Downfall

Downfall, the 2016 horror title, shows a surprisingly clear performance split between the CPU and GPU when paired with the AMD Ryzen 5 7400F and AMD Radeon RX 6700 XT. The data indicates a system capable of high refresh rates at 1080p, with the balance of power shifting firmly to the graphics card as resolution increases. The 6-core, 12-thread Ryzen 5 7400F provides a robust foundation, while the 12 GB Radeon RX 6700 XT handles the visual load. This analysis breaks down the measured frames per second (FPS) to determine the optimal settings and what the numbers tell us about the limiting factors in this specific configuration.

CPU Role — cores, clocks, and how they relate to this game's results

The AMD Ryzen 5 7400F is a 7000 series desktop processor built on the Zen 4 architecture, codenamed Raphael. It brings 6 cores and 12 threads to the table, with a base clock of 3.70 GHz and a boost clock of 4.70 GHz. The processor has a 65 W TDP and uses the AMD Socket AM5 platform. Its cache hierarchy includes 64 KB of L1 per core, 1 MB of L2 per core, and a shared 32 MB L3 cache, which is ample for feeding the cores in a gaming scenario. The chip supports DDR5 memory in a dual-channel configuration, offering a memory bandwidth of 83.2 GB/s. This platform support is a key part of the system's overall capability.

In the context of Downfall, the CPU's role appears to be one of a capable and steady foundation rather than a bottleneck, especially at higher resolutions. The benchmark results show that the CPU sits in the 83rd percentile compared to all other CPUs, indicating strong overall performance. Its average benchmark score of 32750 places it in close competition with several rivals. For example, it is a mere 0.1% ahead of the Intel Core i5-14600T, and 0.2% ahead of the Intel Core Ultra 7 155H. It also outperforms the AMD Ryzen 7 PRO 6850H by a slim margin of 0.2% and the AMD Ryzen AI 7 PRO 360 by 0.3%. These negligible percentage differences suggest that in heavily CPU-bound scenarios, the Ryzen 5 7400F is on par with these other processors.

However, the measured FPS data suggests that Downfall is not a heavily CPU-bound title for this hardware. The most telling evidence is the scaling of frame rates between different graphics settings at the same resolution. At 1080p, dropping from Ultra to Low yields a massive increase in FPS from 96 to 229. If the CPU were the primary limiting factor, we would expect to see a much smaller difference between these settings, as the CPU's workload would remain relatively constant. The fact that the frame rate nearly doubles when the graphics load is reduced indicates that the GPU is doing the heavy lifting and is the primary constraint on performance, even at the lower resolution. The CPU's strong single and multi-core performance, evidenced by its Cinebench R23 scores of 3072 single-core and 21765 multi-core, ensures it can keep up with the GPU's output without becoming a bottleneck in this title.

GPU Role — VRAM, clocks, and how they relate to this game's results

The AMD Radeon RX 6700 XT is a Radeon RX 6000 series graphics card based on the RDNA 2.0 architecture, featuring the Navi 22 chip. It is equipped with 12 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 192-bit bus, providing a memory bandwidth of 384.0 GB/s. The GPU's clock speeds are substantial, with a base of 2321 MHz, a game clock of 2424 MHz, and a boost clock of 2581 MHz. This card is clearly the dominant component in this pairing for Downfall, as the variance in FPS across settings and resolutions is almost entirely dictated by its performance.

The GPU's benchmark scores reflect its position in the market. It holds a 72nd percentile ranking among all GPUs, with an average benchmark score of 27425. Its nearest rivals show extremely tight competition. The NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4070 Mobile matches its performance with a 0% delta, while the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3090 is only 0.5% faster. The AMD Radeon Pro Vega 20 is 1.5% slower, and the NVIDIA RTX PRO 4000 Blackwell is 1.1% slower. This data positions the RX 6700 XT as a strong mid-to-high-end performer, capable of handling demanding titles.

In Downfall, the 12 GB of VRAM is a significant asset. The game is from 2016, but even so, having 12 GB available means that texture memory is unlikely to be a limiting factor at any of the tested settings. The 384.0 GB/s bandwidth ensures that the GPU can quickly access the data it needs to render frames. The most compelling data point for the GPU's role is the difference in performance between the Low and Ultra presets. At 1080p, the average FPS jumps from 96 on Ultra to 229 on Low, a difference of 133 FPS. This massive swing is a clear indicator that the GPU's compute and memory resources are the primary bottleneck. The game becomes more demanding as settings increase, and the RX 6700 XT has to work progressively harder, directly impacting the frame rate. The GPU is the star of the show here, and its performance scales predictably with the graphical workload.

Settings Recommendations — which preset gives the best experience per the measured rows

Using the measured FPS data, we can recommend specific settings presets based on the target resolution and desired smoothness. The data shows a clear hierarchy in performance: Low > Medium > High > Ultra across all resolutions. The optimal choice depends on the player's preference for visual fidelity versus raw frame rate.

For players with a 1080p display, the Ultra preset is a viable choice. The card maintains an average of 96 FPS, which is above the 60 FPS threshold for smooth gameplay, though it may not fully saturate a high-refresh-rate monitor. If a higher refresh rate is the priority, the High preset delivers a substantial boost to 154 FPS, which is an excellent balance of quality and speed. The Medium preset offers even more headroom at 187 FPS, but the visual jump from High to Medium may be more noticeable than the frame rate gain. The Low preset at 229 FPS is for maximum performance and is likely unnecessary unless trying to hit the absolute highest frame rates.

At 1440p, the balance shifts. The High preset is the recommended starting point, averaging 110 FPS. This provides a smooth and visually rich experience. The Ultra preset is still playable at 69 FPS, but the drop from High to Ultra is significant (a 41 FPS decrease) and may not be worth the visual upgrade for some users. The Medium preset at 134 FPS is a great middle ground for those who want to maximize frame rate while keeping the game looking good. The Low preset, at 164 FPS, is again for competitive or high-refresh-rate play.

For 4K gaming, the GPU is under significant stress. The Medium preset is the only viable option for a consistently smooth experience, averaging 83 FPS with a minimum of 71 FPS and a maximum of 96 FPS. The High preset is playable at 68 FPS, but it sits right on the edge of the 60 FPS target. The Ultra preset at 43 FPS is not recommended for a pleasant experience, as it will likely feel choppy. The Low preset at 102 FPS is the best choice for 4K if visual quality can be sacrificed, offering the smoothest performance.

In summary, the best experience per the measured rows is the High preset for 1080p and 1440p, as it offers a strong balance of visual quality and high, smooth frame rates. For 4K, the Medium preset is the most balanced, providing a playable frame rate without resorting to the lowest visual settings.

FAQ

Q: What is the best settings preset for a smooth 60 FPS experience at 1440p?

A: The data shows that the High preset at 2560x1440 yields an average FPS of 110, which is well above the 60 FPS target. The Ultra preset also achieves 69 FPS, so both are viable options, but High provides a more comfortable margin.

Q: Can this system handle 4K gaming in Downfall?

A: Yes, but with caveats. The measured data shows that at 3840x2160, the Medium preset averages 83 FPS, making it the best option for smooth 4K play. The Low preset averages 102 FPS for even higher performance, while the High preset is borderline at 68 FPS. The Ultra preset at 43 FPS is not recommended.

Q: How much faster is the Low preset compared to the Ultra preset at 1080p?

A: The Low preset at 1920x1080 averages 229 FPS, while the Ultra preset averages 96 FPS. This means the Low preset is 133 FPS, or roughly 2.4 times faster, than the Ultra preset in terms of average frame rate.

Q: Is the CPU or GPU the limiting factor for performance in this game?

A: The data strongly suggests the GPU is the primary limiting factor. This is evident because frame rates change dramatically with graphics settings. For example, at 1080p, the FPS jumps from 96 on Ultra to 229 on Low, a change driven almost entirely by the GPU's workload. The CPU's performance is consistent across these tests.

Q: How does the RX 6700 XT compare to the RTX 3090 in this setup?

A: Based on the average benchmark scores, the RX 6700 XT is only 0.5% slower than the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3090. This indicates they are very closely matched in overall performance, a notable result given the difference in their respective market positions.

Q: What is the minimum FPS recorded in the benchmark data?

A: The only recorded minimum FPS values are for the Medium preset. At 3840x2160, the minimum was 71 FPS. At 2560x1440, the minimum was 114 FPS, and at 1920x1080, the minimum was 159 FPS.

Resolution Scaling — how FPS drops from 1080p to 4K and what it says about the limiting component

The measured FPS data shows a clear and predictable decline as resolution increases from 1920x1080 to 3840x2160. This scaling pattern is the definitive evidence for identifying the bottleneck in this system. When moving from 1080p to 1440p, the average frame rate at the High preset drops from 154 FPS to 110 FPS, a decrease of 44 FPS. The drop from 1440p to 4K is even more severe, with the High preset falling from 110 FPS to 68 FPS, a decrease of 42 FPS. This consistent and significant reduction in performance directly correlates with the increase in pixel count, which is a purely GPU-centric workload.

The pattern is consistent across all settings. At Low, the FPS goes from 229 at 1080p to 164 at 1440p, and then to 102 at 4K. At Medium, it goes from 187 to 134 to 83. At Ultra, it goes from 96 to 69 to 43. In every case, the halving of the resolution from 4K to 1080p results in a frame rate that is more than double. For instance, at the Ultra setting, the 4K average is 43 FPS, while the 1080p average is 96 FPS, which is 2.2 times higher. This non-linear scaling is a classic indicator of a GPU-bound scenario.

If the CPU were the limiting factor, we would expect the frame rates to plateau or only slightly decrease as resolution increases, because the CPU's work of preparing frames would be similar regardless of the output resolution. Instead, the frame rate drops significantly, meaning the GPU is taking longer and longer to render each frame as the resolution increases. This demonstrates that the AMD Radeon RX 6700 XT is the component that is fully saturated during gameplay. The Ryzen 5 7400F has enough performance headroom to feed the GPU at all tested resolutions, but the GPU's rendering capabilities are exhausted first. The data confirms that this is a well-balanced pairing, where the GPU is the primary driver of performance scaling.

Measured FPS Breakdown — resolution by resolution, settings by settings, exact numbers

The following is the complete breakdown of the measured average FPS for the AMD Ryzen 5 7400F and AMD Radeon RX 6700 XT in Downfall.

1920x1080

• Low: The average frame rate is 229 FPS.
• Medium: The average frame rate is 187 FPS, with a minimum of 159 FPS and a maximum of 215 FPS.
• High: The average frame rate is 154 FPS.
• Ultra: The average frame rate is 96 FPS.

2560x1440

• Low: The average frame rate is 164 FPS.
• Medium: The average frame rate is 134 FPS, with a minimum of 114 FPS and a maximum of 154 FPS.
• High: The average frame rate is 110 FPS.
• Ultra: The average frame rate is 69 FPS.

3840x2160

• Low: The average frame rate is 102 FPS.
• Medium: The average frame rate is 83 FPS, with a minimum of 71 FPS and a maximum of 96 FPS.
• High: The average frame rate is 68 FPS.
• Ultra: The average frame rate is 43 FPS.

This data set offers a comprehensive view of the system's capabilities. The configuration ranks 1489 out of 2928 total combinations for this game, placing it in the top half of all tested systems. The measured data confirms that this pairing is capable of delivering high performance, particularly at 1080p and 1440p, where the GPU can stretch its legs and produce very high frame rates. At 4K, it remains a viable option for high-quality gaming, provided the settings are adjusted appropriately.