Downfall

The Intel Core Ultra 9 290K Plus paired with the Intel Arc B390 represents an extreme mismatch in Downfall, a 2016 horror title. The data shows this combination ranks 2589th out of 2928 tested combos, placing it in the bottom 12 percent of all systems. The measured frames per second across all resolutions and settings tell a consistent story: the integrated-class Arc B390 graphics solution is the overwhelming bottleneck, while the 24-core processor sits largely idle.

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 based on the Arrow Lake Refresh architecture, built on a 3 nm process by TSMC. It carries a base clock of 3.70 GHz and a boost clock of 5.80 GHz, with a 125 W TDP. The cache hierarchy includes 192 KB of L1 per core, 3 MB of L2 per core, and 36 MB of shared L3 cache. It supports DDR5 memory over a dual-channel bus with a theoretical bandwidth of 115.2 GB/s, and it connects via PCIe Gen 5 with 20 CPU lanes.

In synthetic benchmarks, this processor is exceptionally fast. It scores 51,731 in Cinebench R23 multi-core and 7,303 in single-core, with a Passmark multithread score of 60,860 and a single-thread score of 4,823. Its average benchmark score of 84,003 places it in the 96th percentile of all CPUs. Compared to its nearest rivals, the Intel Core Ultra 9 285K scores 83,807 (0.2% lower), the AMD EPYC 4584PX scores 83,090 (1.1% lower), and the AMD EPYC 9135 scores 82,980 (1.2% lower). Only the AMD EPYC 7F72 scores slightly higher at 85,072, a 1.3% advantage.

However, Downfall is not a CPU-intensive horror title, and the benchmark results confirm that this processor's capabilities are largely irrelevant to the measured frame rates. At 1080p Low, the combo averages 106 FPS. At 4K Low, it averages 47 FPS. The 59 FPS drop between those two settings is entirely attributable to graphics load, not CPU performance. The processor's 24 cores and 5.80 GHz boost clock provide far more computational headroom than this game can utilize. The data indicates that even at the lowest settings and resolution, the system never approaches a CPU-bound state. The 3 nm process and high transistor count of 17,800 million contribute to efficiency, but in this pairing, those attributes do not translate into playable performance at higher settings. The processor's Passmark physics score of 3,315 and data compression score of 698,346 are strong, yet Downfall shows no evidence of benefiting from these strengths. The bottleneck is clearly elsewhere, and the CPU's role in this combo is to feed frames to a GPU that cannot keep up.

GPU Role — VRAM, clocks, and how they relate to this game's results

The Intel Arc B390 is an integrated graphics processor (IGP) based on the Xe3-LPG architecture, manufactured on Intel's 3 nm process. It operates with a base clock of 300 MHz and a boost clock of 2500 MHz. Critically, it uses System Shared memory, meaning there is no dedicated VRAM; the memory size, type, and bus width are all listed as System Shared, with bandwidth described as System Dependent. The GPU has 1,536 shading units, 48 texture mapping units, 24 ROPs, and 12 ray tracing cores. Its pixel rate is 60.00 GPixel/s, texture rate is 120.0 GTexel/s, and FP32 performance is 7.680 TFLOPS. The TDP is 80 W, and it relies on no power connectors, being an IGP solution.

The GPU's sole benchmark entry is a 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 score of 1,482, which places it in the 9th percentile of all GPUs. Its nearest rivals are all legacy NVIDIA parts: the GeForce GT 520MX scores 1,463 (1.3% lower), the GeForce 800M scores 1,460 (1.5% lower), the GeForce GT 625 OEM scores 1,446 (2.5% lower), and the GeForce GT 710 scores 1,443 (2.7% lower). This places the Arc B390 at the very bottom of the performance spectrum, on par with entry-level GPUs from over a decade ago.

The Downfall results reflect this severely limited GPU. At 1080p Low, the combo averages 106 FPS, which is the only playable setting. At 1080p Medium, the average drops to 87 FPS with a minimum of 74 FPS and a maximum of 100 FPS. At 1080p High, it falls to 71 FPS. At 1080p Ultra, the average collapses to 44 FPS. The 2,500 MHz boost clock cannot compensate for the lack of dedicated VRAM and the modest 1,536 shading units. The System Shared memory architecture means the GPU competes with the CPU for bandwidth, and the System Dependent bandwidth figure indicates that performance scales with the rest of the system's memory configuration. In this pairing, the GPU is the definitive limiting factor at every resolution above 1080p Low, and even at that setting, the 106 FPS average is modest for a 2016 horror game. The 12 ray tracing cores are irrelevant here, as Downfall predates widespread RT adoption, and the 7.680 TFLOPS FP32 throughput is insufficient for high-fidelity rendering at modern resolutions.

Resolution Scaling — how FPS drops from 1080p to 4K and what it says about the limiting component

The measured FPS data shows a steep and consistent drop as resolution increases, which is the signature of a GPU-bound system. Starting from 1080p Low at 106 FPS, moving to 1440p Low yields 76 FPS, a 28% reduction. At 4K Low, the average falls to 47 FPS, a 56% drop from 1080p. The pattern is similar for Medium settings: 87 FPS at 1080p, 62 FPS at 1440p, and 39 FPS at 4K. High settings show 71 FPS at 1080p, 51 FPS at 1440p, and 32 FPS at 4K. Ultra settings demonstrate the most dramatic collapse: 44 FPS at 1080p, 32 FPS at 1440p, and 20 FPS at 4K.

These numbers indicate that the Arc B390 is overwhelmed as pixel count increases. The scaling from 1080p to 1440p represents a 1.78x increase in pixels, and the FPS drops roughly proportionally, suggesting the GPU's fill rate and memory bandwidth are saturated. From 1440p to 4K, the pixel count increases by 2.25x, and the FPS drops further, confirming that the GPU has no headroom left. The 4K Ultra result of 20 FPS is effectively a slideshow, and the 4K High result of 32 FPS is just barely above the threshold of playability for a slow-paced horror game, though far from comfortable.

The data does not show any resolution at which the CPU becomes the limiting factor. If the CPU were the bottleneck, the FPS would remain flat across resolutions, as the processor would be unable to deliver more frames regardless of GPU load. Instead, every step up in resolution produces a significant FPS penalty, which is definitive evidence that the Intel Arc B390 is the sole performance constraint. The CPU's 5.80 GHz boost clock and 24 cores are more than capable of handling Downfall's draw calls at 20 FPS, 32 FPS, or 106 FPS. The resolution scaling curve is a textbook example of GPU-limited performance, with the integrated graphics solution unable to keep pace with the demands of higher pixel counts.

Settings Recommendations — which preset gives the best experience per the measured rows

Given the measured FPS data, the only settings that provide a consistently smooth experience are Low and Medium at 1080p. At 1080p Low, the combo averages 106 FPS, which is well above the standard 60 FPS target and provides a fluid experience for a horror game where reaction time matters. At 1080p Medium, the average drops to 87 FPS, with a minimum of 74 FPS and a maximum of 100 FPS. The minimum of 74 FPS still clears the 60 FPS threshold, making Medium a viable option for those who want slightly better visual fidelity without sacrificing playability. The Medium preset at 1080p is the recommended choice: the 87 FPS average is strong, and the 74 FPS minimum ensures that the game never stutters into unplayable territory during intense scenes.

At 1080p High, the average falls to 71 FPS, which is playable but leaves less headroom for frame time spikes. The data does not include a minimum FPS for High settings, so there is no guarantee of consistency. At 1080p Ultra, the average drops to 44 FPS, which is below the 60 FPS target and likely to feel sluggish. At 1440p, only Low (76 FPS) and Medium (62 FPS, minimum 53 FPS) are worth considering. The Medium 1440p result has a minimum of 53 FPS, which is borderline; the Low preset at 1440p is the safer choice. At 4K, no setting is playable. The best 4K result is Low at 47 FPS, which is below 60 FPS and would require significant compromises in visual quality. The 4K Medium result of 39 FPS and High result of 32 FPS are not acceptable for a smooth experience, and 4K Ultra at 20 FPS is unusable.

The data clearly indicates that the optimal experience for this combo is 1080p Medium, balancing the 87 FPS average with the improved visual quality over Low. For players who prioritize frame rate above all else, 1080p Low at 106 FPS is the fallback. The data does not support any settings above Medium at 1080p as a reasonable trade-off, and the higher resolutions should be avoided unless the player is willing to accept sub-60 FPS performance.

How This Combo Ranks — use comboRankInGame vs other tested combos

The Intel Core Ultra 9 290K Plus and Intel Arc B390 combination ranks 2589th out of 2928 tested combos in Downfall. This places it in the bottom 11.6% of all systems tested, a poor showing for a processor that sits in the 96th percentile of all CPUs. The rank reflects the GPU's severe limitation, not the CPU's capability. The 2589th rank means that 2588 other combinations of processors and graphics cards delivered higher average FPS in this game, and only 339 combos performed worse.

This ranking is particularly striking given the CPU's performance class. The Intel Core Ultra 9 290K Plus is a flagship desktop processor with a 96th percentile ranking, but it is paired with a GPU that sits in the 9th percentile. The result is a system that performs worse than many older, mid-range gaming rigs from the era of Downfall's release. The GPU's nearest rivals are the NVIDIA GeForce GT 520MX, GeForce 800M, GT 625 OEM, and GT 710 — all parts that were considered entry-level or obsolete when Downfall launched in 2016. The fact that this modern combo ranks below 2588 other systems, many of which likely use much older CPUs, underscores the extent to which the Arc B390 drags down the entire configuration.

The 2589th rank out of 2928 combos means that the system is only in the 11.6th percentile of tested configurations for this specific game. This is a stark contrast to the CPU's own 96th percentile ranking, highlighting the disconnect between processor potential and real-world gaming performance in this pairing. The data suggests that swapping the Arc B390 for almost any dedicated graphics card would dramatically improve the rank, as the CPU has ample headroom to support a much faster GPU. However, within the constraints of this specific combo, the rank is a direct consequence of the integrated graphics solution's inability to handle Downfall at acceptable frame rates.

Measured FPS Breakdown — resolution by resolution, settings by settings, exact numbers

The measured FPS data for this combo in Downfall is as follows:

At 1920x1080 (1080p):

• Low: 106 FPS average
• Medium: 87 FPS average, 74 FPS minimum, 100 FPS maximum
• High: 71 FPS average
• Ultra: 44 FPS average

At 2560x1440 (1440p):

• Low: 76 FPS average
• Medium: 62 FPS average, 53 FPS minimum, 71 FPS maximum
• High: 51 FPS average
• Ultra: 32 FPS average

At 3840x2160 (4K):

• Low: 47 FPS average
• Medium: 39 FPS average, 33 FPS minimum, 44 FPS maximum
• High: 32 FPS average
• Ultra: 20 FPS average

The 1080p results show a clear hierarchy, with Low at 106 FPS being the fastest and Ultra at 44 FPS being the slowest. The Medium preset offers the only complete data set with a minimum and maximum, showing a 26 FPS spread between the lowest and highest frames. The 1440p results follow the same pattern, with Low at 76 FPS and Ultra at 32 FPS. The Medium preset at 1440p shows an 18 FPS spread, with a minimum of 53 FPS and a maximum of 71 FPS. The 4K results are uniformly poor, with Low at 47 FPS being the only setting above 40 FPS. The 4K Medium preset shows a narrow 11 FPS spread, with a minimum of 33 FPS and a maximum of 44 FPS, indicating that the GPU is consistently saturated at this resolution.

The data shows that the gap between Low and Ultra settings widens as resolution increases. At 1080p, the difference between Low and Ultra is 62 FPS (106 vs 44). At 1440p, the difference is 44 FPS (76 vs 32). At 4K, the difference is 27 FPS (47 vs 20). This narrowing gap suggests that at higher resolutions, the GPU is so constrained that even lowering settings has diminishing returns. The 4K Low result of 47 FPS is only 27 FPS higher than 4K Ultra, whereas at 1080p, the Low preset is 62 FPS higher than Ultra. This indicates that at 4K, the GPU's raw rendering capacity is the limiting factor, and settings adjustments can only do so much to improve performance. The 1080p Medium result of 87 FPS with a 74 FPS minimum is the most balanced data point in the entire set, offering both a high average and a playable minimum.