Downfall

# Downfall with Intel Core i7-14700F + AMD Radeon RX 9070

The Intel Core i7-14700F paired with the AMD Radeon RX 9070 delivers a performance profile that is heavily skewed toward high refresh rate gaming at 1440p and 1080p, while 4K Ultra remains the only setting where the combination struggles to maintain smooth framerates. The measured data across twelve resolution/settings combinations reveals a system that is clearly GPU-limited at higher resolutions but shows surprising headroom in the CPU at lower settings, where framerates exceed 290 FPS. This analysis examines how the 20-core, 28-thread processor and the RDNA 4.0-based graphics card interact in this 2016 horror title, and what the benchmark numbers imply about component bottlenecks, settings optimization, and overall system balance.

Resolution Scaling

The FPS drop from 1080p to 4K is dramatic and tells a clear story about where the bottleneck lies. At Low settings, the system produces 295 FPS at 1920x1080, which falls to 210 FPS at 2560x1440 — a 29% reduction — and then to 131 FPS at 3840x2160, a further 38% drop from the 1440p figure. This scaling pattern is typical of a GPU-bound scenario at higher resolutions, where the Radeon RX 9070's rendering workload increases faster than the CPU's ability to feed it frames. The transition from 1080p to 1440p costs 85 FPS, while moving from 1440p to 4K costs another 79 FPS, showing remarkably consistent degradation per resolution step at Low settings.

At Medium settings, the same pattern emerges but with slightly smaller absolute drops. The system starts at 241 FPS at 1080p, descends to 172 FPS at 1440p, and reaches 107 FPS at 4K. The percentage loss from 1080p to 4K is 55.6%, compared to 55.6% at Low settings as well — the relative scaling is nearly identical, suggesting that the GPU's fill-rate and shading capabilities are the limiting factor regardless of quality preset. However, at High settings, the pattern shifts: 198 FPS at 1080p, 141 FPS at 1440p, and 88 FPS at 4K. The drop from 1080p to 1440p is 28.8%, but from 1440p to 4K it's 37.6%, indicating that the Ultra preset introduces additional GPU stress that amplifies the resolution penalty.

The Ultra settings row is where the scaling becomes most revealing. At 4K Ultra, the system manages only 55 FPS — a 55.4% drop from the 123 FPS achieved at 1080p Ultra. This steep decline suggests that the RX 9070's 16 GB of GDDR6 memory and 644.6 GB/s bandwidth are sufficient for the workload, but the sheer pixel throughput required at 3840x2160 with Ultra effects overwhelms the GPU's 36.13 TFLOPS of FP32 compute. The data implies that at 1080p and 1440p with lower presets, the CPU has enough headroom to push framerates into territory where the GPU becomes the sole constraint, but at 4K Ultra, both components are working near their limits, with the GPU clearly dominating the performance ceiling.

CPU Role

The Intel Core i7-14700F brings 20 cores and 28 threads across its Raptor Lake-R architecture, with a base clock of 2.10 GHz and a boost clock of 5.40 GHz. The Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 35,122 and single-core score of 4,958 place this processor in the 91st percentile among all CPUs, indicating strong headroom for gaming workloads. In Downfall, the CPU's role is most evident at 1080p Low, where the system reaches 295 FPS — a figure that likely approaches the engine's practical framerate ceiling or the CPU's ability to issue draw calls. The fact that the same CPU at 4K Low produces 131 FPS shows that the processor is not the primary limiter at higher resolutions.

The benchmark data suggests that Downfall is not particularly CPU-demanding, as evidenced by the massive framerate differences between Low and Ultra presets at the same resolution. At 1080p, Low yields 295 FPS versus 123 FPS at Ultra — a 140% increase in framerate when dropping settings. This indicates that the game's visual effects, not the CPU's physics or AI calculations, are the primary cost. The i7-14700F's 33 MB of shared L3 cache and 2 MB per-core L2 cache likely help maintain consistent frame delivery, though the game's age (released in 2016) means it was designed for far less powerful processors.

Comparing to its nearest rivals in synthetic benchmarks, the i7-14700F scores 0.6% higher than the AMD Ryzen 9 7900X and 0.8% higher than the AMD EPYC 7313P, though the delta is negligible. This contextualizes the CPU's capability: it is a top-tier desktop part that will not bottleneck any modern GPU in this title. The real question is whether Downfall's engine can leverage the processor's 28 threads effectively, and the data suggests it does not need to — the framerates at 1080p Low are so high that the CPU's threading advantage is largely irrelevant.

FAQ

Q: Does the Intel Core i7-14700F bottleneck the Radeon RX 9070 in Downfall?

A: At 1080p Low, the system achieves 295 FPS, which suggests the CPU is approaching its limits for this game's engine. However, at 1440p and 4K, framerates drop significantly (210 and 131 FPS at Low), indicating the GPU becomes the limiting factor. The i7-14700F's 91st percentile ranking among all CPUs suggests it has ample headroom for most gaming scenarios.

Q: What is the best resolution for this combo in Downfall?

A: The data shows 2560x1440 at High settings produces 141 FPS, which balances visual quality with smooth performance. At 4K High, the system still delivers 88 FPS, which is playable, but the 55 FPS at 4K Ultra falls below the 60 FPS threshold that most gamers consider the minimum for comfortable play.

Q: How does the RX 9070 compare to its nearest rivals in synthetic benchmarks?

A: The RX 9070 scores 0.6% above the NVIDIA GeForce GTX TITAN Z and 1.1% above the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3080 Mobile, while sitting 0.8% behind the AMD Radeon RX 6800S and 1.2% behind the RTX 2080 SUPER. These small deltas indicate the RX 9070 performs in a similar tier to those cards in general 3D workloads.

Q: Is the 16 GB VRAM sufficient for Downfall at 4K Ultra?

A: The measured 55 FPS at 4K Ultra indicates the GPU's compute capacity, not memory capacity, is the limiting factor. With 16 GB of GDDR6 memory and 644.6 GB/s bandwidth, the RX 9070 has ample memory resources for this game, which was released in 2016 and would not have required more than a few gigabytes even at ultra settings.

Q: What is the CPU's multi-threaded performance relative to its rivals?

A: The i7-14700F scores 35,122 in Cinebench R23 multi-core, placing it 0.6% ahead of the AMD Ryzen 9 7900X and 0.8% ahead of the AMD EPYC 7313P. Its 28 threads and 20 cores provide substantial parallel processing capability, though Downfall's performance suggests the game does not heavily utilize all available threads.

Q: How does the combo rank among all tested configurations?

A: The combination ranks 1,122 out of 3,716 tested combos, placing it in the top 30% of all systems. This ranking reflects the strong CPU and GPU pairing, though the rank is influenced by the game's age and the fact that many higher-ranked combos likely include more recent or more powerful components.

How This Combo Ranks

The combo's rank of 1,122 out of 3,716 total tested combinations places it comfortably in the upper third of all systems benchmarked for Downfall. This positioning is notable because the CPU and GPU are both current-generation parts — the i7-14700F released in January 2024 and the RX 9070 in March 2025 — yet the game itself is from 2016. The rank suggests that while this is a strong pairing, there are many other combinations that achieve higher framerates, likely because Downfall's age means even mid-range modern hardware can exceed 300 FPS at 1080p.

The fact that this combo sits at the 30th percentile (1,122/3,716) rather than higher may seem surprising given the components' capabilities. However, the measured FPS data shows that at 1080p Low, the system achieves 295 FPS, which is already very high. The rank likely reflects that some combos with faster CPUs or GPUs (or both) push beyond 300 FPS in this title, where the engine's overhead becomes the limiting factor. The i7-14700F's 91st percentile CPU ranking and the RX 9070's 69th percentile GPU ranking together produce a balanced system, but Downfall's low system requirements mean that the GPU's relative strength is less impactful than it would be in a more demanding title.

The delta between the CPU's high percentile (91) and the GPU's lower percentile (69) is worth noting. In this game, the CPU's capability is underutilized, as evidenced by the GPU becoming the bottleneck at higher resolutions. The combination's overall rank of 1,122 suggests that in a game like Downfall, the GPU's raw throughput at 4K is what holds the system back from higher rankings, especially at Ultra settings where the RX 9070's 36.13 TFLOPS of FP32 compute is insufficient to maintain 60 FPS.

GPU Role

The AMD Radeon RX 9070, built on the RDNA 4.0 architecture with the Navi 48 chip, provides 16 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 256-bit bus, yielding 644.6 GB/s of bandwidth. Its boost clock of 2520 MHz and game clock of 2070 MHz drive 3,584 shading units, 224 TMUs, and 128 ROPs, producing a pixel rate of 322.6 GPixel/s and a texture rate of 564.5 GTexel/s. The FP32 compute of 36.13 TFLOPS places this GPU in the 69th percentile among all graphics cards, which is respectable but not top-tier — a fact reflected in its measured Downfall performance.

At 4K Ultra, the RX 9070 achieves only 55 FPS, which is a clear indication that the GPU's compute resources are saturated. The 128 ROPs and 322.6 GPixel/s pixel rate are insufficient to handle the fill-rate demands of Ultra settings at 3840x2160, where high-resolution textures and complex shading effects multiply the per-pixel workload. The transition from High to Ultra at 4K costs 33 FPS (from 88 to 55), a 37.5% reduction, which is the largest single-preset penalty in the measured data. This suggests that Ultra settings enable effects that heavily tax the GPU's shading units and texture units.

In contrast, at 1080p Low, the RX 9070 delivers 295 FPS, showing that the GPU has massive headroom at lower resolutions. The VRAM capacity of 16 GB is more than sufficient for Downfall, which was released in 2016 and would not require more than a few gigabytes even at maximum settings. The GPU's synthetic benchmark scores — 25,381 in Passmark G3D and 6,290 in 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 — contextualize its performance: it sits within 1.2% of the RTX 2080 SUPER and 0.8% of the RX 6800S, making it a solid mid-to-high-range card that excels at 1440p gaming but struggles with 4K Ultra in this title.

Measured FPS Breakdown

At 1920x1080, the system produces its highest framerates across all settings. Low settings yield 295 FPS average, which is the fastest measured result in the entire dataset. Medium settings drop to 241 FPS, with a minimum of 205 FPS and maximum of 277 FPS, showing a tight frame window. High settings reduce performance to 198 FPS, while Ultra settings bring the average down to 123 FPS. The progression from Low to Ultra at 1080p shows a 58.3% reduction in framerate, highlighting the significant cost of higher visual quality.

At 2560x1440, the framerates scale downward proportionally. Low settings produce 210 FPS, Medium delivers 172 FPS (with a range of 146 to 198 FPS), High manages 141 FPS, and Ultra drops to 88 FPS. The Medium preset's min-to-max spread of 52 FPS indicates some frame-time variability, but the average remains well above the 144 Hz refresh rate that many 1440p monitors support. Ultra at 1440p, at 88 FPS, is still smooth but represents a 50% reduction from the High preset's 141 FPS.

At 3840x2160, the GPU becomes the clear bottleneck. Low settings yield 131 FPS, which is playable but noticeably lower than 1080p. Medium settings drop to 107 FPS with a minimum of 91 FPS and maximum of 123 FPS, making it the only 4K preset with a recorded minimum above 60 FPS. High settings produce 88 FPS, and Ultra falls to 55 FPS — below the 60 FPS threshold that most gamers consider the minimum for comfortable play. The 4K Ultra result is the only measured configuration that fails to maintain 60 FPS, and it does so by a margin of 5 FPS.

Settings Recommendations

For 4K gaming, the Medium preset at 107 FPS is the clear sweet spot, offering a 95% improvement over Ultra's 55 FPS while maintaining a minimum of 91 FPS. The High preset at 88 FPS is also viable, but the Medium preset's higher minimum framerate (91 vs. no recorded minimum for High) suggests better frame pacing. Ultra at 4K should be avoided, as the 55 FPS result falls below the 60 FPS standard for smooth play.

At 1440p, High settings at 141 FPS provide the best balance between visual fidelity and performance, easily exceeding 120 FPS for high-refresh-rate displays. The Ultra preset at 88 FPS is also playable, but the 37.6% drop from High is steep for the marginal visual improvement it likely provides. Medium at 172 FPS is an option for competitive play, but High is recommended for most users.

At 1080p, High settings at 198 FPS are the best choice for maximizing visual quality while maintaining framerates well above 144 Hz. The Ultra preset at 123 FPS is still smooth, but the 38% reduction from High (from 198 to 123 FPS) is significant. For esports-style play, Medium at 241 FPS or Low at 295 FPS offer the highest possible framerates, though the visual downgrade may be noticeable. The data suggests that High at 1080p is the optimal configuration, providing a 75 FPS advantage over Ultra while retaining most of the visual features that make the game immersive.