Downfall

The Intel Core i5-10400F paired with the Intel Arc B390 produces a playable but heavily constrained experience in Downfall, with the combo ranking 2589th out of 2928 tested combinations. The data shows this is a low-end pairing, where the GPU’s performance ceiling limits frame rates far more than the CPU’s capabilities, and the only consistently smooth results appear at 1080p with Low settings.

FAQ

*Q: What is the overall rank of this CPU and GPU combo in Downfall?*

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

Q: How does the Intel Core i5-10400F compare to its nearest rivals in synthetic CPU benchmarks?

A: The i5-10400F has an average benchmark score of 14185. It sits 0.2% above the Intel Xeon 6756E (14163), 0.5% above the AMD EPYC 7552 (14115), 0.3% below the Intel Core 7 160UL (14232), and 0.6% below the AMD Ryzen 3 7320C (14277).

Q: What is the GPU’s performance percentile relative to all other graphics cards?

A: The Intel Arc B390 ranks in the 9th percentile of all GPUs, with an average benchmark score of 1482 in the 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 test. Its closest rivals are the NVIDIA GeForce GT 520MX (1463, 1.3% slower), GeForce 800M (1460, 1.5% slower), GT 625 OEM (1446, 2.5% slower), and GT 710 (1443, 2.7% slower).

Q: What frame rates can be expected at 1920x1080 with Medium settings?

A: At 1080p Medium, the combo delivers an average of 87 FPS, with a minimum of 74 FPS and a maximum of 100 FPS. This is the only settings level at 1080p that provides both a high average and a minimum above 60 FPS.

*Q: Is the CPU or GPU the primary bottleneck in Downfall?*

A: The GPU is the primary bottleneck. The CPU’s 68th percentile ranking (relative to all CPUs) contrasts sharply with the GPU’s 9th percentile ranking, and frame rates drop dramatically as resolution increases (from 106 FPS at 1080p Low to 47 FPS at 4K Low), indicating the GPU cannot keep up with the CPU’s output.

Q: Does the Arc B390 have dedicated VRAM?

A: No, the Intel Arc B390 uses system shared memory for its frame buffer. The memory size, type, and bus width are all listed as "System Shared," and memory bandwidth is "System Dependent," meaning performance relies on the host system’s DDR4 memory.

How This Combo Ranks

The combo’s rank of 2589 out of 2928 places it firmly in the lower tier of systems tested for Downfall. This position is not surprising given the individual component percentiles: the CPU sits at the 68th percentile among all CPUs, while the GPU languishes in the 9th percentile among all GPUs. The gap between these two figures is stark, and it indicates that the graphics card is the limiting factor in nearly every scenario.

To contextualize this rank, consider that the combo outperforms only 339 other tested combinations out of 2928. That puts it roughly in the 88th percentile from the bottom, meaning it is slower than the vast majority of systems used to test this game. The measured FPS data reinforces this: even at the lowest settings (1080p Low), the average frame rate is 106 FPS, which is respectable, but that number collapses to 44 FPS at 1080p Ultra. At higher resolutions, the situation worsens dramatically — 4K Ultra yields just 20 FPS, and 4K High only reaches 32 FPS.

The rank also reflects the GPU’s synthetic performance ceiling. With a 3DMark Steel Nomad score of 1482, the Arc B390 is only 1.3% faster than the GeForce GT 520MX and 2.7% faster than the GT 710. These are entry-level parts from over a decade ago, and the B390’s 9th percentile ranking confirms that it is not designed for demanding modern titles like Downfall. The CPU, by contrast, is a competent mid-range part (6 cores, 12 threads, 2.90 GHz base, 4.30 GHz boost), but its power is largely wasted because the GPU cannot translate that compute capability into higher frame rates.

The combination of a strong CPU and a weak GPU means the system’s rank is determined almost entirely by the GPU. In synthetic tests, the CPU’s nearest rivals include server-class Xeons and EPYCs, with deltas of less than 1%, showing that the i5-10400F holds its own against much more expensive processors. However, in Downfall, the GPU’s 9th percentile performance drags the entire system down. The data shows no scenario where the CPU becomes the limiting factor; even at 4K Ultra, the GPU is saturated long before the CPU’s 12 threads are fully utilized.

GPU Role

The Intel Arc B390 is a 3 nm part based on the Xe3-LPG architecture, with a chip codenamed Panther Lake. It operates as an integrated graphics processor (IGP), which explains many of its limitations. The base clock is 300 MHz, boosting to 2500 MHz, but the memory configuration is the most telling detail: the card uses system shared memory with no dedicated VRAM. This means the frame buffer is allocated from the host’s DDR4 memory, and bandwidth is entirely system-dependent. For Downfall, a horror game that likely requires rapid texture streaming and consistent memory access, this shared memory setup can cause performance drops, especially at higher resolutions where memory pressure increases.

The GPU’s compute specifications are modest: 1536 shading units, 48 texture mapping units, 24 raster output units, and 12 ray tracing cores. Its pixel rate is 60.00 GPixel/s, texture rate is 120.0 GTexel/s, and FP32 performance is 7.680 TFLOPS. These figures place it in the entry-level category, and the 3DMark Steel Nomad score of 1482 (9th percentile) confirms this. The nearest rivals — GT 520MX, GeForce 800M, GT 625 OEM, and GT 710 — are all older, low-power parts, and the B390 only edges them out by 1.3% to 2.7%. This is not a GPU designed for high-refresh gaming; it is closer to an integrated solution for basic tasks.

In Downfall, the GPU’s limitations are evident in the FPS scaling across resolutions. At 1080p Low, the average is 106 FPS, which suggests the GPU can handle the game’s lighter scenes. But at 1080p Ultra, the average drops to 44 FPS, a 58% reduction. At 4K, the situation becomes dire: Low yields 47 FPS, Medium 39 FPS, High 32 FPS, and Ultra just 20 FPS. The lack of dedicated VRAM likely contributes to these steep drops, as the system shared memory must compete with CPU operations for bandwidth. The 2500 MHz boost clock can help in short bursts, but sustained loads at high resolutions overwhelm the 80 W TDP and the shared memory interface.

The GPU’s API support includes DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4, which means it can technically render modern effects. However, the 12 RT cores are insufficient for ray-traced workloads, and the 7.680 TFLOPS FP32 performance is far below what modern titles need for consistent 60 FPS at high settings. The data shows that the GPU is the sole reason the combo ranks so low; even the weakest CPU in the nearestRivals list would likely produce similar Downfall results because the GPU cannot exceed its 9th percentile ceiling.

Measured FPS Breakdown

The measured FPS data provides a clear picture of how this combo performs across resolutions and settings. At 1920x1080, the results are as follows:

• Low: 106 FPS average (no min/max reported)
• Medium: 87 FPS average, 74 FPS minimum, 100 FPS maximum
• High: 71 FPS average (no min/max reported)
• Ultra: 44 FPS average (no min/max reported)

At 1080p, the combo can achieve playable frame rates, but only Low and Medium settings maintain averages above 60 FPS. The Medium preset’s minimum of 74 FPS is particularly notable, as it indicates that even in demanding scenes, the frame rate rarely dips below the 60 FPS threshold. High settings drop to 71 FPS average, which is still playable, but Ultra falls to 44 FPS, making it unsuitable for smooth gameplay.

Moving to 2560x1440, the performance degrades significantly:

• Low: 76 FPS average
• Medium: 62 FPS average, 53 FPS minimum, 71 FPS maximum
• High: 51 FPS average
• Ultra: 32 FPS average

At 1440p, only Low settings manage to stay above 60 FPS. Medium averages 62 FPS but has a minimum of 53 FPS, which means the game will stutter during intense moments. High and Ultra are below the ideal threshold, with averages of 51 FPS and 32 FPS, respectively. The transition from 1080p to 1440p shows a roughly 30% drop in frame rates across most settings, which is consistent with the GPU’s limited pixel and texture rates.

At 3840x2160, the combo struggles to maintain playability:

• Low: 47 FPS average
• Medium: 39 FPS average, 33 FPS minimum, 44 FPS maximum
• High: 32 FPS average
• Ultra: 20 FPS average

No 4K setting reaches 60 FPS. Even Low, which offers the best performance, averages only 47 FPS. Medium’s minimum of 33 FPS indicates severe frame pacing issues, and Ultra’s 20 FPS average is effectively unplayable. The 4K results highlight the GPU’s memory bandwidth limitations — with system shared memory, the card cannot feed the render pipeline quickly enough at high resolutions.

The pattern across all resolutions is consistent: Low settings yield the highest frame rates, followed by Medium, High, and Ultra in descending order. The delta between Low and Ultra is steep — at 1080p, it is 62 FPS (106 vs 44); at 1440p, it is 44 FPS (76 vs 32); and at 4K, it is 27 FPS (47 vs 20). This scaling suggests that the GPU’s 24 ROPs and 48 TMUs are the limiting factor, as increasing settings adds more shading and texture work that the card cannot handle.

CPU Role

The Intel Core i5-10400F is a 6-core, 12-thread processor based on the Comet Lake architecture, manufactured on Intel’s 14 nm process. It has a base clock of 2.90 GHz and a boost clock of 4.30 GHz, with a 65 W TDP. The cache hierarchy includes 64 KB L1 per core, 256 KB L2 per core, and 12 MB shared L3. Memory support is dual-channel DDR4 with a bandwidth of 42.7 GB/s. The CPU uses the Intel Socket 1200 interface and supports PCIe Gen 3 with 16 lanes.

In synthetic benchmarks, the i5-10400F performs admirably for its class. Its Cinebench R23 multicore score is 10283, while the single-core score is 1451. Geekbench results show 6257 multicore and 1420 single-core. PassMark multithread score is 12115, and 3DMark 16-thread score is 4748. These numbers place the CPU in the 68th percentile of all CPUs, with an average benchmark score of 14185. Its nearest rivals include the Intel Xeon 6756E (14163, 0.2% slower), Intel Core 7 160UL (14232, 0.3% faster), AMD EPYC 7552 (14115, 0.5% slower), and AMD Ryzen 3 7320C (14277, 0.6% faster).

For Downfall, the CPU’s 12 threads provide more than enough processing power for a horror game, which typically relies on single-threaded performance for game logic and AI, while physics and rendering threads can use additional cores. The single-thread score of 1451 in Cinebench R23 indicates strong per-core performance, and the boost clock of 4.30 GHz ensures responsive frame times. However, the data shows that the CPU is not the limiting factor in this combo. The GPU’s 9th percentile ranking dwarfs the CPU’s 68th percentile, and the FPS scaling across resolutions is characteristic of a GPU bottleneck.

At 1080p Low, the CPU can push the GPU to 106 FPS, which suggests the processor is capable of feeding frames quickly. But as resolution increases, the GPU becomes saturated, and the CPU’s utilization likely drops. The 42.7 GB/s memory bandwidth is also sufficient for the CPU’s needs, though the GPU shares this bandwidth, which could cause contention at high resolutions. The CPU’s 12 MB L3 cache helps with game data locality, but it cannot compensate for the GPU’s limited memory throughput.

The CPU’s nearest rivals in synthetic tests are all server or low-power parts, but in Downfall, the i5-10400F’s performance is wasted. If the GPU were stronger, the CPU could likely sustain 60+ FPS at higher settings, given its 10283 Cinebench R23 multicore score. However, the Arc B390’s 7.680 TFLOPS FP32 performance is insufficient to utilize the CPU’s full potential. The data indicates that upgrading the GPU would yield substantial FPS gains, while upgrading the CPU would have minimal impact in this specific game.

Settings Recommendations

Based on the measured FPS data, the optimal settings for this combo depend on the target resolution and the user’s tolerance for frame rate dips.

At 1920x1080, the Medium preset is the best choice for a balance between visual quality and performance. It delivers an average of 87 FPS with a minimum of 74 FPS, ensuring that even the most demanding scenes stay above 60 FPS. The Low preset offers a higher average (106 FPS) but sacrifices visual fidelity, while High (71 FPS average) and Ultra (44 FPS average) are inferior options. For users who prioritize smoothness above all else, Low is acceptable, but Medium provides the best overall experience.

At 2560x1440, the Low preset is the only reliable option, with an average of 76 FPS. Medium averages 62 FPS but has a minimum of 53 FPS, meaning the game will drop below 60 FPS during intense sequences. High (51 FPS) and Ultra (32 FPS) are not recommended for consistent play. Users at 1440p should either accept Low settings or reduce the resolution to 1080p to unlock higher quality presets.

At 3840x2160, no setting is truly playable. Low averages 47 FPS, Medium 39 FPS, High 32 FPS, and Ultra 20 FPS. The minimum FPS for Medium is 33, which indicates frequent stuttering. For 4K, the recommendation is to avoid this resolution entirely or to lower the resolution to 1440p or 1080p, where the combo can achieve more acceptable frame rates.

The data suggests that the Medium preset at 1080p is the sweet spot for this hardware. It offers a 74 FPS minimum, which is above the 60 FPS threshold, and the average of 87 FPS leaves headroom for variable scenes. The High preset at 1080p (71 FPS average) is a viable alternative for users who want better visuals, but the lack of a reported minimum FPS makes it riskier. Ultra settings should be avoided at all resolutions, as the GPU’s 24 ROPs and 7.680 TFLOPS cannot handle the increased shading load.

For users with 1440p monitors, the Low preset is the only safe choice. The 76 FPS average is acceptable, but the lack of a minimum FPS figure means there could be dips below 60 FPS in rare cases. The Medium preset at 1440p (62 FPS average, 53 FPS minimum) is borderline, and only recommended if the user can tolerate occasional frame drops. Ultimately, the measured data points to 1080p Medium as the definitive recommendation for this combo, as it is the only setting/resolution combination that provides both a high average FPS and a minimum above 60 FPS.