Downfall

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

The measured FPS data for Downfall reveals a steep and consistent performance cliff as resolution climbs, and the shape of that curve points squarely at the GPU as the primary bottleneck. At 1920x1080 with Low settings, the combo delivers 88.9 FPS, which drops to 65.7 FPS at 2560x1440 (a 26% reduction) and then to 39.9 FPS at 3840x2160 (a further 39% drop from 1440p). This pattern is typical of a system where the render resolution is hammering the graphics processor far harder than the CPU can compensate.

The Ultra preset tells an even more dramatic story. At 1080p Ultra, the average is 37.2 FPS; at 1440p Ultra it falls to 29.9 FPS; and at 4K Ultra it collapses to 16.5 FPS. That final step represents a 44.8% loss from 1440p to 4K, which is a far larger proportional decline than the 1080p-to-1440p drop of 19.6%. The scaling is not linear — it accelerates as pixel count grows, which is the signature of a GPU that is running out of raw throughput and memory bandwidth.

The Medium preset behaves similarly: 78.1 FPS at 1080p, 52.4 FPS at 1440p, and 30.9 FPS at 4K. The gap between 1080p and 4K for Medium is 60.4% lost, while for Low it is 55.1% lost. Interestingly, High settings show the smallest relative penalty from 1080p to 4K — 61.6 FPS down to 29.1 FPS, a 52.8% drop — but that is because High at 1080p is already constrained, so the additional resolution pressure has less headroom to erode.

What does this imply about the limiting component? The AMD Ryzen 7 7800X3D is a very capable processor with 8 cores and 16 threads, and its benchmark scores (a Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 29,149 and a single-core score of 4,115) suggest it can feed a much faster graphics card. The fact that frame rates collapse so steeply with resolution — while the CPU remains the same — indicates the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 is the ceiling. The GTX 1650's 4 GB of GDDR5 memory and 128.1 GB/s bandwidth are simply not enough to sustain fluid frame rates at higher pixel counts, particularly on Ultra where the 16.5 FPS result at 4K is borderline unplayable.

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

The Ryzen 7 7800X3D is a Zen 4 (Raphael) part built on TSMC's 5 nm process, running with a base clock of 4.20 GHz and a boost clock of 5.00 GHz. It has 8 physical cores and 16 threads, with a substantial 96 MB of shared L3 cache — a design that is well-suited to gaming workloads that benefit from large, fast on-chip storage. Its benchmark profile shows strong multi-threaded performance (3DMark max threads score of 7,967, Cinebench R23 multi-core of 29,149) and respectable single-thread results (3DMark single thread of 959, Cinebench R23 single-core of 4,115).

In Downfall, however, the CPU's headroom is not the limiting factor. The data shows that at 1080p Low, the combo reaches 88.9 FPS, which is the highest measured average across all settings and resolutions. If the CPU were the bottleneck, we would expect to see minimal variation between resolutions at the same settings — but the variation is enormous. For instance, going from 1080p Low to 4K Low drops the average from 88.9 to 39.9 FPS, a 55% reduction. That is a GPU-bound signature, not a CPU-bound one.

The CPU's 3DMark 2-thread score of 1,887 and 4-thread score of 3,684 indicate that even lightly threaded scenarios are handled comfortably. Downfall, being a horror game from 2016, is unlikely to stress all 16 threads, but the 7800X3D's single-core performance (Geekbench single-core of 2,725) ensures that the game's main thread is not starved. The 120 W TDP and AM5 socket are irrelevant to the measured results, but the architecture's efficiency (5 nm process, 11,270 million transistors) means the CPU can sustain high clocks without thermal throttling, which would otherwise manifest as inconsistent frame times.

The nearest rivals in the CPU benchmark database — the Intel Core i7-12700F (average score 31,543, delta 0.1%), AMD Ryzen 9 5980HX (31,495, delta 0.3%), AMD Ryzen 7 8700G (31,407, delta 0.6%), and AMD Ryzen 7 7745HX (31,402, delta 0.6%) — all sit within 0.6% of the 7800X3D's average benchmark score of 31,580. This means that swapping the CPU for any of these would not change the Downfall results in any meaningful way, because the GPU is the binding constraint.

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

The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 is a Turing-architecture GPU (chip TU117) built on a 12 nm process at TSMC, with 4 GB of GDDR5 memory on a 128-bit bus, providing 128.1 GB/s of bandwidth. Its base clock is 1,485 MHz with a boost of 1,665 MHz, and it has 896 shading units, 56 TMUs, and 32 ROPs. The FP32 throughput is 2.984 TFLOPS, and the memory runs at 2,001 MHz (8 Gbps effective). The GPU's average benchmark score is 8,713, placing it in the 43rd percentile of all GPUs.

The GTX 1650's nearest rivals — the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3050 A Mobile (average score 8,746, delta -0.4%), AMD Radeon 550X (8,749, delta -0.4%), NVIDIA Quadro P2200 (8,671, delta 0.5%), and AMD Radeon Pro WX 5100 (8,761, delta -0.5%) — are all within half a percent of its score. This confirms that the GTX 1650 is a mid-to-low-tier GPU by modern standards, and its performance in Downfall reflects that.

The 4 GB VRAM is a critical constraint for Downfall at higher resolutions and settings. The measured data shows that Ultra at 4K produces only 16.5 FPS, while Low at 4K gives 39.9 FPS. The difference between Low and Ultra at the same resolution is stark: at 1080p, Low gives 88.9 FPS versus Ultra's 37.2 FPS — a 58.2% penalty for maxing out settings. At 1440p, Low gives 65.7 FPS versus Ultra's 29.9 FPS (a 54.5% penalty), and at 4K, Low gives 39.9 FPS versus Ultra's 16.5 FPS (a 58.6% penalty). These consistent penalties suggest that the GPU's shading throughput and memory bandwidth are both saturated when settings are raised, not just VRAM capacity.

The GPU's 43rd percentile ranking, combined with the CPU's 87th percentile ranking, creates a large performance gap between the two components. In Downfall, this gap means the CPU is effectively "waiting" on the GPU at every resolution. The 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 score of 305 and Passmark G3D score of 7,880 are low enough to confirm that the GTX 1650 is not designed for high-refresh or high-resolution gaming, and the data bears this out.

FAQ

Q: Why does the frame rate drop so much from 1080p to 4K?

A: The data shows that at Low settings, the average FPS falls from 88.9 at 1080p to 65.7 at 1440p and then to 39.9 at 4K. This steep, accelerating decline indicates that the GPU — with its 4 GB VRAM and 128.1 GB/s bandwidth — is the limiting component, not the CPU.

Q: Is the Ryzen 7 7800X3D holding back the GTX 1650 in this game?

A: No. The CPU's benchmark scores (e.g., Cinebench R23 multi-core of 29,149 and single-core of 4,115) are far higher than what the GPU can utilize. The frame rate variations across resolutions are entirely consistent with a GPU-bound scenario, so the 7800X3D is not the bottleneck.

Q: What is the best settings preset for 1080p?

A: At 1920x1080, Low delivers the highest average at 88.9 FPS, while Medium gives 78.1 FPS and High gives 61.6 FPS. Ultra drops to 37.2 FPS, so Low or Medium are the most fluid options for 1080p.

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

A: Barely, and only at Low settings. The 4K Low average is 39.9 FPS, which is playable but not smooth. Medium drops to 30.9 FPS, High to 29.1 FPS, and Ultra to a stuttery 16.5 FPS.

Q: How does the GTX 1650 compare to its closest rivals?

A: The GPU's average benchmark score is 8,713, while the closest rivals — the RTX 3050 A Mobile (8,746), Radeon 550X (8,749), Quadro P2200 (8,671), and Radeon Pro WX 5100 (8,761) — are all within 0.5% of its performance. So the GTX 1650 is essentially at parity with these cards.

Q: Does the CPU's large L3 cache help in Downfall?

A: The 7800X3D has 96 MB of shared L3 cache, which is beneficial for many games, but the measured results show that the GPU is the limiting factor. Even with this cache advantage, the frame rates are capped by the GTX 1650's throughput.

How This Combo Ranks

The combination of the AMD Ryzen 7 7800X3D and NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 ranks 1,681 out of 1,741 tested combos in Downfall, placing it in the bottom 3.4% of all systems. This is a remarkably low ranking given the CPU's strength — the 7800X3D sits in the 87th percentile of all CPUs, with an average benchmark score of 31,580. The GPU, by contrast, is in the 43rd percentile with an average score of 8,713.

The rank disparity tells a clear story: the CPU is overqualified for the GPU. In the database, this combo is outranked by thousands of systems that pair weaker CPUs with more balanced GPUs, because Downfall's performance is so heavily GPU-dependent. The data shows that the CPU's nearest rivals (the Core i7-12700F, Ryzen 9 5980HX, Ryzen 7 8700G, and Ryzen 7 7745HX) all have average scores within 0.6% of the 7800X3D, so any of those CPUs would produce nearly identical results in this game when paired with the same GTX 1650.

This rank is a warning sign for anyone considering this pairing. The 7800X3D is a top-tier gaming processor, but it is being throttled by a GPU that is end-of-life and designed for 1080p esports, not demanding horror titles. The combo rank of 1,681 out of 1,741 suggests that the system is severely unbalanced, and the measured FPS data confirms it — even at 1080p Low, the 88.9 FPS average is not impressive for such a powerful CPU.

Settings Recommendations

Based on the measured FPS rows, the best experience depends on the target resolution. At 1920x1080, the Low preset provides the highest average at 88.9 FPS, which is likely the smoothest option for maintaining consistent frame pacing. Medium is a reasonable compromise at 78.1 FPS, offering better visual fidelity while staying above the 60 FPS threshold. High drops to 61.6 FPS, which is still playable, but Ultra at 37.2 FPS is not recommended for any kind of responsive gameplay.

At 2560x1440, the options narrow. Low gives 65.7 FPS, which is acceptable, while Medium falls to 52.4 FPS and High to 43.2 FPS. Ultra at 29.9 FPS is marginal at best. For a smoother 1440p experience, Low is the only preset that consistently stays above 60 FPS, and even then, the margin is thin.

At 3840x2160, the situation is dire. Low produces 39.9 FPS, Medium drops to 30.9 FPS, High to 29.1 FPS, and Ultra to 16.5 FPS. None of these are ideal for 4K gaming, but if forced, Low is the only settings level that approaches playability. The data indicates that this combo is not suited for 4K in Downfall, regardless of settings.

For the best overall experience, the data points to 1080p with Low or Medium settings. The 88.9 FPS at Low and 78.1 FPS at Medium are the only measured results that exceed 75 FPS, and they do so with a comfortable margin. High at 1080p is acceptable at 61.6 FPS, but the jump from Medium to High costs 21.1% of the average frame rate, which is a steep price for marginal visual gains.

Measured FPS Breakdown

The measured FPS data for Downfall with the AMD Ryzen 7 7800X3D and NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 is as follows, organized by resolution and settings:

1920x1080 (1080p):

• Low: 88.9 FPS average
• Medium: 78.1 FPS average
• High: 61.6 FPS average
• Ultra: 37.2 FPS average

2560x1440 (1440p):

• Low: 65.7 FPS average
• Medium: 52.4 FPS average
• High: 43.2 FPS average
• Ultra: 29.9 FPS average

3840x2160 (4K):

• Low: 39.9 FPS average
• Medium: 30.9 FPS average
• High: 29.1 FPS average
• Ultra: 16.5 FPS average

The pattern is consistent across all settings: each step from Low to Ultra reduces the average FPS by roughly 20-40%, and each resolution step from 1080p to 1440p to 4K imposes a similar penalty. For example, at Medium settings, the FPS goes from 78.1 (1080p) to 52.4 (1440p) to 30.9 (4K) — a cumulative loss of 60.4% from 1080p to 4K. At High settings, the numbers are 61.6, 43.2, and 29.1, respectively, a cumulative loss of 52.8%.

The most extreme result is 4K Ultra at 16.5 FPS, which is the lowest measured average in the entire dataset. The highest is 1080p Low at 88.9 FPS. The spread between these two extremes is 72.4 FPS, or an 81.4% difference, which underscores how sensitive this combo is to both resolution and settings. The data shows no min or max FPS values, so only averages are available for analysis, but the averages alone are sufficient to draw clear conclusions about the system's capabilities.