Greedfall

The AMD Ryzen 9 5950X and AMD Radeon RX 6700 XT combination delivers a highly capable Greedfall experience, with performance that scales predictably across resolutions and presets. The data shows a system that excels at 1080p and 1440p, while 4K requires careful settings management to maintain smooth framerates. This analysis breaks down the measured results, contextualizes them against known rival components, and provides actionable recommendations based strictly on the observed FPS data.

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

The AMD Ryzen 9 5950X is a 16-core, 32-thread processor built on the Zen 3 (Vermeer) architecture, using a 7 nm process from TSMC. It operates with a base clock of 3.40 GHz and a boost clock of 4.90 GHz, and it is unlocked for multiplier adjustments. The CPU features a substantial 64 MB of L3 cache, with 512 KB of L2 and 64 KB of L1 per core, and it supports DDR4 memory in a dual-channel configuration with 51.2 GB/s of bandwidth.

In synthetic benchmarks, this processor demonstrates enormous multithreaded headroom, scoring 26017 in Cinebench R23 multicore and 11597 in 3DMark max threads. Its single-thread performance is also strong, with a Cinebench R23 single-core score of 1614 and a 3DMark single-thread score of 944. These figures place the 5950X in the 91st percentile of all CPUs, with an average benchmark score of 51947. Its nearest rivals in aggregate score are the Intel Core Ultra 5 235HX (52073, delta -0.2%), the AMD EPYC 8124P (52121, delta -0.3%), the Intel Core i9-13900F (51730, delta 0.4%), and the Intel Core i7-14700 (52301, delta -0.7%). The 5950X effectively trades blows with these parts, landing within a 1% band of each.

For Greedfall, an Action RPG, the CPU’s role is primarily to maintain a stable frame delivery pipeline, especially at lower resolutions where the GPU is not saturated. The measured FPS data shows that at 1080p Low, the system reaches 182 FPS average, which is the highest recorded value in the entire dataset. This indicates that the 5950X’s strong single-core performance (3DMark single-thread score of 944, PassMark single-thread score of 3470) is more than sufficient to drive the game engine at high frame rates. The extreme multicore capability (45424 PassMark multithread score) is likely underutilized in this title, but the high boost clock ensures that the game’s primary threads have access to fast, responsive execution.

The processor’s 32 threads do not appear to be a bottleneck in any tested configuration. Even at 1080p Ultra, where the frame rate drops to 83 FPS, the limiting factor is clearly the GPU, not the CPU. The benchmark results indicate that the 5950X provides a stable foundation, allowing the RX 6700 XT to operate at its full potential without introducing frame pacing issues or sudden dips that would be visible in the minimum FPS data (where provided, e.g., 122 FPS at 1080p Medium).

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

The AMD Radeon RX 6700 XT is built on the RDNA 2.0 architecture (Navi 22 chip) using a 7 nm process. It features 2560 shading units, 160 texture mapping units, and 64 ROPs, along with 40 ray accelerators. Its clock speeds include a base of 2321 MHz, a game clock of 2424 MHz, and a boost clock of 2581 MHz. The memory subsystem consists of 12 GB of GDDR6 on a 192-bit bus, providing 384.0 GB/s of bandwidth. The GPU supports DirectX 12 Ultimate, OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4.

In synthetic benchmarks, the RX 6700 XT scores 19786 in PassMark G3D and 44152 in Geekbench OpenCL, placing it in the 72nd percentile of all GPUs with an average benchmark score of 27425. Its nearest rivals include the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4070 Mobile (27435, delta 0%), the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3090 (27565, delta -0.5%), the NVIDIA RTX PRO 4000 Blackwell (27135, delta 1.1%), and the AMD Radeon Pro Vega 20 (27839, delta -1.5%). This places the RX 6700 XT in a competitive position, essentially matching the performance of much higher-tier products in aggregate terms.

For Greedfall, the GPU’s 12 GB VRAM is a critical asset. The measured FPS data shows that at 4K Ultra, the average frame rate collapses to 34 FPS, while at 4K High it holds at 54 FPS. This steep drop suggests that the Ultra preset likely pushes memory capacity and bandwidth to their limits, causing significant performance degradation. The 384.0 GB/s bandwidth is adequate for 1440p High (90 FPS) and 1080p High (130 FPS), but the 4K resolution with Ultra settings demands more than what the card can efficiently deliver. The boost clock of 2581 MHz helps maintain performance at lower settings, where the GPU is less constrained by memory pressure.

The data shows a clear pattern: the RX 6700 XT is a strong 1440p-class card, delivering 90 FPS at High settings and 126 FPS at Low settings in that resolution. At 1080p, it is exceptionally fast, exceeding 180 FPS at Low. The 4K results are playable only at Low (75 FPS) or Medium (59 FPS) settings, indicating that the card’s compute and memory resources are insufficient for the highest fidelity at that resolution.

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

Examining the measured FPS across resolutions reveals a classic GPU-bound scaling pattern, with the CPU providing ample headroom at all times. At High settings, the average FPS drops from 130 at 1080p to 90 at 1440p, a reduction of 40 FPS, and then to 54 at 4K, a further reduction of 36 FPS. This linear progression indicates that the GPU is the primary limiting component, as the workload scales with pixel count.

At Low settings, the scaling is similar but with higher absolute values: 182 FPS at 1080p, 126 FPS at 1440p, and 75 FPS at 4K. The percentage drop from 1080p to 1440p is approximately 31%, and from 1440p to 4K is approximately 40%. This consistent degradation across settings confirms that the RX 6700 XT’s rendering throughput is the bottleneck, not the CPU or memory subsystem.

The Ultra preset shows the most severe scaling, with 83 FPS at 1080p, 57 FPS at 1440p, and 34 FPS at 4K. The drop from 1440p to 4K is a 40% reduction, similar to the Low preset, but the absolute values are much lower. This suggests that Ultra settings introduce additional computational load (likely effects, shadows, and draw distances) that disproportionately taxes the GPU at higher resolutions. The fact that 4K Ultra yields only 34 FPS, while 1080p Ultra yields 83 FPS, indicates that the card’s fillrate and shading capabilities are overwhelmed when both resolution and fidelity are maxed out.

The limiting component is unambiguously the GPU. The Ryzen 9 5950X’s benchmark scores—particularly its 3DMark 16-thread score of 10810 and Cinebench R23 multicore of 26017—show a processor with far more capability than what Greedfall’s frame delivery requires. Even at 1080p Low, where the system reaches 182 FPS, the CPU does not appear to constrain the result, as the GPU is still providing substantial frame output. The data supports a configuration where the CPU is overqualified for this title, ensuring that all performance variations are attributable to the graphics card.

FAQ

Q: What is the best resolution for this combo to achieve a 60 FPS average in Greedfall?

A: The data shows that 1440p High achieves 90 FPS, 1440p Medium achieves 99 FPS, and 1440p Low achieves 126 FPS, all comfortably above 60 FPS. At 4K, only Low (75 FPS) and Medium (59 FPS) exceed or nearly meet 60 FPS. Therefore, 1440p is the optimal resolution for consistently high frame rates across all settings.

Q: How does the Ryzen 9 5950X compare to its nearest rival, the Intel Core i9-13900F?

A: The 5950X has an average benchmark score of 51947, while the Core i9-13900F scores 51730, giving the AMD part a 0.4% lead. This is a negligible difference, indicating that the two CPUs are effectively equivalent in overall processing capability for this game.

Q: Is the RX 6700 XT more similar in performance to the RTX 3090 or the RTX 4070 Mobile?

A: The RX 6700 XT (avg score 27425) is virtually identical to the RTX 4070 Mobile (27435, delta 0%). It is slightly behind the RTX 3090 (27565, delta -0.5%). The data suggests that the desktop 6700 XT performs on par with the mobile 4070, while the 3090 holds a marginal 0.5% advantage.

Q: What is the FPS difference between 1080p Ultra and 4K Ultra settings?

A: At 1080p Ultra, the average FPS is 83. At 4K Ultra, the average FPS drops to 34. This represents a 59% reduction in frame rate, highlighting the extreme load that 4K resolution places on the GPU when combined with maximum settings.

Q: Does the CPU bottleneck the GPU at 1080p Low settings?

A: No. The measured FPS at 1080p Low is 182, which is the highest in the dataset. The 5950X’s single-thread score of 3470 in PassMark and 944 in 3DMark indicates it has sufficient headroom to feed the GPU at this rate without becoming a limiting factor.

Q: Which settings preset at 1440p provides the highest minimum FPS?

A: The only preset with a reported minimum FPS at 1440p is Medium, with a minimum of 84 FPS and a maximum of 114 FPS. This indicates that Medium settings at 1440p offer a stable frame delivery window without significant dips.

Measured FPS Breakdown

The measured data provides a comprehensive view of performance across three resolutions and four settings presets. At 1920x1080, the system achieves its highest frame rates, with Low settings producing an average of 182 FPS. Medium settings yield 143 FPS (minimum 122, maximum 164), High settings yield 130 FPS, and Ultra settings yield 83 FPS. The progression from Low to Ultra shows a steady decline, with Ultra being roughly 45% slower than Low.

At 2560x1440, the frame rates remain strong, with Low averaging 126 FPS, Medium averaging 99 FPS (minimum 84, maximum 114), High averaging 90 FPS, and Ultra averaging 57 FPS. The drop from High to Ultra at 1440p is substantial, representing a 37% reduction, which suggests that Ultra settings carry a heavy performance penalty at this resolution.

At 3840x2160, the system’s limitations become apparent. Low settings average 75 FPS, which is the only preset to exceed 60 FPS at this resolution. Medium averages 59 FPS (minimum 50, maximum 68), High averages 54 FPS, and Ultra averages 34 FPS. The data shows that 4K requires significant settings compromises to maintain playable frame rates, with Ultra being nearly half the speed of Low.

The minimum and maximum FPS data, where available, indicate stable performance. At 1080p Medium, the range is 122-164 FPS, showing a tight band that suggests consistent frame delivery. At 1440p Medium, the range is 84-114 FPS, and at 4K Medium, the range is 50-68 FPS. These ranges imply that the GPU does not experience major stutters or frame drops within a given preset, although the margin between minimum and maximum grows at higher resolutions.

Settings Recommendations

Based on the measured FPS data, the optimal experience for this combo depends on the target resolution. For 1080p users, the High preset at 130 FPS offers an excellent balance, providing a significant improvement over Medium (143 FPS) in quality while still maintaining a very high frame rate. The Ultra preset at 83 FPS is also viable for those prioritizing visual fidelity, as it remains above 60 FPS and delivers the maximum graphical features.

For 1440p, the High preset at 90 FPS is the strongest recommendation, as it delivers well over 60 FPS while providing solid visual quality. The Medium preset at 99 FPS offers even more headroom, making it a better choice for users with high-refresh-rate monitors. The Ultra preset at 57 FPS falls just below 60 FPS, which may be acceptable for some but risks occasional dips in demanding scenes. Low settings at 126 FPS are unnecessary unless absolute maximum frame rates are desired.

For 4K, the data strongly suggests using Low settings (75 FPS) or Medium settings (59 FPS) to maintain playable performance. High (54 FPS) and Ultra (34 FPS) are not recommended, as they fail to provide a smooth experience. Medium at 4K offers a reasonable compromise, with a minimum FPS of 50 and a maximum of 68, though users seeking a completely stable 60 FPS should opt for Low.

The best overall experience per the measured rows is 1440p High, which provides 90 FPS average with a substantial visual upgrade over lower presets. This configuration leverages the RX 6700 XT’s strengths without pushing it to its limits, and it is far above the 60 FPS threshold for smooth gameplay. For users with 4K displays, Low settings are the only option that guarantees a consistent frame rate above 60 FPS.

How This Combo Ranks

The AMD Ryzen 9 5950X and AMD Radeon RX 6700 XT combination ranks 1938 out of 3703 tested combos in Greedfall, placing it in the 52nd percentile of all systems tested. This mid-pack ranking reflects the balance between the high-end CPU and the mid-to-high-end GPU. The 5950X’s 91st percentile CPU score is offset by the RX 6700 XT’s 72nd percentile GPU score, resulting in a combined ranking that is near the median of all test configurations.

The ranking suggests that while the CPU is overkill for this title, the GPU provides adequate but not exceptional performance. Many combos with lower-tier CPUs but higher-tier GPUs would likely rank higher, as Greedfall appears to be GPU-limited in most scenarios, as evidenced by the resolution scaling analysis. Conversely, combos with similar GPUs but weaker CPUs might rank lower, highlighting the 5950X’s contribution to maintaining consistent frame delivery.

In the context of its nearest rivals, the RX 6700 XT’s performance is closely matched with the RTX 4070 Mobile (delta 0%) and the RTX 3090 (delta -0.5%). This means that a combo featuring an RTX 3090 would likely achieve a similar ranking, provided the CPU is comparable. The CPU’s nearest rivals, such as the Intel Core i7-14700 (delta -0.7%), would also produce similar overall results, given the nearly identical aggregate scores.

The combo’s rank of 1938 out of 3703 indicates that it is a solid, dependable configuration for Greedfall, capable of handling the game at high settings across 1080p and 1440p, with playable performance at 4K on lower presets. It does not reach the top tier of performance, but it sits comfortably above the bottom half of tested systems, offering a well-rounded experience that aligns with its component specifications.