Fivem

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

The Intel Core Ultra 9 290K Plus is a 24-core, 24-thread processor based on the Arrow Lake Refresh architecture, built on TSMC's 3 nm process node. It operates with a base clock of 3.70 GHz and a boost clock of 5.80 GHz, with a thermal design power of 125 W. The processor features a substantial cache hierarchy: 192 KB of L1 per core, 3 MB of L2 per core, and 36 MB of shared L3 cache.

In synthetic benchmarks, this CPU demonstrates exceptional multi-threaded capability, scoring 51,731 in Cinebench R23 multi-core and 21,727 in Cinebench R20 multi-core. Single-thread performance is equally strong, with Cinebench R23 single-core reaching 7,303 and Cinebench R20 single-core at 3,067. PassMark results show 60,860 in multi-thread and 4,823 in single-thread tests, with the processor ranking in the 96th percentile against all CPUs.

The nearest rivals in the CPU benchmark database are the Intel Core Ultra 9 285K (average score 83,807, only 0.2% behind), the AMD EPYC 4584PX (83,090, 1.1% behind), and the AMD EPYC 9135 (82,980, 1.2% behind). The AMD EPYC 7F72 edges ahead at 85,072, representing a 1.3% advantage. This places the 290K Plus in a tightly contested performance tier where the differences between top contenders are minimal.

For Fivem, a multiplayer mod platform for a sandbox game, the CPU's role is significant but not dominant in this particular configuration. The data shows that at 1080p, this combination achieves 85 FPS on Low settings, which suggests the CPU can feed the GPU adequately at lower resolutions. However, the 24-core count and high boost clock are more than sufficient for the game's typical workload, which often involves physics calculations and entity management in multiplayer sessions. The processor's 96th percentile ranking indicates it is not the bottleneck in this system; rather, the GPU becomes the limiting factor as resolution increases.

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

The AMD Radeon RX 580 is a Polaris 20-based graphics card using the GCN 4.0 architecture, manufactured on GlobalFoundries' 14 nm process. It features 8 GB of GDDR5 memory on a 256-bit bus, delivering 256.0 GB/s of memory bandwidth. The GPU operates at a base clock of 1257 MHz with a boost clock of 1340 MHz, and memory runs at 2000 MHz (8 Gbps effective). The card has 2,304 shading units, 144 texture mapping units, and 32 raster operations units, producing 6.175 TFLOPS of FP32 compute power.

The RX 580's synthetic benchmark results place it in the 53rd percentile against all GPUs, with an average score of 12,928. Its nearest rivals include the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3050 Ti Mobile (12,940, 0.1% ahead), the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1660 SUPER (12,986, 0.4% ahead), and the AMD Radeon 740M (12,870, 0.5% behind). This positions the RX 580 as a mid-range card that, while aging, remains competitive with entry-level offerings.

In Fivem, the RX 580's 8 GB VRAM capacity is adequate for the game's textures and geometry, but the GPU's raw compute power becomes the limiting factor. The measured FPS data shows a clear pattern: at 1080p Low settings, the card achieves 85 FPS average, but this drops to 54 FPS at High and 42 FPS at Ultra. The GPU's 53rd percentile ranking against all GPUs means it sits in the middle of the performance distribution, which is reflected in the game's frame rates. The memory bandwidth of 256.0 GB/s is sufficient for 1080p gaming but becomes strained at higher resolutions, as evidenced by the significant FPS drops at 1440p and 4K.

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

The measured FPS data reveals a classic GPU-bound scaling pattern across resolutions. At 1080p Low settings, the system achieves 85 FPS average. Moving to 1440p Low, the average drops to 56 FPS — a 34% reduction. At 4K Low, the average falls to 31 FPS — a 64% reduction from 1080p. This steep decline indicates the RX 580 is the primary bottleneck, as the CPU's performance headroom (96th percentile) cannot compensate for the GPU's inability to fill pixels at higher resolutions.

At Medium settings, the pattern continues: 1080p delivers 67 FPS (with a min of 57 and max of 77), 1440p drops to 44 FPS (min 38, max 51), and 4K falls to 25 FPS (min 21, max 28). The consistent 35-40% reduction from 1080p to 1440p across all settings confirms that the GPU's pixel throughput is the limiting factor. The 4K Medium result of 25 FPS is barely playable, while 4K Ultra at 15 FPS is effectively a slideshow.

High settings show a similar trajectory: 1080p at 54 FPS, 1440p at 35 FPS, and 4K at 20 FPS. Ultra settings are the most demanding: 1080p at 42 FPS, 1440p at 27 FPS, and 4K at 15 FPS. The scaling from 1080p to 4K at Ultra represents a 64% FPS loss, identical to the Low settings scaling. This consistency across settings strongly suggests that the GPU's memory bandwidth and rasterization rate are the constraining factors, not the CPU or game engine inefficiencies.

The data indicates that this combination is best suited for 1080p gaming, where the CPU's strength can partially offset the GPU's limitations. At 1440p, frame rates become marginal for competitive play on Medium and above. At 4K, only Low settings approach playability at 31 FPS, which remains below the 60 FPS threshold for smooth gameplay. The CPU's 96th percentile ranking cannot rescue the system at higher resolutions, confirming the GPU as the definitive bottleneck.

# FAQ

Q: What is the best resolution for this CPU-GPU combination in Fivem?

A: The data shows 1920x1080 is the only resolution where the system consistently exceeds 60 FPS, achieving 85 FPS on Low and 67 FPS on Medium settings. At 2560x1440, even Low settings only reach 56 FPS, and at 3840x2160, all settings fall below 31 FPS.

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

A: The Intel Core Ultra 9 290K Plus scores 84,003 on average, placing it 0.2% ahead of the Intel Core Ultra 9 285K (83,807), 1.1% ahead of the AMD EPYC 4584PX (83,090), and 1.2% ahead of the AMD EPYC 9135 (82,980). The AMD EPYC 7F72 scores 85,072, which is 1.3% higher.

Q: Is the GPU or CPU the limiting factor in this system?

A: The GPU is clearly the limiting factor. The CPU ranks in the 96th percentile among all processors, while the GPU ranks in the 53rd percentile. The FPS scaling from 1080p to 4K shows a 64% reduction at Low settings, which is characteristic of GPU-bound performance.

Q: What frame rates can be expected at 1440p with Medium settings?

A: At 2560x1440 with Medium settings, the system delivers an average of 44 FPS, with a minimum of 38 FPS and a maximum of 51 FPS. This is below the 60 FPS threshold for smooth gameplay but remains playable for less demanding scenarios.

Q: How does the RX 580 compare to the GTX 1660 SUPER in synthetic benchmarks?

A: The RX 580 has an average benchmark score of 12,928, while the GTX 1660 SUPER scores 12,986, representing a 0.4% advantage for the NVIDIA card. This places them in the same performance tier, with the RX 580 trailing by a negligible margin.

Q: What is the impact of Ultra settings on performance at 1080p?

A: At 1920x1080 with Ultra settings, the average FPS drops to 42, compared to 85 FPS at Low settings. This represents a 51% reduction in frame rate, making Ultra settings a significant compromise for this GPU.

# Settings Recommendations

Based on the measured FPS data, Medium settings at 1920x1080 provide the best balance of visual quality and performance for this combination. The system achieves 67 FPS average at 1080p Medium, with a minimum of 57 FPS and maximum of 77 FPS. This is the only settings level at 1080p that maintains average frame rates above 60 FPS while offering improved visual fidelity over Low settings.

Low settings at 1080p deliver the highest frame rates at 85 FPS average, which is ideal for competitive multiplayer scenarios where responsiveness matters more than visual quality. However, the jump to Medium only costs 18 FPS (85 to 67) while presumably improving visual quality substantially, making Medium the recommended preset for most players.

High settings at 1080p drop to 54 FPS average, which falls below the 60 FPS threshold and may introduce noticeable stuttering in fast-paced multiplayer interactions. Ultra settings at 1080p are the least recommended, as the 42 FPS average is marginal for smooth gameplay, and the visual gains over High are typically minimal in this game.

At 1440p, the data suggests that only Low settings (56 FPS) approach playable frame rates, while Medium (44 FPS) and High (35 FPS) are too low for satisfactory gameplay. At 4K, all settings produce frame rates below 32 FPS, making this resolution impractical for this combination. The recommendation is to prioritize 1080p with Medium settings for the best overall experience, with the option to drop to Low for competitive play or increase to High for single-player scenarios.

# Measured FPS Breakdown

The measured FPS data provides a complete picture of this combination's performance across resolutions and settings. At 1920x1080, the system achieves 85 FPS average on Low settings, 67 FPS on Medium (min 57, max 77), 54 FPS on High, and 42 FPS on Ultra. The progression from Low to Ultra shows a consistent 20-25% reduction in frame rate at each step, with the most dramatic drop occurring between Medium and High (67 to 54 FPS, a 19% reduction).

At 2560x1440, performance falls significantly across all settings. Low settings deliver 56 FPS average, Medium delivers 44 FPS (min 38, max 51), High delivers 35 FPS, and Ultra falls to 27 FPS. The reduction from 1080p to 1440p ranges from 34% at Low to 36% at Ultra, indicating that the GPU's fill rate is the primary constraint. The 1440p Medium result of 44 FPS is worth noting as the only sub-60 FPS result with a recorded minimum above 30 FPS.

At 3840x2160, performance becomes marginal for all settings. Low settings achieve 31 FPS average, Medium achieves 25 FPS (min 21, max 28), High achieves 20 FPS, and Ultra drops to 15 FPS. The 4K results show a narrowing of the gap between settings levels, with only a 16 FPS difference between Low and Ultra (31 to 15), compared to a 43 FPS difference at 1080p (85 to 42). This compression indicates that the GPU is fully saturated at 4K, and settings adjustments have diminishing returns.

Across all resolutions, the Medium settings row is the only one with recorded minimum and maximum FPS values, providing insight into frame time consistency. At 1080p Medium, the 57-77 FPS range represents a 26% variance, while at 1440p Medium, the 38-51 FPS range shows a 29% variance. At 4K Medium, the 21-28 FPS range exhibits a 28% variance, suggesting consistent frame pacing across resolutions despite the performance degradation.

# How This Combo Ranks

This combination of the Intel Core Ultra 9 290K Plus and AMD Radeon RX 580 ranks 2,723 out of 3,005 tested combos in Fivem, placing it in the bottom 9% of all configurations. This low ranking is primarily attributable to the GPU's mid-range status (53rd percentile) being paired with a top-tier CPU (96th percentile), creating a significant performance imbalance. The CPU's exceptional synthetic benchmark scores do not translate to FPS gains because the GPU cannot keep up with the processor's potential output.

The ranking reflects the GPU-bound nature of this setup. While the CPU outperforms 96% of all processors, the RX 580 only outperforms 53% of GPUs. In a game like Fivem, which is heavily dependent on GPU rendering performance, this imbalance results in the system performing well below what the CPU alone would suggest. The 2,723rd rank out of 3,005 combos indicates that most other tested configurations deliver better FPS in this game, even those with less capable CPUs paired with stronger GPUs.

The data shows that this combination is at a significant disadvantage compared to more balanced configurations. The 2723-rank puts it in the bottom decile, meaning only 282 combos perform worse. This is a clear indication that the RX 580 is severely underpowered relative to the 290K Plus for Fivem's workload. The GPU's 53rd percentile ranking, combined with the game's demands, results in frame rates that are playable only at 1080p with lower settings. This ranking should be a key consideration for anyone evaluating this hardware pairing for multiplayer gaming scenarios.