Downfall

Resolution Scaling

The measured FPS data for Downfall shows a predictable but steep penalty as resolution increases. At 1080p with Low settings, the combo of the Intel Core Ultra X7 368H and NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4090 delivers 314 FPS average. Moving to 1440p Low drops that to 224 FPS, a 28.7% reduction. At 4K Low, the average falls further to 140 FPS, which is 55.4% below the 1080p Low result. This scaling pattern is typical for a GPU-bound scenario at lower settings—the RTX 4090 has enough headroom at 1080p that the frame rate is still extremely high, but the pixel throughput demand at 4K begins to bite.

The gap between resolutions narrows as settings increase, which is informative. At High settings, 1080p produces 211 FPS, 1440p produces 150 FPS, and 4K produces 94 FPS. The percentage drops are 28.9% from 1080p to 1440p and 37.3% from 1440p to 4K. At Ultra settings, the numbers are 132 FPS, 94 FPS, and 59 FPS for 1080p, 1440p, and 4K respectively. Here, the drop from 1440p to 4K is 37.2%. The fact that the relative penalties are similar across High and Ultra suggests that the workload is scaling consistently with pixel count, with no sudden bottleneck shifting between the CPU and GPU in these ranges.

The most telling observation is the 4K Ultra result: 59 FPS average. That is the only measured row that dips below 60 FPS, and it does so by just one frame. For a horror title where smooth motion matters for atmosphere, this is borderline. The 4K Medium row shows 114 FPS with a min of 97 FPS, which indicates that the GPU is still capable of holding a solid frame rate at 4K as long as you are not maxing every setting. The scaling from 4K Medium to 4K High is a 17.5% drop (114 to 94 FPS), and from 4K High to 4K Ultra is a 37.2% drop (94 to 59 FPS). This suggests that the Ultra preset introduces a disproportionately heavy load relative to the visual gain, likely due to specific effects that are expensive at high pixel counts.

CPU Role

The Intel Core Ultra X7 368H is a 16-core, 16-thread mobile processor with a base clock of 2.00 GHz and a boost clock of 5.00 GHz. Its L3 cache is 18 MB shared, and it uses a Panther Lake architecture on a 3 nm process. In the context of Downfall, the CPU's role appears to be secondary to the GPU at higher resolutions, but it still matters at 1080p where frame rates are extremely high.

Looking at the CPU's synthetic benchmarks, it scores 28,221 in Cinebench R23 multi-core and 3,984 in single-core. These numbers place it in the 87th percentile of all CPUs in the database. Its average benchmark score is 40,518, which is nearly identical to its nearest rivals: the Intel Core 7 253PE scores 40,557 (deltaPct -0.1%), the Intel Core 5 223PE scores 40,585 (deltaPct -0.2%), the AMD Ryzen 9 7940H scores 40,431 (deltaPct 0.2%), and the Intel Xeon 6507P scores 40,426 (deltaPct 0.2%). This means the Ultra X7 368H is effectively tied with these four other processors in overall compute performance—the differences are well within noise at under a third of a percent.

In Downfall specifically, the CPU's 16 threads are more than sufficient for the game's demands. The measured FPS at 1080p Low (314 FPS) and 1080p Medium (257 FPS) are so high that they likely approach the engine's internal frame rate limits or the CPU's ability to feed the GPU. The fact that 1080p Ultra still achieves 132 FPS suggests that even with increased draw calls and physics, the CPU has headroom. However, the data does not show a CPU bottleneck in the traditional sense—the FPS scales down consistently with resolution, which is a GPU-bound signature.

The boost clock of 5.00 GHz is relevant for single-threaded performance in this game. Downfall, being a 2016 horror title, likely relies on a few main threads for game logic and rendering setup. The single-core Cinebench R23 score of 3,984 is strong, and the PassMark single-thread score of 4,005 corroborates that. The CPU's percentile ranking of 87 means it outperforms most CPUs in the database, which helps explain why 1080p frame rates are so high. Even at 4K Ultra where the GPU is clearly the limiter, the CPU is not dragging the system down.

How This Combo Ranks

The combo of the Intel Core Ultra X7 368H and NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4090 ranks 595th out of 2,928 tested combos in Downfall. This places it in the top 20.3% of all combinations in the database for this specific game. Given that this is a top-tier mobile CPU paired with a flagship desktop-class GPU (the RTX 4090 is an end-of-life part with a 450 W TDP), the rank might seem lower than expected. However, it is important to note that many of the 2,928 combos likely include desktop CPUs with higher sustained clocks and more aggressive power delivery, which can make a meaningful difference in a fast-paced game at lower resolutions.

The rank of 595 suggests that while this combo is very fast, it is not at the absolute top of the charts. The RTX 4090 GPU itself ranks in the 88th percentile of all GPUs, with an average benchmark score of 60,347. Its nearest rivals in the GPU benchmark database are the Intel Arc Pro A60 (score 60,326, deltaPct 0%), the AMD Radeon Pro Vega 48 (score 60,140, deltaPct 0.3%), the AMD Radeon Pro W6600M (score 61,896, deltaPct -2.5%), and the AMD Radeon PRO V710 (score 58,657, deltaPct 2.9%). This indicates that the RTX 4090 is roughly on par with some professional-grade workstation GPUs in synthetic benchmarks, though its real-world gaming performance in Downfall is clearly robust.

The combo rank of 595 out of 2,928 means there are 594 other combinations that deliver higher FPS in this game. Given the hardware involved, this is likely due to the CPU's mobile nature—even with 16 cores and a 5.00 GHz boost, thermal and power constraints in a mobile form factor may prevent sustained performance matching desktop parts. The data shows the combo is fast enough for excellent 4K High play (94 FPS) and stellar 1440p High (150 FPS), but it does not crack the top 20% of all combos, which is a realistic assessment for a laptop-class CPU paired with a desktop GPU in a benchmark database that includes pure desktop setups.

Measured FPS Breakdown

The measured FPS data covers three resolutions (1080p, 1440p, 4K) and four settings (Low, Medium, High, Ultra), for a total of 12 rows. All rows have an average FPS value, but only the Medium settings also include min and max FPS data.

At 1080p, the results are as follows: Low averages 314 FPS, Medium averages 257 FPS (min 218, max 295), High averages 211 FPS, and Ultra averages 132 FPS. The Medium preset shows a fairly tight min-max range of 77 FPS, which indicates consistent frame pacing with no dramatic stutters. The drop from Low to Medium is 18.2%, from Medium to High is 17.9%, and from High to Ultra is 37.4%. The Ultra preset clearly imposes a heavy cost at 1080p, cutting the frame rate nearly in half compared to High.

At 1440p, the results are: Low 224 FPS, Medium 184 FPS (min 156, max 211), High 150 FPS, and Ultra 94 FPS. The min-max range for Medium is 55 FPS, slightly tighter than at 1080p. The percentage drops are 17.9% from Low to Medium, 18.5% from Medium to High, and 37.3% from High to Ultra. The consistency of these drops across 1080p and 1440p suggests that the game's settings have a multiplicative effect on the rendering load, regardless of resolution.

At 4K, the results are: Low 140 FPS, Medium 114 FPS (min 97, max 131), High 94 FPS, and Ultra 59 FPS. The Medium min of 97 FPS is still above 60, which is good. The drops are 18.6% from Low to Medium, 17.5% from Medium to High, and 37.2% from High to Ultra. The 4K Ultra result of 59 FPS is the only value below 60 in the entire dataset, and it is marginal. The min-max range for 4K Medium is 34 FPS, which is the tightest of all three resolutions, indicating that at higher pixel counts the frame pacing becomes more consistent, likely because the GPU is more uniformly saturated.

GPU Role

The NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4090 is an Ada Lovelace architecture GPU with 16,384 shading units, 512 TMUs, and 176 ROPs. It has 128 ray tracing cores and 512 tensor cores. The GPU is built on a 5 nm process at TSMC, with 76,300 million transistors on a 609 mm² die. Its base clock is 2,235 MHz with a boost clock of 2,520 MHz. Memory is 24 GB of GDDR6X on a 384-bit bus, yielding 1.01 TB/s of bandwidth. The memory clock is 1,313 MHz, which translates to 21 Gbps effective. This is a massive amount of memory bandwidth, which is critical for high-resolution gaming.

In Downfall, the GPU's role is clearly dominant. The fact that 4K High runs at 94 FPS and 4K Medium runs at 114 FPS indicates that the RTX 4090 is well-suited for this game even at demanding resolutions. The GPU's PassMark G3D score is 38,194, and its Geekbench Vulkan score is 271,631. These scores place it in the 88th percentile of all GPUs. The GPU's average benchmark score of 60,347 is closely matched by the Intel Arc Pro A60 (60,326) and AMD Radeon Pro W6600M (61,896), but the RTX 4090's gaming performance in Downfall is what matters here.

The VRAM capacity of 24 GB is far more than Downfall requires, especially considering the game's 2016 release date. Even at 4K Ultra, the game is unlikely to exceed 8 GB of VRAM, so the 24 GB is effectively unused overhead. The GPU's pixel rate of 443.5 GPixel/s and texture rate of 1,290.2 GTexel/s are the specs that drive the high FPS at 4K. The fact that 4K Low hits 140 FPS shows that the GPU can push pixels extremely fast when not burdened by advanced effects.

The GPU's boost clock of 2,520 MHz is high for a large chip, and it helps maintain performance under load. The TDP of 450 W and the suggested PSU of 850 W indicate this is a power-hungry part, but in the context of this mobile CPU combo, the system must be using an external GPU enclosure or a very large laptop chassis. The GPU is marked as end-of-life, with a launch MSRP of 1,599 USD, but its performance in Downfall remains competitive, as evidenced by the measured FPS.

Settings Recommendations

Based on the measured FPS data, the best settings for this combo depend on the target resolution and desired frame rate. For 1440p and 1080p, the Ultra preset is the clear choice if you want maximum visual fidelity, as it still delivers 132 FPS at 1080p and 94 FPS at 1440p. The 94 FPS at 1440p Ultra is well above the 60 FPS threshold and provides a smooth experience, with headroom for a high-refresh-rate monitor.

For 4K, the recommendation is more nuanced. The Ultra preset at 4K averages 59 FPS, which is technically playable but sits right at the edge of the 60 FPS target. This might be acceptable for a horror game where a slower pace is atmospheric, but it leaves no margin for drops in demanding scenes. The High preset at 4K delivers 94 FPS, which is significantly better and still looks excellent. Given that the drop from High to Ultra is 37.2% at 4K, the visual improvement from Ultra likely does not justify the performance hit. The Medium preset at 4K offers 114 FPS with a min of 97 FPS, which is the safest option for consistent high refresh rate gaming at 4K, and it provides a comfortable buffer against any frame dips.

For players who prioritize smoothness over absolute visual quality, the Medium preset is the sweet spot across all resolutions. At 1080p Medium, you get 257 FPS; at 1440p Medium, 184 FPS; and at 4K Medium, 114 FPS. The Medium preset also has the only min-FPS data in the dataset, showing that the frame pacing is solid. The Low preset is unnecessary for this hardware—even at 4K, it delivers 140 FPS, but the visual sacrifices are not worth it when Medium is so close in performance.

The data suggests that this combo is best utilized with the High preset at 4K for a balanced experience, or the Ultra preset at 1440p for maximum quality without sacrificing frame rate. If you have a 240 Hz monitor at 1080p, the Low or Medium presets will push you past 300 FPS, but the visual downgrade is steep. For most players, the High preset at 1080p (211 FPS) or 1440p (150 FPS) offers the best trade-off between image quality and speed. The Ultra preset at 4K should be avoided unless you are comfortable with a sub-60 FPS average, as the 59 FPS result is too close to the edge for comfort.