Downfall

# Downfall with Intel Core Ultra 9 275HX + AMD Radeon 8060S

The Intel Core Ultra 9 275HX paired with the AMD Radeon 8060S produces a striking FPS profile in Downfall, a 2016 horror title that clearly responds well to both high-core-count CPUs and modern GPU architecture. Across the measured resolution and settings matrix, this combination delivers playable frame rates at 4K, strong triple-digit performance at 1440p, and exceptional headroom at 1080p. The data reveals a system that scales predictably with resolution, with the GPU becoming the dominant constraint at higher pixel counts while the CPU’s 24 cores and 5.40 GHz boost clock keep minimum frame pacing stable in the only settings tier where min FPS was recorded. What follows is a breakdown of how this specific hardware pairing behaves in Downfall, based strictly on the measured benchmark rows.

Settings Recommendations

The measured FPS data for Downfall suggests that the Medium preset offers the best balance of visual fidelity and performance across all three tested resolutions. At 3840x2160, Medium delivers an average of 76 FPS with a recorded minimum of 65 FPS and maximum of 88 FPS, which keeps the experience comfortably above typical display refresh thresholds while maintaining some headroom for scene complexity. High at 4K drops to 63 FPS average, which is still playable but leaves less margin for demanding sequences, while Ultra falls to 39 FPS — a significant step down that would likely feel sluggish in a horror title where responsiveness matters.

At 2560x1440, the Medium preset achieves 123 FPS average with a minimum of 104 FPS and maximum of 141 FPS, making it the clear choice for high-refresh monitors without sacrificing much visual quality. High at 1440p reaches 101 FPS average, which is respectable but noticeably lower than Medium, suggesting that the preset’s additional effects cost roughly 18% performance. Low at 1440p hits 150 FPS, but the visual compromise is unnecessary when Medium already exceeds 120 FPS. The Ultra preset at 1440p produces 63 FPS average, identical to High at 4K, which indicates that Ultra’s overhead is substantial regardless of resolution.

For 1920x1080, Medium again stands out with 172 FPS average, a minimum of 146 FPS, and a maximum of 198 FPS. This provides excellent smoothness for competitive or high-refresh play. High at 1080p reaches 141 FPS, while Low hits 210 FPS — the highest measured value in the entire dataset. Ultra at 1080p yields 88 FPS, which is playable but represents a 49% drop from Medium. The pattern is consistent: Medium offers the best experience per the measured rows, providing frame rates that are 20-25% higher than High while staying far above the 60 FPS threshold, and it avoids the severe performance penalty that Ultra imposes. For players prioritizing maximum smoothness, Low at 1080p or 1440p is the fallback, but Medium’s combination of quality and speed makes it the recommended preset.

GPU Role

The AMD Radeon 8060S, built on the RDNA 3.5 architecture with a 4 nm process, is the primary driver of Downfall’s frame rate ceiling at every resolution. Its 2560 shading units, 160 texture mapping units, and 64 raster output pipelines deliver a 14.85 TFLOPS FP32 throughput, which the benchmark data shows is sufficient for high-refresh 1080p and solid 4K performance. The GPU’s boost clock of 2900 MHz and base clock of 1295 MHz provide the raw compute headroom, and the 40 ray tracing cores suggest modern API support, though Downfall’s 2016 release likely doesn’t leverage them heavily. The 8060S uses system-shared memory with bandwidth described as "System Dependent," meaning its performance in memory-intensive scenarios is tied to the CPU’s DDR5 dual-channel configuration and 102.4 GB/s bandwidth.

The GPU’s benchmark percentile of 87 versus all GPUs places it in the upper tier, with nearest rivals including the AMD Radeon RX 6750 GRE 12 GB (0.1% faster), NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5080 (0.6% faster), AMD Radeon Pro W5700X (1.7% slower), and NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4080 (2.8% slower). This clustering suggests the 8060S performs in a similar band to those discrete cards despite being an integrated part of the Strix Halo platform. In Downfall specifically, the GPU’s role becomes evident when comparing settings tiers: moving from Low to Medium at 1080p costs 38 FPS (210 to 172), from Medium to High costs 31 FPS (172 to 141), and from High to Ultra costs 53 FPS (141 to 88). These drops are consistent with a GPU that has ample raw compute but sees diminishing returns as settings push toward Ultra, likely due to memory bandwidth constraints from the shared memory architecture. The 55 W TDP for the GPU, combined with the CPU’s 55 W TDP, indicates a power-efficient pairing that still achieves competitive frame rates.

Resolution Scaling

The FPS progression across resolutions reveals a clear GPU-bound scaling pattern. At Medium settings, the average FPS drops from 172 at 1920x1080 to 123 at 2560x1440 (a 28.5% reduction) and then to 76 at 3840x2160 (a 38.2% reduction from 1440p). This scaling is steeper than the pixel-count increase would suggest if the CPU were the bottleneck — 1080p to 1440p represents 1.78x the pixels but only a 0.72x FPS ratio, while 1440p to 4K represents 2.25x the pixels but a 0.62x FPS ratio. The disproportionate FPS loss indicates the GPU’s fill rate and memory bandwidth are limiting factors at higher resolutions, which is expected for a system-shared memory configuration.

At High settings, the scaling is similar: 141 FPS at 1080p drops to 101 FPS at 1440p (28.4% loss) and then to 63 FPS at 4K (37.6% loss from 1440p). Low settings show the most dramatic absolute drops: 210 FPS at 1080p, 150 FPS at 1440p (28.6% loss), and 93 FPS at 4K (38% loss from 1440p). Ultra settings follow the same pattern: 88 FPS at 1080p, 63 FPS at 1440p (28.4% loss), and 39 FPS at 4K (38.1% loss from 1440p). The consistency of these percentage drops across all settings tiers — roughly 28-29% from 1080p to 1440p and 37-38% from 1440p to 4K — strongly suggests the GPU is the limiting component at every resolution, with the CPU’s 24 cores and high boost clock providing ample headroom. The data implies that Downfall’s rendering pipeline scales resolution-dependent workloads almost entirely on the GPU, and the 8060S’s performance degrades predictably as pixel count rises. For 4K play, only Medium (76 FPS) and Low (93 FPS) are viable, while High drops to 63 FPS and Ultra becomes marginal at 39 FPS.

How This Combo Ranks

The Intel Core Ultra 9 275HX and AMD Radeon 8060S combination ranks 1667 out of 2928 tested combos in Downfall, placing it in the 43rd percentile of all combinations in this database. This mid-pack ranking is somewhat surprising given the individual component strengths — the CPU sits at the 94th percentile versus all CPUs, and the GPU at the 87th percentile versus all GPUs. The discrepancy suggests that Downfall, being a horror title from 2016, may not fully utilize the modern architecture’s capabilities, or that the integrated GPU’s shared memory configuration creates a bottleneck that discrete GPU combos avoid.

Compared to the CPU’s nearest rivals, the Ultra 9 275HX shows a 0.3% deficit to the Intel Xeon w5-3525, a 0.5% deficit to the AMD EPYC 4484PX, a 0.6% deficit to the AMD Ryzen Threadripper PRO 5955WX, and a 0.7% advantage over the Intel Xeon 6515P. These deltas are minimal, indicating the CPU is performing at its expected level. For the GPU, the 8060S is 0.1% behind the RX 6750 GRE 12 GB, 0.6% behind the RTX 5080, 1.7% ahead of the Radeon Pro W5700X, and 2.8% ahead of the RTX 4080. The GPU’s performance is therefore competitive with mid-range to high-end discrete options from the previous generation.

The combo ranking of 1667 out of 2928 suggests that while both components are individually strong, their combination in Downfall doesn’t boost to the top tier. This could imply that other combos with slightly weaker CPUs but more powerful discrete GPUs achieve better frame rates, or that the system-shared memory architecture of the 8060S limits its effectiveness in this title compared to dedicated VRAM solutions. The ranking data shows that this pairing is solidly mid-pack, offering reliable performance but not exceptional when compared to the full range of tested hardware configurations.

FAQ

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

A: The Medium preset at 2560x1440 offers the best overall experience, delivering 123 FPS average with a minimum of 104 FPS and maximum of 141 FPS. This provides high-refresh smoothness while maintaining visual quality.

Q: How does the AMD Radeon 8060S compare to its nearest GPU rivals?

A: The 8060S is 0.1% slower than the AMD Radeon RX 6750 GRE 12 GB, 0.6% slower than the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5080, 1.7% faster than the AMD Radeon Pro W5700X, and 2.8% faster than the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4080.

Q: Is the Ultra preset playable at any resolution?

A: Ultra is only marginally playable at 1920x1080 with 88 FPS average. At 2560x1440 it drops to 63 FPS, and at 3840x2160 it falls to 39 FPS, which is below the typical playability threshold.

Q: What is the CPU’s performance percentile and how does it rank against rivals?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 9 275HX sits at the 94th percentile versus all CPUs, with a 0.3% deficit to the Xeon w5-3525, 0.5% deficit to the EPYC 4484PX, 0.6% deficit to the Threadripper PRO 5955WX, and 0.7% advantage over the Xeon 6515P.

Q: Does the GPU or CPU limit performance in Downfall?

A: The data indicates the GPU is the limiting factor, as FPS drops consistently by 28-29% from 1080p to 1440p and 37-38% from 1440p to 4K across all settings, regardless of CPU load.

Q: Can this combo achieve 4K gaming in Downfall?

A: Yes, with Medium settings at 3840x2160 the combo delivers 76 FPS average (65 min, 88 max), and with Low settings it reaches 93 FPS. High settings drop to 63 FPS, while Ultra falls to 39 FPS.

Measured FPS Breakdown

At 1920x1080, the measured average FPS values are: Low at 210 FPS, Medium at 172 FPS (with a minimum of 146 and maximum of 198), High at 141 FPS, and Ultra at 88 FPS. The 1080p results show the largest spread between settings, with a 122 FPS difference between Low and Ultra, indicating the GPU has substantial headroom at this resolution and settings have a pronounced impact.

At 2560x1440, the averages are: Low at 150 FPS, Medium at 123 FPS (104 min, 141 max), High at 101 FPS, and Ultra at 63 FPS. The gap between Low and Ultra narrows to 87 FPS, reflecting the increased pixel load reducing the relative impact of settings changes. Medium maintains a healthy 104 FPS minimum, suggesting stable frame pacing.

At 3840x2160, the averages are: Low at 93 FPS, Medium at 76 FPS (65 min, 88 max), High at 63 FPS, and Ultra at 39 FPS. The Low-to-Ultra spread shrinks further to 54 FPS. Only Low and Medium exceed 60 FPS, with Medium’s 65 FPS minimum still providing a smooth experience. Ultra at 39 FPS is the only measured configuration below the 60 FPS threshold, and even High sits exactly at 63 FPS average, leaving little margin for demanding scenes.

The min/max data is only recorded for Medium settings, showing 146-198 FPS at 1080p, 104-141 FPS at 1440p, and 65-88 FPS at 4K. These ranges indicate consistent frame delivery with no severe stuttering, as the minimums stay within 15% of their respective averages. The absence of min/max data for other settings means no conclusions can be drawn about frame pacing there, but the Medium data suggests the 8060S maintains stable performance.

CPU Role

The Intel Core Ultra 9 275HX, with 24 cores and 24 threads across its Arrow Lake-HX architecture, provides substantial compute resources that Downfall likely doesn’t fully stress, given the game’s 2016 release. The CPU’s base clock of 2.70 GHz and boost clock of 5.40 GHz, combined with 36 MB of shared L3 cache, ensure that any single-threaded or lightly-threaded workloads in the game are handled with ample headroom. The 3 nm process node and 17,800 million transistors indicate a modern, efficient design, but the game’s age means the CPU’s advanced features are probably underutilized.

Benchmark data shows the CPU achieving a Cinebench R23 multicore score of 35589 and single-core score of 2204, along with a Geekbench multicore score of 20795 and single-core score of 2458. These scores place it at the 94th percentile versus all CPUs, with its 67469 average benchmark score nearly matching the Xeon w5-3525 (67673, 0.3% faster) and EPYC 4484PX (67822, 0.5% faster). In Downfall, the CPU’s role is to feed the GPU with draw calls and physics calculations, and the consistent FPS scaling patterns across resolutions suggest the CPU is never the bottleneck — even at 1080p Low with 210 FPS, the frame rate is limited by the GPU’s rendering speed, not the CPU’s processing capacity.

The CPU’s 24 threads, while not directly leveraged by most games from 2016, provide future-proofing and ensure that background tasks or streaming won’t interfere with game performance. The 102.4 GB/s memory bandwidth from the dual-channel DDR5 configuration is critical for the GPU’s system-shared memory, and the data shows this setup handles 4K Medium (76 FPS) without significant memory-related stuttering, as indicated by the 65 FPS minimum. The CPU’s 55 W TDP aligns with the GPU’s 55 W TDP, creating a balanced power envelope that allows sustained performance in a mobile form factor. Overall, the CPU provides a solid foundation that never limits Downfall’s frame rates, letting the GPU’s performance dictate the experience across all tested settings and resolutions.