Downfall

Resolution Scaling

The measured FPS data for Downfall with the Intel Core Ultra 5 225 and NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1660 SUPER reveals a clear pattern of performance degradation as resolution increases, with the scaling behavior differing notably between settings presets. At 1080p Low, the combo produces 147 FPS on average; stepping up to 1440p Low drops that to 105 FPS, a 28.6% reduction, and at 4K Low the average falls to 65 FPS, which is 55.8% below the 1080p figure. This steep drop-off across resolutions indicates that the GPU becomes the primary limiting factor as pixel count rises, since the CPU has ample headroom at lower resolutions.

The Medium preset tells a similar story but with slightly compressed margins. From 120 FPS at 1080p Medium, the average declines to 86 FPS at 1440p Medium (a 28.3% drop) and then to 54 FPS at 4K Medium (a 55% reduction from 1080p). The High preset follows suit: 99 FPS at 1080p, 71 FPS at 1440p, and 44 FPS at 4K. The Ultra preset, however, exhibits the most dramatic scaling penalty. At 1080p Ultra the combo manages 62 FPS, but at 1440p Ultra that falls to 44 FPS, and at 4K Ultra the average plummets to 27 FPS — a 56.5% loss from 1080p Ultra to 4K Ultra.

What these numbers suggest is that the GTX 1660 SUPER's 6 GB of GDDR6 memory and 192-bit bus width, combined with its 1785 MHz boost clock, are insufficient to maintain frame rates when pixel throughput demands escalate. The scaling from 1080p to 1440p is roughly consistent across all presets — losses of 27-29% — which points to a fill-rate bottleneck that scales predictably with resolution. The further drop from 1440p to 4K, which adds another 27-40% loss depending on the preset, confirms that the GPU's 48 ROPs and 157.1 GTexel/s texture rate are being saturated. The CPU, with 10 cores and a 4.90 GHz boost clock, is not the constraint here; if it were, the frame rates would remain flatter across resolutions.

At lower resolutions like 1080p Low, the 147 FPS average suggests the CPU can feed the GPU adequately, but the GPU's compute ceiling — 5.027 TFLOPS FP32 — caps performance as resolution climbs. The data shows that this pairing is best suited to 1080p or 1440p gaming, with 4K being viable only at Low settings where 65 FPS is achievable, though that still represents a 55.8% penalty versus 1080p Low.

FAQ

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

A: The measured data shows 1080p delivers the highest frame rates across all presets, with Low hitting 147 FPS, Medium 120 FPS, High 99 FPS, and Ultra 62 FPS. At 1440p, the averages fall to 105, 86, 71, and 44 FPS respectively, while 4K drops further to 65, 54, 44, and 27 FPS. The sweet spot is 1080p for smooth gameplay, with 1440p Medium (86 FPS) as a viable alternative.

Q: How does the Ultra preset compare to High at 1440p?

A: At 2560x1440, High produces 71 FPS on average, while Ultra drops to 44 FPS — a 38% reduction. This indicates the Ultra preset imposes a significant additional load on the GPU, likely through increased shadow quality and post-processing effects that stress the 6 GB VRAM and 1408 shading units.

Q: Is the Intel Core Ultra 5 225 bottlenecking the GTX 1660 SUPER in this game?

A: The data suggests no. The CPU's 10 cores and 10 threads, with a 3.30 GHz base and 4.90 GHz boost clock, provide enough throughput to keep the GPU fed. The linear FPS drops with resolution increases (e.g., 147 to 105 to 65 FPS at Low across 1080p, 1440p, and 4K) are characteristic of GPU-limited scenarios. The CPU's Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 25891 and single-core score of 3655 indicate strong processing capability.

Q: What frame rates can I expect at 4K with this combo?

A: At 3840x2160, the measured averages are 65 FPS on Low, 54 FPS on Medium, 44 FPS on High, and 27 FPS on Ultra. The Medium preset has a recorded min of 45 FPS and max of 62 FPS, showing some variance. Only Low and Medium are playable above 50 FPS at 4K.

Q: How does this combo rank among all tested configurations in Downfall?

A: The combo ranks 2505 out of 2928 tested combinations, placing it in the lower portion of the distribution (roughly the 14th percentile). This is consistent with the GTX 1660 SUPER's 53rd percentile among all GPUs, suggesting the GPU's age and 6 GB VRAM limit its performance in a modern horror title like Downfall.

Q: Which preset offers the most balanced experience at 1440p?

A: Medium at 1440p provides 86 FPS average with a min of 73 FPS and max of 99 FPS, which is the best combination of smoothness and visual fidelity. High at 71 FPS is also acceptable, but Ultra at 44 FPS dips below the 60 FPS threshold that many players target.

Settings Recommendations

Based on the measured FPS rows, the optimal settings depend heavily on the target resolution and desired frame rate. For 1080p, the High preset delivers 99 FPS on average, which is well above the 60 FPS standard, and it offers better visual quality than Low (147 FPS) or Medium (120 FPS) without the steep penalty of Ultra (62 FPS). If the user prioritizes maximum smoothness, 1080p Low at 147 FPS is the clear choice, but High strikes the best balance between detail and performance at this resolution.

At 1440p, the Medium preset at 86 FPS is the recommended starting point. It provides a 17.5% improvement over High (71 FPS) while maintaining a comfortable margin above 60 FPS, and it has a minimum of 73 FPS, indicating consistent frame delivery. The Low preset at 105 FPS is viable for competitive play or for users with high-refresh monitors, but it sacrifices visual fidelity. Ultra at 44 FPS is not advisable for smooth gameplay, as it falls below the 60 FPS threshold and shows a 38% drop from High.

For 4K, the options are more constrained. Low at 65 FPS is the only preset that consistently stays above 60 FPS, while Medium at 54 FPS is playable but with occasional dips to 45 FPS. High at 44 FPS and Ultra at 27 FPS are not recommended for a playable experience, as they would produce noticeable stutter and input lag. The data indicates that 4K gaming with this combo requires significant settings compromises, and users should expect to run at Low or Medium to maintain acceptable frame rates.

The measured row for 1080p Medium shows a min of 102 FPS and max of 138 FPS, which suggests that even with variance, the game remains smooth. The 1440p Medium row has a min of 73 FPS and max of 99 FPS, showing tighter variance at higher resolution. These numbers support the recommendation of Medium at 1440p and High at 1080p as the "best experience" presets, as they offer a favorable trade-off between visual quality and frame rate stability.

Measured FPS Breakdown

At 1920x1080, the combo produces its highest frame rates. Low settings yield an average of 147 FPS, Medium produces 120 FPS with a minimum of 102 FPS and maximum of 138 FPS, High reaches 99 FPS, and Ultra drops to 62 FPS. The progression from Low to Ultra shows a 57.8% reduction in average FPS, highlighting the significant cost of the Ultra preset's enhanced effects.

Moving to 2560x1440, the averages decline across all presets. Low delivers 105 FPS, Medium 86 FPS (min 73, max 99), High 71 FPS, and Ultra 44 FPS. The gap between Low and Ultra at 1440p is 58.1%, similar to 1080p, but the absolute values are lower. The Medium preset's variance of 73-99 FPS indicates a 26 FPS spread, which is manageable for most displays.

At 3840x2160, the performance drops significantly. Low averages 65 FPS, Medium 54 FPS (min 45, max 62), High 44 FPS, and Ultra 27 FPS. The Ultra preset at 4K is barely playable, with a 27 FPS average that would result in noticeable judder. The Medium preset's min of 45 FPS suggests occasional drops below the 60 FPS threshold, making Low the only reliable option for consistent smoothness at 4K.

The data also reveals that the scaling between presets is not uniform across resolutions. At 1080p, the difference between Low and Medium is 27 FPS (18.4%), while at 4K it is 11 FPS (16.9%). The difference between High and Ultra is larger: 37 FPS (37.4%) at 1080p, 27 FPS (38%) at 1440p, and 17 FPS (38.6%) at 4K. This consistent ~38% penalty for Ultra suggests that the preset adds a fixed level of extra work that scales with pixel count, further confirming the GPU-bound nature of the system.

How This Combo Ranks

In Downfall, the Intel Core Ultra 5 225 paired with the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1660 SUPER ranks 2505 out of 2928 tested combinations. This places the combo in the 14.5th percentile of all configurations, meaning roughly 85.5% of tested combos achieve higher performance in this game. The rank reflects the GPU's limitations more than the CPU's, as the GTX 1660 SUPER's average benchmark score of 12986 puts it at the 53rd percentile among all GPUs, while the CPU's average score of 36938 places it at the 85th percentile among all CPUs.

The CPU's nearest rivals in synthetic benchmarks are the AMD Ryzen 5 5600F (avg score 36945, delta 0%), the AMD Ryzen 5 5500X3D (37018, -0.2%), the AMD Ryzen AI 7 PRO 450 (37093, -0.4%), and the Intel Core i9-12900T (37112, -0.5%). These deltas are all within 0.5% of the Core Ultra 5 225, indicating that the CPU is performing at a level comparable to its direct competitors. However, the GPU's nearest rivals — the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3050 Ti Mobile (12940, +0.4%), AMD Radeon RX 580 (12928, +0.4%), NVIDIA Tesla M2090 (13075, -0.7%), and AMD Radeon 740M (12870, +0.9%) — show a wider spread, suggesting more variance in GPU performance.

The combo's rank of 2505 out of 2928 means it sits in the lower quartile of all tested configurations. This is expected for a GPU that was released in 2019 and has since been marked as end-of-life, especially when paired with a CPU from 2025. The disparity between the CPU's high percentile and the GPU's mid-tier percentile means that the GPU is the bottleneck in Downfall, and users would see larger gains from upgrading the GPU rather than the CPU.

CPU Role

The Intel Core Ultra 5 225 is a 10-core, 10-thread processor based on the Arrow Lake architecture, manufactured on a 3 nm process by TSMC. It has a base clock of 3.30 GHz and a boost clock of 4.90 GHz, with a TDP of 65 W. The CPU's cache hierarchy includes 192 KB of L1 per core, 3 MB of L2 per core, and 20 MB of shared L3 cache. Its memory support is DDR5 with dual-channel configuration and a bandwidth of 102.4 GB/s.

In synthetic benchmarks, the CPU scores 25891 in Cinebench R23 multi-core and 3655 in single-core, with a Passmark multi-thread score of 30459 and single-thread score of 4412. These scores place it at the 85th percentile of all CPUs, indicating strong processing power. The nearest rival, the AMD Ryzen 5 5600F, has a nearly identical average score with a 0% delta, suggesting the Core Ultra 5 225 is well-positioned in its performance class.

In Downfall, the CPU's role is to feed the GPU with draw calls and handle game logic. The measured FPS data shows that the CPU is not the limiting factor at any resolution. At 1080p Low, the combo achieves 147 FPS, which is high enough to indicate that the CPU can push frame rates well beyond the GPU's capabilities. The consistent FPS drops as resolution increases (147 to 105 to 65 at Low) are a classic sign of GPU limitation, as the CPU's workload does not scale with resolution. The CPU's 10 cores and high boost clock provide ample headroom for the game's physics and AI, and the 65 W TDP means it can sustain boost clocks without thermal throttling in most systems.

The CPU's Passmark physics score of 2342 and floating point math score of 92038 indicate strong computational throughput, which would benefit games with complex simulation elements. However, in Downfall, a horror game focused on atmosphere and lighting, the CPU's role is secondary to the GPU's rendering workload.

GPU Role

The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1660 SUPER is based on the TU116 chip using the Turing architecture, manufactured on a 12 nm process. It has 1408 shading units, 88 TMUs, and 48 ROPs, with a base clock of 1530 MHz and a boost clock of 1785 MHz. The GPU features 6 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 192-bit bus, providing a bandwidth of 336.0 GB/s. Its compute capabilities include 5.027 TFLOPS FP32 and 10.05 TFLOPS FP16 (2:1).

The GPU's synthetic benchmarks show a Passmark G3D score of 12699 and a 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 score of 1278. Its percentile among all GPUs is 53, placing it in the middle of the pack. The nearest rival, the RTX 3050 Ti Mobile, scores 12940 with a 0.4% delta, indicating the 1660 SUPER is competitive with that mobile part. However, the GPU's 6 GB VRAM is a limiting factor in modern games, especially at higher resolutions.

In Downfall, the GPU's role is paramount. The measured FPS data shows that the GPU is the bottleneck at all resolutions above 1080p Low. The 6 GB VRAM is sufficient for 1080p and 1440p gaming at most presets, but at 4K Ultra, the memory capacity and bandwidth (336 GB/s) are strained, leading to the 27 FPS average. The GPU's 48 ROPs limit pixel fill rate, which is evident in the steep FPS drops as resolution increases — from 147 FPS at 1080p Low to 65 FPS at 4K Low, a 55.8% reduction that tracks closely with the 4x increase in pixel count.

The GPU's boost clock of 1785 MHz is relatively high for its class, but the aging Turing architecture lacks the ray tracing and tensor cores found in newer GeForce parts. This means the GPU must rely on traditional rasterization, which is less efficient for modern lighting effects. The measured data shows that the Ultra preset, which likely includes advanced lighting and shadow effects, imposes a consistent ~38% penalty over High across all resolutions, indicating that the GPU's shading units are saturated by these effects.

The GPU's end-of-life production status and 2019 release date mean it is now several generations behind, and its 53rd percentile ranking reflects this. In Downfall, the GPU's 6 GB VRAM and 1408 shading units are the primary constraints, and the data indicates that users should target 1080p or 1440p with Medium or High settings for a balanced experience.