Downfall

# Downfall Performance Analysis: Intel Core Ultra 5 245 + NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650

The pairing of Intel's 14-core Core Ultra 5 245 with NVIDIA's entry-level GTX 1650 produces a heavily GPU-bound experience in Downfall, a 2016 horror title. Across the twelve measured configurations spanning four resolutions and three quality presets, average frame rates range from a low of 17 FPS at 4K Ultra to a high of 91 FPS at 1080p Low. The data reveals a system where the graphics card consistently dictates performance ceilings, while the CPU's substantial headroom goes largely unused in this particular title.

Resolution Scaling

The frame rate collapse from 1080p to 4K is dramatic and tells a clear story about where the bottleneck lies. At 1080p Low, the combo delivers 91 FPS, which drops to 65 FPS at 1440p Low — a 28.6% reduction. Pushing to 4K Low yields just 41 FPS, representing a 54.9% decline from the 1080p baseline. This steep scaling curve is the signature of a GPU-limited scenario, as the GTX 1650's pixel throughput and memory bandwidth simply cannot keep pace with the increasing resolution demands.

The Medium preset shows a similar trajectory: 75 FPS at 1080p, 53 FPS at 1440p, and 33 FPS at 4K. The High preset follows suit with 61 FPS at 1080p, 44 FPS at 1440p, and 27 FPS at 4K. Notably, the Ultra preset is the most punishing, starting at just 38 FPS at 1080p and falling to 27 FPS at 1440p, then collapsing to 17 FPS at 4K. The gap between 1080p and 1440p at Ultra is a 28.9% drop, while the 1440p-to-4K transition costs another 37%.

What's striking is how consistently the frame rate drops roughly 20-30% for each resolution step up, regardless of quality preset. This uniform scaling pattern indicates that the limiting component is not the CPU or memory subsystem but rather the GPU's raw rendering capability. The GTX 1650's 4 GB of GDDR5 memory and 128-bit bus width, providing 128.1 GB/s of bandwidth, become increasingly insufficient as pixel counts rise.

At 4K, the results are uniformly below playable thresholds for any preset except Low, which manages 41 FPS. Even at 1440p, only the Low preset (65 FPS) achieves a comfortable frame rate; Medium (53 FPS) is borderline, and High (44 FPS) dips into marginal territory. The data strongly suggests that 1080p is the practical ceiling for this combination, with all presets except Ultra delivering at least 61 FPS there.

Settings Recommendations

The measured rows provide a clear hierarchy of playability across quality presets. At 1080p, the Low preset delivers 91 FPS, which is the highest frame rate in the entire dataset. Medium follows at 75 FPS, representing a 17.6% performance hit but presumably a meaningful visual upgrade. High achieves 61 FPS, still smooth for a horror title where atmospheric tension matters more than twitch reflexes. Ultra drops to 38 FPS, which is a significant 50% reduction from Low and begins to compromise the experience.

For 1440p users, the calculus changes. Low at 65 FPS is the only fully smooth option. Medium at 53 FPS is playable but not ideal for fast-paced sequences. High at 44 FPS and Ultra at 27 FPS both fall short of the 60 FPS target, with Ultra being outright unplayable. At 4K, the situation is grim: even Low only manages 41 FPS, and every other preset dips to 33 FPS or below.

The recommended sweet spot is 1080p Medium. It offers 75 FPS average with a recorded minimum of 64 FPS and maximum of 86 FPS, providing a substantial buffer above the 60 FPS threshold. The minimum frame time data (64 FPS) indicates that even in demanding scenes, the system avoids severe stuttering. Compared to High at 61 FPS, Medium provides a 23% performance advantage while presumably retaining most visual fidelity in a game from 2016.

For players prioritizing maximum smoothness, 1080p Low at 91 FPS is the clear choice, though it represents a 21% improvement over Medium. Conversely, those willing to accept lower frame rates for visual quality should note that Ultra at 1080p (38 FPS) is a 49.3% drop from Medium, making it difficult to recommend given the marginal visual gains typical of Ultra presets in this era of games.

GPU Role

The GTX 1650 is the dominant performance determinant in this configuration. Its specifications — 896 shading units, 56 texture mapping units, and 32 ROPs — are modest by modern standards, and the 4 GB GDDR5 frame buffer is the smallest in the GeForce 16-series lineup. The card operates at a base clock of 1485 MHz with a boost of 1665 MHz, delivering 2.984 TFLOPS of FP32 compute. Memory runs at 2001 MHz (8 Gbps effective) across a 128-bit interface, yielding 128.1 GB/s of bandwidth.

In the context of Downfall, these specifications translate to the performance ceilings observed. The 4 GB VRAM capacity is particularly relevant: at 4K Ultra, the card produces just 17 FPS, likely due to both compute limitations and potential memory pressure. The measured data shows a 41.2% difference between 4K Low (41 FPS) and 4K High (27 FPS), indicating that texture and shader complexity heavily tax the GPU.

The GTX 1650's benchmark standing reinforces its positioning. It holds a 40th percentile rank among all GPUs, with an average benchmark score of 7472. Its nearest rivals include the AMD Radeon HD 8850M (7447, 0.3% slower), Intel UHD Graphics 750 (7441, 0.4% slower), and AMD Radeon R7 350 (7425, 0.6% slower), while the Intel Arc A310 (7550) sits 1% faster. This clustering shows the GTX 1650 at the very bottom of the discrete GPU hierarchy, barely distinguishable from integrated solutions in synthetic benchmarks.

The card's DirectX performance in PassMark benchmarks shows 39 in DX10, 58 in DX11, and 35 in DX12, while its G3D score of 7880 and GPU compute score of 3048 reflect its limited compute throughput. Given that Downfall is a 2016 release, it likely relies on DX11-era rendering paths, where the card's 58 DX11 score suggests adequate but not exceptional compatibility.

FAQ

Q: Can this combo run Downfall at 4K?

A: Technically yes, but only at Low settings with 41 FPS average. Medium drops to 33 FPS, High to 27 FPS, and Ultra to 17 FPS, making 4K playable only on the lowest preset.

Q: What is the best 1080p preset for this setup?

A: Medium at 75 FPS average (64 FPS minimum, 86 FPS maximum) provides the best balance of smoothness and quality. Low runs at 91 FPS, while High achieves 61 FPS and Ultra falls to 38 FPS.

Q: How does the GTX 1650 compare to its nearest rivals?

A: The GTX 1650's average benchmark score of 7472 is 0.3% ahead of the AMD Radeon HD 8850M, 0.4% ahead of the Intel UHD Graphics 750, 0.6% ahead of the AMD Radeon R7 350, and 1% behind the Intel Arc A310.

Q: Is the CPU or GPU the bottleneck in Downfall?

A: The GPU is clearly the limiting component. Resolution scaling shows consistent 20-30% frame rate drops when moving up each step, and the CPU's high benchmark scores (90th percentile among all CPUs) far exceed what this title demands.

Q: What frame rates can I expect at 1440p?

A: Low delivers 65 FPS, Medium 53 FPS, High 44 FPS, and Ultra 27 FPS. Only Low achieves a consistently smooth experience at this resolution.

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

A: It ranks 3593rd out of 3716 tested combos, placing it in the bottom 3.3% of all system pairings for Downfall performance.

How This Combo Ranks

The combination of Intel Core Ultra 5 245 and NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 ranks 3593rd out of 3716 tested combos in Downfall, placing it in the bottom 3.3% of all configurations. This rank is unsurprising given the GPU's position at the 40th percentile among all graphics cards. The pairing effectively wastes the CPU's considerable capability, as the Core Ultra 5 245 sits at the 90th percentile among all CPUs with an average benchmark score of 48995.

The CPU's nearest rivals in synthetic benchmarks — AMD Ryzen 7 PRO 5755G (49196, 0.4% faster), AMD Ryzen 9 7900 (49228, 0.5% faster), Intel Xeon Gold 5318H (48698, 0.6% slower), and Intel Core i5-14600K (48618, 0.8% slower) — all vastly outclass the GTX 1650 in gaming workloads. Yet in Downfall, the GPU's 7472 average benchmark score and 40th percentile ranking dictate that this system performs like an entry-level gaming rig from several generations ago.

The rank of 3593 out of 3716 means 123 other configurations performed worse. These would likely pair even weaker GPUs with similarly capable CPUs, or perhaps suffer from other system limitations. However, the data clearly shows that for Downfall specifically, this combo's 1080p Medium performance of 75 FPS is respectable, while 4K performance is largely unusable. The ranking reflects the GPU's fundamental limitations at higher resolutions, where the 4 GB VRAM and 128.1 GB/s bandwidth cannot sustain playable frame rates.

CPU Role

The Intel Core Ultra 5 245 is a 14-core, 14-thread processor based on the Arrow Lake architecture, manufactured on a 3 nm process by TSMC. It operates with a base clock of 3.50 GHz and a boost clock of 5.10 GHz, with a TDP of 65 W. The processor includes 24 MB of shared L3 cache, 3 MB of L2 cache per core, and 192 KB of L1 cache per core. Its dual-channel DDR5 memory support provides 102.4 GB/s of bandwidth.

In Downfall, this CPU's role is almost entirely secondary. The measured FPS data shows no evidence of CPU limitation at any resolution or preset. At 1080p Low, the system achieves 91 FPS, which is likely near the GPU's maximum output rather than a CPU-imposed cap. The consistent frame rate drops when increasing resolution — from 91 to 65 to 41 FPS across Low preset — indicate that the GPU is fully saturated at each step.

The Core Ultra 5 245's synthetic benchmark scores reinforce its capability. It achieves 32924 in Cinebench R23 multi-core and 4648 in single-core, with a PassMark multithread score of 38706 and single-thread score of 4394. Its data compression score of 400942 and floating point math score of 120548 demonstrate substantial compute throughput. These figures place it at the 90th percentile of all CPUs, with an average benchmark score of 48995.

For Downfall, a 2016 horror title, the CPU's architecture and core count are far more than necessary. The game likely uses only a few threads, meaning the 14 available cores provide massive headroom. The 5.10 GHz boost clock ensures that even single-threaded workloads are handled with ease. The CPU's 3 nm process and 65 W TDP also mean thermal and power constraints are unlikely to cause performance throttling in this scenario.

The disparity between CPU and GPU capability is stark: the CPU ranks at the 90th percentile while the GPU sits at the 40th percentile. This mismatch means the system's performance in Downfall is entirely GPU-bound, and upgrading the graphics card would yield significant gains without any CPU bottleneck. For a system intended for modern gaming, the Core Ultra 5 245 provides ample processing power, but the GTX 1650's 4 GB VRAM and modest compute resources cap the experience at 1080p Medium for smooth playability.