Downfall

How This Combo Ranks

The Intel Core i7-14700KF paired with the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1660 SUPER occupies the 1532nd position out of 1741 tested combinations in Downfall. This places the combo in the lower 12% of all tested configurations, a ranking that reflects a substantial imbalance between the two primary components. The processor is a top-tier part, sitting in the 96th percentile against all CPUs with an average benchmark score of 70104, while the graphics card rests in the 55th percentile against all GPUs with an average score of 14286. That gap between a near-flagship CPU and a mid-range, end-of-life GPU is the defining characteristic of this pairing.

The CPU’s nearest rivals in the database illustrate its standing: the Intel Core i7-14700K scores 70074, a 0% delta, making them effectively identical in average performance. The AMD EPYC 9115 trails by 0.3%, while the AMD Ryzen 9 9950X leads by 0.4% and the Intel Xeon Platinum 8270 leads by 1.3%. In contrast, the GPU’s nearest rivals are all closely bunched: the AMD Radeon RX Vega 11 scores 14314 with a -0.2% delta, the Intel Iris Xe MAX Graphics scores 14315 at -0.2%, and the AMD Radeon RX 5500 XT scores 14389 at -0.7%. The GTX 1660 SUPER is essentially at parity with integrated and entry-level discrete solutions in aggregate compute metrics, which foreshadows its role as the bottleneck in this configuration.

The measured frame rates in Downfall confirm that the GPU is the limiting factor across all resolutions and settings. A 20-core, 28-thread processor with a 5.60 GHz boost clock is vastly over-provisioned for a horror title from 2016, and the data shows the GPU struggling to translate that CPU headroom into playable frame rates at higher quality settings. The combo’s rank is therefore not a measure of either component’s individual merit, but rather of how poorly they complement each other for this specific workload.

GPU Role

The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1660 SUPER is built on the Turing architecture with a TU116 chip manufactured on a 12 nm process at TSMC, containing 6,600 million transistors on a 284 mm² die. Its memory configuration is 6 GB of GDDR6 on a 192-bit bus, delivering 336.0 GB/s of bandwidth with an effective speed of 14 Gbps. The GPU operates at a base clock of 1530 MHz and a boost clock of 1785 MHz, with 1408 shading units, 88 TMUs, and 48 ROPs. Its compute capabilities include 5.027 TFLOPS of FP32 performance and a pixel rate of 85.68 GPixel/s.

These specifications place the GPU in the 55th percentile of all GPUs, with an average benchmark score of 14286. Its nearest rivals in the database are all within a -0.7% to -0.2% delta, meaning the GTX 1660 SUPER is statistically indistinguishable from AMD integrated graphics solutions like the Radeon Vega 11 and the Intel Iris Xe MAX Graphics in aggregate benchmarks. This is a stark indicator that the GPU’s raw compute is modest by modern standards, and in a 2016 horror game, the demands on shading units and memory bandwidth are significant enough to expose its limits.

The 6 GB VRAM capacity is sufficient for 1920x1080 and 2560x1440 resolutions at lower settings, but the data shows that the card’s compute throughput, not its memory capacity, is the primary constraint. At 3840x2160 Ultra, the average FPS collapses to 26.8, a figure that indicates the GPU is overwhelmed by the pixel fill rate and shader workload. The boost clock of 1785 MHz provides some headroom, but the 125 W TDP and the 1x 8-pin power connector suggest a card designed for efficiency rather than sustained high-end performance. The GPU’s end-of-life production status and its 2019 release date mean it predates many modern optimization techniques, and the data reflects that in Downfall’s heavier presets.

Settings Recommendations

The measured FPS data provides a clear picture of which settings presets offer the most viable experience for this combo. At 1920x1080, the Low preset delivers 148.9 FPS average, which is far beyond what a 60 Hz display would require and offers no tangible benefit over higher settings. The Medium preset at 117.7 FPS is still excessive, but the High preset at 98.6 FPS represents a better balance between visual fidelity and frame rate. The Ultra preset at 60 FPS is exactly at the 60 FPS threshold, making it a marginal choice for users with a 60 Hz monitor, though any frame rate dips below that would be noticeable.

At 2560x1440, the Low preset delivers 104.5 FPS, while Medium drops to 89 FPS and High to 70.6 FPS. The High preset at 70.6 FPS is the most sensible option for 1440p, as it provides a comfortable margin above 60 FPS while retaining moderate visual quality. The Ultra preset at 45.8 FPS is below the 60 FPS target and should be avoided for smooth gameplay. At 3840x2160, the situation becomes more constrained: Low delivers 65.5 FPS, Medium drops to 55.8 FPS, High falls to 44 FPS, and Ultra plummets to 26.8 FPS. For 4K, the Low preset is the only one that maintains a playable frame rate above 60 FPS, and even that is marginal.

The optimal recommendation is to prioritize the High preset at 1920x1080 for a balanced experience, or the High preset at 2560x1440 if the user prefers higher resolution over quality settings. For 4K, the Low preset is the only viable option, and even then, the 65.5 FPS average leaves little headroom for demanding scenes. The Ultra preset should be avoided at all resolutions except 1080p, where it just barely hits 60 FPS. The data indicates that this combo is best suited to 1080p High or 1440p High, with 4K reserved for users who prioritize resolution over visual fidelity.

Measured FPS Breakdown

At 1920x1080, the measured average FPS values are as follows: Low delivers 148.9 FPS, Medium delivers 117.7 FPS, High delivers 98.6 FPS, and Ultra delivers 60 FPS. These figures show a consistent degradation as settings increase, with the step from High to Ultra being the most severe, a 38.6 FPS drop that represents a 39% reduction in performance. The difference between Low and Medium is 31.2 FPS, and between Medium and High is 19.1 FPS, indicating diminishing returns as quality rises.

At 2560x1440, the values are: Low delivers 104.5 FPS, Medium delivers 89 FPS, High delivers 70.6 FPS, and Ultra delivers 45.8 FPS. The pattern is similar, but the absolute numbers are lower across the board. The step from High to Ultra is a 24.8 FPS drop, a 35% reduction, while the step from Low to Medium is 15.5 FPS and from Medium to High is 18.4 FPS. The relative scaling is more uniform than at 1080p, but the Ultra preset falls below the 60 FPS threshold, making it unsuitable for smooth play.

At 3840x2160, the values are: Low delivers 65.5 FPS, Medium delivers 55.8 FPS, High delivers 44 FPS, and Ultra delivers 26.8 FPS. The degradation from Low to Medium is 9.7 FPS, from Medium to High is 11.8 FPS, and from High to Ultra is 17.2 FPS. This represents a 59% drop from Low to Ultra, the largest proportional reduction of any resolution. The Low preset is the only one that stays above 60 FPS, and the Ultra preset at 26.8 FPS is almost unplayable, indicating that the GPU is severely overburdened at 4K with high quality settings.

Across all resolutions, the High preset provides the most consistent frame rates relative to its visual cost, while the Ultra preset consistently delivers the largest performance penalty. The data shows that the GPU’s compute resources are the limiting factor, as the CPU would have no trouble driving even the highest settings given its 20 cores and 5.60 GHz boost clock.

Resolution Scaling

The transition from 1920x1080 to 2560x1440 to 3840x2160 reveals how the GPU’s workload scales with pixel count. At Low settings, the frame rate drops from 148.9 FPS at 1080p to 104.5 FPS at 1440p, a 29.8% reduction, and then to 65.5 FPS at 4K, a further 37.3% reduction from 1440p. This is a total drop of 56% from 1080p to 4K, which is roughly in line with the increase in pixel count from 2.07 million to 8.29 million, a 4x increase. The GPU is likely fill-rate limited at Low settings, where the shading workload is reduced but the pixel processing remains constant.

At High settings, the frame rate drops from 98.6 FPS at 1080p to 70.6 FPS at 1440p, a 28.4% reduction, and then to 44 FPS at 4K, a 37.7% reduction from 1440p. This is a total drop of 55.4% from 1080p to 4K, nearly identical to the Low setting scaling. The consistency of these percentage drops across Low and High suggests that the GPU is uniformly limited by its pixel throughput and memory bandwidth, with the 336.0 GB/s bandwidth becoming a bottleneck as resolution increases.

At Ultra settings, the frame rate drops from 60 FPS at 1080p to 45.8 FPS at 1440p, a 23.7% reduction, and then to 26.8 FPS at 4K, a 41.5% reduction from 1440p. The total drop from 1080p to 4K is 55.3%, again consistent with the other settings. The fact that the percentage drops are nearly identical across all quality presets indicates that the GPU is the sole limiting factor; the CPU shows no signs of becoming a constraint even at 1080p Low, where the GPU is at its least stressed.

The scaling pattern strongly implies that the GTX 1660 SUPER’s 192-bit memory bus and 336.0 GB/s bandwidth are insufficient for 4K workloads, regardless of quality settings. Even at Low with only 65.5 FPS, the GPU is operating near its effective ceiling, and the 26.8 FPS at Ultra confirms that the card cannot handle the pixel count of 4K with any meaningful visual quality. The CPU’s 33 MB of L3 cache and 28 threads are irrelevant to this scaling behavior; the bottleneck is entirely on the GPU side, and the data makes it clear that this combo is best used at 1080p or 1440p, with 4K reserved only for the lowest quality preset.