Greedfall

Greedfall on the AMD Ryzen 5 8400F and AMD Radeon RX 6650 XT presents a clear performance hierarchy where the graphics card is the primary constraint at higher resolutions, while the CPU provides ample headroom at 1080p. The data shows a playable experience across most settings, but the step to 4K Ultra is a significant burden, dropping the frame rate to a level that is not ideal for smooth gameplay.

Resolution Scaling

The measured FPS data reveals a steep performance penalty as resolution increases, which is typical for a mid-range GPU like the RX 6650 XT. At 1080p High, the combo delivers 113 FPS, but moving to 1440p High reduces this to 78 FPS, a 31% drop. Pushing further to 4K High yields only 47 FPS, a 58% reduction from the 1080p result. This scaling pattern strongly indicates that the GPU is the limiting component; the workload on the graphics card increases exponentially with pixel count, and the RX 6650 XT's 8 GB of GDDR6 memory and 128-bit bus are challenged at higher resolutions.

The trend is consistent across all settings. For instance, with Low settings, the frame rate goes from 158 FPS at 1080p to 109 FPS at 1440p and finally to 65 FPS at 4K. The difference between 1080p and 1440p is a 31% reduction, while the jump from 1440p to 4K is a 40% reduction. This suggests that the GPU's compute and memory bandwidth are being saturated as the resolution climbs, and the Ryzen 5 8400F's six cores are not the bottleneck in this scenario.

The most telling evidence of GPU limitation is the performance collapse at 4K Ultra. Here, the average FPS falls to 30, a 58% drop from the 4K High result of 47 FPS. This is a larger relative penalty than seen at lower resolutions, where the difference between High and Ultra is 36% at 1440p (78 to 50 FPS) and 36% at 1080p (113 to 72 FPS). The 4K Ultra setting likely demands more than the GPU's texture fillrate and pixel throughput can manage, pushing the renderer into a state where it cannot maintain a fluid frame pacing.

The data shows that the CPU is not the primary constraint at any resolution. At 1080p Low, the combo achieves 158 FPS, which is a high frame rate that would require a capable CPU to feed. The Ryzen 5 8400F's strong single-thread performance, evidenced by its 3DMark single-thread score of 951 and Cinebench R23 single-core score of 2943, is sufficient to avoid dragging down the average at this resolution. If the CPU were the bottleneck, we would expect to see a smaller difference between the 1080p and 1440p results, but the consistent 30-40% drops show that the GPU is scaling as expected with resolution.

Furthermore, the minimum FPS data provided for Medium settings supports this analysis. At 1080p Medium, the minimum is 105 FPS, while at 1440p it drops to 73 FPS, and at 4K it falls to 44 FPS. The minimum frame rates are consistently above 30 FPS at 1080p and 1440p, indicating a stable experience, but at 4K Medium the minimum of 44 FPS suggests occasional dips that could be noticeable. The lack of a CPU bottleneck is also supported by the fact that the combo ranks in the 65th percentile for GPUs but the 77th percentile for CPUs, showing the processor is relatively stronger than the graphics card.

CPU Role

The AMD Ryzen 5 8400F is a six-core, twelve-thread processor based on the Zen 4 architecture. Its role in Greedfall is to handle game logic, physics, and draw calls, while the GPU renders the images. The benchmark data shows that this CPU is more than adequate for the task, as the frame rates are consistently limited by the GPU. At no point does the CPU appear to hold back the RX 6650 XT, even at 1080p where lower resolution puts more strain on the processor.

The CPU's performance profile is strong. Its Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 20851 places it in the 77th percentile of all CPUs, and its single-core score of 2943 is competitive. In synthetic benchmarks, it scores 951 in 3DMark single-thread and 6165 in 3DMark max threads. These results indicate a processor that can handle both lightly-threaded and heavily-threaded workloads without issue. The 4.2 GHz base and 4.7 GHz boost clocks provide high single-thread speed, which is crucial for games like Greedfall that may not be perfectly optimized for many cores.

The nearest CPU rivals confirm the 8400F's standing. It is 0.2% ahead of the AMD Ryzen 5 7500F in average benchmark score, and 0.3% ahead of the Intel Core i7-11850H. This places it in a performance tier where it can comfortably drive high-refresh-rate gaming. The 16 MB of shared L3 cache and dual-channel DDR5 memory support provide sufficient bandwidth for the CPU to feed the GPU with data.

In the context of this specific game, the CPU's 12 threads are likely sufficient. Greedfall, released in 2019, is not known for being a multi-threaded powerhouse, and the data suggests that the 8400F is never the bottleneck. The fact that the frame rate scales so predictably with resolution and settings is a clear sign that the CPU is not the limiting factor. If the CPU were weak, we would see a flat frame rate across resolutions, but that is not the case. The Ryzen 5 8400F's role is to provide a solid foundation, and it does so without any apparent performance ceilings.

FAQ

Q: What is the maximum average frame rate achievable with this combo?

A: The highest average FPS recorded is 158 at 1920x1080 with Low settings. This shows the CPU can push very high frame rates when the GPU workload is minimal.

Q: Can this combo handle 4K gaming?

A: Yes, but with compromises. At 4K High, the average FPS is 47, which is playable but not smooth for fast-paced action. At 4K Ultra, the average drops to 30 FPS, which is generally considered the minimum for acceptable playability. Lowering to 4K Medium yields 51 FPS, and 4K Low provides 65 FPS.

Q: How does the Ryzen 5 8400F compare to its closest rival, the Ryzen 5 7500F?

A: The 8400F is 0.2% faster in average benchmark score than the 7500F. This makes them effectively performance equivalents, with the 8400F having a negligible edge in synthetic tests.

Q: Is there a significant difference between High and Ultra settings at 1440p?

A: Yes, there is a 36% performance drop. High averages 78 FPS, while Ultra averages 50 FPS. The visual upgrade may not justify such a large frame rate cost for all users.

Q: What is the most demanding setting tested?

A: The most demanding configuration is 4K Ultra, which produces an average of 30 FPS. This is the only tested setting that falls below the 30 FPS threshold, indicating it is too heavy for this hardware.

Q: Does the GPU or CPU limit performance in this game?

A: The data shows the GPU is the limiting component. The frame rate drops dramatically as resolution increases, while the CPU's high benchmark scores and the consistent scaling pattern indicate it is not a bottleneck.

Measured FPS Breakdown

The measured results are presented as average FPS for each resolution and settings combination. Minimum and maximum values are only available for Medium settings.

At 1920x1080, the performance is strong across the board. Low settings produce an average of 158 FPS. High settings yield 113 FPS, which is excellent for a smooth experience. Medium settings offer 124 FPS, with a minimum of 105 FPS and a maximum of 143 FPS. Ultra is the most demanding preset, bringing the average down to 72 FPS.

At 2560x1440, the frame rates are lower but still playable. Low settings average 109 FPS. High settings drop to 78 FPS. Medium settings average 86 FPS, with a minimum of 73 FPS and a maximum of 99 FPS. Ultra settings reduce the average to 50 FPS, which is a substantial drop from High.

At 3840x2160, the GPU is clearly stressed. Low settings average 65 FPS. High settings average 47 FPS. Medium settings average 51 FPS, with a minimum of 44 FPS and a maximum of 59 FPS. Ultra settings are the most demanding, producing an average of just 30 FPS, which is at the edge of playability.

The data shows that the step from Medium to High has a moderate cost, while the jump from High to Ultra is more severe. For example, at 1440p, moving from High (78 FPS) to Ultra (50 FPS) is a 36% reduction, while moving from Medium (86 FPS) to High (78 FPS) is only a 9% reduction. This suggests that High is a more efficient setting than Ultra in terms of performance per frame.

How This Combo Ranks

This specific combination of the Ryzen 5 8400F and RX 6650 XT ranks 2408 out of 3703 tested combos for Greedfall. This places it in the lower half of the database, indicating that while it is a capable setup, many other hardware pairings deliver higher frame rates. The rank is a measure of overall performance, taking into account all tested settings and resolutions.

The ranking is influenced by the GPU's position in the market. The RX 6650 XT has an average benchmark score of 19765 and is in the 65th percentile of all GPUs. Its nearest rivals include the NVIDIA Tesla K40m, which is 0.6% faster, and the AMD FirePro D300, which is 0.7% slower. This shows the GPU is a mid-range part, and its performance in Greedfall is consistent with its overall standing.

The CPU's percentile is higher than the GPU's, with the 8400F in the 77th percentile. This suggests that the CPU is a stronger component relative to its peers than the GPU is. In this game, the CPU is not the limiting factor, so the combo's rank is primarily determined by the GPU's ability to render the game at various settings. The 2408th rank out of 3703 combos means that a majority of other tested systems will outperform this one in Greedfall, particularly at higher resolutions where the GPU is stressed.

The rank does not reflect a poor experience, however. The measured FPS at 1080p and 1440p are high, and even 4K is playable on lower settings. The rank is a relative measure, and this combo sits in a position that reflects its mid-range hardware. For users with a 1080p or 1440p monitor, this rank is not a concern, as the frame rates are well above playable thresholds.

Settings Recommendations

For a smooth and visually pleasing experience, the High preset at 1440p is the best balance. It produces an average of 78 FPS, which is well above the 60 FPS target, and the visual quality is significantly better than Low or Medium. The jump to Ultra only provides a marginal visual improvement but costs 28 FPS, making it less desirable.

At 1080p, High is the recommended setting for most users, delivering 113 FPS. This is ideal for high-refresh-rate monitors. For those with a 144Hz display, Low settings at 158 FPS could be used, but the visual trade-off is substantial. Medium at 124 FPS is a solid middle ground, but High provides a better image quality for only a 9% performance cost.

At 4K, the options are more constrained. High settings average 47 FPS, which is playable but may not feel smooth in combat. Low settings at 65 FPS provide a more fluid experience, but the visual fidelity is noticeably reduced. Medium settings at 51 FPS are a compromise, offering a better image than Low while still being playable. Ultra at 30 FPS should be avoided, as it is at the edge of playability and likely to cause noticeable stuttering in demanding scenes.

The data suggests that the High preset is the most efficient in terms of performance per visual quality cost. It is the sweet spot for this hardware across all resolutions. For users prioritizing frame rate over visuals, Low or Medium are viable, but they come with a significant drop in graphical detail. The Medium preset's minimum FPS data shows that it maintains a stable frame rate, with a minimum of 105 FPS at 1080p and 73 FPS at 1440p, making it a reliable choice for those who want a consistent experience without the highest settings.