Downfall

FAQ

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

A: This combo ranks 2888th out of 2928 tested combinations in Downfall, placing it in the bottom 1.4% of all tested systems for this game.

Q: How does the Ryzen 7 9700F compare to its nearest CPU rivals in synthetic benchmarks?

A: The Ryzen 7 9700F scores an average benchmark of 69996, which is 0.2% higher than the AMD Ryzen 9 7940HX (69875), 0.7% higher than the AMD Ryzen 9 7950X (69515), 0.9% higher than the Intel Core i7-14700K (69355), and 0.2% lower than the Intel Core i7-14700KF (70163). These are all extremely close scores, indicating the CPU is competitive with top-tier alternatives.

Q: What is the GTX 1050 Ti's performance percentile, and how does it compare to its nearest GPU rivals?

A: The GTX 1050 Ti sits at the 25th percentile of all GPUs, with an average benchmark score of 4193. This places it only 0.6% above the AMD Radeon R5 M330 (4170), 1% above the NVIDIA Quadro K2100M (4151), 1.1% below the NVIDIA Quadro K3000M (4241), and 1.8% below the AMD Radeon Vega 3 (4268).

Q: What are the CPU's core and thread specifications?

A: The AMD Ryzen 7 9700F has 8 cores and 16 threads, with a base clock of 3.80 GHz and a boost clock of 5.50 GHz. It belongs to the Zen 5 architecture codenamed Granite Ridge, built on a 4 nm process by TSMC.

Q: What memory specifications does the Ryzen 7 9700F support?

A: The CPU supports DDR5 memory on a dual-channel bus, with a memory bandwidth of 89.6 GB/s. It also supports ECC memory and uses PCIe Gen 5 with 24 lanes.

Q: What is the GPU's memory configuration and architecture?

A: The GTX 1050 Ti features 4 GB of GDDR5 memory on a 128-bit bus, delivering 112.1 GB/s bandwidth. It uses the GP107 chip built on Pascal architecture at 14 nm by Samsung.

GPU Role

The GTX 1050 Ti is the clear bottleneck in this system for Downfall, and the data confirms this decisively. With its 4 GB GDDR5 memory, 768 shading units, 48 texture mapping units, and 32 raster output units, this GPU was designed for entry-level 1080p gaming. Its 1291 MHz base clock and 1392 MHz boost clock are modest by modern standards, and the 112.1 GB/s memory bandwidth is constrained by the 128-bit bus.

The GPU's synthetic benchmark scores paint a sobering picture. The PassMark G3D score of 6340 and DirectX 12 score of 26 place it in the 25th percentile of all GPUs. The compute performance of 2.138 TFLOPS FP32 is limited, and the texture rate of 66.82 GTexel/s combined with a pixel rate of 44.54 GPixel/s means the GPU struggles to fill frames in demanding scenarios. The combination of these factors directly impacts Downfall performance.

In Downfall specifically, the GPU's limitations become apparent even at the lowest settings. At 1080p Low, the system achieves 74 FPS average. When the resolution increases to 1440p, this drops to 53 FPS, and at 4K it falls to 33 FPS. This scaling pattern shows that the GPU's fill rate and memory bandwidth are being saturated as pixel count rises. The 4 GB VRAM capacity, while sufficient for the textures in this 2016 horror title, cannot compensate for the underlying compute limitations of the GP107 chip.

The GTX 1050 Ti's nearest rivals in synthetic benchmarks are all similarly positioned: the AMD Radeon R5 M330, NVIDIA Quadro K2100M, NVIDIA Quadro K3000M, and AMD Radeon Vega 3. These are all low-power or older mobile/workstation parts, confirming the 1050 Ti's place at the entry level of desktop GPUs. The fact that Downfall, a game from 2016, still only manages 74 FPS at 1080p Low with this GPU suggests that the title's horror atmosphere relies on lighting and particle effects that stress even older mid-range hardware.

The GPU's 75 W TDP and lack of power connectors indicate it was designed for systems with minimal power delivery, which is consistent with its performance tier. The Pascal architecture, while efficient for its time, lacks the dedicated ray tracing and tensor cores found in newer NVIDIA parts, meaning all rendering must be handled by the 768 shading units alone.

Resolution Scaling

The measured FPS data reveals a clear and consistent pattern of performance degradation as resolution increases. At 1080p with Low settings, the system produces 74 FPS. Moving to 1440p Low drops this to 53 FPS, a 28% reduction. At 4K Low, the frame rate falls further to 33 FPS, representing a 55% decrease from the 1080p result.

The Medium settings show a similar trajectory: 60 FPS at 1080p, 43 FPS at 1440p, and 27 FPS at 4K. This represents a 28% drop from 1080p to 1440p, and a 55% drop from 1080p to 4K. High settings follow the same pattern with 50 FPS at 1080p, 35 FPS at 1440p, and 22 FPS at 4K.

Ultra settings are where the GPU truly struggles. At 1080p Ultra, the system manages 31 FPS, which drops to 22 FPS at 1440p and a nearly unplayable 14 FPS at 4K. The scaling from 1080p to 1440p Ultra is a 29% reduction, and from 1080p to 4K Ultra is a 55% reduction.

The consistent ~28% drop from 1080p to 1440p and ~55% drop from 1080p to 4K across all settings strongly indicates that the GPU is the limiting component. The pixel count increases by roughly 78% from 1080p to 1440p, and by 300% from 1080p to 4K. The FPS reductions do not perfectly match these pixel increases, which suggests that the CPU is providing enough headroom to partially offset GPU limitations at lower resolutions, but the GPU becomes the dominant constraint as resolution climbs.

Interestingly, the gap between Low and Ultra settings narrows as resolution increases. At 1080p, the difference between Low (74 FPS) and Ultra (31 FPS) is 43 FPS. At 4K, the difference between Low (33 FPS) and Ultra (14 FPS) is only 19 FPS. This compression of performance at higher resolutions indicates that the GPU is hitting hard architectural limits, where even reducing settings cannot compensate for the sheer number of pixels being rendered.

The minimum FPS data available for Medium settings shows 51 FPS minimum at 1080p, 37 FPS at 1440p, and 23 FPS at 4K. The maximum FPS values are 69 at 1080p, 50 at 1440p, and 31 at 4K. These ranges suggest that frame pacing becomes more erratic at higher resolutions, which is typical of a GPU operating at its memory bandwidth ceiling.

How This Combo Ranks

The combination of the AMD Ryzen 7 9700F and NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1050 Ti achieves a rank of 2888 out of 2928 tested combos in Downfall. This places the system in the bottom 1.4% of all tested configurations, which is a remarkably low position for a CPU that ranks in the 94th percentile of all processors.

This massive discrepancy between CPU capability and overall system performance highlights the extreme imbalance of this pairing. The Ryzen 7 9700F, with its 8 cores and 16 threads, is a modern high-end processor that can boost to 5.50 GHz. Its PassMark multithread score of 36470 and single-thread score of 4691 place it among the top processors available. Yet when paired with a GPU in the 25th percentile, the overall system performance in Downfall suffers dramatically.

The combo rank suggests that in the context of this game, the GPU is the overwhelming determinant of performance. The CPU's capabilities are largely wasted when the GPU cannot feed frames fast enough. The data shows that even the weakest CPU-GPU pairings tested in Downfall only slightly underperform this configuration, indicating that the GPU's limitations are so severe that CPU differences become nearly irrelevant.

Comparatively, the Ryzen 7 9700F's nearest CPU rivals — the Ryzen 9 7940HX (0.2% higher), Core i7-14700KF (0.2% lower), Ryzen 9 7950X (0.7% higher), and Core i7-14700K (0.9% higher) — would all likely produce nearly identical results in Downfall when paired with the GTX 1050 Ti. The GPU's position in the 25th percentile of all GPUs means that any modern processor would be similarly bottlenecked.

The rank of 2888 out of 2928 is a stark reminder that system performance is only as strong as its weakest component. A 94th-percentile CPU combined with a 25th-percentile GPU results in a system that performs near the bottom of all tested configurations for this game. The horror genre often relies on atmospheric effects and lighting, but Downfall appears to be GPU-bound in a way that makes the CPU's substantial capabilities irrelevant.

Settings Recommendations

Based on the measured FPS data, the optimal settings for this configuration depend heavily on the target resolution and acceptable frame rate. For 1080p gaming, Low settings at 74 FPS provides the smoothest experience, though Medium at 60 FPS may offer a better visual-to-performance balance. High settings at 50 FPS are also playable for slower-paced horror gameplay.

At 1440p, Low settings at 53 FPS represents the only consistently playable option. Medium at 43 FPS may be acceptable for players who prioritize visual quality over smoothness, but High at 35 FPS begins to feel sluggish for a horror title where quick reactions may be needed. Ultra settings at 1440p (22 FPS) are not recommended.

For 4K resolution, the data indicates that only Low settings (33 FPS) approach playability. Medium at 27 FPS is borderline, while High (22 FPS) and Ultra (14 FPS) are effectively unplayable. Players attempting 4K should expect to make significant visual concessions.

The Medium settings data includes minimum and maximum FPS values, which provide additional insight. At 1080p Medium, the system ranges from 51 to 69 FPS, indicating relatively stable performance. At 1440p Medium, the range is 37 to 50 FPS. At 4K Medium, the range narrows to 23 to 31 FPS. The narrowing range at higher resolutions suggests the GPU is consistently hitting its performance ceiling rather than experiencing intermittent spikes.

Given that Downfall is a horror game from 2016, the recommended configuration is 1080p with Medium settings, offering 60 FPS average with a 51-69 FPS range. This provides sufficient frame rates for the genre while maintaining visual fidelity. Players with 1440p monitors should choose Low settings for 53 FPS, and those with 4K displays should accept Low settings at 33 FPS or consider upgrading the GPU entirely.

Measured FPS Breakdown

The complete measured FPS data for this combination across all resolutions and settings is as follows:

At 3840x2160 (4K), the system achieves:

• Low: 33 FPS average
• Medium: 27 FPS average (23-31 FPS range)
• High: 22 FPS average
• Ultra: 14 FPS average

At 2560x1440 (1440p), the system achieves:

• Low: 53 FPS average
• Medium: 43 FPS average (37-50 FPS range)
• High: 35 FPS average
• Ultra: 22 FPS average

At 1920x1080 (1080p), the system achieves:

• Low: 74 FPS average
• Medium: 60 FPS average (51-69 FPS range)
• High: 50 FPS average
• Ultra: 31 FPS average

The pattern across all resolutions shows a consistent ordering: Low produces the highest frame rates, followed by Medium, then High, with Ultra consistently producing the lowest results. The performance gap between Low and Ultra is 43 FPS at 1080p, 31 FPS at 1440p, and 19 FPS at 4K.

The Medium settings are the only configuration where minimum and maximum FPS values were recorded. At 1080p, the spread is 18 FPS (51 to 69). At 1440p, the spread narrows to 13 FPS (37 to 50). At 4K, the spread tightens further to 8 FPS (23 to 31). This tightening spread at higher resolutions suggests that the GPU is being pushed to its limits, reducing the variability in frame delivery.

The average FPS values across all settings and resolutions show a clear hierarchy. The best performance is 74 FPS at 1080p Low, and the worst is 14 FPS at 4K Ultra. The data reveals that the system can handle 1080p gaming reasonably well across most settings, but performance degrades rapidly as resolution increases.

CPU Role

The AMD Ryzen 7 9700F is a high-end processor that is severely underutilized in this configuration. With 8 cores and 16 threads, it offers substantial parallel processing capability. The base clock of 3.80 GHz and boost clock of 5.50 GHz provide excellent single-thread performance, as evidenced by the PassMark single-thread score of 4691. The CPU's 32 MB of shared L3 cache, 1 MB L2 cache per core, and 80 KB L1 cache per core provide ample fast storage for game data.

The CPU's synthetic benchmark results demonstrate its strength. The multi-thread score of 36470, integer math score of 120788, and floating-point math score of 77955 all indicate a processor capable of handling complex workloads. The data encryption score of 21488 and compression score of 421988 further confirm its capabilities. The CPU's 94th percentile ranking among all processors means it outperforms 94% of CPUs on the market.

In Downfall, however, the CPU's role is minimal due to the GPU bottleneck. The game's horror genre typically involves limited on-screen entities and simple physics, meaning the CPU is unlikely to be the limiting factor. The data supports this: the FPS scaling pattern across resolutions is consistent with GPU-bound performance. If the CPU were the bottleneck, higher resolutions would show less performance degradation relative to 1080p.

The CPU's memory support for DDR5 on a dual-channel bus with 89.6 GB/s bandwidth provides ample memory throughput for the game. The PCIe Gen 5 interface with 24 lanes ensures the GPU has a fast connection to the CPU, though the GTX 1050 Ti only uses PCIe 3.0 x16. The CPU's 65 W TDP and 4 nm process node make it highly power-efficient, though this is irrelevant for gaming performance in this context.

The nearest rival CPUs — Ryzen 9 7940HX, Core i7-14700KF, Ryzen 9 7950X, and Core i7-14700K — all score within 1% of the 9700F in average benchmark scores. This tight grouping indicates that any of these processors would perform nearly identically when paired with the GTX 1050 Ti in Downfall. The CPU's individual PassMark scores, such as the physics score of 2122, suggest it can handle game physics calculations without issue.

The conclusion from the data is that the Ryzen 7 9700F is more than sufficient for Downfall, and its full potential is unrealized with the GTX 1050 Ti. Players considering this combination should understand that upgrading the GPU would provide substantial benefits, while CPU upgrades would yield negligible improvements in this specific game.