Downfall

# Downfall with Intel Core Ultra 9 290K Plus + AMD Radeon RX 7900 XT

The Intel Core Ultra 9 290K Plus paired with the AMD Radeon RX 7900 XT delivers a compelling 4K-capable experience in Downfall, a 2016 horror title that scales aggressively with both resolution and settings. Measured data shows this combination achieves a 100 FPS average at 4K High settings, while the same preset at 1440p rises to 161 FPS and at 1080p reaches 226 FPS. The combo ranks 727th out of 3,716 tested configurations in this game, placing it in the top 19.6% of all recorded pairings. The system's behavior across resolutions reveals a GPU-bound workload at higher settings, with CPU headroom becoming apparent only at lower presets and resolutions.

Resolution Scaling

The FPS progression from 1080p to 4K follows a classic GPU-limited curve, particularly at Medium and High presets. At High settings, the average frame rate drops from 226 FPS at 1080p to 161 FPS at 1440p, a 28.8% reduction, and then to 100 FPS at 4K, a further 37.9% decline. This steep scaling indicates that the Radeon RX 7900 XT's rendering throughput is the primary constraint, as pixel count increases by 2.25x from 1080p to 1440p and another 2.25x from 1440p to 4K. The measured FPS drops are proportionally smaller than the pixel-count increases, suggesting the GPU still has some reserve capacity even at 4K.

At Medium settings, the scaling pattern is similar but with higher absolute values: 275 FPS at 1080p, 197 FPS at 1440p, and 122 FPS at 4K. The 1440p-to-4K drop of 38.1% closely mirrors the High preset's 37.9% decline, confirming that resolution scaling is consistent regardless of preset. However, at Low settings, the picture changes dramatically. The 1080p Low result of 337 FPS drops to 240 FPS at 1440p (a 28.8% decline) and then to 150 FPS at 4K (a 37.5% decline). The fact that Low settings at 4K still produces 150 FPS while Ultra at 4K only manages 63 FPS indicates that the Ultra preset introduces effects that disproportionately tax the GPU.

Ultra settings show the most extreme resolution sensitivity. From 141 FPS at 1080p, the average falls to 101 FPS at 1440p (a 28.4% drop) and then to 63 FPS at 4K (a 37.6% drop). The consistent proportional declines across all presets suggest that Downfall's rendering pipeline scales linearly with pixel count, with no unexpected bottlenecks emerging at higher resolutions. The 4K Ultra result of 63 FPS is the only measured configuration that falls below the 60 FPS threshold, indicating that this is the boundary of the system's capabilities.

FAQ

*Q: Does the Intel Core Ultra 9 290K Plus bottleneck the Radeon RX 7900 XT in Downfall?*

A: No meaningful CPU bottleneck appears in the measured data. At 1080p Low, the system achieves 337 FPS, which is a very high frame rate for any title. The Core Ultra 9 290K Plus has 24 cores and 24 threads with a 5.80 GHz boost clock, and its Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 51,731 points places it in the 96th percentile of all CPUs. The consistent FPS scaling from 1080p to 4K across all presets indicates the GPU remains the limiting factor even at lower resolutions.

Q: What is the best settings preset for 4K gaming on this combo?

A: The data shows 4K High produces 100 FPS average, while 4K Medium produces 122 FPS. Both are well above playable thresholds. 4K Ultra drops to 63 FPS, which is still technically playable but leaves little headroom for demanding scenes. Based on the measured rows, High settings at 4K offers the best balance, delivering 100 FPS while presumably retaining most visual fidelity compared to Ultra.

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

A: The combination ranks 727th out of 3,716 tested combos, placing it in the top 19.6% of all recorded systems. This is a strong showing, though not top-tier, reflecting that while the RX 7900 XT is a capable card, the game's age and optimization mean many other high-end GPUs can also perform well.

*Q: Is the Radeon RX 7900 XT's 20 GB VRAM sufficient for Downfall at 4K Ultra?*

A: The measured data shows 4K Ultra produces 63 FPS average with this 20 GB VRAM configuration. Since the game released in 2016, its texture requirements are unlikely to exceed 20 GB even at Ultra settings. The bottleneck at 4K Ultra appears to be raw compute throughput rather than memory capacity, given the card's 800.0 GB/s memory bandwidth and 51.48 TFLOPS FP32 performance.

Q: How does the Core Ultra 9 290K Plus compare to its closest rival in CPU benchmarks?

A: The Core Ultra 9 290K Plus has an average benchmark score of 84,003, which is 0.2% higher than the Intel Core Ultra 9 285K's 83,807. It also edges out the AMD EPYC 4584PX (83,090, 1.1% delta) and the AMD EPYC 9135 (82,980, 1.2% delta) while trailing the AMD EPYC 7F72 (85,072, -1.3% delta). These differences are minor, indicating the 290K Plus is competitively positioned among high-end desktop CPUs.

Q: What frame rates can users expect at 1440p with this combo?

A: At 1440p, the measured results show 240 FPS on Low, 197 FPS on Medium, 161 FPS on High, and 101 FPS on Ultra. The Medium preset has a recorded minimum of 167 FPS and maximum of 226 FPS, providing a smooth experience even during intensive scenes. All 1440p presets produce frame rates well above 100 FPS, making this resolution ideal for high-refresh-rate displays.

Settings Recommendations

The measured FPS data supports a clear hierarchy of settings for this combo. At 4K, Ultra settings produce 63 FPS average, which is technically playable but leaves minimal margin for frame-time spikes in a horror game where sudden action sequences may cause drops. High settings at 4K yield 100 FPS, providing a comfortable 37 FPS buffer over the Ultra result. Medium settings at 4K reach 122 FPS, which is the highest frame rate with a recorded minimum (104 FPS) in the dataset.

For 1440p gaming, the situation is more forgiving. Ultra settings achieve 101 FPS, High reaches 161 FPS, and Medium hits 197 FPS with a minimum of 167 FPS. Given that the jump from High to Ultra at 1440p costs 60 FPS (from 161 to 101), users should consider whether the visual uplift justifies the performance penalty. The Medium preset at 1440p offers the best measured consistency with a 167-226 FPS range, ideal for 165 Hz or 240 Hz displays.

At 1080p, all presets exceed 140 FPS, with Low reaching 337 FPS and Medium hitting 275 FPS (minimum 234 FPS). The data suggests that for competitive play or maximum frame rates, Low settings at 1080p provide 337 FPS, while for balanced visuals, Medium at 275 FPS is preferable. High at 226 FPS and Ultra at 141 FPS round out the options, with the latter still suitable for 144 Hz monitors. The recommended sweet spot for most users is High settings at 4K (100 FPS) or Medium at 1440p (197 FPS), depending on display resolution.

How This Combo Ranks

With a rank of 727 out of 3,716 tested combinations, this pairing sits comfortably in the top 20% of all configurations evaluated in Downfall. This ranking reflects the RX 7900 XT's strong performance in a 2016 title that likely does not leverage the latest rendering features. The GPU's 55th percentile ranking among all GPUs in synthetic benchmarks (PassMark G3D score of 29,009) suggests that while it is not the fastest card available, its real-world performance in this specific game exceeds its percentile standing.

The combo's rank is particularly notable given that the RX 7900 XT's nearest rivals in the GPU benchmark database include the AMD Radeon 660M (delta -0.5%) and the NVIDIA RTX A2000 Mobile (delta -0.5%), which are fundamentally different classes of hardware. This discrepancy highlights that the PassMark average score of 13,745 for the RX 7900 XT may underestimate its gaming capabilities, as the measured FPS in Downfall demonstrates robust performance. The 727th rank also benefits from the Core Ultra 9 290K Plus's strong CPU showing, with a 96th percentile ranking and an average benchmark score of 84,003.

Among the 3,716 combos, the top 19.6% positioning means this system outperforms roughly 2,989 other configurations. The measured data confirms that the combo is well-balanced for this game, with neither component appearing to be a significant limiting factor at standard gaming resolutions. However, the fact that 726 other combos rank higher suggests that more powerful GPUs (or better-optimized pairings) can extract higher frame rates, particularly at 4K Ultra where the 63 FPS result leaves room for improvement.

CPU Role

The Intel Core Ultra 9 290K Plus brings substantial processing power to this pairing, with 24 cores and 24 threads running at a 3.70 GHz base clock and 5.80 GHz boost. Its L3 cache of 36 MB shared across all cores provides ample capacity for game data, while the 115.2 GB/s memory bandwidth on dual-channel DDR5 ensures the GPU receives data without starvation. In Downfall, a game from 2016, the CPU's role is likely minimal at higher resolutions since the GPU becomes the bottleneck, but at 1080p Low (337 FPS), the CPU must keep up with frame generation rates exceeding 300 FPS.

The processor's benchmark results demonstrate its capability: Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 51,731 and single-core score of 7,303, PassMark multi-thread score of 60,860, and a PassMark single-thread score of 4,823. These scores place the CPU in the 96th percentile of all CPUs, meaning it outperforms 96% of tested processors. The nearest CPU rival is the Intel Core Ultra 9 285K with an average score of 83,807 (0.2% delta), showing that the 290K Plus is marginally faster than its direct predecessor.

For Downfall specifically, the CPU's 24 threads are unlikely to be fully utilized, as horror games from this era typically scale well to 4-8 threads. The high single-thread performance (7,303 in Cinebench R23) is more relevant, as it ensures the game's main thread can issue draw calls and physics calculations without becoming a bottleneck. The measured FPS at 1080p Low (337 FPS) indicates the CPU can sustain frame rates well above typical display refresh rates, confirming that it does not constrain the GPU in this title.

Measured FPS Breakdown

At 3840x2160, the measured averages are: Low 150 FPS, Medium 122 FPS (minimum 104, maximum 141), High 100 FPS, and Ultra 63 FPS. The spread from Low to Ultra is 87 FPS, representing a 58% reduction in frame rate when enabling maximum settings. The Medium preset provides a tight 104-141 FPS range, suggesting consistent frame pacing, while Ultra's 63 FPS average has no recorded minimum, indicating potential variability.

At 2560x1440, the results scale upward: Low 240 FPS, Medium 197 FPS (minimum 167, maximum 226), High 161 FPS, and Ultra 101 FPS. The 1440p Medium range of 167-226 FPS is particularly smooth, with a 59 FPS spread that indicates stable performance. The Ultra preset at 101 FPS mirrors the 4K High result, showing that resolution and settings trade-offs can yield similar frame rates (1440p Ultra = 101 FPS, 4K High = 100 FPS).

At 1920x1080, the system reaches its peak: Low 337 FPS, Medium 275 FPS (minimum 234, maximum 317), High 226 FPS, and Ultra 141 FPS. The 1080p Medium range of 234-317 FPS shows excellent consistency, while the Low preset's 337 FPS average suggests the CPU or game engine imposes an upper limit around this value. Across all resolutions, the Medium preset consistently offers the best-documented frame time consistency, with recorded minimums for every resolution, whereas Low, High, and Ultra lack min/max data in the measured results.

GPU Role

The AMD Radeon RX 7900 XT is the primary driver of Downfall's performance, with its 20 GB GDDR6 memory on a 320-bit bus providing 800.0 GB/s of bandwidth. The GPU's 5,376 shading units, 336 texture mapping units, and 192 ROPs deliver the raw compute needed for this title's rendering workload. At a boost clock of 2,394 MHz and game clock of 2,025 MHz, the card achieves 51.48 TFLOPS FP32 performance, which is substantial for a 2016 game that predates many modern rendering techniques.

The GPU's benchmark scores show a mixed picture: a 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 score of 5,623, Geekbench Vulkan score of 71,068, and PassMark G3D score of 29,009. However, its average benchmark score of 13,745 places it in the 55th percentile of all GPUs, and its nearest rivals include the AMD Radeon 660M (delta -0.5%) and NVIDIA RTX A2000 Mobile (delta -0.5%). This percentile ranking is lower than expected given the measured FPS in Downfall, suggesting that synthetic benchmarks may not fully capture the card's gaming performance in older titles.

In Downfall, the GPU demonstrates clear scaling with settings: at 4K, moving from Low to Medium costs 28 FPS (150 to 122), Medium to High costs 22 FPS (122 to 100), and High to Ultra costs 37 FPS (100 to 63). The Ultra preset's dramatic impact suggests it enables heavy post-processing or shadow effects that stress the GPU's shading units. The card's 84 ray accelerators (RT cores) may be involved in Ultra settings, though Downfall from 2016 likely does not use hardware ray tracing. The 20 GB VRAM is more than sufficient for any settings in this game, as even 4K Ultra's requirements are well below 20 GB.