Downfall

The AMD Ryzen 5 9600X paired with the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 is a study in contrast: a modern, high-end processor from 2024 mated to an entry-level, end-of-life graphics card from 2019. In Downfall, a 2016 horror title, this combination produces playable results at 1080p but struggles significantly at higher resolutions. The data indicates that the GPU is the overwhelming bottleneck in nearly every scenario, while the CPU’s substantial headroom goes largely unused.

FAQ

*Q: What is the overall performance rank of this CPU and GPU combo in Downfall?*

A: The combination ranks 1641 out of 1741 tested combos in the database for this game, placing it in the bottom 6% of all tested configurations. This low rank is primarily due to the GPU's limited capabilities.

*Q: Can this system run Downfall at 1080p with decent framerates?*

A: Yes. At 1920x1080 resolution, the system achieves 93 FPS on Low settings, 74.6 FPS on Medium, and 62 FPS on High settings. These are all smooth, playable framerates for a horror game. However, Ultra settings push the average down to 40.1 FPS, which is still technically playable but less fluid.

Q: How does the GTX 1650 compare to its nearest rivals in synthetic benchmarks?

A: The GTX 1650's average benchmark score is 8713. This places it within a very tight margin of its nearest rivals: it is 0.4% ahead of the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3050 A Mobile and AMD Radeon 550X, 0.5% behind the NVIDIA Quadro P2200, and 0.5% ahead of the AMD Radeon Pro WX 5100. The performance delta between these cards is negligible.

Q: What is the significance of the CPU's 85th percentile ranking?

A: The Ryzen 5 9600X sits in the 85th percentile of all CPUs tested, indicating it is a high-performance processor. Its average benchmark score of 28246 is virtually identical to its closest rivals, with a 0.3% lead over the Intel Core i5-13490F and AMD Ryzen 5 230, and a 0.4% deficit to the AMD Ryzen 7 8845HS.

*Q: Is the 4 GB VRAM of the GTX 1650 a limiting factor in Downfall?*

A: Yes, it appears to be a significant factor. At 4K resolution, the average framerate drops to 29.9 FPS on High settings and a very choppy 17.3 FPS on Ultra. This severe degradation at higher resolutions and settings suggests the graphics card is running out of memory and compute resources.

Q: What is the performance difference between the CPU and GPU in their respective benchmark pools?

A: The CPU is a top-tier part, scoring in the 85th percentile of all CPUs, while the GPU scores in the 43rd percentile of all GPUs. This massive gap in relative performance classes confirms that the GTX 1650 is the primary limiting factor for gaming performance in this pairing.

GPU Role

The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 is the decisive component in this configuration. It is an end-of-life product from the GeForce 16-series, built on the TU117 chip using a 12 nm process. The card's specifications are modest: it features 896 shading units, 56 texture mapping units, and 32 raster operation pipelines. Its core clocks run at a base of 1485 MHz and a boost of 1665 MHz.

The most critical limitation is its memory subsystem. The GTX 1650 is equipped with only 4 GB of GDDR5 memory on a 128-bit bus, providing a bandwidth of 128.1 GB/s. This is a severe constraint for modern gaming, and the data from Downfall suggests it is a primary bottleneck. The GPU's compute capabilities are also limited, with an FP32 performance of 2.984 TFLOPS. In synthetic benchmarks, the card scores an average of 8713 and sits in the 43rd percentile of all GPUs, underscoring its entry-level positioning. The measured FPS data in Downfall shows that the card can handle 1080p well, but it begins to struggle as resolution and settings increase, indicating that its 4 GB frame buffer is being saturated.

CPU Role

The AMD Ryzen 5 9600X is a powerhouse that is vastly underutilized in this pairing. This is a 6-core, 12-thread processor from the Zen 5 architecture (Granite Ridge), built on a 4 nm process at TSMC. It has a base clock of 3.90 GHz and a boost clock of 5.40 GHz, backed by 32 MB of shared L3 cache. Its synthetic benchmark scores are impressive, including a Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 25525 and a single-core score of 3603. It sits in the 85th percentile of all CPUs and is within a 0.5% performance margin of its nearest rivals, such as the Intel Core i5-13490F and the AMD Ryzen 7 8845HS.

In Downfall, the CPU's role is to feed frames to the GPU. Given the GTX 1650's limitations, the Ryzen 5 9600X's capabilities are largely irrelevant to the final framerate. The 3DMark scores, which show a multi-threaded score of 7590 and a single-thread score of 1253, indicate that the CPU can handle the game's logic and physics with ease. The bottleneck is purely on the graphics side, meaning that an upgrade to the GPU would yield massive performance gains without needing to change the processor.

How This Combo Ranks

The combo rank of 1641 out of 1741 places this configuration in the bottom percentile of all tested pairings for Downfall. This is a direct result of the GPU's limitations. The data shows that the CPU is in the 85th percentile of CPUs, while the GPU is in the 43rd percentile of GPUs. This pairing of a top-15% processor with a below-average graphics card creates a significant imbalance. The benchmark results indicate that the system is capable of good performance at 1080p, but its overall rank is dragged down by its inability to maintain high framerates at 1440p and 4K. The system is essentially a strong CPU waiting for a stronger GPU to unlock its full potential. In this case, the whole is less than the sum of its parts due to the severe bottleneck.

Resolution Scaling

The performance scaling from 1080p to 4K clearly illustrates where the bottleneck lies. At 1920x1080 with High settings, the system averages 62 FPS. Moving to 2560x1440 at High settings, the framerate drops to 41.5 FPS, a 33% reduction. At 3840x2160 with High settings, the average falls to 29.9 FPS, another 28% reduction from 1440p.

This steep decline in performance as resolution increases is the classic signature of a GPU-bound system. The CPU's workload does not increase significantly with resolution, but the GPU's does. The GTX 1650 simply does not have the raw pixel-pushing power or the memory bandwidth to handle the increased load at higher resolutions. The drop from 1080p to 4K is a 52% loss in average framerate. The data suggests that if the CPU were the bottleneck, the framerates would remain relatively flat across resolutions, which is not the case here.

Measured FPS Breakdown

This breakdown shows the exact average FPS for each resolution and settings preset.

1920x1080:

• Low: 93 FPS. This is the only setting in the entire test suite that approaches the refresh rate of a high-end monitor. The game is very fluid and responsive.
• Medium: 74.6 FPS. A smooth experience that provides a good balance between visual quality and responsiveness.
• High: 62 FPS. This is the sweet spot for a consistent 60 FPS experience on a standard 60 Hz monitor.
• Ultra: 40.1 FPS. This is the first noticeable step down, indicating that the GPU is starting to struggle with the increased visual load.

2560x1440:

• Low: 67.8 FPS. Still a playable framerate, but it has already dropped 27% from the 1080p Low setting.
• Medium: 53.2 FPS. A playable, but not ideal, framerate for fast-paced action.
• High: 41.5 FPS. This is below the 60 FPS threshold and will be noticeable as less smooth.
• Ultra: 30.1 FPS. The experience is starting to become choppy, approaching the edge of playability.

3840x2160 (4K):

• Low: 38.7 FPS. Even on the lowest settings, the card cannot maintain a smooth 60 FPS at 4K.
• Medium: 35.6 FPS. A marginal improvement over Low, but still in the same problematic range.
• High: 29.9 FPS. The framerate dips below 30 FPS, which is generally considered the minimum for a playable experience.
• Ultra: 17.3 FPS. This is essentially a slideshow and is unplayable. The 4 GB VRAM and limited compute power of the GTX 1650 are completely overwhelmed at this resolution and settings combination.