Downfall

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

The Intel Core Ultra 5 235 sits in the desktop mainstream segment, built on the Arrow Lake architecture with a 3 nm process from TSMC. It packs 14 cores and 14 threads, which means no hyper-threading — each core handles a single thread. The base clock runs at 3.40 GHz, and the boost clock reaches 5.00 GHz. This is a 65 W TDP part, fitting into Intel Socket 1851 with a dual-channel DDR5 memory interface delivering 102.4 GB/s of bandwidth.

Benchmark data places this CPU in the 89th percentile among all processors, with an average benchmark score of 46062. Its nearest rivals show how tightly clustered the mid-to-high-end field is: the AMD Ryzen AI 9 HX 375 scores 46030, a 0.1% difference; the Intel Core i9-13900HX scores 46098, a -0.1% delta; and the AMD EPYC 4364P and EPYC 7303 sit at 45970 and 45960 respectively, both within 0.2% of the Ultra 5 235. This CPU is effectively neck-and-neck with those parts in synthetic workloads, meaning its 14-core/14-thread layout delivers competitive throughput.

For a horror game like Downfall, released in 2016, the CPU's multithreaded muscle is relevant mainly for background tasks, physics, and AI-driven enemy behavior. The Cinebench R23 multicore score of 14769 and single-core score of 2085 indicate strong per-thread performance, which matters for game logic that often relies on a handful of heavily loaded threads. PassMark's single-thread score of 4516 reinforces this — Downfall's engine, built for 2016-era hardware, likely doesn't scale across all 14 cores, but the high boost clock of 5.00 GHz ensures that the primary game thread runs at maximum speed.

The data shows a clear pattern: at 1080p Low, the CPU can push 201 FPS, but at 4K Ultra, the frame rate collapses to 37 FPS. This suggests that at lower resolutions and settings, the CPU is capable of feeding the GPU with enough frames, while at higher settings, the GPU becomes the bottleneck. The L3 cache is 24 MB shared, with 192 KB L1 per core and 3 MB L2 per core — ample for a game from 2016 that likely fits comfortably in cache. The 14 threads may be overkill for Downfall's threading model, but the high single-core performance ensures no CPU-induced frame pacing issues in the measured results.

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

The NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5050 is a Blackwell 2.0 architecture GPU built on TSMC's 5 nm process, with a chip designated GB207. It carries 8 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 128-bit bus, yielding 320.0 GB/s of bandwidth. The base clock is 2317 MHz, and the boost clock reaches 2572 MHz, with memory running at 2500 MHz (20 Gbps effective). The GPU has 2560 shading units, 80 TMUs, 32 ROPs, 20 RT cores, and 80 tensor cores. Its FP32 throughput is 13.17 TFLOPS, with matching FP16 at 13.17 TFLOPS (1:1). The pixel rate is 82.30 GPixel/s, and the texture rate is 205.8 GTexel/s. This is a 130 W part with a dual-slot cooler and a single 8-pin power connector, requiring a 300 W suggested PSU.

In the GPU benchmark hierarchy, the RTX 5050 sits in the 66th percentile of all GPUs, with an average benchmark score of 21035. Its nearest rivals are a mixed bag: the AMD Radeon RX Vega M GL scores 21153 (-0.6% delta), the AMD Radeon HD 8970M scores 21237 (-1% delta), the AMD Radeon RX 5600 XT scores 20713 (+1.6% delta), and the NVIDIA RTX A4000 Mobile scores 21379 (-1.6% delta). This places the RTX 5050 in a performance band where it trades blows with older mid-range parts, though its 8 GB VRAM and modern architecture give it features those older cards lack.

For Downfall, the GPU's role is decisive. At 1080p High, the combo averages 135 FPS; at 1440p High, it drops to 96 FPS; and at 4K High, it lands at 60 FPS. The step from 1080p to 1440p costs 39 FPS, and from 1440p to 4K costs another 36 FPS. This scaling pattern points to a GPU that is increasingly stressed as resolution climbs. The 8 GB VRAM buffer is sufficient for 1080p and 1440p at High settings, but at 4K Ultra, the frame rate plunges to 37 FPS — likely due to both compute and memory bandwidth limits. The 128-bit bus and 320.0 GB/s bandwidth are modest for 4K workloads, especially when texture sizes and shading complexity rise.

The RTX 5050's performance in synthetic tests mirrors this: PassMark G3D score of 17326 and 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 score of 2502 indicate a part that handles modern APIs but is not a high-end powerhouse. The Geekbench OpenCL score of 90334 and Vulkan score of 89381 show strong compute capability for its class. In Downfall, a 2016 horror title, this GPU has enough raw power for smooth 60+ FPS at 1440p High, but 4K Ultra exceeds its comfortable envelope.

# FAQ

Q: What is the best resolution/settings combo for this CPU and GPU in Downfall?

A: The data shows 1440p High at 96 FPS average is a strong balance, while 1080p High hits 135 FPS. 4K High drops to 60 FPS, and 4K Ultra falls to 37 FPS, making 1440p the sweet spot for visual fidelity and performance.

Q: How does the RTX 5050 compare to its nearest GPU rivals in overall benchmark scores?

A: The RTX 5050's average benchmark score is 21035. It is 0.6% behind the AMD Radeon RX Vega M GL (21153), 1% behind the AMD Radeon HD 8970M (21237), 1.6% ahead of the AMD Radeon RX 5600 XT (20713), and 1.6% behind the NVIDIA RTX A4000 Mobile (21379).

Q: Is the Intel Core Ultra 5 235 CPU a bottleneck at 1080p Low in Downfall?

A: At 1080p Low, the combo achieves 201 FPS average. Since the CPU has a 5.00 GHz boost clock and a single-thread score of 4516 in PassMark, it is not limiting at this resolution and settings — the GPU is still the primary frame rate driver.

Q: What is the FPS drop from 1080p to 4K at High settings?

A: At 1080p High, the average FPS is 135. At 1440p High, it drops to 96, and at 4K High, it reaches 60. The total drop from 1080p to 4K High is 75 FPS, a 55.6% reduction.

Q: How does the Ultra 5 235 CPU rank against its nearest rivals?

A: The CPU's average benchmark score is 46062. It is 0.1% ahead of the AMD Ryzen AI 9 HX 375 (46030), 0.1% behind the Intel Core i9-13900HX (46098), and 0.2% ahead of both the AMD EPYC 4364P (45970) and EPYC 7303 (45960).

Q: Does the RTX 5050 have enough VRAM for 4K Ultra in Downfall?

A: The 4K Ultra average FPS is 37, which is playable but not smooth. The 8 GB VRAM and 320.0 GB/s bandwidth are the likely limiting factors, as the jump from 4K High (60 FPS) to 4K Ultra (37 FPS) represents a 23 FPS drop.

# How This Combo Ranks

The combined Intel Core Ultra 5 235 and NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5050 configuration ranks 1755 out of 2928 tested combos in Downfall. This places it in the 60th percentile of all tested systems — solidly mid-pack, but far from the top tier. The rank reflects a pairing where the CPU is arguably overqualified relative to the GPU; the Ultra 5 235 sits in the 89th percentile of all CPUs, while the RTX 5050 is in the 66th percentile of all GPUs.

The data indicates that this combo's ranking is dragged down by the GPU rather than the CPU. At 1080p Low, the system produces 201 FPS, which is excellent by any measure, but at 4K Ultra, it drops to 37 FPS — a figure that would rank poorly against combos with higher-end GPUs. The CPU's benchmark scores (e.g., Cinebench R23 multicore 14769, PassMark multithread 37816) show it can handle far more demanding workloads than Downfall throws at it, but the RTX 5050's 13.17 TFLOPS FP32 and 8 GB VRAM cap the system's ceiling.

Compared to the nearest rival GPUs, the RTX 5050's performance band means this combo would likely trade rankings with systems using an RX 5600 XT or RTX A4000 Mobile, depending on the CPU paired alongside. The rank of 1755 out of 2928 suggests that roughly 40% of tested configurations outperform this one in Downfall, which aligns with the GPU's mid-tier percentile. For a 2016 horror game, this is a capable setup for 1080p and 1440p gaming, but it won't top any leaderboards at 4K.

# Resolution Scaling

The measured FPS data reveals a clear resolution scaling pattern. At 1080p Low, the system hits 201 FPS; at 1440p Low, it drops to 144 FPS; and at 4K Low, it reaches 89 FPS. The drop from 1080p to 1440p Low is 57 FPS (a 28.4% reduction), and from 1440p to 4K Low is 55 FPS (a 38.2% reduction). This scaling is roughly linear with the pixel count increase, indicating the GPU is the primary bottleneck even at Low settings.

At High settings, the scaling is steeper: 135 FPS at 1080p, 96 FPS at 1440p, and 60 FPS at 4K. The 1080p-to-1440p drop is 39 FPS (28.9%), and the 1440p-to-4K drop is 36 FPS (37.5%). The absolute FPS losses are smaller than at Low settings, but the percentage drops are similar, suggesting the GPU workload scales consistently with resolution.

The Ultra settings tell a different story. At 1080p Ultra, the system averages 84 FPS; at 1440p Ultra, it drops to 60 FPS; and at 4K Ultra, it falls to 37 FPS. The 1080p-to-1440p drop is 24 FPS (28.6%), and the 1440p-to-4K drop is 23 FPS (38.3%). The 4K Ultra result of 37 FPS is the lowest measured in the entire dataset, and the gap between 4K High (60 FPS) and 4K Ultra (37 FPS) — a 23 FPS drop — indicates that Ultra settings impose a significant additional load beyond resolution alone.

The limiting component is clearly the GPU. The CPU's performance at 1080p Low (201 FPS) shows it can produce far more frames than the GPU can render at higher resolutions. If the CPU were the bottleneck, we would expect similar FPS across resolutions at a given setting, but the data shows FPS falling as resolution rises — a classic GPU-bound signature. The RTX 5050's 8 GB VRAM and 320.0 GB/s bandwidth are modest for 4K workloads, and the 37 FPS at 4K Ultra suggests the GPU is overwhelmed by the combination of high resolution and demanding settings.

# Measured FPS Breakdown

The full measured FPS dataset for Downfall with the Intel Core Ultra 5 235 and NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5050 is as follows:

3840x2160 (4K)

• High: 60 FPS average
• Low: 89 FPS average
• Medium: 73 FPS average (min 62, max 84)
• Ultra: 37 FPS average

2560x1440 (1440p)

• High: 96 FPS average
• Low: 144 FPS average
• Medium: 118 FPS average (min 100, max 135)
• Ultra: 60 FPS average

1920x1080 (1080p)

• High: 135 FPS average
• Low: 201 FPS average
• Medium: 165 FPS average (min 140, max 189)
• Ultra: 84 FPS average

At 1080p, the system is comfortably playable across all settings. Even at Ultra, the 84 FPS average is well above the 60 FPS threshold for smooth gameplay. The Medium settings show a tight frame time distribution (min 140, max 189), indicating consistent performance without major stutters.

At 1440p, the picture changes slightly. Low and Medium settings produce 144 FPS and 118 FPS respectively, both excellent. High drops to 96 FPS, still smooth, but Ultra falls to 60 FPS — right at the edge of what many consider acceptable for a horror game where frame dips can break immersion. The Medium settings at 1440p show a min of 100 FPS and max of 135 FPS, a 35 FPS spread that suggests some scenes are more demanding than others.

At 4K, the system struggles at higher settings. Low produces 89 FPS, Medium 73 FPS, and High 60 FPS — all playable, though the 4K High result is marginal. Ultra, however, drops to 37 FPS, which is below the 60 FPS target and would likely result in noticeable stutter during intense horror sequences. The Medium settings at 4K (min 62, max 84) show a 22 FPS spread, indicating that even at medium quality, the GPU is working hard to maintain frame rates.

The data shows a clear hierarchy: 1080p is optimal for high refresh rate play, 1440p balances quality and performance, and 4K is only viable at Low or Medium settings. The Ultra preset at 4K is the only configuration that falls below 60 FPS, making it unsuitable for a smooth experience in this horror title.