Doom

The AMD Ryzen 5 9600X and AMD Radeon RX 6600 pairing delivers a playable experience in Doom, but the data reveals a system that is heavily reliant on the graphics card. The measured frame rates show a clear pattern: the CPU provides a robust foundation, while the GPU becomes the primary bottleneck at higher resolutions and settings. This analysis will break down the performance metrics to show exactly how each component contributes and where the system's limits lie.

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

The Ryzen 5 9600X is a 6-core, 12-thread processor based on the Zen 5 architecture. It operates with a base clock of 3.90 GHz and a boost clock of 5.40 GHz, which provides the single-thread prowess that older game engines like Doom’s frequently leverage. The processor’s benchmark scores reinforce this strength: it achieves a 3dmark_single_thread score of 1253 and a passmark_single_thread score of 4570. This single-core performance is critical for maintaining high frame rates, especially when the GPU is not the limiting factor.

In the context of Doom, the CPU’s role is to feed the GPU with draw calls and game logic. The data suggests that at 1080p, the CPU is more than capable of keeping up. The 3dmark_16_threads score of 7585 and 3dmark_max_threads score of 7590 show that the processor's multi-threaded capabilities are consistent, with no significant drop-off when all cores are engaged. The Cinebench R23 multicore score of 25525 further confirms its strong all-core performance, which helps prevent frame drops in complex scenes.

The processor's nearestRivals data shows a tight grouping. The Intel Core i5-13490F trails by only 0.3%, while the AMD Ryzen 7 8845HS is 0.4% ahead. This indicates that the 9600X is positioned in a highly competitive performance band. For Doom, this means the CPU will not be the source of significant frame pacing issues. The 65W TDP and 4 nm process node also suggest efficient operation, allowing the processor to sustain its boost clocks without excessive thermal throttling, which is a practical advantage for sustained gaming sessions. The 32 MB of shared L3 cache is ample for the game’s data sets, reducing the need to pull from system memory.

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

The AMD Radeon RX 6600 is the clear performance limiter in this combination. It features 8 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 128-bit bus, yielding a bandwidth of 224.0 GB/s. This is a modest amount of memory bandwidth for a modern GPU, and the data shows its impact directly. The GPU’s boost clock of 2491 MHz and game clock of 2044 MHz are respectable, but the hardware’s overall compute throughput is what determines the frame rates. With 1792 shading units and an FP32 performance of 8.928 TFLOPS, the GPU is an entry-level to mid-range part.

The benchmark results for the RX 6600 show it holds a percentileVsAllGpus of 69. Its nearestRivals include the AMD Radeon 890M (0% delta) and the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3060 Ti (0.5% faster). This places the RX 6600 in a predictable performance tier. In Doom, this translates to a GPU that can handle 1080p and 1440p well, but struggles to maintain high frame rates at 4K with maximum settings. The 8 GB VRAM is sufficient for Doom’s textures, but the 128-bit memory bus becomes a bottleneck at higher resolutions where the demand for texture data increases.

The GPU’s PassMark G3D score of 15096 and 3dmark_steel_nomad_dx12 score of 1492 provide a baseline for its compute and rendering capabilities. The data indicates that the RX 6600 is built for 1080p gaming. The measured FPS at 1080p High settings (128.9 avg) supports this, but the drop at 4K Ultra (36.9 avg) shows that the GPU simply runs out of raw processing power and memory bandwidth. The system’s performance is governed by the GPU’s limits, not the CPU’s.

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

The FPS scaling across resolutions is a textbook example of a GPU-bound scenario. At 1080p with High settings, the system produces 128.9 FPS. Moving to 1440p High drops this to 87 FPS, a decrease of about 32.5%. Further scaling to 4K High yields 47.6 FPS, a 63% drop from the 1080p result. This steep decline is directly attributable to the RX 6600's inability to process the exponentially larger number of pixels at higher resolutions.

The pattern holds across all settings. With Low settings, the system hits 173.7 FPS at 1080p, 116.7 FPS at 1440p, and 63 FPS at 4K. The relative drop from 1080p to 4K is roughly 64%, which is consistent with the High settings drop. This consistency indicates that the GPU is the limiting factor at all settings. If the CPU were the bottleneck, we would expect the FPS to remain relatively flat at lower resolutions and settings, as the CPU would max out before the GPU. The data shows the opposite.

The gap between 1440p and 4K is also telling. At High settings, 1440p produces 87 FPS, which is a solid experience. However, 4K High produces 47.6 FPS, which is below the 60 FPS threshold many players target. This suggests that the RX 6600 is not a viable 4K card for Doom, even at medium presets. The scaling is smooth and predictable, confirming that the CPU is never the primary constraint. The Ryzen 5 9600X has enough headroom to feed the GPU at all resolutions, but the GPU’s rendering capacity is exhausted quickly as resolution increases.

FAQ

Q: Can this system run Doom at 4K with high settings?

A: Yes, but not at a smooth 60 FPS. The measured average at 3840x2160 with High settings is 47.6 FPS, which is playable but not ideal for fast-paced action.

Q: What is the best resolution for this CPU and GPU combo?

A: The data shows that 1920x1080 is the sweet spot. Even at Ultra settings, the system averages 106.4 FPS, which is well above the 60 FPS target for a smooth experience.

Q: How does the Ryzen 5 9600X compare to its closest rivals in synthetic benchmarks?

A: The Ryzen 5 9600X is effectively tied with its nearest rivals. The Intel Core i5-13490F is only 0.3% slower, while the AMD Ryzen 7 8845HS is 0.4% faster. This shows the 9600X is a highly competitive mid-range CPU.

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

A: The GPU is the bottleneck. The FPS drops significantly when resolution increases, which is a classic sign of GPU limitation. The CPU’s performance is sufficient across all tested resolutions.

Q: What is the performance difference between Low and Ultra settings at 1080p?

A: At 1080p, the system averages 173.7 FPS on Low and 106.4 FPS on Ultra. That is a 67.3 FPS difference, showing that visual quality has a substantial impact on frame rate.

Q: How does the GPU’s memory bandwidth affect performance?

A: The RX 6600 has a 128-bit memory bus and 224.0 GB/s bandwidth. At higher resolutions, this becomes a limiting factor, as the GPU cannot fetch texture data fast enough, leading to the observed frame rate drops at 4K.

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

The measured FPS data provides a comprehensive view of the system's capabilities. At 1920x1080, the system is clearly CPU-bound at lower settings, with a very high frame rate. The results are:

• Low: 173.7 FPS average
• Medium: 152.5 FPS average
• High: 128.9 FPS average
• Ultra: 106.4 FPS average

At 2560x1440, the GPU begins to take over as the primary limiter. The frame rates are still solid, but the drop from 1080p is noticeable.

• Low: 116.7 FPS average
• Medium: 96.7 FPS average
• High: 87 FPS average
• Ultra: 68 FPS average

At 3840x2160, the system struggles to maintain high frame rates, especially at higher settings. The GPU is clearly overworked.

• Low: 63 FPS average
• Medium: 51.8 FPS average
• High: 47.6 FPS average
• Ultra: 36.9 FPS average

The data shows that the step from 1080p to 1440p costs roughly 30-40% of the frame rate, while the step to 4K costs another 50% on top of that. This reinforces the idea that the RX 6600 is a 1080p and entry-level 1440p card. The Ultra preset at 4K is not a viable option for consistent gameplay, as it dips below 40 FPS.

Settings Recommendations — which preset gives the best experience per the measured rows

For a 1080p monitor, the High preset at 128.9 FPS is the best balance of visual quality and performance. It provides a significant improvement over Medium (152.5 FPS) in visual fidelity while still maintaining a frame rate that is well above the refresh rate of most standard monitors. The Ultra preset at 106.4 FPS is also an option for those who prioritize visuals, but the marginal gain over High is likely not worth the performance hit.

For 1440p users, the High preset at 87 FPS is the recommended choice. It delivers a smooth experience that is close to the 90 FPS mark. The Medium preset at 96.7 FPS is also viable if you prefer a higher frame rate, but the visual downgrade is noticeable in texture detail and shadow quality. The Ultra preset at 68 FPS is playable, but it introduces more motion blur and can feel less responsive in fast-paced combat.

At 4K, the data suggests that Low settings at 63 FPS are the only way to achieve a near-60 FPS experience. The Medium preset at 51.8 FPS is playable but will feel less smooth. High and Ultra settings are not recommended for 4K, as they produce average frame rates below 50 FPS, which can lead to a less enjoyable experience in a fast-paced shooter. For the best experience at this resolution, you would need to lower the internal resolution or accept the lower frame rates. The practical recommendation is to stick to 1080p or 1440p with this hardware combination.