Downfall

# Downfall with Intel Core Ultra 9 290K Plus + NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1660 SUPER

The benchmark data for Downfall with this Intel Core Ultra 9 290K Plus and NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1660 SUPER combination shows a system that is firmly GPU-limited across all tested resolutions and settings. The measured FPS ranges from a low of 27 frames per second at 4K Ultra to a high of 147 FPS at 1080p Low, with the gap between settings presets widening as resolution increases. This pairing places 2505th out of 2928 tested combos, indicating that the graphics card is the primary constraint in this horror title, while the 24-core processor sits largely underutilized.

Resolution Scaling

The FPS drop from 1080p to 4K is steep and consistent across all settings presets, revealing a classic GPU-bound scenario. At High settings, the average frame rate falls from 99 FPS at 1920x1080 to 71 FPS at 2560x1440, then to 44 FPS at 3840x2160 — a reduction of approximately 28% from 1080p to 1440p and another 38% from 1440p to 4K. The Low preset shows a similar trajectory: 147 FPS at 1080p, 105 FPS at 1440p, and 65 FPS at 4K, representing a 55% total decrease across the three resolutions.

Medium settings provide the only complete data set with minimum and maximum FPS values. At 1080p Medium, the average is 120 FPS with a range of 102 to 138. Moving to 1440p Medium drops the average to 86 FPS (73 to 99), and 4K Medium yields 54 FPS (45 to 62). The scaling from 1440p to 4K at Medium is a 37% performance loss, which closely mirrors the High preset's 38% drop. This consistency indicates that pixel throughput is the dominant cost — the GTX 1660 SUPER's 6 GB GDDR6 memory and 192-bit bus are being pushed to their limits as the render target quadruples in pixel count.

Ultra settings are the most demanding, with 62 FPS at 1080p, 44 FPS at 1440p, and 27 FPS at 4K. The 1080p-to-1440p drop is 29%, and the 1440p-to-4K drop is 39%. Notably, even at 1080p Ultra, the system fails to maintain a 60 FPS average, confirming that the GPU's 1408 shading units and 48 ROPs cannot handle the full visual feature set at playable rates. The data suggests that the CPU, with its 5.80 GHz boost clock and 24 threads, is never the bottleneck; if it were, the resolution scaling would be far flatter.

Settings Recommendations

Based on the measured rows, the Medium preset at 1920x1080 offers the best balance between visual quality and frame rate. At 120 FPS average with a minimum of 102 FPS, this configuration delivers a smooth experience for a horror title where responsiveness matters. The jump from Low to Medium costs 27 FPS (from 147 to 120), but the visual uplift typically justifies that trade-off for most users. High at 1080p drops to 99 FPS, which is still playable but begins to approach the threshold where frame pacing could become noticeable in fast-paced scenes.

At 2560x1440, Medium is the recommended preset, producing 86 FPS with a range of 73 to 99. This keeps the experience above 70 FPS even in the worst measured moments. High at 1440p yields 71 FPS, which remains acceptable, but the margin over Medium narrows considerably. Low at 1440p reaches 105 FPS, yet the visual compromise is significant for only a 22% gain over Medium.

For 3840x2160, the options are constrained. Medium at 54 FPS (45 to 62) is the only preset with a plausible playability claim, though it dips below 60 FPS on average. Low at 4K reaches 65 FPS, which is smoother but sacrifices the settings that make the horror atmosphere effective. High and Ultra at 4K, at 44 and 27 FPS respectively, are best avoided for active gameplay; they might serve for static screenshots or scripted cinematic moments. The data indicates that Ultra is not a viable preset at any resolution, with 62 FPS at 1080p being its best result — and that is below the Medium 1080p average.

CPU Role

The Intel Core Ultra 9 290K Plus is a 24-core, 24-thread processor from the Arrow Lake Refresh generation, built on a 3 nm process with a base clock of 3.70 GHz and a boost clock of 5.80 GHz. Its Cinebench R23 scores are substantial — 51731 multi-core and 7303 single-core — placing it in the 96th percentile of all CPUs. However, Downfall is not a title that stresses such a processor. The game's release date in February 2016 predates the widespread adoption of multi-threaded game engines, and the measured FPS data shows no evidence of CPU limitation.

The resolution scaling tells the story: if the CPU were the limiting factor, reducing resolution from 4K to 1080p would not produce a 2.2x to 2.4x improvement in frame rate depending on settings. The fact that Low settings at 1080p hit 147 FPS while Ultra at 4K manages only 27 FPS points entirely to GPU throughput. The CPU's 36 MB of shared L3 cache and dual-channel DDR5 memory bandwidth of 115.2 GB/s provide ample headroom for game logic and draw call submission at these frame rates.

The nearest CPU rivals — the Intel Core Ultra 9 285K with a 0.2% average score advantage, and the AMD EPYC 4584PX at 1.1% ahead — are all within a narrow band, confirming that the 290K Plus is a top-tier part. But in Downfall, the difference between the 290K Plus and a far less capable CPU would likely be negligible. The data shows that the processor is never the constraint; the GPU's 5.027 TFLOPS of FP32 throughput is the decisive factor in every measured configuration.

FAQ

Q: Why does the frame rate drop so much from 1080p to 4K?

A: The GTX 1660 SUPER's rendering pipeline is saturated by the pixel count increase. At 1920x1080 High, the average is 99 FPS; at 2560x1440 High it falls to 71 FPS; and at 3840x2160 High it drops to 44 FPS. The GPU's 48 ROPs and 336.0 GB/s memory bandwidth cannot sustain the full-rate pixel throughput demanded by 4K.

Q: Is the Intel Core Ultra 9 290K Plus holding back performance in this game?

A: No. The CPU's 24 cores and 5.80 GHz boost clock are far beyond what Downfall requires. The consistent performance drop as resolution increases — for example, 147 FPS at 1080p Low versus 65 FPS at 4K Low — confirms the GPU is the limiting component, not the processor.

Q: What is the best settings preset for a 60 FPS experience?

A: At 1920x1080, Medium delivers 120 FPS average with a 102 FPS minimum, well above 60. High at 1080p also exceeds 60 at 99 FPS. For 2560x1440, Medium at 86 FPS is the recommended choice, while High at 71 FPS is also viable. At 3840x2160, only Low (65 FPS) and Medium (54 FPS) come close to 60 FPS.

Q: Can this system handle Ultra settings?

A: Ultra is playable only at 1080p, where it achieves 62 FPS average. At 1440p Ultra drops to 44 FPS, and at 4K Ultra it falls to 27 FPS. These results are below the standard 60 FPS target for smooth gameplay, so Ultra is not recommended except at 1080p.

Q: How does the GTX 1660 SUPER compare to its closest rivals?

A: The GPU's average benchmark score of 12986 places it 0.4% behind the RTX 3050 Ti Mobile and 0.4% ahead of the RX 580, with the Tesla M2090 0.7% higher. Its 53rd percentile ranking among all GPUs shows it is a mid-range part, consistent with the measured FPS in Downfall.

Q: Does the game benefit from the CPU's high single-thread performance?

A: The Cinebench R23 single-core score of 7303 is strong, but the game's measured frame rates do not show a pattern where higher single-thread performance would help. The FPS scaling with resolution and settings is monotonic and large, indicating that the GPU's workload dominates the performance profile.

GPU Role

The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1660 SUPER is the decisive component in this pairing. Built on the Turing architecture with a TU116 chip at 12 nm, it features 1408 shading units, 88 texture mapping units, and 48 ROPs. Its boost clock of 1785 MHz and memory clock of 1750 MHz (14 Gbps effective) drive a 6 GB GDDR6 frame buffer over a 192-bit bus, yielding 336.0 GB/s of memory bandwidth. The FP32 throughput of 5.027 TFLOPS is modest by modern standards, and the data reflects that.

The measured FPS across all twelve configurations shows a clear ceiling. At 1080p Low, the GPU can reach 147 FPS, suggesting that the card has enough raw shader throughput for light workloads. But as settings increase, the frame rate collapses: 1080p High is 99 FPS, 1080p Medium is 120 FPS, and 1080p Ultra is 62 FPS. The gap between Low and Ultra at 1080p is 85 FPS, a 58% reduction. This is consistent with a GPU that has limited fillrate and memory bandwidth relative to its shader count.

The 6 GB VRAM capacity is adequate for 1080p and 1440p in this 2016 title, but at 4K the combination of higher resolution textures and larger render targets likely pushes the memory controller harder. The 4K results — 65 FPS Low, 54 FPS Medium, 44 FPS High, 27 FPS Ultra — show that even the lowest settings cannot fully compensate for the pixel load. The GPU's 85.68 GPixel/s pixel rate and 157.1 GTexel/s texture rate are simply insufficient for smooth 4K gameplay in this title.

The GPU's percentile ranking of 53rd among all GPUs, with an average benchmark score of 12986, places it near the RTX 3050 Ti Mobile (0.4% higher) and RX 580 (0.4% lower). This mid-range positioning is exactly what the Downfall results demonstrate: capable at 1080p and 1440p with adjusted settings, but out of its depth at 4K Ultra. The launch MSRP of 229 USD for this end-of-life card reflects its historical mid-range status, though current market conditions are not considered here.

Measured FPS Breakdown

At 1920x1080, the full settings sweep is available. Low produces 147 FPS average, Medium produces 120 FPS (102 to 138), High produces 99 FPS, and Ultra produces 62 FPS. The spread from Low to Ultra is 85 FPS, with each step up in settings costing roughly 20-30 FPS. Medium is the only preset with recorded minimum and maximum values, showing a 36 FPS range that indicates some scene-dependent variability.

At 2560x1440, the same pattern holds with reduced absolute numbers. Low achieves 105 FPS, Medium 86 FPS (73 to 99), High 71 FPS, and Ultra 44 FPS. The gap between Low and Ultra is 61 FPS, narrower than at 1080p, because the GPU is already more stressed at the baseline. The Medium preset's range of 26 FPS is tighter than at 1080p, suggesting that scene complexity becomes less variable when the GPU is closer to full utilization.

At 3840x2160, the performance collapses further. Low manages 65 FPS, Medium 54 FPS (45 to 62), High 44 FPS, and Ultra 27 FPS. The Low-to-Ultra spread is 38 FPS, and even the lowest settings cannot maintain a 60 FPS average. The Medium preset's minimum of 45 FPS and maximum of 62 FPS show that some scenes are playable while others drop well below the threshold. The data reveals that 4K is only viable for this GPU if the user accepts Low settings and even then, the margin above 60 FPS is razor-thin.

How This Combo Ranks

The combo ranks 2505th out of 2928 tested combinations in Downfall, placing it in the bottom 15% of all systems evaluated. This low rank is directly attributable to the GTX 1660 SUPER, which sits at the 53rd percentile of all GPUs. The CPU, by contrast, is in the 96th percentile, meaning the processor is far more capable than the graphics card it is paired with. This imbalance creates a situation where the GPU is the sole determinant of gaming performance, and the system's overall ranking reflects that bottleneck.

Within the context of the 2928 combos tested, this pairing is closer to budget-oriented systems than to high-end ones. The measured FPS data — with a maximum of 147 FPS only at the lowest settings and resolution — indicates that the system is suited to 1080p gaming with medium presets, or 1440p with medium to low presets. The 4K results are uniformly below 65 FPS, making that resolution impractical for this game with this hardware.

The GPU's nearest rivals — RTX 3050 Ti Mobile, RX 580, Tesla M2090, and Radeon 740M — all score within 0.9% of the 1660 SUPER on average. This tight cluster suggests that swapping to any of these cards would produce nearly identical Downfall performance. The CPU's rival cluster is similarly tight, with the 285K just 0.2% ahead and the EPYC 7F72 1.3% behind. In both cases, the differences are within run-to-run variance, meaning this combo's rank is robust to component substitution within its performance tier. The data strongly indicates that to improve this system's standing in Downfall, the GPU must be upgraded; the CPU has ample headroom to support a much faster graphics card.