Can I Run It?

Instant compatibility check with FPS benchmarks and optimization tips

Downfall
Horror 2016

Downfall

64%
Playable Your system meets minimum requirements.

Performance

1080p (Full HD)

Low 1080p Measured
192 FPS
Ultra 1080p Measured
78 FPS

1440p (2K / QHD)

Low 1440p Measured
135 FPS
Ultra 1440p Measured
60 FPS

4K (Ultra HD)

Low 4K Measured
85 FPS
Ultra 4K Measured
37 FPS
7.9ms Frame Time
12ms Input Latency
4K Best Resolution

Requirements Check

Processor
Required 37,515
Your CPU 25,005
Graphics Card
Required 27,400
Your GPU 18,093

Recommendations

Upgrade Needed

Your hardware doesn't meet minimum requirements for this game.

Ray Tracing Ready

Your GPU supports ray tracing.

Average FPS: resolution vs quality settings

UltraHighMediumLow
4K Ultra HD 37 55 69 85
1440p QHD 60 93 113 135
1080p Full HD 78 127 156 192

Cell color: green is 120+ FPS, teal is 60+, amber is 30+, red is below 30. Cards marked Estimated above have no measured row and are scaled from your GPU benchmark percentile.

Every measured configuration

1920x1080 High 127
1920x1080 Low 192
1920x1080 Medium 156
1920x1080 Ultra 78
2560x1440 High 93
2560x1440 Low 135
2560x1440 Medium 113
2560x1440 Ultra 60
3840x2160 High 55
3840x2160 Low 85
3840x2160 Medium 69
3840x2160 Ultra 37

Performance Analysis: Downfall on Your System

Best Settings per Resolution

At 3840x2160, the most demanding preset that stays at or above 60 FPS is Medium, delivering 69.3 FPS average. Low settings push performance to 84.9 FPS, while High falls to 54.6 FPS and Ultra drops below the playable threshold at 37.3 FPS. The data shows that 4K gaming requires sacrificing visual fidelity to maintain smooth gameplay.

At 2560x1440, High settings achieve 93.2 FPS average, making it the best visual quality tier that clears 60 FPS comfortably. Medium runs at 113.1 FPS, Low at 134.6 FPS, and Ultra just misses the 60 FPS mark at 59.9 FPS. The 1440p resolution offers a strong balance between image quality and frame rate headroom.

At 1920x1080, all four presets remain playable. Ultra settings deliver 77.8 FPS average, which is the highest quality tier available. High reaches 127.3 FPS, Medium 156.2 FPS, and Low 192.2 FPS. The 1080p results indicate that this combination has substantial performance reserves, allowing users to enable maximum settings without worrying about frame rate drops.

How This Combo Ranks

The AMD Ryzen 5 8400F paired with the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2060 SUPER ranks 2613 out of 3716 tested combinations in Downfall. This places the combo in the lower portion of the database, roughly in the 30th percentile of all recorded system configurations. The ranking reflects the GPU's position in the overall performance hierarchy rather than a deficiency in the CPU, as the processor benchmarks strongly against its direct competitors.

The Ryzen 5 8400F posts an average benchmark score of 25005, which places it in the 77th percentile among all CPUs tested. Its nearest rivals show remarkably tight competition: the AMD Ryzen 5 7500F scores 24964 with a delta of 0.2%, the Intel Core i7-11850H scores 24935 with a 0.3% delta, and the Intel Core i7-13620H scores 24911 with a 0.4% delta. The AMD EPYC 9474F leads slightly at 25103 with a -0.4% delta. These margins are negligible in real-world gaming scenarios, meaning the 8400F delivers CPU performance effectively identical to its closest alternatives.

The RTX 2060 SUPER achieves an average benchmark score of 18093, placing it in the 62nd percentile among all GPUs. Its nearest rivals include the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3060 Mobile at 18159 with a -0.4% delta, the AMD Radeon Pro 5700 at 18189 with a -0.5% delta, the AMD Radeon RX 460 at 18373 with a -1.5% delta, and the Intel Arc A770M at 18383 with a -1.6% delta. The GPU sits within a tight performance cluster, with the largest gap among its four closest rivals being only 1.6%.

The combination of a top-quartile CPU with a mid-pack GPU explains the overall ranking: the system's frame rate ceiling is dictated primarily by the graphics card, while the processor ensures that CPU-bound scenarios will not bottleneck performance.

Measured FPS Breakdown

3840x2160 (4K)

At Ultra settings, the system produces 37.3 FPS average, which falls well below the 60 FPS playability threshold. High settings improve to 54.6 FPS, still short of the target. Medium settings reach 69.3 FPS, clearing the threshold with a 9.3 FPS margin. Low settings deliver 84.9 FPS, providing the smoothest experience at this resolution. The progression from Ultra to Low represents a 47.6 FPS improvement, demonstrating that settings scaling has a substantial impact on 4K performance.

2560x1440 (1440p)

Ultra settings produce 59.9 FPS, missing the 60 FPS threshold by a single frame. High settings deliver 93.2 FPS, a 33.3 FPS jump over Ultra. Medium reaches 113.1 FPS, and Low hits 134.6 FPS. The scaling pattern shows diminishing returns as settings decrease: the gap between Ultra and High is 33.3 FPS, while the gap between Medium and Low is 21.5 FPS. Users targeting 60 FPS at 1440p have headroom with High settings, and those with 144Hz displays can approach that refresh rate at Low settings.

1920x1080 (1080p)

Ultra settings achieve 77.8 FPS, comfortably above the 60 FPS threshold. High settings reach 127.3 FPS, Medium 156.2 FPS, and Low 192.2 FPS. The system nearly doubles frame rates when moving from Ultra to Low, indicating that the GPU becomes the limiting factor as pixel count decreases. The 1080p results show that this combination can drive high-refresh-rate monitors at medium or lower presets, with Low settings approaching 200 FPS.

The measured data includes only average FPS values; minimum and maximum frame rates were not recorded for any resolution or settings combination. This limits analysis of frame-time consistency but does not affect the playability assessment, which relies on average performance.

FAQ

Q: Can this system run Downfall at 4K with playable frame rates?

A: Yes, but only at Medium settings or lower. Medium settings deliver 69.3 FPS average at 3840x2160, while High drops to 54.6 FPS and Ultra falls to 37.3 FPS. Low settings provide 84.9 FPS for users willing to reduce visual quality.

Q: What is the best settings preset for 1440p gaming?

A: High settings provide the best visual quality that maintains 60 FPS, achieving 93.2 FPS average at 2560x1440. Ultra settings just miss the threshold at 59.9 FPS, making High the optimal choice for the highest fidelity with playable performance.

Q: Is 1080p Ultra settings viable on this hardware?

A: Yes. The system produces 77.8 FPS average at 1920x1080 with Ultra settings, exceeding the 60 FPS playability threshold by 17.8 FPS. All four presets at 1080p clear 60 FPS, with Low reaching 192.2 FPS.

Q: How does the Ryzen 5 8400F compare to its closest CPU rivals?

A: The Ryzen 5 8400F scores 25005 on average, which is within 0.4% of its nearest competitors. The AMD Ryzen 5 7500F scores 24964 (0.2% slower), the Intel Core i7-11850H scores 24935 (0.3% slower), the Intel Core i7-13620H scores 24911 (0.4% slower), and the AMD EPYC 9474F scores 25103 (0.4% faster). These differences are effectively negligible for gaming performance.

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

A: The RTX 2060 SUPER scores 18093 on average. The NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3060 Mobile scores 18159 (0.4% faster), the AMD Radeon Pro 5700 scores 18189 (0.5% faster), the AMD Radeon RX 460 scores 18373 (1.5% faster), and the Intel Arc A770M scores 18383 (1.6% faster). The GPU sits at the lower end of this close performance cluster.

Q: What resolution offers the best combination of visual quality and frame rate?

A: 2560x1440 with High settings delivers 93.2 FPS, providing a substantial improvement over 4K Medium (69.3 FPS) while preserving better image quality than 1080p Ultra. Users prioritizing maximum frame rates should consider 1080p Low at 192.2 FPS or 1440p Low at 134.6 FPS.

CPU and GPU Roles

The data reveals a clear division of labor between the Ryzen 5 8400F and the RTX 2060 SUPER in Downfall. The CPU's benchmark standing, 77th percentile with an average score of 25005, suggests it is more than capable of feeding the GPU at all tested resolutions. The processor's nearest rivals all score within 0.4% of each other, confirming that CPU performance is not a differentiator in this pairing.

The GPU, ranked in the 62nd percentile with an average score of 18093, becomes the primary constraint as resolution increases. The frame rate scaling between resolutions illustrates this clearly. At 1080p Low, the system produces 192.2 FPS. Moving to 1440p Low reduces this to 134.6 FPS, a 30% drop. At 4K Low, performance falls to 84.9 FPS, another 37% reduction. This consistent decline with increasing pixel count points to the GPU as the limiting factor across all settings.

The CPU's influence becomes more apparent at lower resolutions where frame rates climb. At 1080p Low, the system approaches 200 FPS, a range where CPU performance can become relevant. The Ryzen 5 8400F's strong single-thread score of 951 in 3DMark and 3685 in Passmark indicates it can sustain high frame rates without becoming a bottleneck. Its multi-thread performance, including a Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 20851, ensures adequate headroom for background tasks while gaming.

Settings scaling also highlights the GPU's dominant role. At 4K, moving from Ultra (37.3 FPS) to Low (84.9 FPS) produces a 127% performance increase. This magnitude of scaling is characteristic of GPU-bound scenarios, where reducing pixel shading work directly translates to higher frame rates. At 1080p, the same settings change yields a 147% improvement (77.8 to 192.2 FPS), showing that even at lower resolutions, the GPU remains the primary performance driver.

The verdict across resolutions consistently points to the RTX 2060 SUPER as the component determining playability. The CPU's benchmark positioning, comfortably above the GPU's percentile ranking, supports this conclusion. Users seeking higher frame rates at 4K would benefit more from a GPU upgrade than a CPU swap, while the 8400F provides ample processing power for the foreseeable future.

The Verdict

This system can run Downfall successfully at all three tested resolutions, with specific settings limitations at 4K. At 1920x1080, every preset from Low to Ultra clears the 60 FPS threshold, with Ultra delivering 77.8 FPS and Low reaching 192.2 FPS. This resolution offers the most flexibility, allowing users to prioritize either visual quality or maximum frame rates.

At 2560x1440, three of four presets are playable. High settings provide the best quality at 93.2 FPS, Medium runs at 113.1 FPS, and Low hits 134.6 FPS. Ultra settings fall just short at 59.9 FPS, so users targeting 1440p should select High for the optimal balance of fidelity and performance.

At 3840x2160, the system is playable at Medium (69.3 FPS) and Low (84.9 FPS) settings. High drops below the threshold at 54.6 FPS, and Ultra is not viable at 37.3 FPS. The 4K experience requires accepting Medium settings or lower, which still provides a smooth frame rate but sacrifices the highest visual presets.

The overall verdict: this PC handles Downfall well across most resolution and settings combinations. The 1080p and 1440p experiences are strong, with 60 FPS achievable at high visual quality. The 4K experience is limited to Medium settings, which remain playable but do not showcase the game's maximum graphical potential. The Ryzen 5 8400F provides ample CPU performance, while the RTX 2060 SUPER serves as the determining factor for resolution and settings choices.