Downfall

The Intel Core i7-13700K paired with the AMD Radeon RX 6700 XT delivers a highly capable experience in Downfall, with performance scaling predictably across resolution and settings presets. The measured data indicates that the Medium preset offers the most balanced experience across all tested resolutions, providing a substantial frame rate increase over High settings while maintaining visual fidelity closer to the higher tiers. At 1080p, Medium yields 185.5 FPS, which is 30.0 FPS above High (155.5 FPS) and only 41.3 FPS below Low (226.8 FPS). At 1440p, Medium achieves 136.9 FPS, representing a 27.5 FPS gain over High (109.4 FPS) while staying well ahead of the 60 FPS threshold. Even at 4K, Medium produces 85.7 FPS, which is 14.8 FPS higher than High (70.9 FPS) and remains comfortably playable. The Ultra preset, by contrast, exacts a severe penalty: 98.7 FPS at 1080p, 71.2 FPS at 1440p, and 45.3 FPS at 4K. The data suggests that Ultra is not recommended for this combination, as the frame rate collapse at 4K (45.3 FPS) and the modest gains over Medium at lower resolutions fail to justify the performance cost.

How This Combo Ranks

The combination of the Core i7-13700K and Radeon RX 6700 XT holds a measured rank of 922 out of 1741 tested combinations in Downfall. This places the pairing in the middle of the benchmark database’s tested configurations, indicating that it is neither at the state-of-the-art nor relegated to the lower tiers. The CPU itself performs at the 93rd percentile against all CPUs, with an average benchmark score of 47282. Its nearest rival, the Intel Core i7-13700KF, scores 47334 with a deltaPct of -0.1, meaning the 13700K trails by a negligible 0.1%. The AMD EPYC 4364P (47131, deltaPct 0.3%) and Intel Core i9-12900F (47081, deltaPct 0.4%) are also closely matched, while the AMD Ryzen 9 PRO 5945 leads slightly with 47527 (deltaPct -0.5%). On the GPU side, the Radeon RX 6700 XT sits at the 77th percentile against all GPUs with an average benchmark score of 33721. Its closest competitor, the Radeon RX 6800, scores 33493 with a deltaPct of 0.7%, meaning the 6700 XT is actually 0.7% ahead of the higher-tier card in this aggregate metric. The Radeon HD 7950 (34050, deltaPct -1%) and Radeon RX 480 (34059, deltaPct -1%) both outscore it by 1%, while the NVIDIA RTX A5000 trails by 1.3% (33294). The mid-pack combo ranking suggests that the processor’s strong multi-threading capabilities (Cinebench R23 multicore score of 39000) are not fully utilized by this title, which appears to rely more heavily on the GPU for frame generation.

GPU Role

The Radeon RX 6700 XT is the primary performance driver in this configuration for Downfall, and its memory subsystem plays a critical role in the observed frame rates. The GPU features 12 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 192-bit bus, delivering 384.0 GB/s of bandwidth. This capacity is sufficient for the game’s texture loads at 4K, as evidenced by the 70.9 FPS average at High settings (3840x2160). The GPU’s clock behavior further explains the scaling: the base clock is 2321 MHz, with a game clock of 2424 MHz and a boost clock of 2581 MHz. The memory operates at 2000 MHz (16 Gbps effective). The 40 ray-tracing cores are present but do not appear to be a bottleneck in this title, given that the game’s genre (Horror) likely prioritizes rasterization. The GPU’s FP32 throughput of 13.21 TFLOPS and texture rate of 413.0 GTexel/s align with the performance seen at Medium and High presets, where the GPU is the limiting factor at 4K (85.7 FPS Medium, 70.9 FPS High). At 1080p, however, the CPU’s single-thread performance (PassMark single-thread score of 4333) becomes more relevant, as the frame rates exceed 200 FPS (226.8 FPS at Low), suggesting the GPU is not fully saturated. The GPU’s 77th percentile ranking against all GPUs, combined with its near-tie against the RX 6800 (deltaPct 0.7%), indicates that the 6700 XT is a competent mid-range part that can handle Downfall at high refresh rates with appropriate settings adjustments.

Measured FPS Breakdown

The measured FPS data reveals a consistent pattern across all three resolutions, with Low settings providing the highest frame rates and Ultra providing the lowest. At 1920x1080, Low yields 226.8 FPS, Medium 185.5 FPS, High 155.5 FPS, and Ultra 98.7 FPS. The step from Low to Medium incurs a 41.3 FPS drop, while the step from Medium to High costs 30.0 FPS, and High to Ultra costs 56.8 FPS. This indicates that Ultra is disproportionately expensive relative to its visual uplift. At 2560x1440, the same ordering holds: Low 166.4 FPS, Medium 136.9 FPS, High 109.4 FPS, and Ultra 71.2 FPS. The absolute drops are smaller (29.5 FPS from Low to Medium, 27.5 FPS from Medium to High, 38.2 FPS from High to Ultra), but the relative penalty of Ultra grows at higher resolutions. At 3840x2160, Low produces 101.8 FPS, Medium 85.7 FPS, High 70.9 FPS, and Ultra 45.3 FPS. The Ultra preset at 4K falls below the 60 FPS threshold, making it unsuitable for smooth gameplay. The data shows that the Medium preset provides the most consistent experience, maintaining over 85 FPS at all resolutions, while High remains viable up to 1440p (109.4 FPS) but dips to 70.9 FPS at 4K. Low settings are only recommended for competitive play at 1080p (226.8 FPS) or when targeting very high refresh rates.

Resolution Scaling

The frame rate progression from 1080p to 4K demonstrates a classic GPU-bound scaling pattern, with diminishing returns as resolution increases. At Low settings, the drop from 1080p (226.8 FPS) to 1440p (166.4 FPS) is 60.4 FPS (26.6% reduction), and from 1440p to 4K (101.8 FPS) is another 64.6 FPS (38.8% reduction). This steep decline indicates that the GPU is the limiting factor at higher resolutions, as the CPU’s 16 cores and 24 threads (Cinebench R23 multicore score of 39000) are more than sufficient to feed the GPU at lower resolutions. At Medium settings, the scaling is similar but slightly less severe: 1080p (185.5 FPS) to 1440p (136.9 FPS) is a 48.6 FPS drop, and 1440p to 4K (85.7 FPS) is a 51.2 FPS drop. The High preset shows 1080p (155.5 FPS) to 1440p (109.4 FPS) as a 46.1 FPS reduction, and 1440p to 4K (70.9 FPS) as a 38.5 FPS reduction. The Ultra preset exhibits the most dramatic scaling: 1080p (98.7 FPS) to 1440p (71.2 FPS) is a 27.5 FPS drop, and 1440p to 4K (45.3 FPS) is a 25.9 FPS drop. The fact that the 4K-to-1080p ratio is roughly 2.2x at Low settings (226.8/101.8) and 2.2x at Medium (185.5/85.7) suggests that the GPU’s fill rate and memory bandwidth (384.0 GB/s) are the primary constraints at 4K, rather than the CPU or the game’s engine logic. The 12 GB VRAM capacity is not exceeded at any preset, as the game does not appear to spike beyond this allocation at 4K Ultra (45.3 FPS), which would otherwise cause severe stuttering. Overall, the data indicates that this combination is best suited for 1080p or 1440p gaming at Medium or High settings, with 4K reserved for Medium (85.7 FPS) or Low (101.8 FPS) presets if the user prioritizes frame rate over visual detail.