Downfall

How This Combo Ranks

The Intel Core i5-9400 paired with the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1660 Ti lands at rank 1500 out of 1741 tested combinations in Downfall. This places the combo in the bottom 14% of all systems measured for this title, a position that reflects a hardware pairing which is clearly functional but far from optimal for a horror game that demands consistent frame delivery. The ranking is not surprising given the individual component standings: the CPU sits at the 50th percentile among all processors, while the GPU reaches the 55th percentile among all graphics cards. Neither part excels in its respective pool, and their combined output in Downfall does not boost the pairing above its modest parts.

For context, the CPU's average benchmark score of 2305 places it within a tight cluster of rivals. The Intel Core i3-10305 and Intel Core i3-1125G4 both score 2300 and 2299, respectively, with deltaPct values of 0.2% above the i5-9400. The Intel Xeon E-2134 trails at 2295, also 0.2% below. The only rival that edges ahead is the Intel Core i7-8809G at 2319, which is 0.6% faster. These differences are negligible in real-world terms, meaning the i5-9400's processing power is essentially equivalent to a cluster of mid-range parts from the same era, none of which are known for breaking performance ceilings.

The GPU's benchmark profile tells a similar story. Its average score of 13925 sits near the AMD Radeon RX 570X at 13871 (0.4% faster), the NVIDIA Tesla K10 at 14029 (0.7% slower), and the NVIDIA RTX A2000 Mobile at 13821 (0.8% faster). The GTX 1660 Ti is also 0.8% faster than the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 680 at 13812. This grouping indicates that the GPU is a solid mid-range performer, but the deltaPct values are all under 1%, suggesting that in Downfall, the choice between these cards would yield nearly identical results. The combo's 1500th place ranking, therefore, is less about any single bottleneck and more about the collective ceiling of this hardware generation when tasked with Downfall's rendering demands.

GPU Role

The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1660 Ti brings 6 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 192-bit bus, delivering 288.0 GB/s of bandwidth. Its base clock runs at 1500 MHz with a boost up to 1770 MHz, while the memory operates at 1500 MHz (12 Gbps effective). These specifications are adequate for 1080p and 1440p gaming, but the data suggests they become strained at higher resolutions and settings in Downfall. The GPU's 1536 shading units and 48 ROPs contribute to a pixel rate of 84.96 GPixel/s and a texture rate of 169.9 GTexel/s, which are the raw throughput figures that determine how quickly the card can fill frames with geometry and effects.

In Downfall, the GPU's role is clearly dominant in shaping performance, as evidenced by the measured FPS scaling. The card's FP32 compute of 5.437 TFLOPS is sufficient for the game's horror visuals, but the Ultra preset at 4K drops to 30.3 FPS, indicating that the GPU is hitting its limits when pixel count and shading complexity both rise. The 6 GB VRAM capacity is not explicitly tested in the frame data, but the progression from Low to Ultra at each resolution shows a consistent penalty that aligns with increased memory pressure and shader workload. At 1080p, the card manages 148.9 FPS on Low, which is a strong showing, but the drop to 60.7 FPS on Ultra at the same resolution is a 59.2% reduction, revealing how sensitive the GTX 1660 Ti is to quality settings.

The GPU's Turing architecture, built on a 12 nm process at TSMC, delivers these results with a 120 W TDP. The benchmark scores for the GPU, such as 12871 in Passmark G3D and 1061 in 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12, corroborate the measured FPS: this is a card that performs admirably in lighter loads but cannot sustain high frame rates when settings escalate. In Downfall specifically, the GPU is the primary driver of the FPS differences across resolutions, as CPU-bound scenarios would show less variation when settings change.

Settings Recommendations

Given the measured FPS rows, the optimal experience for this combo depends on the user's resolution and tolerance for frame rate dips. At 1920x1080, the Low preset delivers 148.9 FPS, which is well above any playability threshold, but the Medium preset at 124.3 FPS and High at 97.7 FPS still provide smooth gameplay for a horror title. The Ultra preset at 60.7 FPS is technically playable, but the 39% drop from High suggests that the visual gains do not justify the performance cost. For most users at 1080p, the High preset is the sweet spot, balancing visual fidelity with a frame rate that remains comfortably above 90 FPS.

At 2560x1440, the picture changes. Low runs at 108.3 FPS, which is excellent, but Medium drops to 86 FPS and High to 68.8 FPS. The Ultra preset falls to 45.7 FPS, which is a significant decline and likely too inconsistent for a horror game where smooth motion is critical for atmosphere. The data indicates that 1440p users should stick with High or Medium, with High at 68.8 FPS being viable but closer to the edge of comfort. Medium at 86 FPS offers a better margin, and the visual difference between Medium and High in a dark horror setting may be less noticeable than the frame rate gap.

At 3840x2160, the combo struggles. High runs at 46.5 FPS, Medium at 54.8 FPS, and Low at 64.1 FPS. Ultra drops to 30.3 FPS, which is borderline unplayable. For 4K, the Low preset is the only setting that maintains a consistently smooth experience, though even 64.1 FPS may dip in intense scenes. The recommendation is clear: prioritize Medium at 1080p and 1440p for a balanced experience, or High at 1080p if visual quality is paramount, but avoid Ultra at any resolution above 1080p.

Measured FPS Breakdown

The measured data provides a comprehensive view of how this combo performs across twelve distinct configurations. At 1920x1080, the average FPS ranges from 148.9 on Low to 60.7 on Ultra. The progression is linear: Low at 148.9, Medium at 124.3, High at 97.7, and Ultra at 60.7. This represents a 59.2% drop from Low to Ultra, which is a substantial penalty for the highest settings. The gap between Medium and High is 26.6 FPS, while the gap between High and Ultra is 37 FPS, indicating that the Ultra preset introduces a disproportionately heavy load.

Moving to 2560x1440, the same pattern holds but with lower absolute numbers. Low achieves 108.3 FPS, Medium 86 FPS, High 68.8 FPS, and Ultra 45.7 FPS. The drop from Low to Ultra is 57.8%, slightly less severe than at 1080p but still significant. The Medium to High gap narrows to 17.2 FPS, and the High to Ultra gap is 23.1 FPS. At this resolution, the GPU is clearly the limiting factor, as the CPU's 6 cores and 6 threads are less taxed by the higher pixel count.

At 3840x2160, the numbers become more critical. Low runs at 64.1 FPS, Medium at 54.8 FPS, High at 46.5 FPS, and Ultra at 30.3 FPS. The Low to Ultra drop is 52.7%, which is the smallest percentage decline across resolutions, but the absolute values are the lowest. The High to Ultra gap of 16.2 FPS shows that even dropping from High to Ultra does not salvage a playable frame rate. The minimum FPS values are not provided, but the averages alone suggest that 4K Ultra is not a viable option, and even 4K High may suffer from stutter in demanding scenes.

Resolution Scaling

The FPS progression from 1080p to 4K reveals a clear pattern of GPU-bound scaling. At the Low preset, 1080p delivers 148.9 FPS, 1440p drops to 108.3 FPS (a 27.3% reduction), and 4K falls to 64.1 FPS (a 57% reduction from 1080p). This scaling is steeper than what a purely CPU-limited system would show, confirming that the GTX 1660 Ti is the primary bottleneck as resolution increases. The pixel count quadruples from 1080p to 4K, but the FPS does not quarter, indicating some efficiency in the GPU's architecture, though the absolute numbers remain low.

At the High preset, the scaling is even more pronounced. 1080p achieves 97.7 FPS, 1440p drops to 68.8 FPS (a 29.6% reduction), and 4K falls to 46.5 FPS (a 52.4% reduction from 1080p). The Ultra preset shows the most severe scaling: 1080p at 60.7 FPS, 1440p at 45.7 FPS, and 4K at 30.3 FPS. The fact that Ultra at 4K barely exceeds 30 FPS suggests that the GPU's 288.0 GB/s bandwidth and 5.437 TFLOPS are insufficient for the combined load of high settings and high resolution.

The data indicates that the i5-9400 is not the limiting factor in this pairing. The CPU's benchmark scores, particularly the 7969 in Cinebench R23 multicore, are strong enough to support the GPU at lower resolutions, but as resolution climbs, the GPU's workload increases while the CPU's remains relatively constant. The FPS drops are consistent with a GPU that is saturated, not a CPU that is struggling. For users seeking higher frame rates at 4K, the data shows that lowering settings is the only lever available, and even then, the Low preset at 64.1 FPS is the ceiling for this combo.