Downfall

# Downfall with Intel Core Ultra 9 275HX + AMD Radeon 880M

The benchmark data for Downfall with this Intel Core Ultra 9 275HX and AMD Radeon 880M combination reveals a system that is heavily constrained by its graphics solution at every resolution tested. The measured frame rates across 1080p, 1440p, and 4K show a clear pattern of GPU-bound performance, with the integrated Radeon 880M struggling to maintain playable framerates at higher settings. This analysis walks through the resolution scaling, component roles, ranking context, and specific measured results to provide a complete picture of what this hardware combo delivers in this 2016 horror title.

Resolution Scaling

The frame rate drop from 1080p to 4K is steep and consistent across all settings presets, indicating that the AMD Radeon 880M is the primary limiting factor in this configuration. At Low settings, the average frame rate falls from 89 FPS at 1920x1080 to 64 FPS at 2560x1440, then to 40 FPS at 3840x2160. That represents a 28% reduction moving from 1080p to 1440p, and another 37.5% reduction moving from 1440p to 4K. The scaling pattern suggests a near-linear relationship between pixel count and performance, which is characteristic of a GPU that is saturated at all resolutions.

At High settings, the resolution scaling follows a similar trajectory: 60 FPS at 1080p, 43 FPS at 1440p, and 27 FPS at 4K. The percentage drops are 28.3% and 37.2% respectively, remarkably close to the Low settings scaling. This consistency across presets reinforces that resolution, not settings complexity, is the dominant performance variable. The Medium preset shows the same pattern with 73 FPS at 1080p, 52 FPS at 1440p, and 32 FPS at 4K.

The Ultra preset delivers the lowest performance at every resolution: 37 FPS at 1080p, 27 FPS at 1440p, and 17 FPS at 4K. The scaling from 1080p to 1440p is a 27% drop, and from 1440p to 4K is another 37%. Notably, the 4K Ultra result of 17 FPS is barely above a slideshow threshold, while even the 1080p Ultra result of 37 FPS falls below the 60 FPS target that many users would consider minimum for smooth gameplay. The data clearly indicates that this integrated GPU cannot sustain high frame rates at higher resolutions regardless of settings.

What this scaling reveals about the limiting component is straightforward: the CPU is not the bottleneck. If the Core Ultra 9 275HX were the constraint, we would expect to see diminishing frame rate differences as resolution increases, because the GPU would become progressively more loaded and the CPU would have more headroom. Instead, the frame rates scale almost exactly with pixel count, which is the hallmark of a GPU-bound scenario. The integrated Radeon 880M is doing all the heavy lifting, and its performance ceiling is reached even at 1080p with demanding settings.

GPU Role

The AMD Radeon 880M is an integrated graphics processor based on the RDNA 3.5 architecture, built on a 4 nm process with 34,000 million transistors. Its clock speeds are listed with a base of 400 MHz and a boost of 2900 MHz, which represents a substantial dynamic range. The GPU has 768 shading units, 48 texture mapping units, and 16 raster operation units, along with 12 ray tracing cores. Its peak pixel rate is 46.40 GPixel/s and texture rate is 139.2 GTexel/s, with FP32 performance rated at 4.454 TFLOPS.

Memory is system shared, meaning the GPU draws from the same DDR5 pool as the CPU, with bandwidth described as system dependent. This shared memory architecture is typical for integrated graphics and can be a performance limiter in memory-intensive scenarios, though Downfall is not an exceptionally demanding game by modern standards. The GPU's bus interface is PCIe 4.0 x8, which provides adequate bandwidth for this class of integrated solution.

In the benchmark suite, the Radeon 880M scores 7,615 in Passmark G3D, which places it at the 43rd percentile among all GPUs. Its average benchmark score is 8,436, and it sits near the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 675MX in performance, with a deltaPct of 0.1% (essentially identical). It is also comparable to the NVIDIA GeForce MX330 (0.3% slower) and the AMD Radeon HD 8870M (0.3% slower). These comparisons show that the 880M is a mid-range integrated solution, roughly equivalent to entry-level discrete graphics from several generations ago.

In Downfall specifically, the GPU's performance is the deciding factor in playability. At 1080p Low, it achieves 89 FPS, which is smooth. At 1080p Medium, it drops to 73 FPS, still acceptable. At 1080p High, it hits 60 FPS, right at the edge of playability. At 1080p Ultra, it falls to 37 FPS, which is below smooth gameplay standards. The 1440p results are all lower: 64 FPS at Low, 52 FPS at Medium, 43 FPS at High, and 27 FPS at Ultra. At 4K, only the Low preset (40 FPS) approaches playability, with Medium at 32 FPS, High at 27 FPS, and Ultra at 17 FPS.

CPU Role

The Intel Core Ultra 9 275HX is a 24-core, 24-thread processor based on the Arrow Lake architecture, built on a 3 nm process at TSMC. It has a base clock of 2.70 GHz and a boost clock of 5.40 GHz, with a TDP of 55 W. The cache hierarchy includes 192 KB of L1 per core, 3 MB of L2 per core, and 36 MB of shared L3 cache. Memory support is DDR5 over a dual-channel bus with 102.4 GB/s bandwidth. The processor also includes integrated Arc Xe-LPG Graphics with 64 execution units, though the system under test uses the separate AMD Radeon 880M.

In synthetic benchmarks, this CPU is a strong performer. It scores 35,589 in Cinebench R23 multi-core and 2,204 in single-core, 19,899 in Cinebench R20 multi-core and 2,809 in single-core, and 20,795 in Geekbench multi-core with 2,458 in single-core. Its Passmark multithread score is 55,759, and single-thread is 4,713. The average benchmark score is 67,469, placing it at the 94th percentile among all CPUs.

The nearest rivals in the CPU benchmark database are all server or workstation processors: the Intel Xeon w5-3525 (0.3% lower score), AMD EPYC 4484PX (0.5% lower), AMD Ryzen Threadripper PRO 5955WX (0.6% lower), and Intel Xeon 6515P (0.7% higher). This positioning shows that the Core Ultra 9 275HX is a top-tier mobile CPU, competitive with high-end desktop workstation parts in raw compute.

However, in Downfall, the CPU's role is minimal because the GPU is the bottleneck. The measured frame rates at all resolutions and settings are far below what this CPU could theoretically drive if paired with a more powerful GPU. The 24 cores and 24 threads provide ample headroom for game logic, physics, and AI, but those subsystems are not the constraint in this title. The CPU's high single-thread performance (2,204 in Cinebench R23 single-core) ensures that even the main game thread is unlikely to be a limiting factor at the frame rates observed. The data shows that the Core Ultra 9 275HX is essentially idle in this configuration, waiting on the Radeon 880M to deliver frames.

How This Combo Ranks

In the database of tested combinations for Downfall, this CPU and GPU pairing ranks 2,852 out of 2,928 total combos. That places it in the bottom 2.6% of all tested configurations, which is a poor result for a system with such a high-end CPU. The ranking reflects the fact that the AMD Radeon 880M is a weak graphics solution for gaming, despite the CPU being in the top 6% of all processors.

The rank of 2,852 out of 2,928 means that only 76 other tested combos score worse in Downfall. This is a stark indicator that the integrated GPU severely limits the overall gaming experience. The combination of a top-tier mobile CPU with a mid-range integrated GPU is unusual, and the benchmark results show that the CPU's power is wasted in this context. The frame rates achieved are comparable to what much older and slower CPUs might produce when paired with similarly weak GPUs, because the GPU bottleneck dominates.

For context, the GPU's percentile ranking of 43rd among all GPUs puts it in the middle of the pack, but in a game like Downfall, which appears to be sensitive to raw graphics throughput, the 880M's performance is insufficient for high-quality gameplay. The combo ranking of 2,852 suggests that most other tested configurations, even those with weaker CPUs, deliver better frame rates because they pair them with more capable discrete GPUs. This is a case where the whole is less than the sum of its parts, at least for gaming purposes.

Measured FPS Breakdown

At 1920x1080, the measured average frame rates across settings are: Low at 89 FPS, Medium at 73 FPS (with min 62 and max 84), High at 60 FPS, and Ultra at 37 FPS. The Medium preset has the only recorded min and max values at this resolution, indicating a range of 62 to 84 FPS, which shows some variance but remains within playable territory for most of the time. The Low preset is the only one that breaks the 90 FPS threshold, and it is the smoothest experience available.

At 2560x1440, the results are: Low at 64 FPS, Medium at 52 FPS (with min 44 and max 60), High at 43 FPS, and Ultra at 27 FPS. The Medium preset shows a wider spread between min and max, from 44 to 60 FPS, which suggests occasional drops below the average that could be noticeable. The High preset at 43 FPS is borderline playable, while Ultra at 27 FPS is not smooth by most standards.

At 3840x2160, the results are: Low at 40 FPS, Medium at 32 FPS (with min 28 and max 37), High at 27 FPS, and Ultra at 17 FPS. The Medium preset at 4K has a min of 28 FPS and max of 37 FPS, which is a narrow range but consistently low. The Ultra preset at 17 FPS is effectively unplayable for a horror game that likely benefits from smooth motion to maintain atmosphere.

Across all resolutions, the Low preset provides the highest frame rates, and the gap between Low and Ultra is substantial. At 1080p, the difference is 52 FPS (89 vs 37). At 1440p, it is 37 FPS (64 vs 27). At 4K, it is 23 FPS (40 vs 17). The diminishing absolute difference at higher resolutions reflects the GPU's decreasing ability to handle the pixel load regardless of settings.

FAQ

Q: What is the best resolution for playable frame rates with this combo?

A: The data shows that 1920x1080 is the only resolution where most settings achieve playable frame rates. At Low, Medium, and High, the averages are 89, 73, and 60 FPS respectively, all above the 60 FPS threshold. At 1440p, only Low (64 FPS) and Medium (52 FPS) are near playable, while at 4K, only Low (40 FPS) approaches playability.

Q: How does the Radeon 880M compare to its nearest GPU rivals?

A: The Radeon 880M has an average benchmark score of 8,436, which places it 0.1% above the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 675MX, 0.3% above the NVIDIA GeForce MX330, 0.3% above the AMD Radeon HD 8870M, and 1.3% below the AMD Radeon R9 M375X. These are all older or entry-level discrete GPUs.

Q: Is the Intel Core Ultra 9 275HX a bottleneck in Downfall?

A: No, the benchmark data indicates the CPU is not the limiting factor. The frame rate scaling across resolutions closely tracks pixel count, which is characteristic of GPU-bound performance. The CPU's high scores (35,589 in Cinebench R23 multi-core, 2,204 in single-core) provide far more compute headroom than the observed frame rates require.

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

A: At 1920x1080, the Low preset achieves 89 FPS average, while Ultra achieves 37 FPS average. This is a difference of 52 FPS, representing a 58% reduction in frame rate when moving from Low to Ultra.

Q: Does the Medium preset provide a good balance of performance and quality?

A: At 1080p, Medium averages 73 FPS with min 62 and max 84, which is a solid experience. At 1440p, Medium averages 52 FPS with min 44 and max 60, which is borderline. At 4K, Medium averages 32 FPS with min 28 and max 37, which is below playable standards.

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

A: This CPU and GPU combination ranks 2,852 out of 2,928 tested combos, placing it in the bottom 2.6% of all configurations. This low rank is due to the integrated GPU's limited gaming performance, despite the CPU being a top-tier mobile processor at the 94th percentile.

Settings Recommendations

Based on the measured frame rates, the optimal settings for this combo depend on the resolution target. At 1920x1080, the Low preset delivers the best experience with 89 FPS average, which provides headroom for smooth gameplay. The Medium preset at 73 FPS is also excellent and offers better visual quality while maintaining comfort. The High preset at 60 FPS is acceptable but leaves no margin for frame rate dips, and the Ultra preset at 37 FPS should be avoided.

For 2560x1440, the Low preset at 64 FPS is the recommended choice, as it is the only setting that consistently stays above 60 FPS. The Medium preset at 52 FPS is playable but may exhibit occasional stutter, given the recorded min of 44 FPS. The High preset at 43 FPS and Ultra at 27 FPS are not recommended for a smooth experience.

At 3840x2160, the Low preset at 40 FPS is the only viable option, and even that may be marginal for some players. The Medium preset at 32 FPS, High at 27 FPS, and Ultra at 17 FPS are all below acceptable thresholds for a horror game that benefits from fluid motion. Players who prioritize 4K should accept Low settings and potentially lower expectations for smoothness.

Overall, the data suggests that this system is best used at 1080p with Medium settings, which provides a 73 FPS average with a recorded range of 62 to 84 FPS. This configuration balances visual quality with performance, delivering a smooth experience in Downfall. For players who prefer higher resolutions, the Low preset is the only reasonable choice, and even then, 1440p is the practical ceiling for this integrated GPU solution.