Fivem

The Intel Core Ultra X7 368H and NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4090 Mobile combination delivers a high-refresh-rate experience in Fivem, with performance scaling predictably across resolutions and settings. The data shows a system capable of pushing well past 200 FPS at 1080p on lower presets, while still maintaining playable frame rates at 4K on higher presets. This analysis breaks down the measured results, contextualizes them against the component's synthetic benchmarks, and explains what the frame rate scaling reveals about the system's balance.

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

The Intel Core Ultra X7 368H is a 16-core, 16-thread processor based on the Panther Lake architecture, built on Intel's 3 nm process node. It operates with a base clock of 2.00 GHz and a boost clock of 5.00 GHz, with a TDP of 25 W. The processor's cache hierarchy includes 192 KB of L1 per core, 2.5 MB of L2 per core, and 18 MB of shared L3 cache. These specifications position it as a high-end mobile part, and its synthetic benchmark scores reflect that status. In Cinebench R23, the chip scores 28,221 points in multi-core and 3,984 in single-core. Its PassMark multithread score is 32,956, with a single-thread score of 4,005. The processor's average benchmark score of 40,518 places it at the 87th percentile among all CPUs.

In Fivem, a multiplayer modification for a sandbox game, the CPU's role is significant due to the large number of entities, scripts, and player interactions that need processing. The measured frame rates at lower resolutions and settings highlight this dependency. At 1080p with Low settings, the system achieves 262 FPS, and at 1440p Low it reaches 172 FPS. These numbers suggest that the CPU is capable of feeding the GPU with a very high number of frames per second, especially when graphical load is light. The boost clock of 5.00 GHz is likely a key factor here, as Fivem's performance often hinges on single-threaded speed for game logic and script execution. The single-core Cinebench R15 score of 401 and R20 score of 1,673 support the notion that the processor has strong per-thread performance.

The processor's 16 threads are fully utilized in some scenarios, but Fivem's engine may not perfectly scale across all of them. The data shows that at 1080p Low, the frame rate is more than double the 4K Ultra result, which suggests that the CPU is not the primary bottleneck at the highest settings. However, when compared to its nearest rivals, the CPU's performance is competitive. The Intel Core 7 253PE has an average score of 40,557, which is only 0.1% higher, and the AMD Ryzen 9 7940H scores 40,431, a 0.2% difference. This indicates that the X7 368H is in the same performance tier as other top mobile processors, and its impact on Fivem's frame rates should be considered average for its class.

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

The NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4090 Mobile is the flagship of the GeForce 40-series mobile lineup, built on the AD103 chip using Ada Lovelace architecture and a 5 nm process from TSMC. It features 9,728 shading units, 304 texture mapping units, and 112 raster output units, along with 76 ray tracing cores and 304 tensor cores. The GPU's clock speeds are set at 1335 MHz base and 1695 MHz boost, with memory running at 2250 MHz (18 Gbps effective). The 16 GB of GDDR6 memory is accessed via a 256-bit bus, providing a bandwidth of 576.0 GB/s. The GPU's raw compute power is rated at 32.98 TFLOPS for FP32 operations.

In synthetic benchmarks, the RTX 4090 Mobile shows strong performance. Its PassMark G3D score is 27,212, and its Geekbench OpenCL score is 180,831. The GPU's average benchmark score of 43,667 places it at the 84th percentile among all GPUs. Compared to its nearest rivals, it is slightly ahead of the NVIDIA Quadro M6000 by 0.8% and the GeForce RTX 5050 Mobile by 0.9%, while being 0.9% behind the RTX A6000. These margins are small, indicating that the RTX 4090 Mobile sits at the top of the mobile graphics hierarchy.

In Fivem, the GPU's role becomes more apparent as resolution and settings increase. At 4K Ultra, the system drops to 47 FPS, while at 1080p Low it hits 262 FPS. This scaling suggests that the GPU is the limiting factor at higher resolutions and graphical presets. The 16 GB of VRAM is sufficient for Fivem's texture requirements, even at 4K, but the raw rendering workload at 4K Ultra exceeds what the GPU can handle to maintain high frame rates. The boost clock of 1695 MHz is relevant here, as the GPU's ability to sustain high clocks under load determines its performance in demanding scenes. The data shows a clear pattern: the GPU's performance ceiling is reached at 4K Ultra, while at 1080p Low, the CPU's frame generation capability outpaces the GPU's rendering speed.

How This Combo Ranks — use comboRankInGame vs other tested combos

This specific combination of the Intel Core Ultra X7 368H and NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4090 Mobile ranks 826th out of 3,707 tested combos for Fivem. This places it in the top 22.3% of all tested systems, indicating that while it is a strong performer, there are many other combinations that achieve higher frame rates in this specific game. The rank is a composite measure that accounts for performance across all tested settings and resolutions.

Given the individual strengths of both components, the 826th rank might seem lower than expected. The CPU's 87th percentile and GPU's 84th percentile scores suggest that both are high-end parts, but the combo rank reflects the fact that other systems with even more powerful components, or combinations that are better tuned for Fivem's specific engine, can outperform it. The data shows that the system is not the absolute top-tier for Fivem, but it is firmly in the upper echelon. The rank of 826 out of 3,707 means that 2,881 other combos are slower, which is a substantial majority. For a game like Fivem, which is often CPU-bound due to its multiplayer nature, the combination of a strong single-threaded CPU and a powerful GPU is generally favorable, but the specific balance here leaves some performance on the table compared to the very best combos.

FAQ

Q: What is the best frame rate this combo can achieve in Fivem?

A: The highest measured average frame rate is 262 FPS, achieved at 1920x1080 resolution with Low settings.

Q: How does the CPU's single-thread performance compare to its rivals?

A: The Intel Core Ultra X7 368H has a PassMark single-thread score of 4,005. Its average benchmark score of 40,518 is 0.1% lower than the Intel Core 7 253PE and 0.2% lower than the Intel Core 5 223PE, while being 0.2% higher than the AMD Ryzen 9 7940H.

Q: Is the GPU or CPU the primary bottleneck at 4K Ultra settings?

A: At 3840x2160 Ultra, the system averages 47 FPS, which is significantly lower than the 128 FPS at 1080p Ultra. This indicates the GPU is the limiting factor at 4K Ultra, as the resolution increase puts a much larger load on the rendering hardware.

Q: Does the system maintain a stable frame rate at Medium settings?

A: Yes, the data shows that at Medium settings across all three resolutions, the system has recorded minimum and maximum FPS values. For example, at 1920x1080 Medium, the average is 207 FPS with a minimum of 176 and a maximum of 238.

Q: How does this combo's rank compare to other tested systems?

A: This combo ranks 826th out of 3,707 tested combos, placing it in the top 22.3% of all systems tested for Fivem.

Q: What is the GPU's memory bandwidth and how does it affect performance?

A: The GPU has a memory bandwidth of 576.0 GB/s, accessed via a 256-bit bus with 16 GB of GDDR6 memory. This bandwidth is sufficient to support the frame rates measured, as the performance drop at higher resolutions is more consistent with compute limitations rather than memory bandwidth constraints.

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

The measured FPS data across resolutions reveals a clear scaling pattern. At Low settings, the system achieves 262 FPS at 1080p, 172 FPS at 1440p, and 96 FPS at 4K. This represents a 34.4% drop from 1080p to 1440p, and a 44.2% drop from 1440p to 4K. At Medium settings, the frame rates are 207 FPS at 1080p, 136 FPS at 1440p, and 75 FPS at 4K, with drops of 34.3% and 44.9% respectively. High settings show a similar pattern: 165 FPS at 1080p, 109 FPS at 1440p, and 60 FPS at 4K, with drops of 33.9% and 45.0%. Ultra settings produce 128 FPS at 1080p, 84 FPS at 1440p, and 47 FPS at 4K, with drops of 34.4% and 44.0%.

The consistent percentage drop from 1080p to 1440p across all settings is approximately 34%, and the drop from 1440p to 4K is approximately 44%. This consistent scaling pattern indicates that the GPU is the primary limiting component as resolution increases. If the CPU were the bottleneck, we would expect to see frame rates plateau at higher resolutions, as the CPU's workload would remain constant while the GPU's workload increases. Instead, the frame rates continue to drop proportionally with the pixel count increase, which is a hallmark of a GPU-bound scenario at higher resolutions. The data also shows that at 1080p Low, the system achieves 262 FPS, which is likely close to the CPU's maximum frame generation capability. At 4K Ultra, the 47 FPS result shows that the GPU is struggling to render the scene at that quality level. This balance suggests that the system is well-matched for 1440p gaming, where it can achieve high frame rates at High and Ultra settings, but the GPU becomes the clear bottleneck at 4K.

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

Based on the measured FPS data, the optimal settings depend on the target resolution and desired frame rate. At 1920x1080, all settings are playable, but the Medium preset offers the best balance of visual quality and performance. The data shows 207 FPS average at Medium, with a minimum of 176 FPS, which ensures smooth gameplay without the need for the lowest preset. The Low preset at 262 FPS is excessive for most displays, and the jump from Medium to High results in a 20.3% drop in frame rate to 165 FPS, which is still high but may not be worth the visual trade-off for some users. Ultra at 128 FPS is also viable, but the diminishing returns in visual fidelity may not justify the performance cost.

At 2560x1440, the Medium preset again provides the best experience, with an average of 136 FPS and a minimum of 116 FPS. This is sufficient for high-refresh-rate monitors and maintains a stable frame time. High settings at 109 FPS are also acceptable, but the drop to 84 FPS at Ultra may introduce noticeable stutters on some displays. The Low preset at 172 FPS is available for competitive play, but the visual quality is significantly reduced. At 3840x2160, the situation changes. The Medium preset at 75 FPS is the highest playable option, with a minimum of 64 FPS. High settings at 60 FPS are borderline, and the Ultra preset at 47 FPS is likely too low for a smooth experience. For 4K gaming, Low settings at 96 FPS provide the best frame rate, but the visual compromise is substantial. The data suggests that Medium is the sweet spot for this combo across all resolutions, offering a balance of visual quality and performance that avoids the steep drop-offs seen at Ultra.

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

The complete measured FPS data is as follows:

At 1920x1080:

• Low: average 262 FPS
• Medium: average 207 FPS, minimum 176 FPS, maximum 238 FPS
• High: average 165 FPS
• Ultra: average 128 FPS

At 2560x1440:

• Low: average 172 FPS
• Medium: average 136 FPS, minimum 116 FPS, maximum 156 FPS
• High: average 109 FPS
• Ultra: average 84 FPS

At 3840x2160:

• Low: average 96 FPS
• Medium: average 75 FPS, minimum 64 FPS, maximum 87 FPS
• High: average 60 FPS
• Ultra: average 47 FPS

This data shows a clear hierarchy of performance. The lowest settings at 1080p produce the highest frame rates, while the highest settings at 4K produce the lowest. The Medium preset is the only one with recorded minimum and maximum FPS values, indicating that the benchmark captured a full frame time distribution for these runs. The absence of min/max data for other presets suggests they may have been run with different measurement parameters. The scaling from Low to Ultra at each resolution is consistent: at 1080p, Ultra is 51.1% slower than Low; at 1440p, Ultra is 51.2% slower; and at 4K, Ultra is 51.0% slower. This consistency reinforces the understanding that the GPU's rendering load scales predictably with settings, and the system's performance is well-characterized by these measurements.