Downfall

Downfall is a 2016 horror title that stresses both the CPU and GPU in ways that become immediately obvious when pairing the Intel Core Ultra 7 265 with the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650. The benchmark data indicates this combination produces playable frame rates only under specific settings and resolutions, with the GPU acting as the primary bottleneck in most scenarios. The measured results show a wide performance spread, from 91 FPS at 1080p Low down to 17 FPS at 4K Ultra, illustrating how quickly the GTX 1650’s 4 GB of VRAM and Turing architecture hit their limits in this title. This analysis breaks down the measured FPS data, contextualizes the CPU and GPU roles, and offers clear guidance on which settings deliver the best experience.

FAQ

Q: What is the best resolution and settings combo for this hardware in Downfall?

A: The data shows 1920x1080 with Low settings delivers the highest average FPS at 91, while 1920x1080 with Medium settings still provides a solid 75 FPS average. At 2560x1440, Low settings yields 65 FPS average, but the step to Medium drops to 53 FPS. For a balance of visual quality and smoothness, 1920x1080 Medium is the recommended pairing, as it maintains an average above 60 FPS while offering better visuals than Low.

Q: How does the GTX 1650 perform at 4K in Downfall?

A: At 3840x2160, the GTX 1650 struggles significantly. The measured average FPS ranges from 41 at Low settings down to 17 at Ultra settings. High settings produce 27 FPS average, and Medium yields 33 FPS with a minimum of 28 FPS. None of these 4K results reach the 60 FPS threshold, making 4K effectively unplayable for smooth gameplay with this GPU.

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

A: At 1920x1080, Low settings produce an average of 91 FPS, while Ultra settings drop to 38 FPS average. This represents a 53 FPS difference, meaning Ultra settings deliver roughly 58% of the frame rate of Low settings. The Medium preset sits between at 75 FPS, and High achieves 61 FPS average.

Q: Does the CPU limit performance in Downfall with this combo?

A: The CPU appears to be less of a limiting factor than the GPU. The Intel Core Ultra 7 265 has 20 cores and 20 threads with a boost clock of 5.30 GHz, placing it in the 93rd percentile of all CPUs. Its Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 42216 and single-core score of 5960 indicate substantial headroom for gaming. The GPU’s 4 GB VRAM and 2.984 TFLOPS FP32 performance are far more likely to cap frame rates in Downfall.

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

A: The combo rank for this CPU and GPU pairing in Downfall is 2827 out of 2928 tested combinations. This places it in the bottom percentile of all combos, reflecting the fact that the GTX 1650 is a modest GPU by modern standards. The GPU itself sits in the 40th percentile of all GPUs, while the CPU is in the 93rd percentile, creating a significant imbalance.

Q: What is the minimum FPS recorded for Medium settings?

A: The measured data includes minimum FPS only for Medium settings. At 1920x1080 Medium, the minimum is 64 FPS; at 2560x1440 Medium, it is 45 FPS; and at 3840x2160 Medium, it is 28 FPS. These minimums show that even the Medium preset becomes less stable as resolution increases, with the 4K minimum falling below the 30 FPS playability threshold.

GPU Role

The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 is the dominant factor in this combo’s Downfall performance. The GPU’s 4 GB of GDDR5 memory on a 128-bit bus provides 128.1 GB/s of bandwidth, which is modest for a 2019 card running a 2016 horror title. The measured FPS data shows a clear pattern: as resolution and settings increase, frame rates plummet, indicating that the GPU’s memory capacity and compute throughput are the primary constraints.

At 1920x1080, the GTX 1650 manages an average of 91 FPS on Low settings, which is smooth. The base clock of 1485 MHz and boost clock of 1665 MHz allow the card to push through simple scenes, but the 896 shading units and 32 ROPs become strained as settings rise. High settings at 1080p yield 61 FPS average, while Ultra drops to 38 FPS. The step from Low to Medium (91 to 75 FPS) shows a 16 FPS penalty, while Medium to High (75 to 61 FPS) costs another 14 FPS. The jump from High to Ultra (61 to 38 FPS) is the steepest, a 23 FPS reduction that highlights how the Ultra preset’s demands overwhelm the GPU.

The 4K results are particularly revealing. At 3840x2160, even Low settings only achieve 41 FPS average, and Ultra falls to 17 FPS. The GPU’s 4 GB VRAM likely becomes a hard limit at this resolution, as texture data exceeds the available memory. The measured Medium preset at 4K shows a minimum FPS of 28, which is below the 30 FPS threshold typically considered minimum playability. The GTX 1650’s process node of 12 nm and die size of 200 mm² confine its transistor count to 4,700 million, which is reflected in its 2.984 TFLOPS FP32 performance—a figure that simply cannot sustain high frame rates at higher resolutions.

The GPU’s percentile rank of 40 among all GPUs places it in the lower half, with nearest rivals including the AMD Radeon HD 8850M (0.3% slower) and Intel Arc A310 (1% faster). This context shows that the GTX 1650 is a baseline-level GPU in the current landscape. For Downfall specifically, the data indicates that the GPU is the bottleneck in nearly every measured configuration, as the CPU’s performance metrics far exceed what the GPU can feed to the display.

Settings Recommendations

The measured FPS data provides a clear hierarchy of playable configurations for Downfall with this hardware. The optimal choice depends on whether the user prioritizes smoothness or visual fidelity, but the numbers point to one clear winner.

At 1920x1080, the Medium preset delivers an average of 75 FPS with a minimum of 64 FPS and a maximum of 86 FPS. This is the only measured configuration that maintains a minimum FPS above 60, making it ideal for consistent gameplay. The Low preset achieves 91 FPS average, but the visual downgrade may not be worth the 16 FPS gain over Medium. High settings produce 61 FPS average, which is playable but leaves less headroom for demanding scenes. Ultra at 1080p drops to 38 FPS average, which is below the 60 FPS target and likely to feel stuttery in a horror game where smooth motion is critical for atmosphere.

For users with 2560x1440 displays, Low settings at 65 FPS average is the only preset that exceeds 60 FPS. Medium at 1440p yields 53 FPS average with a minimum of 45 FPS, which is playable but not ideal. High settings at 1440p drop to 44 FPS average, and Ultra falls to 27 FPS—both below the smoothness threshold. The data suggests that 1440p users should stick to Low settings to maintain fluidity, or accept Medium for better visuals with occasional dips below 50 FPS.

At 3840x2160, none of the presets achieve 60 FPS. Low settings at 41 FPS average is the best 4K result, followed by Medium at 33 FPS (minimum 28 FPS), High at 27 FPS, and Ultra at 17 FPS. These numbers indicate that 4K is not viable for this combo in Downfall, as even the lowest settings produce frame rates that would compromise the horror experience.

The recommended settings are 1920x1080 Medium, which provides the best balance of frame rate and visual quality. The 75 FPS average and 64 FPS minimum ensure that the game remains responsive during fast-paced or dark scenes, while the Medium preset offers noticeably better textures and effects than Low. If the user prioritizes maximum frame rate, 1080p Low at 91 FPS is the fallback, but the 16 FPS gain comes at a significant visual cost. For 1440p users, Low settings are the only option that keeps average FPS above 60, while 4K should be avoided entirely based on the measured data.

How This Combo Ranks

The combination of the Intel Core Ultra 7 265 and NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 ranks 2827 out of 2928 tested combos in Downfall. This places the pairing in the bottom 3.4% of all combinations, a position that reflects the GPU’s limitations rather than the CPU’s capabilities. The combo rank is a direct consequence of the GTX 1650’s 40th percentile standing among all GPUs, which drags down what would otherwise be a high-performing CPU.

To contextualize this rank, consider the CPU’s nearest rivals in overall benchmark scores. The Intel Core Ultra 7 265 averages a benchmark score of 64640, which is 0.3% ahead of the AMD EPYC 4464P (64823) and 0.3% behind the Intel Core Ultra 7 265F (64438). These differences are negligible, showing that the CPU is competitive with other high-end processors. However, the GPU’s nearest rivals tell a different story: the AMD Radeon HD 8850M scores 7447 (0.3% slower), the Intel UHD Graphics 750 scores 7441 (0.4% slower), and the Intel Arc A310 scores 7550 (1% faster). The GTX 1650’s average benchmark score of 7472 places it in the same tier as integrated graphics and entry-level discrete cards.

The mismatch between the CPU’s 93rd percentile and the GPU’s 40th percentile creates a bottleneck that is evident in the Downfall FPS data. The CPU’s Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 42216 and single-core score of 5960 indicate that it can handle the game’s logic, AI, and physics without breaking a sweat. Yet the GPU’s 2.984 TFLOPS FP32 performance and 4 GB VRAM constrain the frame rate at every resolution above 1080p Low. This is why the combo rank is so low: the system is effectively GPU-bound in all but the most undemanding settings.

For users considering this pairing, the rank suggests that the GTX 1650 should be upgraded to take advantage of the Core Ultra 7 265’s capabilities. The data shows that even a modest GPU improvement would shift the combo rank significantly, as the CPU has ample headroom. The 2827th rank out of 2928 is not a reflection of the CPU’s gaming potential but rather the GPU’s inability to keep pace with modern resolutions and settings.

CPU Role

The Intel Core Ultra 7 265 plays a supporting role in Downfall performance, but its specifications ensure that it never becomes the limiting factor. With 20 cores and 20 threads, the CPU offers substantial parallel processing power, which is beneficial for the background tasks and AI routines common in horror games. The base clock of 2.40 GHz and boost clock of 5.30 GHz provide strong single-thread performance, as evidenced by the Cinebench R23 single-core score of 5960.

The CPU’s cache hierarchy—192 KB L1 per core, 3 MB L2 per core, and 30 MB shared L3—allows for efficient data access, reducing latency in game logic. Its memory support for DDR5 with dual-channel configuration yields 102.4 GB/s of bandwidth, which is more than sufficient for feeding the GPU data. The 3 nm process node from TSMC, with 17,800 million transistors on a 243 mm² die, gives the CPU a high transistor density that contributes to its efficiency.

In terms of raw compute, the CPU’s PassMark multi-thread score of 49682 and single-thread score of 4689 place it in the top tier of processors. Its nearest rivals in overall benchmarks—the AMD EPYC 4464P, Intel Core Ultra 7 265F, and AMD EPYC 7343—show score differences of less than 1%, meaning the CPU’s performance is consistent with other high-end models. The 93rd percentile rank among all CPUs confirms that this is a powerful processor for gaming.

However, in Downfall, the CPU’s role is largely to keep up with the GPU’s output. The measured FPS data shows that at 1080p Low, the system reaches 91 FPS average, which is likely near the GPU’s maximum in that configuration. The CPU’s 20 cores handle the game’s threading efficiently, but the GTX 1650’s 896 shading units become the bottleneck as settings increase. The CPU’s PassMark physics score of 2923 indicates strong simulation performance, which is relevant for a horror game’s physics-based interactions, but this does not translate into higher frame rates when the GPU is already saturated.

The CPU’s launch MSRP is $394, and it supports PCIe Gen 5 with 20 lanes, ensuring that data transfer to the GPU is not a limitation. The integrated Arc Xe-LPG Graphics 32EU is present but irrelevant for gaming with a discrete GPU. The data suggests that the Core Ultra 7 265 is overkill for pairing with a GTX 1650 in Downfall, as the CPU’s capabilities far exceed what the GPU can utilize. This is a classic case of CPU-GPU imbalance, where the processor waits for the graphics card to catch up.

Measured FPS Breakdown

The measured FPS data for Downfall with the Intel Core Ultra 7 265 and NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 spans three resolutions and four settings, providing a complete picture of performance.

At 1920x1080, the system delivers its best results. Low settings achieve an average of 91 FPS, which is the highest measured in any configuration. Medium settings produce an average of 75 FPS, with a minimum of 64 FPS and a maximum of 86 FPS. This is the only preset at 1080p with a minimum FPS above 60, making it the most consistent option. High settings yield 61 FPS average, which is playable but close to the 60 FPS threshold. Ultra settings drop to 38 FPS average, a significant reduction that makes the game feel less fluid.

At 2560x1440, the frame rates decline noticeably. Low settings achieve 65 FPS average, which is the only 1440p preset that exceeds 60 FPS. Medium settings produce 53 FPS average, with a minimum of 45 FPS and a maximum of 61 FPS. The minimum of 45 FPS indicates that demanding scenes can cause noticeable dips. High settings drop to 44 FPS average, and Ultra settings fall to 27 FPS average. None of these 1440p results match the smoothness of 1080p, and Ultra is below the 30 FPS threshold.

At 3840x2160, the GTX 1650 struggles across all settings. Low settings achieve 41 FPS average, which is the best 4K result but still below 60 FPS. Medium settings produce 33 FPS average, with a minimum of 28 FPS and a maximum of 38 FPS. The minimum of 28 FPS is below the playability threshold, indicating stutters during intense moments. High settings yield 27 FPS average, and Ultra settings drop to 17 FPS average. These numbers confirm that 4K is not viable for this combo in Downfall.

The data shows a consistent pattern: each resolution step from 1080p to 1440p to 4K reduces frame rates by roughly 25-30% at equivalent settings. For example, Low settings go from 91 FPS at 1080p to 65 FPS at 1440p to 41 FPS at 4K. Similarly, Ultra settings go from 38 FPS at 1080p to 27 FPS at 1440p to 17 FPS at 4K. This scaling reflects the GPU’s limited pixel throughput and memory bandwidth, which become increasingly strained as pixel count rises.

The only configuration that provides a consistently smooth experience is 1080p Medium, with a 75 FPS average and a 64 FPS minimum. For users who accept lower visual quality, 1080p Low at 91 FPS is the fastest option, while 1440p Low at 65 FPS is acceptable for high-refresh monitors. The measured data provides no configuration that maintains 60+ FPS at 4K, and the Ultra preset should be avoided at all resolutions due to its significant frame rate penalties.