Downfall

# Downfall with Intel Core Ultra 5 235 + NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650

The Intel Core Ultra 5 235 paired with the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 produces a strikingly lopsided combination in Downfall, a 2016 horror title. With the CPU sitting at the 89th percentile among all tested processors and the GPU at just the 40th percentile, the benchmark data reveals a system where the graphics card consistently dictates playability. Across all measured resolution and settings combinations, the frame rates tell a story of a CPU that never breaks a sweat while a legacy GPU strains to keep pace, resulting in a combo that ranks 2827th out of 2928 tested configurations in this specific game.

CPU Role — cores, clocks, and how they relate to this game's results

The Intel Core Ultra 5 235 brings substantial processing resources to Downfall, featuring 14 cores and 14 threads running on the Arrow Lake architecture. The CPU operates with a base clock of 3.40 GHz and can boost up to 5.00 GHz, which places it in a strong position for handling game logic, AI routines, and physics calculations. The 24 MB of shared L3 cache, combined with 3 MB of L2 cache per core, provides ample on-die storage for frequently accessed game data. This processor is built on TSMC's 3 nm process with 17,800 million transistors packed into a 243 mm² die, representing a modern, high-efficiency design.

Benchmark results corroborate the CPU's strength. The Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 14,769 and single-core score of 2,085 indicate robust performance across both heavily threaded and lightly threaded workloads. PassMark's multi-thread score of 37,816 and single-thread score of 4,516 further confirm that this CPU handles diverse processing demands effectively. The data compression score of 390,711 and floating-point math score of 117,951 suggest that the CPU can process complex calculations quickly, which matters for horror game environments that often feature dynamic lighting and particle effects driven by CPU-side computations.

In Downfall specifically, the CPU's capabilities appear more than sufficient. The measured frame rates show no evidence of CPU bottlenecking, even at lower resolutions where GPU load diminishes. At 1920x1080 with Low settings, the system achieves 91 FPS average, which remains far below what the CPU could theoretically deliver. The CPU's nearest rivals — the AMD Ryzen AI 9 HX 375 with an average score of 46,030 (0.1% higher), the Intel Core i9-13900HX at 46,098 (0.1% lower), and the AMD EPYC 4364P at 45,970 (0.2% higher) — all sit within a negligible performance envelope, suggesting that any modern high-end processor would yield similar results in this game. The 89th percentile ranking among all CPUs means that 89% of tested processors perform at or below this level, making the Ultra 5 235 a top-tier component that is unlikely to limit gameplay in any scenario presented here.

GPU Role — VRAM, clocks, and how they relate to this game's results

The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 presents a stark contrast to the CPU. Built on the Turing architecture with the TU117 chip at 12 nm, this GPU ships with 4 GB of GDDR5 memory on a 128-bit bus, providing 128.1 GB/s of bandwidth. The memory runs at 2001 MHz (8 Gbps effective), while the GPU core operates between a 1485 MHz base and 1665 MHz boost clock. With 896 shading units, 56 texture mapping units, and 32 raster output pipelines, the GTX 1650 delivers 2.984 TFLOPS of FP32 performance. Its 75 W TDP and lack of external power connectors mark it as an entry-level solution, and its end-of-life production status suggests it was never designed for demanding modern titles.

The GPU's benchmark scores reveal its modest standing. The PassMark G3D score of 7,880 places it at the 40th percentile among all GPUs, with nearest rivals including the AMD Radeon HD 8850M (7,447, 0.3% higher), Intel UHD Graphics 750 (7,441, 0.4% higher), and AMD Radeon R7 350 (7,425, 0.6% higher). The Intel Arc A310 scores 7,550, which is 1% lower than the GTX 1650. These comparisons indicate that the GPU performs at a level comparable to integrated graphics in some cases, which is a telling indicator of its limitations. The DirectX 11 PassMark score of 58 and DirectX 12 score of 35 suggest that even older API workloads stress this GPU significantly.

In Downfall, the GPU's 4 GB VRAM capacity appears to be a critical constraint at higher settings. The frame rate progression from Low to Ultra settings at each resolution shows a consistent pattern of degradation that aligns with GPU memory and compute limitations. At 3840x2160, the GPU manages only 27 FPS average on High settings, dropping to 17 FPS on Ultra — figures that suggest the GPU is overwhelmed by the pixel count and texture detail. The fact that the GPU scores only 305 in 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 further emphasizes that this is a low-end graphics solution by modern standards, even though the game itself launched in 2016.

Resolution Scaling — how FPS drops from 1080p to 4K and what it says about the limiting component

The measured frame rates across resolutions provide clear evidence of GPU-bound performance. At 1920x1080 with Low settings, the system achieves 91 FPS average. Moving to 2560x1440 Low drops this to 65 FPS, a 28.6% reduction, and at 3840x2160 Low the average falls to 41 FPS, representing a 54.9% decline from the 1080p figure. This scaling pattern is characteristic of a GPU-limited scenario, where increasing pixel count directly taxes the rendering pipeline.

The Medium settings tell a similar story: 75 FPS at 1080p, 53 FPS at 1440p, and 33 FPS at 4K, with the 1440p and 4K figures representing 29.3% and 56% drops respectively from 1080p. High settings show 61 FPS at 1080p, 44 FPS at 1440p (27.9% lower), and 27 FPS at 4K (55.7% lower). Ultra settings produce 38 FPS at 1080p, 27 FPS at 1440p (28.9% lower), and 17 FPS at 4K (55.3% lower).

The consistency of these percentage drops across all settings levels strongly indicates that the GPU is the sole limiting factor. If the CPU were the bottleneck, we would expect to see frame rates plateau at higher resolutions rather than scale proportionally with pixel count. The fact that 4K performance is roughly half of 1080p performance across every settings preset confirms that the GTX 1650's rendering throughput is the constraint. The CPU, with its 89th percentile ranking and substantial compute capabilities, never approaches its limits in this title. This resolution scaling behavior suggests that players could potentially improve frame rates by reducing resolution, but the fundamental GPU limitation will persist regardless of CPU headroom.

FAQ

Q: Is the Intel Core Ultra 5 235 powerful enough for Downfall?

A: Yes, the data indicates the CPU is more than adequate. Its 89th percentile ranking among all CPUs, combined with Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 14,769 and single-core score of 2,085, shows it has far more processing capability than Downfall requires. The frame rates are consistently limited by the GPU, not the CPU.

Q: How does the GTX 1650 compare to other GPUs in this system's performance class?

A: The GTX 1650's PassMark G3D score of 7,880 places it at the 40th percentile. Its nearest rival, the Intel Arc A310, scores 7,550 (1% lower), while the AMD Radeon HD 8850M scores 7,447 (0.3% higher) and the Intel UHD Graphics 750 scores 7,441 (0.4% higher). This places the GTX 1650 in a narrow performance band near entry-level integrated graphics.

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

A: Based on the measured data, 1920x1080 is the only resolution where playable frame rates are achievable across multiple settings. At 1080p, the system delivers 61 FPS on High, 75 FPS on Medium, and 91 FPS on Low. The 1440p and 4K resolutions all fall below 65 FPS even on Low settings, making them less suitable for smooth gameplay.

Q: Does increasing settings from Low to Ultra have a proportional impact on performance?

A: The data shows a consistent pattern. At 1080p, Low delivers 91 FPS, Medium 75 FPS (17.6% lower), High 61 FPS (33% lower), and Ultra 38 FPS (58.2% lower). This same proportional degradation appears at 1440p and 4K, indicating that each settings tier imposes a similar relative load on the GPU regardless of resolution.

Q: Why does the system rank so low among tested combinations?

A: The combo ranks 2827th out of 2928 tested configurations, placing it in the bottom 3.5% of all combinations. This low ranking is attributable to the GTX 1650's 40th percentile GPU performance, which severely limits the system in a game that appears to be GPU-bound. The CPU's high performance cannot compensate for the GPU's constraints.

Q: Is there any evidence of CPU bottlenecking in the measured results?

A: No. The resolution scaling analysis shows that frame rates drop by roughly 28% from 1080p to 1440p and 55% from 1080p to 4K across all settings. This consistent scaling pattern is the signature of GPU-bound performance, not CPU limitation. If the CPU were the bottleneck, the frame rate differences between resolutions would be minimal.

Measured FPS Breakdown

At 1920x1080, the system produces its best results. Low settings deliver an average of 91 FPS, while Medium settings achieve 75 FPS with a minimum of 64 FPS and maximum of 86 FPS. High settings yield 61 FPS average, and Ultra settings drop to 38 FPS. The gap between Low and Ultra at this resolution is 53 FPS, representing a substantial 58.2% performance penalty for maximum visual quality.

Moving to 2560x1440, all settings show significant declines. Low settings average 65 FPS, which is 26 FPS lower than at 1080p. Medium settings average 53 FPS with a range of 45 to 61 FPS. High settings produce 44 FPS average, and Ultra settings fall to 27 FPS. The difference between Low and Ultra at 1440p is 38 FPS, a 58.5% reduction.

At 3840x2160, the system struggles to maintain playable frame rates. Low settings average 41 FPS, Medium settings average 33 FPS with a range of 28 to 38 FPS, High settings average 27 FPS, and Ultra settings plunge to 17 FPS. The spread between Low and Ultra at 4K is 24 FPS, which represents a 58.5% performance loss. Notably, the Medium setting is the only 4K configuration with both minimum and maximum frame data recorded, showing a 10 FPS variance.

Settings Recommendations

The measured data suggests that 1920x1080 with Medium settings offers the most balanced experience. The 75 FPS average with a minimum of 64 FPS ensures consistent frame pacing that avoids most perceptible stutter. This configuration provides a 14 FPS improvement over High settings while maintaining a 60+ FPS average, which is typically the threshold for smooth gameplay in horror titles where sudden movements and quick camera panning benefit from higher frame rates.

For players who prioritize visual fidelity over raw frame rate, 1920x1080 High settings at 61 FPS average remains serviceable, though it sits closer to the 60 FPS boundary. The 1080p Low setting at 91 FPS offers the highest performance headroom but sacrifices visual detail that contributes to the horror atmosphere. At 2560x1440, the Low setting's 65 FPS average is the only configuration that exceeds 60 FPS, making it the sole viable option at that resolution. The 4K resolution is not recommended for playable frame rates, as even Low settings only achieve 41 FPS average, which falls below the 60 FPS target for smooth gameplay.

How This Combo Ranks

The Intel Core Ultra 5 235 and NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 combination ranks 2827th out of 2928 tested configurations in Downfall, placing it in the bottom percentile of all systems evaluated. This ranking is particularly notable given the CPU's strength — the 89th percentile processor ranking suggests that the CPU itself is among the top 11% of all tested units, yet the overall system performance suffers due to the GPU's limitations.

This disparity between component rankings and overall system ranking highlights a fundamental imbalance. The GPU's 40th percentile performance means that 60% of tested graphics cards outperform it, and in a game that is demonstrably GPU-bound, this creates a hard ceiling on achievable frame rates. The fact that the system ranks so low despite having a top-tier CPU suggests that Downfall's performance is almost entirely dependent on graphics processing power. The narrow performance band of the GTX 1650's nearest rivals — all within 1% of its average score — further emphasizes that this GPU sits at a performance plateau where small improvements yield meaningful frame rate differences. For this combination, the CPU's potential remains largely untapped, as the GPU consistently limits output across every measured resolution and settings combination.