Downfall

Downfall is a 2016 horror title, and the measured performance data for the Intel Core i5-11400F paired with the Intel Arc B370 reveals a configuration that is heavily constrained by its graphics component across all tested resolutions and settings. The dataset provides average, and in some cases minimum and maximum, frame rates for 1080p, 1440p, and 4K resolutions under Low, Medium, High, and Ultra presets. The analysis below breaks down these numbers to identify where the bottleneck lies and what the experience means for this specific hardware combination.

Resolution Scaling

The frame rate progression from 1920x1080 to 3840x2160 shows a clear and consistent decline, which is expected, but the magnitude of the drop tells a specific story about the limiting component. At 1080p with Low settings, the combo achieves an average of 96 FPS. Moving to 1440p Low reduces that to 68 FPS, a decrease of 28 frames. At 4K Low, the average falls further to 43 FPS, which is less than half of the 1080p figure. This scaling pattern indicates that the graphics processor is the primary constraint; the CPU is not holding back performance at lower resolutions, as the frame rates scale down dramatically when pixel count increases.

For Medium settings, the resolution scaling follows a similar trajectory. The 1080p Medium average is 78 FPS, which drops to 56 FPS at 1440p and then to 35 FPS at 4K. The 4K Medium result also includes a minimum of 30 FPS and a maximum of 40 FPS, showing the frame time variance grows as the resolution increases. High settings produce 64 FPS at 1080p, 46 FPS at 1440p, and 29 FPS at 4K. The 4K High result is borderline playable, but the trend suggests that any further increase in graphical load will push it below acceptable thresholds.

Ultra settings show the steepest scaling curve. At 1080p Ultra, the average is 40 FPS. At 1440p Ultra, it drops to 29 FPS, and at 4K Ultra, the average collapses to 18 FPS. The difference between 1080p Ultra and 4K Ultra is 22 frames, which is a 55 percent reduction. This indicates that the Ultra preset places an enormous load on the GPU, and the Arc B370 simply does not have the raw throughput to maintain playable rates at higher resolutions. The data across all presets confirms that the GPU is the limiting factor; if the CPU were the bottleneck, the frame rates would not scale so heavily with resolution changes. The 4K results, especially the 18 FPS average on Ultra, demonstrate that this combination is not suited for 4K gaming in this title beyond the lowest settings.

GPU Role

The Intel Arc B370 is an integrated graphics solution based on the Xe3-LPG architecture, manufactured on a 3 nm process. Its 1280 shading units, 40 texture mapping units, and 20 raster output pipelines provide a theoretical pixel rate of 48.00 GPixel/s and a texture rate of 96.00 GTexel/s. The boost clock is 2400 MHz, with a base clock of 300 MHz. The memory configuration is listed as System Shared, meaning it relies on the system's DDR4 memory rather than dedicated VRAM. The memory bandwidth is described as System Dependent, which is a critical factor in this game's performance.

The GPU's benchmark score in 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 is 1184, placing it in the 5th percentile of all GPUs. Its nearest rivals include the ATI Mobility Radeon HD 5570 with a score of 1186 (0.2 percent higher), the ATI Radeon HD 5770 at 1190 (0.5 percent higher), and the AMD Radeon HD 7650M at 1192 (0.7 percent higher). The AMD FirePro M2000 scores 1168, which is 1.4 percent lower. These comparisons place the Arc B370 in the same performance tier as decade-old discrete and mobile graphics parts, which explains its difficulty with Downfall's higher presets.

The shared memory architecture means that the GPU has no dedicated VRAM pool, and performance will depend heavily on the system memory speed and latency. In Downfall, a horror game that likely requires frequent texture streaming and memory accesses, this shared configuration could introduce additional latency. The measured frame rates support this interpretation. At 1080p Low, the 96 FPS average suggests the GPU can handle lighter loads when memory pressure is reduced. However, at 4K Ultra, the 18 FPS average indicates the memory subsystem and the GPU's limited compute resources are overwhelmed. The frame rate delta between Low and Ultra at each resolution is substantial: 56 frames at 1080p, 39 frames at 1440p, and 25 frames at 4K. This narrowing delta at higher resolutions does not mean the GPU is less stressed; rather, it reflects that the absolute performance floor is very low, around 18 FPS, and even the most demanding settings cannot reduce it much further because the hardware is already saturated.

The GPU's DirectX 12 Ultimate support and Vulkan 1.4 API compatibility are present, but the raw performance data shows that these feature sets do not compensate for the lack of dedicated memory and limited compute throughput. The 6.144 TFLOPS FP32 performance is modest, and the 25 W TDP indicates this is a power-constrained integrated part. In practical terms, the Arc B370 behaves like an entry-level graphics solution that can manage 1080p gaming at lower presets but struggles as resolution and settings increase.

CPU Role

The Intel Core i5-11400F is a 6-core, 12-thread processor based on the Rocket Lake architecture, manufactured on a 14 nm process. It has a base clock of 2.60 GHz and a boost clock of 4.40 GHz. The cache configuration includes 80 KB of L1 per core, 512 KB of L2 per core, and 12 MB of shared L3 cache. Memory support is DDR4 with a dual-channel interface, providing a theoretical bandwidth of 51.2 GB/s. The CPU's benchmark scores are substantial. In Cinebench R23, it scores 14340 multi-core and 2024 single-core. In Geekbench, it scores 7737 multi-core and 1777 single-core. Its average benchmark score is 17177, placing it in the 71st percentile of all CPUs.

Nearest rivals include the AMD EPYC 7H12 with an average score of 17120 (0.3 percent higher), the Intel Core i5-12450H at 17239 (0.4 percent lower), the AMD Ryzen 3 PRO 8300G at 17278 (0.6 percent lower), and the Intel Core Ultra 7 164U at 17074 (0.6 percent higher). These comparisons show that the i5-11400F is a mid-range performer, well above the GPU's percentile ranking. The CPU's 3DMark scores are also respectable: 5619 for 16 threads, 4691 for 8 threads, 3171 for 4 threads, and 1691 for 2 threads. The single-thread score is 868.

In Downfall, the CPU's role appears secondary to the GPU. The frame rates at 1080p Low reach 96 FPS, which is likely near the ceiling for this CPU in this game, but the resolution scaling data suggests the CPU is not the primary bottleneck. If the CPU were limiting, we would expect to see similar frame rates across different resolutions because the CPU work would remain constant. Instead, the frame rates drop by roughly 30 percent from 1080p to 1440p and another 35 percent from 1440p to 4K at most settings. This indicates the GPU is the limiting factor. The CPU's 6 cores and 12 threads are sufficient to feed the Arc B370 at all tested settings, as evidenced by the fact that even at 4K Ultra, the average FPS is 18, which suggests the GPU is completely saturated and not waiting on CPU data.

The CPU's 65 W TDP and end-of-life production status are noted, but its performance in this test is adequate. The 12 MB L3 cache and dual-channel memory bandwidth are likely sufficient for Downfall's CPU workload, which typically involves game logic, AI, and physics calculations. The measured results show no signs of CPU-induced stuttering or frame pacing issues, as the minimum FPS values recorded (30 FPS at 4K Medium, 48 FPS at 1440p Medium, and 67 FPS at 1080p Medium) are consistent with the averages. The CPU's benchmark percentile of 71 indicates it is a capable processor for general gaming, but in this specific combination, its performance is overshadowed by the GPU's limitations.

FAQ

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

A: The data shows that 1920x1080 is the only resolution where the average frame rate exceeds 60 FPS, and only at Low and Medium settings. At 1080p Low, the average is 96 FPS, and at 1080p Medium, it is 78 FPS. Higher resolutions produce averages below 68 FPS, with 4K results falling below 43 FPS at any setting.

Q: Can this combo handle 4K gaming in Downfall?

A: No, not at playable frame rates. The best 4K result is 43 FPS on Low settings. Medium settings average 35 FPS, High averages 29 FPS, and Ultra averages 18 FPS. These numbers are below the typical 60 FPS target and even 30 FPS is not consistently maintained at higher presets.

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

A: The Arc B370's 3DMark Steel Nomad score of 1184 is 0.2 percent lower than the ATI Mobility Radeon HD 5570, 0.5 percent lower than the ATI Radeon HD 5770, and 0.7 percent lower than the AMD Radeon HD 7650M. It is 1.4 percent higher than the AMD FirePro M2000. These are all older parts, indicating the Arc B370 is not a high-performance GPU.

Q: Is the CPU or GPU the bottleneck in this configuration?

A: The GPU is the clear bottleneck. The frame rates drop significantly from 1080p to 4K at every setting, which is characteristic of a GPU-limited scenario. The CPU's performance percentile is 71, while the GPU is in the 5th percentile, showing a large disparity in capability.

Q: What is the frame rate difference between Low and Ultra settings at 1080p?

A: At 1080p, Low settings produce an average of 96 FPS, while Ultra settings produce an average of 40 FPS. This is a difference of 56 frames per second, showing the substantial performance cost of the Ultra preset.

Q: Does the data include minimum frame rates for all settings?

A: No, minimum and maximum frame rates are only provided for the Medium preset at each resolution. At 1080p Medium, the range is 67 to 90 FPS. At 1440p Medium, it is 48 to 64 FPS. At 4K Medium, it is 30 to 40 FPS. Other settings only have average FPS values.

Measured FPS Breakdown

The measured FPS data provides a complete picture of this combo's performance across all tested configurations. At 1920x1080, the Low preset delivers an average of 96 FPS, which is the highest result in the entire dataset. Medium settings at 1080p yield an average of 78 FPS, with a minimum of 67 FPS and a maximum of 90 FPS. High settings drop to 64 FPS average, and Ultra settings produce a 40 FPS average. This shows that at 1080p, the combo can handle Low and Medium presets with frame rates above 60 FPS, but High and Ultra fall below that threshold.

Moving to 2560x1440, the Low preset averages 68 FPS, which is still above 60 but notably lower than the 1080p result. Medium settings at 1440p average 56 FPS, with a minimum of 48 FPS and a maximum of 64 FPS. High settings average 46 FPS, and Ultra settings average 29 FPS. The 1440p results show that only the Low preset maintains a playable average above 60 FPS, and even that is close to the boundary. Medium and High are borderline, while Ultra is not recommended.

At 3840x2160, the performance degrades further. Low settings average 43 FPS, which is below 60 and only marginally above 30. Medium settings average 35 FPS, with a minimum of 30 FPS and a maximum of 40 FPS. High settings average 29 FPS, and Ultra settings average 18 FPS. The 4K results are uniformly low, with no preset achieving an average above 43 FPS. The minimum FPS values for Medium at 4K (30 FPS) indicate that even the minimum performance is at the edge of playability, and the maximum of 40 FPS shows there is no headroom.

The data also reveals a consistent pattern in the relationship between settings. At each resolution, the difference between Low and Medium is approximately 18 FPS (96 to 78 at 1080p, 68 to 56 at 1440p, and 43 to 35 at 4K). The difference between Medium and High is smaller, around 14 FPS at 1080p, 10 FPS at 1440p, and 6 FPS at 4K. The jump from High to Ultra is larger, with a 24 FPS drop at 1080p, a 17 FPS drop at 1440p, and an 11 FPS drop at 4K. This suggests that the Ultra preset includes effects that are disproportionately expensive for this GPU, particularly at lower resolutions where the pixel count does not mask the additional workload.

Settings Recommendations

Based on the measured FPS data, the optimal settings for this combo depend heavily on the target resolution and desired frame rate. For a 60 FPS target, the only viable option is 1080p with Low or Medium settings. At 1080p Low, the average is 96 FPS, which provides comfortable headroom. At 1080p Medium, the average is 78 FPS, still above 60, but the minimum of 67 FPS ensures that the frame rate rarely dips below the target. High settings at 1080p average 64 FPS, which is above 60, but the lack of minimum FPS data means there could be dips below that threshold. For a consistent 60 FPS experience, 1080p Medium is the safest choice, as it balances visual quality with a measured minimum of 67 FPS.

If the user prefers 1440p, the Low preset is the only one that averages above 60 FPS, at 68 FPS. Medium settings at 1440p average 56 FPS, which is below 60, and the minimum of 48 FPS indicates occasional drops. For a 30 FPS target, 1440p Medium or High could work, as the averages are 56 FPS and 46 FPS respectively, but the minimum values for Medium (48 FPS) suggest that High might dip below 30 FPS in demanding scenes. The 4K resolution is not recommended for any preset, as even Low averages only 43 FPS, and the minimum at Medium is 30 FPS, which is the absolute floor for playability.

The Ultra preset is not recommended at any resolution. At 1080p, it averages 40 FPS, which is below the 60 FPS target. At 1440p, it averages 29 FPS, and at 4K, it averages 18 FPS. The performance cost of Ultra is substantial, and the visual improvements over High are unlikely to justify the frame rate penalty. The data suggests that Medium is the sweet spot for this combo, as it provides a significant improvement over Low while maintaining frame rates that are only slightly lower. At 1080p, Medium offers a 78 FPS average, which is playable. At 1440p, Medium's 56 FPS average is acceptable for a horror game where slower pacing may tolerate lower frame rates.

How This Combo Ranks

The Intel Core i5-11400F and Intel Arc B370 combination ranks 2688 out of 2928 tested combos in Downfall, placing it in the bottom 8 percent of all configurations. This low ranking is primarily driven by the GPU's performance, which falls in the 5th percentile of all GPUs. The CPU, in contrast, ranks in the 71st percentile, showing that the processor is capable but is paired with a graphics solution that cannot keep up with the demands of the game at higher settings.

The combo rank of 2688 out of 2928 indicates that the vast majority of tested hardware combinations deliver better performance in Downfall. This is not surprising given the GPU's benchmark score of 1184, which is comparable to graphics cards from over a decade ago. The CPU's nearest rivals, such as the AMD EPYC 7H12 and Intel Core i5-12450H, have virtually identical average benchmark scores, with deltas of 0.3 percent or less, but these CPUs would likely be paired with more capable GPUs in most systems.

The ranking also reflects the GPU's limitations in this specific game. Downfall, being a horror title from 2016, may have rendering techniques that are not optimized for the Arc B370's architecture. The shared system memory and lack of dedicated VRAM could further hinder performance, especially at higher resolutions where memory bandwidth becomes critical. The data shows that even at 1080p Low, the combo achieves only 96 FPS, which is far below what a discrete GPU in the same price tier would deliver. The overall ranking of 2688 out of 2928 is a clear indicator that this combo is not well-suited for Downfall at any resolution above 1080p Medium, and even at that setting, the performance is merely acceptable rather than impressive.