Greedfall

# FAQ

Q: What is the overall performance ranking of the Intel Core i5-11400F + AMD Radeon RX 9070 XT combination in Greedfall?

A: This combination ranks 492nd out of 1705 tested hardware combinations in the database for Greedfall, placing it in the upper quartile of all tested systems.

Q: How does the CPU compare to its nearest rivals in synthetic benchmarks?

A: The Intel Core i5-11400F has an average benchmark score of 17181, which is essentially tied with the AMD Ryzen 7 5700U (17189, 0% delta). It sits 0.2% behind the Intel Core i7-1260P and Intel Core Ultra 7 164U, and 0.2% ahead of the Intel Core i5-1240U.

Q: What is the GPU's standing relative to its closest competitors?

A: The AMD Radeon RX 9070 XT averages 39647 in benchmark scores, placing it 0.1% behind the AMD Radeon Pro 575 (39703), 0.2% ahead of the NVIDIA RTX A500 Mobile (39568), 0.5% behind the AMD Radeon Pro 575X (39836), and 0.6% behind the AMD Radeon RX Vega 64 (39879).

Q: What is the best frame rate achieved at 1080p in the measured data?

A: The highest average frame rate recorded is 247.4 FPS at 1920x1080 with Low settings. The Ultra preset at the same resolution yields 114.7 FPS, which is roughly 46% lower.

Q: How does the 4K Ultra performance compare to the 1080p Ultra performance?

A: At 3840x2160 Ultra, the system averages 49.2 FPS, while at 1920x1080 Ultra it averages 114.7 FPS. The 4K result is approximately 57% slower, indicating a significant resolution scaling penalty.

Q: Is there a measurable frame rate advantage to using Medium over High settings at 1440p?

A: Yes. At 2560x1440, Medium settings produce 133.3 FPS average, while High settings produce 121 FPS. The Medium preset delivers roughly 10% higher frame rates in this configuration.

# GPU Role

The AMD Radeon RX 9070 XT is built on the RDNA 4.0 architecture with a 4 nm process node from TSMC. It packs 16 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 256-bit bus, yielding a memory bandwidth of 644.6 GB/s. The GPU's base clock is 1660 MHz, with a boost clock of 2970 MHz and a game clock of 2400 MHz. Memory operates at 2518 MHz with 20.1 Gbps effective speed. These specifications place the GPU in the 82nd percentile among all GPUs in the benchmark database.

In Greedfall, the GPU's role becomes increasingly dominant as resolution rises. At 1080p, the frame rates are high enough that CPU limitations likely emerge. The i5-11400F, with 6 cores and 12 threads, boosts to 4.40 GHz and scores 14372 in Cinebench R23 multi-core and 2029 in single-core. These CPU scores suggest adequate processing power for the game's engine at lower resolutions.

The RX 9070 XT's 4096 shading units and 128 ROPs handle the game's rendering workload effectively. The GPU's pixel rate of 380.2 GPixel/s and texture rate of 760.3 GTexel/s provide substantial fill rates for Greedfall's environments. At 4K, the GPU's 16 GB frame buffer becomes relevant, as higher resolutions demand more memory capacity and bandwidth.

The measured data shows that GPU load scales predictably with resolution. At 3840x2160, even the Low preset achieves 99.9 FPS average, while Ultra drops to 49.2 FPS. This spread indicates that the GPU is the primary bottleneck at 4K, with settings adjustments yielding dramatic performance changes. The GPU's 48.66 TFLOPS FP32 compute capability supports the game's effects, but Ultra settings at 4K clearly exceed what the architecture can sustain at high frame rates.

# Settings Recommendations

The measured FPS data across three resolutions and four settings presets provides clear guidance for Greedfall. At 1920x1080, all presets exceed 100 FPS average, with Low at 247.4, Medium at 195.4, High at 179.3, and Ultra at 114.7. The data shows that Ultra at 1080p is playable, but the jump from High to Ultra costs roughly 36% of frame rate for settings that may offer diminishing visual returns.

At 2560x1440, the Medium preset delivers 133.3 FPS, which represents the best balance in the measured data. High settings at 1440p produce 121 FPS, still smooth for most displays. Ultra at 1440p drops to 79.8 FPS, which remains playable but shows the settings' heavy cost. Low at 1440p reaches 169.7 FPS, but the visual compromise is likely unnecessary given the headroom at Medium.

The 4K resolution presents a more constrained picture. At 3840x2160, Medium achieves 77.8 FPS and High achieves 73.2 FPS, both viable for 60 Hz displays. Ultra at 4K drops to 49.2 FPS, which may feel inconsistent on standard refresh rate monitors. Low at 4K reaches 99.9 FPS, but such settings undermine the visual fidelity that 4K resolution is meant to provide.

For the best experience per the measured rows, the Medium preset at 1440p offers the strongest combination of frame rate and visual quality. Alternatively, High at 1080p provides 179.3 FPS for high-refresh-rate displays, while High at 4K at 73.2 FPS suits 60 Hz screens with high fidelity. Users prioritizing maximum smoothness should select Low at 1080p for 247.4 FPS, though this sacrifices the game's visual presentation.

# Measured FPS Breakdown

At 1920x1080, the benchmark results show a clear hierarchy across settings. Low settings produce an average of 247.4 FPS, the highest measured value in the entire dataset. Medium settings yield 195.4 FPS, representing an approximate 21% reduction from Low. High settings average 179.3 FPS, and Ultra settings drop to 114.7 FPS. The gap between Low and Ultra at 1080p is substantial, with Ultra delivering only 46% of the Low preset's frame rate.

Moving to 2560x1440, the measured values shift downward as expected. Low settings average 169.7 FPS, which is still exceptionally high. Medium settings produce 133.3 FPS, High settings reach 121 FPS, and Ultra settings fall to 79.8 FPS. The relative ordering remains consistent, but the absolute differences between presets narrow slightly compared to 1080p. At 1440p, the Ultra preset's 79.8 FPS is just above the 60 FPS threshold, while all other presets maintain triple-digit averages.

At 3840x2160, the performance envelope tightens considerably. Low settings average 99.9 FPS, barely dipping below triple digits. Medium settings produce 77.8 FPS, High settings reach 73.2 FPS, and Ultra settings drop to 49.2 FPS. The 4K Ultra result is the only measured configuration that fails to maintain 60 FPS average. The progression from Low to Ultra at 4K shows a 51% reduction in frame rate, from 99.9 to 49.2 FPS.

Across all resolutions, the Medium preset consistently delivers a balanced result. At 1080p Medium achieves 195.4 FPS, at 1440p Medium achieves 133.3 FPS, and at 4K Medium achieves 77.8 FPS. The High preset remains close to Medium in all cases, with deltas of 16.1 FPS at 1080p, 12.3 FPS at 1440p, and 4.6 FPS at 4K. The Ultra preset's penalty relative to High grows with resolution, from 64.6 FPS at 1080p to 41.2 FPS at 1440p to 24 FPS at 4K.

# Resolution Scaling

The measured FPS data reveals how the system scales from 1080p to 4K. At Low settings, the average frame rate drops from 247.4 FPS at 1920x1080 to 169.7 FPS at 2560x1440, a reduction of approximately 31%. Continuing to 3840x2160, the frame rate falls to 99.9 FPS, a further 41% reduction from 1440p. The total scaling from 1080p to 4K at Low is roughly 60% lower frame rate.

At Medium settings, the scaling pattern shows a similar trend. The frame rate decreases from 195.4 FPS at 1080p to 133.3 FPS at 1440p, a 32% drop. From 1440p to 4K, the frame rate falls to 77.8 FPS, a 42% reduction. The cumulative effect from 1080p to 4K at Medium is approximately 60% lower performance, matching the Low preset's scaling behavior.

High settings exhibit a slightly different scaling curve. At 1080p, the average is 179.3 FPS, dropping to 121 FPS at 1440p, a 33% reduction. From 1440p to 4K, the frame rate falls to 73.2 FPS, a 40% reduction. The total scaling from 1080p to 4K at High is about 59% lower, consistent with the other presets.

Ultra settings show the most severe resolution scaling. At 1080p, the average is 114.7 FPS. At 1440p, this drops to 79.8 FPS, a 30% reduction. From 1440p to 4K, the frame rate falls to 49.2 FPS, a 38% reduction. The total scaling from 1080p to 4K at Ultra is approximately 57% lower performance.

The consistent scaling pattern across all settings suggests that the GPU is the primary limiting component at higher resolutions. The RX 9070 XT's performance degrades predictably as pixel count increases, with the 4K resolution imposing roughly 2.4 times the pixel load of 1080p. The CPU's influence appears minimal at higher resolutions, as the frame rate reductions track closely with the GPU's rendering load rather than any CPU bottleneck. At 1080p, the high frame rates exceeding 200 FPS at Low settings may begin to approach CPU limits, but the measured data does not show any anomalous plateaus that would indicate a hard CPU cap.