Downfall

# Downfall with Intel Core Ultra 9 290K Plus + NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5080

The Intel Core Ultra 9 290K Plus paired with the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5080 delivers a formidable gaming combination in Downfall, a 2016 horror title that scales aggressively across resolutions and settings. The measured frame rates show this combo ranks 165th out of 2,928 tested combinations, placing it in the top 6% of all systems evaluated. The data reveals a system capable of extreme frame rates at 1080p, with performance degrading predictably as resolution climbs to 4K, where the GPU becomes the dominant constraint.

CPU Role

The Intel Core Ultra 9 290K Plus is a 24-core, 24-thread desktop processor built on the Arrow Lake Refresh architecture, manufactured on a 3 nm process by TSMC. It operates at a base clock of 3.70 GHz and boosts up to 5.80 GHz, with a TDP of 125 W. The CPU features a substantial cache hierarchy: 192 KB of L1 per core, 3 MB of L2 per core, and 36 MB of shared L3 cache. Memory support is DDR5 over a dual-channel bus with 115.2 GB/s of bandwidth, and it connects via PCIe Gen 5 with 20 CPU lanes.

In synthetic workloads, this processor posts a Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 51,731 and a single-core score of 7,303. The PassMark multi-thread score reaches 60,860, with a single-thread score of 4,823. These results place the CPU in the 96th percentile of all processors tested. Its nearest rivals in aggregate benchmark score include the Intel Core Ultra 9 285K (0.2% ahead), the AMD EPYC 4584PX (1.1% ahead), and the AMD EPYC 9135 (1.2% ahead), while the AMD EPYC 7F72 trails by 1.3%.

For Downfall, the CPU's role is primarily about sustaining high frame rates at lower resolutions. At 1080p Low, the combo hits 414 FPS average, which is far beyond display refresh rates and indicates the CPU is feeding frames without bottlenecking. The processor's 24 threads and high boost clock of 5.80 GHz provide ample headroom for the game's logic and physics, though the game's 2016 release date means it likely doesn't leverage all 24 cores. The single-thread performance, evidenced by the 7,303 Cinebench R23 score, matters more for frame pacing in this title. The data suggests that even at Ultra settings with 1080p, where the average drops to 174 FPS, the CPU maintains enough throughput to keep the GPU fed. The processor's 17,800 million transistors on a 243 mm² die indicate a dense, modern design that handles the game's workload efficiently.

GPU Role

The NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5080 is built on the Blackwell 2.0 architecture with the GB203 chip, fabricated on a 5 nm process by TSMC. It packs 45,600 million transistors on a 378 mm² die, with a transistor density of 120.6 million per square millimeter. The GPU operates at a base clock of 2295 MHz and boosts to 2617 MHz, with memory running at 1875 MHz (30 Gbps effective). It features 16 GB of GDDR7 memory on a 256-bit bus, delivering 960.0 GB/s of bandwidth.

The compute configuration includes 10,752 shading units, 336 texture mapping units, 112 ROPs, 84 ray tracing cores, and 336 tensor cores. The pixel rate is 293.1 GPixel/s, and the texture rate is 879.3 GTexel/s. Floating point performance reaches 56.28 TFLOPS for both FP32 and FP16 (1:1). The card has a TDP of 360 W, uses a dual-slot design with a single 16-pin power connector, and requires a suggested 750 W power supply. It connects via PCIe 5.0 x16 and outputs through 1x HDMI 2.1b and 3x DisplayPort 2.1b.

In synthetic benchmarks, the RTX 5080 scores 8,637 in 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12, 235,901 in Geekbench OpenCL, and 255,450 in Geekbench Vulkan. The PassMark G3D score is 36,565, with a GPU compute score of 21,789. These results place the GPU in the 87th percentile of all graphics cards. Its nearest rivals include the AMD Radeon 8060S (0.6% ahead), the AMD Radeon RX 6750 GRE 12 GB (0.7% ahead), and the AMD Radeon Pro W5700X (2.3% ahead), while the AMD Radeon RX 9070 GRE is 2.2% behind.

In Downfall, the GPU's 16 GB of VRAM and 960 GB/s bandwidth prove more than sufficient for all tested configurations. The highest memory pressure scenario — 4K Ultra — still yields 77 FPS average, indicating the VRAM capacity is not a limiting factor. The 56.28 TFLOPS of FP32 compute drives the game's rendering, with the 112 ROPs handling pixel throughput at high resolutions. The boost clock of 2617 MHz ensures the GPU sustains performance under load, and the 84 RT cores, while not directly relevant to this non-ray-traced title, contribute to the card's overall architecture. The data shows the GPU becomes the primary bottleneck at 4K, where frame rates drop significantly compared to 1080p.

Resolution Scaling

The measured FPS data reveals clear scaling patterns across the three tested resolutions. Starting with High settings, the average frame rate drops from 278 FPS at 1080p to 198 FPS at 1440p, then to 123 FPS at 4K. This represents a 29% drop from 1080p to 1440p and a further 38% drop from 1440p to 4K, for a total 56% reduction from 1080p to 4K.

Low settings show a steeper absolute decline: 414 FPS at 1080p, 296 FPS at 1440p, and 184 FPS at 4K. The percentage drops are 29% and 38% respectively, matching the High settings pattern. The 4K Low result of 184 FPS still exceeds the 1080p High result of 278 FPS by a wide margin, demonstrating that even at the most demanding resolution with minimal settings, the system remains highly capable.

Medium settings provide the most complete data with min and max frame rates recorded. At 1080p, the average is 339 FPS with a range of 288 to 390. At 1440p, the average drops to 242 FPS with a range of 206 to 278. At 4K, the average falls to 151 FPS with a range of 128 to 173. The min-to-max spread narrows as resolution increases, suggesting more consistent frame delivery at higher resolutions where the GPU is more uniformly loaded.

Ultra settings show the most dramatic scaling: 174 FPS at 1080p, 124 FPS at 1440p, and 77 FPS at 4K. The 4K Ultra result is less than half of the 1080p Ultra result, a 56% reduction. This pattern indicates that at 1080p, the CPU and GPU share the workload more evenly, while at 4K, the GPU's rendering load dominates, pulling frame rates down. The fact that 4K Low (184 FPS) outperforms 1080p Ultra (174 FPS) by 6% highlights how much GPU headroom exists at lower settings. The resolution scaling suggests that for this horror title, the GPU is the limiting component at 4K, while at 1080p, the CPU's strong single-thread performance keeps frame rates exceptionally high.

How This Combo Ranks

The combination of the Intel Core Ultra 9 290K Plus and NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5080 ranks 165th out of 2,928 tested combos in Downfall, placing it in the top 5.6% of all systems. This ranking reflects the high performance of both components individually — the CPU sits in the 96th percentile of all processors, while the GPU sits in the 87th percentile of all graphics cards.

The CPU's nearest rivals in aggregate benchmark score provide context for its contribution to this ranking. The Intel Core Ultra 9 285K scores 0.2% higher in average benchmark, making it essentially a statistical tie. The AMD EPYC 4584PX and AMD EPYC 9135 are 1.1% and 1.2% ahead respectively, while the AMD EPYC 7F72 trails by 1.3%. These differences are small enough that in Downfall, the CPU choice likely doesn't move the needle much on frame rates, as the game appears GPU-bound at higher resolutions.

For the GPU, the nearest rivals show similar clustering. The AMD Radeon 8060S is 0.6% ahead in average benchmark score, the AMD Radeon RX 6750 GRE 12 GB is 0.7% ahead, and the AMD Radeon Pro W5700X is 2.3% ahead. The AMD Radeon RX 9070 GRE trails by 2.2%. These marginal differences suggest that the RTX 5080's performance in Downfall is competitive with its immediate peers, and the combo's high rank is a function of both components being near the top of their respective performance tiers.

The 165th rank out of 2,928 means 2,763 other combos tested slower in this game, while only 164 were faster. This places the system firmly in enthusiast territory, though not at the absolute apex of the rankings, which likely includes newer or more specialized hardware combinations. The data indicates that this combo delivers top-tier performance in Downfall without being the single fastest option available.

Measured FPS Breakdown

At 1080p, the system delivers exceptional frame rates across all settings. Low settings produce an average of 414 FPS, which is the highest measured result in the entire dataset. Medium settings average 339 FPS with a minimum of 288 and maximum of 390. High settings average 278 FPS. Ultra settings average 174 FPS. The gap between Low and Ultra is 240 FPS, or 58%, showing the significant performance cost of the highest quality preset.

At 1440p, performance remains strong but drops predictably. Low settings average 296 FPS, a 28% reduction from 1080p Low. Medium settings average 242 FPS with a range of 206 to 278. High settings average 198 FPS. Ultra settings average 124 FPS. The scaling from Low to Ultra at 1440p shows a reduction from 296 to 124 FPS, a 58% drop that mirrors the 1080p pattern.

At 4K, the system still delivers playable frame rates but with less headroom. Low settings average 184 FPS, which is still above most high-refresh displays. Medium settings average 151 FPS with a range of 128 to 173. High settings average 123 FPS. Ultra settings average 77 FPS, which dips below the 100 FPS threshold that many users consider optimal for smooth gameplay. The 4K Ultra result of 77 FPS represents the lowest measured performance, a 81% reduction from the 1080p Low maximum of 414 FPS.

Across all settings, the Medium preset provides the only complete data with min and max FPS recorded. At 1080p Medium, the 288 FPS minimum ensures consistent smoothness. At 1440p Medium, the 206 FPS minimum remains well above typical display refresh rates. At 4K Medium, the 128 FPS minimum still clears the 120 Hz threshold, though with less margin than at lower resolutions.

Settings Recommendations

For 1440p and below, the High settings preset delivers the best balance of visual quality and performance. At 1440p High, the system averages 198 FPS with no recorded minimum dips, which is well above the 144 Hz refresh rate of most high-end monitors. At 1080p High, the average of 278 FPS provides substantial headroom for any display, and the visual improvement over Medium is worth the 61 FPS cost. Even at 4K High, the 123 FPS average remains smooth on 120 Hz displays, though users with 144 Hz or higher refresh monitors may notice the limitations.

For 4K, the Medium preset represents the best experience per the measured rows. The 151 FPS average with a 128 FPS minimum ensures consistent frame delivery above 120 Hz, while the visual upgrade from Low is meaningful. The 4K High result of 123 FPS is acceptable but provides less margin for demanding scenes, and the 4K Ultra result of 77 FPS, while playable, sacrifices too much performance for the visual gain. The Medium preset at 4K offers the best compromise between the 184 FPS of Low and the 77 FPS of Ultra, landing at 151 FPS with a minimum of 128 FPS.

The Low settings preset is only recommended for competitive play at 1080p, where the 414 FPS average pushes beyond any display's refresh rate capabilities. At 1440p Low, the 296 FPS result offers similar benefits, though the visual degradation may not be worth it given that High at 1440p still achieves 198 FPS. For most users, Ultra settings are best avoided outside of 1080p, where the 174 FPS average still provides a smooth experience, but at 1440p and 4K, the performance cost of 124 FPS and 77 FPS respectively makes the preset less suitable for maintaining high refresh rates.