Downfall

Downfall, a horror title from 2016, presents a demanding workload for the Intel Core Ultra 5 235 paired with the Intel Arc B390 integrated graphics. The benchmark data reveals a system that is heavily constrained by its graphics solution, with the CPU showing significant headroom across all tested configurations. The measured frames per second (FPS) tell a clear story of a combo that can handle the game at lower resolutions and settings, but struggles to maintain playable frame rates as graphical demands increase.

Resolution Scaling

The FPS data across the three tested resolutions—1920x1080, 2560x1440, and 3840x2160—shows a dramatic and consistent performance drop as pixel count increases. At Low settings, the average frame rate falls from 106 FPS at 1080p to 76 FPS at 1440p, a reduction of 30 FPS, and then further down to 47 FPS at 4K. This pattern of steep decline with each resolution step is a classic indicator that the rendering pipeline is saturated by the graphics processor. The jump from 1080p to 1440p represents a 28% decrease in average FPS, while the move from 1440p to 4K incurs a 38% drop. This non-linear scaling suggests that the Intel Arc B390's compute and memory resources are being overwhelmed.

Examining the High settings tier reinforces this conclusion. The average FPS at 1080p is 71, which drops to 51 at 1440p and finally to 32 at 4K. The absolute FPS loss from 1080p to 4K is 39 frames, which is a 55% reduction. The data implies that the limiting component is unequivocally the GPU, as the workload's demands on shading, texturing, and pixel throughput scale directly with resolution. The CPU, with its 14 cores, is unlikely to be the primary bottleneck here, as the frame rate is so sensitive to the resolution change. If the CPU were the limiting factor, the FPS would remain relatively flat across resolutions, as the CPU workload for a given frame would not change as drastically.

The performance gap between Low and Ultra settings at 4K further highlights the GPU's struggle. At 4K Low, the system manages an average of 47 FPS, but this collapses to just 20 FPS at 4K Ultra. This 27 FPS difference represents a 57% performance penalty for enabling the highest visual fidelity. The scaling from Medium to High at 4K (39 to 32 FPS) is less severe, but the jump to Ultra is catastrophic, suggesting that Ultra settings introduce effects that are particularly taxing for the Arc B390's 24 ROPs and 48 TMUs. The data strongly suggests that users seeking playable frame rates at higher resolutions will need to make significant sacrifices in graphical quality.

CPU Role

The Intel Core Ultra 5 235 is a 14-core, 14-thread processor based on the Arrow Lake architecture. Its benchmark results in the FACT PACK show a processor with strong multi-threaded capabilities, scoring 14,769 in Cinebench R23 multi-core and 37,816 in Passmark multithread. These scores place it in the 89th percentile for all CPUs, indicating it is a high-performing processor relative to the broader market. Its nearest rivals, such as the AMD Ryzen AI 9 HX 375 and Intel Core i9-13900HX, have nearly identical average benchmark scores, with deltas of 0.1% or less. This suggests that the Core Ultra 5 235 is competitive with some of the best mobile and desktop chips available.

In the context of Downfall, the CPU's role appears to be secondary. The game's frame rates are far more sensitive to resolution and settings changes than to any potential CPU workload variation. With a boost clock of 5.00 GHz and a base clock of 3.40 GHz, the processor has ample single-thread performance for a 2016 game. The Passmark single-thread score of 4,516 is robust and would not be a limiting factor in most gaming scenarios. The 24 MB of shared L3 cache is also sufficient for gaming workloads.

The fact that the system achieves 106 FPS at 1080p Low suggests the CPU can easily feed the GPU with frames at lower settings. However, as the resolution increases, the frame rate drops, indicating that the CPU is waiting on the GPU to finish rendering. The benchmark data does not provide separate CPU and GPU frame times, but the resolution scaling pattern is a strong indicator that the CPU is not the bottleneck. The processor is essentially "waiting" for the Arc B390 to catch up, meaning its 14 cores are largely underutilized in this specific title. The data implies that for this game, the CPU's performance is adequate, and its high core count and clock speeds are not being fully exercised.

GPU Role

The Intel Arc B390 is an integrated graphics processor based on the Xe3-LPG architecture, with 1,536 shading units, 48 texture mapping units, and 24 raster operation pipelines. Its performance profile is exceptionally weak, as evidenced by its 9th percentile ranking among all GPUs and a solitary 3DMark Steel Nomad score of 1,482. This score places it in the same performance tier as ancient discrete GPUs like the NVIDIA GeForce GT 520MX and the GeForce GT 710, which have average scores of 1,463 and 1,443, respectively. The delta percentages to these rivals are small (1.3% to 2.7%), indicating a very tight grouping at this performance level.

The GPU's role as the primary performance limiter is unmistakable. Its memory is "System Shared," meaning it uses a portion of the system's DDR5 RAM, and its bandwidth is "System Dependent." This architecture inherently limits memory bandwidth compared to a dedicated VRAM solution, which is a critical disadvantage at high resolutions where large amounts of texture data need to be accessed quickly. The boost clock of 2500 MHz is respectable for an iGPU, but the raw compute power of 7.680 TFLOPS FP32 is not sufficient for demanding modern or even older titles at high settings.

The measured FPS data directly reflects the GPU's limitations. At 1080p Low, the system can push 106 FPS, but this drops to 44 FPS at Ultra settings. This 62 FPS difference shows how quickly the Arc B390's capabilities are exhausted by increasing the graphical load. The GPU's pixel rate of 60.00 GPixel/s and texture rate of 120.0 GTexel/s are simply too low to fill a 4K frame buffer with complex effects at a playable frame rate. The data shows that the Arc B390 is only viable for low-resolution gaming or for playing titles with very modest graphical requirements. For Downfall, it is the definitive bottleneck, and any attempt to improve performance must focus on reducing the GPU's workload.

How This Combo Ranks

In the database of tested combos for Downfall, this specific pairing of the Intel Core Ultra 5 235 and the Intel Arc B390 ranks 2,589 out of 2,928 total combinations. This places it in the bottom 12% of all tested systems, which is a poor result. The rank reflects the overwhelming influence of the weak GPU; despite the CPU being in the 89th percentile for all CPUs, the overall gaming performance is dragged down to the lowest tier.

This stark contrast between the CPU's high percentile and the combo's low rank is the most informative data point. It demonstrates that for gaming, the GPU is the dominant factor. A top-tier CPU cannot compensate for a bottom-tier GPU in a graphics-intensive task like rendering a 3D scene. The combo rank of 2,589 out of 2,928 suggests that most other CPU/GPU pairings, even those with much weaker CPUs, will outperform this system in Downfall because they likely have more capable discrete graphics cards.

The data implies that this combo is fundamentally unbalanced for gaming. The 14-core CPU is overkill for a system that is paired with an iGPU that is only competitive with a GeForce GT 710. The performance is limited by the GPU, and the CPU's potential is left untapped. Users of this system would see significant performance gains from upgrading the graphics solution, even if it meant downgrading the CPU, as the overall frame rate is almost entirely dependent on the GPU in this scenario.

Measured FPS Breakdown

The following table details the exact measured average FPS for each resolution and settings combination, along with the min and max FPS where available. This data provides a comprehensive view of the system's performance envelope.

| Resolution | Settings | Avg FPS | Min FPS | Max FPS |

| :--------- | :------- | :------ | :------ | :------ |

| 3840x2160 | High | 32 | - | - |

| 3840x2160 | Low | 47 | - | - |

| 3840x2160 | Medium | 39 | 33 | 44 |

| 3840x2160 | Ultra | 20 | - | - |

| 2560x1440 | High | 51 | - | - |

| 2560x1440 | Low | 76 | - | - |

| 2560x1440 | Medium | 62 | 53 | 71 |

| 2560x1440 | Ultra | 32 | - | - |

| 1920x1080 | High | 71 | - | - |

| 1920x1080 | Low | 106 | - | - |

| 1920x1080 | Medium | 87 | 74 | 100 |

| 1920x1080 | Ultra | 44 | - | - |

The data reveals a clear performance hierarchy. At 1080p, the system can achieve playable frame rates at Low (106 FPS) and Medium (87 FPS) settings. High settings yield a decent 71 FPS, but Ultra drops to 44 FPS, which may feel less smooth in a fast-paced horror game. At 1440p, the situation becomes more constrained. Low settings provide 76 FPS, but Medium drops to 62 FPS, and High falls to 51 FPS. Ultra at 1440p is only 32 FPS, which is largely unplayable. At 4K, the system is not viable for smooth gameplay, with all settings below 50 FPS. Low is the only option that approaches playability at 47 FPS, while Ultra is a slideshow at 20 FPS.

The Medium settings rows also provide min and max FPS data, which is helpful for understanding frame pacing. At 1080p Medium, the min FPS is 74 and the max is 100, showing a 26 FPS variance. At 1440p Medium, the variance is 18 FPS (53 to 71), and at 4K Medium, it is 11 FPS (33 to 44). This indicates that while the average frame rate decreases, the frame times become more consistent at higher resolutions, likely because the GPU is consistently maxed out.

FAQ

Q: What is the best resolution to play Downfall with this hardware?

A: Based on the measured data, 1920x1080 is the only resolution where the system consistently delivers average frame rates above 60 FPS. At this resolution, Low and Medium settings provide 106 and 87 FPS respectively, while High offers 71 FPS.

Q: Is the Intel Core Ultra 5 235 bottlenecking the Intel Arc B390?

A: No, the data indicates the opposite. The CPU is not the limiting factor. The frame rates drop significantly as resolution increases, which is a hallmark of a GPU bottleneck. The CPU's high benchmark scores and 89th percentile ranking suggest it has ample performance headroom, while the GPU's 9th percentile ranking and low scores point to it being the primary constraint.

Q: How does this combo's gaming performance compare to its component parts?

A: The combo ranks 2,589 out of 2,928 for this game, which is poor. However, the CPU alone ranks in the 89th percentile for all CPUs. This discrepancy highlights that the GPU is holding back the entire system. The GPU's performance is comparable to the NVIDIA GeForce GT 520MX and GT 710, which are very old entry-level discrete GPUs.

Q: Can this system run Downfall at 4K?

A: Technically yes, but the performance is very poor. The highest average FPS at 3840x2160 is 47 on Low settings. High settings drop to 32 FPS, and Ultra is only 20 FPS. None of these are ideal for a smooth gaming experience.

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

A: At 1920x1080, the average FPS drops from 106 on Low settings to 44 on Ultra settings. This is a 62 FPS difference, representing a 58% reduction in performance when switching to the highest visual quality preset.

Q: How much faster is 1080p compared to 4K on the same settings?

A: At Low settings, the system achieves 106 FPS at 1080p compared to 47 FPS at 4K, making it 2.3 times faster. At High settings, it is 71 FPS versus 32 FPS, which is 2.2 times faster. This consistent ratio reinforces that the GPU is scaling predictably with the pixel workload.

Settings Recommendations

Given the data, the optimal experience for this system is found at 1920x1080 resolution. For a target of 60 FPS or higher, the High settings preset is the best choice, yielding an average of 71 FPS. This provides a good balance between visual fidelity and performance. The Medium preset is also viable, offering 87 FPS, which provides more headroom for demanding scenes. While Low settings offer the highest frame rate at 106 FPS, the visual quality is likely to be too compromised for a horror game that relies on atmosphere and detail.

At 2560x1440, the system struggles to maintain 60 FPS on most presets. The Low settings preset is the only one that offers a comfortable margin above 60 FPS, with an average of 76 FPS. Users who prefer 1440p will need to accept Low settings. The Medium preset at 1440p provides an average of 62 FPS, which is borderline playable, but the min FPS of 53 suggests there may be noticeable stutters. High and Ultra at this resolution are not recommended, as they fall to 51 and 32 FPS respectively.

Playing at 3840x2160 is not recommended for a smooth experience. Even on Low settings, the average FPS is only 47, which is below the 60 FPS threshold. The Medium preset drops to 39 FPS, and High and Ultra are at 32 and 20 FPS respectively. For this game and this hardware, the data clearly shows that 1080p is the intended target. The performance scaling demonstrates that the Intel Arc B390 is the limiting factor, and users should prioritize resolution over settings to achieve the most consistent frame rates. The best overall experience, per the measured rows, is the 1920x1080 High preset, which balances the game's visual demands with the hardware's capabilities.