Downfall

Downfall, a 2016 horror title, pairs here with a genuinely unusual hardware combination: AMD's Ryzen AI Max+ 395, a 16-core Zen 5 mobile processor built on the Strix Halo platform, and NVIDIA's flagship Ada Lovelace card, the GeForce RTX 4090. The matchup is lopsided on paper — a 55 W laptop-class CPU feeding a 450 W desktop GPU — but the measured data shows the pairing clears every practical performance bar this game can raise. Across twelve tested configurations spanning three resolutions and four presets, average framerates run from 59 FPS at 4K Ultra to 314 FPS at 1080p Low, and the combo ranks 826th out of 3716 tested combinations in this title. All figures below are measured, not estimated.

How This Combo Ranks

A rank of 826 out of 3716 puts this pairing in roughly the top fifth of tested combinations for Downfall — a strong showing, though not the very top of the chart. Given that Downfall dates from early 2016 and belongs to a genre that rarely demands heavy compute, most of the combos ahead of it will be dominated by the GPU side, and the RTX 4090's raw throughput is the obvious reason this configuration climbs as high as it does.

Context from the component-level data reinforces that. The RTX 4090 sits in the 88th percentile versus all GPUs in the database, with an average benchmark score of 60347. Its nearest listed rivals cluster remarkably close: the Intel Arc Pro A60 (avgScore 60326, deltaPct 0), AMD Radeon Pro Vega 48 (avgScore 60140, deltaPct 0.3), AMD Radeon Pro W6600M (avgScore 61896, deltaPct -2.5), and AMD Radeon PRO V710 (avgScore 58657, deltaPct 2.9). Those margins are tight — within single-digit percentage points in either direction — but in a game like Downfall the practical ceiling is the game engine, not the silicon.

The CPU side is similarly well-placed. The Ryzen AI Max+ 395 sits in the 95th percentile versus all CPUs with an average benchmark score of 77740. Its rivals include the AMD Ryzen Threadripper PRO 9945WX (avgScore 76513, deltaPct 1.6), AMD EPYC Embedded 8224P (avgScore 76492, deltaPct 1.6), Intel Core i9-14900K (avgScore 79097, deltaPct -1.7), and AMD Ryzen 9 8945HX (avgScore 76212, deltaPct 2). Read that list again: a 55 W mobile part trading blows with a desktop flagship and workstation-class hardware. For a horror game from 2016, that is far more CPU than the title can consume.

GPU Role

The RTX 4090 is the engine of this pairing. It is built on the AD102 chip, fabricated on TSMC's 5 nm process, packing 76,300 million transistors onto a 609 mm² die at a density of 125.3M transistors per square millimetre. The spec sheet reads like a brute-force answer to almost any rendering workload: 16384 shading units, 512 texture mapping units, 176 render output units, 128 RT cores and 512 tensor cores, with a pixel fill rate of 443.5 GPixel/s and a texture rate of 1290.2 GTexel/s. FP32 compute stands at 82.58 TFLOPS, with FP16 at the same 82.58 TFLOPS in a 1:1 configuration.

Clocks are equally aggressive. The card runs a 2235 MHz base and 2520 MHz boost, with 24 GB of GDDR6X on a 384-bit bus running at 1313 MHz — 21 Gbps effective — for 1.01 TB/s of memory bandwidth. That VRAM pool matters here for one specific reason: at 3840x2160 with Ultra settings, the measured average is 59 FPS. That is the single heaviest demand in the dataset, and the 4090 handles it at the edge of a 60 Hz presentation. For a horror game where frame pacing contributes to tension and responsiveness, landing at 59 average means occasional dips below, though no minimum/maximum data was captured for that row.

The card's broader benchmark profile supports the in-game results. A 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 score of 9223, Geekbench OpenCL at 255416 and Geekbench Vulkan at 271631, plus a PassMark G3D result of 38194, all point to a GPU with enormous headroom for a 2016 title. DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), Vulkan 1.4 and OpenGL 4.6 support mean every API path Downfall could use is covered. Physically, the card is a triple-slot design measuring 304 mm long, 137 mm tall and 61 mm wide, drawing 450 W through a single 16-pin connector, with NVIDIA suggesting an 850 W PSU — a reminder that despite the mobile CPU, this is unambiguously desktop-class power hardware. It launched at an MSRP of 1,599 USD and is now end-of-life, succeeded by the GeForce 50 series. Note also the interface: PCIe 4.0 x16 on the GPU side, which matches the CPU's PCIe Gen 4 with 16 CPU lanes, so no interface bottleneck exists between the two parts.

CPU Role

The Ryzen AI Max+ 395 is the unconventional half of this pairing. It is a Zen 5 part, codenamed Strix Halo, manufactured by TSMC on a 4 nm process across two dies of 70.6 mm² each. It offers 16 cores and 32 threads with a 3.00 GHz base clock and a 5.10 GHz boost, all within a 55 W TDP and an AMD Socket FP11 package aimed at the mobile segment. Cache is generous: 80 KB of L1 and 1 MB of L2 per core, plus 64 MB of shared L3. Memory support is LPDDR5X over a quad-channel bus delivering 256.0 GB/s of bandwidth, with ECC support included.

Its benchmark results explain why it can hang with far hungrier silicon. Cinebench R23 lands at 35314 multi-core and 2044 single-core; Cinebench R15 scores 5463 and 316 respectively; Geekbench delivers 20992 multi-core and 2464 single-core. PassMark's suite shows a 54934 multithread score, 4147 single-thread, 3481 physics, 200665 integer math, 128682 floating point math, 690650 data compression, 35455 encryption, 56346 extended instructions, 76177 string sorting and 303 for prime number finding. Those single-thread figures are the ones that matter most for Downfall: older horror games typically lean on one fast thread for game logic, and a 5.10 GHz boost with 2044 points in Cinebench R23 single-core clears that requirement comfortably.

For this title specifically, the CPU is essentially never the limiter. The measured 1080p Low result of 314 FPS average is the clearest evidence — at that settings level the game is no longer GPU-bound, and the frame rate still climbs past 300, indicating the processor can feed frames as fast as the engine will produce them. The 95th-percentile overall standing, ahead of the Threadripper PRO 9945WX by 1.6 percent and the Ryzen 9 8945HX by 2 percent, and trailing only the Core i9-14900K by 1.7 percent on average score, confirms there is no meaningful CPU deficit in this combination. The chip also carries integrated Radeon 8060S graphics, irrelevant here with a 4090 installed, but worth noting as part of the package identity.

Measured FPS Breakdown

At 1920x1080, the data shows: Low at 314 FPS average, Medium at 257 FPS (with a measured range of 218 minimum to 295 maximum), High at 211 FPS, and Ultra at 132 FPS. The Medium row is the only one with min/max capture, and its spread — 218 to 295 — is tight enough to indicate stable frame delivery rather than erratic spikes. The drop from Medium to Ultra at 1080p is steep, from 257 to 132, showing that the highest preset roughly halves throughput even at a modest resolution.

At 2560x1440, the pattern repeats at lower absolute numbers: Low reaches 224 FPS, Medium 184 FPS (156 to 211), High 150 FPS, and Ultra 94 FPS. The 1440p Ultra figure is notable because it nearly matches the 4K High result of 94 FPS — an interesting coincidence suggesting the Ultra preset's cost is comparable to a full resolution step. High at 1440p delivers 150 FPS, comfortably above any conventional high-refresh threshold.

At 3840x2160, results are: Low 140 FPS, Medium 114 FPS (97 to 131), High 94 FPS, and Ultra 59 FPS. The 4K Medium row shows a floor of 97, meaning even worst-case moments stay near the 60 FPS line. Ultra at 4K averages 59 — effectively at 60 but not guaranteed above it — making it the one configuration in the entire dataset that sits on the borderline. High at 4K, by contrast, holds 94 FPS average, a 35 FPS premium over Ultra at the same resolution. Between resolutions at fixed settings, the scaling is consistent: Medium loses 70 FPS going from 1080p to 1440p (257 to 184) and another 70 from 1440p to 4K (184 to 114), a remarkably linear decline that points to clean, predictable GPU scaling with no anomalous behaviour.

FAQ

Q: Can this combo run Downfall at 4K with the highest settings above 60 FPS?

A: Not quite. The measured 3840x2160 Ultra average is 59 FPS — right at the 60 FPS line but not above it. Dropping one preset to High raises the average to 94 FPS at the same resolution.

Q: What is the highest frame rate measured in any configuration?

A: 314 FPS average, at 1920x1080 on the Low preset. That figure also demonstrates the CPU's ability to drive very high frame rates without bottlenecking.

Q: How does this pairing rank against other tested combinations in Downfall?

A: Rank 826 out of 3716 combos, placing it in roughly the top fifth of the chart for this game.

Q: Is the CPU a weak link given it is a mobile part?

A: The data says no. The Ryzen AI Max+ 395 sits in the 95th percentile of all CPUs, and its average benchmark score of 77740 puts it 1.6 percent ahead of the Threadripper PRO 9945WX, 1.6 percent ahead of the EPYC Embedded 8224P, and 2 percent ahead of the Ryzen 9 8945HX, while trailing the Core i9-14900K by 1.7 percent.

Q: Are frame rates stable, or just high on average?

A: Where minimum and maximum data was captured — the Medium rows at every resolution — the spreads are tight: 218–295 at 1080p, 156–211 at 1440p, and 97–131 at 4K. That indicates consistent delivery, not spiky averages.

Q: Does the GPU's 24 GB of VRAM matter for this game?

A: For a 2016 horror title, the bandwidth and capacity are far beyond what the game consumes; the 1.01 TB/s of GDDR6X bandwidth on a 384-bit bus instead shows up as the headroom that keeps even 4K Ultra at 59 FPS.

Settings Recommendations

The measured rows make the recommendation straightforward at every resolution. At 3840x2160, High is the clear choice: 94 FPS average versus 59 at Ultra, for what is in most horror games a marginal visual difference. The 4K Medium preset is the conservative alternative for anyone prioritising a guaranteed floor — its measured minimum of 97 FPS means the frame rate never approaches the 60 line even in the worst captured moment.

At 2560x1440, High at 150 FPS average is the sweet spot; Ultra remains playable at 94 FPS but sacrifices a third of the frame rate for the top preset. Players with high-refresh 1440p displays should simply stay on High, since Medium's 184 FPS average (156 minimum) offers extra margin only for very high refresh panels.

At 1920x1080, every preset is viable. High delivers 211 FPS, already beyond what most displays can show, and even Ultra holds 132 FPS. The Low preset's 314 FPS average has no practical purpose in a horror game unless the goal is maximum motion clarity, in which case the data shows the configuration has the headroom to deliver it. Across the entire dataset there is exactly one combination to avoid: 4K Ultra, and only because its 59 FPS average leaves no buffer above 60. Every other measured configuration — eleven of twelve rows — runs at or well above high-refresh territory.