Downfall

The Intel Core Ultra 7 265 paired with the AMD Radeon RX 9070 XT delivers a wide spread of frame rates in Downfall, ranging from a demanding 58 FPS at 4K Ultra to a fluid 312 FPS at 1080p Low. The measured data shows a system that scales predictably with resolution and settings, with the GPU’s 16 GB of VRAM and the CPU’s 20-core configuration playing distinct roles in the final output. This analysis walks through the benchmark results, the hardware specifications that inform them, and how this combo ranks against the broader test pool.

FAQ

Q: What is the average frame rate at 1080p with High settings?

A: At 1920x1080 with High settings, the combo produces an average of 209 FPS. This is notably higher than the 131 FPS seen at 1080p Ultra, indicating that the preset choice has a substantial impact on performance even at the same resolution.

Q: How much performance is lost when moving from 1080p to 4K at Medium settings?

A: The average FPS drops from 255 at 1920x1080 Medium to 113 at 3840x2160 Medium. This represents a reduction of 142 FPS, or roughly 55.7% of the 1080p score, showing the heavy load that 4K rendering places on the GPU.

Q: Does the CPU or GPU limit performance at 1440p High?

A: The 150 FPS average at 2560x1440 High is higher than the 4K High result of 93 FPS but lower than the 1080p High result of 209 FPS. The scaling pattern suggests the GPU becomes the primary limiter as resolution increases, while the CPU’s 20 threads provide ample headroom at lower resolutions.

Q: What is the best preset for maintaining a high refresh rate at 1440p?

A: At 2560x1440, the Low preset achieves 223 FPS, while Medium reaches 182 FPS. Both exceed typical 144 Hz displays, but the Medium setting also has a recorded minimum of 155 FPS, ensuring smoother frame pacing than the Low preset, which lacks a minimum FPS value in the data.

*Q: How does the combo rank among all tested configurations in Downfall?*

A: The combination ranks 910 out of 3716 tested combos, placing it in the top 24.5% of all configurations. This is a competitive position, though not an elite one, given the hardware’s specifications.

Q: What is the launch MSRP of the CPU and GPU?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 7 265 has a launch MSRP of $394, while the AMD Radeon RX 9070 XT has a launch MSRP of 599 USD. These are the only pricing details available in the data.

GPU Role

The AMD Radeon RX 9070 XT is built on the RDNA 4.0 architecture with a Navi 48 chip, fabricated on a 4 nm process by TSMC. It contains 53,900 million transistors on a 357 mm² die, with a transistor density of 151.0M per mm². The GPU operates with a base clock of 1660 MHz, a game clock of 2400 MHz, and a boost clock of 2970 MHz. Memory runs at 2518 MHz, translating to 20.1 Gbps effective, across a 256-bit bus. The 16 GB of GDDR6 memory provides a bandwidth of 644.6 GB/s, which is a critical resource for Downfall’s texture-heavy horror environments at high resolutions.

The GPU’s compute capabilities are defined by 4096 shading units, 256 TMUs, 128 ROPs, and 64 ray tracing cores. The pixel rate is 380.2 GPixel/s, and the texture rate is 760.3 GTexel/s. Floating point performance sits at 48.66 TFLOPS for both FP32 and FP16, indicating a balanced compute design. The card draws up to 304 W TDP and requires a 700 W suggested PSU, with power supplied via two 8-pin connectors. It connects through PCIe 5.0 x16 and outputs video via one HDMI 2.1b and three DisplayPort 2.1a ports.

In Downfall, the GPU’s role is most evident at higher resolutions and settings. At 4K Ultra, the average FPS collapses to 58, while 4K High remains playable at 93 FPS. The 16 GB VRAM is likely sufficient for the game’s assets, as the data shows no anomalous frame drops that would suggest memory swapping. The 48.66 TFLOPS compute throughput supports the game’s rendering demands, but the 304 W power envelope indicates that this is a high-performance part that scales with load. The benchmark results show that the GPU is the dominant factor in determining frame rates at 1440p and above, where the CPU’s influence diminishes.

Resolution Scaling

The measured FPS data reveals a clear pattern of resolution scaling across all four settings presets. At 1920x1080, the average frame rates range from 131 FPS at Ultra to 312 FPS at Low. Moving to 2560x1440, the same presets yield 93 FPS at Ultra and 223 FPS at Low. At 3840x2160, the range narrows to 58 FPS at Ultra and 139 FPS at Low.

The percentage drop from 1080p to 1440p varies by preset. For High settings, the average falls from 209 to 150 FPS, a 28.2% reduction. For Low settings, the drop is from 312 to 223 FPS, a 28.5% reduction. Medium settings see a similar pattern, from 255 to 182 FPS, a 28.6% reduction. Ultra settings drop from 131 to 93 FPS, a 29.0% reduction. These consistent percentages suggest that the scaling is primarily GPU-bound, as the relative performance loss is nearly identical across presets.

The transition from 1440p to 4K shows a larger relative drop. High settings fall from 150 to 93 FPS, a 38.0% reduction. Low settings fall from 223 to 139 FPS, a 37.7% reduction. Medium settings fall from 182 to 113 FPS, a 37.9% reduction. Ultra settings fall from 93 to 58 FPS, a 37.6% reduction. This steeper decline indicates that the GPU’s pixel throughput becomes more constrained at 4K, where the 128 ROPs and 380.2 GPixel/s pixel rate are pushed harder.

The limiting component can be inferred from the scaling. If the CPU were the bottleneck, frame rates would plateau at lower resolutions, showing minimal gains when moving from 1080p to 1440p. Instead, the data shows substantial gains at every step down in resolution, with 1080p Low reaching 312 FPS. This suggests the CPU provides enough headroom at all tested settings, and the GPU is the primary limiter throughout. The 20-core, 20-thread CPU with a 5.30 GHz boost clock is clearly not holding back the GPU in Downfall.

Measured FPS Breakdown

At 1920x1080, the lowest resolution tested, the combo delivers high frame rates across all presets. Low settings produce an average of 312 FPS, the highest score in the entire dataset. Medium settings yield 255 FPS, with a minimum of 217 FPS and a maximum of 294 FPS, showing a consistent frame delivery window. High settings average 209 FPS, while Ultra settings drop to 131 FPS. The gap between Low and Ultra is 181 FPS, demonstrating that the preset choice can more than double performance at this resolution.

At 2560x1440, the results scale down proportionally. Low settings average 223 FPS, Medium averages 182 FPS with a minimum of 155 FPS and a maximum of 210 FPS. High settings average 150 FPS, and Ultra settings average 93 FPS. The spread from Low to Ultra is 130 FPS. The Medium preset’s minimum of 155 FPS is particularly notable, as it remains above a 144 Hz refresh rate, providing a smooth experience even during demanding scenes.

At 3840x2160, the highest resolution, the frame rates become more moderate. Low settings average 139 FPS, Medium averages 113 FPS with a minimum of 96 FPS and a maximum of 131 FPS. High settings average 93 FPS, and Ultra settings average 58 FPS. The spread from Low to Ultra is 81 FPS. The Ultra preset at 58 FPS is the only result below 60 FPS in the dataset, indicating that this setting is too demanding for consistent playability at 4K. The Medium preset’s minimum of 96 FPS ensures it stays above common 60 Hz and 75 Hz display refresh rates, making it a viable option for 4K gaming.

Across all resolutions, the Medium preset consistently provides a minimum FPS that is within a reasonable range of the average. At 1080p, the minimum is 217 FPS against a 255 FPS average. At 1440p, the minimum is 155 FPS against a 182 FPS average. At 4K, the minimum is 96 FPS against a 113 FPS average. In each case, the minimum is roughly 85% of the average, indicating stable frame pacing without severe dips. The Low, High, and Ultra presets lack minimum FPS data, so their frame consistency cannot be assessed from the provided records.

Settings Recommendations

The measured FPS data suggests that the Medium preset offers the best balance of visual quality and performance for this hardware combination. At every resolution, Medium provides a minimum FPS that is high enough for smooth gameplay, while the average FPS exceeds what most displays can show. At 1080p, the 255 FPS average with a 217 FPS minimum is more than sufficient for any refresh rate. At 1440p, the 182 FPS average with a 155 FPS minimum supports 144 Hz displays without dropping below the refresh threshold. At 4K, the 113 FPS average with a 96 FPS minimum handles 60 Hz and 75 Hz displays easily, and even approaches the 120 Hz range.

The High preset is a reasonable alternative for those seeking better visual fidelity. At 1440p, it averages 150 FPS, which is still high enough for most gaming monitors. At 4K, it averages 93 FPS, which is playable on a 90 Hz or 100 Hz display. However, without minimum FPS data, there is uncertainty about frame dips, which the Medium preset avoids by having recorded minimums. The Low preset offers the highest frame rates, reaching 312 FPS at 1080p and 139 FPS at 4K, but it likely sacrifices visual quality that the game’s horror atmosphere relies on.

The Ultra preset is not recommended for this combo. At 4K, it averages 58 FPS, which is below the 60 FPS threshold that many players consider the minimum for smooth gameplay. At 1440p, it averages 93 FPS, which is acceptable but offers no advantage over the Medium preset’s 182 FPS average. At 1080p, it averages 131 FPS, but the High preset achieves 209 FPS with presumably better performance characteristics. The data indicates that Ultra provides diminishing returns, with the largest performance cost of any preset relative to the next step down.

For the best experience, the Medium preset is the clear choice. It provides the only complete FPS data with minimums, ensuring that the frame delivery is known and stable. The performance headroom is ample, with 4K Medium averaging 113 FPS and 1440p Medium averaging 182 FPS. This allows the hardware to run the game smoothly without pushing the GPU to its limits, which could reduce longevity or increase noise. The Medium preset’s balance of quality and performance makes it the most sensible default for this configuration.

CPU Role

The Intel Core Ultra 7 265 is a desktop processor from the Core Ultra Series 2, based on the Arrow Lake architecture and fabricated on a 3 nm process by TSMC. It has 20 cores and 20 threads, with a base clock of 2.40 GHz and a boost clock of 5.30 GHz. The CPU supports DDR5 memory in a dual-channel configuration, providing a memory bandwidth of 102.4 GB/s. It uses the Intel Socket 1851 and has a TDP of 65 W, indicating a power-efficient design. The cache hierarchy includes 192 KB of L1 per core, 3 MB of L2 per core, and 30 MB of shared L3 cache, totaling 30 MB across all cores.

The CPU’s benchmark results show strong multi-threaded performance. In Cinebench R23, it scores 42216 in multicore and 5960 in singlecore. In Cinebench R20, the scores are 6268 multicore and 884 singlecore. PassMark results include a multithread score of 49682, a single thread score of 4689, and a physics score of 2923. The CPU’s percentile vs all CPUs is 93, meaning it outperforms 93% of tested processors. Its average benchmark score is 64640.

In Downfall, the CPU’s role is likely secondary to the GPU, given the game’s genre and the high frame rates observed. At 1080p Low, the combo achieves 312 FPS, which is a demanding scenario for any CPU. The 20 cores and 20 threads provide ample parallel processing for game logic, AI, and physics, while the 5.30 GHz boost clock ensures strong single-threaded performance for the main game loop. The 30 MB of L3 cache helps reduce memory latency, which is beneficial for a horror game that may have complex scene loading.

The benchmark data shows that the CPU is not the bottleneck at any tested resolution. The frame rates scale consistently with resolution, indicating that the GPU is the limiting factor. If the CPU were constrained, the 1080p results would show smaller gains over 1440p, but the data shows a 33.5% increase in FPS from 1440p to 1080p at High settings (150 to 209 FPS). This suggests the CPU can handle far more than what the GPU can deliver, even at the lowest settings and resolution.

How This Combo Ranks

The Intel Core Ultra 7 265 and AMD Radeon RX 9070 XT combination ranks 910 out of 3716 tested combos in Downfall. This places it in the 75.5th percentile of all configurations, meaning it outperforms roughly three-quarters of the tested systems. The rank is a composite measure that accounts for the CPU’s and GPU’s individual capabilities and how they interact in this specific game.

The CPU alone holds a percentile vs all CPUs of 93, while the GPU holds a percentile vs all GPUs of 55. The CPU is a top-tier performer, but the GPU is more middling, which drags the combined rank down. The combo rank of 910 suggests that the GPU is the limiting factor in the pairing, as the CPU’s high percentile does not translate to an elite overall position.

The nearest rivals for the CPU provide context for its performance. The AMD EPYC 4464P has an average score of 64823, which is 0.3% higher than the Core Ultra 7 265’s 64640. The Intel Core Ultra 7 265F scores 64438, 0.3% lower. The AMD EPYC 7343 scores 64202, 0.7% lower, and the AMD EPYC 9124 scores 65104, 0.7% higher. These small deltas show that the CPU is tightly clustered with several server-class processors, though it is a desktop part.

For the GPU, the nearest rivals show a different pattern. The AMD Radeon HD 7770M has an average score of 13536, which is 0.1% lower than the RX 9070 XT’s 13543. The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 570 scores 13515, 0.2% lower. The NVIDIA P106-090 scores 13470, 0.5% lower, and the AMD Radeon Pro 555 scores 13407, 1.0% lower. These rivals are all significantly older or lower-tier GPUs, which is surprising given the RX 9070 XT’s modern architecture and high specifications. This suggests that the average benchmark score may not fully capture the GPU’s gaming performance, or that the GPU’s drivers and optimization are not yet mature for all workloads.

In Downfall, the combo’s rank of 910 out of 3716 is respectable but not outstanding. The data shows that the GPU is the bottleneck, as the CPU’s 93rd percentile performance is not fully utilized. The GPU’s 55th percentile ranking indicates that there are many faster GPUs in the database, which likely occupy the top ranks in this game. The combo performs well at 1080p and 1440p, with high frame rates at most settings, but the 4K Ultra result of 58 FPS reveals its limitations. Overall, this is a solid mid-to-high-tier configuration that excels at lower resolutions but struggles to maintain high frame rates at the most demanding settings.