Downfall

# How This Combo Ranks

The Intel Core Ultra X9 388H paired with the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4080 achieves a combo rank of 1219 out of 3716 tested combinations in Downfall. This places the pairing in the top third of all tested systems, roughly in the 67th percentile of combinations. The ranking reflects a balanced setup where neither component dramatically drags the other down, though the data suggests the GPU is doing more of the heavy lifting in this horror title.

Looking at the broader context, this combo sits comfortably above the median tested configuration. The CPU's own percentile ranking against all processors is 88, while the GPU sits at 86 against all graphics cards, indicating both components are individually strong. However, their combined performance in Downfall specifically lands them at the 1219 position, which suggests the game's engine may not fully exploit both components' capabilities simultaneously. The gap between the individual component percentiles and the combo rank hints at potential bottlenecks or optimization quirks unique to this title.

When compared to other combos in the database, this pairing is not at the very top tier for Downfall, but it is firmly in the upper echelon. The 3716 tested combinations include many high-end desktop rigs, so a mobile CPU paired with a desktop-class GPU still managing to break into the top third is notable. The data indicates that for 1080p and 1440p gaming, this combo will deliver smooth experiences, while 4K Ultra may strain the limits of what this pairing can achieve.

# GPU Role

The NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4080 brings 16 GB of GDDR6X memory on a 256-bit bus, delivering 716.8 GB/s of bandwidth. This memory configuration is substantial for Downfall, a horror game from 2016 that predates the GPU's release by six years. The VRAM capacity alone exceeds what most games from that era could utilize, meaning memory pressure is unlikely to be a limiting factor at any tested resolution.

The GPU's clock speeds are set at a base of 2205 MHz with a boost of 2505 MHz, paired with a memory clock of 1400 MHz (22.4 Gbps effective). These frequencies, combined with 9728 shading units, 304 texture mapping units, and 112 raster output units, produce a theoretical FP32 performance of 48.74 TFLOPS. For a game like Downfall, which relies on atmospheric lighting and shadow effects common in horror titles, the RTX 4080's 76 ray tracing cores and 304 tensor cores provide ample compute headroom, though the game's age means it likely does not leverage these modern features extensively.

The GPU's benchmark scores reinforce its capability. In 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12, it scores 6567, while Geekbench OpenCL and Vulkan scores reach 214739 and 263779 respectively. Passmark G3D shows 34457 and GPU compute shows 20671. These synthetic benchmarks place the RTX 4080 at the 86th percentile among all GPUs, with an average benchmark score of 54247. Its nearest rival, the RTX 4080 SUPER, scores 54209, a mere 0.1% difference, indicating this non-SUPER variant is essentially matched with its successor in raw compute terms.

Interestingly, the AMD Radeon Pro W5700X scores 54828, which is 1.1% higher, and the Radeon RX 6750 GRE 12 GB scores 55698, 2.6% higher. This suggests that while the RTX 4080 is powerful, it is not the absolute top of the stack even among its nearest competitors. However, in Downfall specifically, the measured FPS data shows this GPU performing strongly, particularly at lower resolutions where the CPU can keep pace.

# CPU Role

The Intel Core Ultra X9 388H is a 16-core, 16-thread processor based on the Panther Lake architecture, built on Intel's 3 nm process. It features a base clock of 2.10 GHz and a boost of 5.10 GHz, with a TDP of just 25 W, making it a highly efficient mobile chip. The cache hierarchy includes 192 KB of L1 per core, 3 MB of L2 per core, and 18 MB of shared L3 cache, providing 153.6 GB/s of memory bandwidth via dual-channel LPDDR5X.

In Cinebench tests, the CPU scores 2955 in R15 multicore and 309.5 in single-core, 13101 in R20 multicore and 1849 in single-core, and 18911 in R23 multicore with a 2200.5 single-core score. Passmark results show a multithread score of 36811, a single-thread score of 4280, and various specialized scores including 361763 in data compression, 28490 in data encryption, and 112550 in floating-point math. These numbers place the CPU at the 88th percentile among all processors, with an average benchmark score of 44466.

The nearest rivals show how tightly contested this space is. The AMD Ryzen 5 7500X3D scores 44573, which is 0.2% higher, while the Intel Core i9-13950HX scores 44342, 0.3% lower. The AMD Ryzen AI Max 385 at 44309 is 0.4% lower, and the Intel Core i5-13600 at 44240 is 0.5% lower. This clustering within a 0.7% range indicates that the Ultra X9 388H is competitively positioned among mid-range and previous-generation high-end chips, though it does not decisively outperform any of them.

For Downfall, the CPU's 16 threads and high boost clock are relevant. Horror games often have variable frame pacing and can be sensitive to single-thread performance for game logic and AI. The 5.10 GHz boost clock ensures strong single-threaded responsiveness, while the 16 cores provide ample headroom for background tasks and any multi-threaded game systems. The 25 W TDP is notable for a chip with this core count, but the measured FPS data shows it does not bottleneck the RTX 4080 at higher resolutions where GPU load dominates.

# Measured FPS Breakdown

At 1920x1080, the combo delivers its highest frame rates. With Low settings, the average FPS reaches 287, which is exceptionally smooth for any game. Medium settings produce 235 FPS average with minimum and maximum readings of 199 and 270 respectively, showing consistent frame delivery. High settings yield 192 FPS average, while Ultra drops to 120 FPS. The progression from Low to Ultra shows a reduction of 167 FPS, or roughly 58%, which is expected as graphical fidelity increases.

Moving to 2560x1440, the frame rates remain strong but show the expected decline. Low settings average 205 FPS, Medium averages 168 FPS with a range of 142 to 193, High averages 137 FPS, and Ultra averages 86 FPS. The drop from 1080p Low to 1440p Low is 82 FPS, a 28.6% reduction, indicating the GPU is beginning to feel the resolution increase. At Ultra, the 1440p score of 86 FPS is still playable but less comfortable for high-refresh displays.

At 3840x2160, 4K resolution, the performance gap widens. Low settings average 127 FPS, Medium averages 104 FPS with a range of 89 to 120, High averages 85 FPS, and Ultra drops to 53 FPS. The Ultra setting at 4K sees the most significant falloff, with the 53 FPS average being the only measured result below 60 FPS across all configurations. The Medium setting at 4K, with its 89 FPS minimum, remains smooth, but Ultra clearly strains the combo.

Comparing settings across resolutions, the pattern is consistent. At every resolution, the delta between Low and Ultra is substantial: 167 FPS at 1080p, 119 FPS at 1440p, and 74 FPS at 4K. The diminishing absolute differences at higher resolutions confirm that the GPU becomes the limiting factor as pixel count increases, while at 1080p the CPU and memory bandwidth are better able to feed the GPU with frames.

# FAQ

Q: What is the best resolution for this combo in Downfall?

A: Based on the measured data, 2560x1440 with High settings provides an excellent balance at 137 FPS average. At 1080p, the combo exceeds 190 FPS on High, but 1440p offers a sharper image while still maintaining high frame rates. At 4K, only Low settings exceed 120 FPS, so 1440p is the practical sweet spot for quality and speed.

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

A: Yes, but with caveats. At 4K Low, the average FPS is 127, which is smooth. At 4K Medium, the average drops to 104 FPS with a minimum of 89, still playable. However, 4K High averages 85 FPS and 4K Ultra averages just 53 FPS, so high-fidelity 4K gaming is not viable for this pairing.

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

A: The Intel Core Ultra X9 388H has an average benchmark score of 44466, which is 0.2% lower than the AMD Ryzen 5 7500X3D's 44573, 0.3% higher than the Intel Core i9-13950HX's 44342, 0.4% higher than the AMD Ryzen AI Max 385's 44309, and 0.5% higher than the Intel Core i5-13600's 44240. Performance is essentially within a margin of error across these chips.

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

A: The RTX 4080 has an average benchmark score of 54247, which is 0.1% higher than the RTX 4080 SUPER's 54209, 1.1% lower than the AMD Radeon Pro W5700X's 54828, 2.6% lower than the AMD Radeon RX 6750 GRE 12 GB's 55698, and 2.7% lower than the AMD Radeon 8060S's 55757. The GPU is competitive but not dominant among its closest competitors.

Q: Does the GPU bottleneck the CPU in Downfall?

A: The data suggests the opposite. At 1080p, the combo achieves 287 FPS on Low, which is likely CPU-limited given the high frame rates. At 4K Ultra, the 53 FPS average indicates the GPU is the bottleneck. Therefore, the limiting component shifts from CPU at 1080p to GPU at 4K Ultra, with 1440p representing a balanced zone.

Q: What is the combo's overall ranking?

A: The combo ranks 1219 out of 3716 tested combinations in Downfall. This places it in the top third of all tested systems, reflecting strong but not elite performance. The individual component percentiles (CPU at 88, GPU at 86) are higher than the combo rank, indicating the game may not fully utilize both components' potential simultaneously.

# Settings Recommendations

The measured FPS data provides clear guidance for optimal settings at each resolution. At 1920x1080, all settings produce playable frame rates, but Ultra at 120 FPS is the most visually intensive option that still exceeds 100 FPS. For users prioritizing maximum smoothness, Low at 287 FPS is unnecessary for most displays, so High at 192 FPS or Medium at 235 FPS offer the best balance of quality and speed. Given that Medium shows a minimum of 199 FPS, it is a safe recommendation for competitive play or high-refresh displays.

At 2560x1440, the recommendation shifts to High settings, which average 137 FPS. This provides a significant visual upgrade over Medium's 168 FPS while still maintaining frame rates well above 60. Ultra at 86 FPS is acceptable for slower-paced horror gameplay, but the drop from High is substantial. Medium at 168 FPS with a 142 FPS minimum is the choice for those who prioritize frame consistency over visual fidelity, making it a strong alternative.

At 3840x2160, the options are more constrained. Low settings average 127 FPS, which is the only configuration that comfortably exceeds 120 FPS at 4K. Medium at 104 FPS with an 89 FPS minimum is the recommended setting for 4K, as it provides better visuals while maintaining a smooth experience. High at 85 FPS is playable but may exhibit occasional dips below 60 in demanding scenes. Ultra at 53 FPS is not recommended for 4K, as it falls below the 60 FPS threshold that most users consider the minimum for a smooth horror experience.

For the best overall experience, the data points to 1440p High as the optimal configuration. It delivers 137 FPS average, which is smooth on 120 Hz and 144 Hz displays, while the visual quality exceeds what is achievable at 1080p. Users with 4K displays should select Medium settings to balance frame rate and fidelity, accepting the 104 FPS average as the price of higher resolution.

# Resolution Scaling

The measured FPS across resolutions reveals how the combo scales with pixel count. From 1080p to 1440p, the average FPS drops by 55 at Low settings (287 to 205), 67 at Medium (235 to 168), 55 at High (192 to 137), and 34 at Ultra (120 to 86). The percentage reductions are 19.2% for Low, 28.5% for Medium, 28.6% for High, and 28.3% for Ultra. This consistency across settings suggests the scaling from 1080p to 1440p is primarily resolution-driven, with the GPU and CPU both contributing to the decline.

From 1440p to 4K, the drops are more pronounced. Low settings fall from 205 to 127 FPS, a 38.0% reduction. Medium falls from 168 to 104, a 38.1% reduction. High falls from 137 to 85, a 38.0% reduction. Ultra falls from 86 to 53, a 38.4% reduction. The near-identical percentage drops across all settings indicate that the GPU is the limiting factor at these resolutions, as the CPU's performance becomes less relevant when the GPU is processing more pixels.

The overall scaling from 1080p to 4K shows reductions of 55.7% for Low (287 to 127), 55.7% for Medium (235 to 104), 55.7% for High (192 to 85), and 55.8% for Ultra (120 to 53). This remarkable consistency suggests a well-behaved scaling pattern where the GPU's rendering load increases predictably with resolution. The fact that all settings show approximately the same percentage drop indicates that neither the CPU nor memory bandwidth introduces unexpected bottlenecks as resolution increases.

The data reveals that this combo is well-balanced for 1080p and 1440p gaming, with the CPU capable of feeding the GPU at high frame rates. At 4K, the GPU becomes the clear bottleneck, as evidenced by the 38% drop from 1440p to 4K across all settings. This suggests that users with 4K displays should prioritize GPU-bound settings, while those at 1080p can push higher settings without worrying about CPU limitations. The 53 FPS at 4K Ultra is the only configuration that falls below 60 FPS, indicating that this combo's practical ceiling is 4K Medium for smooth gameplay.