Doom

The Intel Core i5-12600KF paired with Intel Arc B370 graphics faces an interesting challenge with Doom: a processor sitting comfortably in the upper tier of the database meeting a GPU near the bottom of the charts. The recorded data tells a story of severe graphics-side limitation, and it is worth walking through the numbers resolution by resolution to see exactly where this combination lands, where it falls short, and what the data implies about which component is holding the frame rate back.

Measured FPS Breakdown

Starting at 1920x1080, the most forgiving resolution in the dataset, the Arc B370 produces 96 avg FPS on Low settings, 84 avg FPS on Medium, 71 avg FPS on High, and 58 avg FPS on Ultra. The Medium entry is the only configuration with full frame-time detail recorded: a minimum of 71 and a maximum of 96, which means the Medium average of 84 spans exactly the range defined by the High and Low averages. That consistency suggests the recording captured Low and High figures as the envelope around the Medium result.

At 2560x1440 the picture darkens considerably. Low drops to 62 avg FPS, Medium to 54, High to 46, and Ultra to 37. The Medium row again carries the min/max detail: 46 minimum, 62 maximum, mirroring the High and Low averages exactly. Only the Low preset clears the 60 FPS playability threshold, and it does so by a margin of just two frames.

At 3840x2160 the results fall off a cliff: 34 avg FPS on Low, 29 on Medium, 25 on High, and 20 on Ultra. The Medium min/max is 25 to 34, again matching the High and Low averages. Nothing at 4K comes anywhere near playable, and even the Lowest preset manages barely more than half the threshold.

The scaling pattern is remarkably clean. Moving from 1080p to 1440p cuts frame rates by roughly a third at every preset (96 to 62, 84 to 54, 71 to 46, 58 to 37). Moving from 1440p to 4K cuts them by roughly another third to a half (62 to 34, 54 to 29, 46 to 25, 37 to 20). This near-uniform degradation across presets is the signature of a graphics bottleneck: when the GPU is the limiting factor, resolution increases hurt every quality tier proportionally, which is precisely what the data shows.

Similar Performance Alternatives

The CPU side of this pairing sits at the 79th percentile of all processors in the database, with an average benchmark score of 27799. Its nearest rivals are remarkably tight: the Intel Core i9-10900K at 27872 (a delta of just -0.3 percent), the AMD Ryzen 5 8500GE at 27712 (0.3 percent), the AMD Ryzen 7 6800U at 27887 (-0.3 percent), and the AMD Ryzen 7 5800X3D at 27896 (-0.3 percent). Any of these processors would deliver effectively identical CPU-side performance in Doom, and given how GPU-limited the results are, swapping the i5-12600KF for any of them would change the recorded frame rates by essentially nothing.

The GPU side is where alternatives matter. The Arc B370 sits at the 5th percentile of all GPUs, with its only recorded synthetic score being 1184 in 3DMark Steel Nomad (DX12). Its nearest rivals are the ATI Mobility Radeon HD 5570 at 1186 (-0.2 percent), the ATI Radeon HD 5770 at 1190 (-0.5 percent), the AMD Radeon HD 7650M at 1192 (-0.7 percent), and the AMD FirePro M2000 at 1168 (1.4 percent). All four cluster within less than one and a half percent of the Arc B370's score, which means a system built around any of those GPUs would produce frame rates in Doom that are statistically indistinguishable from the numbers recorded here. For anyone evaluating this combination, the takeaway is stark: the Doom performance of this pairing is defined almost entirely by graphics hardware performing at the level of those aging rivals, while the processor is effectively interchangeable with far stronger silicon without moving the needle.

CPU and GPU Roles

Which component matters more for Doom on this build? The data answers decisively: the GPU. The percentile split alone frames the imbalance, with the processor at the 79th percentile versus the graphics solution at the 5th percentile. That is a gap of 74 percentile points between the two halves of the platform.

The resolution scaling confirms it. If the CPU were the limiting factor, raising the resolution would have minimal impact on frame rates, because the processor's workload does not scale with pixel count. Instead, the recorded data shows massive degradation: 96 FPS at 1080p Low becomes 34 FPS at 4K Low, a drop of nearly two-thirds from resolution changes alone while settings stayed identical. Similarly, 1080p Ultra's 58 FPS collapses to 20 FPS at 4K Ultra.

The preset scaling reinforces the same conclusion. At a fixed 1080p, going from Low to Ultra costs 38 frames (96 down to 58), a preset-driven penalty of roughly forty percent. At 4K the same Low-to-Ultra swing costs 14 frames (34 down to 20). Every knob that increases GPU load, whether resolution or quality settings, produces immediate and proportional frame-rate losses. Meanwhile the processor, with 10 cores, 16 threads, a 3.70 base and 4.90 boost clock, a Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 23391 and single-core score of 3302, never appears to constrain the output at any tested configuration. Doom is a fast-paced FPS where frame rate is king, and on this pairing the graphics hardware alone decides what is achievable.

How This Combo Ranks

Within the Doom rankings in the database, this CPU and GPU combination places 3425th out of 3712 tested combos. That puts it in the bottom portion of the field, roughly 92 percent of the way down the ranked list. For context, this placement tracks almost entirely with the GPU's 5th percentile standing rather than the CPU's 79th percentile position, which is consistent with the graphics-limited behavior seen throughout the measured results. The rank raises a fair question: could a weaker CPU have achieved the same Doom frame rates? Given the uniform resolution-driven degradation and the enormous headroom in the processor's benchmark scores, the data strongly suggests that a far less capable CPU paired with the same graphics hardware would land within a hair of these same numbers.

FAQ

Q: Can the Intel Core i5-12600KF + Intel Arc B370 run Doom at 1080p?

A: Yes. At 1920x1080 the combo averages 96 FPS on Low, 84 on Medium, and 71 on High, all above the 60 FPS threshold. Only Ultra falls short at 58 avg FPS.

Q: What is the best-looking setting that stays above 60 FPS at 1440p?

A: Only Low settings clear the bar at 2560x1440, at 62 avg FPS. Medium falls to 54, High to 46, and Ultra to 37.

Q: Is 4K playable at all?

A: No. Every preset at 3840x2160 falls well short of 60 FPS, ranging from 34 avg FPS on Low down to 20 on Ultra.

Q: Is the CPU or the GPU the bottleneck in this game?

A: The GPU. The Arc B370 sits at the 5th percentile of all GPUs while the i5-12600KF sits at the 79th percentile of all CPUs, and frame rates degrade heavily with resolution, which is the classic signature of a graphics bottleneck.

Q: Would a different CPU with similar performance change the results?

A: No. Rivals within a fraction of a percent of the i5-12600KF's average score include the Intel Core i9-10900K (-0.3 percent), AMD Ryzen 5 8500GE (0.3 percent), AMD Ryzen 7 6800U (-0.3 percent), and AMD Ryzen 7 5800X3D (-0.3 percent), and the GPU-limited scaling means any of them would produce effectively the same frame rates.

Q: How does this pairing rank among all tested Doom combinations?

A: It ranks 3425th out of 3712 combos, placing it near the bottom of the ranked field, in line with the GPU's low percentile standing.

Best Settings per Resolution

Based on the recorded averages and the 60 FPS playability threshold:

• 1920x1080: High settings, at 71 avg FPS. This is the most demanding preset that stays at or above 60 FPS at this resolution. Ultra misses the cut at 58 avg FPS.
• 2560x1440: Low settings, at 62 avg FPS. This is the only preset at this resolution that reaches the threshold, and only barely. Medium delivers 54 avg FPS and does not qualify.
• 3840x2160: No preset qualifies. Even Low settings average just 34 FPS, far below the threshold, so no best setting exists at 4K.

The Verdict

Can this PC run Doom? Yes, but only at lower resolutions. At 1920x1080 the game is genuinely playable on High settings at 71 avg FPS, with Medium (84) and Low (96) offering additional headroom; only Ultra at 58 avg FPS misses the mark. At 2560x1440 the experience narrows to Low settings at 62 avg FPS, a result that clears the threshold without any margin to spare. At 3840x2160 the answer is a firm no, with every preset well below playable, topping out at 34 avg FPS on Low.

The underlying story is one of dramatic imbalance. A processor in the 79th percentile, with synthetic scores rivaling the Ryzen 7 5800X3D and Core i9-10900K, is paired with graphics hardware in the 5th percentile whose measured Doom output matches GPUs within a percent of old mobility-class rivals. For this specific game, the data shows that the processor is largely a spectator, and the practical ceiling of the experience is set entirely by the graphics side: comfortable 1080p play, marginal 1440p play, and no viable 4K play at all.