Fivem

# How This Combo Ranks

The Intel Core Ultra X9 388H paired with the AMD Radeon 760M ranks 2995 out of 3005 tested combos in Fivem. This places the combination in the bottom percentile of all tested systems, at roughly the 99.7th percentile from the bottom. The data indicates that this is an exceptionally weak configuration for Fivem, with only 10 tested combinations performing worse.

This ranking is largely explained by the GPU's position in the overall hardware landscape. The AMD Radeon 760M sits at the 35th percentile among all GPUs, meaning roughly two-thirds of all graphics cards tested outperform it. Meanwhile, the CPU fares better on paper: the Core Ultra X9 388H ranks at the 88th percentile among all CPUs. The massive gap between the CPU's relative strength and the GPU's relative weakness suggests that the graphics solution is the primary bottleneck dragging this combo to the bottom of the rankings.

The measured FPS data reinforces this interpretation. At 1080p with Low settings, the combo manages 54 FPS on average, which is the only configuration that approaches playable territory. Every other tested setting and resolution combination falls below 45 FPS, with 4K Ultra producing just 10 FPS. These numbers are consistent with a system where the integrated GPU is struggling to keep pace with even modest rendering demands, while the CPU likely has significant headroom left unused.

FAQ

Q: Is this combo capable of running Fivem at 60 FPS in any tested configuration?

A: No. The highest average FPS recorded across all tested resolutions and settings is 54 FPS, achieved at 1920x1080 with Low settings. No configuration reaches the 60 FPS threshold.

Q: How does the CPU compare to its nearest rivals in overall benchmark scores?

A: The Core Ultra X9 388H has an average benchmark score of 44466. Its closest rival, the AMD Ryzen 5 7500X3D, scores 44573, putting the Intel chip 0.2% behind. The Intel Core i9-13950HX scores 44342, placing it 0.3% behind the X9 388H. The AMD Ryzen AI Max 385 scores 44309 (0.4% behind), and the Intel Core i5-13600 scores 44240 (0.5% behind).

Q: What is the GPU's benchmark standing relative to its nearest competitors?

A: The AMD Radeon 760M has an average benchmark score of 6019. The AMD Radeon RX 6400 scores 6001, which is 0.3% lower. The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 770M also scores 6000, another 0.3% gap. The NVIDIA RTX PRO 6000 Blackwell Server scores 5996 (0.4% lower), while the NVIDIA Quadro P2000 scores 6049, putting it 0.5% ahead of the Radeon 760M.

Q: Does the GPU have dedicated VRAM?

A: No. The AMD Radeon 760M uses System Shared memory, meaning its memory size, type, and bus width are all designated as "System Shared." The memory bandwidth is listed as "System Dependent," which means performance will vary based on the system's main memory configuration.

Q: What is the best average FPS achievable at 2560x1440?

A: The best 1440p result is 36 FPS on Low settings. Medium settings produce 28 FPS, High settings produce 23 FPS, and Ultra settings drop to 17 FPS.

Q: How many cores and threads does the CPU have, and what are its clock speeds?

A: The Intel Core Ultra X9 388H has 16 cores and 16 threads. Its base clock is 2.10 GHz, and it boosts to 5.10 GHz. The CPU has a 3 nm process node and an 18 MB shared L3 cache.

GPU Role

The AMD Radeon 760M is the decisive factor in this combo's Fivem performance, and its specifications explain why the measured results are so constrained. The GPU is built on the RDNA 3.0 architecture using a 4 nm process from TSMC, with 512 shading units, 32 texture mapping units, and 16 render output units. It includes 8 ray tracing cores, though Fivem's rendering workload appears to be primarily rasterization-bound given the low overall scores.

The GPU's clock behavior is notable: the base clock is 800 MHz, but the boost clock reaches 2599 MHz. This wide boost range suggests the integrated graphics can scale up significantly under load, but the actual sustained performance in Fivem remains limited. The pixel rate is 41.58 GPixel/s, and the texture rate is 83.17 GTexel/s, with FP32 performance pegged at 5.323 TFLOPS. These raw throughput figures place the Radeon 760M in the lower tier of modern graphics processors.

Memory configuration is critical here. The GPU relies entirely on System Shared memory, with no dedicated VRAM. This means the Radeon 760M must compete with the CPU for memory bandwidth, and the actual bandwidth available is "System Dependent." For Fivem, which is a multiplayer game with potentially large textures and many dynamic objects, this shared memory arrangement can cause significant performance degradation, particularly at higher resolutions where memory pressure increases.

The GPU's benchmark scores paint a clear picture of its capabilities. In 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12, it scores 400. Geekbench results show 20255 in OpenCL and 30336 in Vulkan. Passmark scores are more granular: DirectX 10 yields 19, DirectX 11 yields 52, DirectX 12 yields 25, and DirectX 9 yields 65. The G2D score is 890, while the G3D score is 5310, and GPU compute is 2840. These numbers are consistent across different testing methodologies, all pointing to a GPU that is positioned near the 35th percentile of all GPUs.

The comparison with nearest rivals is instructive. The Radeon 760M's average benchmark score of 6019 is nearly identical to the AMD Radeon RX 6400 (6001, 0.3% lower), the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 770M (6000, 0.3% lower), and the NVIDIA RTX PRO 6000 Blackwell Server (5996, 0.4% lower). The NVIDIA Quadro P2000 is the only one of these that edges ahead, at 6049 (0.5% higher). The fact that an integrated GPU is clustered with these discrete solutions indicates that the Radeon 760M is not entirely without merit, but its performance class is firmly in the entry-level segment.

Measured FPS Breakdown

The measured FPS data for Fivem shows a clear and consistent pattern across all resolutions and settings. At 1920x1080, the Low preset delivers an average of 54 FPS, which is the single highest result in the entire dataset. Medium settings at 1080p yield 43 FPS on average, with a minimum of 36 FPS and a maximum of 49 FPS. High settings drop to 34 FPS average, and Ultra settings fall to 27 FPS average. The spread from Low to Ultra at 1080p is 27 FPS, representing a 50% reduction in performance when moving from the lowest to the highest quality preset.

Moving to 2560x1440, the results scale down proportionally. Low settings produce 36 FPS average, which is exactly two-thirds of the 1080p Low result. Medium settings at 1440p average 28 FPS, with a minimum of 24 FPS and a maximum of 32 FPS. High settings average 23 FPS, and Ultra settings average 17 FPS. The gap between Low and Ultra at 1440p is 19 FPS, again showing a significant performance penalty for higher quality settings.

At 3840x2160, the performance becomes marginal at best. Low settings average 20 FPS, Medium settings average 16 FPS (with a minimum of 13 FPS and maximum of 18 FPS), High settings average 13 FPS, and Ultra settings average just 10 FPS. Even the best 4K result, the 20 FPS on Low, is well below what most players would consider acceptable for a multiplayer game like Fivem.

The Medium settings rows are the only ones that include minimum and maximum FPS values, providing some insight into frame time consistency. At 1080p Medium, the range is 36 to 49 FPS, a 13 FPS spread. At 1440p Medium, the range is 24 to 32 FPS, an 8 FPS spread. At 4K Medium, the range is 13 to 18 FPS, a 5 FPS spread. The narrowing range at higher resolutions suggests that the GPU becomes more consistently bottlenecked as resolution increases, with fewer opportunities for frame rate spikes.

Resolution Scaling

The FPS drop from 1080p to 4K reveals important information about the limiting component in this combo. At Low settings, the progression is 54 FPS at 1080p, 36 FPS at 1440p, and 20 FPS at 4K. This represents a 33% drop from 1080p to 1440p, and a 44% drop from 1440p to 4K. The total reduction from 1080p to 4K is 63%, meaning the 4K result is barely more than a third of the 1080p result.

At Medium settings, the pattern is similar but slightly less steep: 43 FPS at 1080p, 28 FPS at 1440p (a 35% drop), and 16 FPS at 4K (a 43% drop from 1440p). The total reduction is 63% as well. High settings show 34 FPS at 1080p, 23 FPS at 1440p (32% drop), and 13 FPS at 4K (43% drop), for a total reduction of 62%. Ultra settings follow the same trend: 27 FPS at 1080p, 17 FPS at 1440p (37% drop), and 10 FPS at 4K (41% drop), totaling a 63% reduction.

The consistency of these percentage drops across all four settings presets is striking. The resolution scaling penalty is nearly identical regardless of quality level, which strongly indicates that the GPU is the limiting factor. If the CPU were the bottleneck, we would expect the FPS to remain more stable as resolution increases, since the CPU workload does not scale with pixel count. Instead, the linear degradation with resolution is the classic signature of a GPU-bound scenario.

The fact that the 1080p Low result is 54 FPS while the 4K Low result is 20 FPS also points to the GPU's memory bandwidth constraints. As resolution increases, the System Shared memory arrangement becomes increasingly inadequate, and the GPU cannot fetch texture data fast enough to maintain frame rates. The "System Dependent" bandwidth specification means that the actual memory performance is tied to the LPDDR5X memory configuration, which, while reasonably fast for a mobile platform, is insufficient for 4K gaming workloads.

Settings Recommendations

Based on the measured FPS data, the only settings preset that approaches a playable experience is 1080p Low, which averages 54 FPS. This is the single configuration that exceeds 50 FPS, and it is the clear recommendation for any player using this combo who prioritizes smooth gameplay over visual quality. The 1080p Medium preset at 43 FPS is a possible alternative if the player can tolerate slightly lower frame rates for improved visuals, but the 11 FPS penalty may be noticeable in a fast-paced multiplayer environment.

At 1440p, the best option is Low settings at 36 FPS, which is borderline playable but will likely feel stuttery in crowded Fivem servers. Medium settings at 1440p drop to 28 FPS, which is below the threshold most players consider acceptable for a multiplayer game. High and Ultra settings at 1440p are not recommended, as 23 FPS and 17 FPS respectively are too low for responsive gameplay.

The 4K resolution is effectively unplayable with this combo. Even Low settings at 4K only manage 20 FPS, and Ultra settings drop to 10 FPS. No settings preset at 4K provides a viable experience, and players should avoid this resolution entirely.

The data suggests that the best experience per the measured rows is achieved at 1080p with Low settings. This configuration provides the highest average FPS (54), and while it does not hit the 60 FPS target, it is the only setting that comes close. Players who value visual fidelity over frame rate might consider 1080p Medium at 43 FPS, but the trade-off is substantial. For 1440p, Low settings at 36 FPS is the only reasonable choice, and 4K should be avoided altogether.

CPU Role

The Intel Core Ultra X9 388H is a 16-core, 16-thread processor based on the Panther Lake architecture, manufactured on Intel's 3 nm process. It has a base clock of 2.10 GHz and a boost clock of 5.10 GHz, with a TDP of 25 W. The cache hierarchy includes 192 KB of L1 cache per core, 3 MB of L2 cache per core, and 18 MB of shared L3 cache. Memory support is LPDDR5X over a dual-channel bus, providing 153.6 GB/s of bandwidth.

The CPU's benchmark results are robust for a mobile processor. In Cinebench R15, it scores 2955 in multicore and 309.5 in single-core. Cinebench R20 results are 13101 multicore and 1849 single-core. Cinebench R23 shows 18911 multicore and 2200.5 single-core. Passmark tests show 361763 in data compression, 28490 in data encryption, 29943 in extended instructions, 358 in find prime numbers, 112550 in floating point math, 90882 in integer math, 36811 in multithread, 3226 in physics, 44010 in random string sorting, and 4280 in single-thread tests. The average benchmark score is 44466, placing the CPU at the 88th percentile of all CPUs.

The nearest rivals demonstrate that the X9 388H is competitive with high-end desktop and mobile processors. The AMD Ryzen 5 7500X3D scores 44573 (0.2% higher), the Intel Core i9-13950HX scores 44342 (0.3% lower), the AMD Ryzen AI Max 385 scores 44309 (0.4% lower), and the Intel Core i5-13600 scores 44240 (0.5% lower). These deltas are all within 0.5%, indicating that the X9 388H is firmly in the upper echelon of CPU performance.

However, the measured FPS data in Fivem does not reflect this CPU strength. The fact that 1080p Low only achieves 54 FPS, and that performance scales almost perfectly with resolution, indicates that the CPU is not the limiting factor in this combo. The 16 cores and 16 threads provide ample processing power for Fivem's multiplayer workloads, and the 5.10 GHz boost clock ensures strong single-threaded performance. The CPU's 88th percentile ranking versus the GPU's 35th percentile ranking creates a massive imbalance, and the data clearly shows that the GPU is the bottleneck.

The CPU's memory bandwidth of 153.6 GB/s is relevant here, but it is the GPU's use of System Shared memory that creates the performance ceiling. The CPU can feed data to the GPU, but the GPU's limited shader and texture processing capabilities cannot translate that data into high frame rates at demanding resolutions. Players using this combo would benefit from lowering resolution and settings to reduce the GPU load, even though the CPU could handle much higher workloads.