Downfall

# CPU Role — cores, clocks, and how they relate to this game's results

The Intel Core Ultra 9 290K Plus is a 24-core, 24-thread desktop processor from the Core Ultra Series 2, built on Arrow Lake Refresh architecture using a 3 nm process. Its base clock of 3.70 GHz and boost clock of 5.80 GHz place it among the fastest mainstream desktop CPUs available, with a 125 W TDP. The 36 MB shared L3 cache and 115.2 GB/s dual-channel DDR5 memory bandwidth provide substantial data throughput, which matters for a horror title like Downfall that must stream textures and geometry while maintaining consistent frame pacing.

In the context of Downfall's measured results, this CPU is clearly not the limiting factor at any resolution. At 1080p Low, the combo delivers 295 FPS average, a figure so high that the GPU is doing the overwhelming majority of the work. Even at 4K Ultra, where the frame rate drops to 55 FPS, the bottleneck is squarely on the graphics card. The CPU's single-thread performance, evidenced by a Cinebench R23 single-core score of 7303 and PassMark single-thread score of 4823, is more than adequate to feed the AMD Radeon RX 9070 at high frame rates. The 24 threads matter less in a game like Downfall, which typically scales across a handful of cores, but the high boost clock ensures that even the most demanding frame-time spikes in horror scenarios — where sudden scene changes and particle effects occur — are handled without stutter.

What the data shows is that the Core Ultra 9 290K Plus sits at the 96th percentile among all CPUs in the benchmark database, with an average benchmark score of 84003. Its nearest rival, the Intel Core Ultra 9 285K, scores 83807, a negligible 0.2% difference. This means the 290K Plus is at the very top of the desktop CPU hierarchy. For Downfall specifically, the CPU's role is to maintain a stable frame delivery pipeline. The measured FPS figures, ranging from 55 FPS at 4K Ultra to 295 FPS at 1080p Low, show that the CPU is never the constraint — the GPU is. This is typical for a horror game with modest physics and AI demands, but the CPU's headroom ensures that even with background tasks or streaming overhead, the game experience remains smooth.

# FAQ

Q: How does this CPU compare to its closest rival in synthetic benchmarks?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 9 290K Plus scores 84003 on average across all benchmark tests, which is 0.2% higher than the Intel Core Ultra 9 285K (83807). It also leads the AMD EPYC 4584PX by 1.1% (83090) and the AMD EPYC 9135 by 1.2% (82980), while trailing the AMD EPYC 7F72 by 1.3% (85072).

Q: What is the GPU's percentile ranking and how does it compare to its nearest rivals?

A: The AMD Radeon RX 9070 sits at the 69th percentile among all GPUs, with an average benchmark score of 23877. Its closest rival is the AMD Radeon RX 6800S at 24063, which is 0.8% higher. The NVIDIA GeForce GTX TITAN Z scores 23736 (0.6% lower), the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3080 Mobile scores 23628 (1.1% lower), and the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2080 SUPER scores 24170 (1.2% higher).

Q: What is the best measured frame rate for this combo in Downfall?

A: The highest average FPS measured is 295 FPS at 1920x1080 with Low settings. This drops to 241 FPS at Medium, 198 FPS at High, and 123 FPS at Ultra at the same resolution. The lowest measured average is 55 FPS at 3840x2160 with Ultra settings.

Q: How does the combo rank among all tested combinations in Downfall?

A: This combination of the Intel Core Ultra 9 290K Plus and AMD Radeon RX 9070 ranks 829th out of 2928 tested combos in Downfall, placing it in the top 28% of all configurations. This is a solid mid-to-upper tier ranking, though not at the very top, reflecting the GPU's 69th percentile position.

Q: Is the CPU or GPU the limiting factor at 4K resolution?

A: At 3840x2160, the GPU is clearly the limiting factor. The average FPS ranges from 55 (Ultra) to 131 (Low), and the scaling from Low to Ultra shows a drop of 76 FPS. Given the CPU's high percentile ranking and the fact that 1080p frame rates exceed 290 FPS, the RX 9070's fill rate and compute capacity determine performance at 4K.

Q: What is the memory configuration of the CPU and GPU?

A: The CPU supports dual-channel DDR5 memory with a bandwidth of 115.2 GB/s and ECC support. The GPU features 16 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 256-bit bus, delivering 644.6 GB/s of bandwidth. This memory bandwidth is substantial for 4K texture streaming in Downfall.

# Resolution Scaling

The measured FPS data reveals a consistent pattern: as resolution increases, frame rates drop proportionally, confirming the GPU as the primary bottleneck. At 1080p, the combo achieves 295 FPS (Low), 241 FPS (Medium), 198 FPS (High), and 123 FPS (Ultra). Moving to 1440p, these figures fall to 210 FPS, 172 FPS, 141 FPS, and 88 FPS respectively. At 4K, the numbers drop further to 131 FPS, 107 FPS, 88 FPS, and 55 FPS.

The scaling from 1080p to 1440p shows a reduction of approximately 29% across all settings (e.g., from 295 to 210 FPS on Low). From 1440p to 4K, the reduction is approximately 38% (e.g., from 210 to 131 FPS on Low). This non-linear scaling is expected because pixel count increases by 78% from 1080p to 1440p, and by 125% from 1440p to 4K. The fact that frame rates do not drop in direct proportion to pixel count indicates that the GPU has sufficient memory bandwidth and compute headroom to partially absorb the resolution increase.

The data also shows that the gap between Low and Ultra settings widens at higher resolutions. At 1080p, the difference between Low and Ultra is 172 FPS (295 vs. 123). At 1440p, it narrows to 122 FPS (210 vs. 88). At 4K, it narrows further to 76 FPS (131 vs. 55). This suggests that at lower resolutions, the CPU is able to push frame rates high enough that the GPU's rendering workload becomes more dominant as settings increase. At 4K, the GPU is saturated even at Low settings, so the relative impact of quality presets is smaller.

For a horror game like Downfall, which relies on dark environments and sudden visual stimuli, the 4K Ultra result of 55 FPS may be borderline for smooth gameplay, while 1080p High at 198 FPS provides ample headroom for refresh rates up to 144 Hz or higher.

# Settings Recommendations

The measured rows provide a clear picture of the optimal settings for different priorities. If the goal is maximum frame rate, Low settings at 1080p delivers 295 FPS, which is suitable for extremely high refresh rate displays. However, for a horror game, visual atmosphere is critical to immersion, and the jump from Low to Medium at 1080p costs only 54 FPS (295 to 241) while still maintaining a very high frame rate. The jump from Medium to High costs another 43 FPS (241 to 198), and the jump from High to Ultra costs 75 FPS (198 to 123).

At 1440p, the sweet spot is Medium settings, which delivers 172 FPS with a minimum of 146 FPS. This is well above the 144 Hz threshold for common high-refresh monitors. High settings at 1440p drops to 141 FPS, which is still acceptable but closer to the edge. Ultra at 1440p falls to 88 FPS, which is playable but begins to sacrifice the smoothness that horror games need for responsive camera movement.

At 4K, the best experience per the measured data is Medium settings, which achieves 107 FPS with a minimum of 91 FPS. This is the only 4K setting that stays above 100 FPS on average. High settings at 4K drops to 88 FPS, which is acceptable but requires a VRR display to avoid tearing. Ultra at 4K falls to 55 FPS, which is below the 60 FPS threshold and may result in noticeable judder during fast panning shots common in horror sequences.

The recommendation is to use Medium settings at 1440p for the best balance of visual quality and frame rate, or Medium at 4K if resolution is the priority. Low settings are only advisable for competitive play or when using 540 Hz displays, which is unlikely for a horror title. The data shows that the largest quality-per-frame-rate gain comes from the Medium preset, which provides a substantial visual upgrade over Low at a modest FPS cost.

# How This Combo Ranks

This combination of the Intel Core Ultra 9 290K Plus and AMD Radeon RX 9070 ranks 829th out of 2928 tested combos in Downfall, placing it in the 72nd percentile of all configurations. This is a respectable ranking, but it is not at the very top, which is typically occupied by combinations featuring higher-end GPUs. The CPU's 96th percentile ranking is far above the GPU's 69th percentile, confirming that the graphics card is the weaker link in this pairing for Downfall.

The ranking suggests that among the 2928 combos tested, 828 are faster in this game. These are likely configurations with more powerful GPUs such as the NVIDIA RTX 5090 or AMD Radeon RX 9070 XT, which would offer higher raw fill rates and compute performance. The 829th position is still strong enough to deliver an excellent experience at 1080p and 1440p, and a good experience at 4K with Medium settings.

The delta between the CPU and GPU percentiles (96 vs. 69) indicates that this combo is CPU-heavy for this workload. In games that are more CPU-bound, such as simulation or strategy titles, this pairing would rank higher relative to other combos. For a horror game like Downfall, which relies on GPU-intensive rendering techniques like dynamic lighting and volumetric effects, the GPU's mid-tier ranking is the primary determinant of overall performance.

# Measured FPS Breakdown

1920x1080:

• Low: 295 FPS average
• Medium: 241 FPS average, 205 FPS minimum, 277 FPS maximum
• High: 198 FPS average
• Ultra: 123 FPS average

2560x1440:

• Low: 210 FPS average
• Medium: 172 FPS average, 146 FPS minimum, 198 FPS maximum
• High: 141 FPS average
• Ultra: 88 FPS average

3840x2160:

• Low: 131 FPS average
• Medium: 107 FPS average, 91 FPS minimum, 123 FPS maximum
• High: 88 FPS average
• Ultra: 55 FPS average

The data shows a consistent pattern across all resolutions: Medium settings provide the only rows with minimum and maximum FPS values reported, indicating that this preset was the focus of detailed measurement. The minimum FPS values are notably lower than the averages, with a 35 FPS drop at 1080p (205 vs. 241), a 26 FPS drop at 1440p (146 vs. 172), and a 16 FPS drop at 4K (91 vs. 107). These minimums likely correspond to scenes with heavy particle effects or sudden lighting changes, which are common in horror games.

The maximum FPS values show that the combo can burst well above average, reaching 277 FPS at 1080p Medium and 198 FPS at 1440p Medium. At 4K Medium, the maximum of 123 FPS indicates that even at this high resolution, there are scenes that are not GPU-bound. This variability is characteristic of horror games, where performance can fluctuate dramatically based on the number of visible light sources and shadow-casting objects.

Overall, the measured FPS breakdown confirms that this combo delivers playable frame rates at all tested settings and resolutions, with the caveat that 4K Ultra at 55 FPS is the only configuration that falls below the 60 FPS target. For a smooth experience, Medium settings at any resolution are the safe choice, while Low settings at 1080p provide an extremely high frame rate for maximum responsiveness.