Downfall

How This Combo Ranks

The Intel Core i5-11400F paired with the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1050 Ti places at rank 1734 out of 1741 tested combinations for Downfall. This positions the combo in the bottom 0.4% of all recorded configurations, firmly in the lower tier of systems capable of running the game. The ranking reflects a substantial bottleneck profile, where the GPU’s age and limited memory bandwidth constrain the overall experience far more than the CPU’s capabilities would suggest.

Benchmark data shows the GTX 1050 Ti sits at the 30th percentile among all GPUs, with an average score of 5316. Its nearest rivals—the GeForce 930A, 940M, Radeon R7 240, and Radeon R7 M445—all score within 0.8% of it, indicating the GPU is grouped with entry-level mobile and low-end desktop parts from a previous era. The CPU, by contrast, performs at the 75th percentile among all processors, with an average score of 17181. That places the i5-11400F nearly exactly on par with the AMD Ryzen 7 5700U (deltaPct 0), and within 0.2% of the Intel Core i7-1260P and Core Ultra 7 164U. This disparity—a high-midrange CPU paired with a low-end GPU—explains why the combo ranks so poorly despite the processor’s strength.

The measured frame rates confirm this imbalance. At 1080p Low, the combo delivers 70.5 FPS, which is playable, but the GPU’s ceiling becomes apparent as settings rise. The data suggests that in Downfall, the GTX 1050 Ti is the limiting component at every resolution and preset combination tested. The CPU’s 6 cores and 12 threads are more than sufficient for the game’s demands, leaving the GPU to struggle with the horror title’s rendering load.

CPU Role

The Intel Core i5-11400F provides 6 cores and 12 threads, with a base clock of 2.60 GHz and a boost clock of 4.40 GHz. This Rocket Lake architecture processor, built on Intel’s 14 nm process, offers a 12 MB shared L3 cache and dual-channel DDR4 memory support with a bandwidth of 51.2 GB/s. The CPU’s benchmark results indicate solid multi-threaded capability: Cinebench R23 multi-core scores 14372, while single-core reaches 2029. PassMark multi-thread performance is 16908, and single-thread reaches 2981.

In the context of Downfall, the CPU’s role appears secondary. The game’s measured FPS across all settings shows a pattern consistent with GPU limitation. At 1080p Low, the combo reaches 70.5 FPS, but upgrading to Medium drops to 61.7 FPS, and High falls to 48.1 FPS. These declines are far steeper than what CPU-bound scenarios would produce, where frame rates typically remain stable until the GPU becomes the constraint. The 3DMark scores reinforce this: the CPU’s 16-thread score of 5619 and max-thread score of 5652 indicate headroom that the GTX 1050 Ti cannot exploit.

The CPU’s 65 W TDP and end-of-life production status suggest it was designed for mainstream builds, but its performance class is well above the GPU’s. The i5-11400F’s nearest rivals—all scoring within 0.2% in average benchmarks—are mobile or low-power parts, yet the CPU still outclasses the GTX 1050 Ti’s position relative to its own peers. For Downfall, the data indicates the CPU is never the bottleneck, even at lower resolutions where CPU load typically increases.

FAQ

*Q: Is the Intel Core i5-11400F strong enough for Downfall?*

A: Yes. The CPU scores at the 75th percentile among all processors, with multi-threaded Cinebench R23 performance of 14372. The measured FPS consistently drops as GPU load increases, indicating the CPU is not the limiting factor.

Q: How does the GTX 1050 Ti compare to its closest rivals?

A: The GTX 1050 Ti has an average benchmark score of 5316, placing it at the 30th GPU percentile. Its nearest competitor, the GeForce 930A, scores 5317 (0% delta), while the GeForce 940M scores 5297 (0.4% slower) and the Radeon R7 240 scores 5280 (0.7% slower).

Q: What is the best resolution for this combo?

A: At 1080p with Low settings, the combo achieves 70.5 FPS. At 1440p Low, it drops to 53.8 FPS. For playable performance, 1080p is the practical ceiling, with 1440p only viable on the lowest preset.

Q: Can this combo handle Ultra settings?

A: Barely. At 1080p Ultra, the average FPS is 31.9, which is marginal. At 1440p Ultra, it falls to 21.1 FPS, and at 4K Ultra, it drops to 15.7 FPS. These results indicate Ultra is not a recommended setting for consistent gameplay.

Q: Why does the combo rank so low despite the CPU’s strength?

A: The GPU’s 4 GB GDDR5 memory and 112.1 GB/s bandwidth, combined with a 30th percentile performance rank, create a significant bottleneck. The CPU’s 75th percentile standing cannot compensate for the GPU’s limitations in rendering-heavy scenes.

Q: How does the GTX 1050 Ti perform in synthetic tests?

A: In PassMark G3D, the GPU scores 6340, while 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 yields 305. Geekbench Vulkan scores 19851, and OpenCL reaches 20638. These figures place it far below modern GPUs, consistent with its 30th percentile rank.

Measured FPS Breakdown

The measured FPS data covers three resolutions (1920x1080, 2560x1440, 3840x2160) and four settings (Low, Medium, High, Ultra), with average frame rates recorded for each combination. No min or max FPS values were captured, so analysis relies on averages.

At 1080p, the combo delivers its best results. Low settings produce 70.5 FPS, Medium reaches 61.7 FPS, and High drops to 48.1 FPS. Ultra is the weakest at 31.9 FPS. The progression from Low to Ultra shows a 54.8% performance loss, from 70.5 to 31.9 FPS, highlighting the GPU’s sensitivity to graphical fidelity.

Moving to 1440p, the frame rates decrease across all settings. Low yields 53.8 FPS, Medium 44.7 FPS, and High 36.5 FPS. Ultra falls to 21.1 FPS, which is below the threshold for smooth gameplay. The drop from 1080p Low to 1440p Low is 23.7%, while the drop from 1080p Ultra to 1440p Ultra is 33.9%, showing that higher settings amplify the resolution penalty.

At 4K, the combo struggles. Low settings produce 30.3 FPS, Medium 25.3 FPS, and High 19.6 FPS. Ultra bottoms out at 15.7 FPS. None of these are playable for a horror game requiring responsive controls. The gap between 1080p Low and 4K Low is 57.0% (70.5 to 30.3 FPS), while the gap between 1080p Ultra and 4K Ultra is 50.8% (31.9 to 15.7 FPS). This suggests the GPU’s memory bandwidth and fill rate are exhausted at 4K regardless of settings.

Across all resolutions, the pattern is consistent: Low settings offer the highest FPS, followed by Medium, High, and Ultra in descending order. The delta between Low and Ultra widens with resolution, from 38.6 FPS at 1080p to 14.6 FPS at 4K, indicating that the GPU’s limitations become more pronounced as pixel count increases.

Resolution Scaling

The FPS drop from 1080p to 4K reveals the limiting component’s nature. At Low settings, 1080p yields 70.5 FPS, 1440p yields 53.8 FPS, and 4K yields 30.3 FPS. This represents a 57.0% reduction from 1080p to 4K. At Ultra settings, the decline is 50.8% (31.9 to 15.7 FPS). The fact that the percentage drop is smaller at Ultra suggests the GPU is already saturated at 1080p Ultra, leaving less headroom to lose when resolution increases.

The scaling pattern points to a GPU-bound scenario. If the CPU were the limiter, FPS would remain relatively flat across resolutions since the CPU’s workload does not scale with pixel count. Instead, the steep declines—especially at Low settings where the GPU is less taxed—indicate the GTX 1050 Ti’s fill rate and memory bandwidth (112.1 GB/s) are the constraining factors. The 4 GB VRAM capacity may also be exceeded at higher resolutions, though the data does not directly measure VRAM usage.

The CPU’s role in resolution scaling is minimal. The i5-11400F’s single-thread performance (Cinebench R23 single-core 2029, PassMark single-thread 2981) is sufficient for the game’s logic, and its multi-thread capabilities (Cinebench R23 multi-core 14372) provide ample headroom. At 1080p Low, where CPU load is highest relative to GPU, the combo still achieves 70.5 FPS, suggesting the CPU is not a limiting factor even in the most CPU-favorable scenario.

The data shows that resolution scaling is nearly linear for Low settings (70.5 → 53.8 → 30.3 FPS), but compresses for Ultra (31.9 → 21.1 → 15.7 FPS). This compression indicates that at Ultra, the GPU is already near its maximum output, so additional pixels have less impact. The limiting component is unequivocally the GPU, whose 30th percentile rank and 2.138 TFLOPS FP32 performance cannot keep pace with the i5-11400F’s 75th percentile processing power.

Settings Recommendations

For the best experience with this combo, the data points to 1080p with Low settings as the only configuration that consistently exceeds 60 FPS, achieving 70.5 FPS. This preset provides the smoothest gameplay for a horror title where reaction time matters. Medium at 1080p offers 61.7 FPS, which is also playable, but the 12.5% drop from Low may not justify the visual improvement given the GPU’s limited headroom.

High settings at 1080p yield 48.1 FPS, which is below the 60 FPS threshold but may be acceptable for slower-paced horror gameplay. However, the 31.8% reduction from Low suggests that High settings push the GPU too hard for consistent performance. Ultra at 1080p, at 31.9 FPS, is not recommended, as the frame rate dips into a range where motion becomes noticeably less fluid.

At 1440p, only Low settings (53.8 FPS) approach playability. Medium (44.7 FPS) and High (36.5 FPS) are borderline, while Ultra (21.1 FPS) is unusable. The data suggests that 1440p should only be considered with Low settings, and even then, the 23.7% drop from 1080p Low may not be worth the resolution upgrade.

At 4K, no setting is recommended. The highest FPS is 30.3 at Low, which is below the playable threshold for most users. The GPU’s 4 GB memory and 128-bit bus are insufficient for 4K rendering, as evidenced by the sub-30 FPS results across all presets.

The optimal configuration is 1080p with Medium settings, balancing the 61.7 FPS average with improved visual fidelity over Low. For players prioritizing frame rate above all, 1080p Low at 70.5 FPS is the safest choice. The data does not support any 1440p or 4K configuration for a consistently playable experience, and Ultra settings at any resolution should be avoided given the steep performance penalties.