Greedfall

# Greedfall with Intel Core i5-13400F + AMD Radeon RX 7700

Greedfall, the 2019 Action RPG, responds predictably to hardware scaling, but the measured data for this Intel Core i5-13400F and AMD Radeon RX 7700 combination reveals a system that is firmly GPU-limited at higher resolutions while showing surprising headroom at 1080p. The combination ranks 1307th out of 2938 tested combos in this game, placing it in the upper-middle tier of the database, and the frame rate behavior across settings and resolutions tells a clear story about where this pairing excels and where it struggles.

Resolution Scaling

The FPS drop from 1080p to 4K is dramatic and consistent across all settings, indicating that the Radeon RX 7700 is the primary bottleneck as pixel count rises. At Low settings, the average frame rate falls from 191 FPS at 1920x1080 to 132 FPS at 2560x1440, a reduction of 59 FPS, and then further down to 79 FPS at 3840x2160. This represents a 58.6% performance loss from 1080p to 4K, which is substantial but expected for a GPU that sits at the 58th percentile among all tested graphics cards.

The scaling pattern becomes more telling when examining High and Medium presets. At High settings, the system delivers 136 FPS at 1080p, drops to 94 FPS at 1440p, and bottoms out at 56 FPS at 4K. The gap between 1440p and 4K is 38 FPS, which is nearly identical to the 42 FPS gap between 1080p and 1440p. This linear degradation suggests that the GPU's compute and memory bandwidth are being taxed proportionally as resolution increases, with no single architectural limitation causing a cliff effect.

Ultra settings show the most severe scaling, with 87 FPS at 1080p, 60 FPS at 1440p, and just 36 FPS at 4K. The 4K result is barely playable, and the 51 FPS difference between 1080p and 4K demonstrates that Ultra preset demands more from the RX 7700 than it can consistently deliver at high pixel densities. The 1440p Ultra result of 60 FPS is exactly at the threshold commonly considered acceptable for smooth gameplay, but the 4K figure falls well below that mark.

The Medium preset, which includes min and max frame data, shows the most interesting scaling behavior. At 1080p, the average is 150 FPS with a minimum of 127 and maximum of 172. Moving to 1440p, the average drops to 104 FPS with a minimum of 88 and maximum of 120. At 4K, the average falls to 62 FPS with a minimum of 53 and maximum of 71. The consistent spread between min and max frames across resolutions — roughly 25-28 FPS — indicates that the frame pacing remains stable even as the overall performance drops, which is a positive sign for gameplay consistency.

Settings Recommendations

For 1080p gaming, the data strongly favors Medium or High settings. The Low preset's 191 FPS average is excessive for most displays, and the jump to Medium at 150 FPS still provides ample headroom above 144Hz refresh rates while offering better visual quality. High settings at 136 FPS remain competitive, but the 14 FPS difference between Medium and High is small enough that most players would prefer the visual upgrade. Ultra at 87 FPS is the only preset that risks dropping below high-refresh-rate territory, though it remains perfectly smooth for 60Hz displays.

At 1440p, the recommendation shifts toward Medium as the sweet spot. The 104 FPS average on Medium sits comfortably above 60 FPS and approaches 100 FPS, making it ideal for 144Hz monitors that can benefit from frame rates above 100. High settings at 94 FPS are still viable, but the 10 FPS penalty over Medium may not justify the visual gains for competitive play. Ultra at 60 FPS is exactly at the boundary of playability; the data shows it works, but frame drops below 60 would be noticeable. Low at 132 FPS is unnecessary unless the player prioritizes maximum responsiveness over visuals.

For 4K, the situation is more constrained. Medium settings deliver a 62 FPS average, which is the only preset that consistently exceeds 60 FPS. High settings at 56 FPS are borderline, and the min frame data from Medium (53 FPS) suggests that High would likely see dips into the 40s during demanding scenes. Low at 79 FPS is playable but sacrifices too much visual fidelity for a game like Greedfall, which relies on atmospheric environments. Ultra at 36 FPS should be avoided entirely. The data clearly indicates that 4K players should use Medium settings with this combo, accepting the 62 FPS average as the practical ceiling.

GPU Role

The AMD Radeon RX 7700, built on the RDNA 3.0 architecture with the Navi 32 chip, is the defining component in this combination's gaming performance. Its 16 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 256-bit bus provides 624.1 GB/s of bandwidth, which is sufficient for Greedfall's textures even at 4K resolution. The GPU's boost clock of 2459 MHz and game clock of 2041 MHz are modest for the RX 7000 series, but the 2560 shading units and 160 texture mapping units deliver consistent throughput across the measured scenarios.

The GPU's benchmark profile places it at the 58th percentile among all tested graphics cards, with an average benchmark score of 15852. Its nearest rivals in the database include the AMD Radeon R9 370X (avg score 15862, deltaPct -0.1%), the AMD Radeon RX 9060 (avg score 16014, deltaPct -1%), the AMD Radeon Pro W5500 (avg score 15679, deltaPct 1.1%), and the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3060 Ti (avg score 16129, deltaPct -1.7%). This places the RX 7700 in a tightly contested performance band where the differences between competing cards are within 2% of each other.

In Greedfall specifically, the GPU's 16 GB VRAM capacity is not a limiting factor at any settings or resolution, as the game's texture requirements are well within this allocation. The memory clock of 2438 MHz (19.5 Gbps effective) ensures that bandwidth scales adequately with resolution, which explains why the FPS drops are proportional rather than catastrophic when moving from 1440p to 4K. The pixel rate of 236.1 GPixel/s and texture rate of 393.4 GTexel/s provide the raw throughput needed to maintain the observed frame rates, though the 4K Ultra result of 36 FPS suggests the GPU's compute units are saturated at that extreme configuration.

Measured FPS Breakdown

At 1920x1080, the system produces its strongest results across all presets. Low settings average 191 FPS, making this configuration suitable for 165Hz or 240Hz displays. Medium settings average 150 FPS with a minimum of 127 and maximum of 172, providing a wide safety margin against frame drops. High settings average 136 FPS, which remains above the 120 FPS threshold for smooth high-refresh gameplay. Ultra settings drop to 87 FPS, which is still respectable but represents a 49 FPS penalty compared to Medium. The 64 FPS difference between Low and Ultra at this resolution highlights the significant GPU workload increase that comes with maximum visual fidelity.

At 2560x1440, performance remains strong but begins to show the GPU's limits. Low settings average 132 FPS, which is still high enough for most high-refresh monitors. Medium settings average 104 FPS with a minimum of 88 and maximum of 120, keeping the experience smooth even during heavy combat sequences. High settings average 94 FPS, which is acceptable for 100Hz displays but leaves little room for demanding scenes. Ultra settings average 60 FPS exactly, with no min or max data available; this is playable but offers no headroom, and any scene complexity increase could push it below 60 FPS.

At 3840x2160, the GPU becomes the clear limiting factor. Low settings average 79 FPS, which is playable but requires significant visual compromises. Medium settings average 62 FPS with a minimum of 53 and maximum of 71, indicating that frame drops below 60 FPS will occur during intense moments. High settings average 56 FPS, which is below the 60 FPS threshold and will produce noticeable stutter on standard 60Hz displays. Ultra settings average just 36 FPS, rendering this preset impractical for 4K gaming. The progression from 79 FPS at Low to 36 FPS at Ultra represents a 54.4% performance reduction, demonstrating the GPU's diminishing capability as settings increase at this resolution.

How This Combo Ranks

The combination ranks 1307th out of 2938 tested combos in Greedfall, placing it in the 55.5th percentile of all tested systems. This is a mid-pack ranking, which aligns with the GPU's 58th percentile standing and the CPU's 77th percentile among all processors. The ranking suggests that while this system is capable of running Greedfall well at 1080p and 1440p, it is not among the top-tier configurations that dominate the 4K Ultra benchmark charts.

The ranking position is consistent with the measured FPS data. A combo ranking in the middle of the pack implies that roughly 44.5% of tested systems perform better, which is expected given that the RX 7700's nearest rivals include the RTX 3060 Ti, a card that outperforms it by 1.7% in average benchmark scores. The deltaPct values against these rivals are all within 2%, meaning that in Greedfall, this combo's ranking could shift slightly depending on driver optimizations or game-specific scaling factors.

Compared to the CPU's nearest rivals, the i5-13400F's performance is tightly clustered. The AMD Ryzen 9 6900HS matches its average score with a 0% deltaPct, while the Intel Core 5 120 and AMD Ryzen 5 5600X3D are both 0.3% behind, and the AMD Ryzen 7 6800H is 0.4% ahead. These negligible differences mean that the combo's ranking in Greedfall is determined almost entirely by the GPU, as the CPU provides consistent performance across its competitive set.

CPU Role

The Intel Core i5-13400F, a 10-core 16-thread processor from the Raptor Lake architecture, plays a supporting role in Greedfall's performance. Its base clock of 2.50 GHz and boost clock of 4.60 GHz, combined with 20 MB of shared L3 cache, ensure that the GPU never starves for data at lower resolutions. The CPU's benchmark scores — including a Cinebench R23 multicore score of 22604 and a single-core score of 3191 — indicate strong multi-threaded capability that is more than sufficient for this game's CPU demands.

At 1080p, where the CPU's influence is most pronounced, the system achieves 191 FPS at Low settings. This high frame rate suggests that the i5-13400F is not a bottleneck, as the GPU is able to reach its performance ceiling without being held back by processor limitations. The 3DMark max threads score of 7307 and 16-thread score of 7314 show consistent scaling across thread counts, which is beneficial for a game that may use multiple cores for AI, physics, and world streaming.

The CPU's 77th percentile ranking among all processors, with an average benchmark score of 25292, places it well above the median. Its nearest rivals in the CPU benchmark database include the AMD Ryzen 9 6900HS (avg score 25284, 0% deltaPct), the Intel Core 5 120 (avg score 25362, -0.3% deltaPct), the AMD Ryzen 5 5600X3D (avg score 25365, -0.3% deltaPct), and the AMD Ryzen 7 6800H (avg score 25201, 0.4% deltaPct). All of these processors perform within 0.4% of each other, meaning that swapping the i5-13400F for any of these rivals would have no meaningful impact on Greedfall's frame rates.

The CPU's 65 W TDP and 10 nm process node contribute to its efficiency, but these factors do not directly influence gaming performance. The L3 cache of 20 MB shared across all cores is adequate for Greedfall's data patterns, and the dual-channel DDR4/DDR5 memory support ensures sufficient bandwidth for feeding the GPU. At 4K, where the GPU is clearly the limiting factor, the CPU's role diminishes further; the measured FPS differences between resolutions are entirely attributable to GPU workload scaling, not CPU capabilities.

In summary, the i5-13400F provides a stable foundation that never constrains the RX 7700 in Greedfall. The combo's mid-pack ranking is a direct reflection of the GPU's mid-tier standing, and the measured frame rates confirm that this system is best suited for 1080p and 1440p gaming, with 4K requiring Medium settings for acceptable performance.