Downfall

The Intel Core Ultra 9 290K Plus paired with the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5070 delivers exceptionally high frame rates in Downfall, a 2016 horror title. Across all tested resolutions and presets, the combination never drops below the 60 FPS playable threshold, with even the most demanding 4K Ultra settings maintaining an average of 62 FPS. This analysis breaks down the measured performance, component roles, and how this specific pairing stacks up against other tested configurations.

FAQ

Q: What is the highest playable settings preset at 4K resolution?

A: At 3840x2160, the Ultra preset is playable with an average FPS of 62. The data shows all four settings presets (Low, Medium, High, Ultra) clear the 60 FPS threshold at this resolution.

Q: How does the combo rank among all tested configurations?

A: The combo ranks 768th out of 3716 tested combinations. This places it in the top percentile of configurations, indicating strong overall performance for this title.

Q: What is the maximum average FPS recorded at 1080p?

A: At 1920x1080 with Low settings, the average FPS reaches 334. This is the highest recorded average across all resolutions and presets in the measured data.

Q: Which component has a higher benchmark percentile rank?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 9 290K Plus CPU sits in the 96th percentile among all CPUs, while the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5070 GPU sits in the 82nd percentile among all GPUs. The CPU is relatively stronger in general compute performance.

Q: Are there any settings where the frame rate dips below 60 FPS?

A: No. Every measured configuration—across 1080p, 1440p, and 4K resolutions with Low, Medium, High, and Ultra presets—averages above 60 FPS. The lowest average recorded is 62 FPS at 4K Ultra.

Q: What is the average FPS difference between 1080p and 4K at Ultra settings?

A: At Ultra settings, the 1080p average is 140 FPS, while the 4K average is 62 FPS. This represents a 78 FPS reduction, or roughly a 56% drop in average frame rate when moving from 1080p to 4K.

CPU and GPU Roles

The data reveals a clear pattern of GPU-bound scaling across resolutions. At 1080p, the system produces extremely high frame rates—334 FPS at Low, 273 FPS at Medium, 224 FPS at High, and 140 FPS at Ultra. These figures suggest the CPU is capable of feeding the GPU with enough data to maintain high throughput, but the sheer magnitude of the numbers indicates the graphics card is not the limiting factor at this resolution.

Moving to 2560x1440, the averages drop consistently: 238 FPS at Low, 195 FPS at Medium, 160 FPS at High, and 100 FPS at Ultra. The scaling from 1080p to 1440p shows a reduction of roughly 29% at Low, 29% at Medium, 29% at High, and 29% at Ultra. This uniform percentage drop across all presets strongly suggests that the GPU is now becoming the primary constraint, as the pixel count increase directly impacts rendering workload.

At 3840x2160, the trend continues with more pronounced reductions. The averages fall to 148 FPS at Low, 121 FPS at Medium, 99 FPS at High, and 62 FPS at Ultra. The scaling from 1440p to 4K shows reductions of approximately 38% at Low, 38% at Medium, 38% at High, and 38% at Ultra. This consistent scaling pattern confirms that the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5070 is the dominant factor in determining performance at higher resolutions.

The CPU's role becomes more relevant at lower resolutions where the GPU has spare capacity. At 1080p Low, the 334 FPS average indicates the system still has headroom, meaning the Core Ultra 9 290K Plus is not bottlenecking the GPU to any significant degree. The 24-core, 24-thread processor with a boost clock of 5.80 GHz provides ample single-threaded and multi-threaded performance for this 2016 title, which likely does not heavily utilize modern multi-core architectures.

The RTX 5070's memory configuration—12 GB of GDDR7 on a 192-bit bus with 672.0 GB/s bandwidth—delivers sufficient bandwidth for the texture-heavy horror environments in Downfall. The GPU's 6144 shading units and 48 RT cores handle the game's lighting and shadow effects, though the game's age means it likely does not use ray tracing features that would stress these dedicated cores.

The percentile data reinforces this interpretation. The CPU's 96th percentile ranking versus the GPU's 82nd percentile means the graphics card is relatively weaker compared to its peers than the processor is. This explains why the GPU becomes the limiting factor as resolution increases, while the CPU continues to provide consistent performance across all settings.

Measured FPS Breakdown

At 1920x1080, the system delivers its highest performance. The Low preset produces an average of 334 FPS, with no minimum or maximum recorded. Medium settings average 273 FPS, with a minimum of 232 FPS and a maximum of 314 FPS. High settings average 224 FPS, and the Ultra preset averages 140 FPS. The gap between Low and Ultra is 194 FPS, indicating that the graphics settings have a substantial impact on frame rate even at this resolution.

At 2560x1440, the averages remain high but show the expected reduction. Low settings average 238 FPS, Medium averages 195 FPS with a minimum of 166 FPS and a maximum of 224 FPS, High averages 160 FPS, and Ultra averages 100 FPS. The spread between Low and Ultra narrows to 138 FPS, reflecting the increased GPU load at this resolution.

At 3840x2160, performance drops further but stays above playable thresholds. Low settings average 148 FPS, Medium averages 121 FPS with a minimum of 103 FPS and a maximum of 139 FPS, High averages 99 FPS, and Ultra averages 62 FPS. The difference between Low and Ultra here is 86 FPS, the smallest spread across all resolutions. This suggests that at 4K, the GPU is so heavily loaded that changing settings from Low to Ultra only costs about 58% of the frame rate, compared to 58% at 1080p and 58% at 1440p.

The recorded minimum FPS values appear only for Medium settings across all resolutions. At 1080p Medium, the minimum is 232 FPS; at 1440p Medium, it is 166 FPS; and at 4K Medium, it is 103 FPS. These minimums indicate that even the worst-case frame drops remain well above the 60 FPS threshold, confirming stable performance during demanding scenes.

How This Combo Ranks

The comboRankInGame places this configuration at 768th out of 3716 tested combinations. This ranking reflects the overall performance across all games in the benchmark database, not just Downfall. Within the context of this horror title, the position suggests that the combination is well above average, with the top 20% of tested configurations outperforming it.

The CPU's benchmark scores contextualize its contribution. In Cinebench R23, the multicore score is 51731 and the single-core score is 7303. These figures place the processor in the 96th percentile. The nearest rivals include the Intel Core Ultra 9 285K with an average score of 83807 and a delta of 0.2%, meaning the 290K Plus is essentially tied with its predecessor. The AMD EPYC 4584PX scores 83090 with a delta of 1.1%, and the AMD EPYC 9135 scores 82980 with a delta of 1.2%. The AMD EPYC 7F72 scores 85072 with a delta of -1.3%, indicating it is slightly faster.

The GPU's benchmark scores show a different picture. In 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12, the score is 5077. The Passmark G3D score is 29137, and the GPU compute score is 15787. These place the RTX 5070 in the 82nd percentile. Its nearest rivals include the AMD Radeon Pro 580 with an average score of 40318 and a delta of 0.1%, the AMD Radeon Pro WX 7100 with 40063 and a delta of 0.8%, the AMD Radeon Pro 5300 with 40870 and a delta of -1.2%, and the NVIDIA RTX A500 Mobile with 39568 and a delta of 2%.

The ranking of 768 out of 3716 indicates that while this is not a top-tier configuration, it substantially outperforms the median combo. The high CPU percentile contributes to strong performance in CPU-bound scenarios, while the GPU's lower percentile relative to its peers means that graphics-heavy loads may see more variation.

The Verdict

This PC can run Downfall at all tested resolutions and settings presets, maintaining an average FPS above the 60 FPS playable threshold. At 3840x2160, all four presets—Low at 148 FPS, Medium at 121 FPS, High at 99 FPS, and Ultra at 62 FPS—are playable. The verdict data confirms that Ultra at 4K is classified as playable with an average of 62 FPS.

At 2560x1440, the system delivers even higher performance. Low averages 238 FPS, Medium averages 195 FPS, High averages 160 FPS, and Ultra averages 100 FPS. All presets are well above the threshold, with Ultra offering double the minimum requirement.

At 1920x1080, the performance is exceptional. Low averages 334 FPS, Medium averages 273 FPS, High averages 224 FPS, and Ultra averages 140 FPS. Even the most demanding preset at the lowest resolution provides more than twice the playable threshold.

The verdictByResolution data explicitly lists all settings as playable at every resolution. The best settings at 4K is Ultra with 62 FPS, at 1440p it is Ultra with 100 FPS, and at 1080p it is Ultra with 140 FPS. There is no scenario in the measured data where this combination fails to meet the 60 FPS requirement.

Best Settings per Resolution

At 3840x2160, the most demanding preset that stays at or above 60 FPS is Ultra, achieving an average of 62 FPS. This is the highest quality setting available, and the 62 FPS average is only slightly above the threshold, leaving minimal headroom for scene complexity variations.

At 2560x1440, the best settings are also Ultra, with an average of 100 FPS. This provides a comfortable margin above the 60 FPS threshold, allowing for consistent performance even in demanding scenes. The 100 FPS average represents a 67% increase over the 4K Ultra result.

At 1920x1080, Ultra settings deliver an average of 140 FPS. This is the highest quality preset at the lowest resolution, and the frame rate is more than double the playable threshold. The 140 FPS average provides substantial headroom for any potential frame drops.

The data shows a clear progression: as resolution increases, the average FPS at Ultra settings decreases from 140 at 1080p to 100 at 1440p to 62 at 4K. The 4K Ultra result is the only configuration that approaches the 60 FPS threshold, but it still clears it.

Similar Performance Alternatives

For the CPU, the nearest rival is the Intel Core Ultra 9 285K, with a delta of 0.2% in average benchmark score. This means the 285K performs essentially identically to the 290K Plus in general compute benchmarks. Users with the 285K would see virtually the same Downfall performance, as the game is unlikely to stress the CPU to the point where this 0.2% difference matters.

The AMD EPYC 4584PX is 1.1% slower, and the AMD EPYC 9135 is 1.2% slower. These server-class processors would provide similar CPU performance for this game, though their platform differences may affect other aspects of system behavior. The AMD EPYC 7F72 is 1.3% faster, representing the closest performing chip in the rival list.

For the GPU, the nearest rival is the AMD Radeon Pro 580, with a delta of 0.1%. This means the RTX 5070 and the Pro 580 produce nearly identical average benchmark scores. The AMD Radeon Pro WX 7100 is 0.8% slower, while the AMD Radeon Pro 5300 is 1.2% faster. The NVIDIA RTX A500 Mobile is 2% slower.

These rival comparisons suggest that swapping the RTX 5070 for a Radeon Pro 580 would result in nearly identical Downfall performance, as the 0.1% delta is negligible in real-world gaming. The same applies to the CPU: the Core Ultra 9 285K would be an indistinguishable replacement for the 290K Plus in this title. The combination of a top-96th-percentile CPU with an 82nd-percentile GPU ensures that the system is well-balanced for this game, with the GPU being the more likely bottleneck at higher resolutions.