Downfall

The AMD Ryzen 5 8400F and NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1660 SUPER pairing presents a clear study in bottleneck dynamics for Downfall. The data set shows a system that is heavily constrained by the graphics card at higher resolutions, while the processor’s strong single-threaded performance keeps frame rates competitive at 1080p. Across all twelve measured configurations, the GTX 1660 SUPER’s 6 GB of GDDR6 memory and 336.0 GB/s bandwidth become the defining factors, as the GPU’s average benchmark score of 12986 places it in the 53rd percentile of all GPUs. The CPU, with its 4.70 GHz boost clock and a 77th percentile ranking, never appears to be the primary limiter, even at the lowest settings where frame rates climb highest.

Resolution Scaling

The frame rate drop from 1920x1080 to 3840x2160 is severe and tells a consistent story about where the hardware bottleneck lives. At High settings, the average FPS falls from 99 at 1080p to 71 at 1440p, and finally to 44 at 4K — a reduction of 55 FPS (or roughly 56%) from the lowest to the highest resolution tested. This steep decline is typical of a GPU-bound scenario, as the GTX 1660 SUPER’s pixel rate of 85.68 GPixel/s is simply overwhelmed by the 8.3 million pixels of 4K output.

The Low settings preset shows an even wider spread, moving from 147 FPS at 1080p down to 105 FPS at 1440p and 65 FPS at 4K. The fact that the 1080p Low result exceeds 140 FPS indicates the CPU is capable of feeding the GPU efficiently at that resolution, but the 4K Low figure of 65 FPS still represents a 56% drop from the 1080p result. This pattern holds across all presets: the gap between 1080p and 4K is always between 55% and 57%, regardless of whether the settings are Low or Ultra.

Ultra settings exacerbate the resolution penalty. At 1080p Ultra, the average is 62 FPS, but at 1440p Ultra it falls to 44 FPS, and at 4K Ultra it bottoms out at 27 FPS. The 4K Ultra result is particularly telling: 27 FPS is below the threshold for smooth gameplay, and the 35 FPS drop from 1080p to 4K demonstrates that the GPU’s shading units (1408) and texture units (88) cannot sustain the workload when both pixel count and shading complexity rise together.

The Medium preset provides the only complete FPS data with minimum and maximum values. At 1080p Medium, the system averages 120 FPS with a minimum of 102 and maximum of 138 FPS. At 1440p Medium, the average drops to 86 FPS (min 73, max 99), and at 4K Medium, the average is 54 FPS (min 45, max 62). The consistency of the minimum-to-maximum spread — roughly 30% of the average at each resolution — suggests stable frame pacing without sudden hitches, which is notable for a horror title where environmental detail can cause spikes.

Settings Recommendations

The measured data indicates that Medium settings offer the most balanced experience across all three resolutions. At 1920x1080, Medium delivers 120 FPS average, which is 21 FPS higher than High and 58 FPS higher than Ultra, while still providing a visual uplift over Low (147 FPS). The 1080p Medium minimum of 102 FPS ensures the frame rate never dips below triple digits, making it the clear choice for high-refresh-rate monitors.

For 2560x1440 users, Medium again proves optimal. The 86 FPS average at Medium is 15 FPS ahead of High (71 FPS) and more than double the Ultra result (44 FPS). The minimum of 73 FPS at 1440p Medium keeps gameplay fluid, whereas the High preset’s average of 71 FPS leaves no headroom for demanding scenes. The 1440p Low preset achieves 105 FPS, but the visual compromise is unnecessary given that Medium remains playable.

At 3840x2160, no preset reaches the 60 FPS target. The best 4K result is Low at 65 FPS, followed by Medium at 54 FPS, High at 44 FPS, and Ultra at 27 FPS. For 4K owners, Low is the only viable option for near-60 FPS gameplay, though Medium’s 54 FPS average with a 45 FPS minimum may be acceptable for a slower-paced horror title. The 4K Ultra result of 27 FPS should be avoided entirely, as it falls well below playable thresholds.

The data suggests that the GTX 1660 SUPER’s 6 GB VRAM is the limiting factor at higher settings. At 4K Ultra, the 27 FPS result likely reflects both the pixel fill rate ceiling and the memory capacity constraint, as the 192-bit bus and 336.0 GB/s bandwidth struggle to feed the shader complex with high-resolution textures. Users with 1080p or 1440p monitors should stick to Medium for the best combination of frame rate and visual fidelity, while 4K users must accept Low settings.

FAQ

*Q: Can this system run Downfall at 60 FPS in 4K?*

A: Only at Low settings, where the average FPS is 65. The Medium preset drops to 54 FPS average, High falls to 44 FPS, and Ultra is unplayable at 27 FPS.

Q: What is the best preset for a 1440p monitor?

A: Medium settings provide 86 FPS average with a 73 FPS minimum, which is the best balance of frame rate and visual quality. High runs at 71 FPS, and Ultra drops to 44 FPS.

Q: Is the CPU or GPU the main bottleneck in this configuration?

A: The GPU is clearly the limiting component. The Ryzen 5 8400F’s 77th percentile ranking and 4.70 GHz boost clock far exceed the GTX 1660 SUPER’s 53rd percentile GPU score, and the FPS scaling across resolutions confirms GPU-bound behavior.

Q: How does the GTX 1660 SUPER compare to its closest rivals?

A: The GPU scores 12986 on average, which is 0.4% ahead of the RTX 3050 Ti Mobile (12940) and 0.4% ahead of the RX 580 (12928), but 0.7% behind the Tesla M2090 (13075).

Q: Why does the 1080p Low preset reach 147 FPS while 4K Ultra only manages 27 FPS?

A: The 120 FPS difference (a 5.4x gap) reflects the GPU’s pixel throughput limits. At 1080p, the CPU can feed frames quickly, but at 4K the GPU’s 85.68 GPixel/s rate and 5.027 TFLOPS of FP32 compute cannot process the fourfold increase in pixels.

Q: What frame rate can I expect at 1080p with High settings?

A: The average is 99 FPS, with no minimum or maximum data recorded. This is 21 FPS lower than Medium (120 FPS) but 37 FPS higher than Ultra (62 FPS).

Measured FPS Breakdown

At 1920x1080, the system delivers its strongest results. Low settings produce 147 FPS average, Medium reaches 120 FPS (min 102, max 138), High hits 99 FPS, and Ultra falls to 62 FPS. The 85 FPS difference between Low and Ultra at 1080p is significant, but even the Ultra result remains playable. The Medium preset’s 102 FPS minimum is particularly strong, ensuring no noticeable drops during intense scenes.

Moving to 2560x1440, the performance tier shifts downward. Low settings maintain 105 FPS, Medium averages 86 FPS (min 73, max 99), High reaches 71 FPS, and Ultra drops to 44 FPS. The 1440p results show a 61 FPS spread between Low and Ultra, with Ultra becoming marginal for smooth gameplay. The Medium preset’s 73 FPS minimum is still acceptable, but High’s 71 FPS average leaves little margin for demanding sequences.

At 3840x2160, the GTX 1660 SUPER’s limitations become apparent. Low settings achieve 65 FPS, Medium averages 54 FPS (min 45, max 62), High drops to 44 FPS, and Ultra bottoms out at 27 FPS. The 4K Medium minimum of 45 FPS indicates that even the mid-range preset can suffer noticeable dips. The 4K Ultra result of 27 FPS is the worst measured configuration, falling well below any reasonable playability threshold.

The scaling pattern across resolutions is consistent: moving from 1080p to 1440p reduces FPS by roughly 30-35%, and moving from 1440p to 4K reduces it by another 35-40%. The only exception is the Ultra preset, where the 1080p to 1440p drop is 29% and the 1440p to 4K drop is 39%, suggesting the GPU’s shading and texture units hit a hard ceiling at higher pixel counts.

GPU Role

The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1660 SUPER is the dominant factor in this system’s Downfall performance. With 6 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 192-bit bus delivering 336.0 GB/s, the card has adequate bandwidth for 1080p and 1440p but struggles with 4K textures. The GPU’s 1408 shading units and 88 texture mapping units operate at a boost clock of 1785 MHz, producing 5.027 TFLOPS of FP32 compute and a texture rate of 157.1 GTexel/s. These specifications translate to solid 1080p performance and acceptable 1440p, but the 4K results clearly show the card’s limits.

The GPU’s average benchmark score of 12986 places it in the 53rd percentile of all GPUs, with nearest rivals being the RTX 3050 Ti Mobile (12940, 0.4% faster), RX 580 (12928, 0.4% faster), and Tesla M2090 (13075, 0.7% slower). This middling performance tier explains why 4K Ultra is unplayable at 27 FPS — the card simply lacks the fill rate and compute throughput for 8.3 million pixels with full shading complexity.

The 12 nm process node and 6,600 million transistors on a 284 mm² die reflect a design that prioritizes efficiency over raw power. The card’s 125 W TDP and 1x 8-pin power connector indicate a modest power envelope, but the measured FPS data shows that power is not the constraint — the architecture itself is. The pixel rate of 85.68 GPixel/s translates to roughly 10.3 pixels per clock at the 1785 MHz boost, which is insufficient for 4K Ultra workloads.

CPU Role

The AMD Ryzen 5 8400F is a capable partner that never becomes the limiting factor in Downfall. With 6 cores and 12 threads based on Zen 4 architecture, the CPU boosts to 4.70 GHz from a 4.20 GHz base clock. The 3DMark single-thread score of 951 and Cinebench R23 single-core score of 2943 demonstrate strong per-core performance, which is critical for a horror title that likely relies on physics and AI calculations. The CPU’s 77th percentile ranking versus all CPUs, with an average benchmark score of 25005, places it just 0.2% ahead of the Ryzen 5 7500F and 0.3% ahead of the Core i7-11850H.

The CPU’s cache hierarchy — 64 KB L1 per core, 1 MB L2 per core, and 16 MB shared L3 — provides sufficient data locality for game logic. The 83.2 GB/s memory bandwidth over DDR5 dual-channel confirms that memory bandwidth is not a bottleneck, especially given that the GPU’s 336.0 GB/s is far higher. The 4 nm process node and 25,000 million transistors on a 178 mm² die result in a 65 W TDP, keeping thermals manageable within the system.

The evidence for CPU sufficiency is clear in the 1080p Low result of 147 FPS. This frame rate approaches the practical limit for many displays and shows that the CPU can feed the GPU faster than the GPU can render at low settings. Even at 1080p Ultra (62 FPS), the CPU is not the constraint — the GPU’s shading workload is. The 16 MB L3 cache and 12 threads handle Downfall’s multithreaded demands without issue, as evidenced by the Cinebench R23 multicore score of 20851.