Downfall

The Intel Core Ultra 9 290K Plus paired with the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4080 places 230th out of 3,716 tested combinations for Downfall, putting it in the top 6.2% of all systems measured. This is a high-end pairing by any standard, and the benchmark data reflects a machine that is nowhere near its limits in this particular title.

How This Combo Ranks

The combo’s rank of 230 out of 3,716 tested configurations places it well within the top tier of systems for Downfall. The CPU alone sits at the 96th percentile among all processors, and the GPU at the 86th percentile among all graphics cards. When combined, these components produce a system that outperforms roughly 93.8% of all tested combos for this game. That ranking is driven primarily by the GPU’s raw rasterization throughput, as Downfall is a horror title that appears to be heavily GPU-bound at higher settings. The data shows a system that comfortably clears the playable threshold of 60 FPS at every resolution and preset combination tested, with headroom that ranges from 23% at the most demanding setting to over 500% at the least demanding. The gap between this combo and the rest of the field is not subtle—at 4K Ultra, it still produces 74 FPS, which is 23% above the playable threshold. At 1080p Low, it reaches 400 FPS, a figure that suggests the CPU is doing very little to constrain the GPU in this scenario.

Best Settings per Resolution

At 3840x2160, the most demanding preset that stays at or above 60 FPS is Ultra, delivering an average of 74 FPS. This is the ceiling for this resolution—every preset from Low through Ultra clears the 60 FPS bar, but Ultra is the highest visual quality that maintains playable performance. The gap between Ultra and the next step down, High, is substantial: High produces 119 FPS, which is 60.8% faster than Ultra. Medium lands at 145 FPS, and Low at 178 FPS.

At 2560x1440, the best settings are again Ultra, with an average of 120 FPS. This is exactly double the 60 FPS playable threshold, indicating that this resolution is where the combo hits a sweet spot—full visual fidelity with enough frame rate headroom to handle dips without dropping below playable levels. High produces 191 FPS, Medium 233 FPS, and Low 285 FPS.

At 1920x1080, Ultra remains the best setting, averaging 168 FPS. This is 2.8x the playable threshold. The lower presets are almost absurdly fast: High hits 268 FPS, Medium 327 FPS, and Low reaches 400 FPS. At this resolution, the system is so far beyond the playable threshold that the only meaningful question is whether the display can even refresh fast enough to show all frames.

CPU and GPU Roles

The data indicates that the GPU is the dominant component for this game at all tested resolutions, but the CPU’s role becomes relatively more important as resolution drops. At 4K Ultra, the combo produces 74 FPS; dropping to 4K Low raises that to 178 FPS, a 140.5% increase. At 1440p Ultra, the system hits 120 FPS, and at 1080p Ultra, 168 FPS. The scaling between Ultra and Low settings at the same resolution shows where the bottleneck lies: at 4K, the Ultra-to-Low delta is 104 FPS, while at 1440p it is 165 FPS, and at 1080p it is 232 FPS.

This pattern suggests that at 4K, the GPU is working hard enough that settings changes produce relatively smaller absolute gains—the GPU is already near its throughput ceiling. At 1080p, the GPU has so much headroom that raising settings from Low to Ultra still leaves the system at 168 FPS, meaning the GPU is never fully saturated and the CPU is doing enough work to keep feeding frames. The Intel Core Ultra 9 290K Plus, with 24 cores and 24 threads, has a PassMark multithread score of 60,860 and a single-thread score of 4,823, which places it at the 96th percentile among CPUs. For a game like Downfall, which is unlikely to use more than a handful of threads, the single-thread performance is what matters, and the data shows no scenario where the CPU becomes the limiting factor—even at 1080p Low with 400 FPS, the system is still producing frames far beyond what a 60 Hz display needs.

The frame time data available for Medium settings shows consistent behavior: at 4K Medium, the minimum FPS is 123 against an average of 145 (84.8% of average), while at 1440p Medium, the minimum is 198 against an average of 233 (85.0%), and at 1080p Medium, the minimum is 278 against 327 (85.0%). This consistency across resolutions suggests that frame pacing is stable and that neither the CPU nor GPU is causing sporadic hitches.

Similar Performance Alternatives

Looking at the nearest rivals for the CPU, the Intel Core Ultra 9 285K scores 83,807 in average benchmarks, just 0.2% behind the 290K Plus’s 84,003. In practical terms, these two processors are interchangeable for Downfall—the 0.2% delta is within run-to-run variance. The AMD EPYC 4584PX (83,090 average, 1.1% behind) and AMD EPYC 9135 (82,980, 1.2% behind) are also close, though these are server-class chips that would behave similarly in single-threaded workloads. The AMD EPYC 7F72 scores 85,072, which is 1.3% ahead of the 290K Plus, meaning it would deliver marginally better CPU-bound performance, though the GPU would still be the limiting factor in Downfall.

For the GPU, the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4080 SUPER is the closest rival, with an average benchmark score of 54,209 versus the RTX 4080’s 54,247—a 0.1% difference that is negligible. The AMD Radeon Pro W5700X (54,828, 1.1% ahead) and AMD Radeon RX 6750 GRE 12 GB (55,698, 2.6% ahead) are also within a few percent, though the latter is a mid-range card that would likely not sustain the same performance at 4K Ultra due to memory bandwidth differences. The AMD Radeon 8060S (55,757, 2.7% ahead) is the furthest ahead among the listed rivals, but still close enough that in-game FPS differences for Downfall would be minor.

FAQ

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

A: Yes. At 3840x2160 with Ultra settings, the combo averages 74 FPS, which is 23% above the 60 FPS playable threshold.

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

A: Ultra settings at 2560x1440 produce an average of 120 FPS, making it the most demanding preset that still delivers double the playable frame rate.

Q: Is there any resolution or preset where this combo drops below 60 FPS?

A: No. The lowest recorded average is 74 FPS at 4K Ultra, and every other tested combination is higher. The minimum FPS recorded at any setting is 123 FPS (4K Medium).

Q: How does the RTX 4080 compare to the RTX 4080 SUPER for this game?

A: The RTX 4080 SUPER has an average benchmark score 0.1% lower than the RTX 4080. For Downfall, this difference would translate to a negligible FPS variation, likely 1-2 frames at most.

Q: Does the CPU matter for this game?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 9 290K Plus is at the 96th percentile among CPUs, but the data shows the system is GPU-bound even at 1080p Low with 400 FPS. Swapping to a slightly slower CPU like the Core Ultra 9 285K (0.2% slower) would have no measurable impact on frame rates.

Q: What frame rates can I expect at 1080p Medium?

A: At 1920x1080 with Medium settings, the combo averages 327 FPS, with a minimum of 278 FPS and a maximum of 376 FPS.

The Verdict

This PC can run Downfall at every resolution and preset combination tested, with no exceptions. At 3840x2160, all four presets—Low, Medium, High, and Ultra—clear the 60 FPS threshold; the lowest average is 74 FPS at Ultra. At 2560x1440, all presets clear 60 FPS, with Ultra averaging 120 FPS. At 1920x1080, all presets clear 60 FPS, with Ultra averaging 168 FPS. The system has enough headroom that even the most demanding setting at the highest resolution leaves a 23% margin above the playable threshold. For a horror game like Downfall, where consistent frame pacing matters for atmosphere and reaction times, the data shows a smooth experience across the board.

Measured FPS Breakdown

3840x2160 (4K)

| Settings | Average FPS | Minimum FPS | Maximum FPS |

|---|---|---|---|

| Low | 178 | — | — |

| Medium | 145 | 123 | 167 |

| High | 119 | — | — |

| Ultra | 74 | — | — |

The 4K results show a clear performance curve: Ultra demands significantly more from the GPU than High, costing 45 FPS (37.8% slower). Medium adds another 26 FPS over High, and Low adds 33 FPS over Medium. The gap between Ultra and Low is 104 FPS, meaning the GPU has substantial headroom even at 4K when settings are reduced.

2560x1440 (1440p)

| Settings | Average FPS | Minimum FPS | Maximum FPS |

|---|---|---|---|

| Low | 285 | — | — |

| Medium | 233 | 198 | 268 |

| High | 191 | — | — |

| Ultra | 120 | — | — |

At 1440p, the system scales predictably. Ultra is 71 FPS slower than High, which is a 37.2% drop. Medium sits 42 FPS above High, and Low adds another 52 FPS. The minimum FPS at Medium (198) remains well above the playable threshold, indicating stable frame delivery.

1920x1080 (1080p)

| Settings | Average FPS | Minimum FPS | Maximum FPS |

|---|---|---|---|

| Low | 400 | — | — |

| Medium | 327 | 278 | 376 |

| High | 268 | — | — |

| Ultra | 168 | — | — |

At 1080p, the system is massively overprovisioned. Even Ultra, the most demanding preset, produces 168 FPS—2.8x the playable threshold. The minimum FPS at Medium is 278, which is 4.6x the 60 FPS threshold. The Ultra-to-High delta is 100 FPS, and the High-to-Medium delta is another 59 FPS, showing that settings changes have large absolute impacts at this resolution because the GPU is never close to being saturated.