Downfall

FAQ

Q: Can this PC run Downfall at 60 frames per second?

A: Yes. At 1920x1080 every preset from Low to Ultra clears 60 FPS. At 2560x1440, Low, Medium, and High clear 60 FPS, while Ultra drops to 55.3 FPS. At 3840x2160, only Low and Medium clear 60 FPS; High averages 56.6 FPS and Ultra averages 36 FPS.

Q: What is the best preset at 2560x1440?

A: High is the most demanding preset that stays at or above 60 FPS at this resolution. It averages 86.2 FPS. The next step up, Ultra, falls to 55.3 FPS, below the 60 FPS playable threshold.

Q: How does the CPU compare to its nearest rivals?

A: The Intel Core i5-9400 has an average benchmark score of 2254 and sits in the 47th percentile of all CPUs. Its closest rival, the Intel Core i7-1068NG7, scores 2259, which is 0.2% higher. The AMD Ryzen 5 PRO 1500 scores 2246, 0.4% lower. The Intel Core i3-10305 scores 2264, 0.4% higher.

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

A: The Intel Arc B580 has an average benchmark score of 23021 and sits in the 68th percentile of all GPUs. The AMD Radeon RX 580 2048SP scores 23061, 0.2% higher. The NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2080 scores 22895, 0.6% lower. The NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3080 scores 23172, 0.7% higher.

Q: What is the best preset at 3840x2160?

A: Medium is the most demanding preset that stays at or above 60 FPS at 4K, averaging 69.4 FPS. High averages 56.6 FPS and Ultra averages 36 FPS, both below the playable threshold.

Q: How does this combo rank among all tested combinations?

A: This combination ranks 2797 out of 3716 tested combos for Downfall, placing it in the lower portion of the database.

Best Settings per Resolution

At 1920x1080, the data shows that every preset is playable. The most demanding preset that stays at or above 60 FPS is Ultra, which averages 79.5 FPS. This leaves meaningful headroom above the 60 FPS threshold, so players can run the game at maximum settings without dropping below playable frame rates.

At 2560x1440, the most demanding playable preset is High, with an average of 86.2 FPS. This is comfortably above the 60 FPS threshold. Medium averages 104.4 FPS, and Low averages 133.5 FPS. Ultra falls to 55.3 FPS, making it the only preset at this resolution that does not clear the playable threshold.

At 3840x2160, the most demanding playable preset is Medium, averaging 69.4 FPS. This clears the 60 FPS threshold with about 9 FPS of headroom. High averages 56.6 FPS, which is below the threshold, and Ultra averages 36 FPS, a substantial drop. Low averages 83.5 FPS and remains the fastest option at 4K.

The pattern is consistent across all three resolutions: dropping one preset level below the maximum playable setting provides a significant safety margin. At 1080p, Ultra at 79.5 FPS gives a 19.5 FPS cushion. At 1440p, High at 86.2 FPS gives a 26.2 FPS cushion. At 4K, Medium at 69.4 FPS gives a 9.4 FPS cushion.

CPU and GPU Roles

The recorded data reveals how the balance between CPU and GPU shifts across resolutions. At 1920x1080, the CPU has more influence relative to the GPU, because the GPU is less stressed at lower pixel counts. The jump from Low to Ultra at 1080p goes from 182.7 FPS down to 79.5 FPS, a reduction of 103.2 FPS or roughly 56%. This large spread shows that the GPU is still the dominant factor even at 1080p, but the CPU is capable of feeding very high frame rates, as seen in the 182.7 FPS Low result.

At 2560x1440, the GPU begins to take a larger role. Low averages 133.5 FPS, while Ultra drops to 55.3 FPS. The gap between Low and Ultra at 1440p is 78.2 FPS, smaller than at 1080p. This indicates that the GPU is becoming more of a limiting factor as resolution increases, but the CPU still has enough headroom to deliver high frame rates at lower presets.

At 3840x2160, the GPU is clearly the dominant component. Low averages 83.5 FPS, while Ultra drops to 36 FPS. The gap between Low and Ultra at 4K is 47.5 FPS, the smallest of the three resolutions. The CPU's role diminishes as the GPU struggles with the higher pixel count. The fact that Medium at 4K averages 69.4 FPS while High drops to 56.6 FPS shows that the GPU is the bottleneck at higher settings.

The scaling between resolutions reinforces this interpretation. At Low settings, moving from 1080p to 1440p reduces the average from 182.7 FPS to 133.5 FPS, a drop of 49.2 FPS. Moving from 1440p to 4K at Low reduces the average from 133.5 FPS to 83.5 FPS, a further drop of 50 FPS. At Ultra settings, moving from 1080p to 1440p reduces the average from 79.5 FPS to 55.3 FPS, a drop of 24.2 FPS. Moving from 1440p to 4K at Ultra reduces the average from 55.3 FPS to 36 FPS, a drop of 19.3 FPS. The larger absolute drops at Low settings suggest that the CPU is still contributing meaningfully at lower graphical loads, while the smaller drops at Ultra settings point to GPU saturation.

Similar Performance Alternatives

Looking at the CPU's nearest rivals, the Intel Core i5-9400 sits in a tight cluster of processors. The Intel Core i7-1068NG7 scores 2259, which is 0.2% higher than the i5-9400's 2254 average. The Intel Core i7-10710U scores 2248, 0.3% lower. The AMD Ryzen 5 PRO 1500 scores 2246, 0.4% lower. The Intel Core i3-10305 scores 2264, 0.4% higher. All four rivals are within a narrow band of roughly 1% of the i5-9400, so any of these CPUs would behave nearly identically in Downfall in terms of CPU-driven frame rates.

On the GPU side, the Intel Arc B580 has close neighbors as well. The AMD Radeon RX 580 2048SP scores 23061, 0.2% higher than the Arc B580's 23021. The NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2080 scores 22895, 0.6% lower. The NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3080 scores 23172, 0.7% higher. The NVIDIA P106-100 scores 23249, 1% higher. These deltas are all under 1%, meaning that swapping the Arc B580 for any of these GPUs would produce nearly the same frame rates in Downfall at the same settings and resolution.

For a player considering this combination, the practical implication is that the system's performance profile is well understood. The CPU and GPU are both mid-tier parts by database percentile, and their nearest rivals do not offer a meaningful performance shift. The measured FPS results for this combo can be generalized to any of the listed alternates with only a fraction of a percent difference expected.

How This Combo Ranks

In the database of tested combinations for Downfall, this pairing of Intel Core i5-9400 and Intel Arc B580 ranks 2797 out of 3716 total combos. This places it in the 25th percentile of tested configurations, meaning roughly 75% of tested combos perform better in this game. The rank reflects the combined capability of both components, and the measured FPS data shows why: the system can handle 1080p at Ultra and 1440p at High, but it struggles at 4K Ultra where the average drops to 36 FPS.

The rank is not surprising given the individual component percentiles. The CPU sits in the 47th percentile of all CPUs, and the GPU sits in the 68th percentile of all GPUs. In a horror title like Downfall, which is not particularly demanding compared to modern AAA releases, this mid-range pairing still lands below many higher-end combinations in the database. The 4K results, in particular, drag the combo down because only Low and Medium settings clear the 60 FPS threshold at that resolution.

The Verdict

Yes, this PC can run Downfall, but the playable settings depend heavily on resolution. At 1920x1080, the system clears 60 FPS at every preset, including Ultra with an average of 79.5 FPS. At 2560x1440, the system clears 60 FPS at Low, Medium, and High, with High averaging 86.2 FPS. Ultra at 1440p falls below the threshold at 55.3 FPS. At 3840x2160, only Low and Medium clear 60 FPS, with Medium averaging 69.4 FPS. High at 4K averages 56.6 FPS and Ultra averages 36 FPS.

The verdict by resolution is clear: 1080p players can use Ultra settings, 1440p players should stick to High or below, and 4K players should use Medium or below. The system is not capable of maintaining 60 FPS at 4K High or 4K Ultra, and 1440p Ultra is also out of reach. For a horror game where atmosphere matters, the 1080p Ultra result is the strongest option, delivering 79.5 FPS with full visual fidelity.

Measured FPS Breakdown

At 1920x1080, the recorded averages are as follows: Low runs at 182.7 FPS, Medium at 152.1 FPS, High at 122 FPS, and Ultra at 79.5 FPS. The step from Low to Medium costs 30.6 FPS, from Medium to High costs 30.1 FPS, and from High to Ultra costs 42.5 FPS. The largest single drop occurs between High and Ultra, indicating that the Ultra preset imposes a heavy load relative to High.

At 2560x1440, the recorded averages are: Low at 133.5 FPS, Medium at 104.4 FPS, High at 86.2 FPS, and Ultra at 55.3 FPS. The step from Low to Medium costs 29.1 FPS, from Medium to High costs 18.2 FPS, and from High to Ultra costs 30.9 FPS. The drop from High to Ultra is the largest at this resolution, and it pushes the frame rate below the 60 FPS threshold.

At 3840x2160, the recorded averages are: Low at 83.5 FPS, Medium at 69.4 FPS, High at 56.6 FPS, and Ultra at 36 FPS. The step from Low to Medium costs 14.1 FPS, from Medium to High costs 12.8 FPS, and from High to Ultra costs 20.6 FPS. The drop from High to Ultra is again the largest, and the Ultra result of 36 FPS is well below playable.

The min and max FPS values are not recorded in the database for any resolution or preset, so the analysis relies on average frame rates. The averages alone are sufficient to determine playability: any preset with an average at or above 60 FPS is considered playable, and any preset below that threshold is not. The data shows a consistent pattern where the Ultra preset is the most demanding at every resolution, and the gap between High and Ultra widens as resolution decreases. At 1080p, the High to Ultra gap is 42.5 FPS. At 1440p, it is 30.9 FPS. At 4K, it is 20.6 FPS. This suggests that Ultra settings scale more aggressively at lower resolutions, where the GPU has more headroom to render additional effects.