Doom

The AMD Ryzen 5 7400F and AMD Radeon RX 6750 XT combination delivers a robust performance profile in Doom (2016), demonstrating a clear balance of capabilities that shifts depending on the resolution and settings selected. The measured data reveals a system that is decisively GPU-bound at higher resolutions, yet shows signs of a strong CPU foundation that allows the graphics card to stretch its legs at 1080p. This analysis breaks down the measured FPS data to understand exactly where this combo excels and where its limits lie.

Resolution Scaling — how FPS drops from 1080p to 4K and what it says about the limiting component

The scaling of average FPS across resolutions is a textbook example of a GPU-limited scenario in the higher ranges. At 1080p with Ultra settings, the combo produces 145 FPS. Moving to 1440p, that figure drops to 94 FPS, a reduction to roughly 65% of the 1080p performance. At 4K, the average sinks to 51 FPS, which is only about 35% of the 1080p result. This steep, non-linear decline is the signature of the graphics card being the primary bottleneck; the rendering workload increases exponentially with pixel count, and the RX 6750 XT's compute capabilities are being saturated.

The pattern holds true across all settings. With High settings, the transition from 1080p (178 FPS) to 1440p (115 FPS) is a 35% drop, and then another 46% drop occurs when moving from 1440p to 4K (62 FPS). This consistent halving of frame rates as resolution increases indicates that the GPU is the limiting component, not the CPU or memory subsystem. If the CPU were the bottleneck, we would expect to see a much smaller performance delta between 1440p and 4K, as the CPU workload per frame would remain relatively constant.

The scaling also reveals the headroom of the Ryzen 5 7400F. The fact that the FPS drops so dramatically with resolution increases suggests the CPU is not holding the GPU back at 1440p and 4K. The data implies the CPU has ample processing power to feed the GPU, but the GPU itself cannot keep up with the pixel-pushing demands of these higher resolutions. The game's engine, the id Tech engine from 2016, is known for its scalability, and these results show that the GPU is the sole determinant of performance ceilings in this configuration.

Interestingly, the gap between settings narrows as resolution increases. At 1080p, the difference between Low (242 FPS) and Ultra (145 FPS) is a massive 97 FPS. At 4K, the difference between Low (85 FPS) and Ultra (51 FPS) is just 34 FPS. This compression of performance at 4K further solidifies the conclusion that the GPU is the limiting factor; at 4K, the GPU is working so hard on pixel throughput that the setting-induced changes in shading and effects have a relatively smaller impact on the final frame rate compared to the massive pixel load.

GPU Role — VRAM, clocks, and how they relate to this game's results

The AMD Radeon RX 6750 XT is the central figure in these results, and its specifications align perfectly with the observed performance. The card boasts 12 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 192-bit bus, yielding a bandwidth of 432.0 GB/s. For a game like Doom from 2016, this amount of VRAM is more than sufficient for even 4K textures, which is likely why we see playable frame rates at 4K Ultra, albeit at an average of 51 FPS. The memory bandwidth is also crucial; the steep resolution scaling indicates that the card is not being starved of data, but rather that its compute cores are maxed out.

The GPU's clock speeds are also a factor. With a base clock of 2150 MHz, a game clock of 2495 MHz, and a boost clock of 2600 MHz, the card is running at high frequencies. The difference between the game and boost clock is relatively small, suggesting that under sustained load, the card can maintain near-peak performance without excessive thermal throttling. This is reflected in the consistency of the frame rates at 1440p and 4K in the medium settings, where the min FPS of 116 at 1440p and 63 at 4K are within a reasonable range of the averages (136 and 74, respectively).

The GPU's architecture, RDNA 2.0 on a 7 nm process, is well-suited for this title. Its 2560 shading units deliver 13.31 TFLOPS of FP32 compute, which is substantial for a game of this era. The data shows that even at 4K, the card can push frame rates in the 50-60 range on High settings, which reflects its raw power. The performance percentile of 71.0 when compared to all other GPUs in the database indicates that this is a solid mid-to-high-end contender, and its results in Doom are in line with that positioning.

The presence of 40 ray accelerators is irrelevant for this title, as Doom (2016) does not use ray tracing, but the raw rasterization performance is what shines here. The card's 64 ROPs and 160 TMUs are responsible for the pixel and texture processing, and these are the units that are likely being fully utilized at 4K. The benchmark results show that the card performs admirably, but the resolution scaling proves that it is the definitive performance ceiling for this combo in this game.

FAQ — 4-6 Q&A pairs answerable from FACT PACK data

Q: What is the best average FPS this combo can achieve in Doom?

A: The highest average FPS recorded is 242, achieved at 1920x1080 resolution with Low settings. This is the absolute ceiling for the combo, showing a massive performance headroom at lower fidelity settings.

Q: Can this system handle 4K gaming in Doom at a playable frame rate?

A: Yes, it can. At 3840x2160 with High settings, the combo achieves an average of 62 FPS. However, at Ultra settings, the average drops to 51 FPS, which is still playable but approaching the lower bound of what is often considered smooth. For a more comfortable 4K experience, Medium settings yield an average of 74 FPS.

Q: How much of a performance difference is there between Low and Ultra settings at 1440p?

A: At 2560x1440, the difference is significant. Low settings produce an average of 156 FPS, while Ultra settings produce 94 FPS. This represents a 62 FPS drop, or a reduction of roughly 40% in average frame rate when moving from the lowest to the highest quality preset.

Q: Is the CPU or GPU the limiting factor for this combo in Doom?

A: The data strongly suggests the GPU is the limiting factor at higher resolutions. The FPS drops significantly and consistently as resolution increases from 1080p to 4K, which is the classic sign of a GPU bottleneck. The CPU, with its high single-thread performance, appears to have enough headroom to keep up with the GPU's demands.

Q: What is the minimum FPS recorded for this combo, and at what settings?

A: The lowest average FPS recorded is 51, which occurs at 3840x2160 resolution with Ultra settings. The data also shows a minimum FPS of 63 at 4K Medium and 116 at 1440p Medium, indicating that the frame pacing is relatively stable at those settings.

Q: How does this combo's performance in Doom compare to its overall benchmark standing?

A: The combo ranks 1301 out of 2930 tested combinations in this game, placing it in the top half of all systems. This is consistent with the CPU and GPU's individual percentiles, which are 83.0 and 71.0, respectively, when compared against all other components.

How This Combo Ranks

The AMD Ryzen 5 7400F and AMD Radeon RX 6750 XT combo holds a rank of 1301 out of 2930 tested combinations for Doom. This places it squarely in the 55th percentile of all systems tested, meaning it outperforms more than half of the other combos in the database for this specific title. This ranking is a strong indicator of a well-balanced system that provides a solid gaming experience without being at the absolute advanced.

This ranking is particularly interesting when considering the individual components. The CPU, Ryzen 5 7400F, has a percentile of 83.0 against all other CPUs, which is a high score. The GPU, RX 6750 XT, has a percentile of 71.0 against all other GPUs, which is also above average. The fact that the combined rank in Doom is lower than both individual percentiles suggests that the game is not heavily dependent on the CPU's strengths, and the GPU's performance is the more significant contributor to the final result. This is a common pattern in GPU-intensive games.

The rank of 1301 implies that there are 1629 other combinations that perform better in this game, but it also means that this combo is ahead of 1300 other systems. Given the GPU's end-of-life production status and its positioning in the RX 6000 series, this mid-pack ranking is expected. It shows that the system is capable of delivering a high-refresh-rate experience at 1080p and a solid 60+ FPS experience at 1440p, which puts it in a sweet spot for many gamers. The ranking is a numerical validation of the performance data, confirming that the combo is not a low-end outlier but a competent, mid-range performer.

Measured FPS Breakdown

The measured FPS data provides a comprehensive picture of the combo's performance across all major resolutions and quality presets. At 1920x1080, the combo is clearly CPU-bound or at least not severely GPU-limited. The average FPS ranges from 145 at Ultra to 242 at Low. The Medium preset shows an average of 210 FPS with a minimum of 179 FPS, indicating a stable and extremely smooth experience. The High preset still delivers a very high 178 FPS average, making 1080p an excellent resolution for high-refresh-rate monitors.

Moving to 2560x1440, the demands on the GPU increase noticeably. The average FPS drops to 94 at Ultra, 115 at High, 136 at Medium, and 156 at Low. The Medium preset shows a minimum FPS of 116 and a maximum of 157, which shows a wider variance than at 1080p but still maintains a playable and smooth experience. The Ultra preset at 94 FPS is still excellent for a high-refresh-rate 1440p display, while High at 115 FPS is arguably the sweet spot for a balance of quality and speed.

At 3840x2160, the GPU is fully saturated. The average FPS drops to 51 at Ultra, 62 at High, 74 at Medium, and 85 at Low. The Medium preset shows a minimum FPS of 63 and a maximum of 85, indicating that frame pacing is still relatively consistent. While Ultra is playable with an average above 50 FPS, the High and Medium presets offer a more comfortable margin above 60 FPS. The data clearly shows that 4K gaming is possible, but it requires a trade-off in settings to maintain a smooth experience.

Settings Recommendations

Based on the measured data, the optimal settings depend heavily on the target resolution and desired frame rate. For 1920x1080, the High preset is the clear recommendation. It delivers an average of 178 FPS, which is well above the 144 Hz threshold for most high-refresh-rate monitors, and it does so with a significant visual quality improvement over Medium. The Ultra preset, at 145 FPS, is also viable, but the 33 FPS drop from High to Ultra is a substantial cost for what is often a marginal visual gain.

For 2560x1440, the High preset is again the best balance, providing an average of 115 FPS. This is excellent for a 1440p display, especially one with a 120 Hz or 144 Hz refresh rate. The Ultra preset at 94 FPS is also a strong option, but the High preset provides a more substantial frame rate buffer, ensuring a more consistent experience. The Medium preset, at 136 FPS, is a great option for competitive players who want maximum refresh rates, but High offers a better visual experience for single-player immersion.

For 3840x2160, the High preset is the recommended choice for a consistent 60+ FPS experience, averaging 62 FPS. The Medium preset, at 74 FPS, provides an even more comfortable margin and is the best choice if you want to ensure you never dip below 60 FPS. The Ultra preset, at 51 FPS, is playable but sits below the 60 FPS mark, which may be noticeable to some players. The data suggests that for a locked 60 FPS at 4K, High is the ceiling, while Medium offers a more stable experience.

CPU Role — cores, clocks, and how they relate to this game's results

The AMD Ryzen 5 7400F, with its 6 cores and 12 threads based on the Zen 4 architecture, plays a supporting but crucial role in these benchmark results. Its high boost clock of 4.70 GHz and strong single-threaded performance, as evidenced by a Cinebench R23 single-core score of 3072, are critical for a game engine like Doom's, which is known for being well-optimized and often limited by single-thread performance. The high single-core score ensures that the game's main simulation and render thread is not a bottleneck.

The data supports this interpretation. At 1080p, the frame rates are exceptionally high, with the Low preset hitting 242 FPS. This is a scenario where the GPU is often not the primary limiting factor, and the CPU's ability to process draw calls and game logic quickly is what allows the GPU to run at such high speeds. The 6-core, 12-thread configuration is more than sufficient for Doom, which primarily uses a handful of threads for its core logic, leaving the rest for background processes and the operating system.

The CPU's performance percentile of 83.0 when compared to all other CPUs indicates that it is a very capable processor. Its nearest rivals, such as the Intel Core i5-14600T and the AMD Ryzen 7 PRO 6850H, have delta percentages of 0.1% and -0.2%, respectively, showing that this chip is right in the mix with other high-performing mid-range options. This raw processing power ensures that the CPU is not the cause of any frame rate dips, particularly in the lower resolution and higher FPS scenarios where CPU overhead is more likely to be exposed.

In the context of this game, the CPU's role is to be a stable, high-frequency foundation that allows the RX 6750 XT to operate at its full potential. The fact that the FPS scales so predictably with resolution is the strongest evidence that the CPU is doing its job correctly. If the CPU were weaker, we would likely see a plateau in FPS at 1080p, with the CPU preventing the GPU from reaching its maximum frame rate. The data shows no such plateau, with FPS scaling from 145 at Ultra to 242 at Low, confirming that the Ryzen 5 7400F is providing more than enough performance to feed the GPU in Doom.