Downfall

The AMD Ryzen 7 5700 and Intel Arc B390 combination delivers playable frame rates in Downfall only at lower resolutions and settings. The recorded data shows a clear ceiling: at 1920x1080, the system handles High settings at 71 FPS, which clears the 60 FPS threshold. Moving to 2560x1440, the playable range shrinks to Low and Medium, with Medium producing 62 FPS. At 3840x2160, no settings achieve 60 FPS, making the combo unsuitable for 4K play. The following sections break down the measured performance across all tested configurations.

Best Settings per Resolution

The best settings are defined as the most demanding preset that remains at or above 60 FPS average. Based on the measured FPS data:

• 1920x1080: High settings deliver 71 FPS average. This is the highest preset that clears the 60 FPS playable threshold. Low runs at 106 FPS and Medium at 87 FPS, but High is the most visually demanding option still playable.
• 2560x1440: Medium settings produce 62 FPS average. This is the highest playable preset at this resolution. Low runs at 76 FPS, but Medium is the best visual quality that stays above 60 FPS. High drops to 51 FPS, which is below the threshold.
• 3840x2160: No settings achieve 60 FPS. The best result among the tested presets is Low at 47 FPS, followed by Medium at 39 FPS, High at 32 FPS, and Ultra at 20 FPS. None are playable by the 60 FPS standard.

FAQ

Q: Can this PC run Downfall at 1080p with maximum quality?

A: No. Ultra settings at 1920x1080 produce 44 FPS average, which is below the 60 FPS playable threshold. High settings are the maximum playable preset at this resolution, yielding 71 FPS.

Q: What is the best playable setting at 2560x1440?

A: Medium settings are the best playable option, with 62 FPS average. Low runs at 76 FPS but offers lower visual quality, while High falls to 51 FPS, which is not playable.

Q: Is 4K resolution playable with this hardware?

A: No. At 3840x2160, all presets fail to reach 60 FPS. The highest average is 47 FPS on Low, and the lowest is 20 FPS on Ultra. The data indicates no playable settings at 4K.

Q: How much FPS difference is there between Low and Ultra at 1080p?

A: At 1920x1080, Low runs at 106 FPS and Ultra at 44 FPS, a difference of 62 FPS. This shows a large performance cost for the highest quality preset.

Q: Does the combo have any playable settings at 4K?

A: None of the four tested presets (Low, Medium, High, Ultra) at 3840x2160 reach 60 FPS. The best result is 47 FPS on Low, so the system cannot maintain smooth gameplay at this resolution.

Q: What are the minimum and maximum FPS for Medium settings at 1440p?

A: At 2560x1440, Medium settings have a minimum of 53 FPS and a maximum of 71 FPS, with an average of 62 FPS. This indicates some dips below the 60 FPS threshold during the most demanding moments.

Measured FPS Breakdown

The recorded data provides average FPS for all presets at each resolution, with minimum and maximum figures available for Medium settings only.

3840x2160:

• Low: 47 FPS average. No min/max recorded.
• Medium: 39 FPS average, with min 33 and max 44.
• High: 32 FPS average. No min/max recorded.
• Ultra: 20 FPS average. No min/max recorded.

2560x1440:

• Low: 76 FPS average. No min/max recorded.
• Medium: 62 FPS average, with min 53 and max 71.
• High: 51 FPS average. No min/max recorded.
• Ultra: 32 FPS average. No min/max recorded.

1920x1080:

• Low: 106 FPS average. No min/max recorded.
• Medium: 87 FPS average, with min 74 and max 100.
• High: 71 FPS average. No min/max recorded.
• Ultra: 44 FPS average. No min/max recorded.

The scaling pattern shows a consistent drop as resolution increases. At Low settings, moving from 1080p (106 FPS) to 1440p (76 FPS) costs 30 FPS, and further to 4K (47 FPS) costs another 29 FPS. At Medium, the drop from 87 FPS at 1080p to 62 FPS at 1440p is 25 FPS, then to 39 FPS at 4K is another 23 FPS. High settings show 71 FPS at 1080p, 51 FPS at 1440p, and 32 FPS at 4K, a steady decline of about 20 FPS per resolution step.

Similar Performance Alternatives

Based on the nearest rivals in the database, this system sits close to several other configurations in terms of overall benchmark scores.

CPU comparisons: The AMD Ryzen 7 5700 is nearly identical in aggregate performance to the Intel Xeon D-2752TER, which scores 25530 vs 25517, a difference of only 0.1% in favor of the Xeon. The AMD Ryzen 5 6600H scores 25550, also 0.1% higher. The AMD Ryzen 5 7640U scores 25485, which is 0.1% lower than the 5700. The AMD Ryzen 7 5825U scores 25446, 0.3% lower. Hardware built around any of these CPUs should deliver roughly the same CPU-limited behavior in Downfall, meaning the game's frame rates would be similar when the GPU is not the bottleneck.

GPU comparisons: The Intel Arc B390 is at the very low end of the GPU benchmark distribution, sitting at the 9th percentile. Its nearest rivals are all older NVIDIA parts. The GeForce GT 520MX scores 1463 against 1482 for the Arc B390, a 1.3% difference. The GeForce 800M scores 1460, 1.5% lower. The GeForce GT 625 OEM scores 1446, 2.5% lower. The GeForce GT 710 scores 1443, 2.7% lower. These deltas are small, so any of these GPUs would deliver essentially the same experience in Downfall. The data indicates that swapping the Arc B390 for one of these rivals would not meaningfully change the measured FPS values.

How This Combo Ranks

In the database of tested combinations for Downfall, this specific CPU-GPU pairing ranks 3303 out of 3716 total combos. That places it in the lower 11% of all configurations tested, which is consistent with the GPU's low percentile ranking. The Arc B390 sits at the 9th percentile among all GPUs, while the Ryzen 7 5700 is much stronger, at the 78th percentile among all CPUs. The combination's rank is driven almost entirely by the GPU's limited capability, as the CPU is comparatively well above average.

The rank above indicates that most other tested combos produce higher frame rates in Downfall. Only 413 combinations perform worse than this setup. In practical terms, a user with this hardware will be near the bottom of the performance spread. The data shows that the CPU is not the limiting factor, since it is strong enough to support a more capable GPU, but the Arc B390 holds the system back.

The Verdict

Can this PC run Downfall? The answer depends on the resolution and settings.

At 3840x2160, no preset is playable. The verdict data lists zero playable settings, with no best settings and no FPS at best. The highest measured result is 47 FPS on Low, which is well below the 60 FPS threshold. This combination cannot run the game at 4K at any quality level.

At 2560x1440, the system is partially playable. The playable settings are Low and Medium. The best playable is Medium with 62 FPS average. At this setting, the game clears 60 FPS, but the minimum FPS is 53, meaning occasional dips below the threshold. Low offers a higher average of 76 FPS and is a safer choice for consistent smoothness. High and Ultra are not playable, with 51 and 32 FPS respectively.

At 1920x1080, the system is fully playable across most presets. The playable settings are High, Low, and Medium. The best playable is High at 71 FPS average. Low runs at 106 FPS and Medium at 87 FPS, both well above 60. Ultra is the only non-playable preset at 44 FPS. For a smooth experience, High is the recommended setting, as it provides the best visual quality while maintaining an average above 60 FPS.

CPU and GPU Roles

The data shows that the GPU is the dominant factor in this game, and the CPU's role becomes more apparent only at lower resolutions and settings where frame rates are higher.

At 1920x1080, the GPU is still the primary limiter, but the CPU has enough headroom to allow high frame rates. The range from Low (106 FPS) to Ultra (44 FPS) spans 62 FPS, indicating that the graphics card is heavily impacted by the preset. The CPU's 16 threads and 8 cores are sufficient to feed the GPU at these lower resolutions, but the GPU's weak compute capabilities cap the maximum output. The difference between Low and Medium is 19 FPS, while between Medium and High is 16 FPS, and between High and Ultra is 27 FPS, showing the GPU's sensitivity to increased shading and texture loads.

At 2560x1440, the GPU's limitations become more obvious. The FPS spread across presets is from 76 (Low) to 32 (Ultra), a 44 FPS gap. The CPU is still not the limiter, but the GPU's performance falls below 60 FPS for High and Ultra. The data indicates that the CPU's strong single-thread and multi-thread scores (e.g., Cinebench R23 single-core 2916 and multi-core 20655) are not the issue. The GPU's 7.680 TFLOPS FP32 throughput is insufficient for the heavier pixel workload at this resolution. The minimum FPS on Medium (53) shows that even at this playable setting, frame times are not entirely stable.

At 3840x2160, the GPU is fully saturated. The FPS range is 47 (Low) to 20 (Ultra), and even the lowest preset fails to reach 60. The CPU has nothing to do with these numbers; the GPU is far below the performance floor. The GPU's pixel rate of 60.00 GPixel/s and texture rate of 120.0 GTexel/s are simply too low for 8.3 million pixels per frame. The CPU's role is almost negligible here, as the GPU is the bottleneck under every test.

Across all resolutions, the scaling pattern shows that the CPU's relative influence shrinks as the resolution rises. At 1080p, the CPU is strong enough to avoid limiting the GPU, but the GPU itself is weak. At 1440p, the GPU becomes the clear bottleneck. At 4K, the GPU is overwhelmed. The measured data does not show any case where the CPU limits the frame rate, so this game is GPU-bound for this combo at all tested settings.