Downfall

# Downfall with Intel Core Ultra 9 290K Plus + AMD Radeon RX 6600 XT

This combination places at rank 2091 out of 2928 tested combos in Downfall, putting it in the lower-middle tier of the database. The pairing of a flagship 24-core CPU with a mid-range RDNA 2 GPU creates a strongly GPU-limited system, where the Intel Core Ultra 9 290K Plus's substantial processing headroom is largely untapped by this horror title's rendering demands. The measured frame rates tell a clear story of a system that can deliver smooth 1080p gameplay at most settings, but struggles to maintain playable performance at 4K Ultra. At 1080p, the combo delivers 80 FPS at Ultra settings, which is respectable, yet the drop to 36 FPS at 4K Ultra indicates that the Radeon RX 6600 XT becomes the decisive bottleneck at higher resolutions. The data shows a system that rewards users who prioritize resolution scaling over visual fidelity, with Low settings at 4K producing 85 FPS while Ultra at 1440p yields only 57 FPS.

How This Combo Ranks

The combo's rank of 2091 out of 2928 tested combinations places it in approximately the 71st percentile of systems tested in Downfall, meaning roughly 29% of all tested combos perform worse. This ranking reflects the Radeon RX 6600 XT's position in the GPU hierarchy more than the CPU's capability. The GPU sits at the 70th percentile among all GPUs in the database, with an average benchmark score of 24442, while the CPU ranks at the 96th percentile among all CPUs with an average benchmark score of 84003. This massive disparity between component tiers explains why the combo's in-game rank lags behind what the CPU alone would suggest.

Against its nearest GPU rivals, the RX 6600 XT shows a narrow performance band. It edges out the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1630 by 0.7% in average benchmark score, trails the Intel Arc A350M by 0.8%, and leads the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 780 Ti by 0.8% and the RTX 2080 SUPER by 1.1%. These small deltas indicate that in the broader benchmark suite, the RX 6600 XT is tightly clustered with these cards, though the actual in-game performance in Downfall may diverge from these synthetic averages. The CPU side shows a similar pattern of tight competition: the Core Ultra 9 290K Plus leads the Intel Core Ultra 9 285K by just 0.2% in average score, sits 1.1% above the AMD EPYC 4584PX, and 1.2% above the AMD EPYC 9135, while trailing the AMD EPYC 7F72 by 1.3%. This suggests that the 290K Plus is essentially performance-equivalent to its closest peers, with the 0.2% delta over the 285K being within measurement noise.

In practical terms for Downfall, the combo's rank means that users should expect mid-pack performance relative to all tested hardware combinations. The system will not compete with high-end GPU pairings, but it also avoids the bottom tier of configurations. The 57 FPS at 4K High and 91 FPS at 1440p High indicate that the combo is best suited for 1080p and 1440p gaming, where it can maintain frame rates above 60 FPS at most quality settings.

FAQ

Q: What is the best resolution to play Downfall with this combo?

A: The data shows 1440p High as the sweet spot, delivering 91 FPS average. At 1080p, the combo reaches 128 FPS on High, while 4K High drops to 57 FPS, which is below the 60 FPS threshold many players prefer.

Q: How does the RX 6600 XT compare to its nearest rivals in synthetic benchmarks?

A: The RX 6600 XT's average benchmark score of 24442 puts it 0.7% ahead of the GTX 1630, 0.8% ahead of the GTX 780 Ti, and 1.1% ahead of the RTX 2080 SUPER, while trailing the Arc A350M by 0.8%. These are marginal differences that suggest near-parity with these cards in general compute workloads.

Q: Is the Intel Core Ultra 9 290K Plus overkill for this GPU?

A: The CPU's 96th percentile ranking versus the GPU's 70th percentile indicates a significant capability gap. The CPU can deliver 51731 in Cinebench R23 multicore and 7303 in single-core, but Downfall's frame rates are primarily determined by the GPU, especially at higher resolutions.

Q: What frame rates can I expect at 1080p with different quality settings?

A: At 1080p, the measured results show 191 FPS on Low, 156 FPS on Medium, 128 FPS on High, and 80 FPS on Ultra. The Medium preset also recorded a minimum of 133 FPS and a maximum of 180 FPS, indicating good frame time consistency.

Q: How does the combo perform at 4K across all settings?

A: Measured results show 85 FPS on Low, 69 FPS on Medium, 57 FPS on High, and 36 FPS on Ultra at 3840x2160. Only the Low and Medium presets exceed 60 FPS, making 4K Ultra impractical for smooth gameplay.

Q: What does the combo's rank of 2091 out of 2928 mean in practice?

A: This rank means the combo performs better than about 837 tested combinations but worse than 2090 others. The system sits in the lower-middle range of all tested combos, consistent with a mid-range GPU paired with a high-end CPU.

Settings Recommendations

The measured FPS data provides clear guidance for optimal settings at each resolution. For 1080p gaming, the High preset delivers 128 FPS average, which is well above the 60 FPS threshold and provides a substantial improvement over the 80 FPS of Ultra. The jump from High to Ultra costs 48 FPS (from 128 down to 80), a 37.5% performance penalty that most users would find difficult to justify unless they prioritize maximum visual quality. The Medium preset at 156 FPS offers additional headroom for high-refresh-rate displays, but the 28 FPS gain over High comes at the cost of visual fidelity. For most players, 1080p High represents the best balance of performance and image quality.

At 1440p, the recommendation shifts to Medium or High depending on display refresh rate. The High preset produces 91 FPS, which is suitable for 60 Hz and most 75 Hz displays, while the Medium preset at 111 FPS can drive 100 Hz panels. The Ultra preset at 57 FPS dips below 60, making it a poor choice for smooth gameplay. The Low preset at 136 FPS is available for competitive play or high-refresh displays, but the visual compromise is significant. The data suggests that 1440p High is the default recommendation, with Medium as a fallback for those seeking higher frame rates.

At 4K, the options are more constrained. The Low preset at 85 FPS is the only setting that provides comfortable headroom above 60 FPS, while Medium at 69 FPS is playable but close to the threshold. High at 57 FPS and Ultra at 36 FPS are both below 60 FPS, making them less desirable for smooth gameplay. For 4K users, the Medium preset at 69 FPS with a minimum of 59 FPS offers the best compromise between visual quality and playability, though Low at 85 FPS is the safer choice for consistent performance. The 4K Medium result also recorded a maximum of 80 FPS, indicating that frame rates can vary significantly depending on scene complexity.

Measured FPS Breakdown

At 1920x1080, the combo delivers its strongest performance across all settings. The Low preset achieves 191 FPS average, which is the highest measured result in the entire dataset. Medium drops to 156 FPS with a minimum of 133 FPS and a maximum of 180 FPS, showing a tight frame time distribution. High delivers 128 FPS, while Ultra produces 80 FPS. The progression from Low to Ultra shows a 111 FPS spread, with each settings tier costing approximately 30-40 FPS. This suggests that Downfall's Ultra preset imposes a particularly heavy rendering load that the RX 6600 XT struggles to maintain.

At 2560x1440, the same pattern emerges but with reduced absolute numbers. Low hits 136 FPS, Medium reaches 111 FPS with a minimum of 95 FPS and a maximum of 128 FPS, High delivers 91 FPS, and Ultra drops to 57 FPS. The 1440p results are consistently about 70% of the 1080p numbers across settings, which aligns with the pixel count difference between these resolutions. The Medium preset's minimum of 95 FPS indicates that even during demanding scenes, the combo maintains playable frame rates at this resolution.

At 3840x2160, the performance degrades significantly. Low produces 85 FPS, Medium achieves 69 FPS with a minimum of 59 FPS and a maximum of 80 FPS, High drops to 57 FPS, and Ultra falls to 36 FPS. The 4K numbers represent roughly 45% of the 1080p performance, which is a larger drop than the pixel count alone would suggest. This indicates that the RX 6600 XT's 8 GB of VRAM and 256.0 GB/s memory bandwidth become limiting factors at 4K, particularly at higher quality settings where texture and geometry demands increase. The 4K Ultra result of 36 FPS is barely playable, making it suitable only for screenshot purposes or turn-based gameplay.

Resolution Scaling

The measured data reveals how frame rates scale as resolution increases from 1080p to 4K. At High settings, the combo delivers 128 FPS at 1080p, 91 FPS at 1440p, and 57 FPS at 4K. This represents a 28.9% drop from 1080p to 1440p and a 55.5% drop from 1080p to 4K. The scaling is roughly consistent with pixel count increases, though slightly steeper, suggesting the GPU is the primary limiting factor. At Low settings, the numbers are 191 FPS, 136 FPS, and 85 FPS for 1080p, 1440p, and 4K respectively, showing drops of 28.8% and 55.5% respectively.

The Medium preset shows an interesting pattern: 156 FPS at 1080p, 111 FPS at 1440p, and 69 FPS at 4K. The 4K Medium result's minimum of 59 FPS and maximum of 80 FPS indicates a wider frame time variance than at lower resolutions, which is typical when the GPU approaches its memory bandwidth limits. The Ultra preset demonstrates the most severe scaling: 80 FPS at 1080p, 57 FPS at 1440p, and 36 FPS at 4K. The 55% drop from 1080p to 4K at Ultra settings suggests that the RX 6600 XT's 8 GB VRAM capacity is being saturated, causing additional performance degradation beyond what pixel count alone would predict.

The resolution scaling analysis points to the GPU as the primary bottleneck. The Intel Core Ultra 9 290K Plus, with its 24 cores and 36 MB of shared L3 cache, has ample processing capacity to feed the GPU at all tested resolutions. The consistent percentage drops across settings indicate that the GPU's rasterization and memory subsystems are the limiting factors. The CPU's high single-thread performance, evidenced by a 7303 Cinebench R23 single-core score, ensures that it does not introduce frame pacing issues or bottleneck the GPU at any resolution.

CPU Role

The Intel Core Ultra 9 290K Plus is a 24-core, 24-thread processor based on the Arrow Lake Refresh architecture, built on a 3 nm process by TSMC. It operates with a base clock of 3.70 GHz and a boost clock of 5.80 GHz, with a TDP of 125 W. The processor's cache hierarchy includes 192 KB of L1 per core, 3 MB of L2 per core, and 36 MB of shared L3 cache. In synthetic benchmarks, it achieves 51731 in Cinebench R23 multicore and 7303 in single-core, reflecting its strong multi-threaded and single-threaded capabilities.

In Downfall, the CPU's role is largely secondary to the GPU. The game's horror genre typically features moderate CPU demands, and the measured frame rates show that the CPU is not the limiting factor at any resolution or settings combination. The CPU's 96th percentile ranking among all CPUs means it outperforms 96% of tested processors, making it more than sufficient for this game. The 24 cores and 24 threads provide substantial headroom for background tasks and streaming, though Downfall is unlikely to utilize more than a fraction of these resources.

The CPU's memory bandwidth of 115.2 GB/s via dual-channel DDR5 support ensures that data can be fed to the GPU efficiently. The 36 MB of shared L3 cache helps reduce memory latency for frequently accessed game data. At 1080p Low, where the GPU is least stressed, the combo achieves 191 FPS, which indicates that the CPU can handle high frame rate scenarios without becoming a bottleneck. The single-core performance of 7303 in Cinebench R23 is particularly relevant for games that rely on a few primary threads, and this score places the CPU well above the threshold needed for smooth gameplay in Downfall.

GPU Role

The AMD Radeon RX 6600 XT is built on the RDNA 2.0 architecture with the Navi 23 chip, manufactured on a 7 nm process by TSMC. It features 2048 shading units, 128 texture mapping units, and 64 raster output units, along with 32 ray tracing cores. The GPU operates with a base clock of 1968 MHz, a game clock of 2359 MHz, and a boost clock of 2589 MHz. Its 8 GB of GDDR6 memory runs at 2000 MHz with a 128-bit bus, providing 256.0 GB/s of memory bandwidth. The card's FP32 performance is 10.60 TFLOPS, with a pixel rate of 165.7 GPixel/s and a texture rate of 331.4 GTexel/s.

The GPU's 70th percentile ranking places it above 70% of all GPUs in the database, but its average benchmark score of 24442 is modest compared to the CPU's 84003. In Downfall, the RX 6600 XT is clearly the performance limiter, particularly at higher resolutions and quality settings. The 8 GB VRAM capacity becomes a constraint at 4K Ultra, where the 36 FPS result suggests memory pressure beyond just raw compute limits. The 256.0 GB/s memory bandwidth is adequate for 1080p and 1440p gaming but may struggle with the larger texture sets and higher resolution buffers required at 4K.

The GPU's clock behavior shows a significant gap between base and boost clocks (1968 MHz to 2589 MHz), indicating good thermal and power headroom for sustained boost operation. The 160 W TDP and suggested 450 W PSU requirement are modest for a mid-range card. In terms of API support, the GPU supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4, ensuring compatibility with modern game engines. The measured 4K Medium result of 69 FPS with a minimum of 59 FPS suggests that the GPU can maintain playable performance when settings are kept moderate, but the 4K Ultra result of 36 FPS demonstrates clear limitations at maximum quality settings.