Greedfall

The Intel Core Ultra 7 265 and AMD Radeon RX 6800 XT combination delivers a strong showing in Greedfall, landing at rank 884 out of 2938 tested combos. This places the pairing in the upper third of all tested configurations, a solid result for a game that launched in 2019 and leans on both CPU and GPU resources. The Core Ultra 7 265 sits at the 93rd percentile among all CPUs, while the RX 6800 XT holds the 85th percentile among all GPUs, so the combo’s rank reflects two components that are each above average in their respective pools. The game’s measured frame rates confirm that this pairing can handle Greedfall across all tested resolutions, though the gap between settings widens dramatically as resolution climbs.

How This Combo Ranks

The combo’s rank of 884 out of 2938 tested combinations puts it in the 70th percentile of all pairings tested for Greedfall. That is a comfortable position, but not an elite one—there are 883 combos that perform better, and 2054 that perform worse. The ranking is influenced by both the CPU and GPU, and in this title, the RX 6800 XT’s role becomes more pronounced at higher resolutions.

The Intel Core Ultra 7 265’s average benchmark score of 64640 places it just 0.3% behind the AMD EPYC 4464P, which scores 64823. That is a negligible difference, effectively a tie in synthetic workloads. The Core Ultra 7 265 is also 0.3% ahead of the Intel Core Ultra 7 265F (score 64438) and 0.7% ahead of the AMD EPYC 7343 (score 64202). The only rival it trails by more than a rounding error is the AMD EPYC 9124, which scores 65104—a 0.7% gap. These deltas are all within noise for real-world gaming, meaning the CPU is not the limiting factor in Greedfall for this combo.

On the GPU side, the RX 6800 XT’s average benchmark score of 48477 sits 1.5% above the NVIDIA RTX A1000 Mobile (score 47743) but 2.5% below the Intel Arc A550M (score 49737). The gap to the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5070 Ti is 3% (score 49957), and the RX 6800 XT is also 3% behind the AMD Radeon RX Vega 64 (score 50001). These are modest differences, and in Greedfall specifically, the RX 6800 XT’s measured FPS suggests it is more than capable of driving the game at playable rates even at 4K.

What the rank tells us is that this combo is well-balanced for Greedfall. At 1080p, the CPU can push frame rates high enough that the GPU becomes the primary constraint. At 4K, the GPU’s workload dominates, and the CPU’s headroom becomes less relevant. The rank of 884 reflects a pairing that is neither CPU-bound nor GPU-bound in a way that would drag it down; instead, it lands in a sweet spot where both components contribute meaningfully.

GPU Role

The AMD Radeon RX 6800 XT is built on the RDNA 2.0 architecture with a Navi 21 chip, manufactured on a 7 nm process at TSMC. It packs 4608 shading units, 288 texture mapping units, and 128 raster operation units, along with 72 ray tracing cores. The GPU’s base clock is 1825 MHz, with a boost clock of 2250 MHz and a game clock of 2015 MHz. Memory is 16 GB of GDDR6 on a 256-bit bus, running at 2000 MHz with 16 Gbps effective speed, yielding a bandwidth of 512.0 GB/s.

These specs directly influence Greedfall’s results. The 16 GB frame buffer is generous for a game from 2019, and at 4K with Ultra settings, the game’s memory footprint is unlikely to exceed that capacity, so there is no VRAM-related stutter or texture pop-in visible in the measured data. The 512.0 GB/s bandwidth ensures that texture streaming at high resolutions does not become a bottleneck, which helps explain why the 4K Medium preset still holds 75 FPS average.

The GPU’s pixel rate of 288.0 GPixel/s and texture rate of 648.0 GTexel/s are high enough to handle Greedfall’s rendering demands. At 4K Ultra, the average FPS drops to 43, which indicates that the GPU’s compute and memory bandwidth are being pushed hard. The boost clock of 2250 MHz allows the card to sustain performance under load, but the 300 W TDP means thermal headroom is a consideration—though the data shows consistent results across all tested settings, so throttling does not appear to be an issue in this benchmark run.

The RX 6800 XT’s FP32 throughput of 20.74 TFLOPS is substantial, and Greedfall’s lighting and particle effects benefit from that compute power. However, the game is not particularly ray tracing heavy, so the 72 RT cores are less relevant here. The GPU’s DirectX 12 Ultimate support means it can run the game’s DX12 mode without compatibility issues, and the Vulkan 1.4 API support offers an alternative path for lower overhead.

In the measured data, the GPU’s role becomes clear when comparing settings. At 1080p Low, the combo hits 231 FPS average, which is far beyond what a 60 Hz display needs. At 1080p Ultra, that drops to 105 FPS, still smooth. The 4K Ultra result of 43 FPS is the only figure that dips below 60, indicating that the GPU is the limiting component at that extreme preset. The 16 GB VRAM and 512.0 GB/s bandwidth are sufficient for 4K, but the raw shading power of 4608 units is what determines the final frame rate.

FAQ

Q: What is the combo’s rank in Greedfall among all tested combinations?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 7 265 plus AMD Radeon RX 6800 XT ranks 884 out of 2938 tested combos, placing it in the upper third of all configurations.

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

A: The Core Ultra 7 265 scores 64640 on average, which is 0.3% behind the AMD EPYC 4464P (64823), 0.3% ahead of the Intel Core Ultra 7 265F (64438), 0.7% ahead of the AMD EPYC 7343 (64202), and 0.7% behind the AMD EPYC 9124 (65104).

Q: How does the GPU compare to its nearest rivals?

A: The RX 6800 XT averages 48477, sitting 1.5% above the NVIDIA RTX A1000 Mobile (47743), 2.5% below the Intel Arc A550M (49737), 3% below the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5070 Ti (49957), and 3% below the AMD Radeon RX Vega 64 (50001).

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

A: The highest 4K average is 96 FPS on Low settings. On Medium, it drops to 75 FPS (with a min of 64 and max of 86), High yields 68 FPS, and Ultra falls to 43 FPS.

Q: Is the combo capable of 1440p gaming at high refresh rates?

A: Yes. At 2560x1440, the combo delivers 160 FPS on Low, 126 FPS on Medium (min 107, max 145), 114 FPS on High, and 73 FPS on Ultra. All presets except Ultra exceed 100 FPS.

Q: Does the CPU or GPU limit performance at 1080p?

A: At 1920x1080, the combo reaches 231 FPS on Low, 181 FPS on Medium (min 154, max 209), 165 FPS on High, and 105 FPS on Ultra. The high frame rates on Low and Medium suggest the GPU is the primary limiter, as the CPU has enough headroom to push well beyond 200 FPS.

Measured FPS Breakdown

The measured FPS data covers three resolutions (3840x2160, 2560x1440, 1920x1080) and four settings presets (Low, Medium, High, Ultra). At 1080p, the combo starts at 231 FPS average on Low, which is the highest figure in the entire dataset. Moving to Medium drops the average to 181 FPS, with a minimum of 154 and maximum of 209. High settings produce 165 FPS average, and Ultra yields 105 FPS. The spread from Low to Ultra at 1080p is 126 FPS, showing that the GPU has plenty of headroom at this resolution.

At 1440p, the numbers scale down predictably. Low settings deliver 160 FPS average, Medium hits 126 FPS (min 107, max 145), High reaches 114 FPS, and Ultra drops to 73 FPS. The gap between Low and Ultra here is 87 FPS, narrower than at 1080p, which indicates that the GPU is starting to become more of a constraint as pixel count rises. Even at Ultra, 73 FPS is playable on a 144 Hz monitor, though not at full refresh.

At 4K, the picture changes significantly. Low settings still produce 96 FPS average, which is respectable for 3840x2160. Medium drops to 75 FPS (min 64, max 86), High falls to 68 FPS, and Ultra bottoms out at 43 FPS. The Low-to-Ultra spread at 4K is 53 FPS, the smallest of the three resolutions, confirming that the GPU is the dominant factor here. The 4K Ultra result of 43 FPS is the only sub-60 figure in the entire dataset, and it suggests that this preset is too demanding for a smooth experience on this combo.

The Medium presets include min and max FPS values for all three resolutions. At 1080p Medium, the min is 154 and max is 209, a range of 55 FPS. At 1440p Medium, the min is 107 and max is 145, a range of 38 FPS. At 4K Medium, the min is 64 and max is 86, a range of 22 FPS. This narrowing range with increasing resolution indicates that frame time consistency improves at higher pixel counts, likely because the GPU is more uniformly loaded. The absence of min/max data for Low, High, and Ultra presets means we cannot assess frame pacing for those settings, but the averages alone tell a clear story.

Resolution Scaling

The FPS drop from 1080p to 4K is steepest at Low settings. At 1080p Low, the combo averages 231 FPS; at 1440p Low, it falls to 160 FPS (a 30.7% reduction); at 4K Low, it drops to 96 FPS (a 40% reduction from 1440p, and 58.4% from 1080p). This pattern suggests that at Low settings, the GPU is the sole bottleneck, and the raw pixel count drives the performance decline.

For Medium settings, the scaling is more moderate. 1080p Medium averages 181 FPS, 1440p Medium drops to 126 FPS (a 30.4% reduction), and 4K Medium falls to 75 FPS (a 40.5% reduction from 1440p, and 58.6% from 1080p). The percentage drops are nearly identical to Low, indicating that the additional effects enabled by Medium do not disproportionately burden the GPU relative to the pixel count increase.

High settings show a slightly different curve. 1080p High averages 165 FPS, 1440p High drops to 114 FPS (a 30.9% reduction), and 4K High falls to 68 FPS (a 40.4% reduction from 1440p, and 58.8% from 1080p). The consistency of these percentages across Low, Medium, and High strongly implies that the GPU’s shading rate and memory bandwidth scale linearly with resolution for this game, and the CPU is not introducing any non-linear bottlenecks.

Ultra settings break the pattern. 1080p Ultra averages 105 FPS, 1440p Ultra drops to 73 FPS (a 30.5% reduction), and 4K Ultra falls to 43 FPS (a 41.1% reduction from 1440p, and 59.0% from 1080p). The percentage drops are actually slightly larger at Ultra than at other presets, which suggests that the extra graphical features at Ultra (likely higher shadow quality, more ambient occlusion, and increased draw distance) add a per-pixel cost that compounds at higher resolutions. The 4K Ultra result of 43 FPS is 59% below the 1080p Ultra result of 105 FPS, a larger relative drop than any other preset.

The limiting component is clearly the GPU at all resolutions above 1080p. The CPU’s Cinebench R23 multicore score of 42216 and single-core score of 5960 indicate strong processing power, and the 20 cores and 20 threads (with no hyperthreading) are more than sufficient for Greedfall’s workload. The fact that 1080p Low reaches 231 FPS, which is near the practical ceiling for many displays, shows that the CPU can feed the GPU at high frame rates. As resolution increases, the GPU’s pixel throughput becomes the binding constraint, and the CPU’s influence fades.

Settings Recommendations

For 4K gaming, the data shows a clear trade-off. Ultra settings at 3840x2160 produce 43 FPS average, which is below the 60 FPS threshold commonly considered smooth. Medium settings at 4K deliver 75 FPS average with a minimum of 64 FPS, meaning the frame rate stays above 60 even in demanding scenes. High settings at 4K yield 68 FPS average, which is also playable, but the 7 FPS gain over Medium comes with a higher visual quality cost that may not be worth it if frame pacing matters. Low settings at 4K reach 96 FPS, but the visual downgrade is substantial. For the best balance of visual fidelity and smoothness at 4K, Medium is the recommended preset—it offers a 74.4% higher average than Ultra (75 vs 43) while still maintaining a minimum of 64 FPS.

At 1440p, the choices are easier. Ultra settings produce 73 FPS average, which is above 60 and suitable for most monitors. High settings reach 114 FPS, which is better suited for 120 Hz or 144 Hz displays. Medium hits 126 FPS with a min of 107, and Low pushes to 160 FPS. For a 144 Hz monitor, Medium is the sweet spot: it delivers 126 FPS average and never drops below 107, ensuring consistent high-refresh gameplay. If the display is 60 Hz, Ultra at 73 FPS is the best visual option without sacrificing smoothness.

At 1080p, the combo has enough headroom that even Ultra settings achieve 105 FPS average. This means users can enable the highest preset without worrying about frame rate. High settings at 165 FPS are excellent for 144 Hz panels, and Medium at 181 FPS (min 154) is ideal for 165 Hz or 180 Hz displays. Low at 231 FPS is only useful for extreme refresh rate monitors or competitive play, but Greedfall is an action RPG, not a competitive shooter, so the visual fidelity of High or Ultra is preferable. The data suggests that Ultra at 1080p is the best overall experience, providing 105 FPS and the highest visual quality, with no min FPS data to suggest any stutter risk.

Across all resolutions, the Medium preset is the most consistent performer. It is the only preset with min and max FPS values recorded for every resolution, and the minimums (154 at 1080p, 107 at 1440p, 64 at 4K) all remain playable. The gap between Medium and High is modest at all resolutions (16 FPS at 1080p, 12 FPS at 1440p, 7 FPS at 4K), but Medium’s lower demand leaves more headroom for dips. For users who prioritize frame rate stability, Medium is the safest choice. For those who want the best visuals and have a monitor that can handle sub-60 FPS at 4K, Ultra is viable only at 1080p or 1440p, not at 4K.