Doom

How This Combo Ranks

This combination of the AMD Ryzen 5 8400F and NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 lands at rank 1608 out of 1681 tested combos for Doom, placing it in the bottom 5% of all configurations the database has measured. That ranking is striking when considering the CPU's overall standing — the Ryzen 5 8400F sits at the 82nd percentile among all processors, a strong result for a 6-core, 12-thread Zen 4 part. The bottleneck is clearly not the processor. The GPU, by contrast, sits at the 43rd percentile among all graphics cards, and its average benchmark score of 8713 is nearly three times lower than the CPU's average score of 25064. This imbalance explains the low combo rank: the GTX 1650 is holding back a CPU that is otherwise capable of much higher frame rates in this 2016 FPS title. The data implies that pairing this CPU with a stronger GPU would yield a dramatically different ranking, but as configured, the system is firmly in the lower tier for Doom performance.

GPU Role

The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 brings 4 GB of GDDR5 memory on a 128-bit bus, with memory clocks running at 2001 MHz (8 Gbps effective) and a bandwidth of 128.1 GB/s. The GPU's base clock is 1485 MHz, boosting to 1665 MHz. These specifications are modest by any modern standard, and the benchmark results reflect that. In Doom, the GPU's 4 GB VRAM capacity becomes a critical constraint at higher resolutions and settings. At 4K Ultra, the average frame rate collapses to 17.2 FPS, which is barely playable and suggests the card is running out of both memory bandwidth and raw compute headroom. The GPU's FP32 throughput is 2.984 TFLOPS, and its texture rate is 93.24 GTexel/s, figures that are simply too low to feed a 4K display with high-detail geometry and effects. The GTX 1650's nearest rivals in the database — the RTX 3050 A Mobile, Radeon 550X, Quadro P2200, and Radeon Pro WX 5100 — all score within 0.5% of each other in average benchmark score, confirming that this GPU sits in a tightly contested but ultimately low-performance tier. The data suggests that the GTX 1650 is best suited for 1080p gaming, where its 91.5 FPS on Low settings shows it can still deliver smooth gameplay.

CPU Role

The AMD Ryzen 5 8400F is a 6-core, 12-thread processor based on Zen 4 architecture, built on a 4 nm process by TSMC. It runs at a base clock of 4.20 GHz and boosts to 4.70 GHz, with a 65 W TDP. The CPU has 64 KB of L1 cache per core, 1 MB of L2 cache per core, and 16 MB of shared L3 cache. Its single-thread performance is strong — the Cinebench R23 single-core score of 2943 and the 3DMark single-thread score of 951 both indicate a processor that can handle game logic and draw calls without breaking a sweat. Multi-threaded results are equally solid: Cinebench R23 multi-core scores 20851, and the PassMark multithread score is 24530. The CPU's nearest rivals include the AMD Ryzen 7 2700X, Ryzen AI 5 PRO 340, EPYC 9474F, and Ryzen 5 7500F, all within 0.3% of each other in average score. For Doom, which is not a heavily threaded title, the 8400F's single-core performance is more than sufficient. The data indicates that the CPU is never the limiting factor in any of the measured FPS rows. Even at 1080p Low, where the GPU is least stressed, the CPU can push the GTX 1650 to its maximum output — the 91.5 FPS result is likely a hard GPU ceiling, not a CPU limitation.

Measured FPS Breakdown

The measured FPS data spans three resolutions and four settings presets, yielding twelve distinct data points. At 1080p, the results are as follows: Low averages 91.5 FPS, Medium 82.9 FPS, High 65.6 FPS, and Ultra 57.6 FPS. These numbers show a clear, expected trend — higher settings cost frames, but even at Ultra, the game remains playable above 57 FPS. Moving to 1440p, the averages drop to 58.4 FPS on Low, 51.7 FPS on Medium, 44.7 FPS on High, and 38.2 FPS on Ultra. The step from 1080p to 1440p costs roughly 30-35% of the frame rate at every settings level, which is consistent with a GPU-bound scenario. At 4K, the numbers become marginal: Low averages 35.1 FPS, Medium 26.7 FPS, High 24.1 FPS, and Ultra 17.2 FPS. The 4K Ultra result is the worst in the entire dataset, falling below 20 FPS, which would be a poor experience in a fast-paced FPS. The 1080p Low result of 91.5 FPS is the best single data point, and it suggests that the GTX 1650 can approach but not quite reach 100 FPS even at the lowest settings.

Resolution Scaling

The frame rate drop from 1080p to 4K tells a clear story about which component is limiting performance. At 1080p Low, the system achieves 91.5 FPS. At 1440p Low, it drops to 58.4 FPS — a 36% reduction. At 4K Low, it falls to 35.1 FPS — a 62% reduction from the 1080p baseline. This scaling pattern is almost perfectly linear with the increase in pixel count: 1440p has 1.78 times the pixels of 1080p, and 4K has 4 times the pixels. The fact that frame rates drop roughly in proportion to pixel count indicates that the GPU is the sole bottleneck — the CPU is not struggling to keep up at any resolution. If the CPU were the limiting factor, the frame rate would stay relatively flat as resolution increases, because the CPU's workload would not change much. Instead, the data shows a sharp decline, which is the signature of a GPU that is saturated at even 1080p and completely overwhelmed at 4K. The 4K Ultra result of 17.2 FPS versus the 1080p Low result of 91.5 FPS represents a five-fold performance difference, entirely attributable to the GPU's inability to handle the increased pixel throughput and texture memory demands.

Settings Recommendations

Based on the measured FPS rows, the optimal settings depend heavily on the target resolution and desired frame rate. At 1080p, the High preset at 65.6 FPS is the best balance of visual quality and performance — it stays above 60 FPS, which is the standard for smooth gameplay in an FPS, while still delivering a substantial visual upgrade over Low. The Ultra preset at 57.6 FPS is close but dips just below the 60 FPS threshold, making High the safer choice. At 1440p, the Medium preset at 51.7 FPS is the recommended option, as it maintains a playable frame rate while providing better visuals than Low. The High preset at 44.7 FPS is still playable but noticeably less smooth, and Ultra at 38.2 FPS is borderline. At 4K, no preset delivers a truly comfortable experience — Low at 35.1 FPS is the only setting that approaches playability, but 35 FPS is below the 40 FPS threshold that many players consider the minimum for a responsive FPS. The data clearly suggests that 4K is not viable for this combination, and even 1440p requires sacrificing settings to Medium. For the best overall experience, 1080p High is the sweet spot, delivering 65.6 FPS with a good balance of detail and smoothness.

FAQ

Q: What is the best resolution and settings combo for this system in Doom?

A: The data shows 1080p High at 65.6 FPS is the best balance, staying above 60 FPS while maintaining good visual quality. 1080p Low achieves 91.5 FPS but sacrifices detail, while 1080p Ultra drops to 57.6 FPS.

Q: Can this system handle 4K in Doom?

A: No, the 4K results are all below 36 FPS. Low averages 35.1 FPS, Medium 26.7 FPS, High 24.1 FPS, and Ultra 17.2 FPS. None of these are smooth enough for a fast-paced FPS.

Q: Is the CPU or GPU the bottleneck in this setup?

A: The GPU is clearly the bottleneck. The Ryzen 5 8400F scores at the 82nd percentile among CPUs, while the GTX 1650 sits at the 43rd percentile among GPUs. The frame rate drops proportionally with resolution increases, which is the signature of GPU limitation.

Q: How does the GTX 1650 compare to its nearest rivals?

A: The GTX 1650's average benchmark score is 8713, and its nearest rivals — RTX 3050 A Mobile, Radeon 550X, Quadro P2200, and Radeon Pro WX 5100 — all score within 0.5% of that figure, indicating they perform nearly identically.

Q: What is the highest FPS this system can achieve in Doom?

A: The highest measured average is 91.5 FPS at 1080p Low. The next best is 82.9 FPS at 1080p Medium, followed by 65.6 FPS at 1080p High.

Q: Is the Ryzen 5 8400F a strong CPU for gaming?

A: Yes, the CPU performs well, with a Cinebench R23 single-core score of 2943 and a multi-core score of 20851. Its nearest rival, the Ryzen 7 2700X, scores nearly identically in average benchmark, confirming the 8400F's solid standing.