Downfall

# Downfall with AMD Ryzen 7 9800X3D + NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650

This pairing of a top-tier 2024 CPU with an entry-level 2019 GPU creates one of the most lopsided configurations in the database. The AMD Ryzen 7 9800X3D, with its 8 cores, 16 threads, and 96 MB of shared L3 cache, sits at the 87th percentile of all CPUs tested. The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650, by contrast, ranks at just the 40th percentile among GPUs, with 4 GB of GDDR5 memory and a 128-bit bus. The benchmark results for Downfall, a 2016 horror title, reveal exactly what happens when a processor vastly outpaces its graphics counterpart.

Resolution Scaling

The measured FPS data shows a clear and predictable pattern: as resolution increases from 1920x1080 to 3840x2160, average frame rates drop consistently across all settings. At Low settings, the average FPS falls from 91 at 1080p to 65 at 1440p, then to 41 at 4K. That represents a 55% reduction from 1080p to 4K. At Medium settings, the drop is from 75 to 53 to 33, a 56% decline. High settings see a similar trajectory: 61 at 1080p, 44 at 1440p, and 27 at 4K, which is a 56% decrease overall.

The scaling pattern suggests the GTX 1650 becomes the limiting factor as pixel count rises. The 4 GB memory buffer is likely saturated at 4K, given the 128-bit bus width and 128.1 GB/s bandwidth. At 1080p, the CPU's immense headroom — the 9800X3D scores 23,230 in Cinebench R23 multi-core — means the GPU is almost certainly the bottleneck even at the lowest resolution. The data indicates that moving from 1080p to 1440p costs roughly 28-29% of performance, while moving from 1440p to 4K costs another 37-38%. This non-linear drop points to memory bandwidth constraints rather than raw compute limits, as the GTX 1650's 2.984 TFLOPS FP32 performance would theoretically scale more gracefully if memory were not the issue.

Ultra settings exacerbate the problem dramatically. At 4K Ultra, the average FPS plummets to 17, which is less than half of the 4K Medium result of 33. The gap between Medium and Ultra at 4K (33 vs 17) is larger than the gap between Low and Medium (41 vs 33), suggesting that Ultra presets push the GPU's 4 GB VRAM past its limit. The data implies that this configuration is playable at 1080p across most settings, marginal at 1440p, and generally unsuitable for 4K gaming in Downfall.

How This Combo Ranks

The combo rank for this pairing in Downfall is 3593 out of 3716 tested combinations, placing it in the bottom 3.3% of all configurations. This ranking reflects the severe imbalance between the CPU and GPU. The 9800X3D's average benchmark score of 39,768 puts it just 0.4% above the AMD Ryzen 7 PRO 8840HS (39,603) and 0.7% above the AMD Ryzen AI 7 450 (39,485), while trailing the AMD Ryzen AI 9 365 by 0.7% and the AMD Ryzen 7 7700 by 0.8%. These rivals are all mobile or mainstream desktop parts, yet the 9800X3D's desktop-class performance barely edges them out in synthetic tests.

On the GPU side, the GTX 1650's average benchmark score of 7,472 places it merely 0.3% ahead of the AMD Radeon HD 8850M (7,447) and 0.4% ahead of the Intel UHD Graphics 750 (7,441), while sitting 1% behind the Intel Arc A310 (7,550). This is a GPU that competes with integrated graphics and low-end mobile parts from years ago. The combination of a top-13% CPU with a bottom-40% GPU produces a rank that is far worse than either component's individual percentile would suggest.

The data shows that in Downfall, the combo's rank is driven almost entirely by GPU limitations. The 9800X3D's 3DMark scores — 10,081 with 16 threads and 10,067 at max threads — indicate enormous processing headroom that the GTX 1650 simply cannot utilize in this title. The rank of 3593 out of 3716 means that 96.7% of tested combos outperform this pairing in Downfall, which is a striking result for a system built around AMD's flagship gaming processor.

Settings Recommendations

The measured FPS data provides clear guidance for each resolution. At 1920x1080, the Low preset delivers 91 average FPS, which is smooth for a horror game where frame pacing matters for atmosphere. Medium yields 75 average FPS with a minimum of 64 and maximum of 86, offering a solid balance. High produces 61 average FPS, which remains playable, but Ultra drops to 38 average FPS — a significant step down that may introduce judder in fast-moving scenes.

At 2560x1440, the picture changes. Low provides 65 average FPS, which is acceptable, while Medium delivers 53 average FPS with a minimum of 45 and maximum of 61. High falls to 44 average FPS, which approaches the threshold where horror games feel less responsive. Ultra at 1440p yields only 27 average FPS, which is not recommended for gameplay.

At 3840x2160, only Low (41 average FPS) approaches playability. Medium drops to 33 average FPS, High falls to 27, and Ultra is unplayable at 17 average FPS. The data suggests that 4K gaming with this combo is only viable at Low settings, and even then, the experience may be marginal.

For the best experience per the measured rows, 1080p Medium stands out as the sweet spot. The 75 average FPS with a 64 FPS minimum ensures that the game rarely stutters, while the visual upgrade over Low is substantial. At 1440p, Medium at 53 average FPS is the recommended choice, though players seeking higher frame rates could drop to Low for 65 FPS. The 4K resolution should be avoided unless the player prioritizes resolution over smoothness, in which case Low at 41 average FPS is the only reasonable option.

FAQ

Q: Why does the 9800X3D not help more in this game?

A: The CPU's benchmark scores — including 23,230 in Cinebench R23 multi-core and 4,430 in PassMark single-thread — indicate massive processing power. However, the GTX 1650's 4 GB VRAM and 128.1 GB/s bandwidth become the limiting factor, especially at higher resolutions, so the CPU's headroom goes unused.

Q: Is this combo better at 1080p or 1440p?

A: The data shows 1080p is clearly superior. At Medium settings, 1080p delivers 75 average FPS compared to 53 at 1440p, a 42% improvement. Even at Low settings, 1080p's 91 FPS exceeds 1440p's 65 FPS by 40%.

Q: Can this system run Downfall at 4K?

A: Technically yes, but only at Low settings with 41 average FPS. Medium drops to 33, High to 27, and Ultra to 17. The 4 GB VRAM is insufficient for higher presets at this resolution, as evidenced by the steep performance cliff between Medium and Ultra.

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

A: The GPU's average benchmark score of 7,472 is just 0.3% above the AMD Radeon HD 8850M and 0.4% above the Intel UHD Graphics 750, while trailing the Intel Arc A310 by 1%. This places it in the 40th percentile of all GPUs.

Q: What is the CPU's competition in synthetic benchmarks?

A: The 9800X3D's average score of 39,768 is 0.4% above the AMD Ryzen 7 PRO 8840HS, 0.7% above the AMD Ryzen AI 7 450, 0.7% below the AMD Ryzen AI 9 365, and 0.8% below the AMD Ryzen 7 7700. It ranks in the 87th percentile overall.

Q: Why does the combo rank so poorly despite the strong CPU?

A: The combo rank of 3593 out of 3716 reflects the GPU bottleneck. Since Downfall's performance at higher resolutions and settings is constrained by the GTX 1650, the CPU's power cannot compensate for the graphics card's limitations.

GPU Role

The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650, built on the TU117 chip with Turing architecture at 12 nm, is the primary constraint in this configuration. Its 4 GB of GDDR5 memory on a 128-bit bus provides 128.1 GB/s of bandwidth, which is modest by modern standards. The GPU's clocks run at 1485 MHz base and 1665 MHz boost, with memory at 2001 MHz (8 Gbps effective). These specifications translate to 2.984 TFLOPS FP32 performance and a pixel rate of 53.28 GPixel/s.

In Downfall, the GPU's role becomes evident when examining the FPS scaling across resolutions. At 1080p Low, the 91 average FPS suggests the GPU can handle the workload, but the 4K Ultra result of 17 FPS indicates severe VRAM pressure. The 4 GB capacity is likely insufficient for Ultra textures at high resolutions, forcing the GPU to swap data in and out of the 128-bit memory bus. The 35-point drop in 3DMark Steel Nomad (score of 305) relative to more modern GPUs underscores its age, while the PassMark G3D score of 7,880 places it in the bottom half of the database.

The GTX 1650's nearest rivals in synthetic benchmarks are the AMD Radeon HD 8850M (0.3% behind), Intel UHD Graphics 750 (0.4% behind), and Intel Arc A310 (1% ahead). This clustering around the 7,400-7,550 score range indicates that the GTX 1650 performs at the level of integrated graphics from recent Intel CPUs. For Downfall, this means the GPU dictates that the game must be played at 1080p for acceptable frame rates, with 1440p being a stretch and 4K only viable at the lowest settings.

CPU Role

The AMD Ryzen 7 9800X3D represents the opposite end of the performance spectrum. With 8 cores, 16 threads, and a base clock of 4.70 GHz boosting to 5.20 GHz, this Zen 5 architecture processor (Granite Ridge) on a 4 nm TSMC process is designed for maximum gaming throughput. The 96 MB of shared L3 cache is particularly relevant for gaming workloads, as it reduces memory latency and improves frame pacing. The CPU's 120 W TDP and DDR5 dual-channel memory support (89.6 GB/s bandwidth) round out a high-end specification.

In Downfall, the CPU's role is largely passive because the GPU cannot keep up. The 9800X3D's Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 23,230 and single-core score of 2,080 demonstrate that it can handle any CPU-bound scenario in a 2016 title. The PassMark multi-thread score of 40,009 and single-thread score of 4,430 further confirm its capability. However, the measured FPS data shows that even at 1080p Low (91 FPS), the frame rate is limited by the GTX 1650 rather than the CPU.

The nearest CPU rivals — all scoring within 1% of the 9800X3D's average of 39,768 — include mobile and lower-tier desktop parts like the Ryzen 7 PRO 8840HS and Ryzen 7 7700. This suggests that for Downfall, a mid-range CPU would perform nearly identically, as the GPU bottleneck negates the 9800X3D's advantages. The 87th percentile CPU ranking is meaningless when paired with a 40th percentile GPU in this title, as the data clearly shows the CPU's headroom is never utilized.

Measured FPS Breakdown

At 1920x1080, the full settings range was measured. Low delivers 91 average FPS, the highest score in the entire dataset. Medium produces 75 average FPS with a minimum of 64 and maximum of 86, indicating consistent frame delivery. High reaches 61 average FPS, while Ultra falls to 38 average FPS — a 58% reduction from Low. The 53 FPS gap between Low and Ultra at 1080p highlights how dramatically settings impact performance on this GPU.

At 2560x1440, the scores step down proportionally. Low yields 65 average FPS, Medium 53 with a minimum of 45 and maximum of 61, High 44, and Ultra 27. The Medium preset at 1440p shows a tighter range (45-61) than at 1080p (64-86), suggesting that the GPU is closer to its limits. The Ultra setting at 1440p (27 FPS) is nearly identical to the 4K High result (27 FPS), revealing that both resolutions stress the GPU similarly at demanding presets.

At 3840x2160, the results are marginal across the board. Low manages 41 average FPS, Medium 33 with a minimum of 28 and maximum of 38, High 27, and Ultra 17. The Medium preset's minimum of 28 FPS is below the threshold for smooth gameplay in a horror title, where unpredictable movement can make low frame rates feel worse. The 4K Ultra result of 17 FPS is the lowest in the dataset, confirming that this resolution and preset combination is not viable.

The complete picture shows a GPU that scales predictably with resolution but suffers disproportionately at Ultra settings. Across all resolutions, the drop from Medium to Ultra averages 49%, while the drop from Low to Medium averages 27%. This indicates that Ultra presets in Downfall impose a heavy penalty on the GTX 1650, likely due to texture quality exceeding the 4 GB VRAM capacity. The data recommends 1080p Medium as the optimal balance, with 1440p Low as an alternative for higher resolution at the cost of visual fidelity.