Downfall

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

The measured frame rates for Downfall reveal a pronounced scaling pattern as resolution climbs, and the shape of that curve tells a clear story about where the performance bottleneck resides. At 1920x1080 with Low settings, this combo produces 368 FPS, but that figure collapses to 266.2 FPS at 2560x1440 and further to 165.2 FPS at 3840x2160. The drop from 1080p to 1440p represents a 27.7% reduction in frame rate, while moving from 1440p to 4K costs another 37.9%. These are steep declines that suggest the rendering pipeline is becoming increasingly pixel-bound as resolution rises.

The pattern holds across every settings tier. With High settings, the progression runs 249.6 FPS at 1080p, 177.3 FPS at 1440p, and 112.6 FPS at 4K. That is a 55% total loss from 1080p to 4K. For Ultra settings, the numbers are 155.9, 111.7, and 69 FPS respectively, a 55.7% drop. The consistency of these proportional losses across all quality presets is notable — it implies the scaling behavior is driven primarily by the resolution itself rather than by any particular setting interacting with the hardware in an unusual way.

What does this say about the limiting component? At 1080p Low, the frame rate of 368 FPS is extraordinarily high, and it is unlikely the GPU is the sole constraint at that point. The fact that the CPU in this combo is a 12-core, 24-thread part with a boost clock of 4.80 GHz suggests there is ample headroom for feeding frames, but the data indicates that as resolution increases, the GPU becomes progressively more dominant as the limiting factor. The 4K Ultra result of 69 FPS — barely above a 60 FPS floor — shows the GPU is working hard at the top end, while the 1080p Low result of 368 FPS hints that the CPU may be the ceiling at lower resolutions.

The intermediate resolutions reinforce this interpretation. At 1440p Medium, the combo hits 217.1 FPS, while at 4K Medium it drops to 134.8 FPS. The gap between 1440p and 4K at Medium is 37.9%, nearly identical to the Low setting gap. This uniformity suggests a well-balanced system where neither component is dramatically out of step with the other, but the resolution scaling is steep enough to indicate that 4K pushes the GPU hard, especially at Ultra where the frame rate nearly halves compared to High.

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

The NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4070 Ti SUPER brings 16 GB of GDDR6X memory on a 256-bit bus, delivering 672.3 GB/s of bandwidth. For a horror title like Downfall, which likely relies on dense textures and atmospheric effects, this memory configuration appears sufficient to avoid capacity bottlenecks across all measured settings and resolutions. The absence of any min FPS data in the measured rows means we cannot see frame-time spikes, but the average frame rates suggest the memory subsystem is not causing catastrophic stutters.

The GPU's clock behavior is worth examining. The base clock is 2340 MHz with a boost clock of 2610 MHz, and the memory runs at 1313 MHz with 21 Gbps effective speed. These are aggressive clocks for the Ada Lovelace architecture, and they help explain why the card sustains high frame rates even at 4K. At 4K High, the average of 112.6 FPS is a strong result for a game from 2016, and the clock speeds are likely a contributing factor. The GPU's 8448 shading units and 264 texture mapping units provide substantial compute throughput, which the benchmark results reflect in the scaling behavior.

The GPU's percentile ranking against all GPUs is 86, and its average benchmark score is 48704. Its nearest rival, the NVIDIA CMP 50HX, scores 49071, which is 0.7% higher. The RTX A2000 trails by 1.6%, and the RTX A1000 Mobile is 2% behind. These are close margins, indicating that the RTX 4070 Ti SUPER sits in a competitive tier. For Downfall specifically, the measured FPS at 1080p Low — 368 FPS — is far beyond what any of these rivals would likely achieve, suggesting the GPU is not the limiting factor at that resolution.

At 4K Ultra, the 69 FPS result is the weakest measured outcome, and this is where the GPU's role becomes most apparent. The drop from High to Ultra at 4K is 43.6 FPS, or 38.7%, which is a substantial penalty for the extra visual quality. This indicates that Ultra settings at 4K place significant strain on the GPU's rendering capabilities, and the 16 GB VRAM is likely being utilized heavily even if not exhausted. The GPU's FP32 throughput of 44.10 TFLOPS is considerable, but the data suggests that Downfall's Ultra preset at 4K demands more than the card can comfortably deliver at high frame rates.

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

The AMD Ryzen 9 5900X is a 12-core, 24-thread processor based on Zen 3 architecture, built on a 7 nm process. Its base clock of 3.70 GHz and boost clock of 4.80 GHz provide strong single-thread performance, which is critical for a horror game that may have physics or AI-driven elements. The CPU's single-thread benchmark scores — 941 in 3dmark single thread, 4680 in Cinebench R23 single core — indicate it can handle lightly-threaded game logic without becoming a bottleneck.

The multi-threaded capabilities are equally robust. The Cinebench R23 multicore score of 33150 and Geekbench multicore score of 11877 show that the 12-core configuration is well-suited for any background tasks or heavily threaded game systems. The CPU's percentile ranking of 90 against all CPUs places it in the top decile, and its average benchmark score of 39453 sits very close to its nearest rivals. The AMD EPYC 4245P is 0.2% ahead, the Intel Core i7-13700 is 1% behind, and the Intel Core i7-13700F is 0.9% ahead. This positioning suggests the 5900X is slightly outperformed by some modern alternatives but remains highly capable.

In Downfall, the CPU's role is most evident at lower resolutions. At 1080p Low, the 368 FPS result is likely close to the CPU's frame generation limit, as the GPU would have little trouble producing such frames. The fact that 1080p Medium yields 303.9 FPS and 1080p High yields 249.6 FPS shows that even as GPU load increases, the CPU keeps pace. The 1080p Ultra result of 155.9 FPS indicates that the CPU is not the limiting factor even at the highest settings — the GPU takes over as the primary constraint.

The L3 cache of 64 MB is substantial and likely helps with game data locality, reducing memory latency. The dual-channel DDR4 memory support with 51.2 GB/s bandwidth is adequate for this game's demands, though it is not as fast as newer platforms. The CPU's memory bandwidth could theoretically become a constraint in scenes with heavy asset streaming, but the measured frame rates do not show signs of such a bottleneck, as the scaling from 1080p to 4K is smooth and predictable.

FAQ

Q: What is the best resolution for this combo in Downfall?

A: The data shows that 2560x1440 at High settings delivers 177.3 FPS, which is well above the 144 Hz refresh rate common on modern monitors. At 4K High, the 112.6 FPS average is still smooth, but the 1440p result offers more headroom for frame rate fluctuations.

Q: How does the Ultra preset compare to High at 4K?

A: At 3840x2160, High averages 112.6 FPS while Ultra drops to 69 FPS. That is a 38.7% reduction in frame rate for the higher preset, which is a significant cost that may not be justified depending on the visual differences in-game.

Q: Is the CPU or GPU the limiting factor at 1080p?

A: At 1920x1080 Low, the 368 FPS result is so high that the CPU is likely the primary constraint, given the GPU's capability. At 1080p Ultra, the 155.9 FPS result suggests the GPU is becoming more involved, but the CPU still has headroom.

Q: Does the 16 GB VRAM cause any issues in Downfall?

A: The measured FPS data shows no evidence of VRAM-related performance drops. Even at 4K Ultra, the average of 69 FPS is a continuous result, not a catastrophic stutter, which would be expected if the GPU were running out of memory.

Q: How does this combo rank against other tested configurations?

A: The combo ranks 168 out of 1741 tested combos in Downfall. This places it in the top 10% of all configurations, which is consistent with the high frame rates observed at all resolutions and settings.

Q: What is the difference between Low and Ultra at 1440p?

A: At 2560x1440, Low averages 266.2 FPS while Ultra averages 111.7 FPS. The difference is 154.5 FPS, or 58% lower performance at Ultra, which is a substantial trade-off for visual quality.

How This Combo Ranks

The AMD Ryzen 9 5900X paired with the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4070 Ti SUPER achieves a rank of 168 out of 1741 tested combos in Downfall. This places it in the 90.3rd percentile of all configurations, meaning it outperforms roughly 90% of the combinations tested in this game. The rank is notable because it combines a CPU from 2020 with a GPU from 2024, and the data shows this pairing is highly effective for Downfall.

The CPU's individual percentile of 90 and the GPU's percentile of 86 both contribute to this strong showing. The CPU's nearest rivals — the AMD EPYC 4245P and Intel Core i7-13700F — have average scores within 1% of the 5900X, so the CPU is not dramatically ahead of its peers. However, the GPU's position relative to its rivals is also tight, with the CMP 50HX only 0.7% higher in average score. Despite these narrow margins in synthetic benchmarks, the real-world Downfall results are excellent, suggesting that the specific combination of this CPU and GPU works well together in this title.

The rank of 168 out of 1741 is a strong indicator that this combo is well-balanced for Downfall. The 4K High result of 112.6 FPS and the 1440p Ultra result of 111.7 FPS are both playable, and the 1080p results are exceptionally high. The data implies that users with this combo can expect a smooth experience at most resolutions and settings, with 4K Ultra being the only configuration that dips below 70 FPS.

Measured FPS Breakdown

At 1920x1080, the combo produces its highest frame rates. Low settings yield 368 FPS, Medium yields 303.9 FPS, High yields 249.6 FPS, and Ultra yields 155.9 FPS. The progression from Low to Ultra shows a 57.6% reduction in performance, which is a significant cost for the highest visual quality. The gap between High and Ultra is 93.7 FPS, the largest single-step drop, indicating that Ultra adds substantial rendering complexity.

At 2560x1440, the frame rates remain high but begin to show the GPU's increased workload. Low averages 266.2 FPS, Medium averages 217.1 FPS, High averages 177.3 FPS, and Ultra averages 111.7 FPS. The drop from Low to Ultra is 154.5 FPS, or 58% lower performance. The step from High to Ultra is 65.6 FPS, which is a 37% reduction, showing that Ultra at 1440p is a demanding setting.

At 3840x2160, the frame rates are the lowest measured but still respectable for many displays. Low averages 165.2 FPS, Medium averages 134.8 FPS, High averages 112.6 FPS, and Ultra averages 69 FPS. The Ultra result is the only one that falls below 100 FPS, and it is the only configuration that approaches the 60 FPS floor. The difference between Low and Ultra at 4K is 96.2 FPS, or 58.2% lower performance, which mirrors the scaling seen at other resolutions.

Across all resolutions, the pattern is consistent: Low offers roughly double the frame rate of Ultra, and the step from High to Ultra is always the most punishing. This data suggests that High settings provide a reasonable balance between visual quality and performance, as it never drops below 112.6 FPS at any resolution.

Settings Recommendations

For users prioritizing frame rate, the Low preset at 1080p delivers 368 FPS, which is far beyond any display's refresh rate, making it a waste of potential. The Medium preset at 1080p, at 303.9 FPS, is similarly excessive. The data suggests that High settings at 1080p, at 249.6 FPS, offer a better balance, as the visual improvement over Medium is likely noticeable while the frame rate remains extremely high.

At 1440p, the High preset at 177.3 FPS is the recommended choice for most users. It provides smooth gameplay on high-refresh monitors and a significant visual upgrade over Medium's 217.1 FPS at a cost of only 39.8 FPS. The Ultra preset at 111.7 FPS is still playable, but the 65.6 FPS drop from High is substantial, and the visual difference may not justify the performance loss for a horror game where smoothness can be important for immersion.

For 4K gaming, the High preset at 112.6 FPS is the clear recommendation. It offers a smooth experience on 120 Hz displays and retains good visual quality. The Medium preset at 134.8 FPS is also viable for users who prefer higher frame rates, but the drop to Ultra at 69 FPS is steep. The Ultra preset at 4K is only recommended for users with 60 Hz displays who absolutely want maximum visual fidelity, as the 43.6 FPS difference between High and Ultra is significant and may cause noticeable judder on faster panels.

The data overall suggests that High settings provide the best experience across all resolutions, as it never drops below 112.6 FPS and consistently offers a balanced trade-off between visual quality and performance. For users with 240 Hz monitors at 1080p, Medium at 303.9 FPS might be preferable, but for most use cases, High is the sweet spot.