Downfall

Measured FPS Breakdown - resolution by resolution, settings by settings, exact avg/min/max numbers

The recorded data shows a system that does not struggle to push frames. Starting with the strictest configuration, 3840x2160 resolution: Low settings average 199.7 FPS, Medium averages 159.9 FPS, High averages 129.8 FPS, and Ultra averages 81 FPS. The gap between Low and Ultra is substantial, a 118.7 FPS difference, which indicates that the Ultra preset applies a heavy load to the graphics subsystem. There are no minimum or maximum frame rate records in the database for any resolution, so the analysis relies on average scores as the primary metric.

At 2560x1440, the same pattern repeats with higher overall throughput. Low settings push the average to 243.7 FPS, Medium reaches 227.3 FPS, High sits at 212.7 FPS, and Ultra drops to 130.4 FPS. The delta between Low and Ultra here is 113.3 FPS, slightly narrower than at 4K, but still a clear sign that the Ultra preset is the most demanding tier. Notably, the Medium and High presets at 1440p are both above 210 FPS, so the user has room to select higher quality without sacrificing smoothness.

At 1920x1080, the numbers get even more generous. Low averages 271.8 FPS, Medium averages 253.7 FPS, High averages 235.1 FPS, and Ultra averages 184.9 FPS. The difference between the lowest and highest presets is 86.9 FPS, which is the smallest spread across all three resolutions. This suggests that at 1080p, the CPU starts to play a more significant role in limiting overall output, as the GPU has less work to do per frame.

Looking at the scaling from 1080p to 1440p, the average FPS drops by roughly 10 to 15 percent across all presets. For example, High goes from 235.1 to 212.7 FPS, a 22.4 FPS reduction. From 1440p to 4K, the drop is much steeper: High falls from 212.7 to 129.8 FPS, a 82.9 FPS reduction. This nonlinear scaling points to the GPU becoming the dominant factor at 4K, while the CPU remains more relevant at lower resolutions.

Similar Performance Alternatives

The CPU in this configuration, the Intel Core i5-9400, sits at the 47th percentile among all CPUs in the database. Its nearest rivals, based on average benchmark scores, are a cluster of parts with nearly identical performance. The Intel Core i7-1068NG7 scores 2259, which is 0.2 percent higher than the i5-9400's average of 2254. The Intel Core i7-10710U scores 2248, a 0.3 percent deficit. The AMD Ryzen 5 PRO 1500 scores 2246, a 0.4 percent deficit. The Intel Core i3-10305 scores 2264, which is 0.4 percent ahead. Practically, these four chips are interchangeable in this game. If a user owns any of those processors, the frame rates in Downfall would be within a fraction of a percent of what the i5-9400 delivers.

For the GPU, the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4090 ranks at the 88th percentile among all GPUs, with an average benchmark score of 60347. Its nearest rivals are equally close. The Intel Arc Pro A60 scores 60326, a 0 percent delta. The AMD Radeon Pro Vega 48 scores 60140, a 0.3 percent deficit. The AMD Radeon Pro W6600M scores 61896, a 2.5 percent advantage. The AMD Radeon PRO V710 scores 58657, a 2.9 percent deficit. These rivals are not gaming-focused cards in most cases, but the benchmark data indicates that for Downfall specifically, the frame rate output would be nearly identical. The RTX 4090's advantage over the closest competitor is negligible, and the gap to the slower rival is still under 3 percent.

The combo rank in the game database is 413 out of 3716 tested combinations. That places this pairing in the top 11 percent of all CPU and GPU combinations recorded for Downfall. The practical takeaway is that a user with a similar CPU from that rival list, paired with a similarly scoring GPU, would see the same playable experience at all tested settings.

CPU and GPU Roles

The data reveals a clear division of labor between the Intel Core i5-9400 and the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4090 depending on resolution and preset. At 1920x1080, the CPU is the limiting factor. The RTX 4090 is capable of far higher frame rates than the i5-9400 can feed it, which is why the Ultra preset still averages 184.9 FPS, but the gap between Low and Ultra is only 86.9 FPS. That compression suggests the CPU is holding the system back from reaching the GPU's full potential, even at the highest settings.

At 2560x1440, the balance shifts slightly toward the GPU. The spread between Low and Ultra grows to 113.3 FPS, which means the graphics card is becoming more involved. The average frame rates are still very high, so the CPU remains adequate, but the GPU's workload is increasing. The i5-9400's six cores and six threads, with a boost clock of 4.10 GHz, are enough to keep up with the RTX 4090 at this resolution without causing a bottleneck that would drop the average below the playable threshold.

At 3840x2160, the GPU is unequivocally the dominant component. The spread between Low and Ultra reaches 118.7 FPS, the largest of any resolution. The Ultra preset averages 81 FPS, which is still well above the 60 FPS threshold, but the sharp drop from High to Ultra (129.8 to 81 FPS) indicates that the RTX 4090 is doing most of the heavy lifting. The CPU's role diminishes because each frame requires more pixel processing, giving the i5-9400 more time to prepare the next frame.

The scaling between resolutions reinforces this interpretation. From 1080p to 1440p, the average FPS drops by roughly 15 percent across presets. From 1440p to 4K, the drop is roughly 40 percent or more. For example, Medium goes from 253.7 at 1080p to 227.3 at 1440p, then to 159.9 at 4K. The steep 4K drop is characteristic of a GPU-bound scenario, where memory bandwidth and rasterization throughput become the key constraints. The RTX 4090's 24 GB of GDDR6X memory and 1.01 TB/s bandwidth are more than sufficient, but the sheer pixel count at 4K still imposes a heavy cost.

For users with a 60 Hz display, either component alone would not be the deciding factor. The bottleneck only matters if chasing the highest possible frame rates. At 1080p, the CPU holds the average to around 271.8 FPS on Low, which is still far beyond any mainstream monitor's refresh rate. At 4K, the GPU is the clear constraint, but the result is still playable at all presets.

The Verdict

Yes, this PC can run Downfall, and it does so with substantial headroom. The verdict by resolution is unambiguous: all four presets at all three resolutions are playable, meaning they all clear the 60 FPS threshold. At 3840x2160, the Ultra preset averages 81 FPS, which is 21 FPS above the playable mark. The High preset averages 129.8 FPS, Medium 159.9 FPS, and Low 199.7 FPS. There is no configuration in the recorded data that falls below 60 FPS.

At 2560x1440, the Ultra preset averages 130.4 FPS, which is more than double the playable threshold. High averages 212.7 FPS, Medium 227.3 FPS, and Low 243.7 FPS. Every setting exceeds 120 FPS, making this resolution suitable for high refresh rate monitors, assuming the display supports it.

At 1920x1080, the Ultra preset averages 184.9 FPS, High 235.1 FPS, Medium 253.7 FPS, and Low 271.8 FPS. The lowest recorded average is still three times the playable threshold. For a horror game like Downfall, which relies on atmosphere and sudden events, the ability to maintain such high frame rates ensures smooth camera movement and responsive input.

The playable settings list for every resolution includes High, Low, Medium, and Ultra. No settings are excluded. The database records a playable threshold of 60 FPS, and this system clears that bar by a wide margin at every measured point. The only caveat is that the minimum and maximum frame rates are not recorded, so there is no data on frame time consistency or stutter. However, the average scores alone are sufficient to declare this configuration fully playable for Downfall.

Best Settings per Resolution

At 3840x2160, the best settings that still guarantee 60 FPS or higher are Ultra, with an average of 81 FPS. This is the most demanding preset tested, and it stays 21 FPS above the threshold. Users who prefer higher frame rates can drop to High for 129.8 FPS, but the Ultra preset is the most visually detailed option that remains playable.

At 2560x1440, the best settings are also Ultra, with an average of 130.4 FPS. This is comfortably above the threshold and provides the full visual experience. The High preset offers 212.7 FPS, which is excessive for most displays, so Ultra is the recommended choice for quality without sacrificing smoothness.

At 1920x1080, the best settings are Ultra, with an average of 184.9 FPS. There is no reason to lower the preset at this resolution, as the frame rate remains far above the playable mark. The gap between Ultra and High is 49.8 FPS, but both are so high that the visual fidelity of Ultra is the better trade-off.

In all three resolutions, the database's verdict indicates that Ultra is the best settings tier. The average frame rates at Ultra are 81, 130.4, and 184.9 FPS for 4K, 1440p, and 1080p respectively. Every other preset also clears 60 FPS, so the user has full freedom to adjust quality based on display refresh rate or personal preference, but there is no need to compromise for playability.

FAQ

Q: Can this system run Downfall at 4K Ultra settings?

A: Yes. At 3840x2160 with Ultra settings, the recorded average FPS is 81, which is above the 60 FPS playable threshold. The database lists Ultra as a playable setting at this resolution.

Q: What frame rate can I expect at 1080p with High settings?

A: At 1920x1080 with High settings, the average FPS is 235.1. This is well above the playable threshold and leaves ample headroom for a high refresh rate monitor.

Q: Is the Intel Core i5-9400 a bottleneck for the RTX 4090 in this game?

A: At 1920x1080, the CPU appears to limit the system, as the spread between Low and Ultra is only 86.9 FPS. At 3840x2160, the GPU becomes the dominant factor, with the Ultra preset dropping to 81 FPS. The CPU is still sufficient at all resolutions since every preset exceeds 60 FPS.

Q: How does the i5-9400 compare to its nearest CPU rivals?

A: The i5-9400 scores 2254 in average benchmark scores. The Intel Core i7-1068NG7 scores 2259 (0.2 percent higher), the Intel Core i7-10710U scores 2248 (0.3 percent lower), the AMD Ryzen 5 PRO 1500 scores 2246 (0.4 percent lower), and the Intel Core i3-10305 scores 2264 (0.4 percent higher). Performance differences are negligible.

Q: What is the best settings preset at 1440p?

A: At 2560x1440, the best settings are Ultra, with an average FPS of 130.4. This is the most demanding preset and it still clears the 60 FPS threshold by a wide margin.

Q: Are there any settings at any resolution that fail to reach 60 FPS?

A: No. The recorded data shows that every preset at every resolution, from Low to Ultra, averages above 60 FPS. The lowest recorded average is 81 FPS at 4K Ultra, which is still 21 FPS above the playable threshold.