Greedfall

The Intel Core i9-14900K and AMD Radeon RX 9060 pairing in Greedfall presents a classic study in component hierarchy. The data places this specific combination at rank 1672 out of 2938 tested combos, indicating a mid-pack standing for this title. This positioning is largely defined by the substantial gap between the CPU’s top-tier compute capabilities and the GPU’s more modest performance class. The benchmark results show that the Radeon RX 9060 is the primary bottleneck in most scenarios, with the Core i9-14900K’s high core count and clock speeds providing ample headroom that the GPU cannot fully utilize.

CPU Role — cores, clocks, and how they relate to this game's results

The Intel Core i9-14900K is a 24-core, 32-thread processor based on the Raptor Lake architecture, built on Intel's 10 nm process. It operates with a base clock of 3.20 GHz and a boost clock of 6.00 GHz, a configuration that places it in the 95th percentile against all CPUs. This high percentile is reflected in its substantial multi-threaded benchmark scores, such as a Cinebench R23 multi-core result of 39399.5 and a Geekbench multi-core score of 21697. Single-thread performance is equally strong, with a Geekbench single-core score of 2655 and a Passmark single-thread score of 4697.

In the context of Greedfall, a 2019 Action RPG, the CPU’s role is to feed the GPU with draw calls and manage game logic. The data shows that the i9-14900K is not the limiting factor in this pairing. The measured FPS differences between resolutions are driven by the GPU, not the CPU. For instance, at 1080p Low settings, the frame rate reaches 167 FPS, which is a high number that suggests the CPU is capable of processing frames far beyond what the GPU can render at higher settings. The CPU’s performance relative to its nearest rivals reinforces its strength. Compared to the Intel Core i9-14900KF, which has an average benchmark score of 79371, the i9-14900K scores 79097, a negligible delta of -0.3%. It also trails the Intel Core Ultra 9 290HX Plus by only -0.6% and the AMD EPYC 7413 by -1.2%. It is slightly ahead of the AMD Ryzen AI Max+ 395 by 1.7%.

These benchmark results indicate that the CPU is a high-end part that will not bottleneck a mid-range GPU in most gaming workloads. The 36 MB of shared L3 cache and dual-channel memory support for DDR4 and DDR5 provide a robust platform. The processor’s 125W TDP and support for PCIe Gen 5 with 16 lanes are features that support modern GPU connectivity, though the GPU in this test uses a different interface. The data suggests that in Greedfall, the CPU has significant performance in reserve, as evidenced by the large FPS jumps when lowering resolution and settings, which shift the load away from the GPU and reveal the CPU's raw capability.

GPU Role — VRAM, clocks, and how they relate to this game's results

The AMD Radeon RX 9060 is the decisive component in this benchmark analysis. It is based on the RDNA 4.0 architecture, specifically the Navi 44 chip, manufactured on a 4 nm process by TSMC. It features 8 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 128-bit bus, providing a bandwidth of 288.0 GB/s. The GPU has a base clock of 1700 MHz and a boost clock of 2990 MHz, with a game clock of 2400 MHz. This configuration places the GPU in the 59th percentile among all GPUs, a far lower standing than the CPU. Its average benchmark score is 16014, putting it in direct competition with the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3060 Ti, which scores 16129 (a -0.7% delta for the RX 9060). It is also closely matched with the AMD Radeon R9 370X and the AMD Radeon RX 7700, both with a 1% delta.

In Greedfall, the GPU's performance dictates the overall experience. The 8 GB VRAM capacity and 128-bit memory bus are notable constraints at higher resolutions and settings. The measured FPS data shows a clear pattern: the GPU struggles to maintain high frame rates at 4K, especially on Ultra settings where the average FPS drops to 31. This is likely due to a combination of the GPU's raw compute limits and the memory bandwidth ceiling. The FP32 performance is listed at 21.43 TFLOPS, which is modest for modern standards. The GPU's texture rate is 334.9 GTexel/s and pixel rate is 191.4 GPixel/s. These specs, while capable for 1080p gaming, are insufficient for the demands of 4K Ultra on this title.

The comparison to its nearest rivals is telling. The RX 9060 is nearly identical in average score to the RTX 3060 Ti, indicating that its performance in this game should be considered in that tier. This places it well below the CPU's tier in relative performance, confirming that the GPU is the bottleneck. The data shows that the GPU is the limiting component in most scenarios, as lowering resolution or settings yields significant FPS gains, which is characteristic of a GPU-bound workload.

FAQ

Q: Why does the frame rate increase so much when switching from Ultra to Low settings?

A: The frame rate increase is due to the reduced load on the GPU. At 1080p, the average FPS jumps from 76 on Ultra to 167 on Low. This indicates the GPU is the limiting factor, as lowering settings reduces its workload, allowing it to render frames faster. The CPU has enough headroom to support these higher frame rates.

Q: Is the Intel Core i9-14900K or the AMD Radeon RX 9060 the bottleneck in Greedfall?

A: The benchmark data indicates the AMD Radeon RX 9060 is the bottleneck. The CPU's performance is in the 95th percentile, while the GPU is in the 59th percentile. The significant FPS scaling with resolution and settings changes is a strong indicator of a GPU-bound scenario, as the CPU is capable of much higher frame rates than the GPU can deliver.

Q: How does the RX 9060 compare to the RTX 3060 Ti in this test?

A: The RX 9060 has an average benchmark score of 16014, while the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3060 Ti has a score of 16129. This represents a delta of -0.7%, meaning the RX 9060 is effectively a performance peer to the RTX 3060 Ti in this context, with a negligible difference in their overall benchmark averages.

Q: Can this system achieve 60 FPS at 4K resolution?

A: Based on the measured data, achieving a consistent 60 FPS at 4K is not possible. At 4K High settings, the average FPS is 49. At 4K Medium, the average is 54 FPS, and at 4K Low it is 69 FPS. Only the Low preset at 4K exceeds 60 FPS, while the Medium and High presets fall below that threshold.

Q: What is the best resolution for this CPU and GPU combo to maintain high frame rates?

A: The data shows that 1080p is the optimal resolution for high frame rates. At 1080p High settings, the average FPS is 119, and at Low it is 167. The 1440p resolution also provides playable frame rates, with an average of 83 FPS on High settings, but 1080p offers the highest performance headroom.

Q: Does the CPU's 6.00 GHz boost clock matter for this game?

A: The high boost clock contributes to the CPU's strong single-thread performance, which is relevant for game logic. However, since the GPU is the bottleneck, the CPU's clock speed is not the primary factor limiting performance. The data suggests the CPU is not being fully utilized, as frame rates are dictated by the GPU's rendering capacity.

Measured FPS Breakdown — resolution by resolution, settings by settings, exact numbers

The measured FPS data provides a comprehensive view of the system's performance across three resolutions and four settings presets. At 1920x1080, the system is clearly GPU-bound, with the CPU having ample headroom. The Low preset yields an average of 167 FPS, which is the highest recorded figure in the entire dataset. The Medium preset averages 131 FPS, with a minimum of 112 and a maximum of 151 FPS. High settings average 119 FPS, while the Ultra preset drops to an average of 76 FPS. The scaling from Low to Ultra at 1080p shows a 91 FPS drop, indicating the significant impact of graphical fidelity on the GPU's workload.

Moving to 2560x1440, the performance decreases as expected. The Low preset averages 116 FPS, a 51 FPS drop from 1080p Low. Medium settings average 91 FPS, with a minimum of 77 and a maximum of 105 FPS. The High preset averages 83 FPS, and Ultra drops to 53 FPS. The pattern shows that the GPU is still the primary limiter, but the higher resolution increases the strain on the GPU's memory bandwidth and compute units. The drop from 1080p to 1440p is consistent across settings, roughly a 30% reduction in frame rates.

At 3840x2160, the GPU is heavily stressed. The Low preset averages 69 FPS, which is the only playable 4K option above 60 FPS. Medium settings average 54 FPS, with a minimum of 46 and a maximum of 62 FPS. High settings average 49 FPS, and Ultra drops to an average of 31 FPS. This shows a dramatic drop-off in performance at 4K, particularly on the Ultra preset, where the frame rate is less than half of what is achieved on Low. The data suggests that the 8 GB VRAM and 128-bit memory bus are significant limitations at this resolution, causing severe performance degradation at higher settings.

Resolution Scaling — how FPS drops from 1080p to 4K and what it says about the limiting component

The resolution scaling analysis reveals a textbook GPU-bound scenario. When moving from 1080p to 4K on High settings, the average FPS drops from 119 to 49, a reduction of 58.8%. This is a massive drop that is directly attributable to the GPU's inability to handle the increased pixel count. The scaling is not linear, as the 4K resolution has four times the pixels of 1080p, but the performance drop is less than that, indicating that other factors like memory bandwidth and fill rate are also coming into play.

The scaling pattern across all settings is consistent. On Low settings, the FPS drops from 167 at 1080p to 69 at 4K, a 58.7% reduction. On Medium, it drops from 131 to 54, a 58.8% reduction. On Ultra, it drops from 76 to 31, a 59.2% reduction. This near-constant percentage drop across all settings suggests that the scaling is purely resolution-driven and not affected by the specific rendering features enabled by each preset. This is a strong indicator that the GPU is the limiting component, as a CPU-bound scenario would show less FPS drop at higher resolutions, since the CPU workload would not increase as much as the GPU workload.

The data shows that the CPU is not the bottleneck because the FPS drop is so steep. If the CPU were the limiting factor, the FPS would plateau at a certain level regardless of resolution, as the CPU would be maxed out. However, the FPS continues to drop significantly with each resolution increase, demonstrating that the GPU is the component that is being saturated. The 4K Ultra result of 31 FPS is particularly telling, as it shows the GPU is completely overwhelmed by the combination of high resolution and high graphical settings, resulting in a poor experience. The data indicates that this combo is best suited for 1080p or 1440p gaming, where the GPU can provide playable frame rates without being excessively bottlenecked by its memory subsystem.

Settings Recommendations — which preset gives the best experience per the measured rows

Based on the measured FPS data, the optimal settings preset depends on the user's resolution and performance targets. For 1080p, the High preset offers an excellent balance, delivering an average of 119 FPS. This is a smooth and responsive experience that should be well above the refresh rate of most standard monitors. While the Low preset achieves 167 FPS, the visual quality trade-off is significant for a game like Greedfall, which has detailed environments. The Ultra preset at 1080p, with an average of 76 FPS, is still playable, but the jump from High to Ultra may not justify the 43 FPS loss for the visual gains.

At 1440p, the High preset is again the recommended choice, with an average of 83 FPS. This is a solid frame rate for a high-resolution experience. The Medium preset averages 91 FPS, which is a slightly higher frame rate but with lower visual fidelity. The Low preset at 116 FPS is very smooth, but it compromises the game's aesthetic. The Ultra preset at 1440p drops to 53 FPS, which is below the 60 FPS threshold that many players consider the minimum for a fluid experience. Therefore, High is the sweet spot at this resolution, providing a good balance between image quality and performance.

For 4K, the options are more limited. The Low preset is the only one that averages above 60 FPS, at 69 FPS. The Medium preset averages 54 FPS, which is playable but not ideal. The High preset at 49 FPS and Ultra at 31 FPS are not recommended for a smooth experience, as they fall below playable thresholds. Given the data, the best experience at 4K is achieved with the Low preset, which offers playable frame rates. Alternatively, users should consider lowering the resolution to 1440p with High settings for a significantly better visual and performance trade-off. The data strongly suggests that this system is not designed for 4K Ultra gaming, and the user will get the best experience by targeting 1080p or 1440p with the High preset.