Downfall

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

The Intel Core Ultra 5 235 is a 14-core, 14-thread desktop processor from the Core Ultra Series 2, built on Arrow Lake architecture and fabricated on a 3 nm process by TSMC. Its base clock runs at 3.40 GHz with a boost clock of 5.00 GHz. This is a notable configuration: the 14 threads equal the 14 cores count, meaning this chip lacks hyper-threading, so every physical core contributes exactly one logical thread. For a horror title like Downfall, which relies on sustained frame pacing and consistent draw-call handling, the processor’s high boost clock of 5.00 GHz is the more relevant figure. The single-core performance potential, evidenced by a Cinebench R23 single-core score of 2085, indicates that the chip can push instruction-heavy game logic without bottlenecking the graphics pipeline.

The processor’s cache layout includes 192 KB of L1 per core, 3 MB of L2 per core, and 24 MB of shared L3 cache. In a game scenario, shared L3 capacity matters for keeping frequently accessed game assets closer to the cores, reducing latency. The 24 MB shared pool is moderate by current standards but adequate for a title from this era. Memory support is DDR5 over a dual-channel bus, providing a memory bandwidth of 102.4 GB/s. That bandwidth figure is critical for feeding the GPU with frame data, especially at lower resolutions where the CPU’s ability to prepare frames becomes the limiting factor. The processor also integrates Arc Xe-LPG Graphics with 24 execution units, though for discrete GPU testing, this iGPU plays no role in the measured results.

Benchmark data places this CPU at the 89th percentile among all CPUs, with an average benchmark score of 46262. Its nearest rivals in aggregate performance are the AMD Ryzen AI 9 HX 375 (46030, deltaPct 0.1), the Intel Core i9-13900HX (46098, deltaPct -0.1), the AMD EPYC 4364P (45970, deltaPct 0.2), and the AMD EPYC 7303 (45960, deltaPct 0.2). The deltas are minuscule — all within 0.2% of each other — which indicates that in raw computational throughput, this chip is statistically indistinguishable from those rivals. For Downfall specifically, the CPU’s role is to maintain a steady stream of frames, and the data suggests that at 1080p, where the CPU does more work relative to the GPU, the 5.00 GHz boost clock helps achieve the high average FPS numbers observed. The processor’s TDP is 65 W, which is efficient, but that is a power figure, not a performance metric.

The CPU’s performance in synthetic tests further clarifies its gaming potential. In Cinebench R23, it scores 14769 multi-core and 2085 single-core. The multi-core score is strong, indicating that if Downfall ever uses multiple threads for physics or AI, the chip has headroom. The PassMark multithread score of 37816 and single-thread score of 4516 corroborate this. Data compression (390711) and encryption (29293) scores are high, but those are not gaming-relevant. The floating-point math score of 117951 and integer math score of 87948 suggest robust general arithmetic capability, which can help in game logic calculations. The data shows that for this game, the CPU is not a bottleneck at any resolution tested, as evidenced by the FPS scaling pattern discussed later.

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

The NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2060 SUPER is a Turing-architecture GPU built on a 12 nm process at TSMC, with a chip designated TU106. It has 8 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 256-bit bus, yielding a memory bandwidth of 448.0 GB/s. The base clock is 1470 MHz, boosting to 1650 MHz. Memory runs at 1750 MHz, or 14 Gbps effective. For Downfall, a horror game, the 8 GB VRAM capacity is a key factor. The measured FPS data shows that at 4K with Ultra settings, the average FPS drops to 36, which is below playable thresholds. This is likely a VRAM capacity issue at higher resolutions and settings, where texture data exceeds the 8 GB frame buffer, forcing the GPU to swap data over the PCIe bus. At 4K High, the average FPS jumps to 57, indicating that reducing texture quality alleviates the VRAM pressure.

The GPU’s compute capabilities include 2176 shading units, 136 texture mapping units, and 64 ROPs. It also has 34 ray tracing cores and 272 tensor cores, though Downfall, released in 2016, predates widespread ray tracing adoption in games, so those cores are likely idle. The pixel rate is 105.6 GPixel/s, and the texture rate is 224.4 GTexel/s. These rates determine how quickly the GPU can fill pixels and apply textures, which matters for the horror genre’s dense environmental details and lighting effects. The FP32 performance is 7.181 TFLOPS, a modest figure by modern standards but sufficient for this game’s era.

The GPU’s average benchmark score is 18093, placing it at the 62nd percentile among all GPUs. Its nearest rivals are the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3060 Mobile (18159, deltaPct -0.4), the AMD Radeon Pro 5700 (18189, deltaPct -0.5), the AMD Radeon RX 460 (18373, deltaPct -1.5), and the Intel Arc A770M (18383, deltaPct -1.6). The deltas here are slightly more pronounced than the CPU’s rivals, with the RTX 2060 SUPER being 0.4% to 1.6% slower than these comparables. In gaming, this means the GPU is competitive with those cards, but the data shows that for Downfall, the GPU is the primary limiter at 4K and at high settings, as the FPS drops sharply when resolution increases.

The 8 GB VRAM is the most critical spec for this game. At 1080p, the GPU can render all settings with high average FPS, from 80 at Ultra to 191 at Low. At 1440p, the Ultra setting drops to 57 FPS, and at 4K, Ultra drops to 36 FPS. This pattern indicates that the GPU’s memory bandwidth (448.0 GB/s) is insufficient to sustain high frame rates at 4K with maximum settings, likely due to the frame buffer being exceeded. The GPU’s TDP is 175 W, and it requires a 450 W PSU, but those are power figures, not performance metrics. The GPU’s production status is end-of-life, which means it is no longer in production, and its successor is the GeForce 30 series.

How This Combo Ranks — use comboRankInGame vs other tested combos

This specific combination of the Intel Core Ultra 5 235 and the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2060 SUPER ranks 2061st out of 2928 tested combos in Downfall. That places it in the 70th percentile of all tested combinations, meaning it outperforms roughly 70% of the other CPU-GPU pairings in this game. However, the rank is not stellar, indicating that this pairing is not optimized for maximum frame rates. The CPU is a modern, high-end processor, but the GPU is an older mid-range card, and the data shows that the GPU drags down the overall combo ranking. In a game like Downfall, which is not particularly CPU-intensive, the GPU’s age becomes the limiting factor.

Compared to the CPU’s nearest rivals — the AMD Ryzen AI 9 HX 375, Intel Core i9-13900HX, AMD EPYC 4364P, and AMD EPYC 7303 — the combo ranking would likely be similar if those CPUs were paired with the same GPU, because the CPU performance delta is negligible. The GPU’s nearest rivals — the RTX 3060 Mobile, Radeon Pro 5700, Radeon RX 460, and Arc A770M — are all within 1.6% of the RTX 2060 SUPER in synthetic benchmarks, so swapping the GPU for any of those would produce nearly identical frame rates in Downfall. The ranking of 2061 out of 2928 is a reflection of the GPU’s mid-tier position in the overall GPU hierarchy, not a condemnation of the CPU.

The combo’s rank also indicates that there are 867 tested combos that perform worse. Those lower-ranked combos likely pair weaker CPUs with even older GPUs. Conversely, the top 2060 combos feature much more powerful GPUs, such as the RTX 30-series or 40-series cards, which are not present in this data pack. For a user with this specific pairing, the data suggests that the combo is balanced for 1080p gaming, where the CPU has headroom and the GPU is sufficient, but it struggles at 4K Ultra, where the combo’s rank would be lower if ranked per-resolution. The overall rank of 2061 is a single aggregate number, but the measured FPS data provides a more granular view of where this combo excels and where it falls short.

Measured FPS Breakdown — resolution by resolution, settings by settings, exact numbers

At 1920x1080, the combo delivers its strongest performance. At Low settings, the average FPS is 191, which is exceptionally smooth and far above the 60 FPS threshold for playable. At Medium settings, the average FPS is 156, with a minimum of 133 and a maximum of 180. This indicates that the frame time variance is low, providing a stable experience. At High settings, the average FPS drops to 128, still very playable. At Ultra settings, the average FPS is 80, which is still above 60 FPS and playable, though the drop from High to Ultra is significant (128 to 80, a 37.5% reduction). The data shows that at 1080p, all settings are playable, and even the most demanding preset maintains a comfortable margin above 60 FPS.

At 2560x1440, the performance scales down. At Low settings, the average FPS is 136, which is high but lower than the 191 at 1080p. At Medium settings, the average FPS is 112, with a minimum of 95 and a maximum of 128. The minimum of 95 is still above 60 FPS, indicating that the combo can handle 1440p Medium without dropping below playable thresholds. At High settings, the average FPS is 92, which is playable but approaching the 60 FPS boundary. At Ultra settings, the average FPS drops to 57, which is below 60 FPS and would be noticeable as stutter in a horror game where smooth frame pacing is critical for atmosphere. The drop from High to Ultra at 1440p is 35 FPS (92 to 57), a 38% reduction.

At 3840x2160, the combo struggles at the higher settings. At Low settings, the average FPS is 85, which is playable. At Medium settings, the average FPS is 69, with a minimum of 59 and a maximum of 80. The minimum of 59 is just below 60 FPS, indicating occasional dips below the playable threshold. At High settings, the average FPS is 57, which is below 60 FPS and not ideal for a smooth experience. At Ultra settings, the average FPS is 36, which is nearly unplayable for a horror game that relies on tense, fluid motion. The data shows a clear pattern: at 4K, only Low and Medium settings are viable, and even Medium has a minimum FPS that falls slightly below 60.

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

The FPS drop from 1080p to 4K is substantial across all settings, and the pattern reveals the limiting component. At Low settings, the average FPS drops from 191 at 1080p to 136 at 1440p and 85 at 4K. That is a 55.5% reduction from 1080p to 4K (191 to 85). At Medium settings, the FPS drops from 156 at 1080p to 112 at 1440p and 69 at 4K, a 55.8% reduction. At High settings, the FPS drops from 128 at 1080p to 92 at 1440p and 57 at 4K, a 55.5% reduction. At Ultra settings, the FPS drops from 80 at 1080p to 57 at 1440p and 36 at 4K, a 55% reduction.

The consistency of the percentage drop across settings — all around 55% — is a strong indicator that the GPU is the limiting component. If the CPU were the bottleneck, the FPS drop from 1080p to 4K would be less severe at higher resolutions, because the CPU would be idle while the GPU struggles. Instead, the FPS scales almost linearly with the pixel count, which is the classic signature of a GPU-bound scenario. At 1080p, the CPU is able to feed the GPU enough frames to reach 191 FPS at Low, but as resolution increases, the GPU’s rendering workload grows, and the frame rate falls proportionally.

Additionally, the drop from 1440p to 4K is larger than the drop from 1080p to 1440p in absolute terms. For example, at Low settings, 1080p to 1440p is a 55 FPS drop (191 to 136), while 1440p to 4K is a 51 FPS drop (136 to 85). This suggests that the GPU is not hitting a memory bandwidth wall at 4K; rather, it is simply overwhelmed by the pixel count. The 8 GB VRAM may also contribute to the Ultra setting’s poor performance at 4K, but the scaling pattern across all settings points to the GPU’s compute and memory bandwidth as the primary limiter. The CPU’s high boost clock and efficient cache are sufficient to avoid becoming a bottleneck even at 1080p Low, where the frame rate is highest.

Settings Recommendations — which preset gives the best experience per the measured rows

Based on the measured FPS data, the best experience for this combo depends on the target resolution. At 1080p, all settings are playable, but the data shows that High settings offer the best balance. At 1080p High, the average FPS is 128, which is well above 60, and the visual quality is significantly better than Medium or Low. Ultra at 1080p drops to 80 FPS, which is still playable, but the 37.5% FPS reduction from High to Ultra may not be worth the marginal visual gain, especially in a horror game where frame pacing matters more than texture detail. Therefore, 1080p High is the recommended setting for a smooth and visually detailed experience.

At 1440p, the data suggests that Medium is the optimal preset. At 1440p Medium, the average FPS is 112, with a minimum of 95, which ensures that the frame rate never dips below 60 FPS. High at 1440p drops to 92 FPS, which is still playable, but the minimum FPS is not provided, and the average is closer to the 60 FPS boundary. Ultra at 1440p drops to 57 FPS, which is below 60 and would be noticeable in a horror setting. Therefore, 1440p Medium provides the best combination of visual quality and performance, with a high average FPS and a safe minimum.

At 4K, the data is more constrained. Ultra at 4K averages 36 FPS, which is unplayable. High at 4K averages 57 FPS, which is just below 60 and may cause occasional stutter. Medium at 4K averages 69 FPS, with a minimum of 59, which is borderline playable but not consistently smooth. Low at 4K averages 85 FPS, which is playable but sacrifices visual quality. For a horror game, the immersive atmosphere relies on high-quality textures and lighting, so Low is not ideal. The data indicates that 4K Medium is the best compromise, offering an average FPS of 69 and a minimum of 59, which is close to the 60 FPS threshold. However, users who prioritize smoothness over visuals should choose Low at 85 FPS. For the best overall experience on this combo, 1080p High and 1440p Medium are the recommended presets, as they provide the highest average FPS with safe minimums, ensuring a stable and immersive horror experience.