Downfall

Downfall is a 2016 horror title from a time when hardware demands were more forgiving, but its benchmark results with the AMD Ryzen 5 7400F and AMD Radeon RX 6650 XT show a combo that is heavily dependent on settings and resolution. This pairing lands at rank 1885 out of 2928 tested combos, placing it in the lower-middle tier of the database for this specific game. That ranking is not a condemnation of the hardware, but rather a reflection of how the game's engine scales with the GPU's 8 GB memory capacity and the CPU's strong single-thread performance.

How This Combo Ranks

The combo's rank of 1885 out of 2928 tested configurations places it in the 36th percentile of all tested pairs for Downfall. This is a below-average standing, but it is important to contextualize that number. The data shows that this is not a combination designed for maximum frame rates at 4K with all settings maxed; instead, it is a balanced mid-range setup that excels at 1080p and can handle 1440p with some compromise. The ranking is heavily weighted by the GPU's performance ceiling, as the CPU is far more capable relative to its peers. In synthetic benchmarks, the Ryzen 5 7400F sits in the 83rd percentile of all CPUs, while the RX 6650 XT sits in the 65th percentile of all GPUs. The gap between those two percentiles suggests that the GPU is the limiting factor in this pairing for most scenarios.

Looking at the CPU's nearest rivals, the margin between them is razor-thin. The Ryzen 5 7400F's average benchmark score of 32750 is just 0.1% ahead of the Intel Core i5-14600T (32707) and 0.2% ahead of the Intel Core Ultra 7 155H (32697). It is also 0.2% behind the AMD Ryzen 7 PRO 6850H (32812) and 0.3% ahead of the AMD Ryzen AI 7 PRO 360 (32662). These deltaPct values are effectively within the margin of error, meaning that for Downfall, any of these CPUs would deliver nearly identical CPU-bound performance. The real differentiator in this combo is the GPU, which sits in a more distinct position relative to its own rivals. The RX 6650 XT's average score of 19765 is 0.6% behind the NVIDIA Tesla K40m (19885) and 0.7% ahead of the AMD FirePro D300 (19637). The deltaPct values here are similarly tight, but the architectural differences between these cards are vast, and the game's engine will favor the newer RDNA 2 architecture.

GPU Role

The AMD Radeon RX 6650 XT is built on the RDNA 2 architecture with the Navi 23 chip, manufactured on a 7 nm process. It features 8 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 128-bit bus, providing 280.3 GB/s of memory bandwidth. The card's base clock is 2055 MHz, with a game clock of 2410 MHz and a boost clock of 2635 MHz. The memory operates at 2190 MHz, translating to 17.5 Gbps effective. These specifications are the core determinants of the measured FPS in Downfall. The 8 GB frame buffer is the most critical factor at higher resolutions. At 4K Ultra, the game likely exceeds the available memory, causing the average FPS to plummet to 37. At 4K High, the average rises to 59, but that still suggests the game is pushing against the memory ceiling.

The GPU's compute capabilities are also relevant. With 2048 shading units, 128 texture mapping units, and 64 render output units, the card can output 168.6 GPixel/s and 337.3 GTexel/s. Its FP32 performance is 10.79 TFLOPS. These numbers are modest by modern standards, but they are sufficient for a 2016 horror game at lower settings. The data shows that the GPU's performance scales predictably with settings, but the scaling is not linear. Dropping from Ultra to High at 4K yields a 22 FPS improvement (37 to 59), while dropping from High to Medium yields another 13 FPS (59 to 72). The jump from Medium to Low is only 16 FPS (72 to 88), indicating that the GPU is approaching its architectural limits rather than being solely memory-bound at that point.

Resolution Scaling

The FPS scale across resolutions reveals a clear pattern of GPU limitation. At 1080p Low, the combo achieves 199 FPS, which is an excellent result for a horror game that benefits from high frame rates for smooth panning. At 1080p Medium, the average drops to 162 FPS, a 19% decrease. At 1080p High, it drops further to 133 FPS, another 18% decrease. At 1080p Ultra, the average is 83 FPS, a 38% drop from High. This scaling indicates that the CPU is not the bottleneck at 1080p, as the frame rates are high enough to suggest the GPU is doing the heavy lifting.

Moving to 1440p, the same pattern holds but with lower absolute numbers. At 1440p Low, the average is 142 FPS, which is 28% lower than the 1080p Low result. At 1440p Medium, it is 116 FPS, 28% lower than the 1080p Medium result. At 1440p High, it is 95 FPS, 29% lower than the 1080p High result. At 1440p Ultra, it is 59 FPS, 29% lower than the 1080p Ultra result. The consistent ~28-29% drop from 1080p to 1440p across all settings indicates that pixel throughput is the primary constraint. This is classic GPU-bound behavior.

At 4K, the scaling becomes more aggressive due to the memory and bandwidth limitations. The drop from 1080p Low (199 FPS) to 4K Low (88 FPS) is a 56% reduction. The drop from 1080p High (133 FPS) to 4K High (59 FPS) is a 56% reduction as well. However, the drop from 1080p Ultra (83 FPS) to 4K Ultra (37 FPS) is 55%. The consistency of this ~55-56% drop suggests that the GPU is handling the increased pixel count linearly, but the absolute frame rates at 4K are low enough that the experience is compromised. The 4K Medium result of 72 FPS is the only playable 4K option, and it still shows a 56% drop from the 1080p Medium result of 162 FPS.

Settings Recommendations

Based on the measured rows, the best experience for this combo is at 1080p with High settings, delivering 133 FPS. This setting provides a strong balance between visual fidelity and frame rate, avoiding the diminishing returns of Ultra (83 FPS) while still looking significantly better than Medium (162 FPS). The 133 FPS at High is well above the 60 FPS threshold for smooth gameplay, and it leaves headroom for demanding scenes. If the user prefers maximum visual quality, 1080p Ultra at 83 FPS is still acceptable, but the 50 FPS drop from High to Ultra is a steep price for the marginal visual improvement in a dark horror game.

At 1440p, the recommendation shifts to Medium settings, which yields 116 FPS. This is a playable frame rate with good visual quality. 1440p High at 95 FPS is also viable, but 1440p Medium offers a more comfortable margin above 60 FPS. 1440p Ultra at 59 FPS is borderline, and users may notice occasional dips below 60 FPS in busy scenes. For 4K, the only sensible choice is Medium settings, which delivers 72 FPS. 4K High at 59 FPS is technically playable, but it sits right at the edge of the 60 FPS target. 4K Low at 88 FPS is possible, but the visual downgrade is significant for a horror game that relies on atmosphere and lighting. The data strongly suggests that 4K is not the intended resolution for this combo, but 4K Medium provides a playable experience.

Measured FPS Breakdown

The measured FPS data shows a complete picture of the combo's performance across all settings and resolutions.

At 1920x1080, the combo achieves its best results. Low settings produce an average of 199 FPS. Medium settings produce an average of 162 FPS, with a minimum of 138 FPS and a maximum of 187 FPS. High settings produce an average of 133 FPS. Ultra settings produce an average of 83 FPS. The Medium setting's min and max values are the only ones recorded for 1080p, indicating a stable frame time distribution with a 49 FPS spread between the minimum and maximum.

At 2560x1440, the performance drops noticeably. Low settings produce an average of 142 FPS. Medium settings produce an average of 116 FPS, with a minimum of 99 FPS and a maximum of 133 FPS. High settings produce an average of 95 FPS. Ultra settings produce an average of 59 FPS. The Medium setting's min and max values show a 34 FPS spread, which is tighter than the 1080p Medium spread, suggesting that the GPU is more consistently loaded at 1440p.

At 3840x2160, the combo struggles to maintain high frame rates. Low settings produce an average of 88 FPS. Medium settings produce an average of 72 FPS, with a minimum of 61 FPS and a maximum of 83 FPS. High settings produce an average of 59 FPS. Ultra settings produce an average of 37 FPS. The Medium setting's min and max values show a 22 FPS spread, indicating that the GPU is working at its limit and frame times are becoming less consistent. The 37 FPS at 4K Ultra is effectively unplayable, and the 59 FPS at 4K High is marginal.

CPU Role

The AMD Ryzen 5 7400F is a 6-core, 12-thread processor based on the Zen 4 architecture, codenamed Raphael. It has a base clock of 3.70 GHz and a boost clock of 4.70 GHz. The CPU has a 32 MB shared L3 cache, with 64 KB of L1 and 1 MB of L2 per core. It supports DDR5 memory with a dual-channel bus and a memory bandwidth of 83.2 GB/s. The CPU's 65 W TDP is modest, but its performance is not. In Cinebench R23, it scores 21765 in multi-core and 3072 in single-core. These scores indicate a strong multi-threaded capability for a 6-core chip, but for Downfall, the single-core performance is more relevant.

The game's engine, being from 2016, is unlikely to fully utilize 12 threads. The single-core score of 3072 in Cinebench R23 places the CPU in the upper echelon of processors, and its nearest rivals are all within 0.3% of its average benchmark score. The CPU's percentile rank of 83 means it outperforms most CPUs on the market, which is more than enough to feed the RX 6650 XT. The data confirms this: at 1080p Low, the combo hits 199 FPS, which is a frame rate that would choke weaker CPUs. The fact that the FPS scales consistently with resolution and settings indicates that the CPU is not the limiting factor at any point in the measured data. Even at 4K Ultra with 37 FPS, the CPU is waiting on the GPU, not the other way around.

The CPU's memory support for DDR5 with a bandwidth of 83.2 GB/s provides a fast pipe for data, but the game's data footprint is small enough that this is not a bottleneck. The ECC memory support is a feature that is irrelevant for gaming. The CPU's PCIe Gen 5 support with 24 lanes is future-proof, but the GPU uses PCIe 4.0 x8, which is sufficient for this card's bandwidth needs. In summary, the Ryzen 5 7400F is a capable partner that never holds the RX 6650 XT back, allowing the GPU to be the sole determinant of the frame rates seen in the data.