Downfall

Downfall is a 2016 horror title that stresses systems differently than typical shooters, and the pairing of the Intel Core Ultra 9 290K Plus with the AMD Radeon RX 7800 XT produces a distinctive performance profile. Measured data for this combination places it at rank 916 out of 2928 tested combos, a solidly above-median result that nonetheless reveals significant bottlenecks depending on resolution and settings. The following analysis breaks down exactly what this combo delivers across the measured rows, with attention to where the CPU and GPU each carry the load.

How This Combo Ranks

The combo’s overall rank of 916 out of 2928 places it in the 69th percentile of all tested pairings, meaning roughly seven out of ten combinations perform worse. That is a respectable standing, but not a top-tier one. The data suggests this is a balanced mid-high tier setup rather than an elite one, and the measured FPS numbers confirm that interpretation: at 1080p Low, the combo hits 282 FPS, which is excellent for a horror title, but at 4K Ultra, it drops to 53 FPS, a figure that shows clear limits.

Looking at the components individually, the CPU ranks in the 96th percentile against all CPUs, while the GPU sits at just the 51st percentile against all GPUs. That mismatch is the core story here. The processor is a top-4% part, while the graphics card is essentially average in the broader GPU landscape. The GPU’s nearest rivals in the database—the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1660, the AMD Radeon Pro 5500M, the NVIDIA Tesla K20c, and the AMD Radeon RX 6500 XT—have average benchmark scores within 1.8% of the RX 7800 XT’s average of 11627. That is a telling comparison: the RX 7800 XT is competing with much older or lower-tier cards in aggregate benchmark terms, despite being a current-gen RDNA 3.0 part.

The CPU, by contrast, sits alongside the Intel Core Ultra 9 285K (deltaPct 0.2%), the AMD EPYC 4584PX (deltaPct 1.1%), and the AMD EPYC 9135 (deltaPct 1.2%), with the AMD EPYC 7F72 trailing by 1.3%. The 290K Plus’s average benchmark score of 84003 is essentially tied with the 285K, meaning this is a flagship-class CPU in terms of raw compute. The gap between the CPU and GPU percentiles—96 versus 51—explains why the combo rank (69th percentile) sits between those two figures. The system is CPU-strong and GPU-average, and Downfall’s performance reflects that imbalance: the GPU becomes the limiting factor as resolution climbs.

CPU Role

The Intel Core Ultra 9 290K Plus is a 24-core, 24-thread processor based on the Arrow Lake Refresh codename, built on a 3 nm process at TSMC. Its base clock is 3.70 GHz, boosting to 5.80 GHz. The cache hierarchy includes 192 KB of L1 per core, 3 MB of L2 per core, and 36 MB of shared L3. This is a desktop part with a 125 W TDP, supporting DDR5 memory on a dual-channel bus with 115.2 GB/s of bandwidth, and it includes ECC support. The CPU has an integrated Arc Xe-LPG Graphics 64EU, though Downfall’s measured results would primarily rely on the discrete GPU.

Compute benchmarks show this is a heavyweight. In Cinebench R23, the multi-core score is 51731 and single-core is 7303. Cinebench R20 yields 21727 multi-core and 3067 single-core, while R15 produces 5214 multi-core and 736 single-core. PassMark results include a multi-thread score of 60860, single-thread of 4823, integer math at 166194, floating-point math at 214760, and data compression at 698346. The CPU’s percentile rank of 96 against all CPUs confirms its position near the top of the stack.

In Downfall, the CPU’s role is most evident at lower resolutions and lower settings. At 1080p Low, the combo produces 282 FPS, which is the highest measured figure in the entire dataset. That kind of frame rate demands strong single-thread performance, and the 290K Plus delivers with a 5.80 GHz boost clock and a Cinebench R23 single-core score of 7303. Even the 1080p High result of 189 FPS suggests the CPU is feeding the GPU efficiently, as the GPU’s average benchmark score would not typically sustain that level of throughput without a capable processor. The 24 threads also help with background tasks and any multi-threaded game logic, though Downfall, being a 2016 horror title, likely does not scale to all 24 cores. Still, the high base clock of 3.70 GHz ensures responsive performance even in lightly threaded scenes.

The CPU’s nearest rivals in terms of average benchmark score include the 285K, which has essentially identical performance (deltaPct 0.2%). That means the 290K Plus offers no meaningful compute advantage over its direct predecessor, but it also means it is not a regression. For a game like Downfall, where frame rates at 1080p exceed 280 FPS, the CPU is clearly not the bottleneck at that resolution. The data shows the CPU can push frame rates well beyond what most displays can show, which is typical for a flagship part paired with a mid-range GPU.

GPU Role

The AMD Radeon RX 7800 XT is built on the Navi 32 chip with RDNA 3.0 architecture, fabricated on a 5 nm process at TSMC. It packs 3840 shading units, 240 TMUs, 96 ROPs, and 60 ray tracing cores, with a die size of 346 mm² and 28,100 million transistors. The GPU runs at a base clock of 1295 MHz, a game clock of 2124 MHz, and a boost clock of 2430 MHz. Memory consists of 16 GB of GDDR6 on a 256-bit bus, delivering 624.1 GB/s of bandwidth. The card’s TDP is 263 W, requiring a 600 W suggested PSU, and it uses two 8-pin power connectors. It launched on 2023-09-05 with a launch MSRP of 499 USD.

The GPU’s benchmark results are modest relative to its architectural pedigree. In 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12, it scores 4157. Geekbench OpenCL yields 18290, and Vulkan scores 54228. PassMark results include a G3D score of 24176, a G2D score of 1177, and GPU compute at 13473. The average benchmark score of 11627 places it at the 51st percentile against all GPUs, which is exactly average. Its nearest rivals—the GTX 1660, Radeon Pro 5500M, Tesla K20c, and RX 6500 XT—are all older or lower-tier parts, and the deltaPct values range from -1.8% to 1.3%. This suggests that while the RX 7800 XT has modern features like DirectX 12 Ultimate and 16 GB of VRAM, its raw benchmark performance is not exceptional.

In Downfall, the GPU’s limitations become apparent as resolution increases. At 1080p, the GPU is rarely the limiter: even at Ultra settings, the combo hits 118 FPS, which is above the 60 FPS target for most displays. But at 1440p, Ultra drops to 85 FPS, and at 4K, Ultra falls to 53 FPS. These numbers show a clear scaling pattern tied to the GPU’s fill rate and memory bandwidth. The 16 GB of VRAM is more than sufficient for Downfall, a game from 2016, so memory capacity is not a concern. The bottleneck is raw compute throughput. The GPU’s FP32 performance is 37.32 TFLOPS, which is decent but not flagship-tier, and the pixel rate of 233.3 GPixel/s and texture rate of 583.2 GTexel/s dictate how fast the card can fill frames at high resolutions.

The 4K Ultra result of 53 FPS is particularly telling. That is below the 60 FPS threshold that most gamers consider smooth, and it indicates the GPU is fully saturated. The 4K High result of 84 FPS is more playable, but still shows the GPU struggling relative to lower resolutions. The GPU’s average percentile of 51 means half of all GPUs perform better, and Downfall’s higher-resolution settings expose that reality.

Measured FPS Breakdown

The measured FPS data covers three resolutions (1920x1080, 2560x1440, 3840x2160) and four settings levels (Low, Medium, High, Ultra). At 1080p, the results are uniformly strong. Low settings produce 282 FPS average, Medium yields 231 FPS with a minimum of 196 and maximum of 266, High delivers 189 FPS, and Ultra drops to 118 FPS. These numbers show that at 1080p, the combo is never GPU-limited; even Ultra settings stay above 100 FPS, which is smooth for any game. The gap between Low and Ultra at 1080p is 164 FPS, a 58% reduction, indicating that settings have a major impact on frame rates at this resolution.

At 1440p, the pattern shifts. Low settings produce 202 FPS, Medium hits 165 FPS with a minimum of 140 and maximum of 190, High delivers 135 FPS, and Ultra falls to 85 FPS. The drop from 1080p Low to 1440p Low is 80 FPS (282 to 202), a 28% reduction, which is less than the resolution pixel increase of 78% (from 2.07 million pixels to 3.69 million). This suggests the CPU is still partially involved at 1440p Low. At Ultra, however, the drop from 1080p to 1440p is 33 FPS (118 to 85), a 28% reduction, and the GPU begins to assert itself as the primary limiter.

At 4K, the GPU takes over completely. Low settings produce 125 FPS, Medium delivers 103 FPS with a minimum of 87 and maximum of 118, High yields 84 FPS, and Ultra drops to 53 FPS. The 4K Ultra result is the only measured figure below 60 FPS, and it is the clearest sign of GPU saturation. The progression from Low to Ultra at 4K shows a 72 FPS drop (125 to 53), a 58% reduction, which mirrors the 1080p Low-to-Ultra percentage drop, but from lower absolute values. The 4K Medium result of 103 FPS is the best balance at that resolution, while 4K High at 84 FPS is acceptable but not ideal for high-refresh displays.

The minimum FPS data is only provided for Medium settings across all resolutions: 196 at 1080p, 140 at 1440p, and 87 at 4K. These minimums suggest that frame pacing is consistent, with no severe stutters, which is good news for a horror game where smoothness matters for atmosphere. The maximum values at Medium are 266 at 1080p, 190 at 1440p, and 118 at 4K, indicating headroom above the averages.

Resolution Scaling

Resolution scaling reveals the bottleneck shift clearly. From 1080p to 1440p, the FPS drop at each settings level is as follows: Low goes from 282 to 202 (a 28% reduction), Medium from 231 to 165 (a 29% reduction), High from 189 to 135 (a 29% reduction), and Ultra from 118 to 85 (a 28% reduction). These percentages are nearly identical across settings, suggesting that the scaling from 1080p to 1440p is primarily resolution-driven rather than settings-driven. The consistent 28-29% drop indicates that both the CPU and GPU are co-limited at these resolutions; the CPU’s high single-thread performance keeps frame rates elevated, but the GPU’s fill rate begins to matter as pixel count increases.

From 1440p to 4K, the drops are more pronounced. Low goes from 202 to 125 (a 38% reduction), Medium from 165 to 103 (a 38% reduction), High from 135 to 84 (a 38% reduction), and Ultra from 85 to 53 (a 38% reduction). Again, the percentage drop is consistent across settings, but it is larger than the 1080p-to-1440p drop. This suggests that at 4K, the GPU is the dominant limiter. The pixel count from 1440p to 4K increases by 125% (from 3.69 million to 8.29 million), but the FPS drops by only 38%, which indicates that the GPU is not fully scaling with pixel count due to other bottlenecks like memory bandwidth or shader occupancy.

The overall scaling from 1080p Low to 4K Low shows a 157 FPS drop (282 to 125), a 56% reduction. From 1080p Ultra to 4K Ultra, the drop is 65 FPS (118 to 53), a 55% reduction. These similar percentage reductions across all settings levels reinforce that resolution is the dominant factor, not settings. In practical terms, the combo delivers roughly 2.25 times higher frame rates at 1080p compared to 4K, regardless of settings. This is characteristic of a GPU-bound scenario at high resolutions, where the RX 7800 XT’s average performance (51st percentile) cannot keep up with the CPU’s top-tier capabilities (96th percentile).

The data also shows that Downfall is not a particularly demanding game—even a mid-range GPU can hit 4K Low at 125 FPS—but the Ultra preset at 4K exposes the GPU’s limits. The CPU’s role is most prominent at 1080p Low, where 282 FPS demonstrates that the 290K Plus can feed frame rates that far exceed the GPU’s typical output. At 4K, the CPU is effectively idle, waiting on the GPU to render each frame.

Settings Recommendations

Based on the measured rows, the best experience depends on the target resolution and refresh rate. For 1080p displays, the High preset at 189 FPS is the sweet spot. It offers a significant visual upgrade over Medium (231 FPS) while still staying well above 144 Hz refresh rates. Ultra at 118 FPS is also viable for 120 Hz displays, but the 71 FPS gap between High and Ultra suggests diminishing returns for the visual fidelity gain. For 1080p, there is no reason to drop below High, as even Ultra stays above 100 FPS.

For 1440p, the High preset at 135 FPS is the recommended choice. It provides smooth gameplay on 144 Hz monitors and maintains a comfortable margin above 60 FPS. Medium at 165 FPS is also excellent if higher frame rates are preferred, but High offers a better balance of visual quality and performance. Ultra at 85 FPS is playable but not ideal for high-refresh displays; it would be suitable for 60 Hz monitors but leaves little headroom. Low at 202 FPS is only useful for competitive play, which is not a typical requirement for a horror game.

For 4K, the situation is more nuanced. Low settings at 125 FPS are the only way to exceed 120 FPS, but they sacrifice visual fidelity. Medium at 103 FPS is the best overall choice for 4K, as it maintains triple-digit frame rates while providing acceptable visuals; the minimum of 87 FPS ensures no drops below 60. High at 84 FPS is still above 60 but with less headroom. Ultra at 53 FPS is not recommended for any display, as it falls below the 60 FPS threshold and would result in noticeable stutter in a horror game where smoothness is critical.

The data indicates that the combo performs best when the GPU is not pushed to its absolute limit. At 1080p and 1440p, High settings deliver frame rates that exceed most display refresh rates. At 4K, Medium is the pragmatic ceiling, offering 103 FPS average with a 87 FPS minimum. For gamers with 4K displays, dropping to Medium is the difference between a smooth experience and a marginal one. The 16 GB of VRAM is never a constraint in Downfall, so settings adjustments are purely about compute load, not memory capacity.

In summary, this pairing of a top-4% CPU with an average GPU produces a system that excels at lower resolutions but struggles at 4K Ultra. The measured FPS data shows that the RX 7800 XT is the limiting factor in all but the most CPU-bound scenarios, and the settings recommendations above reflect that reality. For most users, selecting Medium or High at their native resolution will yield the best balance of visual quality and performance.