Downfall

FAQ

Q: Can this system run Downfall at 1920x1080 with the highest playable quality?

A: Yes. At 1920x1080, High settings produce an average of 64 FPS, which clears the 60 FPS playable threshold. Medium averages 78 FPS and Low averages 96 FPS. Ultra drops to 40 FPS, so the most demanding playable preset is High.

Q: What is the best resolution for this combination in Downfall?

A: The recorded data shows 2560x1440 with Low settings averages 68 FPS, making it the highest resolution that maintains 60 FPS or more. At 3840x2160, no preset reaches 60 FPS, with the best result being Low at 43 FPS.

Q: How does the CPU compare to nearby processors in the database?

A: The AMD Ryzen 9 9950X3D holds an average benchmark score of 75779, placing it in the 95th percentile among all tested CPUs. It sits within 0.4% of its nearest rivals: the AMD Ryzen 7 PRO 9755 scores 75738 (0.1% lower), the AMD Ryzen 7 PRO 9755X3D scores 75716 (0.1% lower), the AMD EPYC 8224P scores 75582 (0.3% lower), and the Intel Core Ultra 9 285 scores 75488 (0.4% lower).

Q: How does the GPU compare to nearby graphics solutions?

A: The Intel Arc B370 has an average benchmark score of 1184, placing it in the 5th percentile among all tested GPUs. Its nearest rivals include the ATI Mobility Radeon HD 5570 at 1186 (-0.2% difference), the ATI Radeon HD 5770 at 1190 (-0.5% difference), the AMD Radeon HD 7650M at 1192 (-0.7% difference), and the AMD FirePro M2000 at 1168 (1.4% difference).

Q: What is the overall rank of this CPU and GPU combination for Downfall?

A: The combo ranks 3429 out of 3716 tested combinations in the game, meaning it outperforms roughly 8% of all recorded system pairings. This low position stems primarily from the GPU's modest capabilities rather than the CPU.

Q: Which settings are playable at 2560x1440?

A: Only Low settings are playable at this resolution, producing an average of 68 FPS. Medium averages 56 FPS, which falls below the 60 FPS threshold, while High averages 46 FPS and Ultra averages 29 FPS.

CPU and GPU Roles

The measured frame rates across resolutions and presets reveal a clear pattern: the GPU dominates performance in Downfall. At 1920x1080, the difference between Low and Ultra settings is substantial, with Low averaging 96 FPS and Ultra dropping to 40 FPS. This 56 FPS spread indicates that graphical load, not processor throughput, limits the system.

The CPU, an AMD Ryzen 9 9950X3D with 16 cores and 32 threads, ranks in the 95th percentile of all processors. Its Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 42018 and single-core score of 2259 demonstrate ample headroom for game logic and physics. Yet the frame rates do not improve proportionally when resolution decreases. At 3840x2160, Low settings yield 43 FPS; at 2560x1440, Low yields 68 FPS; at 1920x1080, Low yields 96 FPS. This scaling aligns with pixel throughput demands rather than CPU-bound tasks.

The Intel Arc B370, with a 5th percentile GPU ranking, shows its limits quickly. Its 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 score of 1184 places it near legacy mobile parts. The GPU's specifications include 1280 shading units, 40 texture mapping units, and 20 raster output units, with a boost clock of 2400 MHz. Its FP32 throughput of 6.144 TFLOPS and pixel rate of 48.00 GPixel/s constrain high-resolution rendering.

At 3840x2160, every preset falls below 60 FPS. The best result is Low at 43 FPS, followed by Medium at 35 FPS, High at 29 FPS, and Ultra at 18 FPS. The gap between Low and Ultra at this resolution is 25 FPS, indicating that the GPU's memory bandwidth, which is system dependent, becomes a bottleneck. The GPU uses shared system memory, so its bandwidth varies with the host platform.

At 2560x1440, the pattern shifts. Low achieves 68 FPS, Medium drops to 56 FPS, High to 46 FPS, and Ultra to 29 FPS. The 12 FPS difference between Low and Medium suggests that increasing texture detail and shadow quality imposes significant load on the GPU's texture rate of 96.00 GTexel/s. The CPU's role remains secondary, as even the fastest processor cannot compensate for the GPU's fill rate limitations.

At 1920x1080, the system finally reaches playable territory across multiple presets. Low runs at 96 FPS, Medium at 78 FPS, and High at 64 FPS. Ultra falls to 40 FPS. The CPU's high single-thread performance, evidenced by a Geekbench single-core score of 3064 and a PassMark single-thread score of 4737, ensures that frame pacing remains consistent. However, the GPU's rasterization capability, with a pixel rate of 48.00 GPixel/s, sets the ceiling.

Comparing resolutions, dropping from 3840x2160 to 2560x1440 improves Low settings by 25 FPS (from 43 to 68), and dropping further to 1920x1080 adds another 28 FPS (from 68 to 96). This linear improvement with pixel count reduction confirms GPU-bound behavior. The CPU's contribution becomes more apparent at lower resolutions, where its 16 cores handle background tasks without affecting frame rates.

Best Settings per Resolution

At 3840x2160, no preset reaches the 60 FPS playable threshold. The highest average is 43 FPS at Low settings, which still falls short. Medium averages 35 FPS with minimum and maximum of 30 and 40 FPS, respectively. High averages 29 FPS, and Ultra averages 18 FPS. Therefore, this resolution is not playable with any tested settings.

At 2560x1440, Low settings is the only playable option, delivering an average of 68 FPS. This clears the 60 FPS threshold by 8 FPS. Medium averages 56 FPS, which misses the mark, while High averages 46 FPS and Ultra averages 29 FPS. The best playable setting is Low, with an average of 68 FPS.

At 1920x1080, three presets achieve playable frame rates. High settings average 64 FPS, Medium averages 78 FPS, and Low averages 96 FPS. Ultra averages 40 FPS, which is not playable. The most demanding playable preset is High, with an average of 64 FPS. This provides a 4 FPS margin above the threshold, so users seeking maximum visual fidelity at this resolution should select High.

How This Combo Ranks

The combination of AMD Ryzen 9 9950X3D and Intel Arc B370 ranks 3429 out of 3716 tested combos in Downfall, placing it in the bottom 8% of all recorded system pairings. This rank reflects the GPU's limited performance rather than the CPU's capabilities. The CPU alone ranks in the 95th percentile among all processors, while the GPU ranks in the 5th percentile among all graphics solutions.

The disparity between CPU and GPU performance creates a system where the processor has substantial headroom that remains unused. The CPU's PassMark multi-thread score of 70255 and Geekbench multi-core score of 26736 indicate it could handle far more demanding workloads. However, the GPU's 3DMark Steel Nomad score of 1184 constrains the entire system to entry-level gaming performance.

Among the 3716 combos tested, this pairing sits near the bottom, with only 287 combinations ranking lower. The GPU's nearest rivals, such as the ATI Mobility Radeon HD 5570 and ATI Radeon HD 5770, are legacy parts from over a decade ago, which contextualizes the performance ceiling. The CPU, however, would rank near the top if paired with a more capable GPU.

Similar Performance Alternatives

From the CPU's nearest rivals, several processors would behave similarly in this system. The AMD Ryzen 7 PRO 9755 scores 75738, a 0.1% difference from the 9950X3D. The AMD Ryzen 7 PRO 9755X3D scores 75716, also a 0.1% difference. The AMD EPYC 8224P scores 75582, a 0.3% difference. The Intel Core Ultra 9 285 scores 75488, a 0.4% difference. All four processors fall within half a percent of the 9950X3D's average score, meaning users swapping to any of these would see negligible changes in Downfall's frame rates, as the GPU remains the limiting factor.

From the GPU's nearest rivals, the ATI Mobility Radeon HD 5570 scores 1186, a 0.2% difference from the Arc B370. The ATI Radeon HD 5770 scores 1190, a 0.5% difference. The AMD Radeon HD 7650M scores 1192, a 0.7% difference. The AMD FirePro M2000 scores 1168, a 1.4% difference. These parts would produce nearly identical frame rates in Downfall, confirming that the Arc B370 operates at a performance level comparable to early 2010s discrete GPUs and mid-range mobile solutions from that era.

For a system with similar overall performance, one would need to pair the 9950X3D with any GPU scoring near 1184 in 3DMark Steel Nomad. The CPU's vast performance surplus means that GPU choice entirely determines the gaming experience in Downfall.

The Verdict

Based on the recorded data, this PC can run Downfall, but only under specific conditions. At 1920x1080, the system supports High settings with an average of 64 FPS, Medium with 78 FPS, and Low with 96 FPS. These all clear the 60 FPS playable threshold. At 2560x1440, only Low settings achieve playable performance with an average of 68 FPS. At 3840x2160, no settings reach 60 FPS; the best result is Low at 43 FPS.

For users prioritizing visual quality, 1920x1080 with High settings is the optimal choice, offering a 64 FPS average. For those wanting smoother performance, dropping to Medium yields 78 FPS, and Low reaches 96 FPS. At 2560x1440, Low settings provide a playable experience but with reduced fidelity. The verdict by resolution confirms: 1920x1080 offers three playable presets, 2560x1440 offers one, and 3840x2160 offers none.

Measured FPS Breakdown

3840x2160:

• High: average 29 FPS, no minimum or maximum recorded.
• Low: average 43 FPS, no minimum or maximum recorded.
• Medium: average 35 FPS, minimum 30, maximum 40.
• Ultra: average 18 FPS, no minimum or maximum recorded.

2560x1440:

• High: average 46 FPS, no minimum or maximum recorded.
• Low: average 68 FPS, no minimum or maximum recorded.
• Medium: average 56 FPS, minimum 48, maximum 64.
• Ultra: average 29 FPS, no minimum or maximum recorded.

1920x1080:

• High: average 64 FPS, no minimum or maximum recorded.
• Low: average 96 FPS, no minimum or maximum recorded.
• Medium: average 78 FPS, minimum 67, maximum 90.
• Ultra: average 40 FPS, no minimum or maximum recorded.

The Medium preset at each resolution includes minimum and maximum values, providing insight into frame time consistency. At 1920x1080 Medium, the range from 67 to 90 FPS indicates stable performance with minor dips. At 2560x1440 Medium, the range from 48 to 64 FPS shows more variance, with the minimum falling below the playable threshold. At 3840x2160 Medium, the range from 30 to 40 FPS demonstrates consistent sub-60 performance.

The data shows that the system's performance scales predictably with resolution. Each step from 1080p to 1440p reduces frame rates by roughly 25-30%, and each step from 1440p to 2160p reduces them by another 35-40%. This scaling pattern is characteristic of GPU-bound workloads, where pixel count directly impacts rendering time. The CPU's 128 MB of L3 cache and 16 cores provide no additional benefit once the GPU reaches its throughput ceiling.