Downfall

# Can Intel Core Ultra 5 245 + NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4090 run Downfall?

Yes, this combination runs Downfall at maximum settings across all tested resolutions, with the RTX 4090 providing overwhelming headroom. At 4K Ultra, the system averages 82 FPS, comfortably clearing the 60 FPS playability threshold. The Intel Core Ultra 5 245 is a 90th-percentile CPU (avg benchmark score 48,995) while the RTX 4090 sits in the 88th percentile (avg benchmark score 60,347), and together they rank 109th out of 3,716 tested combinations in this game. The bottleneck shifts from GPU-bound at 4K to CPU-bound at 1080p, but neither component ever limits playability.

FAQ

Q: What is the best settings preset for 4K on this system?

A: The RTX 4090 can run Downfall at 4K Ultra with an average of 82 FPS, which is the most demanding preset and still clears the 60 FPS threshold. The 4K Ultra frame rate is 39% lower than 4K High (132 FPS), but remains fully playable.

Q: How much performance headroom exists at 1080p?

A: At 1080p Ultra, the system averages 185 FPS, while 1080p Low reaches 442 FPS. The gap between Low and Ultra (257 FPS) shows the GPU has massive headroom even at maximum settings, suggesting the CPU becomes the limiting factor at lower presets.

Q: Is the RTX 4090 or the Core Ultra 5 245 more important for Downfall?

A: At 4K, the GPU dominates—dropping from Ultra to Low increases average FPS by 114 (from 82 to 196). At 1080p, the CPU becomes more relevant, as the 442 FPS Low preset is likely constrained by the CPU's single-thread performance rather than the GPU.

Q: Does this system maintain 60 FPS at all times?

A: The data shows only Medium presets include min/max frame data. At 4K Medium, min FPS is 136 and max is 185, so the minimum stays well above 60. For other presets, only averages are provided, but the lowest average (4K Ultra at 82 FPS) still leaves substantial margin above 60.

Q: How does the RTX 4090 compare to its nearest rivals in this context?

A: The RTX 4090's average benchmark score of 60,347 is essentially tied with the Intel Arc Pro A60 (60,326, 0% delta) and AMD Radeon Pro Vega 48 (60,140, 0.3% faster). The AMD Radeon Pro W6600M scores 2.5% higher, while the AMD Radeon PRO V710 is 2.9% lower.

Q: What is the gameplay experience at 1440p?

A: At 1440p Ultra, the system averages 132 FPS, which is 60% higher than 4K Ultra (82 FPS). The 1440p Medium preset shows a min FPS of 219 and max of 297, indicating exceptionally smooth frame delivery.

CPU and GPU Roles

The performance scaling between resolutions and presets reveals a clear division of labor. At 4K, the RTX 4090 is the dominant factor. Moving from Ultra to Low at 3840x2160 raises the average from 82 FPS to 196 FPS—a 139% improvement. This 114 FPS swing demonstrates that the GPU's raw throughput (82.58 TFLOPS FP32, 1.01 TB/s memory bandwidth) is the primary constraint at this resolution. The 4K Medium preset, with its 136 FPS minimum, shows that even mid-range settings produce frame rates far above the 60 FPS target.

At 2560x1440, the picture shifts subtly. The Ultra preset averages 132 FPS, while Low reaches 315 FPS. The scaling factor from Ultra to Low is 2.39x, slightly less than at 4K (2.39x as well), indicating the GPU remains heavily involved. However, the 1440p Medium minimum of 219 FPS suggests the CPU's 14 cores and 5.10 GHz boost clock are beginning to matter more, as the frame delivery becomes more consistent at higher settings.

At 1920x1080, the CPU takes on increased importance. The Low preset hits 442 FPS, which likely approaches the practical limit of the Core Ultra 5 245's single-thread performance (Cinebench R23 single-core score of 4,648). The Ultra preset still manages 185 FPS, but the gap between Low and Ultra (257 FPS) is proportionally smaller than at 4K (114 FPS difference from a lower base). This compression suggests that at 1080p, the CPU's ability to feed the GPU becomes the limiting factor, especially at lower presets where the GPU is underutilized.

The Core Ultra 5 245's multi-threaded capabilities (Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 32,924, PassMark multi-thread score of 38,706) are more than sufficient for a horror title like Downfall, which likely doesn't scale perfectly across 14 cores. The 90th-percentile CPU ranking and the 88th-percentile GPU ranking both place this combo in the upper echelon, but the GPU's 24 GB GDDR6X memory and 512 TMUs make it the clear primary driver for 4K gaming.

Similar Performance Alternatives

For the CPU, the nearest rivals based on average benchmark scores are all within 1% of the Core Ultra 5 245's 48,995 average. The AMD Ryzen 7 PRO 5755G scores 49,196 (0.4% lower), meaning users would see virtually identical frame rates in Downfall—the 201 FPS difference at 1080p Low would be imperceptible. The AMD Ryzen 9 7900 at 49,228 (0.5% lower) offers similar headroom, while the Intel Xeon Gold 5318H (48,698, 0.6% higher) and Intel Core i5-14600K (48,618, 0.8% higher) are also within noise margins. Any of these CPUs paired with the RTX 4090 would produce nearly identical results in Downfall, as the GPU dominates at 4K and even at 1080p the CPU differences are minor.

On the GPU side, the RTX 4090's nearest rivals are surprising—the Intel Arc Pro A60 (60,326, 0% delta) and AMD Radeon Pro Vega 48 (60,140, 0.3% faster) essentially match its average benchmark score. However, these are professional/workstation cards with very different feature sets. The AMD Radeon Pro W6600M scores 2.5% higher (61,896) and would likely deliver slightly better frame rates in Downfall, while the AMD Radeon PRO V710 (58,657, 2.9% lower) would be marginally slower. In practical terms, all of these GPUs would clear the 60 FPS threshold at 4K Ultra, but the RTX 4090's 24 GB memory and 1.01 TB/s bandwidth provide more headroom for future titles.

The key insight is that this system sits in a performance tier where the GPU is the deciding factor at 4K, and the CPU choice matters mainly at 1080p. Swapping the Core Ultra 5 245 for any of its nearest rivals would change Downfall's frame rates by less than 1%, while swapping the RTX 4090 for a 2.5% faster card would yield a measurable but small improvement.

The Verdict

This PC can run Downfall at every resolution and preset combination tested, with all average frame rates exceeding 60 FPS. The verdict by resolution confirms full playability: at 3840x2160, all four presets (Low 196 FPS, Medium 161 FPS, High 132 FPS, Ultra 82 FPS) clear the threshold. At 2560x1440, the same pattern holds with even higher margins (Low 315 FPS, Medium 258 FPS, High 212 FPS, Ultra 132 FPS). At 1920x1080, the system delivers exceptional performance (Low 442 FPS, Medium 361 FPS, High 296 FPS, Ultra 185 FPS).

The lowest average frame rate across all tests is 4K Ultra at 82 FPS, which is 37% above the 60 FPS playability threshold. The combo ranks 109th out of 3,716 tested configurations, placing it in the top 3% of all systems. The data is measured (not estimated), and the playability threshold is set at 60 FPS, which every configuration exceeds.

The only caveat is that frame minimums are only provided for Medium presets. At 4K Medium, the minimum is 136 FPS; at 1440p Medium, it's 219 FPS; at 1080p Medium, it's 307 FPS. These minimums are far above 60 FPS, suggesting that even the unlisted minimums for other presets would remain playable, given the high averages.

Measured FPS Breakdown

At 3840x2160, the system delivers an average of 196 FPS on Low settings. Moving to Medium drops the average to 161 FPS, with a minimum of 136 and maximum of 185. High settings produce 132 FPS average, while Ultra reduces performance to 82 FPS average. The scaling from Low to Ultra represents a 58% performance penalty, which is typical for a GPU-bound scenario at 4K.

At 2560x1440, the Low preset averages 315 FPS. Medium raises the bar with an average of 258 FPS, minimum 219, and maximum 297. High settings achieve 212 FPS average, and Ultra settles at 132 FPS average. The 1440p results show a 58% penalty from Low to Ultra, matching the 4K scaling pattern.

At 1920x1080, the Low preset reaches 442 FPS average. Medium averages 361 FPS with a minimum of 307 and maximum of 416. High settings produce 296 FPS average, and Ultra delivers 185 FPS average. The 1080p scaling from Low to Ultra is a 58% reduction, but the absolute numbers are much higher due to the reduced pixel count.

The Medium preset is the only one with complete min/max data across all resolutions, providing a reliable picture of frame stability. At every resolution, the minimum FPS is at least 2.3x the 60 FPS threshold (136 FPS at 4K, 219 FPS at 1440p, 307 FPS at 1080p), indicating excellent frame pacing with no risk of drops below playability.

Best Settings per Resolution

At 3840x2160, the most demanding preset that stays at or above 60 FPS is Ultra, with an average of 82 FPS. This is the maximum quality option, and the system still maintains a 37% margin above the playability threshold. Players seeking the absolute best visual fidelity at 4K can enable Ultra without concern.

At 2560x1440, Ultra is also the best setting, delivering 132 FPS average. This is 120% above the 60 FPS threshold, providing substantial headroom for demanding scenes or background tasks. The 1440p Ultra experience is smooth and responsive, with frame rates that would satisfy competitive players despite the game's horror genre.

At 1920x1080, Ultra remains the best choice, with an average of 185 FPS. This is 208% above the threshold, making 1080p Ultra essentially effortless for this hardware. The 185 FPS average is high enough to take advantage of high-refresh-rate monitors, and the 442 FPS Low preset shows that the system is not CPU-bound until extreme frame rates.

The pattern is consistent: at every resolution, Ultra is playable, and the best settings recommendation is always the maximum preset. The RTX 4090's 24 GB of GDDR6X memory and 512 TMUs provide ample bandwidth and texture throughput for Downfall's horror visuals, while the Core Ultra 5 245's 5.10 GHz boost clock ensures the CPU never becomes a bottleneck at playable settings. For this game, the hardware is overqualified—even the most demanding configuration leaves significant performance in reserve.