Downfall

# Downfall with Intel Core Ultra X9 388H + AMD Radeon 880M

This combo ranks 2852nd out of 2928 tested configurations in Downfall, placing it in the bottom 3% of all systems measured. That ranking is decisive: the Intel Core Ultra X9 388H and AMD Radeon 880M combination is demonstrably weak for this horror title, and the benchmark data confirms it is a 1080p-only solution with serious compromises at higher resolutions. The measured frames per second tell a consistent story of GPU-bound performance, where the integrated Radeon 880M is the limiting factor across nearly every setting and resolution tested.

CPU Role — cores, clocks, and how they relate to this game's results

The Intel Core Ultra X9 388H is a 16-core, 16-thread processor from the Core Ultra Series 3, built on Intel's 3 nm Panther Lake architecture. It runs at a 2.10 GHz base clock and boosts to 5.10 GHz, with a 25 W TDP that classifies it as a mobile part. The CPU's cache hierarchy includes 192 KB of L1 per core, 3 MB of L2 per core, and 18 MB of shared L3 cache. Memory support is LPDDR5X over a dual-channel bus, delivering 153.6 GB/s of bandwidth. These specifications position the CPU as a competent modern mobile processor, and its benchmark scores reinforce that view. In Cinebench R23, it scores 18911 multi-core and 2200.5 single-core; in Cinebench R20, it scores 13101 multi-core and 1849 single-core. PassMark multithread score is 36811, with single-thread at 4280. The CPU's 88th percentile ranking among all CPUs indicates it performs well above average in general compute tasks.

However, the data shows that this CPU's strength does not translate into strong Downfall performance when paired with the Radeon 880M. At 1080p Low, the combo achieves 89 FPS, which is the highest measured result in the entire dataset. The fact that lowering resolution from 1440p to 1080p at Low settings increases FPS from 64 to 89 indicates that the system is not CPU-limited at these settings — if the CPU were the bottleneck, the FPS would remain roughly constant regardless of resolution. The CPU's nearest rivals in average benchmark score include the AMD Ryzen 5 7500X3D (0.2% slower), Intel Core i9-13950HX (0.3% faster), AMD Ryzen AI Max 385 (0.4% faster), and Intel Core i5-13600 (0.5% faster). These deltas are all within 0.5%, meaning the CPU is competitively matched with those parts in general compute. But in Downfall, the integrated GPU holds the entire system back.

The CPU's high boost clock of 5.10 GHz and 16 threads are more than sufficient for a horror game like Downfall, which typically relies more on GPU rendering than CPU simulation. The L3 cache of 18 MB shared across 16 cores provides adequate capacity for game data. The data shows that at 1080p Ultra, FPS drops to 37, while at 1080p High it is 60 — a 23 FPS gap that is far too large to be attributed to CPU workload changes. This pattern indicates that the CPU is never the primary constraint; instead, the Radeon 880M's rendering capabilities dictate the frame rates across all tested configurations.

Settings Recommendations — which preset gives the best experience per the measured rows

The measured data provides four settings per resolution: Low, Medium, High, and Ultra. At 1080p, Low delivers 89 FPS, Medium delivers 73 FPS, High delivers 60 FPS, and Ultra delivers 37 FPS. At 1440p, the corresponding numbers are 64, 52, 43, and 27 FPS. At 4K, they are 40, 32, 27, and 17 FPS. The pattern is consistent: each step up in settings costs roughly 10-15 FPS at 1080p, 8-12 FPS at 1440p, and 5-8 FPS at 4K.

For a smooth experience, the data strongly suggests 1080p Medium as the sweet spot. At 73 FPS average with a minimum of 62 FPS and maximum of 84 FPS, this setting provides the best balance of visual quality and playability. The 62 FPS minimum is comfortably above the 60 FPS threshold that most players consider smooth. Dropping to Low at 1080p gains 16 FPS (89 vs 73) but loses visual fidelity in a horror game where atmosphere matters. High at 1080p delivers exactly 60 FPS average, which is playable but leaves no headroom for demanding scenes; the lack of a min FPS measurement for High settings makes it risky to recommend.

At 1440p, Medium is the only setting that approaches playability, with 52 FPS average and a 44 FPS minimum. That minimum is below 60, so stutter may be noticeable in intense moments. High at 1440p drops to 43 FPS, which is marginal. Ultra at any resolution is not recommended: 37 FPS at 1080p, 27 FPS at 1440p, and 17 FPS at 4K are all below playable thresholds. The 4K Ultra result of 17 FPS is essentially a slideshow. The data indicates that 1080p Medium provides the best experience per the measured rows, with 1080p High as a viable alternative for players who prioritize visual quality over frame rate stability.

Resolution Scaling — how FPS drops from 1080p to 4K and what it says about the limiting component

The FPS scaling across resolutions reveals a classic GPU-bound profile. At Low settings, FPS drops from 89 at 1080p to 64 at 1440p (a 28% reduction) and then to 40 at 4K (a 55% reduction from 1080p). At Medium settings, the progression is 73 to 52 to 32, representing a 29% drop from 1080p to 1440p and a 56% drop from 1080p to 4K. High settings show 60 to 43 to 27, with a 28% drop to 1440p and 55% drop to 4K. Ultra settings show 37 to 27 to 17, with a 27% drop to 1440p and 54% drop to 4K.

The consistency of these percentage drops across all four settings is diagnostic. If the CPU were the limiting factor, the FPS would remain nearly flat as resolution increases, since the CPU workload per frame is largely independent of resolution. Instead, the FPS scales almost linearly with pixel count — 4K has four times the pixels of 1080p, and the FPS at 4K is roughly one-third to one-half of the 1080p value. This is exactly what a GPU-bound system looks like. The Radeon 880M's pixel rate of 46.40 GPixel/s and texture rate of 139.2 GTexel/s are the hardware limits that dictate these numbers.

The scaling also shows diminishing returns at higher resolutions. The gap between 1080p and 1440p is consistently around 28-29%, while the gap between 1440p and 4K is larger in absolute terms but similar in percentage. This suggests that the GPU's memory bandwidth — listed as "System Dependent" since it shares system memory — becomes a constraint at 4K. The CPU's memory bandwidth of 153.6 GB/s is shared with the GPU, and at 4K the integrated GPU must access more data per frame, further straining the shared LPDDR5X bus. The result is that 4K is not viable on this combo at any setting, with the best 4K result being 40 FPS at Low.

How This Combo Ranks — use comboRankInGame vs other tested combos

The combo's rank of 2852 out of 2928 tested configurations in Downfall places it in the bottom 2.6% of all systems. This is a remarkably poor showing, especially considering the CPU's 88th percentile ranking among all CPUs. The disconnect between CPU capability and in-game performance underscores the extent to which the integrated GPU drags down the entire system. In a game like Downfall, which is a horror title from 2016, this ranking suggests that the Radeon 880M is simply not up to the task of modern rendering demands at higher settings.

The GPU's nearest rivals in average benchmark score are the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 675MX (0.1% slower), NVIDIA GeForce MX330 (0.3% faster), AMD Radeon HD 8870M (0.3% faster), and AMD Radeon R9 M375X (1.3% slower). These are all older discrete mobile GPUs, and the fact that an integrated Radeon 880M trades blows with them in synthetic benchmarks is notable. However, in Downfall specifically, the combo's 2852nd rank out of 2928 indicates that many systems with similar or even lower GPU benchmarks achieve better in-game performance. This could be due to driver optimizations, memory configuration differences, or the game's specific rendering paths.

The CPU's nearest rivals — all within 0.5% of its average benchmark score — would likely produce similar in-game results when paired with the same GPU, since the CPU is not the bottleneck. The ranking data suggests that to improve Downfall performance, the GPU must be upgraded, not the CPU. The combo's position in the bottom 3% of tested configurations is a clear verdict: this is a system for light gaming at best, not for a horror title that benefits from smooth frame rates and atmospheric detail.

GPU Role — VRAM, clocks, and how they relate to this game's results

The AMD Radeon 880M is an integrated GPU based on the Strix Point chip, using RDNA 3.5 architecture on a 4 nm TSMC process. It has 768 shading units, 48 texture mapping units, and 16 raster operation units, along with 12 ray tracing cores. The GPU runs at a 400 MHz base clock and boosts to 2900 MHz. Its FP32 performance is 4.454 TFLOPS, and it supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The GPU has no dedicated VRAM; instead, it uses "System Shared" memory, with bandwidth listed as "System Dependent." This shared memory arrangement is a critical weakness for gaming.

The GPU's 43rd percentile ranking among all GPUs and its PassMark G3D score of 7615 place it in the lower half of graphics hardware. Its nearest rivals include the GTX 675MX, MX330, HD 8870M, and R9 M375X — all older discrete parts. The Radeon 880M's transistor count is 34,000 million on a 233 mm² die, with a transistor density of 145.9M per mm². These specifications indicate a modern, efficient design, but efficiency does not translate to raw performance.

In Downfall, the GPU's limitations are stark. The 16 ROPs are a major bottleneck at high resolutions, as the pixel rate of 46.40 GPixel/s is insufficient for 4K rendering. The 48 TMUs with a texture rate of 139.2 GTexel/s also constrain texture-heavy scenes. The GPU's 4.454 TFLOPS of FP32 compute is modest by modern standards, and the shared memory bandwidth creates additional latency. The measured FPS data shows that even at 1080p Low, the GPU is producing 89 FPS — a decent result — but the rapid falloff at higher settings and resolutions reveals the GPU's shallow headroom. The GPU's TDP of 15 W is extremely low, which limits sustained performance in demanding scenes.

Measured FPS Breakdown — resolution by resolution, settings by settings, exact numbers

At 1920x1080, the combo delivers its best results. Low settings produce an average of 89 FPS with no min or max recorded. Medium settings average 73 FPS, with a minimum of 62 and maximum of 84 — the only setting in the entire dataset that includes both min and max values. High settings average 60 FPS exactly. Ultra settings drop to 37 FPS. The gap between Low and Ultra at 1080p is 52 FPS, a massive range that shows the GPU's sensitivity to settings changes.

At 2560x1440, performance falls off sharply. Low settings average 64 FPS, which is playable but below the 1080p Low result by 25 FPS. Medium settings average 52 FPS, with a minimum of 44 and maximum of 60. High settings average 43 FPS, and Ultra settings average 27 FPS. The 1440p results show that Medium is the only acceptable setting, and even then, the 44 FPS minimum may cause noticeable stutter in a horror game where smooth motion is important for immersion.

At 3840x2160, the combo is largely non-functional for gaming. Low settings average 40 FPS, which is below the 60 FPS target. Medium settings average 32 FPS, with a minimum of 28 and maximum of 37. High settings average 27 FPS, and Ultra settings average 17 FPS. The 4K results are uniformly poor, with no setting achieving even 45 FPS. The data shows that 4K is not viable on this system, and players should stick to 1080p for any reasonable experience.

The complete picture across all 12 measured configurations shows a clear hierarchy: 1080p Low (89 FPS) is the only configuration exceeding 80 FPS, 1080p Medium (73 FPS) and 1080p High (60 FPS) are the only others reaching 60 FPS or above. Every 1440p setting except Low (64 FPS) falls below 60 FPS, and all 4K settings are below 45 FPS. The measured data is unambiguous: this combo is a 1080p gaming solution, and even then, only at Low through High settings. Ultra at any resolution is a poor experience, with the best Ultra result being 37 FPS at 1080p.