Greedfall

# How This Combo Ranks

The Intel Core i5-12400 paired with the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5090 ranks 90th out of 3,703 tested combos in Greedfall, placing it in the top 2.4% of all configurations. This is an exceptionally strong result, driven almost entirely by the GPU's raw throughput rather than the CPU's processing power. The combo's percentile standing reflects that it outperforms the vast majority of tested systems, though it is not the absolute top performer—a handful of combos with even more powerful CPUs edge it out in this title.

The CPU itself sits at the 72nd percentile among all processors, with an average benchmark score of 18,683. Its nearest rivals in synthetic testing include the AMD EPYC 7643 (18,697, just 0.1% ahead), the Intel Core i7-1355U (18,730, 0.3% ahead), and the AMD Ryzen AI 5 330 (18,811, 0.7% ahead). The Intel Core i3-14100F trails by 0.9% with a score of 18,519. These margins are trivial—sub-1% differences—meaning the i5-12400's compute capability is essentially on par with those chips for this game's workload. The bottleneck in this combo is clearly not the CPU, as the measured frame rates at lower resolutions show headroom that the GPU can fully exploit.

The GPU, meanwhile, ranks at the 92nd percentile among all graphics cards, with an average benchmark score of 79,842. Its nearest rivals include the NVIDIA Tesla P100 PCIe 16 GB (79,605, 0.3% behind) and the Tesla P100 PCIe 12 GB (79,396, 0.6% behind), while the AMD Radeon RX 6850M XT trails by 1.1% and the Radeon Pro Vega 64X leads by 1.4%. The RTX 5090's dominance in this pairing is the decisive factor: at 4K Ultra, it still delivers 68 FPS, which is well above playable thresholds, and at 1080p Low it reaches 359 FPS—numbers that only a top-tier GPU can produce.

# GPU Role

The GeForce RTX 5090 is the undisputed performance driver in this combo, and its specifications explain why. It comes with 32 GB of GDDR7 memory on a 512-bit bus, yielding 1.79 TB/s of bandwidth. This memory configuration is critical for Greedfall at high resolutions, where texture streaming and large scene data can saturate lesser GPUs. The 32 GB capacity ensures that even at 4K with Ultra settings, the card never approaches memory limits, allowing for consistent frame pacing without stutter from VRAM swapping.

Clock speeds are equally impressive: a base clock of 2017 MHz and a boost clock of 2407 MHz, with memory running at 1750 MHz (28 Gbps effective). The boost clock is what matters most in real-world gaming, and at 2407 MHz, the card sustains high throughput across all settings. The 104.8 TFLOPS of FP32 compute power is the raw muscle behind the measured frame rates—this is what allows the card to push 359 FPS at 1080p Low and 149 FPS at 4K Low without breaking a sweat.

The card's architectural features also play a role. With 21,760 shading units, 680 TMUs, and 176 ROPs, the pixel and texture throughput is enormous: 423.6 GPixel/s and 1,636.8 GTexel/s respectively. In Greedfall, which features detailed environments and character models, these rates translate directly into the high average FPS observed. The 170 ray tracing cores and 680 tensor cores are present but less relevant for this title, as Greedfall (released in 2019) does not heavily utilize ray-traced effects; the card's raw rasterization power is what carries the load.

The GPU's 575 W TDP and dual-slot design indicate that this is a power-hungry, high-performance part, but the data shows the payoff: at every resolution and setting combination measured, the RTX 5090 delivers frame rates that exceed what most displays can even refresh. The PCIe 5.0 x16 interface ensures no bandwidth bottleneck from the CPU, and the 1x HDMI 2.1b plus 3x DisplayPort 2.1b outputs support high-refresh-rate monitors for those who want to take advantage of the card's capabilities.

# Resolution Scaling

The measured FPS data reveals a clear pattern: Greedfall scales almost linearly with resolution, and the limiting factor shifts depending on where you look. At 1080p Low, the combo produces 359 FPS, dropping to 249 FPS at 1440p Low and 149 FPS at 4K Low. That's a 42% reduction from 1080p to 1440p, and another 40% reduction from 1440p to 4K. This steep drop indicates that even with a top-tier GPU, 4K resolution still imposes a massive pixel throughput requirement—but the card handles it admirably.

At High settings, the scaling is similar: 256 FPS at 1080p, 178 FPS at 1440p, and 106 FPS at 4K. The percentage drops are 30% and 40% respectively, showing that the GPU remains the primary constraint at all resolutions. The CPU's role becomes more apparent at lower resolutions and settings: at 1080p Low, the i5-12400 must feed the RTX 5090 quickly enough to sustain 359 FPS. The data shows it does so without issue, meaning the CPU has sufficient single-thread performance (boost clock of 4.40 GHz) to avoid becoming a bottleneck even at extreme frame rates.

The Ultra preset tells a different story. At 4K Ultra, the combo manages 68 FPS, which is a 59% drop from 4K Low's 149 FPS. This is the largest relative penalty of any setting change, indicating that Ultra settings (likely including heavy post-processing, shadows, and ambient occlusion) place an outsized burden on the GPU's compute and memory subsystems. At 1080p Ultra, the card still produces 164 FPS, so the resolution scaling from 1080p to 4K at Ultra (a 59% reduction) mirrors the setting scaling at 4K (also 59%). This symmetry suggests that the RTX 5090 is balanced in its handling of both resolution and quality increases—neither axis dominates the other in a way that would reveal a CPU bottleneck.

The takeaway: this combo is GPU-limited at every measured point, but the GPU is so powerful that even the most demanding configuration (4K Ultra) remains playable. The CPU's 6 cores and 12 threads are sufficient to keep up, and the 18 MB of shared L3 cache provides enough data locality for the game's engine.

# Settings Recommendations

Based on the measured rows, the High preset at 1440p offers the best balance of visual fidelity and performance, delivering 178 FPS average. This is well above the 60 FPS threshold for smooth gameplay, and the jump from High to Ultra at 1440p costs 65 FPS (from 178 to 113), a 37% performance hit for what is typically a marginal visual improvement in a 2019 title. At 1080p, High produces 256 FPS, but the visual difference between 1440p High and 1080p High is substantial on modern displays, making 1440p the sweet spot.

For 4K users, the Medium preset is the recommended choice: 117 FPS average with a minimum of 99 FPS and maximum of 134 FPS. This is the only 4K setting with a recorded minimum frame time, and the 99 FPS floor ensures no noticeable stutter. High at 4K drops to 106 FPS average (with no min/max recorded), which is still playable but leaves less headroom for demanding scenes. Ultra at 4K at 68 FPS is technically playable but sits close to the edge of what most gamers consider acceptable for an action RPG; the 49 FPS gap between Medium and Ultra at 4K is too steep to justify unless visual purists prioritize fidelity over frame rate.

The Low preset is only advisable for competitive play or high-refresh-rate displays, where 359 FPS at 1080p or 249 FPS at 1440p would be useful. However, given that even Ultra at 1080p yields 164 FPS, there is little reason to sacrifice visual quality for frame rate at lower resolutions. The measured data shows that Medium at any resolution provides a stable experience with minimum FPS recorded only at Medium settings (e.g., 240 FPS min at 1080p, 166 FPS min at 1440p, 99 FPS min at 4K), suggesting this preset offers the most consistent frame pacing across the board.

In summary: 1440p High for the best overall experience, 4K Medium for 4K displays, and 1080p Ultra for those who want maximum quality without worrying about frame rates—since 164 FPS at Ultra is still far above any display's refresh rate in most cases.

# Measured FPS Breakdown

1920x1080 (1080p):

• Low: 359 FPS average (no min/max recorded)
• Medium: 282 FPS average, 240 FPS minimum, 325 FPS maximum
• High: 256 FPS average (no min/max recorded)
• Ultra: 164 FPS average (no min/max recorded)

At 1080p, the RTX 5090 is barely challenged. Even Ultra settings produce frame rates that exceed 144 Hz monitors, and the Medium preset shows a tight 240-325 FPS range, indicating excellent frame pacing. The 95 FPS gap between Low and Ultra (359 vs 164) demonstrates how much headroom the card has—it's not until Ultra that the GPU starts to feel any strain.

2560x1440 (1440p):

• Low: 249 FPS average (no min/max recorded)
• Medium: 196 FPS average, 166 FPS minimum, 225 FPS maximum
• High: 178 FPS average (no min/max recorded)
• Ultra: 113 FPS average (no min/max recorded)

1440p shows a similar pattern but with tighter margins. The drop from Low to Ultra is 136 FPS (249 to 113), a 55% reduction. The Medium preset's minimum of 166 FPS ensures smooth gameplay even in demanding scenes, and High at 178 FPS is ideal for high-refresh-rate 1440p monitors. Ultra at 113 FPS remains competitive with what most 1440p displays can show (typically 144-165 Hz), though not fully saturating them.

3840x2160 (4K):

• Low: 149 FPS average (no min/max recorded)
• Medium: 117 FPS average, 99 FPS minimum, 134 FPS maximum
• High: 106 FPS average (no min/max recorded)
• Ultra: 68 FPS average (no min/max recorded)

At 4K, the RTX 5090's 32 GB VRAM and 1.79 TB/s bandwidth are put to real use. Medium provides a playable 117 FPS with a 99 FPS minimum, while High drops to 106 FPS—still comfortable for 60 Hz displays. Ultra at 68 FPS is the only setting that dips below 100 FPS, and it's a 49 FPS drop from Medium, showing that Ultra's additional effects are disproportionately expensive at this resolution. The scaling from 1080p to 4K at each setting is consistent: roughly 2.4x fewer FPS at Low (359 vs 149), 2.4x at Medium (282 vs 117), 2.4x at High (256 vs 106), and 2.4x at Ultra (164 vs 68). This linear relationship confirms that resolution scaling is uniform and the GPU handles each pixel count with predictable efficiency.

# FAQ

Q: Is this combo overkill for Greedfall at 1080p?

A: Yes. At 1080p Low, the combo produces 359 FPS, and even at Ultra it maintains 164 FPS. These numbers far exceed the refresh rates of most 1080p monitors (typically 60-144 Hz), meaning the GPU is heavily underutilized at this resolution. The data shows the card's headroom is better spent on higher resolutions or higher settings.

Q: What is the best 4K setting for this combo?

A: Medium is the recommended 4K preset, delivering 117 FPS average with a 99 FPS minimum. High drops to 106 FPS, which is still playable, but Ultra falls to 68 FPS—a significant reduction that may cause noticeable frame rate drops in heavy scenes. Medium offers the best balance between visual quality and smoothness at 4K.

Q: How does the RTX 5090 compare to its nearest GPU rivals in synthetic benchmarks?

A: The RTX 5090's average benchmark score is 79,842, which is 0.3% higher than the NVIDIA Tesla P100 PCIe 16 GB (79,605), 0.6% higher than the Tesla P100 PCIe 12 GB (79,396), and 1.1% higher than the AMD Radeon RX 6850M XT (78,940). The AMD Radeon Pro Vega 64X scores 80,959, which is 1.4% higher. These are all sub-2% differences, indicating the RTX 5090 sits at the top of a tightly clustered group.

Q: Does the Intel Core i5-12400 bottleneck the RTX 5090 in Greedfall?

A: The measured data suggests no. At 1080p Low, the combo achieves 359 FPS, which is a frame rate that would expose CPU limitations if they existed. The i5-12400's boost clock of 4.40 GHz and 6 cores/12 threads provide sufficient throughput. Its average benchmark score of 18,683 places it within 0.7% of its nearest rivals, and the sub-1% deltas indicate it performs on par with much more expensive chips in this workload.

Q: What is the frame pacing like at Medium settings across resolutions?

A: Medium is the only preset with recorded minimum and maximum FPS values at all three resolutions. At 1080p, the range is 240-325 FPS (282 average); at 1440p, it's 166-225 FPS (196 average); and at 4K, it's 99-134 FPS (117 average). The spread between min and max is 85 FPS at 1080p, 59 FPS at 1440p, and 35 FPS at 4K, showing tighter frame pacing at higher resolutions.

Q: How much performance does Ultra cost compared to Low at each resolution?

A: At 1080p, Ultra (164 FPS) is 195 FPS lower than Low (359 FPS), a 54% reduction. At 1440p, Ultra (113 FPS) is 136 FPS lower than Low (249 FPS), a 55% reduction. At 4K, Ultra (68 FPS) is 81 FPS lower than Low (149 FPS), a 54% reduction. The consistency of this ~54% penalty across resolutions indicates that Ultra settings impose a uniform workload increase regardless of pixel count.