Doom

Measured FPS Breakdown

The recorded data for this combination shows a machine that is entirely comfortable running Doom at every tested resolution and preset. The measurements cover three resolutions (1920x1080, 2560x1440, and 3840x2160) and four settings levels (Low, Medium, High, Ultra).

At 1920x1080, the average frame rates are exceptionally high across the board. The Low preset delivers an average of 312 FPS, Medium pushes to 297 FPS, High drops slightly to 280 FPS, and Ultra still holds an average of 241 FPS. The Medium preset recorded a minimum of 253 FPS and a maximum of 342 FPS, which are the only min/max values captured at this resolution. Even the lowest average, the 241 FPS at Ultra, is more than four times the playable threshold of 60 FPS.

Moving to 2560x1440, the averages remain well above any concern. Low settings produce 260 FPS, Medium averages 226 FPS, High averages 191 FPS, and Ultra still manages 156 FPS. The Medium preset at this resolution recorded a minimum of 192 FPS and a maximum of 260 FPS. The gap between the fastest and slowest presets here is noticeable: Low is roughly 67% faster than Ultra in average terms, which suggests the GPU is doing meaningful work at higher settings but still has enormous headroom.

At 3840x2160, the numbers start to show more differentiation between presets, though every setting remains far above 60 FPS. Low averages 141 FPS, Medium averages 123 FPS with a recorded minimum of 104 FPS and maximum of 141 FPS, High averages 104 FPS, and Ultra drops to 85 FPS. The spread from Low to Ultra at 4K is approximately 66%, which demonstrates how much additional rendering work the Ultra preset demands at this pixel count. Still, even the most demanding configuration at the highest resolution clears the 60 FPS threshold by a comfortable 42% margin (85 FPS average versus the 60 FPS playable threshold).

The data indicates a system that never approaches a playability boundary. At no point in any measurement does the average frame rate fall below 85 FPS, and the lowest recorded minimum across all data points is 104 FPS (4K Medium). This is a configuration built to saturate high refresh rate displays at 1080p and 1440p, and it still delivers smooth performance at 4K with all settings maximized.

CPU and GPU Roles

The division of labor between the Intel Core i5-11400F and the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4080 shifts predictably as resolution increases. At 1920x1080, the frame rates are so high (241 to 312 FPS depending on preset) that the CPU is likely the more significant constraint in many scenes, though the i5-11400F with its 6 cores and 12 threads still delivers enough throughput to keep averages above 240 FPS even at Ultra.

The scaling between presets at 1080p tells a clear story. Moving from Low to Ultra reduces the average from 312 FPS to 241 FPS, a drop of about 23%. That relatively modest penalty suggests the GPU is not saturated at this resolution; the rendering pipeline is likely limited by other factors, including CPU-bound game logic and draw call submission. The RTX 4080, with its 48.74 TFLOPS of FP32 performance and 9728 shading units, is capable of far more work than a 1080p frame buffer demands at these settings.

At 2560x1440, the picture changes somewhat. The average at Ultra is 156 FPS, which is still extremely high, but the spread between Low (260 FPS) and Ultra (156 FPS) has widened to about 40%. This indicates the GPU is beginning to take on more of the performance burden as pixel count increases. The i5-11400F's role diminishes relative to 1080p, but with 12 threads and a boost clock of 4.40 GHz, it remains sufficient to feed the RTX 4080 without creating a visible bottleneck at these frame rates.

At 3840x2160, the GPU becomes the dominant factor. The gap between Low (141 FPS) and Ultra (85 FPS) is now roughly 66%, which is a much larger relative difference than at 1080p. This is consistent with a GPU-bound scenario: as the pixel count quadruples from 1080p to 4K, the RTX 4080's fill rate and shading throughput become the limiting resource. The CPU's role recedes further, and the recorded 104 FPS minimum at 4K Medium suggests the GPU is still delivering stable performance without CPU-induced hitches.

The overall pattern is clear. At 1080p, the combination is CPU-leaning with the i5-11400F keeping pace just fine. At 1440p, the balance shifts toward the GPU but neither component becomes a hard limit. At 4K, the RTX 4080 is the primary performance driver, and the CPU has ample headroom. The data shows no scenario where the CPU prevents the GPU from reaching its potential, which is the expected outcome for a 6-core, 12-thread processor paired with a top-tier Ada Lovelace GPU.

Similar Performance Alternatives

The database's nearest rival comparisons provide context for both components. For the Intel Core i5-11400F, the closest performers in aggregate benchmark score include the AMD EPYC 7H12 with an average score of 17120 (0.3% lower than the i5-11400F's 17177), the Intel Core i5-12450H at 17239 (0.4% higher), the AMD Ryzen 3 PRO 8300G at 17278 (0.6% higher), and the Intel Core Ultra 7 164U at 17074 (0.6% lower). These deltas are all under 1%, meaning any of these CPUs would deliver effectively identical gaming performance in Doom when paired with the RTX 4080. The i5-11400F sits in the 71st percentile of all CPUs tested, which is a strong showing for a mid-range desktop part, though the nearest rivals are a mix of server, mobile, and desktop chips.

For the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4080, the nearest rivals are remarkably close. The RTX 4080 SUPER scores 54209, just 0.1% higher than the RTX 4080's 54247. The AMD Radeon Pro W5700X comes in at 54828 (1.1% higher), the AMD Radeon RX 6750 GRE 12 GB scores 55698 (2.6% higher), and the AMD Radeon 8060S reaches 55757 (2.7% higher). These differences are small enough that in Doom specifically, the frame rate differences would be marginal. The RTX 4080 sits in the 86th percentile of all GPUs tested, which places it firmly in the upper tier of graphics hardware.

What this means in practice: if a user were to swap the i5-11400F for an i5-12450H or a Ryzen 3 PRO 8300G, the Doom performance would be virtually indistinguishable. Similarly, moving from the RTX 4080 to an RTX 4080 SUPER would yield a negligible change in frame rates. The closest GPU rival that is meaningfully different in architecture, the AMD Radeon RX 6750 GRE 12 GB, is only 2.6% higher in aggregate score, so it would also produce very similar results in this title. This combination effectively represents a performance plateau where small hardware changes do not translate into observable frame rate differences.

How This Combo Ranks

The combination of the Intel Core i5-11400F and NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4080 ranks 379th out of 3712 tested combinations in Doom. That places it in the top 10.2% of all configurations in the database for this game. The high rank is driven almost entirely by the GPU, given that the RTX 4080 is in the 86th percentile of all GPUs while the CPU is in the 71st percentile of all CPUs. The game's relatively modest CPU demands, even at high frame rates, mean the i5-11400F does not hold the combo back in any meaningful way.

The rank of 379 out of 3712 is notable because it places this combination ahead of many configurations that feature more expensive or newer CPUs. The data shows that in Doom, the RTX 4080 can carry a mid-range CPU to elite-tier performance. The gap between this combo and the top-ranked combinations is likely attributable to CPU-bound scenarios at 1080p, where processors with higher single-thread performance or more cores could push frame rates even higher. However, with averages already exceeding 240 FPS at 1080p Ultra, the practical difference is minimal for most display setups.

The Verdict

This PC can absolutely run Doom, and it does so with exceptional headroom at every resolution and setting combination tested. The verdict by resolution is unambiguous: all four settings levels (Low, Medium, High, Ultra) are playable at all three resolutions, with every average frame rate clearing the 60 FPS playable threshold.

At 1920x1080, the worst-case average is 241 FPS at Ultra settings, which is ideal for high refresh rate monitors. At 2560x1440, Ultra still averages 156 FPS, comfortably above 144 Hz displays. At 3840x2160, Ultra averages 85 FPS, which is smooth for 60 Hz or 75 Hz monitors and still playable on 120 Hz panels. The lowest recorded minimum across all data points is 104 FPS at 4K Medium, so there is no scenario where frame pacing would drop below the playable threshold.

The answer is a definitive yes: this combination runs Doom at maximum settings across the board, with enough performance left over for streaming, background applications, or future game updates that might increase system requirements.

Best Settings per Resolution

For each resolution, the best settings are defined as the most demanding preset that maintains an average of at least 60 FPS. Since every preset at every resolution exceeds 60 FPS, the best settings are always Ultra.

At 1920x1080, Ultra settings deliver an average of 241 FPS. This is the highest quality preset and it still provides frame rates suitable for competitive play on 240 Hz monitors. There is no reason to lower settings at this resolution.

At 2560x1440, Ultra settings average 156 FPS. This is ideal for 144 Hz displays and provides a substantial margin above the 60 FPS threshold. The visual quality improvement from Ultra over High, which averages 191 FPS, is worth the frame rate cost for most users.

At 3840x2160, Ultra settings average 85 FPS. This clears the 60 FPS threshold by a healthy margin and provides a smooth experience on 4K displays. Users with 120 Hz 4K monitors may prefer High settings at 104 FPS for a more responsive feel, but the data confirms Ultra is fully playable. The recommendation from the database is Ultra at all three resolutions, with average frame rates of 241 FPS at 1080p, 156 FPS at 1440p, and 85 FPS at 4K.