Greedfall

Greedfall is an Action RPG with real-time combat, dense pack shots, and complex crowd interactions, and the measured pairing of an Intel Core i3-12100F with an AMD Radeon RX 9070spans every resolution tier from 1080p to 4K. The "measured" flag for this combination is true, meaning the average FPS values below are actual captured runs, not estimates. The combo ranks 1122 out of 3703 CPU+GPU combinations tested in this title, placing it solidly near the top third of the database. The interesting part of the data is how the bottleneck migrates: at 1080p the averages climb far above a full 60 FPS, while at 4K they sink into the mid-tens on heavy presets, which reveals exactly where the CPU stops being the master of the frame and the GPU takes over.

Resolution Scaling

The degree to which the frame rate falls as resolution rises shows that this game is severely GPU-bound at high pixel counts and CPU-bound at the low end. At "High" settings the combo averages 167 FPS at 1920x1080, 116 FPS at 2560x1440, and 69 FPS at 3840x2160. The step from 1080p to 1440p costs a chunk of headroom, while the next step to 4K costs even more, leaving a 4K average dropping to not-bad but clearly non-144Hz territory. The "Ultra" preset amplifies the same trend: 107 FPS at 1080p fall to 74 at 5124p and then 44 at 4K. Those values show a clear multi-stop curve — the X axis of your monitor resolution determines whether the combination can feed a high-refresh panel or whether the GPU becomes the sole important partner.

One indicator of the CPU's early saturation is the low preset's 1080p run: it reaches 234 FPS, while the same low preset at 4K holds 97. That's still a 2.4x gap among low-preset runs. When going from the 1080p to 4K setting with the same preset, we see the GPU workload multiply much faster than the CPU sieves; if the CPU were the primary limit, the FPS would not drop this hard when raising resolution. For High and Medium presets, the proportional drop tells the same tale, but at Ultra the 4K number of 44 FPS is less than half of the 1080p's 140, which is a tightening curve. This is typical of RDNA 4 which scales well with raw work until you push its rate at the top.

Another observation: the Medium preset includes min and max frame data that shows consistent behavior. At 1080p, Medium yields a 182-average (min 156, max 211), at 1440p it averages 127 (min 108, max 147), and at 4K it yields 326 total, 102 average (min 65, max 87). The min frame values are stable enough that even the 4K run minutes at 65 FPS, so you will rarely see a stall below the need of most 60 Hz monitors. The difference between the two 60 FPS-ready presets at 4K (which is only at "Low" and "Medium") is a high-quantic trade-off in texture quality, and the "Ultra" preset is to be avoided entirely at 4K unless you want to drop below 47 FPS.

As resolution increases, the average FPS for each tier rises and falls in clear proportion. Low setting: 1080p 234, 1440p 162, 4K 97. Medium: 184, 127, 76. High: 167, 116, 69. Ultra: 107, 74, 44. That same pattern continues for each settings level — the delta from 1080p to 4K is almost just the weight of the pixel load with the CPU in the back seat. The is no sharp kink in the curve that would suggest the CPU tripping a wall; instead, each move up in pixel count yields a near-linear change in GPU stress and results in a near-linear change in FPS. The takeaway for builders: this pairing is suited to 144Hz 1080p/1440p monitors, while a 4K screen holds it to comfortable 60 Hz class values only if you are willing to drop out of "Ultra.

FAQ

Q: Can the combo hold 60 FPS at 4K with maximum quality?

A: No — the "Ultra" preset averages 44 FPS at 2560x2160. To keep a 60 FPS class frame rate at 4K, use the "Medium" preset on this combination, which produces a 76 FPS average with a 65 FPS minimum. The "Low" preset goes further (97 FPS average), but sacrifices almost all texture detail.

Q: Which settings are the best at 1440p?

A: In 2560x1440 "High" you get 116 FPS, "Medium" delivers 127 FPS (with min 108), and "Ultra" gives 74 FPS. For a 1440p 144 Hz panel, "Medium" is the sweet spot: the 108-147 min-to-max range means the lowest frame stays above 100, close to the refresh rate. "Ultra" is playable - at 74 FPS, if you need the draw distance.

Q: How important is the CPU at 1080p?

A: The Intel Core i3-12100F with 4 cores/8 threads boosts to 4.3 GHz, and at Full HD, the low preset's 1080p average of 234 FPS and the 283 frames in "Medium" (with max 211) demonstrate that the processor can push far beyond mainstream 144 Hz panels. At the 1080p "Ultra" average of 107 FPS, the CPU still delivers enough frames that the GPU is not starving, but the further the GPU load rises, the more the 9070 becomes the performance ceiling.

Q: Is 16 GB of VRAM useful in this specific title?

A The GPU has 16 GB GDDR6 memory on a 256-bit bus (644.6 GB/s bandwidth), but this game's measured results do not put that to the limit: at 4K Ultra the interface drops to 44 FPS, suggesting the frame rate is limited by achievable of the shaders and ROPs of the card, not by VRAM headroom. The 16 GB pool will help with other titles that spike above 12 GB, but this particular title's frame data shows no unique memory pressure.

Q: Does the min FPS make the experience smooth use "Ultra" at 4K?

A: No — the "Ultra" 4K average of 44 FPS will feel jerky to many players. Only the "Medium" preset reports a minimum of 65 FPS at 4K, so the measurable minimum is only listed there; using Ultra means you are below the average-60 mark with no stability buttress, so it is not recommended for this combo.

Q: At what percentile does this exact CPU and GPU sit in Greedfall's bench suite?

A: This CPU+GPU pairing ranks 1122nd out of 3703 tested combinations — so slightly better than the middle-pack, because the i3 is deliberately inexpensive and the 9070 is a high-tier GPU to match.

How This Combo Ranks

The dataset places this exact pairing at 1122nd of 3703 measured combos, which is a top-position in the captured group. That the rank is not near the top even though the GPU is strong shows how much in-game results can be limited by the choice of the weakest link. The CPU itself, the Intel Core i3-12100F, benchmarks at an average score of 13494 and sits at the 68th percentile of all tested processors, with nearest rivals that offer similar throughput: the Intel Core 3 N355 (13492, deltaPct 0) and Intel Core i5-9500 (13452, 0.3). The GPU, the AMD Radeon RX 9070, has an average benchmark score of 23877 and is the 69th percentile of all GPUs, with rivals such as the GeForce GTX TITAN Z (2.0 deltaPct) and the RX 6800S (that -0.8).

Given the CPU's score sits near the "sweet spot" of the lower processor classes, the combined result in the Goldloop game is effectively bound by both parts at different resolutions. In 1080p, the CPU isn't too far off, and the high FPS even at "Low" (234) shows the combo as being a large overkill for a 144 Hz monitor. But by 4K, the GPU 269 produces 44 FPS at "Ultra", which lands it fighting against cards just a few percent faster in benchmarks — the "nearest rivals" of the GPU have average scores within 1.2% — so the rank of 1122 or so matches a mid-tier rank among all combos. The combo's position suggests that upgrading the CPU to a higher core count with similar single-core efficiency could push that rank upward, while swapping an even faster GPU would have diminishing return on the larger pixels. The measured data is consistent: the pair's floor is decent (4K 75 at Medium), the roof is high (1080p Low 223), and the engineering is a drop-in for Core i3 socket boards with DDR4/DDR5 support, though no multiplier unlock is supported.

Measured FPS Breakdown

The complete measured frame data for this combination - all settings (Low, Medium, High or Ultra) and all resolutions of the test suite.

1920x1080

• Low: avg 234 FPS
• Medium: avg 184, min 156, max 211 FPS
• High: avg 167 FPS
• Ultra: avg 107 FPS

2560x1440

• Low: avg 162 FPS
• Medium: avg 127, min 108, max 147 FPS
• High: avg 116 FPS (just),
• Ultra: avg 74 FPS

3840x2160

• Low: avg 97 FPS
• Medium: avg 76, min 65, max 87 FPS
• High: avg 69 FPS
• Ultra: avg 44 FPS

The 1080p numbers are impressive, but note the frame of reference: the "Low" preset and "Medium" also have minimums logged, and the 1440p "Ultra" has no visible min. The averages by themselves let us frame the experience in three tiers — 1080p is a usable >143 frames at any preset, 1440p is great on Low through High but starts to stress "Ultra", and 4K is only really stable at Low 'Medium' style (Medium minimum 267, High about average 69 but no min). The biggest gap in the data is the 4K Ultra 74 vs 4K High 44, that 30 FPS difference in two heavy presets shows you should not just slide the slider all the way for fun, but manage it.

GPU Role

The AMD Radeon RX 9070 is the strong half of this pairing. Its core clock runs at 1330 MHz base, 2070 MHz "game" clock, and 2520 MHz boost, with 16 processor (Navi 48). The card has 3584 shading units, 224 ROPs and 128 cores, producing 36.13 TFLOPS FP32. The memory side is 16 GB GDDR6 on a 256-bit bus with 644.6 GB/s bandwidth—plenty of eyeball for 4K textures. In the Greedfall data, the GPU rule is visible in the way 4K Heavy Utilization drops the framerate: For a single setting, e.g. High: 19 (1080), 60+ (1440), 69 (4K) — that giant hole at 4K shows the GPU's ROP/pixel rate situation, because pixel rate (3.345). (322.6 GPixel/s), and texture rate (564.4 GTexel/s), ARE the factors that decides the 4K deficit. The nearest GPU rivals (similar average game of the 3D suite, within ~1) arrive from GPUs that occupy similar benchmarking for real world and are also sub-60 at 4K Ultra, so no surprises here. The 16 GB memory volume is fully unused by Greedfall at this measurement, yet at 4K the rx difference between "Ultra" and "High" (headline 44 vs 69) suggests that the system's high-end settings consume whole card, not the RAM. In practice, you can run any 1440p preset with a large headroom, while at 4Kp "High" (69) is the highest preset that has any chance at a VRR range, and between of the medium/high...

CPU Role

The Intel Core i3-12100F is a 4-core, 8-thread Alder Lake part with a 3.30 GHz base clock and 4.30 GHz boost, 5 MB L3 cache (12 MB shared), and a 58 TDP. It has no integrated graphics — so the GPU is the only display adapter, which is for the benchmark. Its comparable score is 11860 in Cinebench R23 multi, 1674 single-thread, and it sits at the 68th percentile of all CPUs, while the nearest rivals (N355, i5-9500 - about -0.7) show close standings in that singular metric. In the Greedfall results, look for the signs of CPU involvement: at 1080p, the low preset at 234 fps (capping the monitor's max output) and Medium (184) both exceed pixel-subsystem demand, meaning the CPU just kept up. At 1440 and 4K the GPU becomes the primary limiter, which is the weakness - the CPU is not a contributor to the 4K Ultra 44 fps; it's the GPU.

But the 4-core/8-thread count does influence the minimum frame consistency in the most locked moments. The Medium setting's min reports "156" at 1080p and "108" at 1440p, which are moderate but not equal to the average. A 4-core part can hold to occasionally spawn the above, but the passmark_data_compression (160,452) and Cinebench single- thread 1674 ("boost 43") suggest there is no heavy workload in a regular fight, but the min / avg spread shows some micro-stutter in the re-left wall. Still, the high 3.30 GHz base with a 4.30 turbo does more; the margin (234 fps at 1080 Low) demonstrates that this CPU never becomes a total camera in this map. If you… the only concern is the minimum - if you want the 4K Ultra frame rates, the CPU is not the fence, but the system as a whole — so for that scale, a higher-end CPU would fill the minimal 4 cores, but the real cap is the GPU.