Doom

FAQ

Q: Can this system run Doom at 60 FPS at 1920x1080?

A: Yes. The recorded data shows all four tested presets at 1920x1080 clear the 60 FPS threshold: Low averages 107 FPS, Medium 93 FPS, High 78 FPS, and Ultra 64 FPS.

Q: What is the best playable setting at 2560x1440?

A: Medium is the most demanding preset that stays at or above 60 FPS, with an average of exactly 60 FPS. Low averages 69 FPS, while High (51 FPS) and Ultra (41 FPS) fall below the threshold.

Q: Is 4K playable on this hardware?

A: No. At 3840x2160, the best recorded average is 37 FPS on Low settings. Medium averages 33 FPS, High 28 FPS, and Ultra 22 FPS. None of these reach the 60 FPS target.

Q: How does the CPU benchmark compare to its nearest rivals?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 7 265K has an average benchmark score of 70879. It sits within 1.3% of four rivals: the Intel Xeon 6511P (71051, 0.2% faster), the Intel Xeon Platinum 8270 (71370, 0.7% faster), the Intel Core i7-14700KF (70163, 1.0% slower), and the AMD Ryzen 7 9700F (69996, 1.3% slower).

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

A: The Intel Arc B390 has a 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 score of 1482. Its closest competitor is the NVIDIA GeForce GT 520MX (1463, 1.3% slower), followed by the NVIDIA GeForce 800M (1460, 1.5% slower), the NVIDIA GeForce GT 625 OEM (1446, 2.5% slower), and the NVIDIA GeForce GT 710 (1443, 2.7% slower).

Q: What is the system's overall ranking among tested combos for Doom?

A: This combination ranks 3300 out of 3712 tested CPU and GPU pairs for Doom, placing it in the lower portion of the database's tested configurations.

CPU and GPU Roles

The benchmark data for Doom reveals a clear pattern: the GPU is the dominant constraint at every resolution, while the CPU's substantial compute capacity does not translate into higher frame rates once the GPU becomes saturated.

At 1920x1080, the frame rate scales strongly with graphics settings, which indicates the GPU is the primary bottleneck even at lower resolutions. The spread from Low (107 FPS) to Ultra (64 FPS) is 43 FPS, a 40% drop. This is a typical signature of a GPU-limited scenario. The CPU, with 20 cores and 20 threads, a boost clock of 5.50 GHz, and a Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 35850, has far more headroom than a 2016-era FPS title can consume. The data shows no resolution band where the CPU becomes the limiting factor.

Moving to 2560x1440, the GPU load increases and the frame rates drop proportionally. Low averages 69 FPS, Medium 60 FPS, High 51 FPS, and Ultra 41 FPS. The gap between Low and Ultra grows to 28 FPS. The CPU's contribution remains effectively constant across these settings, which is expected because the game's simulation and draw-call overhead is unchanged; only the pixel workload changes. Since the CPU's PassMark multi-thread score of 58594 places it at the 94th percentile of all CPUs, it is not plausibly a limiting factor here.

At 3840x2160, the GPU bottleneck becomes absolute. The best result is 37 FPS on Low, and Ultra drops to 22 FPS. The frame rate is roughly halved from 1080p Low to 4K Low, which aligns with a pure pixel-throughput limitation. The GPU's specifications reinforce this: the Arc B390 has 1536 shading units, 24 ROPs, and a peak pixel rate of 60.00 GPixel/s. At 4K, the fill-rate demand exceeds what this integrated-class part can deliver, regardless of the CPU's capability.

In summary, the CPU and GPU roles are unambiguous: the Intel Core Ultra 7 265K is far more capable than the game requires, and the Intel Arc B390 is the sole performance limiter at all tested resolutions and presets. The scaling between resolutions and presets follows the GPU's compute and memory characteristics, not the CPU's benchmark scores.

Best Settings per Resolution

The database records measured FPS for three resolutions and four presets each. The most demanding preset that maintains an average of at least 60 FPS is as follows:

• 1920x1080: Ultra, 64 FPS average. This is the highest preset tested, and it still clears the threshold by 4 FPS. High (78 FPS), Medium (93 FPS), and Low (107 FPS) also pass.
• 2560x1440: Medium, 60 FPS average. This is the exact boundary condition. Low (69 FPS) also passes, but Medium is the most demanding playable option. High (51 FPS) and Ultra (41 FPS) fail the threshold.
• 3840x2160: No playable preset. The best result is Low at 37 FPS, which is 23 FPS short of the target. Medium (33 FPS), High (28 FPS), and Ultra (22 FPS) are all well below 60 FPS.

For 1080p, choosing Ultra gives the best visual quality available in the test set while retaining a playable frame rate. At 1440p, Medium is the highest preset that does not drop below the 60 FPS line, and the average sits exactly at it. At 4K, the user must accept a frame rate far below the playable threshold, or lower the resolution.

The Verdict

The question is whether this PC can run Doom at a playable level. The answer depends entirely on the resolution.

At 1920x1080, the system is fully playable across all four presets. The verdictByResolution data lists High, Low, Medium, and Ultra as playable, with the best setting being Ultra at an average of 64 FPS. This is a comfortable margin above the 60 FPS threshold.

At 2560x1440, the system is playable on Low and Medium. The best playable setting is Medium at exactly 60 FPS. This is a marginal pass; the average meets the threshold, but the recorded min FPS for Medium is 51, meaning there will be dips below 60 during demanding scenes. High and Ultra are not playable.

At 3840x2160, the system cannot run Doom at a playable frame rate on any preset. The playableSettings list is empty. The best average is 37 FPS on Low, which is far below the 60 FPS target. Users targeting 4K must consider this hardware unsuitable for this game.

In summary: the combo is a capable 1080p machine for Doom, a borderline 1440p machine on Medium settings, and not viable at 4K.

Similar Performance Alternatives

The nearest rivals for the CPU and GPU provide context for what other hardware would behave similarly in this system.

For the Intel Core Ultra 7 265K, the closest CPU alternatives are the Intel Xeon 6511P (average score 71051, 0.2% higher), the Intel Xeon Platinum 8270 (71370, 0.7% higher), the Intel Core i7-14700KF (70163, 1.0% lower), and the AMD Ryzen 7 9700F (69996, 1.3% lower). Any of these processors would produce nearly identical CPU-side performance in Doom, meaning they would not change the frame rate results because the GPU is the bottleneck. The differences among these CPUs are within the noise of benchmark variation.

For the Intel Arc B390, the nearest GPU rivals are the NVIDIA GeForce GT 520MX (1463, 1.3% slower), the NVIDIA GeForce 800M (1460, 1.5% slower), the NVIDIA GeForce GT 625 OEM (1446, 2.5% slower), and the NVIDIA GeForce GT 710 (1443, 2.7% slower). These are all low-end or legacy parts, and their 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 scores are within 2.7% of the Arc B390. In Doom, a system with one of these GPUs paired with any of the above CPUs would produce frame rates very close to the ones recorded here. The practical takeaway is that the GPU is the limiting factor, and swapping the CPU for a rival within this score band would not change the outcome.

The data also shows the GPU's percentile is 9, meaning it sits below 91% of all GPUs in the database. This is consistent with its integrated-class design and reinforces that any CPU alternative in the same performance band would yield similar in-game results.

How This Combo Ranks

Among the 3712 CPU and GPU combinations tested in the database for Doom, this pairing ranks 3300th. That places it in the 11th percentile of tested combos, meaning roughly 89% of the recorded configurations deliver higher frame rates in this game.

This low ranking is driven almost entirely by the GPU. The CPU ranks at the 94th percentile among all CPUs, which is a strong result, but the GPU's 9th percentile position drags the overall combo down. The game's performance is GPU-bound, so the combo's rank reflects the GPU's limited fill-rate and shading power.

For context, the rank of 3300 out of 3712 means this system is closer to the bottom of the tested field than to the middle. It outperforms only 412 other recorded combos. This is not a system for high-refresh or high-resolution Doom play; it is a 1080p-oriented configuration that happens to have a very strong processor attached to a weak graphics solution.

Measured FPS Breakdown

The following table lists the exact recorded average, minimum, and maximum FPS for each resolution and settings combination.

3840x2160

• Low: 37 FPS average, no min/max recorded.
• Medium: 33 FPS average, 28 FPS min, 37 FPS max.
• High: 28 FPS average, no min/max recorded.
• Ultra: 22 FPS average, no min/max recorded.

2560x1440

• Low: 69 FPS average, no min/max recorded.
• Medium: 60 FPS average, 51 FPS min, 69 FPS max.
• High: 51 FPS average, no min/max recorded.
• Ultra: 41 FPS average, no min/max recorded.

1920x1080

• Low: 107 FPS average, no min/max recorded.
• Medium: 93 FPS average, 79 FPS min, 107 FPS max.
• High: 78 FPS average, no min/max recorded.
• Ultra: 64 FPS average, no min/max recorded.

The min/max data that is available reveals the same pattern: at 1440p Medium, the minimum is 51 FPS, which is below the 60 FPS average and indicates frame time variance. At 1080p Medium, the minimum is 79 FPS, still well above the threshold. At 4K Medium, the minimum is 28 FPS and the maximum is 37 FPS, showing a tight but very low range.

The progression from Low to Ultra at each resolution shows a consistent step-down: at 1080p, each preset step costs roughly 14 to 15 FPS; at 1440p, the steps are 9 FPS from Low to Medium, 9 FPS from Medium to High, and 10 FPS from High to Ultra; at 4K, the steps are 4 FPS from Low to Medium, 5 FPS from Medium to High, and 6 FPS from High to Ultra. The absolute frame rate loss per step shrinks as the resolution rises, but the relative loss grows, which is the expected behavior for a GPU that is progressively more saturated.