Downfall

# Downfall Performance Analysis: AMD Ryzen 9 7900X + Intel Arc B370

The measured data for this combination reveals a system that struggles significantly in Downfall, a 2016 horror title. The AMD Ryzen 9 7900X, a 12-core Zen 4 processor with a boost clock of 5.60 GHz, pairs with the Intel Arc B370, an integrated graphics solution based on the Xe3-LPG architecture with a 25 W TDP. Across all resolutions and settings, the performance profile is consistently low, with the combo ranking 2688th out of 2928 tested combinations. The Arc B370 sits in the 5th percentile of all GPUs, and its average benchmark score of 1184 places it near the ATI Mobility Radeon HD 5570 (which scores 1186, a delta of -0.2%) and the ATI Radeon HD 5770 (1190, delta -0.5%). This context is essential for understanding why the FPS numbers remain modest even at 1080p.

Resolution Scaling

The FPS drop from 1080p to 4K is dramatic and reveals the GPU as the primary constraint. At 1080p High settings, the system achieves 64 FPS, but at 1440p High it falls to 46 FPS, and at 4K High it drops to 29 FPS. This represents a 55% reduction from 1080p to 4K at High settings. The pattern is consistent across all quality presets. At Low settings, 1080p delivers 96 FPS, 1440p delivers 68 FPS, and 4K delivers 43 FPS, a 55% decline as well. Medium settings show a similar trajectory: 78 FPS at 1080p, 56 FPS at 1440p, and 35 FPS at 4K, with the 4K result being less than half of the 1080p figure.

Ultra settings exhibit the steepest relative drop. The 1080p Ultra score of 40 FPS falls to 29 FPS at 1440p and then to 18 FPS at 4K, a 55% loss from 1080p to 4K, matching the other presets. This consistent scaling pattern indicates that the rendering load increases proportionally with pixel count, and the Arc B370's limited compute resources (6.144 TFLOPS FP32, 1280 shading units) are overwhelmed as resolution climbs. The pixel rate of 48.00 GPixel/s and texture rate of 96.00 GTexel/s are modest figures, and the data suggests they become the bottleneck well before the CPU's capabilities are taxed.

Notably, the 4K Medium result includes a minimum FPS of 30 and maximum of 40, while other 4K entries lack min/max data. At 1440p Medium, the range is 48 to 64 FPS, and at 1080p Medium it is 67 to 90 FPS. These ranges show that even within a single resolution and settings tier, frame times vary considerably, which is typical when the GPU is operating near its limits. The scaling data implies that 4K is largely impractical for this combo, and even 1440p requires careful settings selection to maintain playable frame rates.

GPU Role

The Intel Arc B370 is the decisive factor in this system's Downfall performance. With a base clock of 300 MHz and a boost clock of 2400 MHz, the GPU's dynamic range is substantial, but its underlying hardware is limited. The 1280 shading units, 40 TMUs, and 20 ROPs are low counts by modern standards, and the 10 ray tracing cores offer little benefit in a horror title that likely relies on traditional rasterization. The memory configuration is "System Shared" with "System Dependent" bandwidth, meaning the GPU draws from the Ryzen 9 7900X's dual-channel DDR5 memory (83.2 GB/s theoretical bandwidth). This shared memory arrangement can introduce latency and bandwidth contention, particularly at higher resolutions where memory pressure increases.

The GPU's benchmark profile is stark: a single 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 score of 1184, placing it in the 5th percentile of all GPUs. Its nearest rivals in the database are all older discrete parts, the ATI Mobility Radeon HD 5570 (1186, delta -0.2%), ATI Radeon HD 5770 (1190, delta -0.5%), AMD Radeon HD 7650M (1192, delta -0.7%), and AMD FirePro M2000 (1168, delta 1.4%). This clustering indicates that the Arc B370 performs at a level comparable to legacy GPUs from over a decade ago, which explains the sub-60 FPS results at 4K across all settings. The 25 W TDP and IGP slot width confirm this is an integrated solution, not a discrete card, and the "Portable Device Dependent" display outputs suggest it is designed for mobile or compact systems rather than high-end gaming desktops.

The API support is modern, DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4, which means the hardware can technically run contemporary rendering features. However, the raw throughput is insufficient for demanding workloads. The FP32 throughput of 6.144 TFLOPS and FP16 of 12.29 TFLOPS (2:1) are far below what modern discrete GPUs offer. In Downfall, a game from 2016, the GPU's age relative to the title's release suggests it should handle the game comfortably, but the data shows otherwise. The 4K Ultra result of 18 FPS is particularly telling, even the lowest preset at 4K (43 FPS) fails to reach 60 FPS, underscoring the GPU's limitations.

CPU Role

The AMD Ryzen 9 7900X is a high-end desktop processor that should not be the limiting factor in Downfall. Its 12 cores and 24 threads, based on the Zen 4 architecture built on a 5 nm process by TSMC, provide substantial multi-threaded capability. The base clock of 4.70 GHz and boost clock of 5.60 GHz are high for a desktop chip, and the 64 MB of shared L3 cache (plus 1 MB L2 per core) ensures ample data locality for game workloads. The CPU's benchmark scores are robust: Cinebench R23 multi-core of 29300 and single-core of 2016.5, Geekbench multi-core of 19267 and single-core of 2617, and a Passmark multi-thread score of 51406. These place it in the 91st percentile of all CPUs, with an average benchmark score of 53288.

The nearest rivals highlight the CPU's positioning. The AMD EPYC 7313P scores 53206 (delta 0.2%), the Intel Xeon Phi 7290 scores 53469 (delta -0.3%), the Intel Xeon 634 scores 52974 (delta 0.6%), and the Intel Core i7-14700F scores 53620 (delta -0.6%). These deltas are all within 0.6%, meaning the 7900X performs nearly identically to these server and desktop parts in aggregate benchmarks. For a 2016 horror game, the CPU's 12 cores are likely underutilized, most games from that era were optimized for 4-8 threads. The 3DMark 16-thread score of 10972 and 8-thread score of 7798 indicate strong scaling, but Downfall probably relies more on single-thread performance, where the 7900X's 1093 single-thread score in 3DMark and 2016.5 in Cinebench R23 are competitive.

The CPU's memory bandwidth of 83.2 GB/s over dual-channel DDR5 is generous, and ECC memory support adds reliability, but these features do not translate into gaming gains when the GPU is the bottleneck. The launch MSRP of $549 for the CPU suggests it is a premium component, yet pairing it with an integrated-class GPU creates a severe imbalance. In the measured FPS data, the CPU's influence is invisible, the frame rates are dictated by the GPU's pixel and texture throughput, not by the CPU's core count or clock speed. The 5.60 GHz boost clock is high enough to feed the GPU in most scenarios, but the GPU simply cannot render frames fast enough to benefit from the CPU's headroom.

How This Combo Ranks

This combination ranks 2688th out of 2928 tested combos in Downfall, placing it in the bottom 8% of all systems. This is a remarkably low position for a CPU that sits in the 91st percentile, and it directly reflects the GPU's 5th percentile standing. The rank disparity between the CPU and GPU components illustrates the performance ceiling imposed by the Arc B370. In a game like Downfall, where the 2016 release date predates the GPU's 2026 launch by a decade, one might expect smoother performance, but the data contradicts that assumption.

The combo's rank relative to other tested systems suggests that most hardware pairings, even those with older or weaker CPUs, outperform this setup because they include more capable GPUs. The GPU's nearest rivals, all scoring around 1184-1192 in 3DMark Steel Nomad, are legacy parts, and their inclusion in the database indicates that the Arc B370's performance tier is well below contemporary gaming standards. The measured FPS at 1080p Low (96 FPS) is the only result that approaches smooth gameplay, and even that is below the 144 Hz refresh rates common on modern monitors. At 4K Ultra (18 FPS), the experience would be nearly unplayable, with severe stuttering and input lag.

The rank also reflects the settings scaling. At 1080p, the combo can deliver playable frame rates at Medium (78 FPS) and High (64 FPS), but Ultra (40 FPS) dips below the 60 FPS threshold. At 1440p, only Low (68 FPS) exceeds 60 FPS, while Medium (56 FPS) and High (46 FPS) are borderline, and Ultra (29 FPS) is poor. At 4K, all settings fail to reach 60 FPS, with Low (43 FPS) being the best case. This tiered performance profile explains why the combo ranks so low, it cannot maintain high frame rates at any resolution above 1080p, and even at 1080p, Ultra settings are not viable.

Settings Recommendations

Based on the measured FPS rows, the optimal experience for this combo is at 1080p with Medium settings, where the average FPS is 78 with a minimum of 67 and maximum of 90. This preset offers a balance between visual quality and smoothness, keeping frame rates well above the 60 FPS target while avoiding the steep drop to 40 FPS seen at Ultra. The High preset at 1080p (64 FPS) is also acceptable, but the Medium setting provides a 22% improvement in average FPS (78 vs 64) with likely minimal visual degradation in a horror game where atmosphere matters more than fine detail.

At 1440p, the Low preset (68 FPS) is the only setting that maintains playable performance, but it sacrifices visual fidelity. The Medium preset (56 FPS) is borderline, and the min FPS of 48 suggests occasional dips below 50 FPS, which could be noticeable in fast-paced horror sequences. For users who prioritize resolution over settings, 1440p Low is the recommended choice, but the data suggests that 1080p Medium offers the best overall experience, higher settings at a lower resolution typically look better than lower settings at a higher resolution, especially on smaller screens.

At 4K, no preset is truly playable. The Low preset (43 FPS) is the least bad option, but the Medium preset (35 FPS) with a min of 30 and max of 40 shows that frame pacing is inconsistent. The Ultra preset (18 FPS) is essentially a slideshow. For this combo, 4K gaming in Downfall is not recommended; users should either drop to 1440p or accept 4K with Low settings and reduced expectations. The data indicates that the GPU's 6.144 TFLOPS and 48.00 GPixel/s pixel rate are insufficient for 4K rendering in this title, regardless of CPU performance.

FAQ

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

A: The 1080p Medium preset delivers 78 FPS average with a minimum of 67 and maximum of 90, making it the smoothest experience. At 1440p, only Low (68 FPS) exceeds 60 FPS, while 4K is not recommended as even Low (43 FPS) fails to reach 60 FPS.

Q: How does the Intel Arc B370 compare to its nearest GPU rivals?

A: The Arc B370 scores 1184 in 3DMark Steel Nomad, placing it in the 5th percentile. Its closest rivals are the ATI Mobility Radeon HD 5570 (1186, delta -0.2%), ATI Radeon HD 5770 (1190, delta -0.5%), AMD Radeon HD 7650M (1192, delta -0.7%), and AMD FirePro M2000 (1168, delta 1.4%). All are within 1.4% of the Arc B370's score.

Q: Is the AMD Ryzen 9 7900X a strong CPU for gaming?

A: Yes, the 7900X ranks in the 91st percentile of all CPUs with an average benchmark score of 53288. Its nearest rivals include the AMD EPYC 7313P (53206, delta 0.2%), Intel Xeon Phi 7290 (53469, delta -0.3%), Intel Xeon 634 (52974, delta 0.6%), and Intel Core i7-14700F (53620, delta -0.6%). However, its performance is wasted when paired with the Arc B370.

Q: What causes the low FPS at 4K resolution?

A: The GPU's limited resources, 1280 shading units, 40 TMUs, 20 ROPs, and 6.144 TFLOPS FP32, are the bottleneck. At 4K High, the average FPS is 29, and at Ultra it drops to 18. The system shared memory with "System Dependent" bandwidth further constrains performance at high pixel counts.

Q: How does this combo rank among all tested systems in Downfall?

A: It ranks 2688th out of 2928 combos, placing it in the bottom 8%. This low rank is driven by the GPU's 5th percentile standing, despite the CPU's 91st percentile position.

Q: What is the minimum FPS at 1080p Medium, and is it stable?

A: The minimum FPS at 1080p Medium is 67, with a maximum of 90 and an average of 78. This tight range indicates relatively stable frame pacing, making it the most reliable preset for sustained gameplay.

Measured FPS Breakdown

The data provides a complete matrix of resolution and settings combinations. At 1920x1080, the Low preset achieves 96 FPS average, Medium achieves 78 FPS (min 67, max 90), High achieves 64 FPS, and Ultra achieves 40 FPS. The progression from Low to Ultra shows a 58% reduction in average FPS (96 to 40), which is substantial but expected given the quality increase. At 2560x1440, Low delivers 68 FPS, Medium delivers 56 FPS (min 48, max 64), High delivers 46 FPS, and Ultra delivers 29 FPS. The drop from 1080p to 1440p at each setting is roughly 29-31%, consistent with the increased pixel count of 78% (from 2.07 million to 3.69 million pixels), though the FPS loss is less than proportional due to other bottlenecks.

At 3840x2160, the results are: Low at 43 FPS, Medium at 35 FPS (min 30, max 40), High at 29 FPS, and Ultra at 18 FPS. The 4K resolution has 4.2 times the pixels of 1080p (8.29 million vs 2.07 million), yet the FPS at Low drops from 96 to 43, a 55% reduction. This non-linear scaling suggests that the GPU's memory bandwidth or fill rate becomes a limiting factor as resolution increases. The Medium preset at 4K shows a min of 30 and max of 40, indicating frame times vary by 33%, which would be perceptible as stuttering. The Ultra preset at 4K (18 FPS) is below the threshold for interactive gameplay, and the absence of min/max data for most entries suggests the benchmark focused on average performance.

Across all resolutions, the Low preset consistently outperforms Ultra by a factor of 2.2 to 2.4 (e.g., 96 vs 40 at 1080p, 68 vs 29 at 1440p, 43 vs 18 at 4K). This consistent ratio indicates that the settings scaling is well-balanced, but the absolute performance is limited by the GPU's hardware. The Ryzen 9 7900X's capabilities, 12 cores, 5.60 GHz boost, 64 MB L3 cache, are never the limiting factor, as even the lowest FPS results are far above what a CPU bottleneck would produce. The data strongly suggests that upgrading the GPU would yield dramatic improvements, while the CPU is more than sufficient for this game.