Downfall

FAQ

Q: How does the AMD Ryzen 9 9900X3D + Intel Arc B390 combo rank in Downfall?

A: This combo ranks 2589 out of 2928 tested combinations, placing it in the bottom 12% of all tested systems for this game.

Q: What is the best resolution to play Downfall with this hardware?

A: The data shows 1920x1080 is the most playable resolution, with Low settings delivering 106 FPS average and Medium delivering 87 FPS average, while 3840x2160 tops out at 47 FPS on Low.

Q: Does this GPU have dedicated VRAM?

A: No. The Intel Arc B390 uses System Shared memory for both its memory size and type, with bandwidth listed as System Dependent, meaning it relies on the system's main memory rather than dedicated video memory.

Q: What DirectX version does the Intel Arc B390 support?

A: The GPU supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), along with OpenGL 4.6 and Vulkan 1.4.

Q: How does the Intel Arc B390 compare to its nearest rivals?

A: The Arc B390's average benchmark score of 1482 puts it just 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).

Q: Is this CPU considered high-performance relative to other processors?

A: Yes. The Ryzen 9 9900X3D sits at the 91st percentile versus all CPUs, with an average benchmark score of 54762, and its nearest rival, the Intel Core Ultra 5 245KF, scores 55093 — just 0.6% higher.

How This Combo Ranks

The data is unambiguous: this pairing sits at rank 2589 out of 2928 tested combos in Downfall. That places it in the bottom 12% of all systems tested, a sobering position that reflects a severe imbalance between the two components. The CPU is a top-tier part — 91st percentile against all CPUs — while the GPU is the polar opposite, sitting at just the 9th percentile against all GPUs. The result is a system where the processor is effectively starved by the graphics solution.

The rank of 2589 is not a surprise given the GPU's raw benchmark performance. A combo ranking this low suggests that the Arc B390 is the limiting factor in nearly every scenario. The CPU's enormous compute headroom — demonstrated by a Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 47737 and a Geekbench multi-core score of 22884 — cannot compensate for a GPU that delivers only 7.680 TFLOPS of FP32 performance. In a horror game like Downfall, where atmosphere and visual fidelity matter, this combo will struggle to deliver a smooth experience at higher settings.

Looking at the measured FPS data, the pattern holds. At 1920x1080, the system manages 106 FPS on Low but drops to 44 FPS on Ultra. At 2560x1440, the range is 76 FPS on Low down to 32 FPS on Ultra. At 3840x2160, even Low settings only produce 47 FPS. These numbers tell a consistent story: the GPU cannot keep pace with the CPU's capabilities, and the system's overall rank reflects that bottleneck.

GPU Role

The Intel Arc B390 is built on Intel's Xe3-LPG architecture, using the Panther Lake chip on a 3 nm process from Intel's own foundry. It has 1536 shading units, 48 texture mapping units, and 24 ROPs, along with 12 ray tracing cores. Clock speeds are modest: a 300 MHz base and 2500 MHz boost. The pixel rate is 60.00 GPixel/s, and the texture rate is 120.0 GTexel/s.

The most critical specification here is the memory configuration. The Arc B390 has no dedicated VRAM — its memory size, type, and bus width are all listed as System Shared, with bandwidth described as System Dependent. This means the GPU pulls from the same DDR5 memory pool used by the CPU. The Ryzen 9 9900X3D supports dual-channel DDR5 with 89.6 GB/s of bandwidth, but that bandwidth is shared between CPU and GPU workloads. In practice, this arrangement limits the GPU's ability to handle large textures and high-resolution framebuffers efficiently.

The GPU's benchmark results are stark. Its single 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 score is 1482, placing it at the 9th percentile of all GPUs. Its nearest rivals are all older NVIDIA parts: the GT 520MX (1463, 1.3% behind), the GeForce 800M (1460, 1.5% behind), the GT 625 OEM (1446, 2.5% behind), and the GT 710 (1443, 2.7% behind). These are not modern gaming GPUs; they are entry-level or legacy parts. The Arc B390's position among them makes clear that it is not designed for demanding gaming workloads.

Downfall's measured FPS data reflects this. At 3840x2160, the GPU produces 32 FPS on High, 39 FPS on Medium, 47 FPS on Low, and only 20 FPS on Ultra. The gap between Low and Ultra at 4K is 27 FPS, showing how quickly the GPU's limited resources are exhausted as visual complexity increases. The 3DMark Steel Nomad score of 1482 is consistent with these results — this is a GPU that can handle light loads but falls apart under sustained gaming pressure.

Settings Recommendations

The measured data provides clear guidance on which settings preset delivers the best experience. At 1920x1080, Low settings produce 106 FPS average, which is the highest frame rate recorded for this combo in any configuration. Medium settings at the same resolution yield 87 FPS average with a minimum of 74 FPS and a maximum of 100 FPS. High settings drop to 71 FPS average, and Ultra falls to 44 FPS average.

The sweet spot is 1920x1080 with Medium settings. The 87 FPS average is well above the 60 FPS threshold most players consider smooth, and the minimum of 74 FPS indicates good frame pacing with no severe dips. The recorded range of 74-100 FPS shows that the system maintains playable performance even during demanding scenes. In a horror game, where sudden visual changes can cause frame hitches, having a minimum above 70 FPS is valuable.

Low settings at 1920x1080 offer higher raw performance — 106 FPS average — but the visual compromise may not be worth the extra frames. Medium settings at 1920x1080 deliver a 61 FPS improvement over Ultra at the same resolution, while retaining enough visual fidelity to maintain the game's atmosphere. The jump from Low to Medium costs only 19 FPS (from 106 to 87), which is a reasonable trade for improved visuals.

At 2560x1440, Medium settings produce 62 FPS average with a minimum of 53 FPS and a maximum of 71 FPS. This is playable, but the minimum of 53 FPS is close to the edge of what most players find acceptable. Low settings at 1440p produce 76 FPS average, which is smoother but again requires visual compromises. The 4K resolution is not recommended — even Low settings only produce 47 FPS average, which is below the 60 FPS target for comfortable play.

Measured FPS Breakdown

The measured FPS data covers three resolutions and four settings presets, providing a complete picture of this combo's performance envelope.

At 3840x2160, the results are as follows: Low settings produce 47 FPS average, Medium produces 39 FPS average with a minimum of 33 FPS and a maximum of 44 FPS, High produces 32 FPS average, and Ultra produces 20 FPS average. The progression from Low to Ultra shows a 27 FPS drop, with each settings tier costing roughly 6-7 FPS on average. Even the best case at 4K — 47 FPS on Low — is below the 60 FPS target for smooth play, and the 33 FPS minimum on Medium indicates noticeable stuttering during demanding scenes.

At 2560x1440, performance improves substantially. Low settings produce 76 FPS average, Medium produces 62 FPS average with a minimum of 53 FPS and a maximum of 71 FPS, High produces 51 FPS average, and Ultra produces 32 FPS average. The 1440p resolution offers a meaningful step up from 4K, with Low settings clearing the 60 FPS threshold and Medium coming close. The 53 FPS minimum on Medium is the weakest point, but the 71 FPS maximum shows the system can reach higher when the scene allows.

At 1920x1080, the system performs best. Low settings produce 106 FPS average, Medium produces 87 FPS average with a minimum of 74 FPS and a maximum of 100 FPS, High produces 71 FPS average, and Ultra produces 44 FPS average. The 1080p resolution is where this combo becomes genuinely playable, with Low and Medium both exceeding 60 FPS and High coming close at 71 FPS. The Medium preset's 74 FPS minimum is the strongest low-frame result across all tested configurations, indicating consistent performance without major dips.

The data shows a clear resolution scaling pattern. Moving from 1080p to 1440p costs roughly 28-30% of average FPS across settings (e.g., Low drops from 106 to 76, a 28% reduction). Moving from 1440p to 4K costs another 38-40% (e.g., Low drops from 76 to 47, a 38% reduction). These scaling factors are typical of a GPU that is heavily bandwidth-limited, which aligns with the System Shared memory configuration.

CPU Role

The AMD Ryzen 9 9900X3D is a 12-core, 24-thread processor based on the Zen 5 architecture, codenamed Granite Ridge, built on TSMC's 4 nm process. It has a base clock of 4.40 GHz and a boost clock of 5.50 GHz, with a TDP of 120 W. The cache hierarchy includes 80 KB of L1 per core, 1 MB of L2 per core, and a substantial 128 MB of L3 cache. It supports DDR5 memory in a dual-channel configuration with 89.6 GB/s of bandwidth.

This CPU is a compute powerhouse. Its Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 47737 and single-core score of 6739 place it among the top processors available. The Geekbench scores are equally strong: 22884 multi-core and 3041 single-core. The 3DMark thread scaling tests show a progression from 2512 at 2 threads to 13795 at max threads, demonstrating excellent multi-threading efficiency. The PassMark multi-thread score of 56154 and single-thread score of 4646 reinforce this picture.

In the context of Downfall, however, the CPU's capabilities are largely untapped. The game's measured FPS results are consistently GPU-bound, as shown by the dramatic performance drops at higher resolutions and settings. A CPU with this much compute power — 24 threads, 128 MB of L3 cache, and a 5.50 GHz boost clock — could easily drive far higher frame rates if paired with a more capable GPU.

The CPU's percentile ranking of 91 versus all CPUs confirms its position among the top 9% of processors. Its nearest rivals in average benchmark score are the Intel Core Ultra 5 245KF (55093, 0.6% ahead), the Intel Core Ultra 5 245K (54053, 1.3% behind), the Intel Xeon 6505P (53701, 2% behind), and the Intel Core i7-14700F (53620, 2.1% behind). This places the 9900X3D in a tight pack of high-performance desktop and workstation parts, all within 2.7% of each other.

The mismatch between CPU and GPU performance is the defining characteristic of this combo. The CPU can deliver Cinebench R20 multi-core scores of 20049 and 3DMark max-thread scores of 13795, but the GPU's 3DMark Steel Nomad score of 1482 means it cannot translate that compute power into gaming frame rates. In Downfall, the CPU is never the bottleneck — the GPU is, at every resolution and settings combination tested.