Downfall

# Downfall with Intel Core Ultra 5 245 + AMD Radeon RX 6600 XT

The combination of the Intel Core Ultra 5 245 and the AMD Radeon RX 6600 XT produces a highly resolution-sensitive experience in Downfall, with frame rates ranging from a playable 57 FPS at 4K High to a fluid 191 FPS at 1080p Low. Across the twelve measured configurations, the data reveals a system where the GPU becomes the dominant constraint as resolution climbs, while the 14-core CPU provides ample headroom at lower settings. The combo ranks 2091st out of 2928 tested combinations, placing it in the lower-middle tier of the database, yet the actual gameplay metrics show a configurable experience that adapts well to different display targets.

Resolution Scaling

The measured FPS data shows a clear and consistent pattern of performance degradation as resolution increases, which is textbook behavior for a GPU-limited scenario at higher pixel counts. At Low settings, the average frame rate drops from 191 FPS at 1920x1080 to 136 FPS at 2560x1440 — a reduction of 55 FPS — and then further to 85 FPS at 3840x2160. This represents a 55% decrease from 1080p to 4K at Low, indicating that even the least demanding preset cannot escape the rasterization load imposed by 4K pixel counts.

The Medium preset exhibits a similar trajectory: 156 FPS at 1080p, 111 FPS at 1440p, and 69 FPS at 4K. The step from 1440p to 4K costs 42 FPS, which is the largest single-resolution drop in the entire dataset, suggesting that the Radeon RX 6600 XT's 256.0 GB/s memory bandwidth and 8 GB GDDR6 frame buffer begin to strain at 4K Medium. The High preset follows the same pattern with 128 FPS at 1080p, 91 FPS at 1440p, and 57 FPS at 4K, showing a 71 FPS total decline across the three resolutions.

Ultra settings tell the most dramatic story: 80 FPS at 1080p, 57 FPS at 1440p, and just 36 FPS at 4K. The 1080p-to-1440p drop of 23 FPS is proportionally larger than the 1440p-to-4K drop of 21 FPS, which is unusual compared to other presets. This suggests that at Ultra, the combination of shading complexity and memory pressure creates a bottleneck that manifests earlier in the resolution scaling curve. The 4K Ultra result of 36 FPS is below the threshold for smooth gameplay in a horror title, where consistent frame pacing matters for atmosphere.

The scaling ratios between 1080p and 4K are remarkably consistent across presets: Low delivers 2.25x the frame rate at 1080p versus 4K, Medium delivers 2.26x, High delivers 2.25x, and Ultra delivers 2.22x. This uniformity indicates that the limiting component — the GPU — is equally stressed across all quality levels, with no preset shifting the bottleneck toward the CPU. The Core Ultra 5 245, with its 14 cores and 5.10 GHz boost clock, appears to have sufficient headroom to feed the GPU at all resolutions tested.

CPU Role

The Intel Core Ultra 5 245 brings 14 cores and 14 threads to the table, running at a base clock of 3.50 GHz with a boost clock of 5.10 GHz. This Arrow Lake-S architecture, built on a 3 nm process by TSMC, delivers strong synthetic benchmark scores: a Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 32924 and a single-core score of 4648. In the context of Downfall, a horror game that relies on lighting, shadow calculations, and AI-driven enemy behavior, the CPU's single-thread performance is crucial for maintaining consistent frame times, while the multi-core capability handles background physics and streaming.

The data shows no evidence of CPU limitation at any resolution or setting in this combination. At 1080p Low, where the GPU's workload is lightest, the system achieves 191 FPS — a figure that approaches the upper range of what many displays can present. If the CPU were the limiting factor, we would expect to see frame rates plateau at 1080p regardless of settings, but the data shows a clear step from 191 FPS at Low down to 80 FPS at Ultra, which is a GPU-driven spread.

The CPU's nearest rivals in the benchmark database include the AMD Ryzen 7 PRO 5755G and the AMD Ryzen 9 7900, with the Core Ultra 5 245 scoring 0.4% and 0.5% lower respectively in average benchmark scores. It outperforms the Intel Xeon Gold 5318H by 0.6% and the Intel Core i5-14600K by 0.8%. This places the CPU in the 90th percentile of all CPUs tested, indicating strong overall compute capability. For Downfall specifically, the 24 MB of shared L3 cache and the dual-channel DDR5 memory interface with 102.4 GB/s bandwidth provide ample data throughput for game logic, though the game's modest requirements mean the CPU rarely becomes the focus of analysis.

The integrated Arc Xe-LPG Graphics 64EU is present on the chip but plays no role in this discrete GPU configuration. The CPU's 65 W TDP and locked multiplier suggest it is designed for efficiency rather than overclocking, which is appropriate for a gaming system where the Radeon RX 6600 XT is the primary rendering engine.

GPU Role

The AMD Radeon RX 6600 XT is the clear performance determinant in this combo, and its specifications explain the observed scaling behavior. The Navi 23 chip, built on RDNA 2.0 architecture at 7 nm, features 2048 shading units, 128 TMUs, and 64 ROPs, with a base clock of 1968 MHz, a game clock of 2359 MHz, and a boost clock of 2589 MHz. The 8 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 128-bit bus delivers 256.0 GB/s of bandwidth, which is modest for 4K workloads but adequate for 1080p and 1440p gaming.

The GPU's synthetic benchmark scores align with its observed gaming performance. It achieves a 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 score of 1804, a Passmark G3D score of 16461, and a Geekbench OpenCL score of 80503. Its percentile ranking against all GPUs stands at 70, meaning it outperforms 70% of the database's GPU entries. The nearest rivals include the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1630 (0.7% higher score), the Intel Arc A350M (0.8% lower), the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 780 Ti (0.8% higher), and the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2080 SUPER (1.1% higher). These tight deltaPct values indicate the RX 6600 XT sits in a densely populated performance band.

In Downfall, the GPU's 8 GB frame buffer becomes a limiting factor at 4K Ultra, where the 36 FPS average suggests the card is both fill-rate and bandwidth constrained. The measured minimum FPS of 59 at 4K Medium and 95 at 1440p Medium provides additional context: these are the only configurations with recorded minimums, and both show that frame dips are present but not catastrophic. The absence of minimum FPS data for Low, High, and Ultra presets at all resolutions means we can only infer stability from the averages, but the Medium preset data suggests the card maintains playable frame times even under load.

The GPU's 10.60 TFLOPS of FP32 performance and 331.4 GTexel/s texture rate are well-suited to Downfall's horror aesthetic, which typically features dark environments with volumetric lighting and particle effects. The 32 ray tracing cores are present but the game's release date of 2016-02-28 predates widespread RT adoption, so the rasterization pipeline is the primary workload.

Settings Recommendations

Based on the measured FPS rows, the optimal settings depend on the target resolution and desired frame rate consistency. At 1920x1080, all presets deliver playable performance, but the Medium preset at 156 FPS with a minimum of 133 FPS and maximum of 180 FPS offers the best balance of visual quality and headroom. The High preset at 128 FPS is also viable, while Ultra at 80 FPS sacrifices significant frame rate for marginal visual gains that are unlikely to be noticeable in a horror game's dim environments.

At 2560x1440, the Medium preset at 111 FPS with a minimum of 95 FPS is the recommended choice for most users, as it maintains a comfortable margin above 60 FPS while providing better visual fidelity than Low. The High preset at 91 FPS is acceptable for those prioritizing image quality, but the 20 FPS gap between Medium and High suggests diminishing returns. Ultra at 57 FPS is borderline — playable but close to the threshold where frame pacing issues become noticeable in fast-moving scenes.

At 3840x2160, the situation is more constrained. The Low preset at 85 FPS is the only configuration that provides a substantial frame rate buffer, while Medium at 69 FPS is playable but leaves less room for demanding scenes. High at 57 FPS is marginal, and Ultra at 36 FPS should be avoided for any serious gameplay session. For 4K users, the Medium preset represents the best compromise, delivering 69 FPS average with a 59 FPS minimum and 80 FPS maximum, which indicates the system can hold near-60 FPS even in demanding moments.

The data suggests that the RX 6600 XT is best utilized at 1080p or 1440p with Medium or High settings. The performance cliff between Medium and Ultra across all resolutions — a 76 FPS drop at 1080p, 54 FPS at 1440p, and 33 FPS at 4K — indicates that Ultra settings engage expensive rendering features that disproportionately tax the GPU without proportional visual benefit in this title.

FAQ

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

A: The measured data shows 1920x1080 provides the highest frame rates across all settings, with 191 FPS at Low and 128 FPS at High. At 2560x1440, the Medium preset achieves 111 FPS, while 4K is only viable at Low (85 FPS) or Medium (69 FPS) settings.

Q: Can this system handle 4K gaming in Downfall?

A: Yes, but with caveats. At 4K Medium, the average FPS is 69 with a minimum of 59 and maximum of 80, which is playable. At 4K High, the average drops to 57 FPS, and at 4K Ultra it falls to 36 FPS, which is below the threshold for smooth gameplay.

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

A: The Intel Core Ultra 5 245 scores 0.4% lower than the AMD Ryzen 7 PRO 5755G and 0.5% lower than the AMD Ryzen 9 7900 in average benchmarks. It outperforms the Intel Xeon Gold 5318H by 0.6% and the Intel Core i5-14600K by 0.8%, placing it in the 90th percentile of all CPUs.

Q: Is the GPU the limiting factor in this system?

A: Yes. The consistent FPS scaling across resolutions — roughly 2.25x difference between 1080p and 4K for all presets — indicates the GPU is the primary bottleneck. The CPU's 14 cores and 5.10 GHz boost clock provide sufficient headroom to avoid limiting performance.

Q: What is the frame rate difference between Low and Ultra at 1080p?

A: At 1920x1080, Low settings achieve 191 FPS while Ultra achieves 80 FPS, a difference of 111 FPS. This represents a 58% reduction in performance when moving from the least to most demanding preset.

Q: How does this combo rank among all tested combinations?

A: This combination ranks 2091st out of 2928 tested combos in Downfall, placing it in the 71st percentile of the database. This ranking reflects the mid-range positioning of both the CPU and GPU rather than any specific incompatibility.

Measured FPS Breakdown

At 1920x1080, the full range of settings is playable. Low settings deliver 191 FPS average, providing maximum frame rate headroom for competitive play or high refresh rate displays. Medium settings achieve 156 FPS with a minimum of 133 FPS and maximum of 180 FPS, offering a solid balance between visual quality and performance. High settings produce 128 FPS, which remains well above the 60 FPS threshold. Ultra settings drop to 80 FPS, which is still playable but represents a 71% reduction from Low.

At 2560x1440, performance scales down predictably. Low settings achieve 136 FPS, Medium delivers 111 FPS with a minimum of 95 FPS and maximum of 128 FPS, High produces 91 FPS, and Ultra falls to 57 FPS. The Medium preset stands out as the sweet spot, as its minimum FPS of 95 indicates consistent frame delivery without major dips. The Ultra preset at 57 FPS is technically above 60 FPS average but leaves little margin for scene complexity spikes.

At 3840x2160, only the lower presets are viable for smooth gameplay. Low settings achieve 85 FPS, Medium delivers 69 FPS with a minimum of 59 FPS and maximum of 80 FPS, High produces 57 FPS, and Ultra drops to 36 FPS. The Medium preset's minimum of 59 FPS shows that the system can hold near-60 FPS even in demanding moments, making it the recommended 4K configuration. The High preset at 57 FPS is marginal, and the Ultra preset at 36 FPS is not recommended for extended play sessions.

How This Combo Ranks

This Intel Core Ultra 5 245 + AMD Radeon RX 6600 XT combination ranks 2091st out of 2928 tested combos in Downfall, placing it in the 71st percentile of the database. This ranking reflects the mid-range positioning of both components: the CPU sits in the 90th percentile of all CPUs, while the GPU sits in the 70th percentile of all GPUs. The combination's overall rank is pulled down by the GPU's relative performance class, which is the primary determinant of gaming frame rates.

The rank of 2091 out of 2928 means that approximately 837 combinations perform worse than this setup in Downfall, while 2090 perform better. This places the combo in the upper third of the tested population, which is a reasonable outcome for a mid-range GPU paired with a high-end CPU. The CPU's strong synthetic scores — Cinebench R23 multi-core of 32924, Passmark multi-thread of 38706, and a 90th percentile ranking — do not translate into a higher gaming rank because Downfall's frame rates are GPU-bound at most settings.

The GPU's nearest rivals in the benchmark database provide context for its gaming performance. The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1630 scores 0.7% higher, the Intel Arc A350M scores 0.8% lower, the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 780 Ti scores 0.8% higher, and the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2080 SUPER scores 1.1% higher. These tight margins indicate that the RX 6600 XT is surrounded by competitors within a narrow performance band, and its 70th percentile GPU ranking confirms it is a solid mid-range option rather than a high-end part.

For Downfall specifically, the combo's rank suggests that users should not expect top-tier performance at 4K Ultra, but the measured FPS data shows the system is well-optimized for 1080p and 1440p gaming. The 2091st rank is a composite metric that weights all tested configurations equally, but the actual gameplay experience varies significantly by resolution and settings. Users targeting 1080p will find this combo delivers excellent frame rates across all presets, while 4K users should stick to Medium settings to maintain playable performance.