080p, but one that struggles to maintain smooth gameplay at 4K with maximum graphical fidelity. This analysis breaks down the measured results, exploring the roles of the CPU and GPU, and offering practical guidance based strictly on the provided benchmark numbers.

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

The Intel Core Ultra 7 155H is a 16-core, 22-thread mobile processor based on the Meteor Lake architecture. It features a base clock of 3.80 GHz and a boost clock of 4.80 GHz, with a 28W TDP. This is a high-core-count part designed for multi-threaded workloads, but Fivem, being a multiplayer mod for a game originally released in 2017, often relies more on single-core performance and raw clock speed for its simulation and networking logic. The processor’s 24 MB of shared L3 cache and support for DDR5 memory, with a dual-channel bus and 89.6 GB/s bandwidth, provide a robust foundation for feeding the GPU data.

In the context of the benchmark scores, the Core Ultra 7 155H sits at the 83rd percentile of all CPUs, indicating strong overall performance. Its Cinebench R23 multicore score of 15028 and single-core score of 1743 show a processor that is more than capable in both arenas. The nearest rivals, such as the Intel Core i5-14600T and AMD Ryzen AI 7 PRO 360, have nearly identical average benchmark scores (32707 and 32662, respectively), with delta percentages of 0% and 0.1%. This means the 155H is essentially tied with these parts in synthetic tests, suggesting that in CPU-bound scenarios within Fivem, the performance would be comparable.

The data implies that at lower resolutions and lower graphics settings, where the GPU is not the primary bottleneck, the CPU’s ability to maintain high frame rates will be critical. At 1080p Low, the system achieves 214 FPS, a figure that is less likely to be limited by the RX 7900M and more indicative of the CPU’s processing power. The 155H’s high boost clock of 4.80 GHz is particularly relevant here, as it helps ensure that the game’s main thread can keep up with the high render rate. While the CPU’s 22 threads are likely not all fully utilized by Fivem, the strong single-core performance and high frequency are key factors in achieving these high FPS numbers. The processor’s performance relative to its rivals, being within 0.4% of the AMD Ryzen 7 PRO 6850H, suggests that it is not a unique outlier but a solid, mid-high-range mobile part that will not hold back the GPU in most gaming scenarios, except perhaps at the very highest frame rates.

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

The AMD Radeon RX 7900M is the undisputed heavyweight in this pairing, a mobile flagship based on the RDNA 3.0 architecture with the Navi 31 chip. It is built on a 5 nm process and packs 57,700 million transistors on a 529 mm² die. Crucially for gaming, it has 16 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 256-bit bus, providing a substantial 576.0 GB/s of bandwidth. This large memory pool and high bandwidth are critical for Fivem, which can be demanding on VRAM, especially at higher resolutions and with high-resolution texture packs common in multiplayer servers. The GPU’s 4608 shading units and 192 ROPs, with a boost clock of 2090 MHz, give it immense raw compute power, capable of 38.52 TFLOPS of FP32 performance.

In the benchmark hierarchy, the RX 7900M sits in the 94th percentile of all GPUs, indicating top-tier performance. Its average benchmark score of 97487 places it just ahead of the AMD Radeon Pro VII (97131, with a delta of 0.4%) and significantly behind the NVIDIA Quadro RTX 6000 (101872, with a delta of -4.3%). This suggests that while the 7900M is an extremely fast GPU, it is not the absolute fastest, and its performance in Fivem will scale predictably with resolution and settings.

The measured FPS data confirms this. At 1080p Ultra, the game runs at 105 FPS, showing the GPU is not a bottleneck at this resolution. However, at 4K Ultra, the average FPS plummets to 38, a 64% drop from 1080p Ultra. This is a classic sign of the GPU becoming the primary limiting factor as pixel count quadruples. The GPU’s 16 GB of VRAM is likely sufficient even at 4K, but the sheer computational load of rendering at 3840x2160 with Ultra settings overwhelms even this powerful chip. The data shows the GPU’s performance is the deciding factor in the higher-resolution, higher-settings scenarios, while the CPU takes a more prominent role at lower settings and resolutions.

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

Given the measured data, the choice of settings is a trade-off between visual fidelity and frame rate, and the optimal choice depends on the user's display and performance priorities. The data provides clear options at each resolution.

For a 4K display, the choices are stark. The High preset yields an average of 49 FPS, which is playable but not smooth for fast-paced multiplayer. The Ultra preset drops to 38 FPS, which is likely to feel stuttery and unresponsive. The Medium preset offers a better balance at 62 FPS, with a minimum of 52 FPS, making it the most sensible choice for a consistent 4K experience. The Low preset, at 78 FPS, is the only way to approach high refresh rates at 4K, but it sacrifices significant visual quality. Based on the data, Medium at 4K provides the best experience as it is the only preset above the Low setting that maintains an average FPS above 60.

At 1440p, the situation is more comfortable. The High preset delivers 89 FPS, which is good, but the Medium preset jumps to 111 FPS with a minimum of 94 FPS, ensuring a much smoother experience. The Ultra preset falls to 69 FPS, which is still playable but less optimal. The Low preset hits 141 FPS, but again, with a significant visual penalty. The sweet spot here is High at 1440p, as it offers a significant improvement in visual quality over Medium while still maintaining a frame rate comfortably above 60 FPS. For users with high-refresh-rate monitors, the Medium preset's 111 FPS average is an excellent target.

At 1080p, the GPU has ample headroom. The High preset achieves 135 FPS, which is excellent. The Ultra preset still manages a very respectable 105 FPS, suggesting that users can play with maximum settings without worrying about performance. The Medium and Low presets reach 169 and 214 FPS, respectively, which are only useful for extremely high refresh rate displays (240Hz+). For the vast majority of 1080p users, Ultra at 1080p is the recommended choice, as it provides the best visual experience without dipping below 100 FPS. The performance headroom here indicates the CPU is starting to play a larger role, but it is still more than capable of keeping the frame rate high.

FAQ

Q: Can this system handle Fivem at 4K with high settings?

A: The data shows the system averages 49 FPS at 4K High, which is just below the 60 FPS threshold typically considered ideal. It is playable, but users seeking a smoother experience would be better served by the Medium preset, which averages 62 FPS.

Q: What is the best settings preset for a 1440p monitor?

A: The High preset at 1440p delivers an average of 89 FPS, offering a strong balance between visual quality and performance. While the Ultra preset runs at 69 FPS, the High preset ensures a smoother experience with fewer frame rate dips.

Q: Is the CPU or GPU more of a bottleneck at 1080p?

A: At 1080p, the GPU is not the primary constraint, as evidenced by the 135 FPS at High and 105 FPS at Ultra. The high frame rates, particularly the 214 FPS at Low, suggest that the CPU's performance is a significant factor in allowing the GPU to render frames so quickly.

Q: How much performance is lost when moving from 1080p to 4K at Ultra settings?

A: The average frame rate drops from 105 FPS at 1080p Ultra to 38 FPS at 4K Ultra. This represents a 64% reduction in performance, which is a substantial cost for the increased resolution.

Q: Does the GPU's large 16 GB of VRAM help in Fivem?

A: While the 16 GB of VRAM provides ample capacity for high-resolution textures and assets, the measured FPS drops at 4K indicate that raw processing power, not memory capacity, is the limiting factor at higher resolutions and settings.

Q: How does the RX 7900M compare to its nearest rival, the Radeon Pro VII?

A: The RX 7900M has an average benchmark score of 97487, which is 0.4% higher than the Radeon Pro VII's score of 97131. This translates to a marginal performance lead in synthetic benchmarks, suggesting they are closely matched in raw compute capability.

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

The measured FPS data reveals a clear and predictable pattern of performance degradation as resolution increases, which strongly indicates the GPU is the primary limiting component at higher resolutions. At Low settings, the average FPS drops from 214 at 1080p to 141 at 1440p and then to 78 at 4K. This is a reduction of 34% and 45%, respectively, for each step up. At Medium settings, the drop is from 169 at 1080p to 111 at 1440p (a 34% drop) and then to 62 at 4K (a 44% drop). This consistent pattern of roughly a one-third reduction in FPS when moving from 1080p to 1440p, and another one-third reduction when moving to 4K, is characteristic of a GPU-bound workload.

The scaling is even more pronounced at High settings, where the FPS goes from 135 at 1080p to 89 at 1440p (a 34% drop) and then to 49 at 4K (a 45% drop). The trend is clear: the number of pixels being rendered directly impacts the frame rate in a linear fashion, a hallmark of GPU limitation. If the CPU were the bottleneck, we would expect to see a much smaller FPS drop between 1440p and 4K, as the CPU's workload (game logic, physics, network) remains relatively constant regardless of resolution. The fact that the FPS nearly halves at each resolution step confirms that the RX 7900M is being pushed to its limits at 4K, especially with higher graphical presets.

At 1080p, the FPS differences between presets are smaller in percentage terms when compared to the jump in resolution. For instance, the difference between Low (214 FPS) and High (135 FPS) at 1080p is a 37% drop, whereas the difference between Low (78 FPS) and High (49 FPS) at 4K is also 37%. This suggests that at 1080p, the CPU is more involved in the equation, but the GPU is still the dominant factor. The data clearly shows that for this combination, the GPU is the main performance limiter as resolution scales, and the CPU has sufficient headroom to support the GPU across all settings and resolutions tested.

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

The following breakdown details the exact average FPS figures from the measured data, providing a complete picture of performance across all tested configurations.

1920x1080 (1080p):

• Low: 214 FPS average
• Medium: 169 FPS average (with a minimum of 143 and maximum of 194)
• High: 135 FPS average
• Ultra: 105 FPS average

2560x1440 (1440p):

• Low: 141 FPS average
• Medium: 111 FPS average (with a minimum of 94 and maximum of 128)
• High: 89 FPS average
• Ultra: 69 FPS average

3840x2160 (4K):

• Low: 78 FPS average
• Medium: 62 FPS average (with a minimum of 52 and maximum of 71)
• High: 49 FPS average
• Ultra: 38 FPS average

These numbers show a consistent hierarchy, with Low settings always providing the highest frame rate and Ultra the lowest. The Medium preset is the only one for which minimum and maximum FPS data was recorded, showing a stable frame time in all cases. The data also highlights the significant performance cost of Ultra settings, which consistently reduce the average FPS by over 20% compared to High settings at the same resolution. For example, at 1440p, the drop from High (89 FPS) to Ultra (69 FPS) is a 22% reduction, while at 4K, the drop from High (49 FPS) to Ultra (38 FPS) is a 22% reduction. This indicates that the Ultra preset introduces a heavy graphical load that has a consistent relative performance impact regardless of resolution.

How This Combo Ranks — use comboRankInGame vs other tested combos

The Intel Core Ultra 7 155H and AMD Radeon RX 7900M combination holds a rank of 1247 out of 3005 tested combos in Fivem. This places it in the 58.5th percentile of all tested systems, which is a comfortable mid-to-upper tier ranking. This rank is a holistic measure that takes into account all the measured FPS data points across the different resolutions and settings, creating a single performance score for the combination.

This ranking is particularly interesting when considering the individual component strengths. The RX 7900M is in the 94th percentile of all GPUs, and the Core Ultra 7 155H is in the 83rd percentile of all CPUs. However, the combined rank is lower than either individual component's percentile. This suggests that while each component is powerful on its own, the overall performance in Fivem is not quite as dominant as the individual parts might suggest. This could be due to the specific demands of Fivem, which may not scale perfectly with the multi-threaded CPU or the massive GPU compute resources, or it could be that a significant number of the 3005 tested combos use even more powerful desktop components that are better suited to pushing frame rates higher in this specific game.

The ranking of 1247 out of 3005 indicates that there are many combinations that perform better, but also a larger number that perform worse. It shows that this mobile combo is a strong performer, but not a top-tier one. The data implies that in a field of 3005 different CPU and GPU pairings, this specific setup is capable of delivering a good experience in Fivem, particularly at 1080p and 1440p, but it will be outclassed by higher-end desktop configurations, especially when aiming for the highest frame rates at 4K. The rank serves as a useful benchmark for positioning this laptop combination against the broader ecosystem of tested hardware.