Downfall

# Downfall with Intel Core Ultra X9 388H + AMD Radeon 8060S

The Intel Core Ultra X9 388H paired with the AMD Radeon 8060S delivers a playable experience across most of Downfall's settings, though the horror title's demands at 4K Ultra expose clear limits. This mobile combo sits at rank 1667 out of 2928 tested configurations, placing it in the upper-middle tier of the database. The measured data shows a system capable of smooth 1080p and 1440p gameplay at medium-to-high presets, with 4K reserved for lower settings or those willing to accept sub-60 frame rates.

Resolution Scaling

The FPS drop from 1080p to 4K is steep and reveals where this combo's bottleneck sits. At Low settings, the average frame rate falls from 210 FPS at 1920x1080 to 150 FPS at 2560x1440 — a 28.6% reduction — then to 93 FPS at 3840x2160, another 38% cut. This scaling pattern indicates the GPU is the primary limiter as resolution climbs, with the Radeon 8060S struggling to maintain high frame rates at 4K even on the least demanding preset.

Moving from 1440p to 4K at Medium settings shows a similar drop: 123 FPS down to 76 FPS, a 38.2% decline. The High preset follows suit with 101 FPS at 1440p dropping to 63 FPS at 4K, a 37.6% reduction. These consistent percentage drops across settings suggest the rendering load scales predictably with pixel count, and the GPU's compute resources are what's being exhausted.

The Ultra preset tells the harshest story. At 1080p, the combo manages 88 FPS, but 1440p sees that fall to 63 FPS and 4K plunges to 39 FPS. The 1080p-to-4K drop of 55.7% is the largest across all settings, indicating that Ultra's additional effects — likely shadows, reflections, and post-processing — multiply the cost of each pixel. The 39 FPS at 4K Ultra is the only measured result that falls below the 40 FPS threshold, making it the sole genuinely unplayable configuration in the dataset.

Interestingly, the gap between Low and Ultra narrows as resolution increases. At 1080p, Low (210 FPS) is 2.4x faster than Ultra (88 FPS). At 4K, Low (93 FPS) is also 2.4x faster than Ultra (39 FPS). The ratio holds steady, which suggests Downfall's settings scale uniformly across resolutions rather than introducing disproportionately heavy effects at higher pixel counts.

The data also shows that 1440p Medium (123 FPS) offers nearly double the frame rate of 4K Medium (76 FPS), making 1440p the sweet spot for this combo if visual quality matters more than raw resolution. Meanwhile, 4K Low at 93 FPS is technically playable but represents a significant visual compromise that most users would find hard to justify.

CPU Role

The Intel Core Ultra X9 388H brings 16 cores and 16 threads based on the Panther Lake architecture, built on Intel's 3 nm process. Its base clock of 2.10 GHz boosts to 5.10 GHz, providing substantial single-thread headroom for game logic and physics. The processor's benchmark results show a Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 18911 and a single-core score of 2200.5, placing it at the 88th percentile versus all CPUs.

In Downfall, a 2016 horror title, the CPU's role appears secondary to the GPU at lower resolutions but becomes more relevant at higher settings. The fact that 1080p Low achieves 210 FPS — a very high frame rate — indicates the CPU can feed the GPU well beyond typical display refresh rates. Even at 1080p Ultra with 88 FPS, the processor is not the limiting factor; the GPU's rendering load dominates.

The passmark multi-thread score of 36811 and single-thread score of 4280 suggest strong overall compute capability. The nearest CPU rival, the AMD Ryzen 5 7500X3D, scores 44573 on average benchmark — a 0.2% delta, effectively identical performance. The Intel Core i9-13950HX also sits close with a 0.3% delta, meaning this mobile chip trades blows with desktop-class parts in synthetic workloads.

For a horror game like Downfall, which likely relies on scripted sequences and atmospheric lighting rather than massive simulation, the CPU's 16 cores handle background tasks without issue. The L3 cache of 18 MB shared across cores provides adequate data locality for game assets, though the 153.6 GB/s memory bandwidth with LPDDR5X support may become a factor at very high frame rates where data throughput to the GPU matters.

The CPU's data compression score of 361763 and encryption score of 28490 in PassMark indicate solid general-purpose performance, though these have little direct bearing on gaming. The floating-point math score of 112550 suggests the processor can handle physics calculations and AI routines without becoming a bottleneck, even when the GPU is pushing 200+ FPS at 1080p Low.

Settings Recommendations

The measured data points to Medium as the best balance of performance and visual quality for this combo. At 1080p Medium, the system delivers 172 FPS with a minimum of 146 FPS and maximum of 198 FPS, providing smooth gameplay well above the 144 Hz threshold that most gaming displays support. The 1440p Medium result of 123 FPS (minimum 104, maximum 141) remains comfortably playable on high-refresh monitors, making it the recommended choice for users with 1440p displays.

High settings offer a marginal visual upgrade over Medium but cost significant frame rates. At 1080p High, the average drops to 141 FPS — still excellent — while 1440p High falls to 101 FPS. For users with 60 Hz displays, High at 1440p delivers enough headroom, but for competitive or fast-paced play, Medium is the safer pick. The 4K High result of 63 FPS sits right at the edge of playability, making it viable only for those who prioritize resolution over smoothness.

Ultra should be avoided except at 1080p, where 88 FPS is acceptable for slower-paced horror gameplay. At 1440p Ultra, the 63 FPS average is borderline, and 4K Ultra's 39 FPS falls below playable thresholds. The jump from High to Ultra costs roughly 37-38% of frame rate at every resolution, a steep price for what is likely incremental visual gains in a horror title where atmosphere matters more than graphical fidelity.

Low settings, while delivering 210 FPS at 1080p and 150 FPS at 1440p, strip away the visual elements that make a horror game immersive. The 93 FPS at 4K Low is the only way to approach 4K at playable frame rates, but the visual compromise is severe. For most users, Medium at 1440p provides the best experience, offering a 123 FPS average with frame times that stay above 104 FPS minimum — a solid, consistent experience.

How This Combo Ranks

At rank 1667 out of 2928 tested combos, this configuration sits in the 57th percentile of all pairings tested for Downfall. This places it in the upper half of the database, though not among the elite performers. The rank reflects a system that can handle the game well at mainstream resolutions but lacks the headroom for maximum settings at 4K.

The GPU's percentile ranking of 87 versus all GPUs suggests the Radeon 8060S is a strong mobile part, while the CPU's 88th percentile indicates the processor is similarly positioned. The combo's overall rank of 1667, however, suggests that other pairings with slightly weaker components achieve better results in this specific title, possibly due to driver optimizations or memory configurations.

Nearest GPU rivals include the AMD Radeon RX 6750 GRE 12 GB with a 0.1% delta in average benchmark score, meaning the 8060S trades blows with that desktop card. The NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5080 scores 0.6% higher, while the RTX 4080 is 2.8% lower. These close margins indicate the 8060S delivers desktop-class rasterization performance in a mobile form factor, though the system-shared memory may limit its consistency in extended gaming sessions.

The combo's rank of 1667 out of 2928 means roughly 43% of tested configurations outperform it in Downfall specifically. This is a respectable showing for a mobile platform, but users expecting flagship-tier performance should note that many desktop combos achieve higher frame rates at 4K Ultra. The 39 FPS at 4K Ultra is a clear indicator that this pairing is not designed for maximum settings at maximum resolution.

GPU Role

The AMD Radeon 8060S, based on the Strix Halo chip with RDNA 3.5 architecture, serves as the primary driver of Downfall's performance. With 2560 shading units, 160 texture mapping units, and 64 raster operation units, the GPU's pixel rate of 185.6 GPixel/s and texture rate of 464.0 GTexel/s provide substantial fill-rate capabilities. The 14.85 TFLOPS FP32 compute throughput places it in the upper tier of integrated graphics solutions.

Its 87th percentile ranking versus all GPUs positions it alongside desktop discrete cards. The nearest rival, the RX 6750 GRE 12 GB, posts a 0.1% delta in average benchmark score, meaning the 8060S matches a previous-generation desktop mid-range card. The RTX 5080's 0.6% advantage and RTX 4080's 2.8% deficit further contextualize its performance tier.

The GPU's clocks run from a 1295 MHz base to a 2900 MHz boost, with memory bandwidth listed as system dependent. This means the shared system memory bandwidth of 153.6 GB/s from the CPU's LPDDR5X support directly impacts GPU performance. In Downfall, this shared memory architecture may explain the significant frame rate drops at 4K, where texture streaming and memory bandwidth demands increase substantially.

The 40 ray tracing cores support DirectX 12 Ultimate, though Downfall's 2016 release date means it likely doesn't use hardware ray tracing. The GPU's 55 W TDP in an integrated form factor delivers impressive efficiency, achieving 4K Medium at 76 FPS — a result that would have been unthinkable for integrated graphics just a few years ago.

The 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 score of 2162 and Geekbench OpenCL score of 84626 confirm the GPU's strong compute performance. The Vulkan score of 80483 suggests good API support for modern games, though Downfall's age means it likely uses older DirectX paths that don't leverage the full feature set.

Measured FPS Breakdown

At 1920x1080, the combo delivers its best results. Low settings produce 210 FPS average, Medium hits 172 FPS with a minimum of 146 FPS and maximum of 198 FPS, High reaches 141 FPS, and Ultra manages 88 FPS. All 1080p configurations exceed 60 FPS, with even Ultra providing enough headroom for smooth gameplay on standard displays.

The 2560x1440 results show a clear step down. Low averages 150 FPS, Medium 123 FPS (minimum 104, maximum 141), High 101 FPS, and Ultra 63 FPS. The 1440p Ultra result exactly matches the 4K High result at 63 FPS, highlighting how resolution and settings trade off against each other. For users with 1440p 144 Hz displays, Medium is the maximum playable setting for sustained high refresh rates.

At 3840x2160, the performance drops become severe. Low averages 93 FPS, Medium 76 FPS (minimum 65, maximum 88), High 63 FPS, and Ultra 39 FPS. The 4K Medium result remains playable, but the minimum of 65 FPS shows occasional dips that could cause noticeable stutters in a horror game where smooth motion matters for atmosphere. The 4K Ultra result of 39 FPS is the only sub-40 FPS measurement in the entire dataset.

The frame time consistency, visible in the Medium setting's minimum and maximum values, shows tighter variance at 1080p (146-198 FPS) compared to 1440p (104-141 FPS) and 4K (65-88 FPS). This indicates that higher resolutions stress the shared memory system, leading to more variable frame pacing. For a genre game where jumpscares require precise timing, this variability could affect gameplay experience at higher resolutions.

The scaling from Medium to High costs roughly 18% of frame rate at 1080p (172 to 141 FPS), 18% at 1440p (123 to 101 FPS), and 17% at 4K (76 to 63 FPS). The consistency of this penalty suggests the High preset adds a uniform load across resolutions. The jump from High to Ultra is steeper: 38% at 1080p (141 to 88 FPS), 38% at 1440p (101 to 63 FPS), and 38% at 4K (63 to 39 FPS). This uniform 38% penalty indicates Ultra enables a specific rendering feature that taxes the GPU equally regardless of pixel count.