Doom

The AMD Ryzen 5 5600GT is a 6-core, 12-thread processor based on the Zen 3 architecture, with a base clock of 3.60 GHz and a boost clock of 4.60 GHz. In Doom, a title from 2016 that relies heavily on high-frequency single-thread performance and moderate multi-threading, this CPU’s specifications place it in a solid position. Its 16 MB of L3 cache and dual-channel DDR4 memory support with a bandwidth of 51.2 GB/s are adequate for feeding the GPU in most scenarios. The CPU’s benchmark scores reinforce its capability; for instance, it achieves a Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 17272 and a single-core score of 2438, while its PassMark single-thread score is 3348. These numbers indicate that the 5600GT has sufficient processing headroom to avoid becoming a bottleneck in Doom, especially at lower resolutions where frame rates are extremely high.

The processor’s performance relative to its immediate rivals is remarkably tight. The data shows that the 5600GT has an average benchmark score of 20733, placing it just 0.3% behind the Intel Core i5-12490F (which scores 20802), and 0.4% behind both the Intel Xeon 6325P and the Intel Core Ultra 5 125U. This sub-1% delta in either direction means that for gaming workloads like Doom, the CPU is effectively performance-equivalent to those chips. Its 74th percentile ranking among all CPUs tested suggests it outperforms a significant majority of processors, but it is not a top-tier halo product; it sits comfortably in the upper-midrange. For a fast-paced FPS like Doom, where frame times are critical, the CPU’s consistent single-thread performance ensures that the game’s logic and physics calculations are processed quickly, allowing the GPU to render frames without waiting on the processor.

GPU Role

The NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4070 SUPER is the dominant component in this pairing for Doom, given the game’s heavy reliance on rasterization throughput. The GPU is built on the Ada Lovelace architecture and features 12 GB of GDDR6X memory on a 192-bit bus, providing a memory bandwidth of 504.2 GB/s. This is a substantial amount of bandwidth that prevents memory constraints from limiting frame rates, even at 4K resolution. The GPU’s core clocks are a base of 1980 MHz and a boost of 2475 MHz, and it packs 7168 shading units, 224 texture mapping units, and 80 raster operation pipelines. The raw compute power of 35.48 TFLOPS FP32 and a texture rate of 554.4 GTexel/s are more than sufficient to handle Doom’s id Tech 6 engine, which is known for its scalability.

In benchmark terms, the RTX 4070 SUPER holds an average benchmark score of 43223, placing it in the 83rd percentile of all GPUs. Its nearest rivals are extremely close, with the NVIDIA Quadro M6000 24 GB scoring 43262 (0.1% higher), the GeForce RTX 5050 Mobile scoring 43268 (0.1% higher), and the GeForce RTX 4090 Mobile scoring 43667 (1% higher). This means that while the 4070 SUPER is a high-performing card, it is operating at a performance tier where the competition is fierce, and the differences are often within the margin of error. For Doom, the GPU’s 12 GB VRAM is ample; the game is not VRAM-hungry by modern standards, so the capacity is not a limiting factor. Instead, the GPU’s fill rate and shader throughput are what drive performance, allowing it to push high frame rates across all resolutions tested.

The data shows that the GPU is rarely the bottleneck until the highest settings are enabled. At 1080p, the GPU is so fast that the CPU begins to limit frame rates, which is why we see diminishing returns when lowering settings from High to Low. However, at 4K resolution, the GPU’s workload increases significantly, and it becomes the primary driver of performance, as evidenced by the frame rate drops that occur when moving from Low to Ultra settings. The GPU’s capability to handle these loads is reflected in its PassMark G3D score of 29995, which is a strong indicator of its rasterization performance in legacy titles like Doom.

Resolution Scaling

The measured FPS data reveals a clear pattern of resolution scaling that highlights the shifting balance between CPU and GPU load. At 1920x1080 with Low settings, the combo achieves an average of 349 FPS. This is an extremely high frame rate that suggests the CPU is reaching its limit, as the GPU has plenty of headroom to render more frames if the processor could supply them. Moving to 2560x1440 at Low settings, the average FPS drops to 226, a decrease of roughly 35%. At 3840x2160 with Low settings, the average falls further to 123 FPS, a drop of about 45% from 1440p. This scaling pattern is expected, as the number of pixels increases by a factor of 2.25 from 1080p to 1440p and by a factor of 4 from 1080p to 4K, placing progressively more strain on the GPU.

The data indicates that at 1080p, the limiting component is the CPU. This is evident when comparing the Low and High settings at 1080p: the average FPS at Low is 349, and at High it is 257. The difference is 92 FPS, which is a significant reduction, but the absolute numbers are so high that the CPU’s single-thread performance is likely capping the maximum frame rate. At 1440p, the GPU starts to become more relevant, but the CPU still holds influence; the delta between Low (226 FPS) and High (166 FPS) is 60 FPS. At 4K, the GPU becomes the clear bottleneck. The frame rate at Low is 123 FPS, and at High it is 90 FPS, a difference of 33 FPS. The fact that the 4K Low score is lower than the 1080p Ultra score (210 FPS) confirms that pixel throughput is the dominant constraint at the highest resolution.

The scaling from Medium to Ultra settings also provides insight. At 1080p, the Medium preset averages 304 FPS, while Ultra averages 210 FPS. The drop from Medium to Ultra is about 31%, which is larger than the drop from Low to Medium (about 13%). This suggests that the Ultra preset introduces effects that are more taxing on the GPU, such as higher-quality shadows and post-processing, which reduce the CPU’s ability to maintain maximum frame rates. At 4K, the Medium preset averages 107 FPS, while Ultra averages 74 FPS, a drop of about 31% as well, showing that the GPU’s workload scales consistently with settings regardless of resolution. The data confirms that for this combo, 1080p and 1440p are CPU-influenced, while 4K is purely GPU-bound.

How This Combo Ranks

In the benchmark database, this specific combination of the AMD Ryzen 5 5600GT and the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4070 SUPER achieves a combo rank of 607 out of 3712 tested combinations. This places it in the top 16.4% of all systems tested, which is a strong result for a mid-range CPU paired with a high-end GPU. The rank reflects the overall capability of the system to run games, and in Doom’s case, the combination proves to be balanced enough to deliver excellent performance without severe bottlenecks. The fact that the GPU is ranked in the 83rd percentile and the CPU in the 74th percentile suggests that the pairing is slightly GPU-heavy, but not so much that the CPU drags down the overall performance.

The combo’s rank of 607 means that it outperforms the vast majority of systems in the database, but it is not at the absolute top tier, where combinations of flagship CPUs and GPUs reside. The data shows that the system is capable of running Doom at very high frame rates, but it is not without competition. The nearest rival CPUs, such as the Intel Core i5-12490F, are so close in performance (within 0.3%) that if paired with the same GPU, the combo rank would likely be nearly identical. This indicates that the CPU choice is not the limiting factor in the rank; rather, it is the GPU’s performance tier that defines where this combo lands. For a game like Doom, which is not particularly demanding by modern standards, this combo’s rank confirms the GPU’s high rasterization throughput.

The rank also highlights the efficiency of the pairing. The CPU’s 65 W TDP and the GPU’s 220 W TDP suggest a system that is power-conscious while still delivering high performance. The measured FPS data shows that at 1080p, the system can exceed 300 FPS on medium settings, which is far beyond the refresh rate of most monitors. This means that in practice, the combo rank would be even higher for users with standard 60Hz or 144Hz displays, as the frame rates are well above the threshold for smooth gameplay. However, for those seeking maximum competitive advantage with 240Hz or 360Hz monitors, the CPU may present a slight limitation at the very highest frame rates.

FAQ

Q: What is the average FPS at 1920x1080 with Ultra settings?

A: The measured average FPS at 1920x1080 with Ultra settings is 210 FPS.

Q: How does the CPU compare to its nearest rival, the Intel Core i5-12490F?

A: The AMD Ryzen 5 5600GT has an average benchmark score of 20733, which is 0.3% lower than the Intel Core i5-12490F’s score of 20802, making them effectively equal in performance.

Q: Is the GPU or CPU the limiting factor at 3840x2160 resolution?

A: At 3840x2160, the GPU is the limiting factor, as evidenced by the frame rate dropping from 123 FPS at Low settings to 74 FPS at Ultra settings, while the CPU has sufficient headroom to feed the GPU.

Q: What is the highest average FPS recorded for this combo?

A: The highest average FPS recorded is 349 FPS, achieved at 1920x1080 with Low settings.

Q: What is the combo’s rank among all tested systems?

A: The combo ranks 607th out of 3712 tested combinations, placing it in the top 16.4% of all systems.

Q: What is the minimum FPS recorded at 2560x1440 with Medium settings?

A: The minimum FPS recorded at 2560x1440 with Medium settings is 167 FPS, while the average is 197 FPS and the maximum is 227 FPS.

Measured FPS Breakdown

The measured frame rate data provides a comprehensive view of the system’s performance across three resolutions and four quality presets. At 1920x1080, the system delivers exceptional performance, with the Low preset averaging 349 FPS, the Medium preset averaging 304 FPS (with a minimum of 259 FPS and a maximum of 350 FPS), the High preset averaging 257 FPS, and the Ultra preset averaging 210 FPS. The progression shows that each step up in settings costs a meaningful number of frames, with the largest drop occurring between High and Ultra, where the average falls by 47 FPS. The minimum FPS data for Medium at 1080p is 259 FPS, which still ensures a smooth experience even in the most demanding scenes.

At 2560x1440, the performance remains high but shows the expected reduction due to the increased pixel count. The Low preset averages 226 FPS, while the Medium preset averages 197 FPS (with a minimum of 167 FPS and a maximum of 227 FPS). The High preset drops to an average of 166 FPS, and the Ultra preset averages 136 FPS. The gap between Low and Ultra at 1440p is 90 FPS, which is a significant range, but even the Ultra setting maintains a frame rate that is well above the 60 FPS standard for smooth gameplay. The minimum FPS of 167 FPS at Medium settings indicates that the system rarely dips below high refresh rate thresholds.

At 3840x2160, the system’s performance is still playable but shows the GPU’s limits. The Low preset averages 123 FPS, the Medium preset averages 107 FPS (with a minimum of 91 FPS and a maximum of 123 FPS), the High preset averages 90 FPS, and the Ultra preset averages 74 FPS. The drop from Low to Ultra at 4K is 49 FPS, and the minimum FPS of 91 FPS at Medium settings shows that the system can maintain a high frame rate even in intense combat scenarios. The data shows a clear scaling pattern: as resolution increases, the average FPS decreases by a factor consistent with the pixel count increase, confirming that the GPU is the primary driver of performance at 4K. The measured values are consistent across all presets, with no anomalies or stutters indicated by the min/max data.

Settings Recommendations

Based on the measured FPS data, the optimal settings depend on the user’s display refresh rate and preference for visual fidelity. For users with a 1080p display running at 144Hz or 240Hz, the High preset is the best choice, as it delivers an average of 257 FPS, which is well above the refresh rate of most gaming monitors. The Ultra preset, while offering higher visual quality, reduces the average to 210 FPS, which is still sufficient for 144Hz displays but may cause drops below 240Hz in demanding scenes. The Medium preset at 1080p is an alternative for those seeking a balance, with an average of 304 FPS and a minimum of 259 FPS, ensuring no frame drops even on the fastest displays, but the visual difference between Medium and High is often minimal in Doom.

For 1440p displays, the High preset is the recommended choice for most users, providing an average of 166 FPS, which is ideal for 144Hz panels. The Ultra preset at 1440p averages 136 FPS, which is still playable on 144Hz displays but may not hold a consistent 144 FPS in all scenarios. The Medium preset, with an average of 197 FPS and a minimum of 167 FPS, is the best option for those with 165Hz or 180Hz monitors, as it maintains a frame rate above the refresh rate in almost all situations. The Low preset at 1440p offers a high average of 226 FPS but sacrifices too much visual quality, making it less appealing for a game like Doom, which has a distinctive art style that benefits from higher settings.

For 4K displays, the Medium preset is the recommended setting, as it delivers an average of 107 FPS and a minimum of 91 FPS, which is suitable for 60Hz to 100Hz monitors. The High preset at 4K averages 90 FPS, which is acceptable for 60Hz displays but may not be smooth on higher refresh rate panels. The Ultra preset at 4K, with an average of 74 FPS, is best reserved for users who prioritize visual fidelity over frame rate and have a display that supports variable refresh rate to mitigate the lower frame rate. The Low preset at 4K, while achieving 123 FPS, is not recommended due to the significant reduction in visual quality, which detracts from the game’s atmosphere. Overall, the data suggests that High settings at 1080p and 1440p, and Medium settings at 4K, provide the best balance of performance and visual quality for the majority of users.