Downfall

The Intel Core Ultra 5 125H combines 14 cores and 18 threads with a base clock of 3.60 GHz and a boost clock of 4.50 GHz. This Meteor Lake mobile processor, built on a 7 nm Intel process, uses an 18 MB shared L3 cache alongside 2 MB per core of L2 and 112 KB per core of L1. The CPU’s 28 W TDP classifies it as an efficient mobile part, and it sits at the 79th percentile among all CPUs, with an average benchmark score of 27507. In synthetic tests, it achieves a Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 12804.5 and a single-core score of 1647.5, while PassMark multithread and single-thread results land at 21100 and 3399, respectively.

In the measured Downfall data, the CPU’s role is largely secondary to the integrated graphics, though its thread count and clocks still matter. The game is a 2016 horror title, and the data shows that the Core Ultra 5 125H’s processing power is adequate for the workload, as the bottleneck shifts clearly to the GPU at higher resolutions. The CPU’s performance relative to its nearest rivals is nearly identical: it trails the AMD Ryzen 7 5800 and Intel Core i5-12600K by just 0.1% and 0.3%, respectively, while it outperforms the AMD Ryzen 3 PRO 5355G by 0.5%. Such a tight margin means that in a GPU-limited scenario like Downfall’s higher settings, the CPU choice among these parts would have negligible impact on frame rates. The processor’s 14 cores and 18 threads are more than sufficient for this title’s demands, which is reflected in the fact that the frame rates scale almost entirely with resolution and settings rather than with CPU-bound tasks.

Settings Recommendations

The measured FPS data for Downfall provides a clear picture of which preset offers the best experience depending on the resolution. At 1080p, the Low preset delivers an average of 65 FPS, which is the highest measured frame rate for this combination. The Medium preset follows at 57 FPS, High at 48 FPS, and Ultra drops to 39 FPS. For a smooth experience at 1080p, the Low preset is the only option that breaks the 60 FPS threshold, making it the recommended choice if fluidity is the priority. However, the Medium preset at 57 FPS is close enough that the visual fidelity upgrade may be worth the small performance cost, especially since its minimum FPS of 48 remains playable.

Moving to 1440p, the performance envelope tightens considerably. The Low preset averages 42 FPS, which is the only setting at this resolution that stays above 40 FPS. Medium averages 37 FPS, High drops to 31 FPS, and Ultra falls to 25 FPS. The data suggests that for 1440p, the Low preset provides the most consistent experience, as the Medium preset’s minimum FPS of 31 is identical to the High preset’s average, indicating that the frame pacing will be less stable as settings increase. At 4K, the situation becomes more challenging. The Low preset averages 23 FPS, Medium averages 20 FPS, High averages 17 FPS, and Ultra averages 14 FPS. None of these are ideal for fast-paced gameplay, but if 4K is mandatory, the Low preset offers the least compromised experience.

The best overall experience per the measured rows is at 1080p with the Low preset, which achieves 65 FPS. This is the only configuration that fully utilizes the display’s refresh rate capabilities without dipping into the low 40s or below. For users who prioritize visual quality over frame rate, the Medium preset at 1080p is a reasonable compromise, but the data clearly indicates that the integrated GPU is not capable of maintaining high frame rates at higher settings or resolutions.

Resolution Scaling

The FPS drop from 1080p to 4K is dramatic and reveals the limiting component in this system. At 1080p with the Low preset, the average FPS is 65. When the resolution increases to 1440p, the average drops to 42 FPS, a reduction of 35.4%. Moving from 1440p to 4K, the average at Low settings falls to 23 FPS, which is another 45.2% reduction. The cumulative effect from 1080p to 4K at Low settings is a 64.6% decrease in average frame rate, from 65 FPS down to 23 FPS.

This scaling pattern is a classic indicator of a GPU-bound workload. If the CPU were the limiting factor, the frame rates would remain relatively constant across resolutions, as the CPU workload does not change with resolution. The fact that the FPS nearly halves at each resolution step shows that the AMD Radeon 760M’s pixel throughput is the bottleneck. The GPU’s pixel rate of 41.58 GPixel/s and texture rate of 83.17 GTexel/s are simply overwhelmed as the pixel count increases from 2.07 million at 1080p to 8.29 million at 4K. The data at Medium settings confirms this trend: 57 FPS at 1080p, 37 FPS at 1440p, and 20 FPS at 4K, with the same proportional drops. The GPU’s 512 shading units and 16 ROPs are insufficient for 4K rendering in this title, a conclusion supported by the GPU’s 35th percentile ranking among all GPUs.

FAQ

Q: What is the highest average FPS achievable with this CPU/GPU combo?

A: The highest measured average FPS is 65, which occurs at 1920x1080 resolution with the Low settings preset.

Q: How does the Core Ultra 5 125H compare to its closest CPU rivals in overall benchmark scores?

A: The Core Ultra 5 125H has an average benchmark score of 27507. This is 0.1% lower than the AMD Ryzen 7 5800 (27535), 0.3% lower than the Intel Core i5-12600K (27578), and 0.5% higher than the AMD Ryzen 3 PRO 5355G (27382).

Q: What is the minimum FPS recorded at 1440p Medium settings?

A: The minimum FPS at 2560x1440 with Medium settings is 31 FPS, which matches the average FPS of the High preset at the same resolution.

Q: Is the AMD Radeon 760M better than the NVIDIA Quadro P2000 based on the data?

A: The AMD Radeon 760M has an average benchmark score of 6019, which is 0.5% higher than the NVIDIA Quadro P2000’s score of 6049. This means the Radeon 760M is actually 0.5% slower than the Quadro P2000.

Q: What is the frame rate difference between Low and Ultra settings at 1080p?

A: At 1920x1080, the Low preset averages 65 FPS, while the Ultra preset averages 39 FPS. This represents a 40% reduction in average frame rate when switching from Low to Ultra settings.

Q: Does the GPU’s memory bandwidth vary?

A: The AMD Radeon 760M uses System Shared memory, meaning its bandwidth is listed as "System Dependent" rather than a fixed figure.

GPU Role

The AMD Radeon 760M is the primary driver of Downfall’s performance, and the measured data makes its limitations clear. This integrated GPU, based on the RDNA 3.0 architecture and manufactured on a 4 nm TSMC process, features 512 shading units, 32 TMUs, and 16 ROPs. Its boost clock reaches 2599 MHz, with a base clock of 800 MHz. The GPU’s FP32 performance is 5.323 TFLOPS, and it has 8 ray tracing cores, though the latter is unlikely to be heavily utilized in a 2016 horror title. The GPU sits at the 35th percentile among all GPUs, with an average benchmark score of 6019, placing it just ahead of the AMD Radeon RX 6400 by 0.3% and the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 770M by 0.3%, while trailing the NVIDIA Quadro P2000 by 0.5%.

In Downfall, the GPU’s role is absolute. The frame rates are directly proportional to the resolution and settings, with no indication that the CPU is contributing to any performance variance. The VRAM situation is unique in that the Radeon 760M uses System Shared memory, so its memory size, type, and bus width are all designated as "System Shared," with bandwidth dependent on the system’s RAM. This shared memory architecture is a common limitation for integrated graphics, and the data shows its impact: at 4K Ultra, the average FPS drops to 14, which is barely playable. The GPU’s 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 score of 400 and PassMark G3D score of 5310 reflect its entry-level positioning, and the measured Downfall results align with these synthetic benchmarks. The GPU’s 15 W TDP and IGP slot width confirm it is designed for efficiency rather than raw performance, and the game’s measured FPS values indicate that it can handle 1080p gaming at low to medium settings, but struggles beyond that.

Measured FPS Breakdown

The measured FPS data for Downfall is organized by resolution and settings, providing a complete picture of the system’s capabilities.

At 1920x1080, the Low preset delivers an average of 65 FPS. The Medium preset averages 57 FPS, with a minimum of 48 FPS and a maximum of 66 FPS. The High preset averages 48 FPS, and the Ultra preset averages 39 FPS. This is the only resolution where any preset achieves an average above 60 FPS, and it is the most playable configuration overall.

At 2560x1440, the Low preset averages 42 FPS. The Medium preset averages 37 FPS, with a minimum of 31 FPS and a maximum of 42 FPS. The High preset averages 31 FPS, and the Ultra preset averages 25 FPS. The drop from 1080p to 1440p is substantial, with the Low preset losing 23 FPS on average, a 35.4% reduction.

At 3840x2160, the Low preset averages 23 FPS. The Medium preset averages 20 FPS, with a minimum of 17 FPS and a maximum of 23 FPS. The High preset averages 17 FPS, and the Ultra preset averages 14 FPS. At 4K, no preset achieves an average above 24 FPS, making the experience choppy regardless of settings.

The full breakdown shows a consistent pattern: each resolution step up halves the performance, and each settings step up reduces the frame rate by roughly 20-30%. The data also highlights the variance at Medium settings, where the minimum and maximum FPS values are provided. At 1080p Medium, the range is 48 to 66 FPS, indicating some frame pacing inconsistency. At 1440p Medium, the range narrows to 31 to 42 FPS, and at 4K Medium, it is 17 to 23 FPS. This variance suggests that the GPU is working harder at higher resolutions, reducing the headroom for frame rate spikes. Overall, the measured FPS values paint a clear picture: this combination is suitable for 1080p gaming at low to medium settings, with diminishing returns at higher resolutions.