Downfall

Downfall, a horror title released in February 2016, stresses both CPU throughput and GPU rasterization. The benchmarked configuration pairs Intel’s Core Ultra 9 290K Plus with AMD’s Radeon RX 6650 XT, and the results are a study in asymmetric component roles. The CPU carries 24 threads across 24 cores with a max boost of 5.80 GHz, and it sits at the 96th percentile among all processors, while the RX 6650 XT is a mid-range 8 GB RDNA 2 card at the 65th percentile of all GPUs. The measured material shows a wide envelope: a 199 FPS average at 1080p Low, down to a 37 FPS average at 4K Ultra. This spread points to the GPU as the eventual limiter, but the CPU establishes the top ceiling at lower resolutions.

CPU Role

The Core Ultra 9 290K Plus is a 24-core, 24-thread processor built on the Arrow Lake refresh at a 5.30 GHz boost with a 3.70 GHz base clock. It has a 36 MB L3 cache shared across cores and 3 MB per-core L2, and it uses the LGA1851 socket with DDR5 memory support. Its synthetic averages put it ahead of the competition: Cinebench R23 multi-core 51,731 and single-core 7,303, with a Pass­mark multi-thread score of 60,860 and single-thread 4,723. Measured against other CPUs, it sits a hair above the Core Ultra 9 285K (+0.2%) and ahead of the EPYC pair of the 4584PX (+1.1%) and 9135 (+1.2%), which belong to server silicon, while trailing the EPYC 7F72 by -1.3% in the average candidate pool.

In Downfall, that CPU headroom is never stressed in a way that matters for framerate. The title’s engine is old enough that even a legacy dual-core would produce playable numbers; a 24-core Arrow Lake chip is simply overkill. Evidence comes from the FPS ratios: going from 1080p Low to 1080p Ultra, the average drops from 199 to 83—a GPU-bound change because the CPU would still be waiting. Similarly, 4K Low runs at 88 FPS while the same case, 4K Ultra, drops to 37 FPS. Just this pattern indicates that the CPU is rarely the insurer that dictates the pace; the Vega class voltage decreases, not processor load.

Single‑thread performance can matter in horror games where A‑I scripts dominate, and here the Core Ultra 9 290K scores a Cinebench R23 single-core of 7,303, which places it in the top percentile of all processors. The pass rate in a frame-limited scenario shows the 1080p ceiling is never near a CPU bound: the combination yields more than 199 FPS at 1080p Low and 162 FPS at Medium, so the processor does nothing to cap the experience. Even the lowest noted average, 37 FPS at 4K Ultra, is far above a CPU‑limited frame rate for this architecture. In short, the CPU is a high-margin enabler; all bottlenecks appearing after that come from the Radeon card.

FAQ

Q: What FPS average can I expect at 1080p with High settings?

A: The dataset records a 133 FPS average for 1080p High. Upgrading to 1080p Ultra brings the average down to 83 FPS, while Medium jumps to 162 FPS and Low to 199 FPS.

Q: Is this processor strong enough for other heavy titles, based on the benchmark scores?

A: Judging by the synthesis, yes. The Core Ultra 9 290K Plus places in the 96th percentile of all CPUs, with Cinebench R20 multi‑core 21,727 and Pass­mark single‑thread 4,823. It outpaces the Core Ultra 9 285K by 0.2% in average score, so it is on the front edge of desktop silicon.

Q: How does this CPU/GPU pairing rank among tested Downfall combinations?

A: The profile holds rank 2,424 out of 3,716 tested combos, placing it below the middle of the pack — about 65% of other CPUs/GPU pairs score better. This reflects the RX 6650 XT’s mid‑range role rather than the CPU.

Q: Does the RX 6650 XT support hardware ray tracing?

A: Yes. The GPU is RDNA 2 with 32 dedicated ray‑accelerator cores. However, Downfall is a traditional rasterised horror title, so those traces do not appear in the measured frame rates; the card is limited elsewhere.

Q: What does the FPS data suggest about 4K worth?

A: 4K at the High preset averages 59 FPS and Medium 72 FPS, while Ultra drops to 37 FPS. At Low, average is 88 FPS. This indicates that a tuned mix of Medium/High at 1440p is the sweet spot, while Ultra is only viable for lower impactful motion.

Q: How much faster is the CPU than its nearest competitor in the database?

A: The Core Ultra 9 290K Plus leads the Core Ultra 9 285K with +0.2% on average score, and the EPYC 4584PX and 9135 by 1.1% and 9.9. The only close rival that scores above it is the EPYC 7F72 with +1.3% margin in the few profiles where it appears.

Resolution Scaling

Downfall’s measured frame rates show a textbook GPU‑bound curve from 1080p to 4K. At Medium settings, the monthly average is 199 FPS at 1080p, 116 FPS at 1440p, and 72 FPS at 4K — that is, a drop of 43% when moving to 1440p, then another 38% drop when going to 4K. This matches the pattern of a GPU that is becoming pixel‑starved while the CPU remains underutilized. With Low settings, the average losing pattern is 199 > 142 > 88. The 1080p value is so high that the CPU is effectively the wall; the RX 6650 XT provides that throughput without straining the CPU.

Resolution spikes don’t change the story that it’s the GPU and its VRAM and memory bus that matter. With only = 8 GB, running a scene at 4K can be rough on medium to ultra; this is why the 4K Medium frame is a 72 FPS and 4K Ultra is 37 FPS. On the CPU side, the scale demonstrates low sensitivity: the CPU can feed the GPU above 133 FPS at 1440p High, letting the visual card drag the average down when the per‑pixel workload climbs.

What makes this interesting is that in the horror genre, 4K is often preferred for immersion. The divergence reveals that this system isn’t a 4K Ultra machine: it’s a high‑refresh 1080p/1440p set‑up that can step down to 4K at Medium/High with reasonable fluidity.

Measured FPS Breakdown

All measurements are from the dataset with the truly subtle title "Downfall." Values are average frame rates unless a min/max is listed; only the Medium preset rows give complete min/avg/max detail.

| Resolution | Low | Medium | High | Ultra |

|------------|-----|--------|------|-------|

| 1920x1080 | 199 | 162 (min 138 / max 187) | 133 | 83 |

| 2560x1440 | 142 | 116 (min 99 / max 133) | 95 | 59 |

| 3840x2160 | 88 | 72 (min 61 / max 83) | 59 | 37 |

The 1080p row is the most fluid end of the graph: Medium produces an average of 162 FPS, still above the 144Hz refresh floor for quick updates, while High holds 133 FPS, and even Ultra breaks 60. The 1440p medium preset drops to 116 FPS, which is still a satisfying experience for high‑refresh panels; High at 95 FPS is competitive; Ultra at 59 is exactly at the 60Hz. The 4K row shows the remedial weakness: Medium heaves to 72 FPS, High to 59, and Ultra at 37 FPS is not advisable for a horror game where responsiveness is part of the tension.

No min/max data is recorded for the other rows, but the min/max spread on Medium presets gives tolerance insight. At 1080p Medium the frame time ranges from 138 to 187 (max/min difference of 49 FPS), and at 1440p Medium it’s 99–133, with a 34 FPS spread, while at 4K Medium it tightens to 61–83, a 22 FPS envelope. This actually at lower resolution means a larger variance, but at high resolution the GPU load overwhelms the fluctuations; stream of string.

How This Combo Ranks

Within Downfall’s test pool, this pair holds rank 2,424 out of 3,716 possible combinations. Exactly put, there are 2,423 tested combos that achieve a better average FPS, leaving 1,293 configurations below it — a percentage that places the bones solidly in the lit shadow of a mid‑table rank. When you consider the CPU sits in the 96th percentile and the GPU is near the 65th percentile, this rank reflects the GPU simply being the deciding factor; the processor contributes a high ceiling but cannot push the rasterization past its 8 GB and 2048 shader architecture.

The rank looks even more meaningful when contrasted with rival GPUs. The RX 6650 XT’s average benchmark score (19,765) is only 0.6% below a Tesla K40m, 0.7% above a FirePro D300, and 0.8% above a Quadro K5200. These are older cards, so the comparison underscores that this GPU cards in a 2022‑era desktop but doesn’t reach the upper percentage of the database’s all‑comers list. In the CPU hierarchy, the CPU sits above the 95% mark, so the GPU is the sole modifier in this ranking.

For a player, what this says is that the FPS rank better matches a 1080p/1440p Goldilocks zone than a 4K frontier. The 4K average with -Medium is only 72, and Ultra drops to an impossible 37; conversely, at 1080p the card never goes below 83 (Ultra) in this game, and the 1440p High still yields 95 FPS. So, these metrics make the case that the Long‑term pair is best managed at FHD or QHD at maximal quality, except for the few Ultra lows.

Settings Recommendations

Judging by the measured cells, the best use of this combo’s potential is to avoid Ultra at anything but low resolution. On a 1080p monitor, Light and High present a playable 133–199 FPS, and even Ultra gives 83 FPS — so for non‑competitive play, High is a perfection point at 133 FPS, perfectly smooth on 120Hz or 144Hz screens without needing to sacrifice lighting and shadows. Medium brings 162 FPS and is also a strong run for high‑refresh users who value speed over cosmetics.

At 1440p, the most balanced setting is Medium with 72 FPS — actually this is already a lock at 120Hz card. For balanced sight and fluidity, 1440p High at 95 FPS is actually quite nice, while 1140p Ultra (59 FPS) dips to exactly the 60Hz threshold, producing a hang‑on edge. A sensible recommendation is to stick to 144OS-Game: this is High, then only move to Ultra if you want the extra spec on a 1440purface. The GPU will hold a stable average at 95 — the 2‑percent rise in workload from Medium (116) to High (95) is a profitable trade‑off; the difference between 95 and 59, which help explains why Ultra is not optimal at this resolution.

For a 4K display, the right approach is to accept a High preset (59 FPS avg) or Medium (72), and very seldom leave Ultra because it collapses to 37 FPS. 4K High shows 59 FPS — a frame rate that will feel fine for slow‑paced horror, but the Medium set is safer for fast head‑turn; of errors, the 61 FPS floor in 4K Meium assures that none of the dips will hit below that. A14 4K is the boundary zone for this GPU: you will not get a 120Hz experience under all settings, so leave it at High and budget for gaps.

The exact measured data point in your hard system is that the GPU’s weak point is Ultra at 4K, where average drops to 37 FPS; even a small slider drop to “Medium” restores the average to 72 FPS — a large step up with almost no visual difference. Therefore the prescriptive advice is: 1080p or 1440p at High for daily play, 1080p or 1440p at Medium (“or “Ultra”) available only as a single 60‑class choice. This keeps you in the healthy portion of the graph where 166 average FPS at 1080p and 116 at 1440p showcase the full capacity of both parts.