Downfall

The AMD Ryzen 5 5600GT paired with the AMD Radeon RX 7700 XT delivers a robust 1080p and 1440p experience in Downfall, though 4K Ultra settings push the combo to its limits. This analysis draws exclusively from measured frame rate data and synthetic benchmark scores to characterize performance.

FAQ

*Q: What is the combo’s overall rank among tested CPU-GPU pairings in Downfall?*

A: The combo ranks 1392 out of 3716 tested combinations, placing it in the upper-middle tier of all tested systems for this game.

Q: How does the CPU compare to its closest rivals in average benchmark score?

A: The AMD Ryzen 5 5600GT has an average benchmark score of 20733. Its nearest rival, the Intel Core i5-12490F, scores 20802, which is 0.3% higher. The Intel Xeon 6325P and Intel Core Ultra 5 125U both score 20821, 0.4% higher, while the AMD EPYC 7J13 scores 20845, 0.5% higher.

Q: What is the best frame rate achieved at 1080p in the measured data?

A: The highest average FPS recorded is 263 at 1920x1080 with Low settings. Medium settings yield 215 FPS, High yields 176 FPS, and Ultra yields 110 FPS.

Q: Does the GPU outperform its nearest rivals in synthetic benchmarks?

A: The AMD Radeon RX 7700 XT has an average benchmark score of 22549. It is 0.5% ahead of the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5060 Mobile (22435) and 1.7% ahead of the AMD Radeon RX 5700 (22170). It trails the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4060 Mobile (22729) by 0.8% and the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2080 (22895) by 1.5%.

Q: How much VRAM does the GPU have, and what is its memory bandwidth?

A: The GPU features 12 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 192-bit bus, providing 432.0 GB/s of bandwidth. The memory clock is 2250 MHz, which translates to 18 Gbps effective.

Q: What is the frame rate drop from 1080p to 4K at High settings?

A: At High settings, the average FPS falls from 176 at 1920x1080 to 126 at 2560x1440, and then to 78 at 3840x2160. This represents a 55.7% reduction from 1080p to 4K.

How This Combo Ranks

The combination of the AMD Ryzen 5 5600GT and AMD Radeon RX 7700 XT holds rank 1392 out of 3716 tested combos in Downfall. This places it in the top 37.5% of all systems tested, a solid mid-to-upper tier standing. The ranking reflects a balance between the CPU’s and GPU’s capabilities, neither of which is a class leader but both of which contribute meaningfully to the final result.

The CPU itself sits at the 74th percentile among all CPUs, with an average benchmark score of 20733. Its nearest rivals cluster tightly: the Intel Core i5-12490F is just 0.3% faster, and three other parts (Intel Xeon 6325P, Intel Core Ultra 5 125U, AMD EPYC 7J13) are all within 0.5% of its score. This indicates the Ryzen 5 5600GT performs at a level essentially identical to those alternatives, with differences that would be imperceptible in real-world gaming.

The GPU, meanwhile, sits at the 67th percentile among all GPUs, with an average benchmark score of 22549. Its nearest rivals show a similar clustering: the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5060 Mobile is 0.5% faster, the RTX 4060 Mobile and RTX 2080 are 0.8% and 1.5% faster respectively, and the older AMD Radeon RX 5700 is 1.7% slower. This suggests the RX 7700 XT occupies a well-established performance tier, trading blows with those competitors within a narrow margin.

The combo’s rank of 1392, when compared to the individual component percentiles (74th for CPU, 67th for GPU), suggests that Downfall is not overly dependent on any single component. The system performs slightly worse than the CPU’s percentile alone might imply, but better than the GPU’s percentile alone might suggest. This points to a balanced workload where both the processor and graphics card are exercised, and neither becomes a severe bottleneck at lower resolutions.

The game’s horror genre typically involves scenes with variable lighting, shadows, and particle effects, which can stress GPUs disproportionately. However, the measured data shows that the 1080p Low setting reaches 263 FPS, far beyond what most displays can show, indicating that the CPU can feed the GPU adequately at that resolution. The ranking reflects this equilibrium; it is neither a CPU-limited pairing nor a GPU-limited one at typical gaming resolutions.

Resolution Scaling

The measured FPS data reveals how the system scales across resolutions. At High settings, the average frame rate moves from 176 FPS at 1920x1080, to 126 FPS at 2560x1440, to 78 FPS at 3840x2160. The drop from 1080p to 1440p is 50 FPS (28.4%), while the drop from 1440p to 4K is 48 FPS (38.1%). The larger percentage drop at 4K indicates that the GPU is becoming the limiting factor as pixel count increases.

At Low settings, the scaling is more dramatic: 263 FPS at 1080p, 188 FPS at 1440p, and 117 FPS at 4K. The 1080p result is exceptionally high, suggesting that the CPU is still capable of pushing far more frames if the GPU were faster. The 4K Low result of 117 FPS shows that even at the lowest settings, the GPU’s raw pixel throughput is sufficient for smooth gameplay, but the gap between 1080p and 4K (a 55.5% reduction) highlights the GPU’s workload.

Medium settings provide the only measured minimum and maximum FPS data. At 1080p Medium, the average is 215 FPS with a min of 183 and max of 247. At 1440p Medium, the average is 154 FPS (min 131, max 177). At 4K Medium, the average is 96 FPS (min 81, max 110). The minimum frame rates at each resolution show that even in demanding scenes, the system stays above 80 FPS at 4K Medium, which is comfortable for most displays.

The scaling from Medium to Ultra at each resolution is striking. At 1080p, Medium averages 215 FPS while Ultra averages 110 FPS—a 48.8% reduction. At 1440p, Medium averages 154 FPS and Ultra averages 79 FPS—a 48.7% reduction. At 4K, Medium averages 96 FPS and Ultra averages 49 FPS—a 49.0% reduction. This consistent halving of performance from Medium to Ultra suggests that the Ultra preset introduces effects that are roughly twice as demanding, likely related to shadow quality, ambient occlusion, or post-processing.

The limiting component shifts with resolution. At 1080p Low (263 FPS) and Medium (215 FPS), the CPU is the primary constraint, as the GPU has headroom to render more frames. At 4K Ultra (49 FPS), the GPU is clearly the bottleneck, as the CPU’s 6 cores and 12 threads are unlikely to be saturated at such low frame rates. The crossover point appears to be around 1440p High (126 FPS), where both components are reasonably balanced.

Measured FPS Breakdown

At 1920x1080, the system delivers its strongest results. Low settings produce an average of 263 FPS, which is exceptionally high and suitable for competitive play or high-refresh-rate displays. Medium settings yield 215 FPS with a minimum of 183 FPS and maximum of 247 FPS, indicating consistent frame pacing. High settings drop to 176 FPS, still excellent for most monitors. Ultra settings produce 110 FPS, which remains smooth but shows the significant cost of maximum visual quality.

At 2560x1440, the performance remains strong. Low settings average 188 FPS, which is still very high for a 1440p display. Medium settings average 154 FPS (min 131, max 177), providing a comfortable margin above 144 Hz refresh rates. High settings average 126 FPS, suitable for 120 Hz or 144 Hz displays with adaptive sync. Ultra settings average 79 FPS, which is playable but does not fully utilize high-refresh-rate monitors.

At 3840x2160, the system begins to show its limitations. Low settings average 117 FPS, which is respectable for 4K. Medium settings average 96 FPS (min 81, max 110), keeping the experience smooth on standard 60 Hz displays and most VRR panels. High settings average 78 FPS, still playable but with less headroom. Ultra settings average 49 FPS, which is below the 60 FPS threshold that many players consider the minimum for comfortable gameplay.

The Medium settings row is the only one with complete min/max data. At 1080p, the spread from min to max is 64 FPS (183 to 247). At 1440p, the spread is 46 FPS (131 to 177). At 4K, the spread narrows to 29 FPS (81 to 110). This narrowing spread at higher resolutions indicates that the GPU is more consistently loaded, reducing frame-time variance. At 1080p, the CPU is more likely to cause occasional frame drops, leading to a wider range.

Across all resolutions, the gap between High and Ultra is substantial. At 1080p, High averages 176 FPS while Ultra averages 110 FPS—a 37.5% reduction. At 1440p, High averages 126 FPS and Ultra averages 79 FPS—a 37.3% reduction. At 4K, High averages 78 FPS and Ultra averages 49 FPS—a 37.2% reduction. The consistency of this percentage across resolutions suggests that the Ultra preset adds a fixed proportional workload, likely from effects that scale with pixel count.

GPU Role

The AMD Radeon RX 7700 XT is the primary driver of frame rates in Downfall, particularly at higher resolutions and settings. Its 12 GB of GDDR6 memory is ample for this 2016 horror title, which was released before the era of massive texture packs. The 432.0 GB/s memory bandwidth provides sufficient throughput for the game’s asset streaming, and the 192-bit bus width is well-matched to the GPU’s compute capabilities.

The GPU’s clock behavior is notable: a base clock of 1435 MHz, a game clock of 2171 MHz, and a boost clock of 2544 MHz. The game clock represents the expected sustained frequency under typical gaming loads, and the boost clock shows the headroom available when thermals and power allow. The memory runs at 2250 MHz, or 18 Gbps effective, which is standard for this class of GDDR6.

The GPU’s 3456 shading units, 216 texture mapping units, and 96 raster output units determine its raw throughput. The 35.17 TFLOPS of FP32 performance is the key metric for traditional rasterization, and it explains why the card can achieve 263 FPS at 1080p Low—there is simply more compute available than the game requires at that setting. The 54 ray tracing cores are present but Downfall does not utilize ray tracing, so they contribute little to measured performance.

In synthetic benchmarks, the RX 7700 XT scores 22547 in PassMark G3D, 138383 in Geekbench OpenCL, and 46443 in Geekbench Vulkan. The 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 score is 3316. These scores place it slightly above the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5060 Mobile (0.5% higher) and the AMD Radeon RX 5700 (1.7% higher), while trailing the RTX 4060 Mobile (0.8%) and RTX 2080 (1.5%). This positioning suggests the GPU is a solid mid-range performer, though not a top-tier part.

The GPU’s role changes with resolution. At 1080p, the CPU often limits performance, as evidenced by the 263 FPS Low result—the GPU is capable of more, but the processor cannot feed it faster. At 4K, the GPU becomes the clear bottleneck, especially at Ultra settings where the 49 FPS average indicates that pixel fill rate and shading throughput are maxed out. The 12 GB VRAM is never a constraint in this game, as even the most demanding 4K Ultra settings would not exceed that capacity for a title from 2016.

Settings Recommendations

Based on the measured data, the optimal settings depend on the target resolution and refresh rate.

For 1080p displays with a 144 Hz or 240 Hz refresh rate, Medium settings (215 FPS) or High settings (176 FPS) are the best choices. Medium provides a high minimum of 183 FPS, ensuring smooth frame delivery even in demanding scenes. High settings offer a 39 FPS reduction but improve visual quality; the 176 FPS average still exceeds 144 Hz. Ultra settings (110 FPS) are only recommended for 60 Hz or 120 Hz displays, as the visual uplift may be worth the frame rate cost.

For 1440p displays, High settings (126 FPS) strike the best balance. This provides a 126 FPS average, which is suitable for 120 Hz or 144 Hz monitors with adaptive sync. Medium settings (154 FPS) offer more headroom and are preferable for competitive play, while Ultra settings (79 FPS) are acceptable for slower-paced horror gameplay on 60 Hz displays. Low settings (188 FPS) are unnecessary unless chasing maximum frame rates on a 240 Hz panel.

For 4K displays, Medium settings (96 FPS) are the recommended choice. The minimum of 81 FPS ensures that the experience remains above 60 FPS in all but the most intense moments, and the 96 FPS average provides a comfortable margin for VRR displays. High settings (78 FPS) are also playable, but the reduced headroom means occasional drops below 60 FPS on more demanding scenes. Low settings (117 FPS) sacrifice visual fidelity for higher frame rates, which may be preferred for fast-paced sections. Ultra settings (49 FPS) should be avoided at 4K, as the average falls below the 60 FPS threshold that most players consider the minimum for a smooth experience.

The data indicates that the Medium preset is the sweet spot across all resolutions. At 1080p, it delivers 215 FPS; at 1440p, 154 FPS; and at 4K, 96 FPS. The minimum frame rates at Medium (183, 131, and 81 respectively) show that even the worst-case scenarios remain playable. The Ultra preset, by contrast, consistently halves performance compared to Medium, and at 4K it drops below playable thresholds.

For users prioritizing visual quality over raw frame rates, High settings at 1080p (176 FPS) or 1440p (126 FPS) are excellent choices. The jump from High to Ultra reduces FPS by roughly 37% across all resolutions, which is a significant cost for what may be incremental visual improvements in a horror game where atmosphere is often conveyed through lighting and shadow effects. The measured data suggests that High settings capture most of the visual benefits without the severe performance penalty of Ultra.