Greedfall

The Intel Core i5-13400F paired with the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4080 delivers an exceptionally strong performance profile for Greedfall, ranking 254th out of 3,703 tested combinations. This places the combo in the top 7% of all tested systems, indicating that this pairing is far above the typical hardware baseline for this title. The measured data confirms that this system does not merely meet the playable threshold of 60 FPS; at most settings and resolutions, it far exceeds it, with the only exception being a perfect landing right at 60 FPS average under the most demanding configuration at 4K. The following analysis breaks down the measured data to provide a clear picture of what this hardware can deliver.

How This Combo Ranks

The combination’s rank of 254 out of 3,703 tested combos places it in the 93rd percentile of all systems tested for Greedfall. This is a strong indicator that the hardware pairing is well above the median system used by other players, placing it in the upper echelon of performance. While the CPU itself, the Core i5-13400F, has a percentile rank of 77 against all CPUs, and the RTX 4080 holds an 86th percentile rank against all GPUs, their combined performance in this specific title is even more favorable. The data suggests that the synergy between the 10-core, 16-thread processor and the Ada Lovelace architecture GPU creates a system that is highly optimized for this game's engine, resulting in a rank that is better than either component's individual standing might imply.

The high ranking is substantiated by the raw performance metrics. For instance, the CPU achieves a Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 22,604 and a single-core score of 3,191, indicating strong processing power for both heavily threaded tasks and game logic. Meanwhile, the GPU’s PassMark G3D score of 34,457 demonstrates immense rasterization capability. When combined at 1080p, the system reaches average frame rates of 145 FPS on Ultra settings, which is more than double the playable threshold. This performance headroom is what secures its high rank, as it shows the hardware is not being pushed to its limits but instead delivering a high-fidelity, high-refresh-rate experience.

Similar Performance Alternatives

Examining the nearest rivals provides a picture of what other hardware would behave similarly to this combo. The CPU’s closest competitors by average benchmark score are the AMD Ryzen 9 6900HS, the Intel Core 5 120, the AMD Ryzen 5 5600X3D, and the AMD Ryzen 7 6800H. Scores for these chips are remarkably close: the Ryzen 9 6900HS scores 25,284 (a 0% delta), the Core 5 120 scores 25,362 (a -0.3% delta), the Ryzen 5 5600X3D scores 25,365 (a -0.3% delta), and the Ryzen 7 6800H scores 25,201 (a 0.4% delta). With deltas within a fraction of a percent, these processors are effectively tied in benchmark performance, meaning a build using any of these would deliver a nearly identical CPU-bound experience in Greedfall.

On the GPU side, the RTX 4080’s closest rivals are the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4080 SUPER, the AMD Radeon Pro W5700X, the AMD Radeon RX 6750 GRE 12 GB, and the AMD Radeon 8060S. The RTX 4080 SUPER is the most direct alternative, with a score of 54,209, a negligible 0.1% delta compared to the RTX 4080’s 54,247. The AMD Radeon Pro W5700X is slightly higher at 54,828 (a -1.1% delta), while the RX 6750 GRE 12 GB and Radeon 8060S show scores of 55,698 and 55,757 respectively, representing a -2.6% and -2.7% delta. These differences are small enough that the choice between these cards would be a minor factor in the 4K resolution, where the GPU becomes the primary bottleneck. A system with any of these GPUs paired with the i5-13400F would likely deliver frame rates within a few points of the measured data.

FAQ

Q: Can this PC run Greedfall at 4K resolution?

A: Yes. The measured data shows that at 3840x2160 resolution, the system achieves playable frame rates across all settings. The lowest average FPS recorded is 60 FPS at Ultra settings, which is exactly the playable threshold. Low, Medium, and High settings all produce higher frame rates, with 131 FPS, 103 FPS, and 94 FPS respectively.

Q: What is the highest preset that maintains 60 FPS at 1440p?

A: The system can run the game at 2560x1440 on the Ultra preset and still achieve an average frame rate of 100 FPS. This is significantly above the 60 FPS target, indicating the system has considerable headroom at this resolution. The max FPS at this setting was not recorded, but the average confirms a smooth experience.

Q: How significant is the frame rate difference between Low and Ultra settings at 1080p?

A: The difference is substantial. Moving from Low to Ultra settings at 1920x1080 results in a drop in average frame rate from 318 FPS to 145 FPS. This is a 173 FPS difference, highlighting that the GPU is heavily taxed by the Ultra preset’s effects, but the resulting 145 FPS is still nearly two and a half times the playable threshold.

Q: Is the CPU or GPU more likely to be the limiting factor?

A: At lower resolutions, the CPU becomes more relevant, but the data doesn't suggest it's a limiting factor. At 1080p Low, the system hits 318 FPS, which is likely a CPU-bound scenario. However, at 4K Ultra, the frame rate drops to 60 FPS, showing the GPU is the primary constraint at higher resolutions. The system is well-balanced, but the GPU is the deciding factor for maximum visual fidelity.

Q: Does the system maintain 60 FPS in the most demanding scenario?

A: Yes, the most demanding scenario is 4K Ultra settings. In this case, the system achieves an average frame rate of exactly 60 FPS, meeting the playable threshold. This is a marginal result, implying it is the absolute limit of the hardware’s comfort zone.

The Verdict

According to the verdict by resolution data, this PC can absolutely run Greedfall. At 1920x1080, the system is certified to run all settings, with the best setting being Ultra at an average of 145 FPS. Moving to 2560x1440, it is also capable of running all settings, with Ultra again being the best, achieving an average of 100 FPS. At the most demanding resolution, 3840x2160, the system still runs all settings, including Ultra at 60 FPS. The data proves that this hardware combination clears the 60 FPS threshold at every resolution and preset combination tested, making it a top-tier performer for this game. The only point of concern is the 4K Ultra setting, which lands exactly on the 60 FPS line, suggesting that any small background process could cause dips below the target.

Measured FPS Breakdown

The measured data provides a detailed picture of performance across three resolutions and four quality presets.

At 3840x2160, the system starts with an average of 131 FPS at Low settings. This rises to 103 FPS at Medium, with a minimum of 88 FPS and a maximum of 119 FPS. High settings yield an average of 94 FPS. The most demanding setting, Ultra, produces an average of 60 FPS. The data shows a steady decline as visual fidelity increases, with a steep drop from Low to Medium and then to Ultra.

At 2560x1440, the performance is significantly higher. The Low preset delivers an average of 220 FPS. Medium settings produce an average of 173 FPS, with a minimum of 147 FPS and a maximum of 199 FPS. High settings average 157 FPS, and Ultra settings drop to an average of 100 FPS. This resolution offers a wide range of playable presets, all with average frame rates well above 60 FPS.

At 1920x1080, the system is clearly CPU-bound at lower settings. The Low preset produces an average of 318 FPS. The Medium preset averages 249 FPS, with a minimum of 212 FPS and a maximum of 287 FPS. High settings average 226 FPS, and the Ultra preset ends at an average of 145 FPS. Even at the highest settings, the game is running at a frame rate that is more than double the playable threshold.

Best Settings per Resolution

For each resolution, the best setting is the most demanding preset that maintains an average of 60 FPS or higher. Based on the data, that is the Ultra preset at every resolution.

At 3840x2160, the Ultra preset is playable, with an average frame rate of 60 FPS. This is the recommended setting because it matches the playable threshold exactly. Lowering to High would only provide 94 FPS, which is safer, but Ultra is the maximum visual quality that the system can handle.

At 2560x1440, the Ultra preset operates at an average of 100 FPS. This is the best choice for a high-refresh-rate experience, as it offers a high level of visual quality while still providing a significant buffer above the 60 FPS target.

At 1920x1080, Ultra settings yield an average of 145 FPS. This is the best setting for competitive and fast-paced play, as it combines the highest visual fidelity with a frame rate that is smooth on most high-refresh-rate monitors.

CPU and GPU Roles

The data reveals a clear shift in the balance of power between the CPU and GPU depending on the resolution. At 1920x1080, the system achieves an average of 318 FPS at Low settings and 145 FPS at Ultra settings. This wide gap indicates that performance is more dependent on the CPU at this resolution, as the GPU is not fully taxed and can push more frames when the settings allow. The CPU’s strong single-core performance, evidenced by its 3,191 Cinebench R23 score, is likely the key to these high frame rates.

As the resolution increases to 2560x1440, the GPU becomes more critical. The average FPS drops to 100 at Ultra settings, but the CPU still has enough headroom to keep the frame rate high. At 3840x2160, the GPU is clearly the dominant factor. The system’s average FPS drops to 60 at Ultra, a direct result of the GPU’s limits. The GPU’s heavy workload at 4K resolution means the CPU’s high frame generation is no longer the bottleneck; instead, the GPU’s rendering capabilities determine the final output. The scaling between 1080p and 4K on Ultra settings shows a drop from 145 FPS to 60 FPS, a 59% reduction, which is a classic sign of the GPU becoming the primary constraint.