Downfall

Resolution Scaling — how FPS drops from 1080p to 4K and what it says about the limiting component

The measured frame rates for Downfall show a predictable but steep decline as resolution increases, with the Intel Core Ultra 7 265 and NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4070 combination delivering 312 FPS at 1080p Low but dropping to 139 FPS at 4K Low. This represents a 55.4% reduction in average FPS when moving from 1080p to 4K at the Low preset, indicating that the GPU becomes progressively more stressed at higher pixel counts. At Medium settings, the drop is similarly pronounced: 256 FPS at 1080p falls to 182 FPS at 1440p, then to 114 FPS at 4K, showing a 55.5% total decrease from 1080p to 4K.

The High preset tells the same story with slightly different numbers. Starting at 210 FPS in 1080p, the average drops to 150 FPS at 1440p, and finally to 93 FPS at 4K. This 55.7% reduction from 1080p to 4K at High settings confirms that the scaling pattern is consistent across presets, with each resolution step costing roughly a third of the remaining performance headroom. The Ultra preset shows the most dramatic scaling: 131 FPS at 1080p falls to 94 FPS at 1440p, then to 58 FPS at 4K — a 55.7% drop overall, mirroring the other presets almost exactly.

This consistent scaling pattern across all four presets points directly to the GPU as the limiting factor. A CPU-bound scenario would show diminishing FPS differences as resolution increases, because the processor would max out regardless of pixel count. Instead, the data shows near-linear scaling with pixel count: 1080p has 2.07 million pixels, 1440p has 3.69 million, and 4K has 8.29 million. The FPS ratios between resolutions are remarkably consistent, which is the classic signature of a GPU-limited workload. At 4K Ultra, the 58 FPS average is the only measurement below 60 FPS in the entire dataset, suggesting that this configuration hits the practical ceiling of playable performance at maximum settings on 4K displays.

The minimum FPS data, available only for Medium settings, reinforces the GPU-bound conclusion. At 4K Medium, the minimum recorded frame rate is 97 FPS, while at 1440p Medium it rises to 155 FPS, and at 1080p Medium it reaches 217 FPS. These minimums scale in the same proportion as the averages, meaning there is no sudden frame-time spike that would indicate a CPU bottleneck at any resolution. The frame pacing remains consistent across the resolution ladder, which is exactly what you would expect when the GPU is doing the heavy lifting.

GPU Role — VRAM, clocks, and how they relate to this game's results

The RTX 4070's specifications align well with the measured performance in Downfall. The GPU operates with a base clock of 1920 MHz and a boost clock of 2475 MHz, with 5888 shading units and 184 texture mapping units feeding 64 raster output pipelines. The memory subsystem consists of 12 GB of GDDR6X on a 192-bit bus, delivering 504.2 GB/s of bandwidth. For a horror title from 2016, these specifications provide substantial headroom, which explains why the card achieves triple-digit frame rates at most resolution and settings combinations.

The 12 GB VRAM capacity is more than sufficient for Downfall's demands. Even at 4K Ultra, the game does not appear to exceed the memory capacity, as the average FPS of 58 at that setting is still playable. If VRAM were exhausted, the frame rate would collapse dramatically rather than degrade gracefully. The 504.2 GB/s memory bandwidth also proves adequate; the consistent scaling between resolutions suggests that memory bandwidth is not a constraining factor at any tested configuration. The 192-bit bus width, while narrower than some higher-end cards, does not create a bottleneck in this title.

The GPU's compute capabilities, rated at 29.15 TFLOPS FP32, are directly relevant to Downfall's rendering workload. The game's horror aesthetic relies on dynamic lighting and shadow effects, which are computationally intensive for the shader units. The RTX 4070's 46 RT cores and 184 tensor cores provide additional acceleration for any ray-traced effects the game might enable, though the measured data does not specify whether ray tracing is active in these tests. The pixel rate of 158.4 GPixel/s and texture rate of 455.4 GTexel/s give the card ample fill rate for the game's visual effects.

The GPU's benchmark scores place it in the 81st percentile of all GPUs, with an average benchmark score of 37648. Its nearest rivals in the database include the NVIDIA Tesla P4 (37628, 0.1% higher), AMD Radeon RX Vega 56 (37507, 0.4% higher), NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4080 Mobile (38135, 1.3% lower), and AMD Radeon PRO W6400 (37157, 1.3% higher). This clustering indicates that the RTX 4070 sits in a performance tier where small percentage differences separate it from several competing products. In Downfall specifically, the measured FPS values show the card punching well above its aggregate benchmark position, likely because the game's age favors the card's modern architecture.

FAQ

Q: What is the highest average frame rate achievable with this CPU/GPU combination in Downfall?

A: The highest measured average is 312 FPS, achieved at 1920x1080 resolution with the Low preset. The next highest is 256 FPS at 1080p Medium, followed by 223 FPS at 1440p Low.

Q: Can this system maintain 60 FPS at 4K with maximum settings?

A: No. At 3840x2160 with the Ultra preset, the average FPS is 58, which falls below the 60 FPS threshold. However, at 4K High, the average rises to 93 FPS, comfortably above 60 FPS.

Q: How does the RTX 4070 compare to its nearest rivals in aggregate benchmark performance?

A: The RTX 4070's average benchmark score is 37648, placing it 0.1% below the NVIDIA Tesla P4, 0.4% below the AMD Radeon RX Vega 56, 1.3% above the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4080 Mobile, and 1.3% below the AMD Radeon PRO W6400.

Q: What is the frame rate difference between Low and Ultra settings at 1440p?

A: At 2560x1440, the Low preset delivers 223 FPS, while the Ultra preset delivers 94 FPS. This represents a 57.8% reduction in average frame rate when moving from Low to Ultra at this resolution.

Q: Is the Ultra 7 265 CPU a bottleneck at any tested resolution or setting?

A: The data does not indicate a CPU bottleneck. The consistent FPS scaling across resolutions at each preset level suggests the GPU is the limiting component throughout. The CPU's 20 cores and 20 threads provide ample processing capacity for this game.

Q: Does the 4K Medium preset provide a better experience than 4K Ultra?

A: Yes, significantly. At 4K Medium, the average FPS is 114 with a minimum of 97 FPS, while 4K Ultra averages only 58 FPS. The Medium preset maintains smooth frame pacing above 90 FPS, whereas Ultra dips below the 60 FPS playability threshold.

Measured FPS Breakdown — resolution by resolution, settings by settings, exact numbers

At 1920x1080, the full range of settings produces the following average frame rates: Low delivers 312 FPS, Medium delivers 256 FPS, High delivers 210 FPS, and Ultra delivers 131 FPS. The Medium preset at this resolution also provides frame time data, with a minimum of 217 FPS and a maximum of 294 FPS, indicating tight frame pacing. The step from Medium to High costs 46 FPS, while the step from High to Ultra costs 79 FPS — the largest single-setting penalty in the entire dataset.

At 2560x1440, the averages are: Low at 223 FPS, Medium at 182 FPS, High at 150 FPS, and Ultra at 94 FPS. The Medium preset shows a minimum of 155 FPS and a maximum of 210 FPS. The relative ordering remains identical to 1080p, but the absolute gaps between settings narrow slightly. The difference between Low and Ultra at 1440p is 129 FPS, compared to 181 FPS at 1080p, showing that the GPU's performance ceiling constrains the spread at higher resolutions.

At 3840x2160, the averages drop to: Low at 139 FPS, Medium at 114 FPS, High at 93 FPS, and Ultra at 58 FPS. The Medium preset records a minimum of 97 FPS and a maximum of 131 FPS. This is the only resolution where any setting falls below 60 FPS — the Ultra preset at 58 FPS average. The gap between Low and Ultra at 4K is 81 FPS, which is smaller than at lower resolutions, further confirming that the GPU is the limiting factor as pixel count increases.

The combination's overall rank in Downfall is 631 out of 2928 tested combinations, placing it in the top 21.6% of all CPU/GPU pairings for this game. This rank reflects the strong performance across all measured configurations, with only the 4K Ultra preset failing to reach 60 FPS.

CPU Role — cores, clocks, and how they relate to this game's results

The Intel Core Ultra 7 265 brings 20 cores and 20 threads to the test system, operating at a base clock of 2.40 GHz and a boost clock of 5.30 GHz. This is the first Core Ultra Series 2 desktop processor, built on the Arrow Lake architecture at TSMC's 3 nm process node. The processor's 30 MB of shared L3 cache, combined with 3 MB L2 cache per core and 192 KB L1 cache per core, provides substantial on-die storage for game data. The dual-channel DDR5 memory interface delivers 102.4 GB/s of memory bandwidth, which is more than sufficient for a 2016 horror title.

The CPU's benchmark results show a processor that excels in both single-threaded and multi-threaded workloads. In Cinebench R23, it scores 42216 multi-core and 5960 single-core. The PassMark Multi-Thread score of 49682 and Single Thread score of 4689 reinforce this dual strength. The processor's 93rd percentile ranking among all CPUs, with an average benchmark score of 64640, places it in the upper tier of desktop processors. Its nearest rivals are the AMD EPYC 4464P (64823, 0.3% higher), Intel Core Ultra 7 265F (64438, 0.3% lower), AMD EPYC 7343 (64202, 0.7% lower), and AMD EPYC 9124 (65104, 0.7% higher) — all within 1% of the Ultra 7 265's aggregate score.

In Downfall specifically, the CPU's role appears secondary to the GPU. The game's horror genre typically relies on scripted sequences and environmental storytelling rather than complex simulation, which means the CPU load is modest. The measured FPS data shows no evidence of CPU limitation: at 1080p Low, the system reaches 312 FPS, which would be an unusually high ceiling for a CPU-bound scenario. The 20-core processor also provides headroom for background tasks and streaming, should the user engage in those activities while playing.

The boost clock of 5.30 GHz is the key specification for gaming performance. Downfall, like most games, benefits from high single-core clock speeds, and the Ultra 7 265's ability to reach 5.30 GHz on lightly-threaded workloads ensures that the CPU never becomes the bottleneck. The 20 threads ensure that even if the game spawns numerous background processes, there is ample capacity. The combination of high clock speed and high core count makes this processor well-matched to the RTX 4070 for this title.

Settings Recommendations — which preset gives the best experience per the measured rows

For 1080p displays, the High preset at 210 FPS offers the best balance of visual quality and performance. The Ultra preset at 131 FPS is also playable and provides the maximum visual fidelity, but the 79 FPS penalty over High is substantial for a game that already looks strong at High. The Medium preset at 256 FPS is the choice for competitive play or high-refresh-rate displays, though the visual downgrade may not be worth the 46 FPS gain over High for most users. The Low preset at 312 FPS exceeds the refresh rate of virtually all consumer monitors and should only be selected for maximum frame rate.

For 1440p displays, the Medium preset at 182 FPS provides the best experience, with a minimum of 155 FPS ensuring consistent frame pacing. The High preset at 150 FPS is also excellent and offers improved visual quality with a modest 32 FPS reduction. The Ultra preset at 94 FPS remains smooth and is the recommended choice for users prioritizing visual fidelity over frame rate. The Low preset at 223 FPS is unnecessary for most users, as it sacrifices visual quality for frame rates that exceed typical 1440p monitor refresh rates.

For 4K displays, the Medium preset at 114 FPS is the clear winner, delivering smooth gameplay with a minimum of 97 FPS. The High preset at 93 FPS is also excellent and provides better visual quality with only a 21 FPS penalty. The Ultra preset at 58 FPS falls below the 60 FPS threshold and is not recommended for a consistently smooth experience, though it remains technically playable. The Low preset at 139 FPS offers high frame rates but significantly reduces visual fidelity, making it a questionable trade-off at 4K resolution.

The overall recommendation depends on the user's display and priorities. For the best visual experience while maintaining playable frame rates, the High preset at 4K (93 FPS) or Ultra at 1440p (94 FPS) are the strongest choices. For the most consistent frame pacing, the Medium preset at any resolution provides the only minimum FPS data in the dataset, with 217 FPS at 1080p, 155 FPS at 1440p, and 97 FPS at 4K — all comfortably above 60 FPS. Users with high-refresh-rate displays should target the Medium or High presets at 1440p, while users with standard 60 Hz displays can safely use Ultra at 1440p or High at 4K.