Downfall

# Downfall Performance Analysis: Intel Core i5-13400F + AMD Radeon RX 7800 XT

This combination of the Intel Core i5-13400F and AMD Radeon RX 7800 XT delivers a robust experience in Downfall, a horror title that stresses both CPU and GPU depending on resolution and settings. The measured frame rates across resolutions and presets show a pairing that is well-balanced at 1440p but becomes increasingly GPU-bound as resolution climbs. With a combo rank of 1234 out of 3716 tested configurations, this system sits comfortably in the upper third of all tested hardware pairings for this game, indicating strong overall capability without being an extreme outlier.

How This Combo Ranks

The combo rank of 1234 out of 3716 tested combos places this system in the 66.8th percentile of all tested configurations for Downfall. This is a solid mid-to-upper tier position, suggesting the pairing handles the game's demands better than roughly two-thirds of all tested hardware combinations. The ranking reflects a balance: the CPU is not a top-tier flagship, but its performance profile complements the GPU well enough to avoid severe bottlenecking in most scenarios.

The CPU itself holds a percentile rank of 77 among all tested CPUs, which is notably higher than the combo's overall rank. This indicates the processor is a strong contributor, but the GPU's percentile rank of 51 among all tested GPUs pulls the combined result down somewhat. The GPU sits at the median of all tested graphics cards, meaning the Radeon RX 7800 XT is an average performer in the broader database context. However, when paired with the i5-13400F, the combined result exceeds what either component's individual percentile might suggest, pointing to efficient cooperation rather than one component dragging the other down.

In CPU-only benchmarks, the i5-13400F's nearest rivals show how tightly grouped this performance tier is. The AMD Ryzen 9 6900HS scores 25284, a delta of 0 percent from the i5-13400F's average of 25292. The Intel Core 5 120 and AMD Ryzen 5 5600X3D both sit at 25362 and 25365 respectively, each with a -0.3 percent delta. The AMD Ryzen 7 6800H trails by 0.4 percent at 25201. These sub-one-percent differences place the i5-13400F in an extremely competitive performance band, where game-specific optimizations matter more than raw synthetic scores.

For the GPU, the nearest rivals reveal a more heterogeneous group. The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1660 averages 11680, a -0.5 percent delta from the RX 7800 XT's 11627. The AMD Radeon Pro 5500M scores 11528 (0.9 percent delta), the NVIDIA Tesla K20c scores 11479 (1.3 percent delta), and the AMD Radeon RX 6500 XT scores 11842 (-1.8 percent delta). This grouping spans different generations and market segments, suggesting the RX 7800 XT's average benchmark score lands in a crowded field where architectural differences can shift real-world game performance significantly.

CPU Role

The Intel Core i5-13400F brings 10 cores and 16 threads to the pairing, with a base clock of 2.50 GHz and a boost clock of 4.60 GHz. This configuration, built on the Raptor Lake architecture with a 10 nm process node, provides substantial multi-threaded headroom. In synthetic tests, the CPU achieves a 3DMark 16-thread score of 7314 and a max-thread score of 7307, showing consistent scaling across thread counts. The 8-thread score of 5591 and 4-thread score of 3459 indicate that performance grows steadily as more threads are utilized, which is relevant for a game like Downfall that may spawn background threads for AI, physics, and streaming.

Single-thread performance is equally important for frame pacing in horror titles. The 3DMark single-thread score of 960 and 2-thread score of 1880 reflect solid per-core capability. This is reinforced by Cinebench R23 scores of 3191 single-core and 22604 multi-core, along with Geekbench scores of 1996 single-core and 11068 multi-core. In Downfall, the CPU's role becomes most apparent at lower resolutions and settings where frame rates climb above 200 FPS. At 1080p Low, the system achieves 282 FPS average, and at 1080p Medium it reaches 231 FPS. These high frame rates suggest the CPU can feed the GPU efficiently even when the render load is light.

The 20 MB of shared L3 cache and 1.25 MB L2 per core help maintain smooth performance in scenes with complex geometry or numerous entities. The CPU's memory support for both DDR4 and DDR5, with a dual-channel bus, gives system builders flexibility, though the measured results likely reflect a configuration that maximizes bandwidth. The 65 W TDP indicates this is a power-efficient part that won't create thermal challenges in most chassis, allowing sustained boost clocks during extended gaming sessions.

At 4K Ultra, where the average FPS drops to 53, the CPU is likely not the limiting factor. The frame rate collapse from 125 FPS at 4K Low to 53 FPS at 4K Ultra is far too steep to be CPU-driven; it reflects the GPU struggling with the increased pixel and shading load. The CPU's 77th percentile rank suggests it has ample headroom to support even higher frame rates if the GPU could deliver them.

GPU Role

The AMD Radeon RX 7800 XT is built on the RDNA 3.0 architecture with the Navi 32 chip, manufactured on a 5 nm process at TSMC. The GPU features 16 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 256-bit bus, providing 624.1 GB/s of bandwidth. This memory configuration is generous for a horror game released in 2016, ensuring texture streaming and high-resolution assets will not be constrained by VRAM capacity. The 3840 shading units, 240 texture mapping units, and 96 render output units give the GPU substantial raw throughput.

Clock speeds are moderate for the architecture: a base clock of 1295 MHz, a game clock of 2124 MHz, and a boost clock of 2430 MHz. The memory runs at 2438 MHz, translating to 19.5 Gbps effective. These clocks, combined with the 37.32 TFLOPS FP32 throughput, allow the GPU to handle the visual effects typical of horror games — dynamic lighting, particle effects, and shadow rendering. The 60 ray tracing cores provide hardware acceleration for ray-traced effects, though the game's 2016 release date means it likely relies more on traditional rasterization techniques.

In synthetic benchmarks, the GPU's performance is less impressive relative to its peers. The 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 score of 4157, Geekbench OpenCL score of 18290, and Vulkan score of 54228 show competent but not exceptional results. The PassMark G3D score of 24176 is the standout, while DirectX 9, 10, 11, and 12 scores of 304, 121, 249, and 93 respectively are all modest. This pattern suggests the GPU's architecture excels in some workloads but not others, which could explain its 51st percentile rank among all GPUs.

The 263 W TDP and suggested 600 W PSU indicate the GPU draws significant power under load. The dual-slot cooler and 267 mm length require adequate case clearance. The PCIe 4.0 x16 interface provides sufficient bandwidth for the GPU's data transfers. The display outputs include 1x HDMI 2.1a and 3x DisplayPort 2.1, supporting modern high-refresh monitors.

The GPU's role in Downfall becomes dominant at higher resolutions. The frame rate gap between 1080p and 4K at the same settings illustrates this clearly. At High settings, the system drops from 189 FPS at 1080p to 135 FPS at 1440p to 84 FPS at 4K. This progression shows diminishing returns as pixel count increases, with the GPU becoming the primary bottleneck at 4K.

FAQ

Q: How does this combo compare to other tested configurations for Downfall?

A: The combo ranks 1234 out of 3716 tested combos, placing it in the upper third of all tested systems. This is a strong result, though not elite, reflecting the GPU's median percentile rank of 51 among all GPUs.

Q: Is the CPU or GPU the limiting factor in this game?

A: At 1080p and 1440p, the system delivers high frame rates (up to 282 FPS at 1080p Low), suggesting the GPU is well-fed by the CPU. At 4K Ultra, the average FPS drops to 53, indicating the GPU becomes the primary limiter due to the heavy rendering load.

Q: What is the best resolution for this pairing?

A: At 1440p High, the system achieves 135 FPS average, which is a strong balance of visual quality and smoothness. At 4K High, it drops to 84 FPS, which is still playable but less comfortable for fast-paced horror gameplay.

Q: How does the CPU's synthetic performance compare to its rivals?

A: The i5-13400F's average benchmark score of 25292 is within 0.4 percent of its nearest rivals: AMD Ryzen 9 6900HS (25284), Intel Core 5 120 (25362), AMD Ryzen 5 5600X3D (25365), and AMD Ryzen 7 6800H (25201). This places it in a tightly competitive performance band.

Q: How much VRAM does the GPU have, and is it sufficient?

A: The GPU has 16 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 256-bit bus. This is ample for a 2016 horror title, ensuring no VRAM-related stuttering or texture pop-in at any resolution tested.

Q: What are the GPU's clock speeds?

A: The GPU has a base clock of 1295 MHz, a game clock of 2124 MHz, and a boost clock of 2430 MHz. The memory runs at 2438 MHz (19.5 Gbps effective). These clocks are moderate for the RDNA 3.0 architecture.

Resolution Scaling

The measured FPS data reveals clear scaling patterns as resolution increases from 1080p to 4K. At Low settings, the system delivers 282 FPS at 1080p, 202 FPS at 1440p, and 125 FPS at 4K. This represents a 55.3 percent drop from 1080p to 1440p and a 38.1 percent further drop from 1440p to 4K. The total decline from 1080p to 4K is 55.7 percent, indicating the GPU is increasingly stressed as pixel count grows.

At Medium settings, the pattern is similar but with lower absolute values: 231 FPS at 1080p, 165 FPS at 1440p, and 103 FPS at 4K. The percentage drops are 28.6 percent (1080p to 1440p) and 37.6 percent (1440p to 4K), totaling 55.4 percent from 1080p to 4K. The consistency of these percentage drops across Low and Medium settings suggests the scaling is primarily resolution-driven rather than settings-driven.

High settings show a steeper decline: 189 FPS at 1080p, 135 FPS at 1440p, and 84 FPS at 4K. The drop from 1080p to 1440p is 28.6 percent, and from 1440p to 4K is 37.8 percent, totaling 55.6 percent from 1080p to 4K. Ultra settings show the most dramatic scaling: 118 FPS at 1080p, 85 FPS at 1440p, and 53 FPS at 4K. The 1080p to 1440p drop is 28.0 percent, and 1440p to 4K is 37.6 percent, totaling 55.1 percent from 1080p to 4K.

The consistency of these scaling percentages across all settings — roughly 28 percent for the first step and 38 percent for the second — indicates that resolution is the dominant factor in frame rate variation. The GPU's rendering load scales predictably with pixel count, and the CPU maintains enough headroom to avoid introducing additional bottlenecks at higher resolutions. The 4K Ultra result of 53 FPS suggests the GPU is nearing its limits at this extreme configuration, while 1080p Low at 282 FPS shows the CPU can push frame rates well beyond typical display refresh rates.

Settings Recommendations

The measured data shows a clear trade-off between visual fidelity and frame rate. At 1080p, all settings deliver playable frame rates, with Low at 282 FPS, Medium at 231 FPS, High at 189 FPS, and Ultra at 118 FPS. For competitive or fast-paced play, Medium or High offers the best balance, providing smooth motion while maintaining visual quality. Ultra at 118 FPS is still fluid and represents the best visual experience at this resolution.

At 1440p, the picture changes. Low delivers 202 FPS, Medium 165 FPS, High 135 FPS, and Ultra 85 FPS. High at 135 FPS is the sweet spot for most players, offering a significant visual upgrade over Medium while staying well above the 60 FPS threshold. Ultra at 85 FPS remains viable for those prioritizing image quality, but the 37 percent drop from High to Ultra may not justify the visual gains in a horror game where atmosphere matters more than fine detail.

At 4K, the options narrow. Low delivers 125 FPS, Medium 103 FPS, High 84 FPS, and Ultra 53 FPS. High at 84 FPS is the recommended setting for 4K, providing good visual quality with a frame rate that remains smooth on most displays. Medium at 103 FPS is a strong alternative for those who prefer higher refresh rates. Ultra at 53 FPS is borderline, dipping below the 60 FPS threshold that many consider minimum for comfortable play, though it remains acceptable for slower-paced horror exploration.

The Medium settings provide the only measured minimum and maximum FPS values in the data: 196-266 FPS at 1080p, 140-190 FPS at 1440p, and 87-118 FPS at 4K. These ranges indicate frame time consistency, with the 4K Medium range showing a 31 FPS spread that suggests some scenes are more demanding than others. Players sensitive to frame pacing may prefer High settings, which likely tighten these ranges even if average FPS is lower.

Measured FPS Breakdown

The full measured FPS dataset for this combo in Downfall is as follows. At 1920x1080, Low settings produce an average of 282 FPS, Medium produces 231 FPS with a range of 196 to 266 FPS, High produces 189 FPS, and Ultra produces 118 FPS. These numbers show that 1080p is well within the capability of this hardware, with even the most demanding preset maintaining a frame rate above 100 FPS.

At 2560x1440, Low settings deliver an average of 202 FPS, Medium delivers 165 FPS with a range of 140 to 190 FPS, High delivers 135 FPS, and Ultra delivers 85 FPS. The progression from Low to Ultra shows a 57.9 percent reduction in average FPS, from 202 down to 85. This is a substantial but expected drop as both pixel count and visual effects increase.

At 3840x2160, Low settings produce an average of 125 FPS, Medium produces 103 FPS with a range of 87 to 118 FPS, High produces 84 FPS, and Ultra produces 53 FPS. The Ultra setting at 4K represents the most demanding configuration tested, and the 53 FPS average indicates the GPU is heavily loaded. The Medium preset's range of 87 to 118 FPS shows variability that could be noticeable in scenes with heavy particle effects or dynamic lighting.

Comparing across resolutions at the same setting reveals the scaling patterns. At Low, the system loses 80 FPS from 1080p to 1440p and another 77 FPS from 1440p to 4K. At Medium, the losses are 66 FPS and 62 FPS respectively. At High, the losses are 54 FPS and 51 FPS. At Ultra, the losses are 33 FPS and 32 FPS. The diminishing absolute losses at higher settings indicate that as the GPU becomes more loaded, additional pixels have a smaller marginal impact on frame rate.

The data shows this combo is most effective at 1080p and 1440p, where it can leverage the CPU's strong single-thread performance to push high frame rates. At 4K, the GPU becomes the primary constraint, and the experience is more dependent on the specific preset chosen. The 16 GB VRAM ensures no memory-related bottlenecks at any resolution, allowing the GPU to focus purely on rendering throughput. For a horror game released in 2016, this hardware provides substantial headroom, making it a capable choice for both current play and potential future mods or remasters that might increase graphical demands.