Downfall

FAQ

Q: What is the overall ranking of the Intel Core Ultra 5 235 paired with the AMD Radeon RX 6700 XT in Downfall?

A: This combo ranks 1489th out of 2928 tested combinations in the database for Downfall, placing it in the upper-middle portion of all tested systems.

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

A: The Core Ultra 5 235's average benchmark score of 46062 is nearly identical to its closest competitor, the AMD Ryzen AI 9 HX 375, which scores 46030 (a 0.1% difference). It trails the Intel Core i9-13900HX by just 0.1% (46098 vs 46062), while sitting 0.2% ahead of both the AMD EPYC 4364P and AMD EPYC 7303.

Q: What is the GPU's percentile ranking among all graphics cards?

A: The Radeon RX 6700 XT falls in the 72nd percentile among all GPUs, with an average benchmark score of 27425. Its closest rival, the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4070 Mobile, scores 27435—essentially a tie at 0% difference.

Q: What are the best and worst measured average FPS values at 1080p for this combo?

A: At 1920x1080, the lowest average FPS is 96 at Ultra settings, while the highest is 229 at Low settings. Medium and High settings land in between at 187 and 154 average FPS respectively.

Q: Does the CPU or GPU appear to be the limiting factor at higher resolutions?

A: The data shows a meaningful performance drop from 1080p to 4K at each settings level, which indicates the GPU becomes progressively more stressed at higher resolutions. For instance, at High settings, average FPS falls from 154 at 1080p to 68 at 4K—a 56% reduction—suggesting the GPU is the primary bottleneck in this pairing.

Q: What is the GPU's memory configuration and how does it relate to 4K performance?

A: The Radeon RX 6700 XT features 12 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 192-bit bus with 384.0 GB/s bandwidth. At 4K Ultra, the combo still manages 43 average FPS, indicating the 12 GB frame buffer is sufficient for this game's demands even at the highest settings.

How This Combo Ranks

The data places this Intel Core Ultra 5 235 and AMD Radeon RX 6700 XT combination at rank 1489 out of 2928 tested combos for Downfall. That is a solidly mid-pack position—better than roughly half of all tested systems, but not among the elite configurations. The percentile data for the individual components helps explain this placement: the CPU sits in the 89th percentile among all processors, while the GPU lands in the 72nd percentile. The pairing of a top-tier CPU with a mid-to-upper-tier GPU creates a system that is stronger in compute-heavy scenarios than in pure graphics throughput.

Breaking down the synthetic scores reinforces this interpretation. The CPU's average benchmark score of 46062 places it in a tight cluster with several rivals—the Ryzen AI 9 HX 375 (46030), Core i9-13900HX (46098), EPYC 4364P (45970), and EPYC 7303 (45960) all fall within 0.2% of each other. This suggests the Ultra 5 235 is a well-balanced processor whose performance is competitive with a wide range of other chips. The GPU, meanwhile, sits at 27425 average, with its nearest rival the RTX 4070 Mobile at 27435 (0% delta) and the RTX 3090 at 27565 (-0.5% delta). The RX 6700 XT is a known quantity in the mid-range, and its placement here confirms it.

What makes this combo interesting is the combination of a very high-percentile CPU with a more modest GPU. In Downfall—a horror title from 2016 that is not particularly new—the measured FPS values suggest the GPU is doing most of the heavy lifting at higher resolutions, while the CPU's strength shows up more at lower resolutions where frame rates are extremely high. The rank of 1489 out of 2928 reflects this balance: the system is capable but not exceptional, and it will handle most gaming scenarios comfortably without being a top-tier performer.

GPU Role

The AMD Radeon RX 6700 XT is built on the RDNA 2.0 architecture using the Navi 22 chip, manufactured on a 7 nm process at TSMC. It carries 12 GB of GDDR6 memory across a 192-bit bus, yielding 384.0 GB/s of bandwidth—a configuration that proves adequate for Downfall at all tested settings. The GPU's clock speeds are notably high: a base clock of 2321 MHz, a game clock of 2424 MHz, and a boost clock of 2581 MHz. These aggressive clocks help explain why this card performs as well as it does in a game from 2016, which is unlikely to stress modern architectures heavily.

Looking at the measured FPS data, the GPU's role becomes clear. At 4K Ultra, average FPS drops to 43—the lowest figure recorded in any configuration. At 4K High, it climbs to 68 average FPS, and at 4K Medium, it reaches 83 average FPS with minimums of 71 and maximums of 96. The jump from Ultra to High settings at 4K represents a 58% improvement in average FPS (from 43 to 68), which indicates that the Ultra preset is pushing the GPU's pixel and texture throughput to its limits. The ROP count of 64 and texture units of 160 contribute to a pixel rate of 165.2 GPixel/s and texture rate of 413.0 GTexel/s, both of which scale directly with resolution.

The GPU's synthetic benchmark results provide context for its gaming performance. Its Passmark G3D score of 19786 and 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 score of 2435 show a mid-range card that trades blows with the RTX 4070 Mobile (27435 average vs 27425) and comes within 0.5% of the RTX 3090 (27565). While the RTX 3090 is a much larger card, the RX 6700 XT's efficiency and clock speeds allow it to stay competitive in this specific game. The 12 GB VRAM is not taxed heavily by Downfall, as evidenced by the playable 4K Medium results, but the Ultra preset's 43 average FPS shows that the GPU's compute throughput—13.21 TFLOPS FP32—is the limiting factor at maximum settings.

Measured FPS Breakdown

The measured FPS data for this combo covers three resolutions (1920x1080, 2560x1440, and 3840x2160) across four settings presets (Low, Medium, High, and Ultra). The results show a consistent scaling pattern that reflects both the game's age and the hardware's capabilities.

At 1920x1080, the combo delivers excellent frame rates across all presets. Low settings produce an average of 229 FPS, Medium achieves 187 FPS (with minimums of 159 and maximums of 215), High reaches 154 FPS, and Ultra drops to 96 FPS. The gap between Low and Ultra is 133 FPS, a 58% reduction, but even the lowest figure is well above what most displays can show. The minimum FPS recorded at Medium (159) suggests the system maintains smooth performance even in demanding scenes.

At 2560x1440, the figures scale down proportionally. Low settings average 164 FPS, Medium averages 134 FPS (minimums of 114, maximums of 154), High averages 110 FPS, and Ultra averages 69 FPS. The drop from 1080p to 1440p at each settings level is roughly 28-30%, which is consistent with the increase in pixel count (from about 2.07 million to 3.69 million pixels). The Ultra preset at 1440p still clears 60 FPS, making it a viable option for high-refresh-rate gaming.

At 3840x2160, performance becomes more constrained. Low settings average 102 FPS, Medium averages 83 FPS (minimums of 71, maximums of 96), High averages 68 FPS, and Ultra averages 43 FPS. The Ultra preset at 4K is the only configuration that falls below the 60 FPS threshold, making it borderline playable but not ideal for smooth gameplay. Medium settings at 4K, with an average of 83 FPS and a minimum of 71, offer the best balance of visual quality and performance at this resolution.

The overall pattern shows that this combo is capable of 4K gaming at medium-to-high settings, and it excels at 1080p and 1440p where it can push very high frame rates. The data also reveals that the game's Ultra preset imposes a significant performance penalty at every resolution, suggesting that the highest settings include effects that are particularly demanding on the GPU.

CPU Role

The Intel Core Ultra 5 235 is a 14-core, 14-thread processor based on the Arrow Lake architecture, manufactured on a 3 nm process at TSMC. Its base clock of 3.40 GHz and boost clock of 5.00 GHz provide strong single-thread performance, which is reflected in its Cinebench R23 single-core score of 2085 and multi-core score of 14769. The CPU's 24 MB of shared L3 cache and 3 MB per-core L2 cache contribute to its responsiveness in gaming workloads.

In Downfall, the CPU's role appears secondary to the GPU at higher resolutions, but it becomes more relevant at 1080p where frame rates are extremely high. At 1080p Low, the combo averages 229 FPS—a figure that requires a capable CPU to keep up with the GPU's output. The Passmark single-thread score of 4516 and multithread score of 37816 indicate that this processor has ample headroom for most gaming scenarios. Its 89th percentile ranking among all CPUs places it well above the GPU's 72nd percentile, confirming that the processor is the stronger component in this pairing.

The CPU's memory bandwidth of 102.4 GB/s via dual-channel DDR5 support ensures that data can flow quickly enough to feed the GPU, particularly at lower resolutions where the CPU must process more draw calls per frame. The 14 cores and 14 threads (no hyperthreading) provide a balance of multi-threaded capability and single-thread efficiency, which is evident in the Cinebench R20 scores: 6202 multi-core and 875 single-core. For a game like Downfall, which is not particularly CPU-intensive, this processor is more than sufficient.

The nearest rival data shows that the Ultra 5 235 is essentially tied with several other high-end chips in synthetic benchmarks, but its real-world value in this combo comes from its ability to maintain high minimum frame rates. While the measured FPS data does not include separate CPU-limited scenarios, the fact that the combo achieves 229 FPS at 1080p Low without any reported stutter suggests the CPU is not a bottleneck even at very high frame rates. The processor's 5.00 GHz boost clock and 3 nm process node give it a power efficiency advantage that is harder to quantify from the data alone, but its benchmark scores place it firmly in the upper echelon of desktop CPUs.

Settings Recommendations

Based on the measured FPS data, the optimal settings preset depends on the target resolution and desired frame rate. For 1080p gaming, the Ultra preset at 96 average FPS is the best choice if visual fidelity is the priority, as it remains well above the 60 FPS threshold. However, for competitive play or high-refresh-rate displays, the High preset at 154 FPS or even Medium at 187 FPS offers substantially higher frame rates with only a modest reduction in visual quality. The Low preset at 229 FPS is excessive for most displays but demonstrates the combo's headroom at this resolution.

At 1440p, the High preset at 110 average FPS provides an excellent balance of visual quality and performance. The Ultra preset at 69 FPS is still playable and offers the best image quality, but the 60 FPS floor is close enough that demanding scenes could cause noticeable drops. The Medium preset at 134 FPS is the best option for gamers who prioritize smoothness over maximum detail, and its minimum of 114 FPS ensures consistent frame pacing.

At 4K, the Medium preset at 83 average FPS (minimum 71, maximum 96) is the clear recommendation. It delivers smooth gameplay with a comfortable margin above 60 FPS, and the visual difference between Medium and High at 4K is often less noticeable than at lower resolutions due to the higher pixel density. The High preset at 68 FPS is also viable for those who want extra detail, but the Ultra preset at 43 FPS should be avoided unless the gameplay is slow-paced enough to tolerate sub-60 frame rates. The Low preset at 102 FPS is unnecessary at this resolution, as the visual compromise is too severe for the marginal frame rate gain.

The data suggests that the Medium preset offers the best overall experience at 4K, while High is the sweet spot at 1440p, and either High or Ultra works well at 1080p depending on user preference. The consistent pattern across all resolutions is that the Ultra preset carries a significant performance cost—roughly 40-50% fewer FPS than High—which may not be justified by the visual improvements in a 2016 horror title.

Resolution Scaling

The FPS scaling from 1080p to 4K provides insight into which component is limiting performance at each resolution. At Low settings, average FPS drops from 229 at 1080p to 164 at 1440p (a 28% reduction) and then to 102 at 4K (a 38% reduction from 1440p). This scaling pattern suggests the GPU is the primary constraint, as the pixel count increase from 1080p to 1440p (78% more pixels) results in a proportional FPS drop, while the CPU has enough headroom to feed the GPU at these lower settings.

At Medium settings, the FPS values follow a similar trajectory: 187 at 1080p, 134 at 1440p (a 28% drop), and 83 at 4K (a 38% drop from 1440p). The consistency of these percentages across Low and Medium settings indicates that the GPU is handling the increased pixel load linearly, with no evidence of CPU bottlenecks emerging at higher resolutions.

At High settings, the scaling is slightly steeper: 154 at 1080p, 110 at 1440p (a 29% drop), and 68 at 4K (a 38% drop from 1440p). This is broadly similar to the lower presets, suggesting that High settings do not change the balance of GPU versus CPU load significantly. The Ultra preset shows the most dramatic scaling: 96 at 1080p, 69 at 1440p (a 28% drop), and 43 at 4K (a 38% drop from 1440p). The absolute FPS values are much lower, but the relative scaling remains consistent.

This consistent scaling pattern—roughly 28-29% reductions from 1080p to 1440p and 38% reductions from 1440p to 4K—indicates that the GPU is the limiting component across all settings and resolutions. The CPU's strength (89th percentile) means it is not a bottleneck even at 1080p Low where frame rates exceed 200 FPS. The GPU's 72nd percentile and 12 GB VRAM are sufficient for this game, but its compute throughput caps performance at higher resolutions. The fact that the scaling is so uniform suggests that Downfall's rendering pipeline is well-optimized and does not introduce unexpected CPU or memory bandwidth constraints at any tested configuration.