Downfall

# Downfall with AMD Ryzen 5 5600F + AMD Radeon RX 7900 XT

The AMD Ryzen 5 5600F paired with the AMD Radeon RX 7900 XT delivers a curious performance profile in Downfall, a 2016 horror title that clearly scales well beyond typical expectations. Measured data shows this combination hitting triple-digit frame rates at every resolution and settings tier except one, yet the pattern of frame rate drops between resolutions reveals a system that is not consistently bound by a single component. The RX 7900 XT, with its 20 GB of GDDR6 memory and 800.0 GB/s bandwidth, appears substantially overprovisioned for this title, while the Ryzen 5 5600F's six Zen 3 cores and 32 MB of shared L3 cache provide enough throughput to keep up at lower resolutions but may become a limiting factor at 1080p.

Resolution Scaling

The frame rate progression from 1080p to 4K tells a story of shifting bottlenecks. At Low settings, the average FPS drops from 313 at 1920x1080 to 240 at 2560x1440, then further to 150 at 3840x2160. That represents a 23% reduction from 1080p to 1440p, followed by a 37% reduction from 1440p to 4K. The steepening decline at higher resolutions suggests the GPU is taking on more responsibility as pixel count increases, but the absolute numbers remain extraordinarily high for a horror game from 2016.

Moving to Medium settings, the pattern holds: 275 FPS at 1080p, 197 FPS at 1440p, and 122 FPS at 4K. The percentage drops are 28% and 38% respectively, showing a similar curve to Low settings. At High settings, the trend continues with 226 FPS at 1080p, 161 FPS at 1440p, and 100 FPS at 4K — reductions of 29% and 38%. The consistency of these scaling ratios across Low, Medium, and High suggests the game's rendering workload scales predictably with resolution, with the GPU becoming progressively more dominant as pixel count rises.

Ultra settings break this pattern dramatically. At 1080p, Ultra delivers 141 FPS, which is 55% lower than Low at the same resolution. At 1440p, Ultra drops to 101 FPS, and at 4K it falls to 63 FPS — the only measured configuration below 100 FPS. The scaling from 1080p to 1440p at Ultra is a 28% reduction, and from 1440p to 4K it is 38%, which mirrors the other settings tiers. However, the massive gap between Low and Ultra at every resolution indicates that Ultra settings introduce effects that heavily tax the GPU, likely including advanced lighting or shadow techniques that this 2016 title implements inefficiently by modern standards.

The data implies that at 1080p and 1440p, the CPU may be holding back the GPU, particularly at Low and Medium settings where frame rates exceed 240 FPS. At those speeds, the Ryzen 5 5600F's boost clock of 4.00 GHz and its 12 threads are likely near their limits for game logic and draw call processing. The frame rate ceiling appears to be around 313 FPS at 1080p Low, which is suspiciously close to what a six-core Zen 3 processor might cap out at in this title. At 4K, however, the GPU is clearly the limiting component, as the RX 7900 XT's 5376 shading units and 192 ROPs are fully engaged with the higher pixel workload.

GPU Role

The Radeon RX 7900 XT brings substantial hardware to Downfall, and the measured results reflect its capability. With 20 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 320-bit bus delivering 800.0 GB/s of bandwidth, memory capacity and throughput are non-issues for this title. The GPU's boost clock of 2394 MHz and game clock of 2025 MHz provide the raw speed needed to maintain high frame rates even at 4K Ultra, where the average sits at 63 FPS. The 84 ray tracing cores and 5376 shading units are more than adequate for a horror game released in 2016, which likely does not utilize modern rendering features.

The GPU's benchmark scores place it in a peculiar context. Its PassMark G3D score of 29009 is impressive, but the average benchmark score of 13745 lands at the 55th percentile among all GPUs. The nearest rivals in the data are the AMD Radeon 660M with a score of 13812 (0.5% lower), the NVIDIA RTX A2000 Mobile at 13821 (0.5% lower), and the AMD Radeon RX 570X at 13871 (0.9% lower). The AMD Radeon RX 9070 XT scores 13543, which is 1.5% lower. This clustering of scores around 13,700-13,900 suggests that the average benchmark metric may be skewed by compute-oriented tests, while the gaming-specific PassMark DirectX 12 score of 110 and DirectX 11 score of 340 indicate strong DirectX performance.

In Downfall specifically, the GPU's role becomes clear through the resolution scaling data. At 4K Ultra, the 63 FPS average suggests the GPU is heavily loaded, but at 1080p Low, the 313 FPS average indicates the GPU has substantial headroom. The VRAM allocation is never a concern — 20 GB is far beyond what a 2016 horror title would require, even at 4K with maximum textures. The memory clock of 2500 MHz (20 Gbps effective) ensures that memory bandwidth is not a bottleneck in any scenario measured.

FAQ

Q: Why does the frame rate drop so much from 1080p to 4K at Low settings (313 to 150 FPS)?

A: The 52% reduction in average FPS from 1920x1080 to 3840x2160 at Low settings indicates that the GPU becomes the primary limiting factor as pixel count quadruples. The RX 7900 XT's rendering throughput is being consumed by the increased pixel workload, even at the lowest settings tier.

Q: Is the CPU or GPU the bottleneck at 1080p Low settings?

A: The 313 FPS average at 1080p Low is likely near the CPU's practical limit for this title. The Ryzen 5 5600F's 6 cores and 12 threads with a 4.00 GHz boost clock can only process so many frames per second, and the GPU has ample headroom at this resolution, suggesting the CPU is the limiting component.

Q: Why does Ultra settings at 4K only achieve 63 FPS when other settings at 4K exceed 100 FPS?

A: Ultra settings introduce rendering features that disproportionately tax the GPU. The 63 FPS at 3840x2160 Ultra is 37% lower than the 100 FPS at High settings at the same resolution, indicating that the additional effects in Ultra are extremely demanding on the RX 7900 XT's shading units and ROPs.

Q: How does this combo rank among all tested combinations in Downfall?

A: This combination ranks 567th out of 2928 tested combos, placing it in the top 19% of all systems tested for this game. The ranking reflects the strong performance of the RX 7900 XT paired with the Ryzen 5 5600F, though the CPU may limit performance at lower resolutions.

Q: What is the highest average FPS achievable with this combo?

A: The highest measured average FPS is 313, achieved at 1920x1080 with Low settings. The Medium settings at 1080p reach 275 FPS, and High settings at 1080p reach 226 FPS, showing that even with increased visual quality, frame rates remain well above 200 FPS at 1080p.

Q: Does the RX 7900 XT's 20 GB VRAM matter for Downfall?

A: The 20 GB of GDDR6 memory is far more than this game requires, even at 4K Ultra. The measured data shows no evidence of VRAM-related performance degradation, meaning the memory capacity is not a limiting factor in any tested configuration.

How This Combo Ranks

The combination of the AMD Ryzen 5 5600F and AMD Radeon RX 7900 XT achieves a rank of 567 out of 2928 tested combos in Downfall. This places the system in the 81st percentile of all tested configurations, meaning roughly 80% of tested combos perform worse in this game. The ranking is notable because the RX 7900 XT's average benchmark score of 13745 sits at the 55th percentile among all GPUs, yet in Downfall, this combo outperforms the vast majority of systems.

The CPU's benchmark context helps explain this strong showing. The Ryzen 5 5600F has an average benchmark score of 36945, placing it at the 85th percentile among all CPUs. Its nearest rivals include the Intel Core Ultra 5 225 at 36938 (0% difference), the AMD Ryzen 5 5500X3D at 37018 (0.2% lower), the AMD Ryzen AI 7 PRO 450 at 37093 (0.4% lower), and the Intel Core i9-12900T at 37112 (0.5% lower). This tight clustering shows the 5600F is competitive with modern processors in general benchmarks, which translates to solid CPU performance in Downfall.

The combo's rank of 567 suggests that while the GPU is powerful, it is not the absolute top performer in this title. The 63 FPS at 4K Ultra indicates that even the RX 7900 XT struggles with the most demanding settings, and the 313 FPS ceiling at 1080p Low suggests CPU limitations prevent higher frame rates. The combination sits in a sweet spot where both components contribute meaningfully to the final performance, rather than one being severely underutilized.

CPU Role

The AMD Ryzen 5 5600F is a six-core, 12-thread processor based on Zen 3 architecture with a base clock of 3.00 GHz and a boost clock of 4.00 GHz. It features 64 KB of L1 cache per core, 512 KB of L2 cache per core, and 32 MB of shared L3 cache. The 7 nm process node from TSMC allows for a 65 W TDP, making it an efficient processor that still delivers strong gaming performance.

In Downfall, the CPU's role is most evident at lower resolutions and settings where frame rates are highest. At 1080p Low, the 313 FPS average suggests the CPU is processing game logic and rendering commands as fast as it can. The PassMark single-thread score of 2872 and multithread score of 19236 indicate balanced performance, with the single-thread capability being particularly relevant for a 2016 title that may not utilize many cores effectively. The PassMark physics score of 1043 and integer math score of 59339 provide additional context for how the CPU handles game-related calculations.

The CPU's 85th percentile ranking among all CPUs, with an average benchmark score of 36945, shows it is well above average. Its nearest rival, the Intel Core Ultra 5 225, scores 36938 (0% difference), while the AMD Ryzen 5 5500X3D scores 37018 (0.2% lower). This indicates that the 5600F is essentially on par with its closest competitors in general workloads. For Downfall specifically, the CPU's 12 threads and high boost clock are sufficient to support frame rates up to 313 FPS at 1080p Low, but the data suggests the CPU becomes the limiting factor above that threshold.

The memory bandwidth of 51.2 GB/s from dual-channel DDR4 may also play a role at high frame rates, as the CPU needs to feed data to the GPU quickly. However, the measured performance shows no obvious memory-related bottlenecks, with frame rates remaining high even at 1440p Medium where the CPU and GPU share the workload more evenly.

Measured FPS Breakdown

At 1920x1080, the measured average FPS values are 313 for Low, 275 for Medium, 226 for High, and 141 for Ultra. The Medium settings show a minimum of 234 FPS and a maximum of 317 FPS, indicating that the frame rate is relatively stable with a 83 FPS range. The progression from Low to Ultra shows a 55% reduction in average FPS, with each settings tier costing approximately 40-50 FPS.

At 2560x1440, the average FPS values drop to 240 for Low, 197 for Medium, 161 for High, and 101 for Ultra. The Medium settings at this resolution show a minimum of 167 FPS and a maximum of 226 FPS, a range of 59 FPS. The reduction from 1080p to 1440p is 23% at Low, 28% at Medium, 29% at High, and 28% at Ultra, showing consistent scaling across settings tiers.

At 3840x2160, the average FPS values are 150 for Low, 122 for Medium, 100 for High, and 63 for Ultra. The Medium settings at 4K show a minimum of 104 FPS and a maximum of 141 FPS, a range of 37 FPS. The reduction from 1440p to 4K is 37% at Low, 38% at Medium, 38% at High, and 38% at Ultra, demonstrating that the GPU workload scales nearly identically across all settings at this resolution step.

The data reveals that the most stable frame rates occur at 4K Medium, where the 37 FPS range suggests the GPU is consistently loaded and producing predictable output. In contrast, 1080p Medium shows a much larger 83 FPS range, indicating that CPU or other system components may cause more variance at higher frame rates.

Settings Recommendations

Based on the measured FPS data, the optimal settings depend heavily on the target resolution and desired frame rate stability. At 3840x2160, High settings deliver 100 FPS average, which is a strong result for 4K gaming. Medium settings at 4K provide 122 FPS with a minimum of 104 FPS, offering a smoother experience with only a modest visual quality reduction. Ultra at 4K drops to 63 FPS, which may be playable but leaves little headroom for demanding scenes.

At 2560x1440, High settings achieve 161 FPS, which is excellent for high-refresh-rate monitors. Medium settings at 1440p reach 197 FPS with a minimum of 167 FPS, providing a very stable experience. Ultra at 1440p delivers 101 FPS, which is still highly playable, but the 60 FPS difference between Ultra and High suggests that High offers the best balance of visual quality and performance at this resolution.

At 1920x1080, High settings reach 226 FPS, which exceeds the refresh rate of most monitors. Medium settings at 1080p provide 275 FPS with a minimum of 234 FPS, ensuring no frame rate drops even in intense scenes. Ultra at 1080p achieves 141 FPS, which is still excellent, but the 85 FPS gap between Ultra and High indicates that the visual improvements from Ultra may not justify the performance cost.

The best overall experience across all resolutions appears to be High settings, which delivers 100 FPS at 4K, 161 FPS at 1440p, and 226 FPS at 1080p. For players seeking maximum frame rates, Low settings at 1080p provide 313 FPS, but Medium at 1080p offers a better balance with 275 FPS and improved visuals. The data suggests that High settings provide the most consistent experience, with frame rates that remain well above 100 FPS at every resolution, while Ultra settings are only recommended for players who prioritize visual fidelity over frame rate stability.