Doom

The AMD Ryzen 5 7400F and AMD Radeon RX 9070 XT combination delivers exceptional performance in Doom, with frame rates that consistently favor high-refresh-rate displays. The data reveals a system where the GPU is the primary driver of performance scaling, while the CPU provides ample headroom even at lower resolutions. This analysis examines the measured FPS across resolutions and settings, interprets the ranking, and answers common questions based solely on the provided benchmark data.

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

The AMD Ryzen 5 7400F is a 6-core, 12-thread processor built on the Zen 4 architecture, with a base clock of 3.70 GHz and a boost clock of 4.70 GHz. It features 64 KB of L1 cache per core, 1 MB of L2 cache per core, and a shared 32 MB L3 cache. This configuration is typical of a modern mid-range desktop CPU, and its benchmarks reflect a strong all-around performer, with a Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 21765 and a single-core score of 3072.

In the context of Doom, the CPU's role is less about raw multi-threaded throughput and more about maintaining consistent frame pacing. The game is known for its demanding rendering, but the data shows that at 1080p, the Ryzen 5 7400F is able to feed the GPU efficiently. The low settings at 1080p produce an average FPS of 314, which is a remarkably high number. This suggests that the CPU is not a bottleneck at this resolution, as the frame rate is likely limited by the GPU's rendering capabilities.

The CPU's single-core performance, as indicated by the Cinebench R23 single-core score of 3072, is crucial for games like Doom that rely heavily on a single main thread for game logic and draw calls. The boost clock of 4.70 GHz provides the necessary speed to handle these tasks without stalling the GPU. Even at 4K Ultra settings, where the GPU is pushed to its limits, the average FPS of 66 is still respectable, indicating that the CPU is not causing dramatic frame drops.

Comparing the CPU to its nearest rivals, the Ryzen 5 7400F has an average benchmark score of 32750. The Intel Core i5-14600T scores 32707, a delta of 0.1%, making the two essentially identical in synthetic performance. The AMD Ryzen 7 PRO 6850H scores 32812, which is 0.2% higher, while the Intel Core Ultra 7 155H and AMD Ryzen AI 7 PRO 360 are 0.2% and 0.3% lower, respectively. These are negligible differences, meaning that the Ryzen 5 7400F's performance in Doom is likely representative of what these rivals would achieve, given the same GPU.

The 6-core, 12-thread configuration is adequate for Doom, which was released in 2016 and is not known for scaling perfectly with many cores. The 12 threads provide enough parallelism for background tasks and the game's engine, but the primary strength lies in the high boost clock and efficient Zen 4 cores. The data suggests that the CPU is a capable partner for the RX 9070 XT, offering the necessary compute power to ensure that the GPU is the limiting factor in most scenarios.

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

The AMD Radeon RX 9070 XT is a formidable graphics card based on the RDNA 4.0 architecture, with a base clock of 1660 MHz and a boost clock of 2970 MHz. It features 16 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 256-bit bus, providing a bandwidth of 644.6 GB/s. This high memory bandwidth is critical for Doom's high-resolution textures and effects, ensuring that the GPU has the data it needs to maintain high frame rates.

The GPU's 4096 shading units, 256 TMUs, and 128 ROPs are well-suited for the game's rendering requirements. The FP32 performance of 48.66 TFLOPS indicates a powerful compute unit, which translates into the measured frame rates. The data shows a clear trend: as resolution increases, the average FPS drops, which is expected as the GPU has to process more pixels. At 1080p High, the average FPS is 231, while at 4K High, it falls to 81. This demonstrates that the GPU is the primary component driving performance, with the CPU providing sufficient support.

The 16 GB VRAM is more than enough for Doom at any setting, even at 4K Ultra. The game is not known for being VRAM-hungry, and the GPU's memory capacity ensures that there are no texture pop-ins or stutters due to memory limitations. The memory clock of 2518 MHz, which translates to 20.1 Gbps effective, contributes to the high bandwidth, and the data shows that the GPU is not starved for memory bandwidth even at the highest settings.

The GPU's percentile ranking against all GPUs is 55, and its average benchmark score is 13543. The nearest rivals are older cards, like the AMD Radeon HD 7770M and NVIDIA GeForce GTX 570, which have similar average scores but are from a different era. This is a quirk of the benchmark database, as the RX 9070 XT's real-world performance in Doom is clearly superior, with the measured FPS far exceeding what those older cards could achieve. The GPU's 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 score of 7260 and Geekbench Vulkan score of 65879 further attest to its modern capabilities.

In Doom, the GPU is the star of the show. The measured FPS at 1080p Low, at 314 average, reflects its raw power, and even at 4K Ultra, the 66 average FPS is playable. The GPU's boost clock of 2970 MHz is high, and the data suggests that it is maintaining a high level of performance consistently, as there are no major frame rate anomalies reported in the medium settings measurements (min FPS of 232 at 1080p, 150 at 1440p, and 81 at 4K).

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

The measured FPS data provides a clear picture of how the system scales with resolution. At 1080p High, the average FPS is 231. Moving to 1440p High, the average FPS drops to 149, a decrease of approximately 35.5%. At 4K High, the average FPS is 81, which is a further drop of approximately 45.6% from 1440p. This pattern is consistent across all settings, indicating that the GPU is the limiting component as resolution increases.

This scaling behavior is classic for a GPU-bound scenario. At 1080p, the CPU is able to provide frames faster than the GPU can render them, but as the resolution increases, the GPU's workload increases quadratically, and the frame rate drops accordingly. The data shows that the CPU is not a bottleneck at any resolution, as the frame rate drops are proportional to the pixel count increase. For instance, going from 1080p to 1440p, the pixel count increases by 1.78 times, and the FPS at High settings drops from 231 to 149, which is a ratio of 1.55. This is close to the pixel ratio, suggesting the GPU is the primary driver.

The difference between 1440p and 4K is even more telling. The pixel count increases by 2.25 times, and the FPS at High settings drops from 149 to 81, a ratio of 1.84. This is less than the pixel ratio, which could indicate that the GPU is starting to hit some other bottleneck, such as memory bandwidth or shader complexity, but it is still clearly GPU-bound. The CPU is not the cause, as its performance is consistent across resolutions.

The data also shows that lowering settings has a more significant impact at lower resolutions. At 1080p, going from Ultra to Low increases the average FPS from 189 to 314, a jump of 66%. At 4K, the same settings change increases the average FPS from 66 to 110, a jump of 67%. This indicates that the GPU has enough headroom at 1080p to benefit greatly from reduced settings, while at 4K, the gains are similar in percentage but start from a lower base.

The implication is that for users with a 1080p or 1440p monitor, the system is capable of extremely high frame rates, making it ideal for competitive play. At 4K, the system is still capable of playable frame rates, but the user will need to adjust settings to achieve higher FPS. The bottleneck is clearly the GPU, and the CPU is not holding the system back.

Measured FPS Breakdown — resolution by resolution, settings by settings, exact numbers

The measured FPS data provides a comprehensive view of performance across different resolutions and settings. At 1920x1080, the system delivers the following average FPS: Low 314, Medium 273, High 231, and Ultra 189. The medium settings also report a minimum FPS of 232 and a maximum of 314, indicating a consistent frame rate range. The data shows a clear progression, with each increase in settings reducing the average FPS by a significant margin.

At 2560x1440, the average FPS is as follows: Low 203, Medium 177, High 149, and Ultra 122. The medium settings show a minimum of 150 and a maximum of 203. The drop from 1080p to 1440p is substantial, with the low settings dropping from 314 to 203, a 35% reduction. The high settings drop from 231 to 149, a 35.5% reduction. This is expected due to the increased pixel count.

At 3840x2160, the average FPS is: Low 110, Medium 96, High 81, and Ultra 66. The medium settings show a minimum of 81 and a maximum of 110. This is the most demanding resolution, and the frame rates are significantly lower than at 1440p. The low settings at 4K produce a higher average FPS than the ultra settings at 1440p (110 vs 122), but this is a close call, suggesting that users with a 4K display may need to consider lower settings for smoother gameplay.

The data reveals that the system is capable of exceeding 60 FPS at all settings and resolutions, with the only exception being 4K Ultra, which averages 66 FPS, still above 60. The medium settings at each resolution provide a balanced experience, with frame rates that are significantly higher than ultra settings. For instance, at 1080p, medium settings (273 FPS) are 44% faster than ultra (189 FPS), and at 4K, medium settings (96 FPS) are 45% faster than ultra (66 FPS).

The minimum FPS values are only provided for medium settings, and they show that the frame rate is relatively stable, with the minimum being close to the average. For example, at 1080p medium, the average is 273 and the minimum is 232, a difference of 15%. This indicates that the system does not experience severe frame drops, providing a smooth gaming experience.

How This Combo Ranks — use comboRankInGame vs other tested combos

The AMD Ryzen 5 7400F and AMD Radeon RX 9070 XT combination ranks 669 out of 2930 tested combos in Doom. This places it in the top 22.8% of all tested systems, which is a strong showing. The rank is based on the measured FPS across all resolutions and settings, and it reflects the system's overall capability in this game.

This ranking is notable because the RX 9070 XT is a high-end GPU, but the Ryzen 5 7400F is a mid-range CPU. The fact that this combo ranks in the top quarter suggests that the GPU is doing most of the heavy lifting in Doom, and the CPU is not a significant limiting factor. If the CPU were a bottleneck, the rank would likely be lower, as the system would not be able to take full advantage of the GPU's power.

The ranking also implies that there are many combos with more powerful CPUs or GPUs that achieve higher frame rates, but the Ryzen 5 7400F and RX 9070 XT are still capable of delivering an excellent experience. The top 22.8% of combos likely include systems with top-tier CPUs and GPUs, but the data shows that this combo is not far behind. For example, a system with a faster CPU and the same GPU might rank slightly higher, but the difference would not be substantial, given that the GPU is the primary bottleneck in Doom.

The percentile ranking of the CPU (83rd) and GPU (55th) are interesting to consider. The CPU is ranked higher than the GPU relative to their respective pools, which suggests that the CPU is a stronger component in its class than the GPU is in its class. However, in Doom, the GPU's performance is more important, and the combo's rank of 669 out of 2930 reflects the GPU's capabilities. The data shows that the system is well-balanced for this game, with the CPU providing enough support for the GPU to perform at its best.

FAQ

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

A: The maximum average FPS is 314, which is achieved at 1920x1080 resolution with Low settings.

Q: How does the combo perform at 4K Ultra settings?

A: At 3840x2160 with Ultra settings, the average FPS is 66, which is still above 60 and playable, but it is the lowest measured frame rate.

Q: Is the CPU or GPU the limiting factor in this game?

A: The data indicates the GPU is the limiting factor. As resolution increases, FPS drops proportionally, while the CPU's strong single-core performance prevents it from becoming a bottleneck.

Q: What is the performance difference between Medium and Ultra settings at 1440p?

A: At 2560x1440, Medium settings produce an average of 177 FPS, while Ultra settings produce an average of 122 FPS. Medium is 45% faster than Ultra.

*Q: How does this combo rank against all other tested combinations in Doom?*

A: This combo ranks 669 out of 2930 tested combos, placing it in the top 23% of all systems.

Q: Does the system maintain stable frame rates?

A: Yes, the only minimum FPS data provided (for Medium settings) shows the minimum is close to the average. For example, at 1080p, the minimum is 232 FPS versus an average of 273 FPS, indicating stable performance.

Settings Recommendations

Based on the measured FPS data, the best experience depends on the user's display resolution. For 1920x1080 users, Ultra settings provide an average of 189 FPS, which is excellent for high-refresh-rate monitors. However, for those seeking the absolute highest frame rates, dropping to Medium settings yields 273 FPS, a 44% increase, with only a slight visual quality reduction. The data shows that High settings (231 FPS) offer a good balance between visual fidelity and performance, but Medium is the sweet spot for competitive play.

For 2560x1440 users, Ultra settings still deliver a high average of 122 FPS, which is suitable for most displays. High settings at 149 FPS are a better choice for 144Hz monitors, as they provide a 22% increase over Ultra. Medium settings (177 FPS) are ideal for maximizing frame rates, and the data shows that the visual difference between Medium and High in Doom is not dramatic. The recommendation is to use High settings as a default, with Medium as an option for higher FPS.

For 3840x2160 users, the choice is more nuanced. Ultra settings average 66 FPS, which is just above 60 and may not be smooth enough for all players. High settings (81 FPS) provide a 23% improvement and are a good target for 60Hz displays. Medium settings (96 FPS) are the best choice for a 4K display with a higher refresh rate, as they offer a 45% increase over Ultra. Low settings (110 FPS) are an option for those who prioritize frame rate above all else, but the visual trade-off is significant. The data suggests that Medium settings at 4K offer the best balance of performance and quality, ensuring a smooth experience without sacrificing too much visual fidelity.