Greedfall

Greedfall, an Action RPG from 2019, presents a challenging environment for the AMD Ryzen AI Max+ 395 and AMD Radeon 760M combination. The benchmark data shows this combo ranks at 2929 out of 2938 tested combos, placing it in the bottom percentile of systems evaluated. This pairing, featuring a high-end 16-core CPU paired with an integrated GPU, struggles significantly to deliver playable frame rates, with the data indicating that the Radeon 760M is the primary bottleneck across all tested configurations.

How This Combo Ranks

The combo's overall rank of 2929 out of 2938 is a clear verdict: this is one of the weakest performing combinations in the database for this specific game. To contextualize this, the Radeon 760M itself sits in the 35th percentile among all GPUs, while the Ryzen AI Max+ 395 is an exceptionally powerful processor, ranking in the 95th percentile among all CPUs. This extreme disparity in relative performance creates a massive imbalance where the CPU's capabilities are largely untapped, and the GPU's limitations dictate the gaming experience.

Benchmark results for the individual components further illustrate the gap. The CPU posts an average benchmark score of 77740, which is statistically near its closest rivals. It is a mere 1.6% faster than the AMD Ryzen Threadripper PRO 9945WX and the AMD EPYC Embedded 8224P, and only 2% faster than the AMD Ryzen 9 8945HX. It trails the Intel Core i9-14900K by 1.7%. These are marginal differences, confirming the CPU is a high-performance part. In stark contrast, the GPU's average benchmark score of 6019 is nearly identical to its nearest rivals, such as the AMD Radeon RX 6400 (faster by 0.3%) and the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 770M (faster by 0.3%), while it is only 0.4% behind the NVIDIA RTX PRO 6000 Blackwell Server and 0.5% ahead of the NVIDIA Quadro P2000. This places the GPU firmly in entry-level territory, a classification that is consistent with its in-game performance.

The in-game data confirms that the CPU's power is irrelevant to the final outcome. At every resolution and settings preset, the frame rates are dominated by the GPU's workload. The fact that the combo still ranks in the bottom 1% of all tested combinations, despite having a top-tier CPU, is definitive proof that the Radeon 760M is the limiting factor. The experience is not that of a balanced system but of a powerful processor being held back by an integrated graphics solution that is out of its depth in this title.

FAQ

Q: What is the overall rank of this CPU and GPU combination for Greedfall?

A: The AMD Ryzen AI Max+ 395 and AMD Radeon 760M combo ranks 2929 out of 2938 tested combinations, placing it in the bottom fraction of all systems tested for this game.

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

A: The CPU's average benchmark score is 77740, making it 1.6% faster than both the AMD Ryzen Threadripper PRO 9945WX and the AMD EPYC Embedded 8224P, and 2% faster than the AMD Ryzen 9 8945HX. It is 1.7% slower than the Intel Core i9-14900K.

Q: What is the best average FPS the combo can achieve at 1920x1080 resolution?

A: The highest average frame rate is 52 FPS, which is achieved at the Low settings preset. The Medium preset yields 41 FPS, and High settings produce 37 FPS.

Q: Is the game playable at 2560x1440 resolution?

A: The data shows that at 2560x1440, the highest average frame rate is 36 FPS on Low settings. High and Medium settings produce 26 FPS and 28 FPS respectively, while Ultra drops to 16 FPS. These averages suggest that even at lower settings, the experience would be below the smoothness generally expected for a playable frame rate.

Q: How does the GPU's benchmark score compare to its closest competitors?

A: The AMD Radeon 760M has an average benchmark score of 6019. This is 0.3% higher than the AMD Radeon RX 6400 and NVIDIA GeForce GTX 770M, and 0.4% higher than the NVIDIA RTX PRO 6000 Blackwell Server. It is 0.5% lower than the NVIDIA Quadro P2000.

Q: What is the performance difference between the Low and Ultra presets at 1920x1080?

A: At 1920x1080, the Low preset delivers an average of 52 FPS, while the Ultra preset delivers an average of 24 FPS. This represents a significant drop of 28 FPS when moving from the lowest to the highest quality settings.

Resolution Scaling

The measured frame rates reveal a steep and consistent performance penalty as resolution increases, which is a clear indicator that the AMD Radeon 760M is the limiting component. The data shows a predictable pattern: for every settings preset, the average FPS drops substantially when moving from 1920x1080 to 2560x1440, and then again from 2560x1440 to 3840x2160.

At the High preset, the average frame rate falls from 37 FPS at 1080p to 26 FPS at 1440p, a reduction of 11 FPS. Moving to 4K, it plummets further to 15 FPS, a 22 FPS drop from the 1080p figure. This scaling behavior is typical of a GPU that is hitting its memory bandwidth or shading throughput limits. The CPU, which is exceptionally powerful, is not the cause of this decline, as its performance is constant regardless of resolution. The bottleneck is purely on the rendering side.

The Low preset shows the same trend, dropping from 52 FPS at 1080p to 36 FPS at 1440p and finally to 21 FPS at 4K. Even with the lowest graphical demands, the GPU cannot maintain acceptable performance at higher resolutions. The fact that the 4K results are all in the teens or lower (15 FPS on High, 17 FPS on Medium, 21 FPS on Low, and 10 FPS on Ultra) confirms that this resolution is simply not viable for this combination. The scaling factor from 1080p to 4K is roughly a 2.5x to 3x reduction in frame rate, which is a heavier penalty than would be expected if the CPU were a co-equal partner in the rendering process. This heavy drop-off is the signature of a GPU that is overwhelmed by the pixel count.

Measured FPS Breakdown

The benchmark data provides a clear picture of the system's capabilities across three resolutions and four quality presets. The results are consistently low, indicating a challenging gaming experience for this title.

At 3840x2160, all presets result in unplayable frame rates. The Low preset averages 21 FPS, which is the best result at this resolution. Medium settings average 17 FPS, with a minimum of 14 FPS and a maximum of 19 FPS. High settings average 15 FPS, and the Ultra preset averages just 10 FPS. No preset at this resolution approaches a playable threshold.

At 2560x1440, the situation improves slightly but remains below ideal playability. The Low preset is the only one to break the 30 FPS mark, averaging 36 FPS. Medium settings average 28 FPS, with a range of 24 FPS to 32 FPS. The High preset averages 26 FPS, and Ultra drops to an average of 16 FPS. These numbers suggest that even at a mid-range resolution, the system is only capable of a playable experience on the lowest settings, and even then, it may feel inconsistent.

At 1920x1080, the system finally shows some capability, though it is still limited. The Low preset averages 52 FPS, which is the only result that can be considered comfortably playable. Medium settings average 41 FPS, with a minimum of 35 FPS and a maximum of 47 FPS, which is a playable range for many, though it may dip in demanding scenes. High settings average 37 FPS. The Ultra preset averages 24 FPS, which is a significant drop and is generally considered not smooth enough for a responsive experience. The data shows a clear hierarchy: 1080p Low is the only configuration that provides a consistently smooth experience, with 1080p Medium and High being borderline.

Settings Recommendations

Based on the measured FPS data, the optimal configuration for this combo is 1920x1080 with the Low preset, which yields an average of 52 FPS. This is the only setting that consistently provides a frame rate above 50 FPS, which is a good target for a smooth experience. The Medium preset at the same resolution averages 41 FPS, which is also playable, but the 11 FPS drop from Low may not be worth the visual upgrade given the already low baseline.

The data indicates that the Ultra preset is not a viable option. At 1080p, it averages only 24 FPS, which is a 28 FPS reduction compared to Low. This is a drastic performance penalty for what would likely be a marginal visual improvement on an integrated GPU. At higher resolutions, the Ultra preset is even less viable, with averages of 16 FPS at 1440p and 10 FPS at 4K. These frame rates are essentially a slideshow.

For users who prioritize visual fidelity over smoothness, the High preset at 1080p (37 FPS) is the highest quality option that remains within the bounds of playability, though it will be noticeably less fluid than Low or Medium. The Medium preset at 1080p appears to be the best compromise, offering a moderate visual step up from Low with an average of 41 FPS and a minimum of 35 FPS, which suggests it can hold a playable frame rate in most situations. However, the data ultimately supports that to get the best experience, one must sacrifice visual quality and lower the resolution to 1080p, and in most cases, also lower the settings to Low.

CPU Role

The AMD Ryzen AI Max+ 395 is a formidable processor on paper, with 16 cores, 32 threads, and a boost clock of 5.10 GHz. It features a large 64 MB shared L3 cache and supports quad-channel LPDDR5X memory with a bandwidth of 256.0 GB/s. Its benchmark scores are exceptional, with a Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 35314 and a Geekbench multi-core score of 20992. In the context of Greedfall, however, this power is largely irrelevant.

The measured FPS data shows that the system's performance is entirely constrained by the GPU. The Ryzen AI Max+ 395 is capable of far more work than the Radeon 760M can feed it. This is evident in the fact that the frame rates scale almost exclusively with resolution and graphics settings, which are GPU-bound tasks. A CPU bottleneck would manifest as frame rates that plateau or become inconsistent regardless of resolution, which is not the case here. Instead, the frame rates drop consistently as the GPU workload increases.

The CPU's role in this configuration is to prepare frames for the GPU, but the GPU is unable to keep up. The integrated Radeon 760M, with its 512 shading units and 5.323 TFLOPS of FP32 performance, is the definitive limiting factor. The data from the CPU's nearest rivals, such as being 2% faster than the AMD Ryzen 9 8945HX, shows that the CPU is performing as expected for its class. The problem is not that the CPU is slow, but that the system's graphics solution is too weak to deliver a good gaming experience. In this specific game, the CPU's high core count and clock speeds provide no benefit, as the bottleneck is firmly on the graphics rendering side. The powerful processor is essentially idle, waiting for the integrated GPU to finish its work.