To The Core

To The Core, an idle game with a light footprint, shows how aggressively the AMD Ryzen 5 8400F and NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4080 can push frame rates. The measured data reveals a combo that never drops below 125 FPS even at 3840x2160 Ultra settings, and at 1080p it reaches 552 FPS on Low. This is not a system that struggles; the numbers indicate a strong pairing.

Resolution Scaling

The FPS scaling between resolutions tells a clear story about which component is binding first. From 1920x1080 to 2560x1440, the average FPS at Low settings falls from 552 to 371. That is a 32.6% reduction for a 79% increase in pixel count (1440p has 3.67M pixels vs. 2.07M at 1080p). At High settings, the drop is from 398 FPS to 272 FPS, a 33.2% reduction. Medium settings scale similarly: 467 → 314 FPS (32.8% drop). Ultra goes from 326 to 219 FPS (32.8% drop). The consistency of about 33% loss regardless of settings suggests that the scaling is strictly resolution-bound rather than settings-bound — the percentage reduction is almost identical across Low, High, Medium, and Ultra.

Moving from 1440p to 4K (3840x2160) produces a larger relative drop. Low falls from 371 to 212 FPS — 42.9% lower. High goes from 272 to 142 (–47.8%), Medium from 314 to 180 (–42.7%), and Ultra from 219 to 125 (–42.9%). This is a heavier penalty than the 1440p step. The pixel count increase from 1440p to 4K is 1.64× (8.3M vs. 3.68M), but the FPS drops by around 0.58–0.64×, which means the FPS loss is smaller than the pixel increase alone would suggest, but larger than the 1080p→1440p step. Overall, from 1080p Low to 4K Low, FPS falls from 552 to 212, a 61.6% reduction, while 4K Ultra gives 125 FPS, a 61.6% reduction from 326 FPS. In every case, the FPS at 4K is still above 120, which is remarkable for a 4K panel.

The scaling pattern indicates a GPU bottleneck at higher resolutions. At 108p, the 552 FPS ceiling is likely limited by the CPU's single-thread performance or the game's engine — named Idle, this is not a GPU-heavy workload. As resolution jumps, the GPU tasks become more influential, so the FPS drops more steeply. But even at 4K, the combo is not exhausted; the low-end CPU quotient is strong enough to feed the RTX 4080, which still produces 212 FPS at Low. The data suggests that at 108p, the processor (6 cores, 12 threads at 4.2–4.7 GHz) is the primary limit, not the graphics card. This is supported by the fact that increasing settings from Low to Ultra at 108p only costs 34% of FPS (398→326), but at 4K the same settings shift costs 48% (212→125). That flips the scaling ladder: the component that limits changes with resolution.

How This Combo Ranks

This exact CPU+GPU pairing sits at rank 226 out of 3,725 tested combos in To The Core from the benchmark database. That places it in the top 6.1% of all combinations tested, a strong result, but not a top-50 squad. The rank is out of all combos, not just this game genre. The combination of a mid-range Ryzen 5 (released March 2024) and the top-end consumer RTX 4080 (launched January 2023) yields average ranks above most mid-range PCs.

When put into context with the CPU's overall performance, the pairing is efficient. The Ryzen 5 8400F sits at the 77th percentile among all CPUs, meaning it beats 77% of other processors on aggregate benchmarks. The GPU dominates more decisively: the RTX 4080 is in the 86th percentile overall. So the GPU is a powerful engine, and while the CPU is far from the bottom, it is not a top-5 CPU. The ranking reflects that: the GPU pulls the frame rates up, but the CPU keeps it from claiming a truly elite spot in game-specific testing.

The nearest rival CPUs (in aggregate score) are the AMD Ryzen 5 7500F (0.2% slower), Intel Core i7-11850H (0.3% faster), Intel Core i7-13620H (0.4% faster), and the AMD EPYC 9474F (0.4% slower). The 8400F sits remarkably close to these three mainstream chips — within 0.2–0.4% aggregate average score. That small variance indicates that the 8400F's mid-range performance is nearly statistical noise relative to these peers; none gives a meaningful advantage over the others. Its single-thread score of 3,685 in PassMark is modest for a 2024 processor, but the 4.7 GHz boost clock and 6-core/12-thread configuration keep it competitive for general workloads.

For the GPU, the nearest rivals by average score include the RTX 4080 SUPER (0.1% slower), the AMD Radeon Pro W5700X (1.1% slower), the AMD Radeon RX 6750 GRE 12GB (2.6% slower), and the AMD Radeon 8060S (2.7% slower). The 4080 sits at 54,247 average, which is actually 0.1% faster than the 4080 SUPER variant and 1.1% faster than the Radeon Pro card. This is unusual: the 4080 is a notch below the 4080 SUPER in that model's own lineup, but the measured average here puts it just behind — effectively a tie. The gap to the RX 6750 GRE and the 8060S is 2–3%, so the 4080 holds a clear lead over the non-Super AMD options.

CPU Role

The AMD Ryzen 5 8400F is based on Zen 4 (Phoenix) architecture and uses a 4 nm process. It has 6 cores and 12 threads, with a base clock of 4.20 GHz and a boost clock of 4.70 GHz. The CPU runs at a 65W TDP, but its role in this combo is not to feed a highly multithreaded game — the genre is Idle, which typically uses a single primary thread and light background threads. The CPU is also not using an integrated graphics unit (ours is N/A).

The measured FPS data shows that at 108p, the GPU is not the limiting factor. At Low settings, we see 552 FPS, which is beyond the refresh rate of almost any monitor. The scaling curve from 108p to 1440p and 4K shows that the CPU is handling the game logic comfortably, but its single-thread performance is the main factor at 108p. The CPU's Passmark single-thread score is 3,685, and Cinebench R23 single-core is 2,103 (single-thread). These numbers are decent, but the 4.7 GHz boost clock on a 6-core chip is not exceptional for the high refresh rate ceilings that such a fast GPU demands.

From the 3DMark threads side: 3dmark_2_threads score is 1,874, and 4-thread is 3,563. These modest single-thread numbers are representative of the CPU's ceiling. The 8-thread score is 5,275, and max-thread (12) is 6,165 — showing that the CPU's multi-thread performance scales reasonably, but for an Idle game, the idle is not heavy. So the CPU is actually overkill except for the single-thread portion.

But the measured FPS at 4K Ultra is 125, which is still a playable high rate. That shows that even at 4K the CPU is not bottlenecking hard; the GPU is the limiter. The CPU's 16 MB of shared L3 and 83.2 GB/s memory bandwidth (DDR5 dual-channel) are in line with a Zen 4 desktop part, and they ensure that the game's draw calls and physics are not starved.

That's why the ranking is 226 overall — the CPU is not a top-tier performer, but its 6-core/12-thread design is healthy for a game that rarely uses more than a couple of threads. The data point to the fact that a faster CPU (like a 750F with +0.2% average) would not produce a meaningful shift in FPS because the frame ceiling is driven by the GPU at higher resolutions.

Measured FPS Breakdown

Here is the full measured data set from the database tests:

At 1920×1080 (Full HD):

• Low: 552 FPS average.
• Medium: 467 FPS average, with a low frame time of 397 and a high of 537.
• High: 398 FPS average.
• Ultra: 326 FPS average.

At 2560×1440 (WQHD):

• Low: 371 FPS.
• Medium: 314 FPS, min 267, max 361.
• High: 272 FPS.
• Ultra: 219 FPS.

At 3840×2160 (4K UHD):

• Low: 212 FPS.
• Medium: 180 FPS, min 153, max 207.
• High: 144 FPS.
• Ultra: 125 FPS.

The Medium setting has a available specific min/max data, which shows a frame pacing window of 397–537 at 108p, 267–361 at 1440p, and 153–207 at 4Kp. The variance is about 60–80% between minimum and average, which is acceptable. The rest of the settings only have average FPS, so we cannot comment on jitter.

These numbers tell a few things: the jump from Low to Medium at any resolution costs roughly 23–30% of FPS (synthetic from 552→467 is 15% at 1440p, same). The biggest leap is from High to Ultra: at 1080, High 398 → Ultra 326, a 24% drop; at 1440p, 272→219, a 24% drop; at 4Kp, 144→125, a 15% drop. The Ultra preset is a significant perf hit: average across all resolutions, it cuts FPS by about 24–38% from Low.

The data also indicates that the combo is never fractionally below 60 FPS, even at the most demanding 4K Ultra setting. In fact, 125 FPS at 4K Ultra is higher than the average 1440p High result for many other mid-range combos out there.

GPU Role

The NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4080 is the primary driver of this combo's performance. It's based on the Ada Lovelace architecture (AD103 chip, 5 nm process) with 16 GB of GDDR6X memory on a 256-bit bus, delivering 716.8 GB/s of memory bandwidth. The base clock is 2205 MHz and boosts to 2505 MHz. The 4080 has 9,728 shader units, 304 texture mapping units, and 112 ROPs, plus 76 Ray Tracing cores and 304 tensor cores. This part is triple-slot, and it has a TDP of 320 W with a suggested PSU of 700 W. Its launch MSRP is 1,199 USD.

The idle game's engine is not heavy on ray tracing or tensor workloads, so the RT/tensor hardware is mostly idle. What matters is the raw rasterization and pixel throughput. The RTX 4080 achieves 280.6 GPixel/s of pixel rate and 761.5 GTexel/s of texture rate. In an idle game, the geometry and texture load is light, so these numbers are ample.

The measured FPS scaling shows that the 4080 is not the bottleneck at 108p — the GPU can easily maintain over 500 FPS but only reaches 552 at Low, which is probably limited by the CPU's IPC. As the resolution increased to 4K, the GPU becomes the limiting factor because the pixel payload grows. The 4080's 48.74 TFLOPS FP32 compute and 16 GB VRAM (at 22.4 Gbps effective) are sufficient for all settings, even Ultra, which we see still caps at 125 FPS at 4K.

The GPU's performance percentile among all GPUs (86th) and its average benchmark score of 54,247 confirm it's a top-tier part. The nearest rival is the RTX 4080 SUPER with a score 0.1% lower, as per the measured standardized average score. In practice, that is within the noise of the test suite. So the 4080 is effectively peerless to the 4080 SUPER in our data. For an idle game, such a powerful GPU is massive overkill, but it's the reason why the 4K Ultra setting stays playable at 125 FPS.

The 16 GB VRAM at high data sizes is more than enough for To The Garden which any texture at 4K will fit. No memory pressure is expected.

FAQ

Q: This page lists the AMD Ryzen 5 8400F's resolution scaling. How much on the CPU cores does this game use?

A: The game is an idle title, which usually uses a few threads. The CPU has 6 physical cores and 12 threads, but the average FPS at 108p (Low 552, Ultra 326) shows the single-thread power is the most critical. The PassMark single-thread score of 3,685 points to a capable core, but the game does not have a strong need for multi-threading.

Q: The GPU is a high-end model, yet at 4K Ultra the average FPS is only 125. Why so "low"?

A: 108p resolution scaling shows the FPS drops linearly with pixels. From 1080p Low (552 FPS) to 1440p Low (371 FPS) to 4K Low (212 FPS) — these drops become bigger percentage-wise. At 4K the GPU is the dominating factor, so the card's pixel throughput (280.6 GPixel/s) becomes the limit. 125 FPS is still a high number for 4K Ultra, but not as high as the 1440p Ultra (219 FPS).

Q: What is the bottleneck at 1080p?

A: The data shows the FPS at 1080p is 552 (Low) and 326 (Ultra). The gap from Low to Ultra at same resolution is 24% (326 vs 398 High), but the gap from 1080p to 4K is 27% (552 to 212). Since going from 1080 to 4K doesn't exactly multiply the frames by ¼, but the processor is the usual suspect. The Ryzen 7 8400F's single-thread throughput (boost 4.70 GHz) is the limiter at 1080p.

Q: How does the 8400F compare to its nearest rival in terms of CPU score?

A: In aggregate benchmark, the 8400F (score 25,005) is 0.2% ahead of the AMD Ryzen 5 7500F (24,964), 0.3% ahead of the i7-11850H (24,935), and 0.4% ahead of the i7-13620H (24,911). The only rival that beats it is the EPYC 9474F (25,103), 0.4% above.

Q: This GPU is the RTX 4080. How does it scale in the ranking of all GPUs?

A: The RTX 2080 lands at 86th percentile against all GPUs, meaning it's faster than 86% of all GPUs. Its nearest rival, the RTX 4080 SUPER, is only 0.1% slower based on the aggregate score, so these two are effectively tied.

Q: What is the measured FPS for the Medium setting at 2560x1440?

A: At 2560x1440 with Medium settings, the average FPS is 314, with a minimum (20th percent) of 267 and a maximum (1% low?) of 361. This is the only setting that reports a range. At 1080p Medium, the average is 467 (min 397, max 537), and at 4K Medium it's 180 (min 153, max 207).