Doom

The AMD Ryzen 7 3700X paired with the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4080 delivers a top-tier experience in Doom, ranking 571st out of 3,712 tested combos, placing it in the top 15.4% of all configurations. This is a combination where the GPU dominates the narrative, but the CPU proves sufficient to keep frame rates consistently high across all tested resolutions and settings. The data shows a system that excels at high-refresh-rate 1440p gaming and remains very playable at 4K, with the only real compromise occurring at 4K Ultra where the frame rate dips below the 100 FPS mark.

How This Combo Ranks

The combo’s rank of 571 out of 3,712 tested configurations places it comfortably in the upper echelon of systems benchmarked for Doom. This percentile position reflects the strength of the RTX 4080, a GPU that sits in the 86th percentile of all GPUs tested, combined with a CPU that holds an 84th percentile ranking among all processors. The synergy here is not about the CPU pushing boundaries; rather, it is about the GPU being allowed to stretch its legs without the CPU becoming a bottleneck at lower resolutions.

Relative to its nearest rivals, the Ryzen 7 3700X shows a balanced profile. Its average benchmark score of 34,260 is virtually identical to the AMD Ryzen AI 7 350, which scores 34,222, a delta of just 0.1%. Similarly, it trails the Intel Core i5-13450HX by only 0.2% (34,333 vs. 34,260) and leads the Intel Core Ultra 7 165H by 0.5% (34,260 vs. 34,083). This clustering suggests that the CPU is not a differentiator at this level; the measured FPS in Doom will be dictated almost entirely by the GPU’s capabilities. The GPU itself, the RTX 4080, has an average benchmark score of 54,247, which is within 0.1% of the RTX 4080 SUPER’s 54,209. It also outperforms the AMD Radeon Pro W5700X by 1.1% and the AMD Radeon RX 6750 GRE 12 GB by 2.6%, confirming that this is a high-end graphics solution by any measure.

GPU Role

The NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4080 is the primary driver of performance in this combo, and its specifications explain why. With 16 GB of GDDR6X memory on a 256-bit bus, the card offers a memory bandwidth of 716.8 GB/s. This is more than sufficient for Doom, a 2016 title that does not push VRAM capacity even at 4K Ultra. The GPU’s 9,728 shading units, 304 TMUs, and 112 ROPs provide the raw compute headroom needed to sustain high frame rates. The boost clock of 2505 MHz, with a base of 2205 MHz, allows the card to maintain aggressive performance under load.

In the context of Doom’s measured results, the GPU’s role is evident in the scaling from Low to Ultra settings. At 1080p Low, the combo hits 278 FPS, but at Ultra, it still manages 232 FPS. This 46 FPS drop (approximately 16.5%) is modest, indicating that even at the highest settings, the GPU is not overwhelmed. The card’s architecture, Ada Lovelace, is built for high-throughput rendering, and Doom’s id Tech 6 engine responds well to it. The RTX 4080’s 48.74 TFLOPS of FP32 performance is a theoretical peak that translates into practical gains, especially at resolutions where the GPU is the limiting factor. At 4K, the differences become more pronounced: 141 FPS at Low versus 85 FPS at Ultra, a 56 FPS drop (39.7%). This shows that while the GPU is powerful, 4K Ultra still demands significant resources, and the card’s performance scales down accordingly.

The GPU’s percentile ranking of 86 versus all tested GPUs aligns with its measured performance here. It is not the absolute fastest card, but it is clearly in the top tier. The nearest rival data reinforces this: the RTX 4080 SUPER is essentially tied (0.1% delta), and the gap to the next competitors (AMD Radeon Pro W5700X at -1.1%) is small. In Doom, this means the RTX 4080 will produce frame rates that are within a few percentage points of the best available hardware, making it an excellent choice for high-refresh-rate monitors.

Resolution Scaling

The measured FPS data reveals a clear pattern of scaling from 1080p to 4K, with the GPU becoming increasingly dominant as resolution rises. At 1080p High, the combo averages 250 FPS. Moving to 1440p High drops this to 191 FPS, a 23.6% reduction. At 4K High, the average falls to 104 FPS, another 45.5% drop from 1440p. This steep decline indicates that the GPU is the limiting component at 4K, as the CPU’s role diminishes when pixel count increases.

At Low settings, the scaling is similar: 278 FPS at 1080p, 240 FPS at 1440p (13.7% drop), and 141 FPS at 4K (41.3% drop from 1440p). The 4K Low result of 141 FPS shows that even at the lowest settings, the GPU’s fill rate and shading capacity are the bottlenecks, not the CPU. The CPU’s influence is more apparent at 1080p, where the difference between Low and Ultra is 46 FPS (278 to 232). At 4K, that same setting change results in a 56 FPS difference (141 to 85), showing that the GPU’s workload scales more with settings than with resolution.

For the Medium preset, the data includes min and max FPS values, offering a window into frame time consistency. At 1080p Medium, the average is 265 FPS with a min of 225 and max of 305. At 1440p Medium, the average is 226 FPS, with min at 192 and max at 260. At 4K Medium, the average drops to 123 FPS, with min at 104 and max at 141. The spread between min and max FPS narrows as resolution increases, from 80 FPS at 1080p to 68 FPS at 1440p and 37 FPS at 4K. This suggests that at higher resolutions, the frame rate becomes more stable because the GPU is consistently saturated, reducing CPU-induced variance. Conversely, at 1080p, the CPU occasionally causes frame rate dips, as evidenced by the larger min-to-max range.

Measured FPS Breakdown

The full set of measured FPS values provides a detailed picture of performance across all settings and resolutions. At 1920x1080, the combo achieves its highest frame rates: 278 FPS at Low, 265 FPS at Medium (with min 225, max 305), 250 FPS at High, and 232 FPS at Ultra. The gap between Low and Ultra is 46 FPS, or 16.5%. This is a narrow range, indicating that the GPU has enough headroom to handle the most demanding settings without a catastrophic frame rate drop. The Medium preset’s min FPS of 225 is still above 200, ensuring smooth gameplay even in busy scenes.

At 2560x1440, the performance remains excellent. Low settings yield 240 FPS, Medium averages 226 FPS (min 192, max 260), High averages 191 FPS, and Ultra drops to 156 FPS. The drop from Low to Ultra is 84 FPS, or 35%. The Medium preset’s min of 192 FPS is just below the 200 FPS threshold, but the average of 226 FPS means most of the experience will be well above that. For gamers with 144Hz monitors, even Ultra at 156 FPS exceeds the refresh rate, making this resolution ideal for high-refresh-rate displays.

At 3840x2160, the combo still delivers playable frame rates across all settings. Low averages 141 FPS, Medium averages 123 FPS (min 104, max 141), High averages 104 FPS, and Ultra averages 85 FPS. The step from Low to Ultra is a 56 FPS drop, or 39.7%. The Medium preset’s min FPS of 104 is the lowest recorded in the entire dataset, but it is still above 60 FPS, ensuring a smooth experience on most 4K displays. Ultra at 85 FPS is also playable, especially on a 60Hz or 120Hz monitor, though it may not fully utilize a 144Hz 4K panel.

The data set is consistent: for each resolution, Low provides the highest FPS, followed by Medium, then High, with Ultra being the most demanding. The relative ordering is stable, and the absolute numbers show that no setting makes the game unplayable. Even the worst-case scenario (4K Ultra at 85 FPS) is well above the 60 FPS minimum for smooth gameplay.

Settings Recommendations

Based on the measured rows, the Medium preset offers the best balance between visual fidelity and performance for most users. At 1080p, Medium averages 265 FPS, which is only 13 FPS lower than Low (278) but 15 FPS higher than High (250). The min FPS of 225 ensures that even the most intense combat sequences will not drop below the refresh rate of a 240Hz monitor. At 1440p, Medium averages 226 FPS, with a min of 192 and max of 260. This is 35 FPS higher than High (191) and 70 FPS higher than Ultra (156). The min FPS of 192 is just below 200, but the average is high enough that most players will perceive the experience as flawless on a 144Hz or 165Hz display.

At 4K, Medium is the recommended preset for those who want to stay above 120 FPS. The average of 123 FPS with a min of 104 means that the game will rarely dip below 100 FPS, which is excellent for a high-resolution experience. High at 4K averages 104 FPS, but the lack of min/max data makes it harder to recommend; the average is 19 FPS lower than Medium, and the visual difference between Medium and High in Doom is not always dramatic. Ultra at 4K drops to 85 FPS, which is still playable but may cause noticeable stutter on high-refresh-rate displays.

For users with 1440p 240Hz monitors, Low or Medium are the best choices. Low at 240 FPS exactly matches the refresh rate, but Medium’s 226 FPS is close enough that the visual upgrade is worth the 14 FPS sacrifice. At 1080p, all settings are viable, but Medium again strikes the best balance, offering 265 FPS average with a high min of 225. Ultra at 1080p (232 FPS) is also a strong option if visuals are prioritized, as it remains above 230 FPS. The recommendation is clear: Medium is the sweet spot across all resolutions, providing frame rates that are consistently high while enabling better graphics than Low.

CPU Role

The AMD Ryzen 7 3700X, with 8 cores and 16 threads, plays a supporting role in this combo. Its base clock of 3.60 GHz and boost clock of 4.40 GHz are modest by modern standards, but they are sufficient for Doom’s engine. The CPU’s 32 MB of L3 cache and dual-channel DDR4 memory support (with 51.2 GB/s bandwidth) provide enough data throughput to keep the GPU fed, particularly at lower resolutions where CPU overhead is higher.

The CPU’s benchmark results show a solid mid-range performer. Its Cinebench R15 multicore score of 2,092 and single-core score of 204 indicate that it can handle multi-threaded workloads well, but its single-thread performance is not exceptional. In Doom, which is a well-optimized FPS that can scale across multiple cores, the 8-core/16-thread configuration is more than adequate. The PassMark multithread score of 22,458 and single-thread score of 2,656 confirm that the CPU is not a bottleneck in this game. The data shows that at 1080p, the frame rates (232-278 FPS) are high enough that the CPU is likely near its limits, but the GPU still dominates the performance envelope.

The CPU’s percentile rank of 84 versus all CPUs places it in the top 16% of processors. Its nearest rivals, such as the AMD Ryzen AI 7 350 (0.1% delta) and Intel Core i5-13450HX (-0.2% delta), show that the 3700X is competitive with much newer chips. In Doom, the CPU’s role is most visible in the min FPS data at 1080p Medium (225 FPS), which is 40 FPS lower than the max of 305. This variance is likely due to CPU frame pacing, but it does not impact the overall experience. At 1440p and 4K, the CPU’s influence wanes, as the GPU becomes the primary limiter, evidenced by the narrower min-to-max spreads (68 FPS at 1440p, 37 FPS at 4K).

The CPU’s launch MSRP was $329, and it remains a viable option for gaming, but the data indicates that upgrading the CPU would yield minimal gains in Doom. The GPU is the clear performance driver, and the 3700X provides just enough single-thread and multi-thread performance to avoid holding the RTX 4080 back. For this specific game, the CPU is not a limiting factor at any resolution or settings level, making the combo a well-matched pair. The 65W TDP and 7nm process also mean it runs cool, but those details are secondary to the measured FPS results, which show consistently high performance across the board.