Downfall

# Downfall Performance Analysis: Intel Core Ultra X9 388H + AMD Radeon 760M

This combination of Intel's 16-core Core Ultra X9 388H mobile processor paired with the AMD Radeon 760M integrated graphics delivers playable performance only at the lowest settings in this 2016 horror title, with the measured data revealing a system that is overwhelmingly GPU-limited across all resolution and quality configurations tested. The benchmark results place this combo at rank 2919 out of 2928 tested combinations, positioning it in the bottom 0.3% of all configurations in the database for this game, a stark indicator that while the CPU carries top-tier processing pedigree, the integrated GPU becomes the decisive bottleneck in nearly every scenario.

Settings Recommendations

The measured FPS data presents a clear hierarchy across the four quality presets tested at each resolution, and the optimal choice depends heavily on the target display resolution. At 1920x1080, the Low preset delivers an average of 65 FPS, which is the only configuration in the entire dataset that exceeds the 60 FPS threshold typically associated with smooth gameplay. The Medium preset at the same resolution produces 53 FPS average with a minimum of 45 and maximum of 61, offering a 18% reduction in average frame rate compared to Low but providing noticeably improved visual fidelity. For users prioritizing smoothness over visuals at 1080p, Low is the clear choice, while Medium represents a viable middle ground for those who can tolerate slightly lower frame rates.

At 2560x1440, the picture changes dramatically. The Low preset yields 46 FPS average, which is playable but noticeably below the 60 FPS target, while Medium drops to 38 FPS with a minimum of 32 and maximum of 44. The High preset at 1440p produces 31 FPS, and Ultra falls to 19 FPS. Given that even the lowest settings at this resolution fail to reach 60 FPS, users with 1440p displays should accept that they will need to compromise on either resolution or quality. The data suggests that Low at 1440p is the most reasonable experience, as the jump from Low to Medium costs 8 FPS (17% reduction) while the visual improvement may not justify the frame rate loss.

At 3840x2160, the situation becomes marginal across the board. Low settings produce 29 FPS average, Medium yields 24 FPS with a minimum of 20 and maximum of 27, High drops to 19 FPS, and Ultra plummets to 12 FPS. None of these configurations approach playable frame rates for a horror title where responsiveness matters. The recommendation for 4K is to avoid this resolution entirely unless the user accepts a slideshow-like experience; even the Low preset fails to maintain 30 FPS consistently. The best experience per the measured rows is unequivocally 1080p Low at 65 FPS, with 1080p Medium at 53 FPS serving as the highest quality setting that remains within a reasonable playable range.

GPU Role

The AMD Radeon 760M is an integrated graphics solution based on the RDNA 3.0 architecture, built on a 4nm process with 512 shading units, 32 texture mapping units, and 16 render output units. The GPU operates with a base clock of 800 MHz and a boost clock of 2599 MHz, producing a pixel rate of 41.58 GPixel/s and a texture rate of 83.17 GTexel/s. Its FP32 compute throughput is rated at 5.323 TFLOPS, with FP16 performance matching at 5.323 TFLOPS in a 1:1 ratio. The GPU includes 8 ray tracing cores, though their utility in this 2016 title is likely minimal given the game's age.

The memory configuration is entirely system-dependent, with the GPU sharing system memory through a dual-channel interface. The CPU's memory support for LPDDR5X with a bandwidth of 153.6 GB/s represents the theoretical ceiling for GPU memory bandwidth, but actual performance depends on the specific system configuration. The GPU's benchmark scores reflect its integrated nature: a Passmark G3D score of 5310 places it at the 35th percentile among all GPUs, with an average benchmark score of 6019. Its nearest rivals include the AMD Radeon RX 6400 (0.3% faster), NVIDIA GeForce GTX 770M (0.3% faster), and NVIDIA Quadro P2000 (0.5% faster), while it edges out the NVIDIA RTX PRO 6000 Blackwell Server by 0.4%.

In Downfall specifically, the GPU's limitations are starkly evident. The measured FPS data shows a consistent pattern where even the lowest settings at 1080p only achieve 65 FPS, and every increase in quality or resolution results in substantial frame rate penalties. The 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 score of 400 and Passmark DirectX 11 score of 52 indicate that the GPU struggles with modern API workloads, though this older title may rely on legacy DirectX paths where the GPU performs relatively better, as suggested by its Passmark DirectX 9 score of 65.

Resolution Scaling

The FPS progression from 1080p to 4K reveals the classic signature of a GPU-bound system. At Low settings, the average frame rate drops from 65 FPS at 1080p to 46 FPS at 1440p (a 29% reduction) and further to 29 FPS at 4K (a 55% reduction from 1080p). This scaling pattern is consistent with what would be expected from a GPU that is saturated even at 1080p, as the pixel count increases by 78% from 1080p to 1440p and by 300% from 1080p to 4K. The fact that FPS does not drop proportionally to pixel count suggests that the GPU is not purely pixel-bound, but the substantial decreases confirm that the integrated GPU is the primary limiting factor.

At Medium settings, the same pattern emerges: 53 FPS at 1080p, 38 FPS at 1440p (a 28% reduction), and 24 FPS at 4K (a 55% reduction from 1080p). The High settings show a similar trajectory with 44 FPS at 1080p, 31 FPS at 1440p (a 30% reduction), and 19 FPS at 4K (a 57% reduction). The Ultra preset, which is the most demanding, exhibits the steepest decline: 27 FPS at 1080p, 19 FPS at 1440p (a 30% reduction), and 12 FPS at 4K (a 56% reduction). The consistency of these percentage drops across all quality levels strongly indicates that the GPU is the bottleneck, as the CPU's performance headroom would manifest as smaller FPS penalties at higher resolutions if it were the limiting factor.

The data implies that the 16-core Intel processor is vastly underutilized in this game, particularly at higher resolutions where the GPU's workload increases. The CPU's substantial compute capabilities, evidenced by its Cinebench R23 multicore score of 18911 and Passmark multithread score of 36811, are irrelevant when the GPU cannot keep pace with even moderate rendering demands. This is a textbook example of an imbalanced system for gaming, where the processor's high-end positioning is negated by the integrated graphics solution.

Measured FPS Breakdown

At 1920x1080, the measured results span from 27 to 65 FPS across the four settings. The Low preset achieves 65 FPS average, representing the only configuration that breaks the 60 FPS barrier. Medium follows at 53 FPS with a minimum of 45 and maximum of 61, indicating some frame time variance but generally stable performance. High drops to 44 FPS, and Ultra falls to 27 FPS, representing a 58% reduction from Low to Ultra. The gap between High and Ultra is particularly notable at 17 FPS (a 39% drop), suggesting that the Ultra preset introduces rendering features that the integrated GPU cannot handle efficiently.

At 2560x1440, the performance envelope compresses significantly. Low leads at 46 FPS, followed by Medium at 38 FPS (minimum 32, maximum 44), High at 31 FPS, and Ultra at 19 FPS. The progression from Low to Ultra shows a 59% reduction in average frame rate, closely mirroring the 1080p scaling pattern. The Medium preset's minimum of 32 FPS indicates that even this mid-range setting experiences dips below the 30 FPS threshold, which could impact gameplay in tense horror sequences where frame rate consistency matters.

At 3840x2160, all configurations fall below playable thresholds. Low achieves 29 FPS, which is just shy of the 30 FPS minimum for acceptable playability. Medium produces 24 FPS with a minimum of 20 and maximum of 27, indicating significant frame time inconsistency. High drops to 19 FPS, and Ultra bottoms out at 12 FPS. The 4K results confirm that this combination should not be used for 4K gaming in Downfall, as even the lowest settings cannot maintain a stable frame rate.

How This Combo Ranks

The combination of Intel Core Ultra X9 388H and AMD Radeon 760M ranks 2919 out of 2928 tested combinations in Downfall, placing it in the bottom 0.3% of all configurations. This ranking is remarkable given the CPU's strong performance metrics: the processor sits at the 88th percentile among all CPUs with an average benchmark score of 44466, and its nearest rival is the AMD Ryzen 5 7500X3D, which scores 44573 (a mere 0.2% difference). The CPU also edges out the Intel Core i9-13950HX by 0.3% and the AMD Ryzen AI Max 385 by 0.4%, demonstrating that the processor itself is competitive with high-end desktop and mobile offerings.

The GPU, however, tells a different story. The Radeon 760M sits at the 35th percentile among all GPUs, with an average benchmark score of 6019. Its nearest rivals in the GPU benchmarks include the AMD Radeon RX 6400 (0.3% faster) and the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 770M (0.3% faster), while it trails the NVIDIA Quadro P2000 by 0.5%. This places the GPU in the lower-middle tier of the graphics hierarchy, which is expected for an integrated solution. The stark contrast between the CPU's top-12% positioning and the GPU's bottom-35% positioning explains why the combined rank is so poor for gaming: the system's gaming performance is dictated almost entirely by its weakest component.

The rank of 2919 out of 2928 means that only 9 tested combinations perform worse in this game, and the data suggests that those combinations likely feature even weaker integrated GPUs or older processors. The combination's performance in Downfall is a direct consequence of the GPU's inability to handle the game's rendering requirements, regardless of the CPU's ample processing headroom.

FAQ

Q: What is the best settings preset for this combination in Downfall?

A: The 1920x1080 Low preset provides the best experience with an average of 65 FPS, which is the only configuration exceeding 60 FPS. The 1080p Medium preset at 53 FPS average is the highest quality setting that remains playable.

Q: Can this system handle 4K gaming in Downfall?

A: No. At 3840x2160, even the Low preset only achieves 29 FPS average, with Medium at 24 FPS, High at 19 FPS, and Ultra at 12 FPS. All 4K configurations fall below the 30 FPS threshold for acceptable playability.

Q: How does the CPU compare to its nearest rivals?

A: The Intel Core Ultra X9 388H has an average benchmark score of 44466, placing it 0.2% behind the AMD Ryzen 5 7500X3D (44573), 0.3% ahead of the Intel Core i9-13950HX (44342), and 0.4% ahead of the AMD Ryzen AI Max 385 (44309).

Q: What is the GPU's performance percentile?

A: The AMD Radeon 760M sits at the 35th percentile among all GPUs, with an average benchmark score of 6019. It performs within 0.5% of the NVIDIA Quadro P2000 and 0.3% of the AMD Radeon RX 6400.

Q: How does the frame rate scale from 1080p to 4K at Low settings?

A: At Low settings, the average FPS drops from 65 at 1080p to 46 at 1440p (a 29% reduction) and then to 29 at 4K (a 55% reduction from 1080p), indicating significant GPU limitations at higher resolutions.

Q: What rank does this combination achieve in Downfall?

A: This combo ranks 2919 out of 2928 tested combinations, placing it in the bottom 0.3% of all configurations for this game.

CPU Role

The Intel Core Ultra X9 388H is a 16-core, 16-thread processor from the Core Ultra Series 3, built on Intel's 3nm Panther Lake architecture. It operates with a base clock of 2.10 GHz and a boost clock of 5.10 GHz, with a TDP of 25W. The processor includes a substantial cache hierarchy: 192 KB of L1 per core, 3 MB of L2 per core, and 18 MB of shared L3 cache. Memory support includes LPDDR5X in a dual-channel configuration with a bandwidth of 153.6 GB/s, and the CPU connects via PCIe Gen 5 with 4 lanes.

The CPU's benchmark results demonstrate strong multi-threaded performance: Cinebench R23 multicore score of 18911, R20 multicore of 13101, and R15 multicore of 2955. Single-thread performance is equally impressive with R23 single-core at 2200.5, R20 single-core at 1849, and R15 single-core at 309.5. Passmark results show a multithread score of 36811, single-thread score of 4280, and strong scores in integer math (90882), floating-point math (112550), and data compression (361763). This places the CPU at the 88th percentile among all processors, with an average benchmark score of 44466.

In Downfall, however, the CPU's capabilities are largely irrelevant to the measured frame rates. The game is clearly GPU-bound, as evidenced by the consistent FPS scaling patterns across resolutions and settings. The CPU's 16 cores and 16 threads provide ample processing power for the game's logic, physics, and AI, but the integrated Radeon 760M GPU cannot translate this processing headroom into higher frame rates. The CPU's boost clock of 5.10 GHz and substantial cache hierarchy suggest it could handle even demanding CPU-bound scenarios, but Downfall's rendering workload saturates the GPU long before the CPU approaches its limits.

The data implies that pairing this high-end processor with an integrated GPU represents a significant mismatch for gaming workloads. The CPU's performance would be better utilized with a discrete graphics solution, as its strong single-thread and multi-thread capabilities could support much higher frame rates if paired with a more capable GPU. In this configuration, the CPU's 88th percentile ranking is wasted in Downfall, as the GPU's 35th percentile positioning caps the system's gaming performance well below what the processor could theoretically enable.