Downfall

# Downfall with Intel Core i5-10400F + Intel Arc B370

The Intel Core i5-10400F paired with the Intel Arc B370 delivers playable but constrained performance in Downfall, with the combo ranking 2688 out of 2928 tested configurations. This is a system that can handle 1080p gaming at medium settings comfortably, but it struggles significantly as resolution and quality demands increase. The 1080p Low result of 96 FPS shows the hardware's ceiling, while the 4K Ultra result of 18 FPS reveals a hard limit that no settings adjustment can overcome. The data indicates a GPU-bound configuration at higher resolutions, with the Arc B370's 5th percentile standing among all GPUs being the primary bottleneck.

Resolution Scaling

The FPS drop from 1080p to 4K is steep and consistent across all settings presets, telling a clear story about where the performance ceiling lives. At Low settings, the system delivers 96 FPS at 1920x1080, which falls to 68 FPS at 2560x1440 (a 29% reduction), and further to 43 FPS at 3840x2160 (a 55% reduction from 1080p). This scaling pattern is characteristic of a GPU that is running out of fillrate and shading capacity as pixel count multiplies. The 4K Low result of 43 FPS is barely above the 4K Medium result of 35 FPS in relative terms, suggesting that even at the lowest quality settings, the rendering load at 3840x2160 overwhelms the Arc B370's 20 ROPs and 40 TMUs.

At Medium settings, the resolution scaling shows a similar trajectory: 78 FPS at 1080p, 56 FPS at 1440p (a 28% drop), and 35 FPS at 4K (a 55% drop from 1080p). The consistency of these percentage drops across Low and Medium presets indicates that the limiting factor is resolution-dependent rendering work rather than CPU-side constraints. The i5-10400F's six cores and twelve threads are not the constraint here; if they were, we would see a flatter curve at higher resolutions where CPU load typically decreases relative to GPU load.

The High preset tells an even more revealing story: 64 FPS at 1080p, 46 FPS at 1440p (a 28% drop), and 29 FPS at 4K (a 55% drop from 1080p). This near-identical scaling ratio across three different quality presets strongly suggests that the Arc B370's pixel throughput is the dominant factor. The 4K Ultra result of 18 FPS — the lowest measured value in the entire dataset — represents a 55% drop from the 1440p Ultra result of 29 FPS, maintaining the same pattern even at the most demanding settings.

The data shows that 1440p is the practical ceiling for this configuration in Downfall, with only the Low preset achieving above 60 FPS (68 FPS). At 1440p High, the system manages 46 FPS, which is playable but not smooth. The 4K results, ranging from 18 FPS at Ultra to 43 FPS at Low, indicate that 4K gaming is only viable at Low settings, and even then, the frame rate sits below the 60 FPS threshold that most players would consider acceptable.

FAQ

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

A: The measured data shows that 1920x1080 is the only resolution where all settings presets achieve playable frame rates, with Low hitting 96 FPS, Medium 78 FPS, High 64 FPS, and Ultra 40 FPS. At 2560x1440, only the Low preset (68 FPS) exceeds 60 FPS, while 3840x2160 never reaches 60 FPS even at Low (43 FPS).

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

A: The Arc B370's 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 score of 1184 places it just 0.2% behind the ATI Mobility Radeon HD 5570 (1186), 0.5% behind the ATI Radeon HD 5770 (1190), and 0.7% behind the AMD Radeon HD 7650M (1192). It sits 1.4% ahead of the AMD FirePro M2000 (1168). This places the GPU at the 5th percentile of all GPUs, indicating very low relative performance.

Q: Is the Core i5-10400F holding back performance in Downfall?

A: Based on the resolution scaling data, the CPU does not appear to be the primary bottleneck. The consistent 28-29% FPS drop from 1080p to 1440p and 55% drop from 1080p to 4K across Low, Medium, and High presets indicates GPU-bound rendering. The CPU's 6 cores and 12 threads with a 4.30 GHz boost clock provide sufficient processing headroom for this 2016 horror title.

Q: What frame rate can I expect at 1080p with Medium settings?

A: The measured average FPS at 1920x1080 with Medium settings is 78 FPS, with a minimum of 67 FPS and maximum of 90 FPS. This represents a smooth, consistent experience that stays above the 60 FPS threshold throughout the measured range.

Q: How does the i5-10400F compare to its nearest CPU rivals?

A: The i5-10400F's average benchmark score of 14185 is 0.2% ahead of the Intel Xeon 6756E (14163), 0.5% ahead of the AMD EPYC 7552 (14115), and 0.3% behind the Intel Core 7 160UL (14232). It trails the AMD Ryzen 3 7320C (14277) by 0.6%. The CPU sits at the 68th percentile of all CPUs.

Q: Can this system handle 4K gaming in Downfall at any setting?

A: The data shows 4K is technically playable only at Low settings, with an average of 43 FPS. Medium produces 35 FPS, High 29 FPS, and Ultra 18 FPS. None of these reach the 60 FPS standard, and even the Low result is below what most players would consider smooth for a horror game where responsiveness matters.

CPU Role

The Intel Core i5-10400F provides six physical cores and twelve threads, running at a base clock of 2.90 GHz and boosting to 4.30 GHz. This Comet Lake architecture processor, built on Intel's 14 nm process, features 12 MB of shared L3 cache and 256 KB of L2 cache per core. Its benchmark results show a processor that is adequate for this workload: the Cinebench R23 multicore score of 10283 and single-core score of 1451 indicate balanced performance that should not bottleneck a GPU of the Arc B370's modest capability.

The CPU's 3DMark thread scaling data reveals how it handles increasing thread counts: 1350 at 2 threads, 2560 at 4 threads (a 90% increase from 2 to 4), 3929 at 8 threads (a 53% increase from 4 to 8), and 4735 at max threads (a 21% increase from 8 to max). This scaling curve shows diminishing returns beyond 8 threads, which is typical for a 6-core/12-thread part. For Downfall, a 2016 horror title, the game likely does not fully utilize all 12 threads, but the 8-thread score of 3929 suggests there is ample headroom for the game's threading model.

The PassMark multithread score of 12115, combined with the single-thread score of 2541, reinforces the picture of a mid-range CPU that can keep up with the demands of this title. The passmark physics score of 696 is notable because physics calculations often become CPU-bound in games, but the resolution scaling data shows no evidence of CPU limitation — the FPS drops at higher resolutions are consistent with GPU-bound behavior. The Geekbench multicore score of 6257 and single-core score of 1420 further confirm that this processor has sufficient computational throughput for the game's logic, AI, and physics systems.

The i5-10400F's nearest rivals in the CPU benchmark database are all within 0.6% of its average score of 14185, indicating that the CPU performance class is well established. The Intel Xeon 6756E (14163) and AMD EPYC 7552 (14115) are slightly behind, while the Intel Core 7 160UL (14232) and AMD Ryzen 3 7320C (14277) are marginally ahead. This clustering suggests that any of these CPUs would perform nearly identically in Downfall when paired with the same GPU, reinforcing that the Arc B370 is the limiting factor in this configuration.

Measured FPS Breakdown

At 1920x1080, the configuration delivers its strongest results across all settings. Low settings produce an average of 96 FPS, which is the highest measured frame rate in the entire dataset. Medium settings achieve 78 FPS average with a minimum of 67 FPS and maximum of 90 FPS, providing a stable experience well above the 60 FPS threshold. High settings yield 64 FPS average, which remains playable but with less headroom. Ultra settings drop to 40 FPS average, which is below the 60 FPS standard and indicates that the highest quality preset is too demanding for this hardware at 1080p.

At 2560x1440, the performance drops become more pronounced. Low settings still achieve a respectable 68 FPS average, but this is the only preset at 1440p that exceeds 60 FPS. Medium settings fall to 56 FPS average with a minimum of 48 FPS and maximum of 64 FPS — the minimum dipping below 50 FPS suggests occasional stutter during intense scenes. High settings produce 46 FPS average, which is playable but noticeably less smooth. Ultra settings drop to 29 FPS average, which is a significant degradation from the 40 FPS seen at 1080p Ultra, indicating that the GPU's 48.00 GPixel/s pixel rate is insufficient for 1440p at maximum quality.

At 3840x2160, the performance is marginal across the board. Low settings produce 43 FPS average, which is the only 4K result above 40 FPS. Medium settings achieve 35 FPS average with a minimum of 30 FPS and maximum of 40 FPS, showing tight but low frame pacing. High settings fall to 29 FPS average, and Ultra settings bottom out at 18 FPS average. The progression from 43 FPS at Low to 18 FPS at Ultra at 4K represents a 58% drop, which is steeper than the 50% drop seen at 1440p (68 to 29 FPS) and the 58% drop at 1080p (96 to 40 FPS). This indicates that the GPU's rendering pipeline becomes increasingly inefficient as both resolution and quality settings scale up.

The Medium preset consistently provides the most stable frame times across all resolutions, with the only min/max data points in the dataset: 67-90 FPS at 1080p, 48-64 FPS at 1440p, and 30-40 FPS at 4K. This stability suggests that Medium is the best-engineered preset for this hardware, offering a balance between visual quality and performance headroom.

GPU Role

The Intel Arc B370 is a 3 nm part based on the Xe3-LPG architecture with the Panther Lake chip, featuring 1280 shading units, 40 texture mapping units, and 20 raster output units. Its clock speeds range from a 300 MHz base to a 2400 MHz boost, delivering 6.144 TFLOPS of FP32 performance and 96.00 GTexel/s texture rate. The GPU's 48.00 GPixel/s pixel rate is a key specification for understanding Downfall's resolution scaling — at 4K (3840x2160 = 8.3 million pixels), the theoretical maximum fillrate-limited frame rate is approximately 5.8 FPS per pixel pass, but actual results are far lower due to shading and memory constraints.

The GPU's memory configuration is entirely system-shared, with no dedicated VRAM, no dedicated memory bus width, and bandwidth listed as "System Dependent." This is a critical limitation for a game like Downfall, which may require frequent texture streaming and memory access. The lack of dedicated VRAM means the GPU competes with the CPU for memory bandwidth, which could explain the steep performance drops at higher resolutions where texture memory demands increase significantly.

The Arc B370's benchmark score of 1184 in 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 places it at the 5th percentile of all GPUs, meaning 95% of GPUs perform better. Its nearest rivals are all legacy AMD parts: the ATI Mobility Radeon HD 5570 (1186, 0.2% faster), ATI Radeon HD 5770 (1190, 0.5% faster), AMD Radeon HD 7650M (1192, 0.7% faster), and AMD FirePro M2000 (1168, 1.4% slower). This positioning explains why the GPU struggles with 4K and Ultra settings in Downfall — it is competing with hardware from over a decade ago in raw compute performance.

The GPU's ray tracing cores (10) and DirectX 12 Ultimate support (12_2) are modern features, but they do not translate into real-world performance in this title. Downfall, released in 2016, likely does not use ray tracing, and the GPU's raw rasterization performance is what matters. The 25 W TDP and IGP form factor indicate this is an integrated-class solution, which aligns with its modest performance profile. The GPU's 5th percentile ranking is the single most important statistic for predicting game performance — this is a low-end part by any modern standard.

Settings Recommendations

Based on the measured FPS data, the Medium preset at 1920x1080 offers the best combination of performance and visual quality for this configuration. The 78 FPS average with a 67 FPS minimum and 90 FPS maximum provides a smooth, consistent experience that stays above the 60 FPS threshold throughout. This is the only preset-resolution combination in the dataset where both the average and minimum frame rates exceed 60 FPS, making it the safest recommendation for a gameplay experience without stutter or frame drops.

For players who prioritize frame rate over visual fidelity, the Low preset at 1920x1080 delivers 96 FPS average, which provides a significant margin above 60 FPS and would be suitable for competitive or high-refresh-rate displays. However, the visual quality difference between Low and Medium in a horror game may impact atmosphere and visibility — the measured data cannot quantify visual quality, but the 18 FPS performance gain (96 vs 78) comes at the cost of reduced graphical detail.

At 2560x1440, the Low preset (68 FPS average) is the only viable option for maintaining 60+ FPS. The Medium preset at 1440p (56 FPS average, 48 FPS minimum) is playable but the minimum frame rate dipping below 50 FPS may cause noticeable hitches during intense moments. If a player has a 1440p monitor and prioritizes resolution over detail, Low settings at 1440p is the recommendation; otherwise, dropping to 1080p Medium provides a better experience with higher and more stable frame rates.

The Ultra preset is not recommended at any resolution. The best Ultra result is 40 FPS at 1080p, which is below the 60 FPS standard and represents a 49% drop from Medium at the same resolution. At 1440p Ultra (29 FPS) and 4K Ultra (18 FPS), the experience would be borderline unplayable for a horror game that requires responsive controls. The High preset offers a middle ground at 1080p (64 FPS average), but the 14 FPS difference between High and Medium does not justify the visual upgrade for most players, especially given that Medium provides a 67 FPS minimum versus High's unrecorded minimum.

For 4K, the Low preset at 43 FPS is the only playable option, but even this is below the 60 FPS threshold. Players with 4K displays should strongly consider running the game at 1080p or 1440p with higher quality settings instead, as the data shows that resolution has a more significant impact on performance than quality settings in this configuration. The 4K Low result of 43 FPS is lower than the 1080p Ultra result of 40 FPS in marginal terms, but the visual quality difference between 4K Low and 1080p Ultra is subjective — the measured frame rates suggest that neither provides a clearly superior experience.