Fivem

# Fivem Performance Analysis: Intel Core Ultra 9 290K Plus + NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2060 SUPER

This pairing combines a 24-core Intel flagship processor with a mid-range Turing GPU, creating a system where the RTX 2060 SUPER becomes the primary bottleneck in Fivem's demanding multiplayer environments. The measured data reveals a performance profile heavily skewed by resolution and settings, with the GPU consistently determining frame rates while the CPU's substantial headroom remains largely untapped.

Resolution Scaling

The measured FPS data shows a dramatic performance drop as resolution increases from 1080p to 4K, clearly indicating that the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2060 SUPER is the limiting component. At Ultra settings, the average frame rate falls from 78 FPS at 1920x1080 to 51 FPS at 2560x1440, then further to 28 FPS at 3840x2160. This represents a 64% reduction in average FPS from 1080p to 4K at Ultra settings, a steep decline that points directly to GPU-bound rendering.

The scaling pattern becomes even more revealing when examining Low settings. At 1920x1080 Low, the system achieves 159 FPS, which drops to 105 FPS at 2560x1440 and 58 FPS at 3840x2160. The 1080p-to-4K reduction at Low settings is approximately 64%, nearly identical to the Ultra settings' percentage drop. This consistency across settings suggests that resolution scaling is purely a function of GPU pixel throughput, not CPU limitations.

Medium settings provide the only complete dataset with min/max FPS values. At 1920x1080 Medium, the average is 126 FPS with a minimum of 107 and maximum of 145. Moving to 2560x1440 Medium, the average falls to 83 FPS (min 70, max 95), and at 3840x2160 Medium, the average drops to 46 FPS (min 39, max 53). The frame time consistency, as indicated by the min/max spread, remains tight across resolutions, suggesting stable GPU performance rather than CPU-induced stuttering.

The data implies that the RTX 2060 SUPER's 8 GB of GDDR6 memory and 256-bit bus are being saturated at higher resolutions. The 448.0 GB/s memory bandwidth appears insufficient for 4K Ultra workloads, where the average FPS of 28 falls below playable thresholds. Interestingly, the gap between High and Ultra settings widens at higher resolutions — at 1080p the difference is 23 FPS (101 vs 78), while at 4K it narrows to just 9 FPS (37 vs 28). This compression indicates that at 4K, both settings are pushing the GPU to its absolute limits.

How This Combo Ranks

This specific combination of Intel Core Ultra 9 290K Plus and RTX 2060 SUPER ranks 2078 out of 3005 tested combos in Fivem, placing it in roughly the 31st percentile of all tested system configurations. This ranking reflects the significant performance gap between the CPU and GPU — the processor is clearly capable of much higher frame rates, but the GPU holds the system back.

The Intel Core Ultra 9 290K Plus scores in the 96th percentile against all CPUs, with an average benchmark score of 84003. Its nearest rivals include the Intel Core Ultra 9 285K (avg score 83807, delta 0.2%), AMD EPYC 4584PX (avg score 83090, delta 1.1%), and AMD EPYC 9135 (avg score 82980, delta 1.2%). The processor's performance is remarkably close to the Ultra 9 285K, just 0.2% ahead, indicating that Fivem's CPU demands are well within this processor's capabilities.

Conversely, the RTX 2060 SUPER sits at the 62nd percentile against all GPUs with an average benchmark score of 18093. Its nearest rivals are the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3060 Mobile (avg score 18159, delta -0.4%), AMD Radeon Pro 5700 (avg score 18189, delta -0.5%), AMD Radeon RX 460 (avg score 18373, delta -1.5%), and Intel Arc A770M (avg score 18383, delta -1.6%). The GPU's performance is essentially on par with the RTX 3060 Mobile, being just 0.4% slower, which contextualizes its Fivem limitations.

The combo's rank of 2078 out of 3005 suggests that many other pairings achieve better Fivem performance, likely those with more balanced CPU-GPU configurations. The disparity between the CPU's 96th percentile and GPU's 62nd percentile creates an imbalanced system where the GPU's ceiling defines the gaming experience.

GPU Role

The NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2060 SUPER features 8 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 256-bit bus with 448.0 GB/s bandwidth. Its base clock of 1470 MHz boosts to 1650 MHz, and the card contains 2176 shading units, 136 TMUs, and 64 ROPs. The memory operates at 1750 MHz (14 Gbps effective), which at 4K resolutions appears to be a limiting factor.

The GPU's compute capabilities include 7.181 TFLOPS FP32 performance and 14.36 TFLOPS FP16 (2:1 ratio). With 34 RT cores and 272 tensor cores, the TU106 chip supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The 175 W TDP and suggested 450 W PSU requirement indicate this is a power-efficient design for its performance class.

In Fivem, the measured FPS data reveals the GPU's role as the primary bottleneck. At 1080p Low, the system achieves 159 FPS, but this drops to 58 FPS at 4K Low — a 64% reduction. The RTX 2060 SUPER's 62nd percentile ranking against all GPUs suggests it competes closely with mobile variants and older workstation cards, which aligns with its 4K performance limitations.

The VRAM capacity of 8 GB may be insufficient for Fivem's detailed multiplayer environments at Ultra settings. At 4K Ultra, the average FPS of 28 with no recorded min/max values suggests the GPU is severely constrained. The transition from 1080p Ultra (78 FPS) to 4K Ultra (28 FPS) represents a 64% performance loss, which correlates with the increased memory bandwidth demands at higher resolutions.

Measured FPS Breakdown

At 1920x1080, the system delivers its best performance across all settings. Low settings achieve 159 FPS average, Medium reaches 126 FPS (min 107, max 145), High produces 101 FPS, and Ultra yields 78 FPS. The 1080p results show a clear scaling pattern where each settings tier costs approximately 20-25 FPS, indicating that the GPU handles 1080p workloads with reasonable efficiency.

Moving to 2560x1440, performance drops noticeably. Low settings average 105 FPS, Medium 83 FPS (min 70, max 95), High 66 FPS, and Ultra 51 FPS. The 1440p results show a more compressed scaling — the difference between Low and Ultra is 54 FPS, compared to 81 FPS at 1080p. This compression suggests the GPU is starting to become saturated at 1440p.

At 3840x2160, the performance falls below playable thresholds for most settings. Low averages 58 FPS, Medium 46 FPS (min 39, max 53), High 37 FPS, and Ultra drops to 28 FPS. The 4K results demonstrate severe GPU limitations, with even Low settings failing to maintain 60 FPS. The Medium settings at 4K show a min FPS of 39, which would result in noticeable stuttering during intense multiplayer moments.

The Medium settings dataset provides the most complete picture with min/max values at all three resolutions. The frame time consistency at 1080p Medium (107-145 FPS range) indicates smooth performance, while 1440p Medium (70-95 FPS) shows slightly more variation. At 4K Medium (39-53 FPS), the range narrows but the overall performance drops below comfortable playability.

Settings Recommendations

Based on the measured data, the optimal settings for this combination depend heavily on the target resolution. At 1920x1080, High settings at 101 FPS average provide an excellent balance between visual quality and performance, while Ultra at 78 FPS remains playable for most users. The data suggests that 1080p users can comfortably choose High or Ultra without sacrificing smoothness.

For 2560x1440, Medium settings at 83 FPS (min 70, max 95) offer the best experience. The 70 FPS minimum ensures consistent frame delivery during demanding scenes, while the 83 FPS average provides headroom above 60 FPS. High at 66 FPS is also viable, but the tighter frame pacing of Medium makes it the safer choice for multiplayer gameplay.

At 3840x2160, none of the settings achieve ideal playability. Low at 58 FPS is the only setting that approaches 60 FPS, but this comes at a significant visual cost. Medium at 46 FPS (min 39, max 53) may be acceptable for less competitive play, but the 39 FPS minimum suggests potential stuttering. The data strongly indicates that 4K is not a viable resolution for this GPU in Fivem, with even Low settings failing to maintain consistent 60 FPS.

For players prioritizing competitive performance, 1080p Low at 159 FPS offers the highest frame rates and lowest input latency. The 159 FPS average at 1080p Low demonstrates the GPU's capability when visual demands are minimized, making this the best choice for fast-paced multiplayer scenarios where frame rate trumps visual fidelity.

FAQ

Q: What is the best resolution for this combo in Fivem?

A: The data shows 1920x1080 as the optimal resolution, with all settings achieving above 78 FPS. At 2560x1440, performance drops to 51-105 FPS depending on settings, while 3840x2160 falls to 28-58 FPS, making 4K impractical for consistent gameplay.

Q: How does the RTX 2060 SUPER compare to its nearest GPU rivals?

A: The RTX 2060 SUPER scores 18093 on average, placing it 0.4% behind the RTX 3060 Mobile (18159), 0.5% behind the AMD Radeon Pro 5700 (18189), 1.5% behind the AMD Radeon RX 460 (18373), and 1.6% behind the Intel Arc A770M (18383).

Q: Is the Intel Core Ultra 9 290K Plus overpowered for this GPU?

A: Yes, the CPU's 96th percentile ranking (avg score 84003) far exceeds the GPU's 62nd percentile (avg score 18093). The processor is just 0.2% ahead of the Ultra 9 285K and 1.1% ahead of the EPYC 4584PX, indicating it is not the limiting factor in this pairing.

Q: What frame rates can I expect at 1080p Medium settings?

A: At 1920x1080 Medium, the system averages 126 FPS with a minimum of 107 FPS and maximum of 145 FPS. This provides smooth, consistent performance suitable for most multiplayer scenarios.

Q: Can this system handle 4K gaming in Fivem?

A: The data indicates 4K is not recommended. At 3840x2160, even Low settings only achieve 58 FPS average, while Ultra drops to 28 FPS. The GPU's 8 GB VRAM and 448.0 GB/s bandwidth appear insufficient for 4K Fivem workloads.

Q: How does this combo rank against other tested configurations?

A: This combination ranks 2078 out of 3005 tested combos in Fivem, placing it in approximately the 31st percentile. This relatively low ranking reflects the GPU bottleneck limiting the powerful CPU's potential.

CPU Role

The Intel Core Ultra 9 290K Plus brings substantial processing power to this configuration, featuring 24 cores and 24 threads with a base clock of 3.70 GHz and boost clock of 5.80 GHz. The processor's cache hierarchy includes 192 KB L1 per core, 3 MB L2 per core, and 36 MB shared L3 cache. Built on TSMC's 3 nm process with 17,800 million transistors across a 243 mm² die, the CPU supports DDR5 memory on a dual-channel bus with 115.2 GB/s bandwidth.

Synthetic benchmarks reveal the CPU's massive capability. In Cinebench R23, it scores 51731 multicore and 7303 single-core. Cinebench R20 shows 21727 multicore and 3067 single-core, while Cinebench R15 reaches 5214 multicore and 736 single-core. Passmark tests further confirm its strength: multithread score of 60860, single-thread of 4823, integer math at 166194, floating-point math at 214760, and data compression at 698346.

The CPU's 96th percentile ranking against all processors, with an average benchmark score of 84003, places it among the top tier of desktop CPUs. Its nearest rivals show remarkably close performance: only 0.2% ahead of the Ultra 9 285K, 1.1% ahead of the EPYC 4584PX, and 1.2% ahead of the EPYC 9135. The processor's 24 threads handle Fivem's multi-player workloads with ease, leaving significant headroom.

In the context of Fivem's measured FPS, the CPU's role appears minimal. The fact that 1080p Low achieves 159 FPS while 4K Low drops to 58 FPS — a 64% reduction — demonstrates that resolution scaling is entirely GPU-bound. Even at the highest frame rates measured (159 FPS at 1080p Low), the CPU is unlikely to be a bottleneck given its 51731 Cinebench R23 multicore score and 60860 Passmark multithread score. The processor's 5.80 GHz boost clock and 36 MB L3 cache provide ample performance for Fivem's simulation and networking demands, though the GPU's limitations prevent the CPU from fully demonstrating its capabilities in this title.