Downfall

# Downfall with Intel Core i7-14700KF + AMD Radeon RX 7900 XT

The combination of the Intel Core i7-14700KF and AMD Radeon RX 7900 XT delivers a robust experience in Downfall, a horror title from 2016. This pairing ranks 727th out of 3716 tested combos, placing it in the top 19.6% of all system configurations. The data shows a system capable of high frame rates across all resolutions, with the CPU's strong multi-threaded performance and the GPU's substantial memory pool both contributing to the measured results.

How This Combo Ranks

With a combo rank of 727 out of 3716 tested configurations, this system sits comfortably in the upper quintile of all tested pairings. The Intel Core i7-14700KF holds a 94th percentile ranking among all CPUs, with an average benchmark score of 70163. Its nearest rivals include the AMD Ryzen 7 9700F at 69996 (0.2% higher), the AMD Ryzen 9 7940HX at 69875 (0.4% higher), and the AMD Ryzen 9 7950X at 69515 (0.9% higher). The Intel Core Ultra 7 265K trails at 70879, with the i7-14700KF ahead by 1%. These margins are narrow, suggesting that CPU performance is not a differentiating bottleneck in this configuration.

On the GPU side, the AMD Radeon RX 7900 XT presents a more nuanced picture. Its percentile rank among all GPUs is 55, with an average benchmark score of 13745. The nearest rivals show remarkably close scores: the AMD Radeon 660M at 13812 is 0.5% higher, the NVIDIA RTX A2000 Mobile at 13821 is 0.5% higher, and the AMD Radeon RX 570X at 13871 is 0.9% higher. The AMD Radeon RX 9070 XT scores 13543, putting the RX 7900 XT 1.5% ahead. These deltaPct values indicate that while the GPU's overall benchmark average is mid-pack, the game-specific results in Downfall are far stronger, as the measured FPS demonstrates.

The rank of 727 out of 3716 suggests that many other combinations outperform this pairing, but the actual FPS data reveals that Downfall is not a demanding title for this hardware. The system's high CPU percentile (94) relative to its GPU percentile (55) implies that the processor is the stronger component on paper, yet the game's frame rates suggest the GPU handles the workload efficiently.

Settings Recommendations

The measured FPS data across presets provides clear guidance for optimal settings. At 1080p, the Low preset delivers 337 FPS, Medium achieves 275 FPS, High reaches 226 FPS, and Ultra drops to 141 FPS. The step from High to Ultra represents a 37.6% reduction in frame rate, from 226 to 141 FPS, which is a substantial penalty for the visual upgrade. Medium at 275 FPS offers a 21.7% improvement over High while likely providing most of the visual benefits in a 2016 horror title.

At 1440p, the pattern holds: Low at 240 FPS, Medium at 197 FPS, High at 161 FPS, and Ultra at 101 FPS. The Medium preset at 197 FPS is 22.4% faster than High, and the drop from High to Ultra is 37.3%, nearly identical to the 1080p scaling. For players with 144Hz displays, Medium or High at 1440p both exceed the refresh rate, making the choice between them a matter of visual preference rather than playability.

At 4K, the situation tightens. Low delivers 150 FPS, Medium 122 FPS, High 100 FPS, and Ultra 63 FPS. The Ultra preset at 63 FPS is the only measured configuration that falls below 100 FPS, which may introduce perceptible stutter in a horror game where smooth camera movement matters. The Medium preset at 122 FPS provides a strong balance, with High at 100 FPS also viable. The data suggests that Medium is the sweet spot across all resolutions, offering the best combination of frame rate headroom and visual fidelity without the steep cost of Ultra.

Resolution Scaling

The FPS progression from 1080p to 4K reveals how the system scales with pixel count. At Low settings, the frame rate drops from 337 FPS at 1080p to 240 FPS at 1440p (a 28.8% reduction) and then to 150 FPS at 4K (a 55.5% reduction from 1080p). This scaling is less steep than the pixel count increase would suggest, indicating that the CPU or game engine limits performance at lower resolutions.

At Medium settings, 1080p yields 275 FPS, 1440p yields 197 FPS (28.4% lower), and 4K yields 122 FPS (55.6% lower). The consistency of these percentage drops across Low and Medium suggests a predictable scaling pattern. At High settings, 226 FPS at 1080p drops to 161 FPS at 1440p (28.8% lower) and 100 FPS at 4K (55.8% lower). The Ultra preset shows a slightly different trend: 141 FPS at 1080p, 101 FPS at 1440p (28.4% lower), and 63 FPS at 4K (55.3% lower).

The consistent ~28% drop from 1080p to 1440p and ~55% drop from 1080p to 4K across all settings indicates that the scaling is primarily resolution-driven rather than settings-driven. Since the percentage drops are nearly identical regardless of preset, the GPU is likely the limiting factor at higher resolutions, while at 1080p the extremely high frame rates (above 337 FPS on Low) suggest the CPU or engine ceiling is being approached. The i7-14700KF with its 20 cores and 28 threads provides ample headroom, so the 1080p results may reflect game engine limits from the 2016 title.

FAQ

Q: What is the best resolution for a 144Hz monitor?

A: At 1440p, High delivers 161 FPS and Medium delivers 197 FPS, both exceeding 144Hz. At 4K, Medium at 122 FPS and High at 100 FPS fall below the 144Hz threshold. The data suggests 1440p High is the optimal choice, providing 161 FPS while maintaining visual quality.

Q: How does the Ultra preset compare to High across resolutions?

A: The Ultra preset is significantly more demanding. At 1080p, Ultra drops from High's 226 FPS to 141 FPS, a 37.6% reduction. At 1440p, the drop is from 161 to 101 FPS (37.3%). At 4K, Ultra falls from 100 to 63 FPS (37.0%). The consistent ~37% penalty suggests Ultra is not optimized for this hardware in Downfall.

Q: Does the system maintain playable frame rates at 4K?

A: Yes, but with caveats. Low settings at 4K achieve 150 FPS, Medium 122 FPS, and High 100 FPS. The Ultra preset at 63 FPS is the only configuration that dips below 100 FPS. For a horror game, 100 FPS at 4K High is playable, though Medium at 122 FPS offers more headroom.

Q: Which component is more influential in Downfall?

A: The GPU's role appears more significant based on the resolution scaling. The frame rate drops by roughly 28% from 1080p to 1440p and 55% to 4K, regardless of settings. This consistent scaling points to GPU-bound performance at higher resolutions, while the CPU's 94th percentile ranking suggests it is not the limiting factor.

Q: How does the RX 7900 XT's 20GB VRAM factor into these results?

A: The 20GB GDDR6 memory with 800.0 GB/s bandwidth provides ample capacity for Downfall, a 2016 title unlikely to exceed even a fraction of this allocation. The measured FPS shows no signs of memory-related stuttering, with minimum FPS values only recorded on Medium settings (104 at 4K, 167 at 1440p, 234 at 1080p).

Q: What frame rates can be expected at 1080p with High settings?

A: The measured average is 226 FPS. This is well above any standard display refresh rate, including 240Hz panels. The Low preset reaches 337 FPS, indicating the game engine or CPU limits performance before the GPU becomes a constraint at this resolution.

GPU Role

The AMD Radeon RX 7900 XT is built on the RDNA 3.0 architecture with the Navi 31 chip, manufactured on a 5 nm process at TSMC. It features 5376 shading units, 336 texture mapping units, and 192 render output units, along with 84 ray tracing cores. The boost clock reaches 2394 MHz, with a game clock of 2025 MHz and base clock of 1387 MHz. The memory subsystem consists of 20GB of GDDR6 on a 320-bit bus, delivering 800.0 GB/s of bandwidth.

In Downfall, the GPU's performance is strong across all measured settings. The 1080p Low result of 337 FPS suggests the GPU is not the bottleneck at lower resolutions, as such high frame rates are often limited by CPU or game engine overhead. At 4K Ultra, the 63 FPS result indicates the GPU is being pushed harder, though the 20GB VRAM means memory capacity is not a concern for this title.

The GPU's benchmark percentile of 55 among all GPUs seems modest, but the measured FPS in Downfall tells a different story. The nearest rival scores are all within 1.5% of the RX 7900 XT's average benchmark score, yet this system achieves 100 FPS at 4K High and 141 FPS at 1080p Ultra. The discrepancy between synthetic benchmarks and game performance highlights the importance of game-specific testing.

The pixel rate of 459.6 GPixel/s and texture rate of 804.4 GTexel/s provide theoretical ceilings well above what Downfall requires. The FP32 performance of 51.48 TFLOPS confirms the GPU's raw compute capability. The 2x 8-pin power connectors and 300W TDP indicate a high-power design, but the measured frame rates justify the power draw for users seeking high refresh rates in this title.

CPU Role

The Intel Core i7-14700KF is a 20-core, 28-thread processor based on the Raptor Lake architecture, manufactured on Intel's 10 nm process. It features a base clock of 3.40 GHz and boost clock of 5.60 GHz, with a 125W TDP. The cache hierarchy includes 80 KB of L1 per core, 2 MB of L2 per core, and 33 MB of shared L3 cache. The processor supports DDR4 and DDR5 memory in a dual-channel configuration, with ECC memory support enabled.

In Downfall, the CPU's role is primarily to feed the GPU with draw calls and game logic. The 1080p Low result of 337 FPS likely approaches the engine's frame rate ceiling, as 2016 horror titles rarely exceed this threshold. The i7-14700KF's 94th percentile ranking among all CPUs, with an average benchmark score of 70163, places it above rivals like the AMD Ryzen 7 9700F (69996, 0.2% lower) and AMD Ryzen 9 7940HX (69875, 0.4% lower). The closest competitor, the Intel Core Ultra 7 265K, scores 70879, with the i7-14700KF ahead by 1%.

The CPU's multi-threaded performance is strong, as evidenced by Cinebench R23 multicore score of 44167 and Passmark multithread score of 52425. Single-thread performance is also solid, with Cinebench R23 singlecore at 6235 and Geekbench singlecore at 2578. These scores indicate the CPU can handle the single-threaded nature of many game engines, though Downfall's 2016 release may not fully utilize the 20 cores.

The resolution scaling data supports the CPU's sufficiency. Since the frame rate drops consistently by ~28% from 1080p to 1440p and ~55% to 4K across all settings, the GPU becomes the limiting factor at higher resolutions. At 1080p, the CPU's strong single-thread performance ensures the GPU is not starved of data, allowing frame rates to reach 337 FPS on Low settings.

Measured FPS Breakdown

At 1920x1080, the system delivers its highest frame rates. Low settings produce an average of 337 FPS. Medium achieves 275 FPS, with a minimum of 234 FPS and maximum of 317 FPS recorded. High settings yield 226 FPS. Ultra drops to 141 FPS, representing a 37.6% reduction from High. The spread from Low to Ultra is 196 FPS, indicating a wide range of performance depending on visual fidelity.

At 2560x1440, the frame rates remain high. Low settings average 240 FPS. Medium produces 197 FPS, with a minimum of 167 FPS and maximum of 226 FPS. High settings reach 161 FPS. Ultra falls to 101 FPS, a 37.3% reduction from High. The total spread from Low to Ultra is 139 FPS, narrower than at 1080p due to the increased pixel count.

At 3840x2160, the system still performs admirably. Low settings average 150 FPS. Medium achieves 122 FPS, with a minimum of 104 FPS and maximum of 141 FPS. High settings deliver 100 FPS. Ultra drops to 63 FPS, the only measured configuration below 100 FPS. The spread from Low to Ultra is 87 FPS, showing that even at 4K, the system maintains playable frame rates across most presets.

The minimum FPS values are only available for Medium settings at each resolution: 234 FPS at 1080p, 167 FPS at 1440p, and 104 FPS at 4K. These minimums represent 85.1%, 84.8%, and 85.2% of their respective averages, indicating consistent frame pacing without significant dips. The lack of minimum FPS data for other presets suggests the measurement methodology focused on Medium as a representative setting, but the available data shows stable performance.