Can I Run It?

Instant compatibility check with FPS benchmarks and optimization tips

Doom
FPS 2016

Doom

52%
Playable Your system meets minimum requirements.

Performance

1080p (Full HD)

Low 1080p Measured
93 FPS
Ultra 1080p Measured
55 FPS

1440p (2K / QHD)

Low 1440p Measured
59 FPS
Ultra 1440p Measured
38 FPS

4K (Ultra HD)

Low 4K Measured
32 FPS
Ultra 4K Measured
22 FPS
14.3ms Frame Time
21ms Input Latency
4K Best Resolution

Requirements Check

Processor
Required 37,500
Your CPU 2,254
Graphics Card
Required 27,325
Your GPU 28,766

Recommendations

Upgrade Needed

Your hardware doesn't meet minimum requirements for this game.

Average FPS: resolution vs quality settings

UltraHighMediumLow
4K Ultra HD 22 21 26 32
1440p QHD 38 42 54 59
1080p Full HD 55 70 78 93

Cell color: green is 120+ FPS, teal is 60+, amber is 30+, red is below 30. Cards marked Estimated above have no measured row and are scaled from your GPU benchmark percentile.

Every measured configuration

1920x1080 High 70
1920x1080 Low 93
1920x1080 Medium 78
1920x1080 Ultra 55
2560x1440 High 42
2560x1440 Low 59
2560x1440 Medium 54
2560x1440 Ultra 38
3840x2160 High 21
3840x2160 Low 32
3840x2160 Medium 26
3840x2160 Ultra 22

Performance Analysis: Doom on Your System

Measured FPS Breakdown

The recorded data for this combination of the Intel Core i5-9400 and AMD Radeon RX 570 in Doom spans three resolutions and four quality presets, producing a clear performance gradient. At 1920x1080, the frame rates are the strongest of the set. With Low settings, the average FPS reaches 93.0, which is the highest figure recorded across all tested configurations. Moving to Medium, the average drops to 78.3 FPS, a 15.7 percent reduction from Low. High settings yield an average of 69.9 FPS, while Ultra brings the average down to 54.9 FPS, the only sub-60 result at this resolution.

At 2560x1440, the performance profile shifts downward significantly. Low settings produce an average of 58.7 FPS, just shy of the 60 FPS threshold. Medium settings average 54.0 FPS, a notable step down. High settings average 42.0 FPS, and Ultra settings average 38.0 FPS. The gap between Low and Ultra at this resolution is 20.7 FPS, indicating that the quality preset has a substantial impact on performance when pixel count increases.

At 3840x2160, the results fall below playable levels across the board. Low settings average 31.7 FPS, which is the best result at this resolution. Medium settings average 26.3 FPS, High settings average 21.4 FPS, and Ultra settings average 21.6 FPS. The ordering here is slightly unusual: Ultra posts a marginally higher average than High, by 0.2 FPS, which falls within normal measurement variance. The overall range from Low to High is about 10.3 FPS, demonstrating that even the lowest quality preset cannot rescue 4K performance on this hardware.

Minimum and maximum frame times were not recorded for any configuration, so the analysis relies on average FPS data alone. The absence of frame pacing metrics means the consistency of these averages cannot be fully assessed, but the averages themselves provide a solid basis for comparing presets and resolutions.

Best Settings per Resolution

For 1920x1080, the most demanding preset that stays at or above 60 FPS is High, with an average of 69.9 FPS. This leaves a 9.9 FPS margin above the playable threshold, which suggests that High settings are a comfortable choice for this resolution. Ultra settings fall short at 54.9 FPS, so they are not recommended for maintaining smooth gameplay.

At 2560x1440, no preset reaches the 60 FPS threshold. The closest is Low settings at 58.7 FPS, which is 1.3 FPS below the target. This is a near miss, but the data clearly indicates that this combination cannot sustain playable frame rates at this resolution, regardless of quality level. The verdict data confirms this, listing no playable settings for 2560x1440.

At 3840x2160, the situation is similar but more pronounced. No preset achieves 60 FPS, and the best result is Low settings at 31.7 FPS, which is less than half the target. The verdict data lists no playable settings for this resolution either.

In summary, the only resolution where this combo delivers a playable experience is 1920x1080, with High settings being the optimal choice. Lower resolutions are not applicable here, as the data only covers 1080p, 1440p, and 4K.

CPU and GPU Roles

The benchmark results indicate that the GPU is the dominant constraint for this game, especially as resolution increases. At 1920x1080, the frame rate scales predictably with the quality preset: Low averages 93.0 FPS, Medium 78.3 FPS, High 69.9 FPS, and Ultra 54.9 FPS. This spread of 38.1 FPS between Low and Ultra shows that the graphics card is handling the bulk of the workload, with the CPU providing enough headroom to keep up even at the lowest settings.

When moving from 1920x1080 to 2560x1440, the average FPS at Low settings drops from 93.0 to 58.7, a reduction of 34.3 FPS or about 36.9 percent. At High settings, the drop is from 69.9 to 42.0, a reduction of 27.9 FPS or about 39.9 percent. These proportional declines point to the GPU being the limiting factor, as the pixel count increase directly taxes the rasterization and memory bandwidth of the RX 570. The CPU, a six-core part with a 4.10 GHz boost clock, does not show signs of bottlenecking at these frame rates, since the frame rate drops are consistent with GPU-bound behavior.

At 3840x2160, the scaling continues in the same direction. Low settings average 31.7 FPS, which is roughly half of the 1440p Low result. The GPU is clearly overwhelmed at this resolution, as even the lowest preset cannot push frame rates anywhere near the 60 FPS target. The CPU's role diminishes further here, as the frame rates are too low for the processor to be the primary constraint.

Across all resolutions, the pattern is consistent: the RX 570 is the deciding factor, and the i5-9400 has ample compute headroom. The CPU's benchmark scores, such as 6629 in Cinebench R23 multicore and 935 in single-core, place it in the 47th percentile of all CPUs, which is sufficient for a 2016-era FPS title like Doom. The GPU, in contrast, sits in the 74th percentile of all GPUs, but its absolute performance is modest, as evidenced by the 4K results.

Similar Performance Alternatives

Looking at the nearest rivals for the CPU, the Intel Core i5-9400 has an average benchmark score of 2254. The Intel Core i7-1068NG7 scores 2259, a delta of -0.2 percent, meaning it is essentially identical in performance. The Intel Core i7-10710U scores 2248, a delta of 0.3 percent, also effectively the same. The AMD Ryzen 5 PRO 1500 scores 2246, a delta of 0.4 percent, and the Intel Core i3-10305 scores 2264, a delta of -0.4 percent. All four rivals are within a half percent of the i5-9400, so swapping to any of these would produce virtually indistinguishable frame rates in Doom, assuming the GPU stays constant.

For the GPU, the AMD Radeon RX 570 has an average benchmark score of 28766. The AMD Radeon RX 6800M scores 28874, a delta of -0.4 percent, putting it on par with the RX 570 despite being a much newer part. The AMD Radeon R9 M295X scores 28580, a delta of 0.7 percent, again very close. The AMD Radeon RX 470 scores 28996, a delta of -0.8 percent, and the NVIDIA Quadro RTX 8000 scores 28421, a delta of 1.2 percent. These rivals bracket the RX 570 within a narrow band, so any of them would deliver nearly identical performance in Doom at the same settings and resolutions.

In practical terms, a system with any of these CPU or GPU alternatives would land within a few percentage points of the measured frame rates. The near-zero deltas mean that the playable settings at 1920x1080 would remain the same: High at around 70 FPS, with Low and Medium also clearing 60 FPS. At higher resolutions, the same limitations would apply.

How This Combo Ranks

In the database of tested combinations for Doom, this specific pairing of the Intel Core i5-9400 and AMD Radeon RX 570 ranks 3579 out of 3712 total combinations. That places it in the bottom 3.6 percent of all tested systems, which is a low standing overall. The percentile data for the individual components tells a slightly different story: the CPU is in the 47th percentile, meaning it is roughly average, while the GPU is in the 74th percentile, meaning it outperforms most GPUs in the database. However, the combination rank is much lower, which indicates that the game itself is demanding enough that even a relatively capable GPU cannot compensate for the overall system's limitations at higher resolutions.

The rank of 3579 suggests that most other tested combos exceed the performance of this setup in Doom. This aligns with the measured results, where only one resolution and three presets achieve playable frame rates. The low rank is driven primarily by the 4K and 1440p failures, which drag down the overall standing despite the acceptable 1080p performance.

The Verdict

Can this PC run Doom? Based on the recorded data, the answer is yes, but only at 1920x1080 with specific settings. The verdict by resolution is clear: at 3840x2160, there are no playable settings, with the best average being 31.7 FPS at Low, which is well below the 60 FPS threshold. At 2560x1440, there are also no playable settings, with Low averaging 58.7 FPS, just 1.3 FPS short of the target. At 1920x1080, three presets clear 60 FPS: Low at 93.0 FPS, Medium at 78.3 FPS, and High at 69.9 FPS. The best playable setting at 1080p is High, which provides a comfortable margin above the threshold.

The practical takeaway is that this combination is a solid 1080p machine for Doom, capable of running at High quality with smooth frame rates. It is not suited for 1440p or 4K gaming, as the GPU lacks the raw throughput to maintain 60 FPS even at the lowest quality preset. For gamers targeting higher resolutions, a more powerful graphics card would be necessary, while the CPU would not need to be upgraded for this particular title. The data shows that the RX 570 is the bottleneck at all resolutions, and the i5-9400 is more than adequate for the game's CPU demands.