Greedfall

The AMD Ryzen 5 5600G and AMD Radeon RX 9060 pairing delivers a playable but inconsistent experience in Greedfall, with the CPU’s 6-core/12-thread Zen 3 architecture proving sufficient for the game’s logic while the GPU’s 8 GB VRAM and RDNA 4.0 architecture become the primary bottleneck at higher resolutions. This analysis examines the measured frame rates across three resolutions and four quality presets, revealing a component pairing that excels at 1080p but struggles to maintain smooth performance at 4K.

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

The Ryzen 5 5600G is a 6-core, 12-thread processor based on the Zen 3 architecture, running on the AMD Socket AM4 platform with a base clock of 3.90 GHz and a boost clock of 4.40 GHz. Its 16 MB of L3 cache and dual-channel DDR4 memory support with 51.2 GB/s bandwidth provide adequate data throughput for an Action RPG like Greedfall, which relies on consistent single-thread performance for game logic and AI calculations. The processor’s 3DMark single-thread score of 872 and Cinebench R23 single-core score of 1409 indicate solid per-core capability, while its multithreaded scores (Cinebench R23 multicore: 10551, Geekbench multicore: 8428) show it can handle background tasks without starving the game.

The CPU’s percentile ranking of 74 among all tested processors places it in the upper quartile, and its nearest rivals — the Intel Core i3-1220P (0.1% faster), Intel Core Ultra 7 256V (0.1% slower), AMD Ryzen 5 7530U (0.2% slower), and Intel Core Ultra 7 155U (0.4% slower) — all sit within a narrow performance band. This suggests the 5600G is neither a standout nor a weak link for Greedfall’s CPU demands. The data reveals that at 1080p Low settings, the combo achieves 167 FPS, which is nearly 3x the 4K Ultra result of 31 FPS, implying the CPU is not the limiting factor at lower resolutions. However, at 4K Ultra, the frame rate plummets to 31 FPS, and the CPU’s 12 threads are unlikely to be the cause given the game’s release in 2019 and its modest thread utilization.

The processor’s integrated Radeon Vega 7 graphics are irrelevant here since a discrete GPU is present, but the 5600G’s 65 W TDP and 7 nm process node mean it runs cool enough to avoid thermal throttling that could otherwise cap performance. The CPU’s 3DMark 16-thread score of 5451 and max-thread score of 5455 show near-linear scaling from 8 to 16 threads, indicating the processor can handle multi-threaded workloads, but Greedfall’s engine likely benefits more from the 4-thread score of 3258 and 8-thread score of 4694, which are moderate for modern standards. Benchmark results indicate the CPU side is never the primary constraint — the frame rate differences between Low and Ultra at any given resolution are more attributable to GPU load than CPU capability.

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

The measured FPS data provides a clear hierarchy of playability across settings and resolutions. At 1920x1080, the Low preset delivers 167 FPS, Medium 131 FPS, High 119 FPS, and Ultra 76 FPS. The jump from Ultra to High at 1080p is a 43 FPS gain (119 vs 76), which represents a 56% improvement in frame rate for what is typically a modest visual degradation. For players with 60 Hz displays, even the Ultra preset at 1080p (76 FPS) clears the threshold, but the High preset at 119 FPS offers nearly double the headroom for smoother motion and lower input latency.

At 2560x1440, the same pattern emerges: Low 116 FPS, Medium 91 FPS, High 83 FPS, and Ultra 53 FPS. The Medium preset at 91 FPS is the sweet spot for 1440p, as it stays comfortably above 60 FPS while High (83 FPS) and Low (116 FPS) bracket it. The Ultra preset at 53 FPS dips below the 60 FPS line, making it suboptimal for competitive or fast-paced play. The 3840x2160 results are more constrained: Low 69 FPS, Medium 54 FPS, High 49 FPS, and Ultra 31 FPS. At 4K, only the Low preset maintains a playable 60+ FPS average, while Medium and High hover in the 49-54 FPS range, which is acceptable for a slower-paced RPG but not ideal for smooth camera movement.

The data suggests the best experience per the measured rows is the High preset at 1080p: 119 FPS average with no reported minimums below playability, versus Ultra’s 76 FPS which, while playable, sacrifices 43 FPS for marginal visual gains. At 1440p, Medium at 91 FPS with a minimum of 77 FPS provides the most consistent experience, as the minimum never drops below 60 FPS. At 4K, Low at 69 FPS is the only preset that avoids the sub-60 FPS territory — all other presets fall below, with Ultra at 31 FPS being nearly unplayable for action sequences. The Medium presets at each resolution show the measured minimums: 112 FPS at 1080p, 77 FPS at 1440p, and 46 FPS at 4K, revealing that 4K Medium can experience notable frame dips.

FAQ — 4-6 Q&A pairs answerable from FACT PACK data

*Q: Can this combo run Greedfall at 60 FPS on a 4K display?*

A: Only at Low settings, where the average FPS is 69. Medium drops to 54 FPS, High to 49 FPS, and Ultra to 31 FPS, so consistent 60 FPS at 4K is not achievable with this pairing.

Q: What is the frame rate difference between 1080p and 1440p at High settings?

A: At 1080p High, the combo averages 119 FPS, while at 1440p High it averages 83 FPS — a 36 FPS reduction, or approximately 30% lower performance when moving up one resolution tier.

Q: How does the Ultra preset compare to High at 1440p?

A: Ultra at 1440p averages 53 FPS, which is 30 FPS lower than High’s 83 FPS. This 36% drop suggests the Ultra preset adds significant GPU load without a proportional visual benefit.

*Q: Is the Ryzen 5 5600G a bottleneck for this GPU in Greedfall?*

A: The data does not indicate a CPU bottleneck. At 1080p Low, the combo reaches 167 FPS, and the CPU’s percentile rank of 74 with near-identical rivals (within 0.4%) suggests it is not limiting performance.

Q: What is the lowest average FPS recorded across all tested configurations?

A: The lowest average is 31 FPS at 3840x2160 with Ultra settings. The next lowest is 49 FPS at 4K High, so the Ultra 4K preset is by far the most demanding configuration.

Q: How does the combo rank among all tested combinations for this game?

A: The combo ranks 1672 out of 2938 tested combos, placing it in the lower-middle portion of the database — approximately the 43rd percentile of all pairings tested for Greedfall.

How This Combo Ranks — use comboRankInGame vs other tested combos

The combo’s rank of 1672 out of 2938 tested combinations places it in the bottom 57% of all pairings evaluated for Greedfall. This ranking is somewhat surprising given the CPU’s upper-quartile percentile (74) and the GPU’s mid-range standing (59th percentile). The discrepancy between component-level rankings and the combined in-game rank suggests that Greedfall is particularly sensitive to GPU performance — the RX 9060’s 8 GB VRAM and 128-bit memory bus may be limiting factors that drag the combo down despite the capable CPU.

The GPU’s nearest rivals in synthetic benchmarks — the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3060 Ti (0.7% faster), AMD Radeon R9 370X (1% slower), AMD Radeon RX 7700 (1% slower), and AMD Radeon Pro W5500 (2.1% slower) — all occupy a similar performance tier, yet the RX 9060’s in-game results show it struggling at 4K Ultra (31 FPS), which is well below what a 60 FPS target would require. The combo rank of 1672 indicates that many pairings with older or less powerful components achieve better Greedfall performance, likely because the game’s engine favors higher VRAM capacities or wider memory buses over raw compute — the RX 9060’s 288.0 GB/s bandwidth and 8 GB GDDR6 may be insufficient for 4K textures.

The CPU’s near-identical rivals (all within 0.4% delta) mean the processor is not differentiating this combo from others. The ranking is therefore largely determined by the GPU’s performance characteristics, and the data shows that the RX 9060’s 21.43 TFLOPS FP32 compute and 64 ROPs are not translating into competitive frame rates at higher resolutions. This rank of 1672 out of 2938 suggests that buyers seeking Greedfall performance should look at pairings with GPUs that have larger memory pools or more memory bandwidth, even if their raw compute scores are similar.

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

The AMD Radeon RX 9060 is built on the RDNA 4.0 architecture with a 4 nm process node and features 8 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 128-bit bus, providing 288.0 GB/s of bandwidth. Its boost clock of 2990 MHz and game clock of 2400 MHz, combined with 1792 shading units, 112 TMUs, and 64 ROPs, deliver a theoretical FP32 performance of 21.43 TFLOPS. The GPU’s 28 ray tracing cores and DirectX 12 Ultimate support are modern features, but Greedfall (released in 2019) does not utilize ray tracing, so these capabilities are largely unused in this title.

The GPU’s percentile rank of 59 among all GPUs places it slightly above the median, yet its nearest rivals include the RTX 3060 Ti (0.7% faster) and RX 7700 (1% slower), indicating it is a mid-range performer. The measured FPS data reveals a clear pattern: at 1080p, the GPU delivers 76-167 FPS depending on settings, but at 4K, performance collapses to 31-69 FPS. This dramatic scaling suggests the 8 GB VRAM and 128-bit memory bus are insufficient for 4K textures, causing the GPU to either spill over into system memory or reduce texture quality, which explains the 49 FPS average at 4K High versus 83 FPS at 1440p High — a 41% drop.

The memory bandwidth of 288.0 GB/s is modest for 4K workloads, and the 128-bit bus width limits the data throughput needed for high-resolution rendering. The GPU’s pixel rate of 191.4 GPixel/s and texture rate of 334.9 GTexel/s are adequate for 1080p and 1440p, but at 4K, the fill rate requirements exceed what the 64 ROPs can efficiently deliver, particularly at Ultra settings where the 31 FPS average indicates severe fill-rate or bandwidth limitations. The 8 GB VRAM capacity is the most likely culprit for the Ultra preset’s poor performance, as Greedfall’s Ultra settings likely demand more than 8 GB at 4K, forcing the GPU to use slower memory fallbacks.

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

At 1920x1080, the measured average FPS across settings is: Low 167, Medium 131, High 119, Ultra 76. The Medium preset has a recorded minimum of 112 FPS and maximum of 151 FPS, providing a 39 FPS range that indicates some scene-to-scene variance but no problematic dips. The progression from Low to Ultra is not linear — Medium (131) is only 36 FPS below Low (167), while High (119) is 12 FPS below Medium, and Ultra (76) is 43 FPS below High. This suggests the Ultra preset introduces a significant rendering cost, likely from higher shadow quality or post-processing effects.

At 2560x1440, the averages are: Low 116, Medium 91, High 83, Ultra 53. The Medium preset’s minimum of 77 FPS and maximum of 105 FPS show a 28 FPS range, with the minimum still above 60 FPS. The transition from Low to Medium at 1440p costs 25 FPS (116 to 91), while High to Ultra costs 30 FPS (83 to 53), revealing that the Ultra preset is disproportionately expensive at this resolution. The High preset at 83 FPS is 30 FPS slower than 1080p High (119), indicating a 25% resolution-related performance hit.

At 3840x2160, the averages are: Low 69, Medium 54, High 49, Ultra 31. The Medium preset’s minimum of 46 FPS and maximum of 62 FPS show a 16 FPS range, with the minimum dipping below 50 FPS. The drop from Low (69) to Medium (54) is 15 FPS, Medium to High (49) is 5 FPS, and High to Ultra (31) is 18 FPS — the Ultra preset is nearly half the performance of Low. The 4K results show that the GPU is severely constrained, as even Low settings (69 FPS) barely reach 60+ FPS, and every other preset falls below that threshold.

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

The resolution scaling data reveals a clear pattern of GPU-bound performance. At High settings, the FPS progression is 119 (1080p) to 83 (1440p) to 49 (4K) — a 30% drop from 1080p to 1440p, then a 41% drop from 1440p to 4K. This accelerating decline indicates that the GPU is the limiting component, as a CPU-bound scenario would show smaller FPS differences between resolutions. The total drop from 1080p High to 4K High is 70 FPS, or 59% lower performance, which is typical for a GPU with limited memory bandwidth.

At Medium settings, the progression is 131 (1080p) to 91 (1440p) to 54 (4K), with percentage drops of 31% and 41% respectively. The consistency of these percentages (30-31% for the 1080p to 1440p step, 40-41% for the 1440p to 4K step) across both High and Medium settings strongly suggests a memory bandwidth or fill-rate limitation, rather than a compute limitation. If the GPU were compute-bound, the scaling would be more linear with the pixel count increase (2.25x from 1080p to 1440p, 4x to 4K), but the observed drops are larger than the pixel count increases would predict.

At Low settings, the scaling is 167 (1080p) to 116 (1440p) to 69 (4K) — drops of 31% and 41% again, confirming the pattern. The fact that even Low settings at 4K (69 FPS) cannot match Medium at 1080p (131 FPS) indicates that the GPU’s 8 GB VRAM and 288.0 GB/s bandwidth are fundamentally inadequate for 4K rendering in this title. The CPU’s role in this scaling is minimal, as the 5600G maintains high FPS at lower resolutions (167 FPS at 1080p Low) without showing signs of bottleneck — if the CPU were limiting, the 4K FPS would be closer to the 1080p FPS. The data implies that pairing this CPU with a GPU that has more VRAM or a wider memory bus would yield significantly better 4K performance, while the current combo is best suited for 1080p or 1440p gaming where the GPU’s limitations are less pronounced.