Downfall

Downfall, a 2016 horror title, behaves in a very predictable manner when paired with the AMD Ryzen 5 9600X and AMD Radeon RX 5700 XT. The measured frame rates across the three resolutions and four settings presets reveal a system that is heavily constrained by the graphics card at higher resolutions, while the CPU’s strong single-thread performance ensures the lower resolutions remain fluid. The data shows a clear hierarchy of performance that scales almost linearly with the workload imposed by the rendering settings.

Resolution Scaling

The transition from 1920x1080 to 3840x2160 produces a substantial impact on average frame rates, indicating that the Radeon RX 5700 XT is the primary limiting component as pixel count increases. At the High preset, the system delivers 126.5 FPS at 1920x1080, which drops to 90.1 FPS at 2560x1440, and finally lands at 58.8 FPS at 3840x2160. This represents a 53% reduction in performance from the lowest to the highest resolution tested, a pattern consistent with a GPU-bound scenario where the fill rate and memory bandwidth are saturated.

The scaling pattern is even more pronounced when examining the Low preset. The measured 186.1 FPS at 1080p falls to 132.6 FPS at 1440p and then to 83.1 FPS at 4K. The percentage drop from 1080p to 4K is nearly identical to the High preset, which suggests that the resolution scaling is independent of the quality settings. This is a strong indicator that the bottleneck is the GPU’s rendering pipeline rather than any CPU-side limitation, as the CPU’s workload does not change significantly with resolution.

At the Medium preset, the frame rates follow the same downward trajectory, with 154.1 FPS at 1080p, 107.9 FPS at 1440p, and 69.3 FPS at 4K. The Ultra preset, however, reveals the most extreme scaling, starting at 77.1 FPS at 1080p but plummeting to 54.7 FPS at 1440p and 34.7 FPS at 4K. The 4K Ultra result is below the 60 FPS threshold, indicating that this combination of settings and resolution is not viable for smooth gameplay. The data clearly shows that 1920x1080 is the only resolution where every preset maintains a playable frame rate, while 3840x2160 requires dropping to Medium or Low for acceptable performance.

CPU Role

The AMD Ryzen 5 9600X, with its 6 cores and 12 threads, plays a supporting role in Downfall’s performance, as the game’s engine appears to be more dependent on clock speed than core count. The CPU’s boost clock of 5.40 GHz is a significant asset, and the benchmark results support this interpretation. The 3DMark single-thread score of 1253 and the Cinebench R23 single-core score of 3603 are robust figures that indicate strong per-core performance, which is crucial for games that do not scale well across many threads.

The CPU’s 32 MB of shared L3 cache and Zen 5 architecture also contribute to its efficiency in handling game logic and draw calls. However, the data from the measured FPS suggests that the processor is not the limiting factor at any resolution. At 1080p with the Low preset, the system achieves 186.1 FPS, which is a high frame rate that could potentially stress a weaker CPU, but the Ryzen 5 9600X handles it without issue. The CPU’s percentile ranking of 85 among all CPUs, with an average benchmark score of 28246, places it in a strong position relative to its nearest rivals, such as the Intel Core i5-13490F and the AMD Ryzen 7 8845HS.

The CPU’s performance is further validated by its multi-threaded capabilities, with a Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 25525. This ensures that even if Downfall were to utilize additional threads, the processor has ample headroom. The fact that the frame rates drop consistently across all presets when moving to higher resolutions confirms that the GPU is the bottleneck, not the CPU. The Ryzen 5 9600X provides a stable foundation, but its role is secondary to the graphics card in this specific game.

Settings Recommendations

Based on the measured FPS data, the optimal settings for this hardware combination depend heavily on the target resolution and desired frame rate. For 1920x1080, the Ultra preset, which delivers 77.1 FPS, is the best choice for visual fidelity, as it is the highest quality setting that still maintains a frame rate well above 60 FPS. The High preset at 126.5 FPS is also an excellent option for users with high-refresh-rate monitors, offering a significant boost in smoothness with only a modest reduction in visual quality.

At 2560x1440, the High preset is the clear recommendation, as it provides 90.1 FPS, which is a comfortable margin above the 60 FPS target. The Ultra preset at 54.7 FPS is borderline, and users who prioritize smoothness over maximum detail should avoid it. The Medium preset at 107.9 FPS is a viable alternative for those who want a higher frame rate, but High offers a better balance between quality and performance.

For 3840x2160, the situation is more constrained. The High preset delivers 58.8 FPS, which is just shy of the 60 FPS target, making it a marginal choice for those who can tolerate slight dips. The Medium preset at 69.3 FPS is the recommended setting for 4K, as it provides a stable frame rate above 60 FPS while still offering decent visual quality. The Low preset at 83.1 FPS is the best option for competitive play or for users who prioritize frame rate above all else, but the visual downgrade is substantial. The Ultra preset at 34.7 FPS is not recommended for any scenario, as the frame rate is too low for a smooth experience.

FAQ

Q: What is the highest average FPS achievable at 1920x1080 with this hardware?

A: The highest measured average frame rate is 186.1 FPS, achieved with the Low preset at 1920x1080.

Q: Can this system maintain 60 FPS at 4K resolution?

A: Yes, but only with the Medium and Low presets, which deliver 69.3 FPS and 83.1 FPS respectively. The High preset falls just short at 58.8 FPS.

Q: How does the Ultra preset perform compared to High at 2560x1440?

A: The Ultra preset delivers 54.7 FPS, which is significantly lower than the High preset’s 90.1 FPS. The performance drop is substantial, making High the better choice for consistent smoothness.

Q: Is the CPU or GPU the limiting factor in Downfall?

A: The data indicates the GPU is the limiting factor. Frame rates scale consistently with resolution across all presets, which is a classic sign of a GPU bottleneck. The CPU’s strong single-thread performance ensures it is not the constraint.

Q: What is the performance difference between the Low and Ultra presets at 1080p?

A: The Low preset achieves 186.1 FPS, while the Ultra preset achieves 77.1 FPS. This represents a 109 FPS difference, showing a significant impact from the quality settings.

Q: How does this system rank among all tested combinations in Downfall?

A: This specific CPU and GPU combination ranks 1327 out of 1741 tested combos, placing it in the lower-middle portion of the performance spectrum for this game.

GPU Role

The AMD Radeon RX 5700 XT is the dominant factor in this system’s Downfall performance, as evidenced by the resolution scaling data. The GPU, based on the RDNA 1.0 architecture with a Navi 10 chip, has 8 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 256-bit bus, providing a memory bandwidth of 448.0 GB/s. This bandwidth is sufficient for 1080p and 1440p gaming, but the 4K results show its limitations. The GPU’s boost clock of 1905 MHz and 2560 shading units are the primary drivers of its compute capability, which is reflected in its 9.754 TFLOPS FP32 performance.

The GPU’s average benchmark score of 24731 places it at the 68th percentile among all GPUs, and its nearest rivals include the NVIDIA RTX A5000 Mobile and the Intel Arc A350M, with delta percentages of -0.1% and 0.3% respectively. This indicates that the RX 5700 XT is a mid-range performer in the current landscape, which aligns with its measured results in Downfall. The GPU’s memory capacity of 8 GB is not a limiting factor in this game, as even the Ultra preset at 4K does not show signs of texture thrashing, but the raw compute power is the constraint.

The performance cliff seen at the Ultra preset, particularly at 1440p and 4K, suggests that the game’s Ultra settings introduce effects that heavily tax the GPU’s shading units and texture units. The transition from High to Ultra at 1440p results in a drop from 90.1 FPS to 54.7 FPS, a 39% reduction, which is a much larger penalty than the jump from Medium to High. This indicates that the Ultra preset activates computationally expensive features that the RX 5700 XT struggles to handle at higher pixel counts.

Measured FPS Breakdown

The complete set of measured average frame rates provides a clear picture of the system’s capabilities across all settings and resolutions.

At 1920x1080, the Low preset achieves the highest frame rate at 186.1 FPS, followed by the Medium preset at 154.1 FPS, the High preset at 126.5 FPS, and the Ultra preset at 77.1 FPS. The differences between presets are substantial, with a 109 FPS gap between Low and Ultra, indicating that the visual settings have a major impact on the GPU workload.

At 2560x1440, the Low preset delivers 132.6 FPS, the Medium preset delivers 107.9 FPS, the High preset delivers 90.1 FPS, and the Ultra preset delivers 54.7 FPS. The scaling from 1080p to 1440p results in a consistent reduction of approximately 28-30% for the Low, Medium, and High presets, while the Ultra preset sees a larger reduction of 29%.

At 3840x2160, the Low preset achieves 83.1 FPS, the Medium preset achieves 69.3 FPS, the High preset achieves 58.8 FPS, and the Ultra preset achieves 34.7 FPS. The 4K resolution places significant stress on the GPU, and only the Low and Medium presets are able to maintain frame rates above 60 FPS. The Ultra preset’s 34.7 FPS is the lowest measured result, confirming that this combination is not suitable for maximum settings at 4K. The data across all resolutions shows a consistent pattern: the RX 5700 XT is the primary bottleneck, and the Ryzen 5 9600X provides ample CPU headroom for this horror title.