Downfall

The benchmark data for Downfall with the Intel Core i5-13400F and NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4060 Ti 8 GB shows a system that handles the horror title with considerable headroom across most settings, though the Ultra preset at higher resolutions introduces a notable performance penalty. The measured frames per second (FPS) across twelve configurations reveal a pattern where the GPU becomes the primary constraint as resolution and graphical fidelity increase.

Settings Recommendations

The measured rows indicate that the Medium preset offers the most balanced experience across all tested resolutions, delivering a substantial improvement over Low while avoiding the significant frame rate collapse seen with Ultra. At 1920x1080, Medium achieves 214.6 FPS, which is 45.7% higher than Ultra’s 113 FPS but only 17.6% lower than Low’s 260.5 FPS. This positions Medium as the sweet spot for maintaining high refresh rates without sacrificing the visual fidelity that horror games rely on for atmosphere.

At 2560x1440, the same pattern holds. Medium produces 153.7 FPS, comfortably above the 144 Hz threshold for most monitors, while Ultra drops to 79.2 FPS. The gap between Medium and Low narrows slightly at this resolution, with Medium being 19.2% slower than Low’s 190.3 FPS. For 3840x2160, Medium still manages 99.2 FPS, which is playable, but High at 81.6 FPS may be preferable for users prioritizing visual quality over frame rate, as the difference between these two presets is only 17.6 FPS.

Ultra should be avoided at 4K, where it falls to 48.5 FPS, a 51.1% reduction from Medium. This suggests that Ultra’s additional effects tax the GPU disproportionately without a corresponding benefit in playability. The data supports a recommendation of Medium as the default preset for this combo, with High serving as a viable alternative for users with 1440p displays who prefer richer visuals at a 125.7 FPS average.

Resolution Scaling

The FPS progression from 1920x1080 to 3840x2160 reveals how the RTX 4060 Ti 8 GB scales under increasing pixel load. At Low settings, the drop from 260.5 FPS at 1080p to 190.3 FPS at 1440p represents a 27.0% decrease, and further to 115.6 FPS at 4K, a 55.6% reduction from the 1080p baseline. This steep decline indicates that even at Low settings, the GPU is the limiting factor at higher resolutions, as the CPU’s 10 cores and 16 threads are unlikely to bottleneck at these frame rates.

The scaling becomes more pronounced at Ultra settings. The transition from 1080p (113 FPS) to 1440p (79.2 FPS) yields a 29.9% drop, while 4K (48.5 FPS) represents a 57.1% reduction from 1080p. This non-linear behavior suggests that Ultra’s additional shading and texture work amplify the memory bandwidth constraints of the 128-bit bus and 288.0 GB/s bandwidth. The 8 GB VRAM capacity also likely contributes to the 4K Ultra performance, as the game’s asset loading at that resolution may approach the memory limit.

Interestingly, the gap between Low and Ultra narrows as resolution increases. At 1080p, Ultra is 56.6% slower than Low; at 1440p, the gap is 58.4%; at 4K, it is 58.0%. This consistency implies that the GPU’s compute throughput, not memory capacity alone, drives the scaling. The FP32 performance of 22.06 TFLOPS appears sufficient for 1080p and 1440p gaming, but the 4K Ultra result of 48.5 FPS indicates the architecture’s limits under heavy load.

FAQ

Q: What is the highest average FPS recorded for this combo?

A: The highest average FPS is 260.5, achieved at 1920x1080 with Low settings. This is the only measured configuration exceeding 260 FPS, indicating that the CPU and GPU combination has substantial headroom at lower resolutions and graphical loads.

Q: How does the Ultra preset compare to High at 1440p?

A: At 2560x1440, Ultra delivers 79.2 FPS while High achieves 125.7 FPS, a difference of 46.5 FPS or 37.0%. This makes High the more sensible choice for 1440p gaming, as it maintains smooth frame rates while offering most of the visual enhancements.

Q: Is the 8 GB VRAM sufficient for 4K gaming in Downfall?

A: The data shows that at 3840x2160, the combo reaches 115.6 FPS on Low and 48.5 FPS on Ultra. The significant drop at Ultra suggests that while the 8 GB capacity can handle the game, the combination of resolution and high settings stresses the memory subsystem, likely due to the 128-bit bus and 288.0 GB/s bandwidth.

Q: What is the combo’s rank among all tested configurations?

A: The combo ranks 699 out of 1741 tested combinations, placing it in the 59.9th percentile of all systems tested for Downfall. This indicates that while it is above average, there are many faster configurations in the database.

Q: How does the CPU’s single-thread performance relate to the game’s results?

A: The Intel Core i5-13400F scores 960 in 3dmark_single_thread and 3004 in cinebench_r23_singlecore. These scores, combined with the 1080p Low result of 260.5 FPS, suggest that the CPU’s single-thread capability is sufficient for the game’s logic, as the frame rates at lower resolutions are not limited by processor performance.

Q: What is the difference between Low and Medium at 1080p?

A: Low produces 260.5 FPS, while Medium produces 214.6 FPS at 1920x1080. The 45.9 FPS gap represents a 17.6% performance reduction for Medium, which is a modest cost for the visual improvements that preset likely provides.

How This Combo Ranks

The combo’s rank of 699 out of 1741 tested combinations places it in the upper-middle tier of the benchmark database. This position, at roughly the 40th percentile from the top, indicates that the RTX 4060 Ti 8 GB and Core i5-13400F combination is competent for Downfall but not exceptional. The GPU’s percentileVsAllGpus score of 17 is notably low, which seems inconsistent with the measured FPS results, but this percentile is based on a single 3dmark_steel_nomad_dx12 score of 2913, which may not reflect gaming performance accurately.

The CPU’s percentileVsAllCpus of 82 is much stronger, with an avgBenchmarkScore of 25236. This places the i5-13400F in the top quintile of processors, and its nearest rivals include the Intel Core i7-13620H (0.1% higher score), AMD Ryzen 5 5600X3D (0.5% lower), and AMD EPYC 9474F (0.5% higher). These deltas are negligible in real-world terms, confirming that the CPU is well-matched to the GPU for this game.

The 699th rank out of 1741 suggests that many combos with higher-end GPUs or more balanced pairings outperform this system. However, the measured FPS at 1080p and 1440p are high enough that most users would not perceive a difference in smoothness. The rank reflects the competitive landscape, not a deficiency in this specific matchup.

CPU Role

The Intel Core i5-13400F features 10 cores and 16 threads, with a base clock of 2.50 GHz and a boost clock of 4.60 GHz. The 20 MB shared L3 cache and 1.25 MB per-core L2 cache provide ample data locality for game workloads. The 3dmark_16_threads score of 7314 and 3dmark_max_threads score of 7307 are nearly identical, indicating that the CPU scales well up to its full thread count without thermal or power throttling.

In Downfall, the CPU’s role is most apparent at 1080p with Low settings, where the 260.5 FPS result suggests that the processor can feed frames faster than the GPU can render them. The cinebench_r23_multicore score of 21279 and singlecore score of 3004 demonstrate balanced performance across both lightly and heavily threaded workloads. The passmark_multithread score of 25032 further confirms that the 10-core configuration handles parallel tasks effectively.

The boost clock of 4.60 GHz is likely the reason for the strong single-thread results, as horror games often have moments where a single thread dominates physics or AI calculations. The 65 W TDP and 10 nm process node from Intel indicate that this CPU runs efficiently, which is beneficial for sustained gaming sessions. The memory support for both DDR4 and DDR5 gives builders flexibility, although the benchmark data does not specify which memory type was used.

Measured FPS Breakdown

At 1920x1080, the combo delivers a wide range of performance across presets. Low settings produce 260.5 FPS, Medium produces 214.6 FPS, High produces 178.5 FPS, and Ultra produces 113 FPS. The progression from Low to Ultra shows a cumulative 56.6% reduction in frame rate, with each step up in settings costing roughly 30-40 FPS. The 113 FPS at Ultra remains playable on high refresh rate displays, though it falls short of the 144 Hz mark.

At 2560x1440, the results shift downward. Low achieves 190.3 FPS, Medium 153.7 FPS, High 125.7 FPS, and Ultra 79.2 FPS. The gap between Low and Medium narrows to 19.2%, while the gap between High and Ultra widens to 37.0%. This suggests that Ultra’s additional effects, such as ray tracing or volumetric lighting, place a disproportionate burden on the GPU at this resolution. The 79.2 FPS at Ultra is still usable for 60 Hz displays but not ideal for competitive play.

At 3840x2160, the limitations of the RTX 4060 Ti 8 GB become evident. Low settings yield 115.6 FPS, which is respectable for 4K, but Medium drops to 99.2 FPS, High to 81.6 FPS, and Ultra to 48.5 FPS. The Ultra result is below the 60 FPS threshold, indicating that this preset is not viable at 4K for a consistently smooth experience. The 48.5 FPS figure represents a 58.0% reduction from the Low preset at the same resolution, highlighting the steep cost of maximum graphical quality on this hardware.

The data shows no min or max FPS values, so the analysis relies solely on averages. The consistency across resolutions and presets suggests that the combo maintains stable frame pacing, as none of the average values are anomalously low relative to the trend. For users targeting 60 FPS, the system can achieve this at 4K with High settings (81.6 FPS) or at 1440p with Ultra (79.2 FPS), offering flexible options depending on resolution and visual preferences.