Downfall

The Intel Core Ultra 7 265 pairs a 20-core, 20-thread Arrow Lake design with a 5.30 GHz boost clock, while the RTX 4080 brings 16 GB of GDDR6X and a 2505 MHz boost. In Downfall, this combination produces a wide FPS spread across resolutions, with the data revealing a system that is heavily GPU-bound at higher settings but capable of extreme frame rates at 1080p. The measured results show a clear hierarchy where the CPU's single-thread strength supports high minimums, but the GPU's raw throughput dictates the ceiling at 4K Ultra.

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

The Intel Core Ultra 7 265 is a 20-core, 20-thread processor based on the Arrow Lake architecture, built on a 3 nm process by TSMC. Its base clock of 2.40 GHz and boost clock of 5.30 GHz are the headline figures, but the benchmark scores reveal the practical impact. The CPU achieves a Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 42216 and a single-core score of 5960, placing it at the 93rd percentile among all CPUs. In Downfall, a horror title that relies on consistent frame delivery, the single-core performance is likely the more relevant metric for game logic and physics, while the 20 threads handle background tasks and streaming.

The data shows that at 1080p Low settings, the CPU can push the RTX 4080 to an average of 400 FPS. This is a scenario where the GPU is not the bottleneck; the CPU's ability to feed frames at that rate is critical. The Cinebench R20 single-core score of 884 and R15 single-core score of 600 suggest a strong per-core throughput. Compared to its nearest rivals, the Core Ultra 7 265 sits only 0.3% behind the Intel Core Ultra 7 265F (which is essentially the same chip without integrated graphics) and 0.3% ahead of the AMD EPYC 4464P. This means the CPU's compute power is not a limiting factor in most Downfall scenarios, even at high frame rates.

However, at 4K Ultra, the average FPS drops to 74, which is 81.5% lower than the 1080p Low result. This massive drop cannot be attributed to the CPU. The processor's multi-core score of 6268 in Cinebench R20 and its Passmark multithread score of 49682 indicate it has ample headroom for the game's demands. The 30 MB of shared L3 cache and 3 MB per-core L2 cache provide fast access to frequently used data. The conclusion from the data is that the CPU is a capable partner, but its role diminishes as resolution and settings increase, making the GPU the primary driver of performance variance.

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

The NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4080 is built on the Ada Lovelace architecture with an AD103 chip, featuring 9728 shading units and 16 GB of GDDR6X memory on a 256-bit bus. The memory clocks run at 1400 MHz, translating to 22.4 Gbps effective, providing a bandwidth of 716.8 GB/s. Its boost clock of 2505 MHz and base clock of 2205 MHz are standard for the 40-series. The GPU's Passmark G3D score of 34457 and 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 score of 6567 place it at the 86th percentile among all GPUs, which is a strong showing but not top-tier.

In Downfall, the GPU's role is evident in the scaling from 1080p to 4K. At 1080p Low, the RTX 4080 averages 400 FPS, but at 4K Ultra, it falls to 74 FPS. This 326 FPS drop highlights the GPU's workload at higher resolutions. The 16 GB VRAM is likely sufficient for Downfall, as the game's textures and effects at 4K Ultra do not seem to cause a memory-related crash, but the performance degradation suggests compute limits rather than memory bandwidth issues. The 716.8 GB/s bandwidth is high, yet the data shows a 62% drop from 4K Low (178 FPS) to 4K Ultra (74 FPS), indicating that the GPU's shading units and RT cores are the bottleneck at max settings.

Comparing to rivals, the RTX 4080 is only 0.1% behind the RTX 4080 SUPER in average benchmark score, but 2.6% ahead of the AMD Radeon RX 6750 GRE 12 GB and 2.7% ahead of the AMD Radeon 8060S. This means the GPU is competitive but not dominant. The data implies that for Downfall, the RTX 4080's performance is adequate for high-refresh-rate 1440p gaming, but 4K Ultra requires compromises, as the 74 FPS average is below the 100+ FPS threshold that many players target.

How This Combo Ranks — use comboRankInGame vs other tested combos

The combination of the Intel Core Ultra 7 265 and NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4080 achieves a rank of 230 out of 3716 tested combos in Downfall. This places it in the top 6.2% of all configurations, which is a strong result. The data shows that this combo outperforms the vast majority of setups, but it is not at the absolute top, where likely newer or more expensive hardware resides. The 230th rank implies that there are 229 combos that deliver higher average FPS, but given the CPU's 93rd percentile and GPU's 86th percentile, the bottleneck is clearly the GPU.

The rank suggests that the system is well-balanced for most resolutions, but the 4K Ultra result of 74 FPS prevents it from climbing higher. At 1440p High, the combo averages 191 FPS, which is excellent, and at 1080p High, it hits 268 FPS. These numbers show that the combo is capable of delivering high refresh rates at mainstream resolutions. The fact that it ranks 230th out of 3716 indicates that while the hardware is strong, there are combos with faster GPUs or better CPU-GPU pairings that edge it out. The delta between the CPU and GPU scores suggests that upgrading the GPU would yield a higher rank, but the CPU is not holding the system back.

FAQ

*Q: What is the highest average FPS this combo achieves in Downfall?*

A: The highest average FPS is 400, achieved at 1920x1080 resolution with Low settings.

Q: How does the CPU compare to its nearest rival in benchmark scores?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 7 265 has an average benchmark score of 64640, which is 0.3% higher than the Intel Core Ultra 7 265F (64438) and 0.3% lower than the AMD EPYC 4464P (64823).

Q: What is the average FPS at 4K Ultra, and how does it compare to 4K Low?

A: At 4K Ultra, the average FPS is 74, while at 4K Low, it is 178. This represents a 58.4% performance drop when moving from Low to Ultra settings at the same resolution.

Q: Is the GPU or CPU more likely to be the bottleneck at 1440p Medium?

A: At 2560x1440 Medium, the average FPS is 233. Given that the CPU can push 400 FPS at 1080p Low, the GPU is the limiting factor at 1440p, as the resolution increases the GPU's workload.

Q: What is the GPU's percentile rank among all GPUs?

A: The NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4080 is at the 86th percentile among all GPUs, with an average benchmark score of 54247.

*Q: How many total combos were tested for Downfall?*

A: The data shows that this combo ranks 230 out of 3716 total tested combos.

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

The measured FPS data shows a clear trend: as resolution increases, average FPS drops significantly. At Low settings, the FPS goes from 400 at 1080p to 285 at 1440p (a 28.8% drop) and then to 178 at 4K (a 55.5% drop from 1080p). At Ultra settings, the progression is 168 FPS at 1080p, 120 FPS at 1440p (a 28.6% drop), and 74 FPS at 4K (a 55.9% drop from 1080p). This consistent pattern across settings indicates that the GPU is the primary limiting component, as the CPU's workload does not scale with resolution in the same way.

The drop from 1080p to 1440p is roughly similar in percentage terms across all settings, which suggests that the GPU is handling the increased pixel count without any CPU-related stutter. The larger drop from 1440p to 4K, where the Ultra setting sees a 38.3% reduction (from 120 to 74 FPS), further confirms this. The RTX 4080's 16 GB VRAM and 716.8 GB/s bandwidth are sufficient, but the compute power is not enough to maintain high FPS at 4K Ultra. The data implies that for a smoother 4K experience, lowering settings to High (119 FPS) is necessary, as the GPU cannot sustain Ultra at playable frame rates.

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

Based on the measured FPS data, the best experience depends on the target resolution. At 1080p, even Ultra settings deliver 168 FPS, which is above the 144 Hz refresh rate of most monitors, making Ultra the best choice for visual fidelity without sacrificing smoothness. At 1440p, High settings provide 191 FPS, which is excellent for high-refresh-rate displays, while Ultra drops to 120 FPS, which is still playable but may not be ideal for competitive play. The data suggests that High at 1440p is the sweet spot, offering a 59.2% improvement over Ultra.

At 4K, the choice is more constrained. Ultra averages only 74 FPS, which is below the 90 FPS threshold for many gamers. High settings yield 119 FPS, a 60.8% improvement over Ultra, and Medium delivers 145 FPS. The data indicates that High at 4K is the best balance, as it provides a smooth experience (119 FPS) while retaining most visual details. Low settings at 4K (178 FPS) are not recommended as they sacrifice too much visual quality for marginal gains. The measured rows show that Medium at 4K offers 123 FPS minimums, which is acceptable, but High is the optimal preset for a stable and immersive experience.

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

At 1920x1080, the average FPS scales from 400 at Low to 327 at Medium, 268 at High, and 168 at Ultra. The Medium setting has a minimum of 278 FPS and a maximum of 376 FPS, showing a tight frame delivery. The Ultra setting has no min/max data, but its 168 FPS average is a significant drop from High, indicating a heavy load on the GPU.

At 2560x1440, the average FPS drops to 285 at Low, 233 at Medium, 191 at High, and 120 at Ultra. The Medium setting records a minimum of 198 FPS and a maximum of 268 FPS, which is a 70 FPS spread, suggesting some frame time variance. The High setting's 191 FPS is a 32.9% drop from Low, and Ultra's 120 FPS is a 57.9% drop from Low, showing the cost of max settings at this resolution.

At 3840x2160, the average FPS is 178 at Low, 145 at Medium, 119 at High, and 74 at Ultra. The Medium setting has a minimum of 123 FPS and a maximum of 167 FPS, which is a 44 FPS spread, indicating inconsistent frame pacing. The High setting's 119 FPS is 33.1% lower than Low, and Ultra's 74 FPS is 58.4% lower than Low. This data confirms that 4K Ultra is only viable for less demanding scenarios, while High provides a playable experience. The progression from Low to Ultra at each resolution shows a consistent pattern of diminishing returns, with the largest FPS hit occurring between High and Ultra, particularly at 4K.