Downfall

Downfall is a 2016 horror title that stresses both CPU and GPU, and the measured results for the Intel Core Ultra 5 245 paired with the Intel Arc B390 show a configuration that is heavily bound by its graphics subsystem at higher resolutions, yet capable of delivering playable frame rates at 1080p with adjusted settings. The data indicates a clear hierarchy where the integrated-class Arc B390, which sits in the 9th percentile of all GPUs, limits performance far more than the 90th-percentile Core Ultra 5 245 CPU. This analysis breaks down the measured FPS data to provide a clear picture of what users can expect from this specific combination.

Settings Recommendations

Based on the measured FPS data, the optimal experience for this combo depends heavily on the target resolution. At 1920x1080, the Low preset delivers an average of 106 FPS, which is the highest frame rate recorded across all tests and settings. This makes it the clear choice for users prioritizing smooth, high-refresh-rate gameplay. The Medium preset at 1080p yields 87 FPS average with a minimum of 74 FPS, which remains highly playable and offers a significant visual upgrade over Low. The High preset at 1080p drops to 71 FPS average, which is still smooth, but the jump from Medium to High costs 16 FPS. Ultra at 1080p is the least viable option, producing only 44 FPS average, which is below the threshold for comfortable play in a fast-paced horror game.

At 2560x1440, the situation changes dramatically. The Low preset is the only setting that maintains a consistently smooth experience, with an average of 76 FPS. The Medium preset at 1440p produces 62 FPS average with a minimum of 53 FPS, which is borderline acceptable for a slower-paced horror title but may feel choppy during intense sequences. The High preset at 1440p drops to 51 FPS, making it playable but not ideal, while Ultra at 1440p falls to 32 FPS, which is largely unplayable due to frequent stuttering. For 4K (3840x2160), the data shows that only the Low preset, with 47 FPS average, approaches playability. The Medium preset at 4K offers 39 FPS, which is marginal, while High drops to 32 FPS and Ultra to a mere 20 FPS.

The best experience per the measured rows is to prioritize resolution scaling over graphical fidelity. At 1080p, Medium or High provides a great balance of visuals and performance. For 1440p, users must accept Low to avoid frequent dips below 60 FPS. At 4K, the only viable option is Low, and even then, the average FPS is below 60, indicating that this resolution is not a practical target for this hardware combo. The data suggests that the Arc B390 is the primary bottleneck, making preset selection a matter of managing the GPU's load rather than the CPU's.

CPU Role

The Intel Core Ultra 5 245 is a 14-core, 14-thread processor based on the Arrow Lake architecture, running on a 3 nm process with a base clock of 3.50 GHz and a boost clock of 5.10 GHz. Its benchmark results place it in the 90th percentile of all CPUs, with a Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 32924 and a single-core score of 4648. In comparison to its nearest rivals, the Core Ultra 5 245 is effectively tied with the AMD Ryzen 7 PRO 5755G (deltaPct of -0.4%), the AMD Ryzen 9 7900 (deltaPct of -0.5%), and the Intel Xeon Gold 5318H (deltaPct of 0.6%), while being just 0.8% ahead of the Intel Core i5-14600K. This indicates that the CPU provides ample processing power for a game like Downfall.

However, the measured FPS data reveals that the CPU is not the limiting factor in this configuration. The performance scaling between resolutions and settings is characteristic of a GPU-bound scenario. For example, at 1080p Low, the combo achieves 106 FPS, but at 4K Low, it drops to 47 FPS. This 59 FPS drop is far too steep to be attributed to CPU limitations, as the Core Ultra 5 245's single-threaded performance (Cinebench R23 single-core score of 4648) is more than sufficient for a 2016 title. The CPU's 14 cores and 14 threads are largely idle during gameplay, as Downfall is unlikely to utilize more than a few threads effectively. The PassMark multi-thread score of 38706 and the data compression score of 400942 confirm that the CPU has headroom for more demanding workloads, but it is not being taxed here.

The data strongly suggests that the Arc B390, with its 1536 shading units and 7.680 TFLOPS of FP32 performance, is the sole bottleneck. The GPU's 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 score of 1482 places it in the 9th percentile of all GPUs, and its nearest rivals are the NVIDIA GeForce GT 520MX (deltaPct of 1.3%), the GeForce 800M (deltaPct of 1.5%), the GT 625 OEM (deltaPct of 2.5%), and the GT 710 (deltaPct of 2.7%). This places the Arc B390 in the same performance tier as decade-old entry-level discrete GPUs, which explains why it struggles to maintain high frame rates even at 1080p. The CPU's role in this combo is to provide a stable foundation that never becomes a bottleneck, allowing the GPU's performance ceiling to be the sole determining factor in frame rates.

FAQ

Q: Why are frame rates so low at 4K even with a powerful CPU?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 5 245 is in the 90th percentile of CPUs, but the Intel Arc B390 is in the 9th percentile of GPUs. The measured data shows that at 4K, even the Low preset only achieves 47 FPS, indicating that the GPU's rendering capabilities are the limiting factor, not the CPU's processing power.

Q: What is the best setting for a smooth 60 FPS experience at 1080p?

A: The measured data shows that the Low preset at 1920x1080 achieves an average of 106 FPS, which is well above 60 FPS. The Medium preset also exceeds 60 FPS with an average of 87 FPS, making it a viable option if you prefer better visuals. The High preset at 71 FPS is also above the 60 FPS threshold.

Q: How does this combo compare to other tested combinations in Downfall?

A: This specific combo ranks 2589 out of 2928 tested combinations, placing it in the bottom 12% of all configurations. This low rank is primarily due to the Arc B390's weak performance, as the CPU is a high-end part that does not hold the system back.

Q: Is the CPU or GPU more responsible for the performance in this game?

A: The data shows a classic GPU-bound scenario. Dropping from 1080p Low (106 FPS) to 4K Low (47 FPS) reduces performance by 56%, while the CPU's benchmark scores remain constant. The Arc B390's 3DMark Steel Nomad score of 1482 is in the 9th percentile, confirming that the GPU is the primary bottleneck.

Q: Can I play Downfall at 1440p with this hardware?

A: Yes, but only with the Low preset, which achieves an average of 76 FPS. The Medium preset at 1440p drops to 62 FPS, which is playable but has a minimum of 53 FPS. The High and Ultra presets at 1440p produce 51 FPS and 32 FPS, respectively, which are not recommended for a smooth experience.

Q: Does the Arc B390 support modern graphics APIs required by Downfall?

A: Yes, the Arc B390 supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. This means it is fully compatible with the game's API requirements, but its raw computational power is insufficient for high settings at higher resolutions.

How This Combo Ranks

The combination of the Intel Core Ultra 5 245 and Intel Arc B390 ranks 2589 out of 2928 tested combos in Downfall, placing it in the bottom 11.6% of all configurations. This low ranking is almost entirely attributable to the graphics card. The Core Ultra 5 245 is a top-tier CPU, ranking in the 90th percentile globally, and its nearest rival, the AMD Ryzen 9 7900, has an average benchmark score that is only 0.5% higher. This indicates that the CPU is not a weak link in the chain. Instead, the Arc B390's 9th percentile ranking and its 3DMark Steel Nomad score of 1482, which is just 1.3% higher than the NVIDIA GeForce GT 520MX, highlight the GPU's severe performance deficit.

The rank of 2589 out of 2928 means that 339 other combinations performed worse. This suggests that while the combo is far from optimal, there are still configurations that are even less capable. However, for a user with a high-end CPU like the Core Ultra 5 245, the expectation would be for a much higher ranking. The data shows that this combination is heavily imbalanced, with the CPU being overkill for the GPU's capabilities. The CPU's Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 32924 and single-core score of 4648 demonstrate that it can handle any modern game, but the GPU's performance is comparable to entry-level discrete cards from over a decade ago, as evidenced by its rival list. In Downfall, this translates to a system that ranks poorly due to the GPU's inability to keep up with the CPU's potential.

Resolution Scaling

The measured FPS data shows a clear and dramatic drop in performance as resolution increases from 1080p to 4K. At the Low preset, the average FPS falls from 106 at 1920x1080 to 76 at 2560x1440, and then to 47 at 3840x2160. This represents a 28% drop from 1080p to 1440p, and a further 38% drop from 1440p to 4K. At the Medium preset, the averages are 87 FPS, 62 FPS, and 39 FPS for 1080p, 1440p, and 4K, respectively, showing a similar rate of decline. The High preset shows averages of 71 FPS, 51 FPS, and 32 FPS, while the Ultra preset drops from 44 FPS at 1080p to 32 FPS at 1440p and 20 FPS at 4K.

This scaling pattern is a textbook example of a GPU-limited system. As resolution increases, the number of pixels that the GPU must render grows exponentially, placing a much heavier load on the graphics processor. The fact that the FPS drops by roughly half from 1080p to 4K across all settings indicates that the Arc B390's pixel throughput, rated at 60.00 GPixel/s, is being saturated. The CPU's performance is unaffected by resolution, as its workload remains constant regardless of pixel count. This is evidenced by the fact that the Core Ultra 5 245's benchmark scores, such as the Cinebench R20 single-core score of 1952 and multi-core score of 13828, are static, while the game's FPS varies significantly with resolution. The data conclusively shows that the limiting component at higher resolutions is the GPU, as the CPU has ample headroom to maintain frame rates if the GPU were more powerful.

Measured FPS Breakdown

The following table details the exact measured average FPS for each resolution and settings combination. Minimum and maximum FPS are only provided for the Medium preset, which showed a 74 to 100 FPS range at 1080p, a 53 to 71 FPS range at 1440p, and a 33 to 44 FPS range at 4K. All other presets only have average FPS data available.

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

|------------|----------|---------|---------|---------|

| 1920x1080 | Low | 106 | — | — |

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

| 1920x1080 | High | 71 | — | — |

| 1920x1080 | Ultra | 44 | — | — |

| 2560x1440 | Low | 76 | — | — |

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

| 2560x1440 | High | 51 | — | — |

| 2560x1440 | Ultra | 32 | — | — |

| 3840x2160 | Low | 47 | — | — |

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

| 3840x2160 | High | 32 | — | — |

| 3840x2160 | Ultra | 20 | — | — |

The data reveals that the 1080p Low preset is the only configuration that exceeds 100 FPS, while the 4K Ultra preset is the only one that falls below 25 FPS. The Medium preset consistently shows a 13-15 FPS gap between its minimum and maximum, indicating some frame pacing variability. The scaling from Low to Ultra at each resolution shows a consistent pattern: Ultra is approximately 58-60% slower than Low at every resolution (106 vs 44 at 1080p, 76 vs 32 at 1440p, 47 vs 20 at 4K). This consistent ratio confirms that the GPU's performance is the sole determinant of frame rates, as the CPU's contribution remains constant across all settings. The Arc B390's 24 ROPs and 48 TMUs are clearly insufficient for high-fidelity rendering, and the data shows that users must make significant compromises in visual quality to achieve playable frame rates.