Downfall

Intel Core i9-14900K and NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4080 deliver a substantial performance envelope in Downfall, with measured frame rates that comfortably exceed the 60 FPS playable threshold across every tested resolution and preset combination. The data set includes 4K, 1440p, and 1080p runs at Low, Medium, High, and Ultra settings, providing a complete picture of how this hardware stack scales with graphical load. Across all twelve measured configurations, the average frame rate never drops below 74 FPS, indicating that this pairing is not merely playable but offers significant headroom for high-refresh-rate displays even at maximum settings.

Measured FPS Breakdown

At 3840x2160, the RTX 4080 and Core i9-14900K produce the following averages: Low settings hit 178 FPS, Medium reaches 145 FPS with a minimum of 123 FPS and a maximum of 167 FPS, High achieves 119 FPS, and Ultra settles at 74 FPS. The 4K Ultra result is the lowest average in the entire dataset, yet it still sits 14 FPS above the 60 FPS playable threshold. The Medium preset at 4K is the only configuration in this resolution that includes min/max data, showing a 44 FPS spread between its 123 FPS floor and 167 FPS ceiling, which suggests frame pacing remains consistent even under moderate load.

Moving to 2560x1440, the averages scale upward significantly. Low settings produce 285 FPS, Medium delivers 233 FPS with a 198 FPS minimum and 268 FPS maximum, High reaches 191 FPS, and Ultra maintains 120 FPS. The 1440p Medium spread of 70 FPS between min and max is the largest recorded in this dataset, indicating that at this resolution the frame rate varies more noticeably than at 4K or 1080p, though the absolute floor of 198 FPS remains far above any playability concern.

At 1920x1080, the performance ceiling is remarkably high. Low settings average 400 FPS, Medium hits 327 FPS with a 278 FPS minimum and 376 FPS maximum, High reaches 268 FPS, and Ultra sustains 168 FPS. The 1080p Medium configuration shows a 98 FPS range between its lowest and highest recorded frames, which is the largest absolute spread across all settings, but again the minimum of 278 FPS leaves immense headroom. Across all resolutions, the progression from Low to Ultra shows a consistent performance cost: at 4K, Ultra is roughly 58% slower than Low, at 1440p it is about 58% slower, and at 1080p it is approximately 58% slower, demonstrating that the preset scaling is uniform regardless of resolution.

CPU and GPU Roles

The benchmark data reveals that Downfall scales with resolution in a manner consistent with GPU-bound rendering, but the CPU remains a meaningful contributor at lower resolutions. Comparing 1080p Low at 400 FPS to 4K Low at 178 FPS shows a 222 FPS drop (55.5% reduction) when pixel count increases roughly fourfold; this disproportionate scaling indicates that the GPU becomes the primary limiter at higher resolutions. Conversely, the gap between 1080p Ultra at 168 FPS and 4K Ultra at 74 FPS is 94 FPS, a 56% reduction, which is nearly identical in percentage terms, reinforcing that the graphical workload scales predictably with resolution.

The Core i9-14900K’s role is most apparent at 1080p, where the GPU has less work per frame. At 1080p Low, the system reaches 400 FPS, a figure that approaches the CPU’s frame generation ceiling for this game; the jump from 1080p Low to 1440p Low is 115 FPS (from 400 to 285), while the jump from 1440p Low to 4K Low is 107 FPS (from 285 to 178), showing that the GPU bottleneck intensifies as resolution rises. At Ultra settings, the same pattern holds: 1080p Ultra averages 168 FPS, which is 48 FPS higher than 1440p Ultra at 120 FPS, and 46 FPS higher than 4K Ultra at 74 FPS. This consistent ~50 FPS drop per resolution step at Ultra suggests that neither component is severely imbalanced; rather, the game’s engine distributes load evenly enough that both the 24-core, 32-thread CPU and the 16 GB GDDR6X GPU contribute proportionally.

Preset scaling also highlights the CPU’s influence. At 4K, moving from Low to Ultra reduces average FPS from 178 to 74, a 104 FPS penalty. At 1080p, the same preset change reduces FPS from 400 to 168, a 232 FPS penalty. The larger absolute penalty at 1080p indicates that at lower resolutions, where the GPU is less stressed, the CPU’s ability to feed frames becomes a secondary factor, but the RTX 4080’s 48.74 TFLOPS of FP32 compute and 716.8 GB/s memory bandwidth still carry the majority of the load. The data does not show any configuration where the CPU alone caps performance below 60 FPS, as even the most demanding 4K Ultra combination relies primarily on GPU throughput.

Best Settings per Resolution

For 3840x2160, the most demanding preset that maintains at or above 60 FPS is Ultra, which averages 74 FPS. This is the only resolution where Ultra dips below 100 FPS, but it remains fully playable with 14 FPS of headroom above the threshold. The 4K High preset averages 119 FPS, offering a higher refresh rate option, but Ultra is the best visual quality choice that still clears the 60 FPS bar.

At 2560x1440, Ultra is again the best settings choice, delivering 120 FPS on average. This provides a 60 FPS margin above the playable threshold, making it suitable for high-refresh-rate 1440p monitors without compromising visual fidelity. The 1440p Medium preset averages 233 FPS, but Ultra’s 120 FPS average is more than sufficient for smooth gameplay.

For 1920x1080, Ultra remains the optimal configuration, averaging 168 FPS. This is the highest average among all Ultra settings across the three resolutions, and it clears the 60 FPS threshold by 108 FPS. At 1080p, all four presets exceed 268 FPS on average, so the choice of Ultra is purely a visual preference with no playability trade-off. In every resolution, the verdictByResolution data confirms that all four settings—Low, Medium, High, and Ultra—are playable, with Ultra being the best settings pick at each resolution due to its combination of maximum graphical quality and sustained performance above 60 FPS.

FAQ

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

A: Yes, the Intel Core i9-14900K with RTX 4080 averages 74 FPS at 3840x2160 Ultra, which is 14 FPS above the 60 FPS playable threshold.

Q: What is the highest average frame rate recorded in this dataset?

A: The highest average is 400 FPS, achieved at 1920x1080 with Low settings.

Q: How does the RTX 4080 compare to its nearest rival in synthetic benchmarks?

A: The RTX 4080’s average benchmark score is 54247, while the RTX 4080 SUPER scores 54209, a delta of 0.1%, making them effectively identical in compute performance; the AMD Radeon Pro W5700X scores 54828, which is 1.1% higher.

Q: Is the Core i9-14900K significantly different from the Core i9-14900KF?

A: The 14900K has an average benchmark score of 79097, while the 14900KF scores 79371, a delta of -0.3%, meaning the KF is marginally faster but within noise levels.

Q: What is the lowest minimum frame rate recorded across all settings?

A: The lowest minimum is 123 FPS, recorded at 3840x2160 with Medium settings; the 1440p Medium minimum is 198 FPS, and the 1080p Medium minimum is 278 FPS.

Q: Does the system maintain 60 FPS at every resolution and preset combination?

A: Yes, all twelve measured configurations exceed 60 FPS, with the lowest average being 74 FPS at 4K Ultra and the highest being 400 FPS at 1080p Low.

How This Combo Ranks

The combination of the Intel Core i9-14900K and NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4080 ranks 230 out of 3716 tested combos in Downfall, placing it in the top 6.2% of all configurations. This rank reflects the hardware’s ability to sustain high frame rates across all settings, particularly the 4K Ultra result of 74 FPS, which is a demanding scenario that many lower-ranked combos would fail to render at playable speeds. The percentileVsAllGpus figure of 86 for the RTX 4080 indicates that this GPU outperforms 86% of all GPUs in the database, while the CPU’s percentileVsAllCpus of 95 places it above 95% of all CPUs. The combination of a top-decile CPU and a top-quartile GPU results in a balanced system that avoids bottlenecking in this horror title.

Comparing to the nearest rivals, the CPU’s closest competitor is the Core i9-14900KF with a delta of -0.3% in average benchmark score, meaning the 14900K is essentially on par with its KF variant. The AMD EPYC 7413 scores 1.2% higher, and the Ryzen AI Max+ 395 scores 1.7% lower, indicating that the 14900K sits in a tight cluster of high-end processors. On the GPU side, the RTX 4080 SUPER is 0.1% faster in synthetic benchmarks, while the AMD Radeon RX 6750 GRE 12 GB is 2.6% slower and the Radeon 8060S is 2.7% slower. In actual Downfall performance, the combination rank of 230 suggests that these small synthetic deltas translate to playable differences at 4K, where the 74 FPS Ultra result would likely drop below 60 FPS on the slower rival GPUs.

The Verdict

This PC can run Downfall at all tested settings, and the verdictByResolution data is unambiguous: every resolution and preset combination clears the 60 FPS playable threshold. At 3840x2160, the best settings are Ultra with an average of 74 FPS, confirming that 4K gaming is not just possible but smooth. At 2560x1440, Ultra averages 120 FPS, doubling the threshold and providing excellent headroom for high-refresh-rate displays. At 1920x1080, Ultra averages 168 FPS, making this resolution almost trivial for the hardware. The lowest recorded average across the entire dataset is 74 FPS at 4K Ultra, so there is no scenario where this combo fails to meet the 60 FPS target. The only caveat is that 4K Ultra at 74 FPS leaves just 14 FPS of margin, so any future patches or more demanding scenes could push it closer to the threshold, but based on the measured data, this is a fully playable configuration for Downfall.

Similar Performance Alternatives

The nearest rivals for the CPU and GPU provide reference points for similar hardware. On the CPU side, the Intel Core i9-14900KF is the closest match, with an average benchmark score of 79371 versus the 14900K’s 79097, a -0.3% delta; in practice, this means the KF would produce nearly identical frame rates in Downfall. The Intel Core Ultra 9 290HX Plus scores 79574, which is -0.6% relative to the 14900K, again within margin of error. The AMD EPYC 7413 scores 80041, 1.2% higher, and the AMD Ryzen AI Max+ 395 scores 77740, 1.7% lower; none of these CPUs would change the playability verdict, as all are well above the threshold for feeding the RTX 4080.

For the GPU, the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4080 SUPER is the direct alternative, scoring 54209 versus the RTX 4080’s 54247, a negligible 0.1% difference that would not alter any measured FPS in Downfall. The AMD Radeon Pro W5700X scores 54828, 1.1% higher, which could provide a marginal FPS boost at 4K Ultra, but given the 74 FPS baseline, the improvement would be under 1 FPS. The AMD Radeon RX 6750 GRE 12 GB scores 55698, 2.6% higher, and the AMD Radeon 8060S scores 55757, 2.7% higher; these GPUs are slightly faster in synthetic benchmarks, but the differences are small enough that all would deliver playable performance at 60 FPS across the tested resolutions. The closest overall system would swap the 14900K for the 14900KF and the RTX 4080 for the RTX 4080 SUPER, yielding essentially identical results with deltas under 0.5%.