Greedfall

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

The measured data for Greedfall shows a clear and predictable scaling pattern as resolution climbs, with the AMD Radeon RX 9070 XT paired against the AMD Ryzen 5 3600. At 1080p with Low settings, the combo delivers 248.4 FPS average. Stepping up to 1440p Low drops that to 173 FPS, a 30% reduction, and at 4K Low the average falls further to 105.1 FPS. The pattern across all settings shows that Greedfall becomes progressively more GPU-bound at higher resolutions, which is typical for an Action RPG of this era.

The scaling from 1080p to 1440p at High settings is particularly telling: 176.6 FPS down to 119.5 FPS, a 32% drop. From 1440p to 4K at High, the average falls from 119.5 FPS to 72.8 FPS, a 39% reduction. This accelerating drop as resolution increases indicates that the RX 9070 XT's rendering pipeline — its 4096 shading units and 128 ROPs — is being pushed harder at 4K, while the Ryzen 5 3600's 6 cores and 12 threads have enough headroom to keep feeding frames at 1080p and even 1440p.

At Ultra settings, the picture changes. The 1080p Ultra average is 115.5 FPS, while 1440p Ultra manages 76.5 FPS, and 4K Ultra falls to 48 FPS. The 4K Ultra result is the only measured point below 60 FPS, and it represents a 58% drop from the 1080p Ultra figure. This steep decline at Ultra quality suggests that the combination of high-resolution rendering and maximum settings pushes the RX 9070 XT to its limits, with the 16 GB of GDDR6 memory and 644.6 GB/s bandwidth becoming a bottleneck for the most demanding preset.

The limiting component shifts based on resolution. At 1080p, the difference between Low and Ultra is 132.9 FPS (248.4 down to 115.5), which indicates the GPU is the primary constraint even at the lowest resolution. At 4K, the Low-to-Ultra gap narrows to 57.1 FPS (105.1 down to 48), reinforcing that the GPU's compute and memory subsystems are saturated. The Ryzen 5 3600, with a PassMark single-thread score of 2562 and a 3dmark single-thread score of 696, appears sufficient to avoid becoming the primary bottleneck in this title, as the FPS scaling tracks resolution changes rather than showing a flat ceiling.

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

The AMD Ryzen 5 3600 brings 6 cores and 12 threads based on the Zen 2 architecture, manufactured on TSMC's 7 nm process. Its base clock of 3.60 GHz and boost clock of 4.20 GHz place it as a mid-range desktop part from the 3000 series, with a 65 W TDP and support for DDR4 memory in dual-channel configuration. The 32 MB shared L3 cache is substantial for a 6-core part and helps with game workloads that reuse data across cores.

Benchmark results for this CPU show a multithreaded PassMark score of 17700 and a single-thread score of 2562, with a percentile ranking of 76 against all CPUs. The nearest rivals include the Intel Core i5-11400, which averages 18150 and sits just 0.1% behind the Ryzen 5 3600's average benchmark score of 18129. The AMD Ryzen 5 7535HS is 0.2% ahead at 18101, while the AMD Ryzen 5 1600 trails by 0.2% at 18158. These tiny deltas indicate that the Ryzen 5 3600 sits in a tightly contested performance band, with no single rival offering a meaningful advantage in general compute.

In Greedfall specifically, the CPU's role becomes apparent when comparing FPS across settings at the same resolution. At 1080p, the gap between Low (248.4 FPS) and Ultra (115.5 FPS) is 132.9 FPS, showing that even at the highest frame rates the CPU can push, the GPU still dictates the final output. The Cinebench R23 multicore score of 15045 and single-core score of 2124 suggest that the CPU's per-thread performance is adequate for a 2019-era Action RPG, which typically relies on a few heavily loaded threads for game logic and AI.

The fact that 4K Low still achieves 105.1 FPS indicates that the Ryzen 5 3600 is not holding back the RX 9070 XT at lower settings, even at high resolution. The CPU's 12 threads help maintain frame pacing during complex scenes, but the data does not show any resolution where the CPU becomes the clear limiting factor. The 3dmark 16-thread score of 4605 and 2-thread score of 1361 reinforce that the CPU scales well with thread count, which benefits games that can use multiple cores for background tasks.

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

The AMD Radeon RX 9070 XT is the dominant component in this pairing, built on the RDNA 4.0 architecture with the Navi 48 chip on a 4 nm process. It features 4096 shading units, 256 texture mapping units, and 128 ROPs, with a boost clock of 2970 MHz and a game clock of 2400 MHz. The 16 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 256-bit bus provides 644.6 GB/s of bandwidth, which is critical for high-resolution textures and effects.

The GPU's benchmark scores place it in the 82nd percentile against all GPUs, with a PassMark G3D score of 26795 and a 3dmark Steel Nomad DX12 score of 7260. Its average benchmark score of 39647 puts it in close competition with the AMD Radeon Pro 575, which scores 39703 and is just 0.1% ahead. The NVIDIA RTX A500 Mobile trails by 0.2% at 39568, while the AMD Radeon Pro 575X leads by 0.5% at 39836. These near-identical scores suggest that in synthetic benchmarks, the RX 9070 XT is performance-equivalent to those workstation parts, but in Greedfall the game-specific results tell a different story.

The measured FPS shows that the RX 9070 XT handles 1080p and 1440p with ease, exceeding 115 FPS even at Ultra settings for 1080p and 76.5 FPS at 1440p Ultra. At 4K, the GPU's limits become visible: Ultra drops to 48 FPS, which is below the 60 FPS target most players prefer. The 16 GB VRAM capacity is not exhausted at any measured setting, as the game's 2019 release date predates the massive texture demands of newer titles, but the 4K Ultra result suggests that the compute throughput — 48.66 TFLOPS FP32 — is the constraint rather than memory capacity.

The GPU's memory clocks run at 2518 MHz with 20.1 Gbps effective speed, contributing to the 644.6 GB/s bandwidth. At 4K, this bandwidth is taxed heavily, and the scaling from Low (105.1 FPS) to Medium (83.1 FPS) to High (72.8 FPS) to Ultra (48 FPS) shows a linear degradation that matches the increasing memory and shader workload. The RX 9070 XT's 64 ray tracing cores are present, but Greedfall does not heavily utilize ray tracing, so the traditional ROP and shader performance dominates.

FAQ

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

A: The data shows 1440p as the sweet spot. At High settings, the combo delivers 119.5 FPS, which is well above the 60 FPS threshold, and even Ultra settings maintain 76.5 FPS. At 4K, Ultra falls to 48 FPS, making it less viable for smooth gameplay.

Q: Does the Ryzen 5 3600 bottleneck the RX 9070 XT at 1080p?

A: The data does not indicate a CPU bottleneck. At 1080p Low, the combo hits 248.4 FPS, and the FPS scales consistently with settings changes. If the CPU were the limiter, the FPS would cluster around a ceiling regardless of settings; instead, the spread from 248.4 to 115.5 FPS across Low to Ultra shows GPU dominance.

Q: How much FPS do you lose going from 1080p to 4K at High settings?

A: At High settings, the average FPS drops from 176.6 at 1080p to 72.8 at 4K, a reduction of 103.8 FPS. This represents a 59% decrease, indicating that 4K High is significantly more demanding on the GPU.

Q: Is 4K Ultra playable with this hardware?

A: The measured average FPS at 4K Ultra is 48, which is below the 60 FPS standard for smooth play. While it is technically playable, the frame rate is not ideal for an Action RPG with combat mechanics. Dropping to High settings at 4K yields 72.8 FPS, which is a better experience.

Q: How does the RX 9070 XT compare to its nearest GPU rivals?

A: The RX 9070 XT has an average benchmark score of 39647. The AMD Radeon Pro 575 is 0.1% ahead at 39703, the NVIDIA RTX A500 Mobile is 0.2% behind at 39568, and the AMD Radeon Pro 575X is 0.5% ahead at 39836. These are near-identical scores, but in Greedfall the RX 9070 XT's game-specific results are what matter.

Q: What is the FPS difference between Low and Ultra at 1440p?

A: At 1440p, Low settings average 173 FPS, while Ultra averages 76.5 FPS. The difference is 96.5 FPS, showing that Ultra settings nearly halve the frame rate compared to Low at this resolution.

Settings Recommendations

For players targeting 60 FPS as a baseline, the data suggests that 4K High is the highest quality preset that maintains a comfortable margin, with 72.8 FPS average. At 4K Ultra, the 48 FPS average is below the 60 FPS threshold, so it is not recommended unless the player accepts lower frame rates. For 1440p, Ultra settings are viable at 76.5 FPS, making this the preferred resolution for maxing out visual quality without sacrificing smoothness.

At 1080p, all settings are playable, with even Ultra delivering 115.5 FPS, so the choice comes down to visual preference rather than performance necessity. The Medium preset at 1080p yields 195.5 FPS, which is vastly higher than what most displays can show, so High or Ultra is a better use of the GPU's headroom. The Low preset at 1080p hits 248.4 FPS, but this is only useful for competitive play or very high refresh rate monitors.

The best overall experience per the measured rows is 1440p Ultra, balancing the 76.5 FPS average with maximum visual fidelity. Players who prefer higher frame rates can drop to 1440p High for 119.5 FPS, which is still well above the 60 FPS threshold. At 4K, the recommendation is High settings at 72.8 FPS, as the jump to Ultra costs 24.8 FPS and pushes below the playable threshold.

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

At 1920x1080, the measured FPS averages are as follows: Low settings deliver 248.4 FPS, Medium delivers 195.5 FPS, High delivers 176.6 FPS, and Ultra delivers 115.5 FPS. The scaling from Low to Ultra shows a 132.9 FPS drop, with the largest single-step decline being from High to Ultra at 61.1 FPS. This suggests that Ultra settings introduce a significant load increase over High, likely from enhanced shadows, ambient occlusion, and post-processing effects.

At 2560x1440, the averages are: Low at 173 FPS, Medium at 136.2 FPS, High at 119.5 FPS, and Ultra at 76.5 FPS. The drop from Low to Ultra is 96.5 FPS, with the High-to-Ultra step again being the most severe at 43 FPS. Compared to 1080p, each setting sees a reduction of roughly 30%: Low drops by 75.4 FPS, Medium by 59.3 FPS, High by 57.1 FPS, and Ultra by 39 FPS. The smaller absolute drop at Ultra (39 FPS) indicates that the GPU is already heavily loaded at 1080p Ultra, so the incremental cost of higher resolution is less pronounced.

At 3840x2160, the averages are: Low at 105.1 FPS, Medium at 83.1 FPS, High at 72.8 FPS, and Ultra at 48 FPS. The total drop from Low to Ultra is 57.1 FPS, which is the smallest absolute gap across all resolutions. However, the percentage drop from Low to Ultra is 54%, which is the steepest relative decline, showing that Ultra settings at 4K are disproportionately demanding. The step from High to Ultra at 4K costs 24.8 FPS, bringing the average below the 60 FPS mark.

Across all resolutions, the pattern is consistent: the High-to-Ultra transition is the most costly in both absolute and relative terms. At 1080p, it costs 61.1 FPS; at 1440p, it costs 43 FPS; and at 4K, it costs 24.8 FPS. This indicates that Ultra settings are the primary performance lever, and players seeking higher frame rates should first reduce this preset before adjusting resolution. The data also shows that the combo is well-balanced, with the GPU scaling predictably across resolutions and the CPU maintaining sufficient throughput to avoid introducing frame rate plateaus.