Downfall

Measured FPS Breakdown

The recorded data for Downfall on this Intel Core i5-12600KF with Intel Arc B370 combination shows a clear performance hierarchy across resolutions and settings. At 3840x2160, the highest resolution tested, the frame rates are consistently below the 60 FPS playability threshold. The High preset delivers an average of 29 FPS, while Medium averages 35 FPS with a minimum of 30 and maximum of 40. Dropping to Low raises the average to 43 FPS, still far from smooth. The Ultra preset is the most demanding, yielding only 18 FPS on average. None of these 4K configurations approach playable territory.

Moving to 2560x1440, the situation improves but remains constrained. The Low preset achieves an average of 68 FPS, which clears the 60 FPS bar. Medium falls short at 56 FPS on average, with a minimum of 48 and maximum of 64, indicating occasional dips below the threshold. High averages 46 FPS, and Ultra drops to 29 FPS. The gap between Low and Ultra at this resolution is substantial, a 39 FPS difference, suggesting the graphics settings have a strong influence on performance.

At 1920x1080, the combo becomes viable across multiple presets. Low leads with 96 FPS average, followed by Medium at 78 FPS with a minimum of 67 and maximum of 90. High achieves 64 FPS on average, just above the 60 FPS line. Ultra remains problematic at 40 FPS. The scaling from 1440p to 1080p is notable: Low improves by 28 FPS, Medium by 22 FPS, High by 18 FPS, and Ultra by 11 FPS. This suggests the GPU is the limiting factor at higher resolutions, while the CPU has more headroom at 1080p.

FAQ

Q: Can this system run Downfall at 4K resolution?

A: No. The data shows no playable settings at 3840x2160. The best result is Low at 43 FPS average, which falls well below the 60 FPS playability threshold. Even Medium, with its minimum of 30 FPS, cannot sustain smooth gameplay.

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

A: Low is the only preset that clears 60 FPS at this resolution, achieving 68 FPS on average. Medium comes close at 56 FPS but dips to 48 FPS at minimum, which is below the threshold.

Q: Which settings are playable at 1920x1080?

A: Three presets qualify: High at 64 FPS, Medium at 78 FPS, and Low at 96 FPS. Ultra at 40 FPS is not playable. The best playable setting is High, since it offers the highest visual quality while still maintaining an average above 60 FPS.

Q: How does the Ultra preset compare to High across resolutions?

A: At 1080p, Ultra averages 40 FPS versus High at 64 FPS, a 24 FPS penalty. At 1440p, Ultra averages 29 FPS versus High at 46 FPS, a 17 FPS penalty. At 4K, Ultra averages 18 FPS versus High at 29 FPS, an 11 FPS penalty. The relative cost of Ultra diminishes at higher resolutions because the GPU is already heavily loaded.

Q: What is the frame time consistency at Medium settings?

A: The recorded data shows Medium at 1080p has a minimum of 67 FPS and maximum of 90 FPS, indicating reasonable stability. At 1440p, Medium ranges from 48 to 64 FPS, showing wider variance. At 4K, Medium ranges from 30 to 40 FPS, which is tight but too low for playability.

Q: Is there a resolution where all presets are playable?

A: No. At no tested resolution does the Ultra preset reach 60 FPS. The closest is 1080p where three of four presets are playable, but Ultra still falls short at 40 FPS.

Best Settings per Resolution

At 3840x2160, no settings preset achieves the 60 FPS threshold. The playable settings list is empty, and the database records no best settings for this resolution. Users targeting 4K would need to accept sub-60 FPS performance or lower the resolution entirely.

At 2560x1440, the best and only playable preset is Low, which delivers 68 FPS on average. This is the most demanding setting that stays at or above 60 FPS at this resolution. Medium falls short at 56 FPS average, so Low is the ceiling.

At 1920x1080, the best playable preset is High, averaging 64 FPS. This represents the optimal balance between visual quality and performance, as Medium and Low are also playable but offer diminishing returns on fidelity. High maintains an average above 60 FPS while providing the richest visuals among the playable options.

Similar Performance Alternatives

For the CPU, the nearest rivals in the database are closely clustered. The Intel Core i9-10900K scores 27872, which is 0.3% lower than the i5-12600KF's average benchmark score of 27799. The AMD Ryzen 5 8500GE scores 27712, 0.3% higher than the i5. The AMD Ryzen 7 6800U scores 27887, 0.3% lower, and the AMD Ryzen 7 5800X3D scores 27896, also 0.3% lower. These deltas are negligible, meaning any of these CPUs would produce nearly identical CPU-bound performance in Downfall. The i9-10900K and Ryzen 7 5800X3D are particularly close, sitting within a rounding error of the i5-12600KF.

For the GPU, the Intel Arc B370 has an average benchmark score of 1184. Its nearest rivals are all older AMD and ATI parts. The ATI Mobility Radeon HD 5570 scores 1186, just 0.2% higher. The ATI Radeon HD 5770 scores 1190, 0.5% higher. The AMD Radeon HD 7650M scores 1192, 0.7% higher. The AMD FirePro M2000 scores 1168, 1.4% lower. These differences are tiny, so swapping in any of these GPUs would yield nearly identical frame rates in Downfall. The Arc B370 sits at the 5th percentile of all GPUs, indicating very low overall performance.

The combination of a strong CPU with a very weak GPU means the Arc B370 is the dominant bottleneck. Users coming from a system with an i9-10900K or Ryzen 7 5800X3D paired with any of the listed rival GPUs should expect comparable results.

How This Combo Ranks

The database ranks this specific CPU and GPU combination at 3429 out of 3716 tested combos for Downfall. This places it in the bottom 8% of all systems tested, reflecting the GPU's severe performance limitation. The rank is driven almost entirely by the Arc B370, which sits at the 5th percentile among all GPUs. The i5-12600KF, by contrast, ranks at the 79th percentile among all CPUs, meaning the processor is far more capable than the graphics solution.

This mismatch is evident in the frame rate data. At 1080p Low, the system hits 96 FPS, which suggests the CPU can feed frames quickly. But at 4K Ultra, it drops to 18 FPS, showing the GPU cannot handle the pixel throughput. The combo rank reflects this imbalance: the system is neither a low-end CPU paired with a mid GPU nor a balanced pair, but rather a strong CPU shackled to an entry-level integrated-class GPU.

Among the 3716 recorded combos, 287 systems rank below this one, meaning the i5-12600KF plus Arc B370 is still ahead of a small fraction of tested configurations, likely those with even older or weaker GPUs. However, for a modern game like Downfall, the practical outcome is limited to 1080p playability at medium-to-high settings.

The Verdict

The recorded verdict data is unambiguous. At 3840x2160, the playable settings list is empty, meaning this PC cannot run Downfall at 60 FPS at 4K under any tested preset. The best average at this resolution is 43 FPS on Low, which is 17 FPS short of the playability threshold.

At 2560x1440, only the Low preset is playable, with an average of 68 FPS. This clears the 60 FPS bar by 8 FPS, but with no headroom for demanding scenes. Medium at 56 FPS and High at 46 FPS are not playable.

At 1920x1080, the system is playable on High (64 FPS), Medium (78 FPS), and Low (96 FPS). The best playable setting is High at 64 FPS, which is the recommended configuration for a smooth experience. Ultra at 40 FPS is not viable.

In summary, this PC can run Downfall, but only at 1080p with High settings or lower, and at 1440p with Low settings. It cannot achieve 60 FPS at 4K under any settings. The practical ceiling is 1080p High, where the average of 64 FPS leaves minimal margin for frame drops in intense horror sequences.

CPU and GPU Roles

The data reveals a significant imbalance between the CPU and GPU in this pairing. The i5-12600KF is a high-performing processor, ranking at the 79th percentile among all CPUs, while the Arc B370 ranks at the 5th percentile among all GPUs. This 74-point percentile gap indicates the GPU is the primary constraint in almost all scenarios.

Examining the scaling between resolutions clarifies this. At 1080p Low, the system achieves 96 FPS. At 1440p Low, it drops to 68 FPS, a 29% reduction. At 4K Low, it falls to 43 FPS, a 37% reduction from 1440p. This steep decline with resolution is characteristic of a GPU-bound system, where pixel throughput becomes the limiting factor. The CPU's 16 threads and high single-thread performance are not the bottleneck here.

The settings scaling tells a similar story. At 1080p, moving from Low to Ultra costs 56 FPS (from 96 to 40). At 1440p, the same settings change costs 39 FPS (from 68 to 29). At 4K, it costs 25 FPS (from 43 to 18). The diminishing absolute cost of Ultra at higher resolutions suggests that at 4K, the GPU is already saturated even at Low settings, so additional graphical load has less marginal impact.

The CPU's role becomes more apparent at 1080p, where the GPU has less work per frame. The 96 FPS at Low indicates the CPU can sustain high frame rates when the GPU is not overwhelmed. However, even at 1080p Ultra (40 FPS), the GPU is still the limiting factor, as a stronger GPU paired with this CPU would likely push much higher frame rates.

For Downfall specifically, a horror game that likely relies on atmospheric lighting and shadows, the GPU's 1280 shading units and 40 texture mapping units are insufficient for high-resolution rendering. The CPU's 10 cores and 16 threads are more than adequate for the game's logic and physics. Users considering upgrades should focus on the GPU first, as the CPU has substantial headroom. Conversely, users with a stronger GPU but a weaker CPU might find this game CPU-limited at 1080p Low, but this specific combo does not exhibit that behavior.