Downfall

CPU Role — cores, clocks, and how they relate to this game's results

The Intel Core i5-11400F is a 6-core, 12-thread Rocket Lake desktop processor with a base clock of 2.60 GHz and a boost clock of 4.40 GHz. It carries 80 KB of L1 cache per core, 512 KB of L2 per core, and 12 MB of shared L3 cache. In the broader CPU landscape, this chip sits at the 75th percentile among all CPUs, with an average benchmark score of 17181. That places it statistically indistinguishable from its nearest rivals: the AMD Ryzen 7 5700U (avg score 17189, 0% delta), the Intel Core i7-1260P (17212, -0.2%), the Intel Core Ultra 7 164U (17215, -0.2%), and the Intel Core i5-1240U (17141, +0.2%). The takeaway: this is a mid-pack performer in raw compute, but in Downfall the results tell a different story.

The measured frames per second in this title show the 11400F is far from a bottleneck. At 1080p Low, the combo produces 333.1 FPS average; at 1440p Low it hits 258.5 FPS; even at 4K Low it sustains 163.9 FPS. These numbers are far beyond what most displays can show, indicating the CPU has ample headroom in this horror title. The processor's single-thread performance (Cinebench R23 single-core score of 2029, 3DMark single-thread score of 868) is more than adequate for Downfall's engine, which appears to favor high clock speeds over massive core counts. The 4.40 GHz boost clock is the key enabler here — a 6-core chip that can push a single thread hard will handle this game's logic and AI without breaking a sweat.

Multi-threaded performance is respectable but not class-leading: Cinebench R23 multicore scores 14372, while 3DMark max-threads scores 5652. However, the data shows that Downfall does not heavily tax multi-core scaling — the delta between 1080p Ultra (149.7 FPS) and 1080p Low (333.1 FPS) is more about GPU load than CPU limits. The processor's 65W TDP and dual-channel DDR4 memory bus (51.2 GB/s bandwidth) are modest, but they don't impede results here. In short, the 11400F provides a solid foundation; the GPU is doing the heavy lifting in this pairing.

Settings Recommendations

The measured FPS data provides clear guidance for settings optimization. At 1080p, the gap between Medium (294.4 FPS) and High (240.5 FPS) is 53.9 FPS, while the jump from High to Ultra (149.7 FPS) costs 90.8 FPS. The Ultra preset at 1080p drops below the refresh rate of many high-end monitors, but High still delivers a very playable 240.5 FPS. For most users, High at 1080p represents the sweet spot — it keeps frame rates well above 200 while providing better visual fidelity than Medium.

At 1440p, the story is similar but with tighter margins. High produces 175.6 FPS, Medium 209.7 FPS, and Ultra 109.2 FPS. The Ultra preset is still playable on a 100Hz+ display, but High offers a 66.4 FPS advantage over Ultra (175.6 vs 109.2) for what is likely a minor visual difference in a horror game where darkness hides detail. Medium at 1440p is the best choice for competitive play, delivering 209.7 FPS — a 34.1 FPS improvement over High.

At 4K, the recommendations shift decisively. High yields 106.1 FPS, Medium 133.2 FPS, and Ultra just 70.6 FPS. The Ultra preset at 4K is borderline for smooth gameplay on high-refresh displays, while Medium at 133.2 FPS is the most balanced option. Low at 4K (163.9 FPS) is available for those who prioritize frame rate above all, but the visual degradation in a horror game may break immersion. The data suggests: 1080p High, 1440p High or Medium, 4K Medium — with Ultra reserved for screenshots or slower-paced segments.

Resolution Scaling

The FPS scaling from 1080p to 4K reveals where the bottleneck lies. At High settings, the combo drops from 240.5 FPS at 1080p to 175.6 FPS at 1440p (a 27.0% reduction) and then to 106.1 FPS at 4K (a 55.9% reduction from 1080p). At Low settings, the drop is steeper: 333.1 FPS at 1080p to 258.5 FPS at 1440p (22.4% down) and then to 163.9 FPS at 4K (50.8% down from 1080p). These percentage drops are consistent with a GPU-bound scenario — as resolution increases, the pixel fill rate demands scale, and the RX 7900 XTX's 479.6 GPixel/s pixel rate becomes the limiting factor.

The pattern at Ultra settings is telling: 149.7 FPS at 1080p, 109.2 FPS at 1440p, and 70.6 FPS at 4K. The 4K Ultra result is less than half of the 1080p Ultra figure, which is exactly what you'd expect from a GPU that's working at full capacity. The CPU is not the constraint — if it were, the FPS would plateau regardless of resolution. Instead, we see clear resolution scaling, which indicates the RX 7900 XTX is the performance ceiling. The 11400F's 3DMark scores (5619 for 16 threads, 5652 for max threads) are sufficient to feed the GPU at all resolutions tested.

FAQ

Q: Is the Intel Core i5-11400F strong enough for Downfall at 4K Ultra?

A: Yes, the processor is not the limiting factor. The combo achieves 70.6 FPS at 4K Ultra, and the resolution scaling data shows the GPU is the bottleneck. The CPU's 4.40 GHz boost clock and 6 cores are more than enough for this title.

Q: How does the RX 7900 XTX compare to its nearest GPU rivals?

A: The RX 7900 XTX has an average benchmark score of 44019, placing it at the 85th percentile. It sits within 2% of the AMD Radeon Pro 580 (44195, -0.4%), NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4090 Mobile (43667, +0.8%), NVIDIA Quadro M6000 (43313, +1.6%), and NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4070 Ti (44900, -2%). The performance delta is negligible among these cards.

Q: What settings should I use for 1440p gaming on this combo?

A: High settings at 1440p deliver 175.6 FPS, while Medium provides 209.7 FPS. If you have a 144Hz monitor, High is ideal — it exceeds that refresh rate with headroom. For 240Hz displays, Medium is the safer choice.

Q: Does the game favor CPU or GPU more in this pairing?

A: The data indicates a GPU-bound scenario. FPS scales consistently with resolution (333.1 FPS at 1080p Low vs 163.9 FPS at 4K Low), which is characteristic of GPU limitation. The CPU's benchmark scores are mid-range, yet the combo still produces high frame rates.

Q: Is the 24 GB VRAM on the RX 7900 XTX useful for Downfall?

A: The card has 24 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 384-bit bus with 960.0 GB/s bandwidth. For this game, the VRAM is not a constraint at any tested setting — the 4K Ultra result of 70.6 FPS is limited by shader throughput, not memory capacity.

Q: How does this combo rank among all tested configurations in Downfall?

A: The combo ranks 263rd out of 1741 tested combinations, placing it in the top 15% of all pairings in the database. This is a strong result given the mid-range CPU.

GPU Role

The AMD Radeon RX 7900 XTX is the dominant component in this pairing. Built on the Navi 31 chip with RDNA 3.0 architecture, it features 6144 shading units, 384 TMUs, and 192 ROPs, along with 96 ray tracing cores. The GPU runs at a base clock of 1929 MHz, a game clock of 2365 MHz, and a boost clock of 2498 MHz. Memory is 24 GB of GDDR6 on a 384-bit bus, delivering 960.0 GB/s of bandwidth. The card's compute capabilities are substantial: 61.39 TFLOPS FP32 and 122.8 TFLOPS FP16 (2:1). Its pixel rate of 479.6 GPixel/s and texture rate of 959.2 GTexel/s explain why it handles Downfall's resolution scaling so well.

In the GPU benchmark hierarchy, the RX 7900 XTX scores 44019 on average, placing it at the 85th percentile. Its nearest rivals are all within 2%: the AMD Radeon Pro 580 (44195), the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4090 Mobile (43667), the NVIDIA Quadro M6000 (43313), and the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4070 Ti (44900). The 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 score of 6841 and Geekbench Vulkan score of 192597 confirm strong DirectX 12 and Vulkan performance, which matters for a horror game like Downfall that may use modern APIs.

The GPU's role in this combo is decisive. At 1080p Low, the card produces 333.1 FPS — a number that no CPU would bottleneck. At 4K Ultra, it drops to 70.6 FPS, which is still playable but shows the card's limits under maximum load. The 355W TDP and 750W suggested PSU indicate this is a power-hungry part, but the performance justifies the requirement. The dual-slot design and 287mm length (11.3 inches) mean it needs case space, but that's a physical consideration, not a performance one.

Measured FPS Breakdown

1080p (1920x1080):

• Low: 333.1 FPS average — the highest result of any configuration tested.
• Medium: 294.4 FPS — a 38.7 FPS drop from Low, still very fast.
• High: 240.5 FPS — a 53.9 FPS drop from Medium, but still above 240.
• Ultra: 149.7 FPS — the largest step down, costing 90.8 FPS from High.

1440p (2560x1440):

• Low: 258.5 FPS — down 74.6 FPS from 1080p Low.
• Medium: 209.7 FPS — a 48.8 FPS drop from Low at this resolution.
• High: 175.6 FPS — a 34.1 FPS drop from Medium.
• Ultra: 109.2 FPS — a 66.4 FPS drop from High, the steepest relative decline.

4K (3840x2160):

• Low: 163.9 FPS — still above 144, good for high-refresh 4K.
• Medium: 133.2 FPS — a 30.7 FPS drop from Low.
• High: 106.1 FPS — a 27.1 FPS drop from Medium, crossing below 120.
• Ultra: 70.6 FPS — a 35.5 FPS drop from High, the lowest measured result.

The scaling pattern is consistent: each step from Low to Ultra costs more at higher resolutions. At 1080p, the Low-to-Ultra gap is 183.4 FPS; at 1440p it's 149.3 FPS; at 4K it's 93.3 FPS. This narrowing gap at higher resolutions indicates the GPU becomes the sole constraint, while at lower resolutions the CPU's ceiling is closer. The 4K High result of 106.1 FPS is the most balanced 4K option for this combo, offering solid visual quality without the harsh penalty of Ultra.