Fivem

# Fivem Performance Analysis: Intel Core Ultra 9 290K Plus + AMD Radeon RX 6600 XT

The combination of Intel's 24-core Core Ultra 9 290K Plus and AMD's Radeon RX 6600 XT delivers a peculiar performance profile in Fivem, one that shifts dramatically depending on resolution and quality preset. The measured data reveals a system that can exceed 150 FPS at 1080p on Low settings but falls to 28 FPS at 4K on Ultra, illustrating a stark contrast between CPU-bound and GPU-bound scenarios. This pairing ranks 2096th out of 3005 tested combos in Fivem, placing it in the lower-middle portion of the database, which is surprising given the CPU's 96th percentile standing among all processors. The RX 6600 XT, sitting at the 70th percentile among all GPUs, becomes the clear limiting factor at higher resolutions, while at 1080p the Ultra 9's strong single-thread performance allows the GPU to stretch its legs.

Settings Recommendations

The measured data points to a clear sweet spot: Medium settings at 1080p deliver 126 FPS average, which is only 33 FPS below the Low preset's 159 FPS but offers substantially better visual quality. The jump from Low to Medium costs 33 FPS (from 159 to 126), while moving from Medium to High costs another 26 FPS (down to 100). The Ultra preset at 1080p drops to 78 FPS, a 48 FPS penalty over Medium, which is a steep price for marginal visual gains in a multiplayer context where responsiveness matters.

At 1440p, the Medium preset again emerges as the balanced choice, producing 83 FPS average with a min of 70 and max of 95. This is a 22 FPS reduction from Low (105 FPS) but maintains a playable experience with better fidelity. High at 1440p drops to 66 FPS, which is still acceptable but begins to approach the threshold where competitive play becomes less fluid. Ultra at 1440p falls to 51 FPS, which feels sluggish for a multiplayer title.

For 4K, the data tells a different story. Low settings produce 58 FPS, which is the only 4K preset exceeding 60 FPS, though barely. Medium drops to 46 FPS (min 39, max 53), High falls to 37 FPS, and Ultra bottoms out at 28 FPS. Given these numbers, Low at 4K is the only viable option for consistent gameplay, while Medium might work for less demanding scenarios. The recommendation is clear: prioritize Medium at 1080p or 1440p for the best balance of frame rate and visual quality, or accept Low at 4K if resolution is non-negotiable.

GPU Role

The AMD Radeon RX 6600 XT, built on the RDNA 2.0 architecture with 8 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 128-bit bus, provides 256.0 GB/s of memory bandwidth. Its base clock runs at 1968 MHz, with a game clock of 2359 MHz and a boost clock of 2589 MHz. The 2048 shading units and 64 ROPs deliver a pixel rate of 165.7 GPixel/s and a texture rate of 331.4 GTexel/s, with FP32 performance rated at 10.60 TFLOPS.

In Fivem, the GPU's role becomes increasingly dominant as resolution climbs. At 1080p, the frame rate differences between presets are dramatic — from 159 FPS on Low to 78 FPS on Ultra — indicating that even at this resolution, the GPU is working hard, though the CPU still has headroom. The 8 GB VRAM capacity appears sufficient at 1080p and 1440p, as the data shows no catastrophic drops that would suggest memory exhaustion. However, at 4K, the GPU clearly becomes the bottleneck, with the frame rate collapsing from 58 FPS on Low to 28 FPS on Ultra — a 30 FPS swing that points to raw compute and bandwidth limitations rather than VRAM capacity alone.

The RX 6600 XT's nearest rivals in the database include the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1630 (0.7% higher average score), the Intel Arc A350M (0.8% lower), the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 780 Ti (0.8% higher), and the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2080 SUPER (1.1% higher). These deltas are remarkably tight, suggesting that in synthetic benchmarks, the RX 6600 XT performs nearly identically to a range of GPUs from different generations and tiers. Yet in Fivem, the measured results show that this GPU, despite its 70th percentile standing, struggles to maintain high frame rates at 4K, which is consistent with its mid-range positioning.

CPU Role

The Intel Core Ultra 9 290K Plus is a 24-core, 24-thread processor based on the Arrow Lake Refresh architecture, manufactured on a 3 nm process by TSMC. It operates with a base clock of 3.70 GHz and a boost clock of 5.80 GHz, drawing 125 W TDP. The cache hierarchy includes 192 KB L1 per core, 3 MB L2 per core, and 36 MB shared L3. Memory support is DDR5 with dual-channel configuration and 115.2 GB/s bandwidth.

In Fivem, the CPU's influence is most pronounced at lower resolutions where the GPU is less burdened. At 1080p Low, the system achieves 159 FPS, which suggests the CPU is capable of feeding the GPU at very high frame rates. The single-core performance, as evidenced by a Cinebench R23 single-core score of 7303 and a Passmark single-thread score of 4823, is exceptional — this matters for Fivem, which is known for being sensitive to single-thread performance in multiplayer scenarios with many players and entities.

The CPU's multi-threaded capabilities are equally impressive, with a Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 51731 and a Passmark multithread score of 60860. However, the data suggests that Fivem does not heavily utilize all 24 cores, as the frame rate scaling from Low to Ultra at any resolution is more consistent with GPU limitation than CPU saturation. The CPU's 96th percentile rank among all processors, with an average benchmark score of 84003, places it just ahead of the Intel Core Ultra 9 285K (0.2% higher average score) and the AMD EPYC 4584PX (1.1% higher), while trailing the AMD EPYC 7F72 (1.3% lower). This indicates that the Ultra 9 290K Plus is among the fastest consumer CPUs available, yet in Fivem, its advantages are only fully realized when the GPU is not the bottleneck — primarily at 1080p with lower presets.

How This Combo Ranks

The combo rank of 2096 out of 3005 tested combinations places this system in the 30th percentile of all tested CPU-GPU pairings in Fivem. This is a surprisingly low ranking given the individual components' standings — the CPU at the 96th percentile and the GPU at the 70th percentile. The discrepancy suggests that Fivem's performance profile does not reward this specific pairing as much as other games might, or that the GPU is disproportionately limiting the system's overall capability in this title.

When examining the measured frame rates, the ranking becomes more understandable. At 4K Ultra, the system produces only 28 FPS, which is below playable thresholds for most users. Even at 1440p Ultra, the 51 FPS average is mediocre. The system only truly shines at 1080p Low (159 FPS) and 1080p Medium (126 FPS). This performance envelope is consistent with a mid-range GPU paired with an ultra-high-end CPU, where the GPU becomes the binding constraint in most scenarios.

The nearest rival CPUs — the Intel Core Ultra 9 285K, AMD EPYC 4584PX, and AMD EPYC 9135 — all have average benchmark scores within 1.2% of the Ultra 9 290K Plus, yet their pairing with different GPUs would likely shift the combo ranking in Fivem. The data implies that for Fivem specifically, the choice of GPU matters far more than the choice of CPU, as long as the CPU has adequate single-thread performance. This combo's rank of 2096 reflects a system that is overpowered on the CPU side but underpowered on the GPU side for this game's demands.

FAQ

Q: What is the best resolution and settings combination for this system in Fivem?

A: The measured data shows that 1080p Medium provides 126 FPS average (min 107, max 144), which is the best balance of frame rate and visual quality. At 1440p, Medium delivers 83 FPS (min 70, max 95), while 4K only reaches playable levels on Low at 58 FPS.

Q: Is the CPU or GPU the limiting factor in Fivem for this combo?

A: At 1080p, the GPU becomes the limiting factor as settings increase — frame rates drop from 159 FPS on Low to 78 FPS on Ultra. At 4K, the GPU is clearly the bottleneck, with all presets falling below 60 FPS. The CPU's strong single-thread performance (Cinebench R23 single-core score of 7303) is sufficient for Fivem's demands.

Q: How does the RX 6600 XT compare to its nearest rivals in synthetic benchmarks?

A: The RX 6600 XT's average benchmark score of 24442 is 0.7% lower than the Intel Arc A350M, 0.7% higher than the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1630, 0.8% higher than the GTX 780 Ti, and 1.1% higher than the RTX 2080 SUPER. These are very tight margins, indicating similar synthetic performance.

Q: What is the frame rate difference between Low and Ultra settings at 1440p?

A: At 1440p, Low settings produce 105 FPS average, while Ultra drops to 51 FPS. This is a 54 FPS difference, representing a 51% reduction in frame rate when moving from the lowest to the highest preset.

Q: Does the 8 GB VRAM of the RX 6600 XT cause issues in Fivem?

A: The measured data does not indicate VRAM-related problems. At 4K Ultra, the system still runs at 28 FPS, and frame rates scale consistently with preset changes, suggesting that performance limitations are due to compute and bandwidth (256.0 GB/s) rather than memory capacity.

Q: How does this combo's rank of 2096 out of 3005 reflect its actual performance?

A: The rank places it in the lower-middle portion of tested combos, which aligns with the measured frame rates. While the CPU is top-tier (96th percentile), the GPU's mid-range standing (70th percentile) limits overall performance in Fivem, particularly at higher resolutions where the GPU dominates the workload.

Measured FPS Breakdown

At 1920x1080, the system delivers its strongest results across all presets. Low settings achieve 159 FPS average, Medium reaches 126 FPS with a min of 107 and max of 144, High produces 100 FPS, and Ultra drops to 78 FPS. The progression from Low to Ultra shows a 81 FPS spread, indicating heavy GPU load at this resolution despite the CPU's capabilities.

Moving to 2560x1440, the frame rates decrease substantially. Low settings yield 105 FPS, Medium delivers 83 FPS (min 70, max 95), High produces 66 FPS, and Ultra falls to 51 FPS. The spread between Low and Ultra is 54 FPS, showing that the GPU's limitations become more pronounced as pixel count increases.

At 3840x2160, performance degrades further. Low settings produce 58 FPS, Medium reaches 46 FPS (min 39, max 53), High drops to 37 FPS, and Ultra bottoms out at 28 FPS. The spread is 30 FPS, but the absolute values are low across the board, with only Low achieving near-playable frame rates.

The data also reveals that the min and max FPS are only recorded for the Medium preset at each resolution. At 1080p Medium, the range is 107 to 144 FPS (a 37 FPS variance), at 1440p Medium it is 70 to 95 FPS (a 25 FPS variance), and at 4K Medium it is 39 to 53 FPS (a 14 FPS variance). This suggests that frame pacing becomes more consistent at higher resolutions, likely because the GPU is consistently saturated.

Resolution Scaling

The resolution scaling behavior reveals critical insights about this system's balance. From 1080p to 1440p, the average frame rate across all presets drops by approximately 34% — for instance, Medium goes from 126 FPS to 83 FPS, and High goes from 100 FPS to 66 FPS. This is a significant reduction that indicates the GPU is heavily taxed by the 78% increase in pixel count from 1080p to 1440p.

Moving from 1440p to 4K, the frame rates drop by a further 45% on average — Medium goes from 83 FPS to 46 FPS, and High goes from 66 FPS to 37 FPS. The 4K resolution has 2.25 times the pixels of 1440p, and the corresponding frame rate reductions suggest that the RX 6600 XT is struggling to keep up with the memory bandwidth demands (256.0 GB/s) and shading throughput (10.60 TFLOPS FP32).

The scaling pattern strongly indicates that the GPU is the limiting component at all resolutions above 1080p. If the CPU were the bottleneck, we would expect frame rates to remain relatively constant across resolutions, as the CPU workload would not increase with pixel count. Instead, the data shows consistent frame rate drops with each resolution increase, which is the classic signature of a GPU-bound system. Even at 1080p Low (159 FPS), the CPU's potential is not fully realized, as the Ultra 9 290K Plus is capable of much higher frame rates in other titles, but the GPU's output ceiling caps performance.

At 4K, the system exhibits particularly poor scaling. The difference between Low (58 FPS) and Ultra (28 FPS) is exactly 30 FPS, and even Low fails to maintain 60 FPS consistently. This suggests that for Fivem at 4K, the RX 6600 XT is simply not adequate for smooth gameplay, regardless of settings. The 8 GB VRAM and 128-bit bus are likely contributors, as 4K textures and geometry can strain memory bandwidth, but the compute limitations are the primary constraint. The data implies that users seeking 4K performance in Fivem would need a significantly more powerful GPU, while the CPU's role becomes negligible at this resolution.