Downfall

The AMD Ryzen 9 9900X and Intel Arc B570 combination is a study in contrasts for running the horror title Downfall, pairing a top-tier 92nd-percentile CPU with a mid-range 65th-percentile GPU. The measured data shows this system is capable, but its success hinges entirely on resolution and graphics presets, with the CPU's strength providing a strong foundation that the GPU must ultimately deliver upon. Benchmark results indicate a clear hierarchy of performance that rewards users who tailor settings to their display.

How This Combo Ranks

Out of 3,716 tested hardware combinations for Downfall, this CPU-GPU pairing achieves a rank of 2,988. This places the combo in the lower-mid tier of all possible systems, which is a surprising outcome given the individual components' specifications. The ranking suggests that while the CPU is exceptionally powerful, the GPU is the limiting factor in this specific game, dragging the overall combination down from what the processor alone might suggest. The data implies that this is not a top-tier setup for this title, but rather a competent mid-range performer.

The Arc B570's 65th percentile ranking among all GPUs aligns with the combo's overall position, reinforcing that the graphics card is the primary determinant of this system's standing. With an average benchmark score of 20,556, the GPU is positioned just above the midpoint of all graphics cards. Meanwhile, the Ryzen 9 9900X's 92nd percentile ranking and average benchmark score of 57,498 indicate a processor that is significantly more capable than the average, yet its potential is not fully realized in this gaming context. The substantial gap between the CPU's high percentile and the combo's lower rank is a clear indicator that Downfall's performance is heavily gated by the GPU.

CPU and GPU Roles

The data reveals a distinct shift in system bottleneck depending on the target resolution. At 1920x1080, the Arc B570 is clearly the dominant factor, as the CPU is able to feed frames at a rapid pace. The performance scaling from Low to Ultra settings shows a drop from 163 FPS to 68 FPS, a 58% reduction that is characteristic of a GPU-bound scenario at lower resolutions. It is at this resolution that the CPU's high single-threaded performance, evidenced by a 3dmark_single_thread score of 1,286, ensures it is never the limiting factor, allowing the GPU to work to its maximum potential.

Moving to 2560x1440, the balance begins to tip. The average FPS at Ultra settings falls to 49, a significant drop from 68 at 1080p, indicating that the GPU is now struggling to maintain the same level of performance. The CPU remains in a supporting role, but the increased pixel count demands more from the graphics card's 380.0 GB/s of memory bandwidth. The 10 GB frame buffer and 160-bit bus width become more critical, and the data suggests that the GPU's compute resources are now the primary constraint. The transition from 1080p to 1440p at High settings shows a 39 FPS drop (109 to 78), which is a substantial decrease that points directly at the GPU's workload increasing.

At 3840x2160, the GPU's role is absolutely critical. The Ultra preset yields a mere 30 FPS, which is unplayable by the 60 FPS threshold. The scaling from 1440p to 4K at High settings shows another sharp decline from 78 to 49 FPS. This behavior confirms that the Arc B570 is overwhelmed by the sheer pixel count of 4K, and the CPU's performance is almost entirely irrelevant at this point. The Ryzen 9 9900X's 12 cores and 24 threads are more than sufficient, but the GPU's 11.52 TFLOPS of FP32 performance is simply not enough to handle the load.

Similar Performance Alternatives

Looking at the nearest rivals for the CPU and GPU provides context for what other hardware would behave similarly. The Ryzen 9 9900X's closest competitor is the AMD EPYC 9015, which has an average score of 57,555, a negligible 0.1% difference. This means that in CPU-bound scenarios, swapping to the EPYC 9015 would yield nearly identical frame rates. Other close matches include the Intel Core i9-14900, which is 1.1% faster with a score of 58,115, and the AMD EPYC 7313, which is 0.2% slower with a score of 57,399. The Intel Xeon Platinum 8260M is 1.4% faster, scoring 58,323. For gaming, you would see no practical difference between these processors in Downfall, as they all cluster within a 1.5% performance band.

On the GPU side, the Arc B570's closest rival is the Intel Arc A750, which has an average score of 20,582, a 0.1% difference. This suggests that users with an Arc A750 would experience almost identical frame rates in Downfall. The NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3070 Mobile is 0.1% faster (score 20,534), and the AMD Radeon R9 M390X is 0.5% faster (score 20,662). The NVIDIA Quadro M4000M is 0.4% slower (score 20,480). These results imply that the Arc B570 sits in a very tight performance cluster, and any of these alternatives would provide a similar gaming experience.

FAQ

Q: What is the highest playable setting at 1920x1080 with this combo?

A: The Ultra preset is playable, achieving an average of 68 FPS, which is above the 60 FPS threshold.

Q: Can this system handle 3840x2160 at Medium settings?

A: No, the Medium preset at 4K averages 59 FPS, which is just below the playable threshold of 60 FPS.

Q: How much faster is the 1920x1080 Low preset compared to the 3840x2160 Low preset?

A: The 1080p Low preset averages 163 FPS, which is 91 FPS higher than the 72 FPS average at 4K Low.

Q: Which is a closer performance match to the Intel Arc B570, the RTX 3070 Mobile or the Arc A750?

A: The Arc A750 is the closest, with a 0.1% difference in average benchmark score, while the RTX 3070 Mobile is also 0.1% faster.

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

A: The High preset is the most demanding playable option, delivering an average of 78 FPS.

Q: Does the CPU become less important at higher resolutions?

A: Yes, the data shows that as resolution increases, the GPU becomes the primary bottleneck, and the CPU's role diminishes.

Measured FPS Breakdown

At 1920x1080, the system delivers strong performance across all presets. The Low preset averages 163 FPS, while Medium averages 133 FPS with a minimum of 113 and maximum of 153 FPS. High settings produce an average of 109 FPS, and Ultra averages 68 FPS, which is just above the playable threshold.

At 2560x1440, the performance scales down noticeably. Low settings average 116 FPS, Medium averages 95 FPS (min 81, max 110), and High averages 78 FPS. The Ultra preset drops to an average of 49 FPS, which is below the 60 FPS playable threshold.

At 3840x2160, the system struggles. Low settings average 72 FPS, which is playable, but the Medium preset averages 59 FPS (min 50, max 68), falling just short of the 60 FPS mark. High settings average 49 FPS, and Ultra averages only 30 FPS, making both unplayable.

Best Settings per Resolution

For 1920x1080, the Ultra preset is the best choice, as it provides the highest visual quality while maintaining an average of 68 FPS, which is above the 60 FPS threshold.

At 2560x1440, the High preset is the most demanding option that remains playable, with an average of 78 FPS. This offers a good balance between visual fidelity and smooth gameplay.

At 3840x2160, only the Low preset is playable, averaging 72 FPS. This is the only way to achieve a playable frame rate at this resolution with this hardware. The Medium preset is extremely close at 59 FPS, but it does not meet the 60 FPS requirement.

The Verdict

This system can run Downfall, but with significant caveats depending on your display. At 1920x1080, the combination is fully capable, handling even the Ultra preset at 68 FPS, well above the playable threshold. At 2560x1440, the system is still capable, with the High preset delivering 78 FPS, but the Ultra preset falls below the line at 49 FPS. The story changes at 3840x2160, where the system is only playable on the Low preset with a 72 FPS average; all higher settings fail to reach the 60 FPS target. The verdict is clear: for 1080p and 1440p gaming, this is a solid performer, but for 4K, you must significantly lower expectations and settings.