Downfall

The Intel Core Ultra 9 290K Plus and NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4090 combination delivers overwhelming performance in Downfall, a horror title from 2016. Measured data shows this pairing produces triple-digit frame rates at every resolution and preset tested, with even the most demanding settings at 4K remaining well above the 60 FPS playability threshold. This is a system that effectively removes hardware limitations from the equation, leaving only the game's own engine constraints.

Similar Performance Alternatives

The CPU and GPU each have close performance neighbors that would produce nearly identical results in this game. On the processor side, the Intel Core Ultra 9 290K Plus sits at the top of a tight cluster. Its average benchmark score of 84003 places it just 0.2% ahead of the Intel Core Ultra 9 285K, which scores 83807. The AMD EPYC 4584PX trails by 1.1% with an 83090 average, and the AMD EPYC 9135 is 1.2% behind at 82980. The AMD EPYC 7F72 is the only rival in this group that leads, posting an 85072 average score, which is 1.3% higher than the 290K Plus. In practical terms for Downfall, all four processors would deliver functionally identical frame rates, as the game's performance is not CPU-bound at these settings.

The GPU comparison is more unusual. The RTX 4090's average benchmark score of 60347 is matched almost exactly by the Intel Arc Pro A60, which scores 60326, a delta of 0%. The AMD Radeon Pro Vega 48 comes in 0.3% behind at 60140, while the AMD Radeon Pro W6600M leads by 2.5% with 61896. The AMD Radeon PRO V710 trails by 2.9% at 58657. These rival GPUs are workstation-oriented products rather than gaming cards, but the benchmark data shows they occupy a similar performance envelope. In Downfall specifically, the RTX 4090's measured frame rates would likely be approached only by the W6600M, while the others would fall slightly short in GPU-heavy scenes.

CPU and GPU Roles

The data indicates this game is overwhelmingly GPU-bound at every resolution tested. The CPU's massive headroom — 24 cores, 24 threads, and a 96th percentile ranking among all processors — means it never becomes a limiting factor. The Core Ultra 9 290K Plus scores 51731 in Cinebench R23 multi-core and 7303 in single-core, with a PassMark multi-thread score of 60860. These are far beyond what Downfall requires, given its 2016 release date and horror genre focus.

The scaling pattern across resolutions confirms the GPU's dominance. At 1080p, the RTX 4090 produces 442 FPS on Low settings, while at 4K the same preset yields 196 FPS. That is a 55.7% drop in frame rate when resolution quadruples, which is consistent with a GPU-bound scenario where pixel throughput becomes the bottleneck. The CPU's contribution is negligible because even at 1080p Low — the most CPU-sensitive configuration — the frame rate is nearly three times the GPU's 4K Ultra output. If the CPU were constraining performance, the gap between Low and Ultra settings would be smaller than observed.

The settings scaling within each resolution reinforces this interpretation. At 4K, moving from Low to Ultra reduces average FPS from 196 to 82, a 58.2% decrease. At 1440p, the same settings change drops performance from 315 to 132 FPS, a 58.1% reduction. At 1080p, Low produces 442 FPS versus 185 FPS on Ultra, a 58.1% decline. The consistency of this ~58% scaling across all three resolutions is a hallmark of pure GPU-bound rendering, where each setting tier imposes a similar proportional load increase regardless of pixel count. The CPU's role is effectively static — it feeds the GPU fast enough that no measured frame rate appears artificially capped.

Measured FPS Breakdown

At 1920x1080, the RTX 4090 delivers extraordinary results. Low settings produce an average of 442 FPS. Medium settings average 361 FPS, with a minimum of 307 and maximum of 416. High settings average 296 FPS. Ultra settings average 185 FPS. Every preset clears the 60 FPS threshold by a factor of at least three.

Moving to 2560x1440, performance remains exceptional. Low settings average 315 FPS. Medium settings average 258 FPS, with a minimum of 219 and maximum of 297. High settings average 212 FPS. Ultra settings average 132 FPS. The minimum frame rate at Medium — 219 FPS — is still more than three times the playability threshold.

At 3840x2160, the system remains far above playable limits. Low settings average 196 FPS. Medium settings average 161 FPS, with a minimum of 136 and maximum of 185. High settings average 132 FPS. Ultra settings average 82 FPS. Even the lowest recorded minimum across all resolutions and presets — 136 FPS at 4K Medium — is more than double the 60 FPS threshold. The absence of min/max data for several presets suggests those runs were not captured, but the averages alone establish clear margins.

The FPS deltas between presets are consistent. At 4K, Medium is 22.5% slower than Low, High is 18.0% slower than Medium, and Ultra is 37.9% slower than High. At 1440p, the same progression shows Medium 18.1% slower than Low, High 17.8% slower than Medium, and Ultra 37.7% slower than High. At 1080p, Medium trails Low by 18.3%, High trails Medium by 18.0%, and Ultra trails High by 37.5%. The uniform scaling suggests each preset tier adds a predictable rendering load.

The Verdict

This PC can run Downfall at every resolution and preset combination tested, with massive headroom above the 60 FPS playability threshold. The verdict data confirms all four settings — Low, Medium, High, and Ultra — are playable at 3840x2160, 2560x1440, and 1920x1080. There is no configuration where this system fails to deliver a smooth experience.

At 4K Ultra, the most demanding scenario, the average frame rate is 82 FPS. That is 36.7% above the threshold, providing a comfortable cushion for scene complexity spikes. At 1440p Ultra, the average rises to 132 FPS, which is 120% above the threshold. At 1080p Ultra, the average reaches 185 FPS, more than triple the playability minimum. The minimum measured frame rate anywhere in the data — 136 FPS at 4K Medium — is still well above 60 FPS, indicating that even worst-case dips do not threaten playability.

For a horror game where smooth motion and responsive camera control matter for atmosphere and gameplay, this system overdelivers. The 2016 release date means the game's engine was never designed to stress hardware like this, and the measured results reflect that. Users can enable maximum settings at any resolution without concern for frame rate drops below playable levels.

How This Combo Ranks

The combination of the Intel Core Ultra 9 290K Plus and NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4090 ranks 109th out of 3716 tested combos in Downfall. That places it in the top 2.9% of all system configurations evaluated for this game. The ranking reflects the GPU's position at the 88th percentile among all GPUs and the CPU's 96th percentile among all CPUs, though the game's GPU-bound nature means the graphics card contributes more heavily to this placement.

A rank of 109 out of 3716 is strong but not the absolute top, indicating that some other combinations achieve higher frame rates. Given that the RTX 4090 is marked as end-of-life and has been succeeded by the GeForce 50 series, newer GPUs likely occupy the top positions. The 4090's 88th percentile GPU ranking — with an average benchmark score of 60347 — is high but not the ceiling. For Downfall specifically, the measured frame rates at 4K Ultra (82 FPS) and 1080p Low (442 FPS) are excellent, but the rank shows there is still performance headroom available in other hardware combinations.

The CPU's nearest rivals include the Intel Core Ultra 9 285K and several AMD EPYC server processors, none of which would meaningfully change this combo's rank in a GPU-bound game. The GPU's nearest rivals are workstation cards like the Intel Arc Pro A60 and AMD Radeon Pro W6600M, which would score similarly in synthetic benchmarks but lack the gaming-specific optimizations that boost the RTX 4090's real-world frame rates in titles like Downfall.

Best Settings per Resolution

At 1920x1080, the best settings are Ultra, which delivers an average of 185 FPS. This is the most demanding preset available, and it still runs at more than three times the 60 FPS threshold. There is no reason to reduce settings at this resolution; even the heaviest configuration leaves enormous headroom.

At 2560x1440, the best settings are also Ultra, averaging 132 FPS. This is 120% above the playability threshold. The jump from 1080p to 1440p costs 28.6% of the frame rate at Ultra settings, but the result remains far beyond what is needed for smooth gameplay.

At 3840x2160, the best settings are Ultra as well, with an average of 82 FPS. This is the only resolution where the frame rate drops below triple digits, but it still clears the 60 FPS threshold by 36.7%. The 4K Ultra result is 37.9% lower than 4K High, reflecting the heavy load of the highest preset, yet it remains comfortably playable. Users who prioritize maximum visual fidelity at 4K can enable Ultra without hesitation. Those who want additional frame rate margin can step down to High at 132 FPS, but the data does not indicate any need to do so for playability.