Downfall

# Downfall with AMD Ryzen 9 9900X + Intel Arc B390

This combination of an AMD Ryzen 9 9900X processor and Intel Arc B390 graphics sits near the bottom of the performance hierarchy for Downfall, ranking 2589th out of 2928 tested combos. The pairing places the system in the 11th percentile of all configurations tested, which is a surprisingly low position given the CPU's strength — the Ryzen 9 9900X ranks in the 92nd percentile among all CPUs, while the Arc B390 ranks in only the 9th percentile among GPUs. The data suggests a massive imbalance: a top-tier processor shackled to an entry-level integrated graphics solution, with the GPU clearly acting as the performance ceiling in this horror title.

How This Combo Ranks

The combo's rank of 2589 out of 2928 tested configurations places it in the bottom 11.6% of all tested systems for Downfall. This is a striking result when you consider the processor alone — the Ryzen 9 9900X sits in the 92nd percentile versus all CPUs, with an average benchmark score of 57498. The GPU, however, drags the entire system down dramatically, with its average benchmark score of just 1482 placing it in the 9th percentile versus all GPUs.

Looking at the CPU's nearest rivals illustrates just how strong the processor is on its own. The AMD EPYC 9015 scores 57555, a mere 0.1% ahead, while the AMD EPYC 7313 scores 57399, 0.2% behind. The Intel Core i9-14900 sits 1.1% ahead at 58115, and the Intel Xeon Platinum 8260M leads by 1.4% at 58323. These are all server or high-end desktop parts, and the Ryzen 9 9900X is competitive with all of them — yet in Downfall, the system still lands in the bottom tier because of the GPU.

The GPU's nearest rivals paint a very different picture. The NVIDIA GeForce GT 520MX scores 1463, just 1.3% behind the Arc B390's 1482. The NVIDIA GeForce 800M trails by 1.5% at 1460, the GT 625 OEM by 2.5% at 1446, and the GT 710 by 2.7% at 1443. These are all ancient or entry-level mobile/desktop parts from a decade ago, which contextualizes the Arc B390's position — it is competing with hardware from an entirely different era of graphics technology. That the combo still manages to run Downfall at playable frame rates in some configurations is more proof of the game's age (released in 2016) than to the GPU's capability.

GPU Role

The Intel Arc B390 is built on the Xe3-LPG architecture with a Panther Lake chip, fabricated on Intel's 3 nm process. It operates with a base clock of 300 MHz and a boost clock of 2500 MHz, and its memory is designated as "System Shared," meaning it relies on the host system's DDR5 RAM rather than dedicated VRAM. The memory bandwidth is described as "System Dependent," which in this configuration with the Ryzen 9 9900X's dual-channel DDR5 at 89.6 GB/s should provide reasonable bandwidth, though shared memory access inevitably introduces latency penalties compared to dedicated graphics memory.

The GPU's compute resources include 1536 shading units, 48 texture mapping units, and 24 raster output units, along with 12 ray tracing cores. Its pixel rate is 60.00 GPixel/s and texture rate is 120.0 GTexel/s, with FP32 performance of 7.680 TFLOPS and FP16 at 15.36 TFLOPS (2:1). The 80 W TDP and IGP form factor confirm this is an integrated graphics solution rather than a discrete card, which explains its modest 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 score of 1482.

In Downfall, the GPU's limitations become immediately apparent in the measured frame rates. At 1080p with Low settings, the combo achieves 106 FPS, but this drops to 44 FPS at Ultra settings — a 58.5% reduction from just changing quality presets. At 4K, the GPU struggles even at Low settings, managing only 47 FPS, and falls to 20 FPS at Ultra. These numbers suggest the Arc B390's 24 ROPs and 7.68 TFLOPS of FP32 compute are simply insufficient for the fill-rate and shading demands of higher resolutions and quality settings in Downfall.

FAQ

Q: Why does this high-end CPU produce such low frame rates in Downfall?

A: The Intel Arc B390 is an integrated GPU that ranks in the 9th percentile among all GPUs, with an average benchmark score of 1482. Despite the Ryzen 9 9900X ranking in the 92nd percentile among CPUs, the GPU becomes the limiting factor in this game, capping performance well below what the processor could theoretically support.

Q: How does the Arc B390 compare to its closest GPU rivals?

A: The Arc B390 scores 1482 in 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12, which is 1.3% ahead of the NVIDIA GeForce GT 520MX (1463), 1.5% ahead of the GeForce 800M (1460), 2.5% ahead of the GT 625 OEM (1446), and 2.7% ahead of the GT 710 (1443). These are all entry-level or legacy parts.

Q: What is the best performance this combo can achieve in Downfall?

A: The highest measured average frame rate is 106 FPS at 1920x1080 with Low settings. At Medium settings, 1080p yields 87 FPS, and High settings produce 71 FPS. The lowest playable result is 20 FPS at 4K Ultra settings.

Q: Is the Ryzen 9 9900X's performance competitive with other high-end CPUs?

A: Yes, the Ryzen 9 9900X's average benchmark score of 57498 is within 1.4% of the Intel Xeon Platinum 8260M (58323), 1.1% of the Intel Core i9-14900 (58115), 0.1% behind the AMD EPYC 9015 (57555), and 0.2% ahead of the AMD EPYC 7313 (57399).

Q: Does increasing resolution have a predictable effect on performance?

A: The data shows a consistent pattern: at Low settings, frame rates drop from 106 FPS at 1080p to 76 FPS at 1440p (a 28.3% decrease) and then to 47 FPS at 4K (a 38.2% further decrease). This scaling indicates the GPU is the bottleneck, as resolution scaling heavily impacts its limited fill-rate capabilities.

Q: What memory configuration does this system use, and does it matter?

A: The GPU uses System Shared memory, meaning it draws from the system's DDR5 RAM rather than dedicated VRAM. The Ryzen 9 9900X supports dual-channel DDR5 with 89.6 GB/s bandwidth, which the Arc B390's memory bandwidth is described as "System Dependent" — so system memory speed directly impacts graphics performance.

Measured FPS Breakdown

At 1920x1080, the combo delivers its strongest results. Low settings produce an average of 106 FPS, which is the highest frame rate recorded for this configuration. Medium settings average 87 FPS with a minimum of 74 and maximum of 100 FPS. High settings drop to 71 FPS average, and Ultra settings fall to 44 FPS average. The spread from Low to Ultra at 1080p is 62 FPS, demonstrating how dramatically quality presets affect this GPU-bound system.

Moving to 2560x1440, performance degrades noticeably. Low settings average 76 FPS, Medium averages 62 FPS with a range of 53 to 71 FPS, High settings average 51 FPS, and Ultra drops to 32 FPS. The delta between Low and Ultra expands to 44 FPS. This resolution shows the Arc B390 beginning to struggle more severely, with even Low settings unable to maintain the 100+ FPS seen at 1080p.

At 3840x2160, the GPU is clearly overwhelmed. Low settings average 47 FPS, Medium averages 39 FPS with a range of 33 to 44 FPS, High settings average 32 FPS, and Ultra falls to just 20 FPS. The gap between Low and Ultra narrows to 27 FPS because even the lowest settings cannot escape the GPU's fill-rate limitations at this resolution. Notably, the Medium preset is the only configuration across all resolutions that includes min/max data, with a 11 FPS variance at 4K and an 18 FPS variance at 1080p.

Resolution Scaling

The frame rate progression from 1080p to 4K reveals a system under significant GPU pressure. At Low settings, performance drops from 106 FPS at 1080p to 76 FPS at 1440p — a 28.3% reduction — and then to 47 FPS at 4K, a further 38.2% decline from 1440p. This steep scaling curve indicates that the Arc B390's 24 ROPs and 60.00 GPixel/s pixel rate are the primary constraint, as pixel fill requirements quadruple from 1080p to 4K.

At High settings, the pattern shifts: 71 FPS at 1080p falls to 51 FPS at 1440p (a 28.2% drop) and then to 32 FPS at 4K (a 37.3% further decrease). The consistent ~28% drop from 1080p to 1440p across both Low and High settings suggests a linear relationship with pixel count, which is characteristic of fill-rate-bound performance. The 37-38% drop from 1440p to 4K is slightly steeper, possibly reflecting additional pressure on the shared memory subsystem at higher resolutions.

Ultra settings show the most severe scaling: 44 FPS at 1080p drops to 32 FPS at 1440p (a 27.3% decrease) and then to 20 FPS at 4K (a 37.5% decrease). The fact that even at 1080p Ultra the system cannot exceed 44 FPS indicates that the GPU's compute resources — 7.680 TFLOPS FP32 — are insufficient for the game's highest quality settings regardless of resolution. This resolution scaling analysis strongly suggests that upgrading the GPU would yield disproportionate performance gains, while the CPU's role remains largely passive in this configuration.

Settings Recommendations

For players seeking the best experience from this combo, the data points toward Lower settings as the optimal choice. At 1080p, Low settings deliver 106 FPS average, which provides smooth gameplay in a horror title where frame pacing matters for atmosphere. The jump from Low to Medium costs 19 FPS (from 106 to 87), while High costs another 16 FPS (to 71), and Ultra costs another 27 FPS (to 44). The diminishing returns are clear: each step up in quality extracts a significant performance penalty relative to the visual improvement.

At 1440p, the recommendation shifts more decisively toward Low. The 76 FPS average at Low settings is the only configuration at this resolution that comfortably exceeds 60 FPS. Medium drops to 62 FPS, which is borderline playable, but High at 51 FPS and Ultra at 32 FPS fall below what most players would consider acceptable for a horror game where responsiveness and smoothness are critical.

At 4K, only Low settings with 47 FPS average approaches playability, and even that is borderline. Medium at 39 FPS and High at 32 FPS are increasingly problematic, while Ultra at 20 FPS is effectively unplayable. For 4K, the data suggests that players should either accept Low settings or consider this resolution off-limits for this GPU. The Medium preset at 1080p, with its 74-100 FPS range, offers the best balance between visual quality and performance, providing a stable experience that stays above 60 FPS in the minimum frame rate.

CPU Role

The AMD Ryzen 9 9900X is a 12-core, 24-thread processor based on the Zen 5 architecture (Granite Ridge), manufactured on TSMC's 4 nm process with 16,630 million transistors across a 2x 70.6 mm² die configuration. It operates at a 4.40 GHz base clock and 5.60 GHz boost clock, with a 120 W TDP. The cache hierarchy includes 80 KB L1 per core, 1 MB L2 per core, and 64 MB L3 total, supported by dual-channel DDR5 memory with 89.6 GB/s bandwidth.

In synthetic benchmarks, the CPU demonstrates exceptional multi-threaded capability: Cinebench R23 multicore scores 32172, Geekbench multicore reaches 22174, and 3DMark max threads hits 13929. Single-thread performance is equally strong, with Cinebench R23 singlecore at 2253 and Geekbench singlecore at 3010. The PassMark multithread score of 54643 and floating point math score of 120083 further confirm the processor's compute prowess.

However, in Downfall, the CPU's role is almost entirely secondary. The measured frame rates show no evidence of CPU bottlenecking — the system is consistently GPU-limited, as evidenced by the steep resolution scaling and the dramatic frame rate drops when quality settings increase. The Ryzen 9 9900X's 12 cores and 24 threads provide far more processing headroom than Downfall (a 2016 horror title) can utilize, meaning the processor sits largely idle while the Arc B390 struggles to keep up. This imbalance suggests that the same CPU paired with a more capable GPU would deliver dramatically higher frame rates in this game, as the processor's 3DMark 16-thread score of 12552 and 8-thread score of 9114 indicate ample capacity for game logic, physics, and AI workloads that Downfall might present.