Downfall

# How This Combo Ranks

The combination of the AMD Ryzen 5 5600F and NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 ranks 2827 out of 2928 tested combos in Downfall. That places this pairing in the bottom 5% of all tested configurations, which is a poor result for a horror title that demands consistent frame delivery. The data shows this combo sits near the very bottom of the performance ladder, with only 101 tested combos ranking below it. This is not a configuration that will deliver a smooth experience at demanding settings, and the benchmark results confirm that expectation.

The rank reflects the combined capabilities of both components. The Ryzen 5 5600F is a 6-core, 12-thread processor from the 5000 series, built on the Zen 3 architecture using the Vermeer codename. It operates on a 7 nm process node from TSMC, with a base clock of 3.00 GHz and a boost clock of 4.00 GHz. The processor has a 65 W TDP and supports DDR4 memory in dual-channel configuration, with a memory bandwidth of 51.2 GB/s. Its PassMark multithread score of 19236 and single-thread score of 2872 place it in the 85th percentile among all CPUs, which is respectable for a mid-range processor. However, the GPU side of this pairing drags the overall rank down significantly.

The GTX 1650 is an end-of-life product from NVIDIA, built on the Turing architecture with the TU117 chip on a 12 nm process. It has 4 GB of GDDR5 memory on a 128-bit bus, with memory clocks running at 2001 MHz and 8 Gbps effective. The GPU's PassMark G3D score is 7880, placing it in the 40th percentile among all GPUs. That percentile ranking is the primary reason this combo ranks so low in Downfall — the GPU is simply not competitive with more modern options. The nearest rival GPUs include the AMD Radeon HD 8850M with an average score of 7447 (0.3% higher), the Intel UHD Graphics 750 at 7441 (0.4% higher), and the AMD Radeon R7 350 at 7425 (0.6% higher). The Intel Arc A310 scores 7550, which is 1% higher than the GTX 1650. These are not impressive comparisons — the GTX 1650 is competing with integrated graphics and older discrete parts.

# GPU Role

The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 plays the limiting role in this combo for Downfall. Its 4 GB of GDDR5 memory is the most obvious constraint, as modern horror games at higher resolutions and settings can easily exceed that capacity. The memory runs at 2001 MHz with 8 Gbps effective speed, providing 128.1 GB/s of bandwidth across the 128-bit bus. That bandwidth figure is modest by current standards, and the data suggests it becomes a bottleneck as resolution increases.

The GPU has 896 shading units, 56 texture mapping units, and 32 ROPs. Its base clock is 1485 MHz with a boost clock of 1665 MHz. The pixel rate is 53.28 GPixel/s and the texture rate is 93.24 GTexel/s. The FP32 performance is 2.984 TFLOPS, which is a modest figure for a desktop GPU. The card has a 75 W TDP and requires no power connectors, drawing everything from the PCIe slot. The suggested PSU is 250 W, which is very low compared to modern cards.

In Downfall specifically, the GPU's role is evident when comparing the measured FPS across settings. At 1080p Low, the combo achieves 91 FPS average. At 1080p High, it drops to 61 FPS. At 1080p Ultra, it falls to 38 FPS. These numbers show that the GPU is handling the workload at lower settings but struggles as the preset quality increases. The 4 GB VRAM capacity is likely the culprit at higher settings, as texture quality and other memory-intensive features push the GPU past its limit.

The GPU's benchmark scores reinforce this picture. Its PassMark DirectX 11 score is 58, DirectX 12 score is 35, and DirectX 10 score is 39. The DirectX 9 score is 124, which is notably higher but still not exceptional. The Geekbench OpenCL score is 29629 and the Vulkan score is 33042. The 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 score is 305, which is very low. These scores indicate a GPU that handles older APIs reasonably well but struggles with modern workloads.

# Resolution Scaling

The measured FPS data from Downfall shows clear resolution scaling behavior. At 1080p Low, the combo averages 91 FPS. Moving to 1440p Low, the average drops to 65 FPS — a reduction of 26 FPS, or approximately 28.6%. At 4K Low, the average is 41 FPS, which is another 24 FPS drop from 1440p, representing about 36.9% decline. The scaling from 1080p to 4K at Low settings shows a total drop from 91 FPS to 41 FPS, which is a 54.9% reduction.

At Medium settings, the pattern is similar. The 1080p Medium average is 75 FPS, with a minimum of 64 FPS and maximum of 86 FPS. At 1440p Medium, the average drops to 53 FPS, with a minimum of 45 FPS and maximum of 61 FPS. At 4K Medium, the average falls to 33 FPS, with a minimum of 28 FPS and maximum of 38 FPS. The scaling from 1080p to 1440p at Medium is a 22 FPS drop (29.3%), and from 1440p to 4K is a 20 FPS drop (37.7%).

At High settings, the 1080p average is 61 FPS. At 1440p, it drops to 44 FPS — a 17 FPS reduction (27.9%). At 4K, it falls to 27 FPS, which is another 17 FPS drop (38.6%). The total reduction from 1080p High to 4K High is 34 FPS, or 55.7%.

At Ultra settings, the 1080p average is 38 FPS. At 1440p, it drops to 27 FPS — an 11 FPS reduction (28.9%). At 4K Ultra, it falls to 17 FPS, which is a 10 FPS drop (37.0%). The total reduction from 1080p Ultra to 4K Ultra is 21 FPS, or 55.3%.

These scaling patterns indicate that the GPU is the limiting component. The percentage drops from 1080p to 1440p are consistently around 28-29%, and from 1440p to 4K they are around 37-38%. This is typical of a GPU-bound scenario where the rendering resolution directly impacts performance. The CPU, with its 85th percentile ranking, is not the bottleneck here — the GTX 1650's modest compute capability and 4 GB VRAM are what hold back performance at higher resolutions.

# Settings Recommendations

The measured FPS data provides clear guidance for settings in Downfall. At 1080p, the Low preset delivers 91 FPS, which is well above playable thresholds. The Medium preset delivers 75 FPS with a minimum of 64 FPS, which is also smooth. The High preset delivers 61 FPS, which is adequate but closer to the edge of acceptable. The Ultra preset drops to 38 FPS, which is below the typical 60 FPS target and would feel noticeably less smooth.

For 1080p gameplay, the Medium preset appears to be the best balance. It delivers 75 FPS average with a minimum of 64 FPS, ensuring that frame drops stay above 60 FPS. The High preset at 61 FPS is playable but leaves less headroom for demanding scenes. The Low preset at 91 FPS is the smoothest option, but the visual quality reduction may not be worth the extra frames for a horror game where atmosphere matters.

At 1440p, the Low preset delivers 65 FPS, which is playable. The Medium preset delivers 53 FPS, which is borderline — it would be acceptable on a 60 Hz monitor but not ideal. The High preset drops to 44 FPS, and Ultra falls to 27 FPS. For 1440p, the Low preset is the recommended choice, as it is the only preset that maintains an average above 60 FPS. The Medium preset at 53 FPS could work for players who prioritize visual quality over smoothness, but the data suggests it will feel less responsive.

At 4K, none of the presets deliver acceptable performance. The Low preset averages 41 FPS, Medium averages 33 FPS, High averages 27 FPS, and Ultra averages 17 FPS. Even the lowest settings fail to reach 60 FPS, and the Medium preset has a minimum of 28 FPS, which would be stuttery. The data indicates that 4K is not a viable resolution for this combo in Downfall.

The best experience per the measured rows is at 1080p Medium. It provides 75 FPS average with a minimum of 64 FPS, which is smooth and consistent. The max FPS of 86 shows there is some headroom, but the minimum stays above the 60 FPS threshold. This combination of settings and resolution gives the best frame delivery without sacrificing too much visual quality. Players with 144 Hz monitors might prefer the 1080p Low preset at 91 FPS, but the Medium preset is the better overall choice for most users.

# Measured FPS Breakdown

At 1920x1080 resolution, the measured FPS across settings shows a clear progression. The Low preset averages 91 FPS, with no minimum or maximum recorded. The Medium preset averages 75 FPS, with a minimum of 64 FPS and a maximum of 86 FPS. The High preset averages 61 FPS, with no minimum or maximum recorded. The Ultra preset averages 38 FPS, with no minimum or maximum recorded. The delta between Low and Ultra at 1080p is 53 FPS, which represents a 58.2% reduction in average frame rate when moving from the lowest to the highest settings.

At 2560x1440 resolution, the Low preset averages 65 FPS. The Medium preset averages 53 FPS, with a minimum of 45 FPS and a maximum of 61 FPS. The High preset averages 44 FPS. The Ultra preset averages 27 FPS. The delta between Low and Ultra at 1440p is 38 FPS, which is a 58.5% reduction. Notably, the 1440p Medium minimum of 45 FPS is below the 1080p High average of 61 FPS, showing that the resolution increase has a significant impact on frame consistency.

At 3840x2160 resolution, the Low preset averages 41 FPS. The Medium preset averages 33 FPS, with a minimum of 28 FPS and a maximum of 38 FPS. The High preset averages 27 FPS. The Ultra preset averages 17 FPS. The delta between Low and Ultra at 4K is 24 FPS, which is a 58.5% reduction — the same percentage as at 1440p. This consistency in percentage deltas across resolutions suggests that the settings scaling is uniform, and the GPU's relative performance degradation is consistent regardless of resolution.

The Medium presets at each resolution have the only recorded minimum and maximum values. At 1080p, the Medium preset ranges from 64 to 86 FPS, a 22 FPS spread. At 1440p, the range is 45 to 61 FPS, a 16 FPS spread. At 4K, the range is 28 to 38 FPS, a 10 FPS spread. The narrowing range at higher resolutions indicates that the GPU is becoming more consistently bottlenecked, with less variance in frame times.

Comparing across resolutions at the same settings, the 1080p High average of 61 FPS is 17 FPS higher than the 1440p High average of 44 FPS, which is 17 FPS higher than the 4K High average of 27 FPS. This linear drop of 17 FPS per resolution step at High settings is notable. At Low settings, the drops are 26 FPS from 1080p to 1440p (91 to 65) and 24 FPS from 1440p to 4K (65 to 41). At Medium, the drops are 22 FPS (75 to 53) and 20 FPS (53 to 33). At Ultra, the drops are 11 FPS (38 to 27) and 10 FPS (27 to 17).

# CPU Role

The AMD Ryzen 5 5600F is a 6-core, 12-thread processor from the 5000 series, built on the Zen 3 architecture with the Vermeer codename. It has a base clock of 3.00 GHz and a boost clock of 4.00 GHz, with a 65 W TDP. The processor is fabricated on a 7 nm process node at TSMC, with 4,150 million transistors on a 74 mm² die. It supports DDR4 memory in dual-channel configuration, with a memory bandwidth of 51.2 GB/s and ECC memory support. The processor uses the AMD Socket AM4 and supports PCIe Gen 4 with 20 lanes from the CPU.

The CPU's benchmark results show a strong performer for its class. The PassMark multithread score is 19236, and the single-thread score is 2872. The data compression score is 232836, data encryption is 13839, and extended instructions score is 16266. The floating point math score is 34548, integer math is 59339, and find prime numbers score is 120. The physics score is 1043, and random string sorting is 23422. The average benchmark score is 36945, placing the CPU in the 85th percentile among all CPUs.

The nearest rivals for the Ryzen 5 5600F include the Intel Core Ultra 5 225 with an average score of 36938 (0% delta), the AMD Ryzen 5 5500X3D at 37018 (-0.2% delta), the AMD Ryzen AI 7 PRO 450 at 37093 (-0.4% delta), and the Intel Core i9-12900T at 37112 (-0.5% delta). These are extremely close scores, with the Ryzen 5 5600F essentially matching its closest competitors. The percent deltas are all within 0.5%, indicating that the CPU is performing exactly as expected for its tier.

In Downfall, the CPU role is secondary to the GPU. The benchmark results show that the GTX 1650 is the bottleneck at all resolutions and settings. The CPU's 85th percentile ranking and strong multithread performance mean it can feed frames to the GPU without becoming a limiting factor. The measured FPS scaling with resolution — where performance drops by roughly 28-29% from 1080p to 1440p and 37-38% from 1440p to 4K — is characteristic of GPU-bound rendering.

The CPU's 6 cores and 12 threads are sufficient for this horror title, which does not appear to be heavily multithreaded based on the performance data. The boost clock of 4.00 GHz provides adequate single-thread performance, as evidenced by the PassMark single-thread score of 2872. The L3 cache of 32 MB shared across all cores helps with memory latency, which benefits game performance in general.

The data suggests that the CPU is not holding back the GTX 1650 in this game. At 1080p Low, the combo reaches 91 FPS, which is likely near the GPU's maximum capability. The CPU has enough headroom to handle the game's logic and physics without introducing frame pacing issues. The memory bandwidth of 51.2 GB/s is modest but sufficient for a GPU with 128.1 GB/s of bandwidth, as the CPU is not the primary data consumer in gaming workloads.

The CPU's 65 W TDP and 7 nm process node make it an efficient choice, but in this combo, the GPU's 75 W TDP and 12 nm process node are the limiting factors. The suggested PSU of 250 W for the GPU indicates that the entire system draws very little power, which is a positive for system builders but does not compensate for the GPU's limited compute capability.

The Ryzen 5 5600F's release date of 2025-09-15 makes it a newer processor compared to the GTX 1650's release date of 2019-04-22. This generational gap means the CPU is more capable relative to its era than the GPU is to its own era. The CPU's production status is Active, while the GPU is End-of-life, further confirming that the GPU is the older, more limited component in this pairing.

The launch MSRP of the GTX 1650 was 149 USD, which positions it as a budget-oriented card from its time. The CPU has no launch MSRP listed, but its position in the 85th percentile among CPUs indicates it is a mid-range performer. In Downfall, the CPU's role is to provide stable frame delivery without bottlenecking the GPU. The data shows that it fulfills this role effectively, as the performance limitations are entirely attributable to the GPU's compute and memory bandwidth constraints.