Fivem

# How This Combo Ranks

The Intel Core Ultra 7 265 paired with the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5090 achieves rank 53 out of 3005 tested combos in Fivem. This places the combination in the top 1.8% of all systems evaluated, a strong showing for a multiplayer title where frame consistency often matters more than raw peak output. The ranking reflects the blend of a high-end 2025 CPU and a flagship GPU, both of which are active production parts released within weeks of each other.

The percentile data supports this positioning. The CPU sits at the 93rd percentile among all processors, while the GPU holds the 92nd percentile among all graphics cards. Neither component is the absolute top of its class, but the pairing avoids significant bottlenecks. In a game like Fivem, which is built on a modified multiplayer framework, the balance between CPU-driven simulation and GPU-driven rendering determines overall performance. This combo’s rank suggests neither side is dramatically dragging the other down.

Within the CPU’s nearest rivals, the average benchmark scores are tightly clustered. The AMD EPYC 4464P scores 64823, a delta of -0.3% relative to this CPU’s 64640 average, meaning the EPYC is effectively tied. The Intel Core Ultra 7 265F is 0.3% ahead, and the AMD EPYC 7343 is 0.7% ahead. The AMD EPYC 9124 trails by -0.7%. These margins are negligible in real-world gaming, indicating the CPU is performing exactly as expected for its tier. The GPU’s nearest rivals show similar clustering: the NVIDIA Tesla P100 PCIe 16 GB is 0.3% ahead, the Tesla P100 PCIe 12 GB is 0.6% ahead, the AMD Radeon RX 6850M XT is 1.1% ahead, and the AMD Radeon Pro Vega 64X trails by -1.4%. The RTX 5090’s average benchmark score of 79842 is competitive with these workstation and mobile parts, though the context of Fivem’s actual measured frames tells a more specific story.

# CPU Role

The Intel Core Ultra 7 265 is a 20-core, 20-thread processor based on the Arrow Lake architecture, built on a 3 nm process by TSMC. It has a base clock of 2.40 GHz and a boost clock of 5.30 GHz. The 20 cores are arranged with a per-core L1 cache of 192 KB, a per-core L2 cache of 3 MB, and a shared L3 cache of 30 MB. The CPU supports DDR5 memory with a dual-channel bus and 102.4 GB/s of memory bandwidth. It also integrates Arc Xe-LPG Graphics with 32 execution units, though in this combo the discrete GPU handles all rendering.

In Fivem, the CPU’s role is substantial because the game is fundamentally a multiplayer modification that relies on server-side scripting, player position tracking, and dynamic world state updates. The 20 threads provide ample parallelism for these background tasks, but the game’s single-threaded performance is often the limiting factor in crowded areas. The boost clock of 5.30 GHz is the key metric here. Benchmark results show a Cinebench R23 single-core score of 5960 and a multi-core score of 42216. The single-core figure indicates strong per-thread performance, which directly translates to Fivem’s frame pacing in player-dense scenarios.

The data shows that at 1080p Low settings, the combo reaches 377 FPS average. At this resolution and settings, the GPU is largely idle, and the CPU is the primary driver. The 20 cores do not all contribute equally; Fivem’s engine typically scales across a handful of threads, so the boost clock and single-core efficiency are more important than raw core count. The PassMark single-thread score of 4689 and the Cinebench R15 single-core score of 600 corroborate this. The CPU’s 93rd percentile ranking among all CPUs reflects this balanced capability.

Compared to its nearest rivals, the CPU’s average benchmark score of 64640 is 0.3% behind the Intel Core Ultra 7 265F, a nearly identical part without integrated graphics. The AMD EPYC 4464P is 0.3% ahead, and the AMD EPYC 7343 is 0.7% ahead. These are server-class processors with different power envelopes, yet the performance delta is minimal. In Fivem, where latency and frame consistency are critical, the Core Ultra 7 265’s boost clock provides a tangible advantage over lower-clocked server chips. The 20 threads also help maintain background simulation while the game’s main thread runs at high frequency.

# GPU Role

The NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5090 is built on the Blackwell 2.0 architecture with the GB202 chip, fabricated on a 5 nm process by TSMC. It has 32 GB of GDDR7 memory on a 512-bit bus, delivering 1.79 TB/s of memory bandwidth. The base clock is 2017 MHz with a boost clock of 2407 MHz, and memory runs at 1750 MHz (28 Gbps effective). The GPU has 21760 shading units, 680 texture mapping units, and 176 raster output units. It also includes 170 ray tracing cores and 680 tensor cores. The compute capabilities are substantial: 104.8 TFLOPS for both FP32 and FP16, with a pixel rate of 423.6 GPixel/s and a texture rate of 1636.8 GTexel/s.

In Fivem, the GPU’s role scales with resolution and settings. At 4K Ultra, the combo drops to 67 FPS average, while at 4K Low it reaches 138 FPS. This spread indicates the GPU is heavily utilized at higher settings, but the game’s engine also imposes CPU-side limits. The 32 GB of VRAM is far more than Fivem requires; even at 4K Ultra, the game is unlikely to exceed 8-10 GB of VRAM. The memory bandwidth of 1.79 TB/s, however, helps with texture streaming in large multiplayer maps where many unique assets load simultaneously.

The GPU’s benchmark results place it at the 92nd percentile. The PassMark G3D score is 39650, and the 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 score is 18355. The Geekbench OpenCL score is 334370, and the Vulkan score is 376728. These numbers indicate strong raw performance, but Fivem is not a graphically demanding title by modern standards. The measured FPS at 1080p High (238 FPS) versus 1080p Low (377 FPS) shows a 139 FPS gap, meaning the GPU is not the sole bottleneck even at 1080p High. The game’s CPU-bound nature becomes apparent when comparing 1440p High (157 FPS) to 4K High (87 FPS) — the resolution scaling suggests the GPU begins to take over as the primary limiter at 4K.

# FAQ

Q: What is the combo’s overall rank in Fivem?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 7 265 + RTX 5090 combo ranks 53rd out of 3005 tested combos, placing it in the top 1.8% of all systems tested for this game.

Q: How does the CPU compare to its nearest rivals?

A: The CPU’s average benchmark score is 64640. The AMD EPYC 4464P is 0.3% ahead, the Intel Core Ultra 7 265F is 0.3% behind, the AMD EPYC 7343 is 0.7% ahead, and the AMD EPYC 9124 is 0.7% behind. These deltas are within 1%, indicating near-identical performance.

Q: How does the GPU compare to its nearest rivals?

A: The GPU’s average benchmark score is 79842. The NVIDIA Tesla P100 PCIe 16 GB is 0.3% ahead, the Tesla P100 PCIe 12 GB is 0.6% ahead, the AMD Radeon RX 6850M XT is 1.1% ahead, and the AMD Radeon Pro Vega 64X is 1.4% behind. All rivals are within 1.5% of the RTX 5090’s average score.

Q: What is the highest average FPS measured for this combo?

A: The highest average FPS is 377, recorded at 1920x1080 with Low settings. The lowest average FPS is 67, recorded at 3840x2160 with Ultra settings.

Q: Does the CPU or GPU limit performance at 1080p Low?

A: At 1080p Low, the combo achieves 377 FPS, which is CPU-bound. The GPU is lightly loaded at these settings, and the CPU’s boost clock of 5.30 GHz drives the frame rate.

Q: What memory bandwidth does the GPU provide, and why does it matter?

A: The GPU provides 1.79 TB/s of memory bandwidth from 32 GB of GDDR7 on a 512-bit bus. This high bandwidth supports rapid texture streaming in multiplayer environments where many dynamic objects and player models load concurrently.

# Resolution Scaling

The measured FPS data reveals how the combo scales across resolutions. At 1080p Low, the average FPS is 377. Moving to 1440p Low, the average drops to 248 FPS, a 34% reduction. At 4K Low, the average falls to 138 FPS, another 44% reduction from 1440p. This scaling is steep, suggesting that even at Low settings, the GPU becomes a significant factor as resolution increases. The CPU’s contribution remains constant, but the GPU’s pixel throughput is taxed more heavily.

At Medium settings, the trend continues. The 1080p Medium average is 297 FPS, with a minimum of 253 and maximum of 342. At 1440p Medium, the average is 196 FPS, with a minimum of 166 and maximum of 225. At 4K Medium, the average is 109 FPS, with a minimum of 92 and maximum of 125. The min-to-max spread narrows as resolution increases, indicating that frame pacing becomes more consistent at higher resolutions where the GPU is more fully utilized.

At High settings, the averages are 238 FPS at 1080p, 157 FPS at 1440p, and 87 FPS at 4K. The 1080p-to-1440p drop is 34%, and the 1440p-to-4K drop is 45%. At Ultra settings, the averages are 185 FPS at 1080p, 122 FPS at 1440p, and 67 FPS at 4K. The 1440p-to-4K drop at Ultra is 45%, matching the High settings pattern.

The limiting component shifts with resolution. At 1080p Low, the CPU is the bottleneck, as evidenced by the 377 FPS ceiling. At 4K Ultra, the GPU is the bottleneck, with the 67 FPS average indicating the GPU’s rendering workload dominates. The crossover point appears to be around 1440p High, where the 157 FPS result suggests both components are contributing evenly. The data shows that the combo is well-balanced for 1440p gaming, with headroom at 1080p and diminishing returns at 4K.

# Settings Recommendations

Based on the measured FPS rows, the optimal settings balance depends on the target resolution and desired frame rate. At 1080p, all settings produce playable frame rates. The Low preset yields 377 FPS, which is excessive for most displays. The Medium preset at 297 FPS offers a smoother visual experience with a minimal frame rate penalty. The High preset at 238 FPS is a reasonable compromise, providing better visual fidelity while still exceeding 240 Hz refresh rate thresholds. The Ultra preset at 185 FPS is playable but offers diminishing visual returns for a 51% frame rate drop from Low.

At 1440p, the Medium preset at 196 FPS is the sweet spot for high-refresh-rate displays. The High preset at 157 FPS is also viable for 144 Hz monitors. The Ultra preset at 122 FPS drops below the 144 Hz threshold but remains smooth for 120 Hz displays. The Low preset at 248 FPS is unnecessary unless competitive play prioritizes maximum frame rate over visual quality.

At 4K, the Medium preset at 109 FPS is the most balanced choice. The High preset at 87 FPS is playable but may feel less responsive on 120 Hz displays. The Ultra preset at 67 FPS is below the 60 FPS threshold for some users, though it remains playable. The Low preset at 138 FPS is the only 4K option that exceeds 120 FPS, but the visual sacrifices are substantial.

The data suggests that Medium settings provide the best overall experience across all resolutions. At 1080p Medium, the 297 FPS average with a 253 FPS minimum ensures no drops below 240 Hz. At 1440p Medium, the 196 FPS average with a 166 FPS minimum keeps frame rates above 144 Hz. At 4K Medium, the 109 FPS average with a 92 FPS minimum stays above 90 FPS, which is smooth for most users. The Medium preset also has the only recorded min/max values, indicating it is the most thoroughly tested setting and likely the most stable.

# Measured FPS Breakdown

At 1920x1080, the combo delivers its highest frame rates. The Low preset averages 377 FPS. The Medium preset averages 297 FPS, with a minimum of 253 FPS and a maximum of 342 FPS. The High preset averages 238 FPS. The Ultra preset averages 185 FPS. The progression from Low to Ultra shows a 192 FPS drop, a 51% reduction. The Medium preset’s min/max range of 253-342 FPS indicates a 89 FPS spread, which is the narrowest of any resolution at Medium settings, suggesting consistent frame delivery.

At 2560x1440, the averages are lower but still high. The Low preset averages 248 FPS. The Medium preset averages 196 FPS, with a minimum of 166 FPS and a maximum of 225 FPS. The High preset averages 157 FPS. The Ultra preset averages 122 FPS. The Low-to-Ultra drop is 126 FPS, a 51% reduction matching the 1080p percentage. The Medium preset’s min/max range is 166-225 FPS, a 59 FPS spread, which is tighter than at 1080p.

At 3840x2160, the frame rates drop significantly. The Low preset averages 138 FPS. The Medium preset averages 109 FPS, with a minimum of 92 FPS and a maximum of 125 FPS. The High preset averages 87 FPS. The Ultra preset averages 67 FPS. The Low-to-Ultra drop is 71 FPS, a 51% reduction, consistent with the other resolutions. The Medium preset’s min/max range is 92-125 FPS, a 33 FPS spread, which is the narrowest across all resolutions, indicating the GPU is fully utilized and frame pacing is stable.

The data reveals a consistent pattern: each settings tier reduces the average FPS by roughly 25-30% from the previous tier. The Low-to-Medium transition at 1080p drops from 377 to 297 FPS (21% reduction), Medium-to-High drops to 238 FPS (20% reduction), and High-to-Ultra drops to 185 FPS (22% reduction). This linear scaling suggests the game’s settings affect GPU load proportionally, without abrupt bottlenecks. The CPU’s role is most evident at Low settings across all resolutions, where the frame rates are highest and the GPU is least taxed.