Doom

FAQ

Q: What is the overall performance rank of this AMD Ryzen 7 7700 + NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 combo in Doom?

A: The combo ranks 1592 out of 1681 tested combinations in this game, placing it in the bottom portion of the database. This position reflects the significant bottleneck created by the GPU relative to the CPU's capabilities.

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

A: The GTX 1650's average benchmark score is 8713, which is effectively tied with the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3050 A Mobile (8746, delta -0.4%) and the AMD Radeon 550X (8749, delta -0.4%). It sits slightly ahead of the NVIDIA Quadro P2200 (8671, delta +0.5%) and marginally behind the AMD Radeon Pro WX 5100 (8761, delta -0.5%).

Q: What is the Ryzen 7 7700's standing among all CPUs?

A: The Ryzen 7 7700 ranks in the 91st percentile of all CPUs, with an average benchmark score of 40468. Its nearest rival, the AMD Ryzen 9 7940H, scores 40431 (delta 0.1%), while the Intel Core i9-13905H scores 40712 (delta -0.6%).

Q: What are the best and worst frame rates recorded for this combo?

A: The highest average FPS is 94 at 1920x1080 with Low settings. The lowest average FPS is 18.4 at 3840x2160 with Ultra settings. This represents a spread of 75.6 FPS across the tested configurations.

Q: Does the CPU or GPU hold back performance more in Doom?

A: The data indicates the GPU is the limiting factor. The GTX 1650 sits in the 43rd percentile of all GPUs, while the Ryzen 7 7700 sits in the 91st percentile of all CPUs. The massive gap in relative standing means the GPU cannot fully utilize the CPU's processing power.

Q: Is this a viable 4K gaming setup for Doom?

A: At 3840x2160, the best average FPS is 34.3 on Low settings, and it drops to 18.4 on Ultra. None of the 4K configurations reach 60 FPS, making 4K gaming impractical for this title with this hardware combination.

GPU Role

The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 is built on the Turing architecture with the TU117 chip, manufactured on a 12 nm process at TSMC. It packs 4 GB of GDDR5 memory on a 128-bit bus, delivering 128.1 GB/s of bandwidth. The GPU operates at a base clock of 1485 MHz with a boost clock of 1665 MHz, and its memory runs at 2001 MHz (8 Gbps effective). With 896 shading units, 56 texture mapping units, and 32 render output units, the card achieves a pixel rate of 53.28 GPixel/s and a texture rate of 93.24 GTexel/s. Its FP32 performance is rated at 2.984 TFLOPS, with FP16 at 5.967 TFLOPS (2:1 ratio).

The GPU's modest specifications directly explain the measured frame rates in Doom. At 1920x1080, the card manages 68.1 FPS on High settings, but this drops to 55 FPS on Ultra. The step to 2560x1440 shows a significant penalty: High settings yield 46.8 FPS, and Ultra falls to 36.4 FPS. At 3840x2160, the GPU struggles severely, with High producing only 23.6 FPS and Ultra a poor 18.4 FPS. The 4 GB VRAM capacity becomes a constraint at higher resolutions, and the 128-bit memory interface limits bandwidth for texture-heavy scenes.

In the broader GPU landscape, the GTX 1650's percentile rank of 43 against all GPUs places it below the median. Its average benchmark score of 8713 is nearly identical to the RTX 3050 A Mobile (8746) and Radeon 550X (8749), both within 0.4% delta. The Quadro P2200 trails by 0.5% (8671), while the Radeon Pro WX 5100 leads by 0.5% (8761). These small deltas indicate the GTX 1650 is precisely in the middle of its performance tier, with no meaningful advantage over immediate competitors.

CPU Role

The AMD Ryzen 7 7700 is a Zen 4 (Raphael) processor with 8 cores and 16 threads, running on the AM5 socket. It has a base clock of 3.80 GHz and a boost clock of 5.30 GHz, with a 65 W TDP. The cache hierarchy includes 64 KB L1 per core, 1 MB L2 per core, and 32 MB shared L3. It supports DDR5 memory in dual-channel configuration, providing 83.2 GB/s of bandwidth. The CPU is built on TSMC's 5 nm process with 6,570 million transistors on a 71 mm² die, and it features 24 PCIe Gen 5 lanes.

The CPU's synthetic benchmark results show strong multi-threaded performance. In Cinebench R23, it scores 29302 multi-core and 4136 single-core. The 3DMark tests show scores of 8484 for 16 threads, 8479 for max threads, and 1049 for single-thread. PassMark results include 34470 for multi-thread and 4063 for single-thread. These figures place the Ryzen 7 7700 in the 91st percentile of all CPUs, with an average score of 40468. Its nearest rivals include the Ryzen 9 7940H at 40431 (delta 0.1%) and the Core i9-13905H at 40712 (delta -0.6%).

For Doom, the CPU's high clock speeds and 16 threads are more than sufficient to feed the GTX 1650. The game's engine, originally released in 2016, scales well with modern processors, and the Ryzen 7 7700's 5.30 GHz boost ensures no core-count or clock-speed limitation. The gap between CPU capability (91st percentile) and GPU capability (43rd percentile) is stark: the CPU could support far higher frame rates if paired with a stronger GPU. But with the GTX 1650, the CPU spends most of its time waiting on the graphics pipeline.

How This Combo Ranks

The combo holds rank 1592 out of 1681 tested combinations in Doom, placing it in the bottom 5% of all configurations. This low ranking stems from the severe imbalance between the two components. The Ryzen 7 7700 is a top-tier CPU by percentile (91), while the GTX 1650 is below average (43). When paired, the GPU becomes the definitive bottleneck, capping performance far below what the CPU could deliver.

The rank position reflects the GPU's limitations more than the CPU's strengths. Many combinations with weaker CPUs but stronger GPUs would outperform this setup in Doom, since the game is primarily GPU-bound at most settings. The 1592 rank out of 1681 means there are only 89 configurations that perform worse, which is a narrow margin. This suggests that even modest GPU upgrades would significantly improve the combo's standing.

The data supports this interpretation: at 1920x1080 Low settings, the combo achieves 94 FPS, but this is the ceiling. Moving to 2560x1440 High drops to 46.8 FPS, and 3840x2160 High yields just 23.6 FPS. These numbers are consistent with a GPU that cannot maintain playable frame rates at higher resolutions, regardless of the CPU's headroom.

Measured FPS Breakdown

At 1920x1080, the combo delivers its strongest results. Low settings produce 94 FPS, Medium 82.1 FPS, High 68.1 FPS, and Ultra 55 FPS. The scaling from Low to Ultra shows a 41.5% drop in performance, which is typical for a GPU with limited shading units. The 1080p Low result is the only configuration that approaches the 100 FPS mark, indicating that this resolution is where the GTX 1650 can show its best face.

At 2560x1440, performance falls noticeably. Low yields 59.3 FPS, Medium 51.6 FPS, High 46.8 FPS, and Ultra 36.4 FPS. The drop from 1080p Low to 1440p Low is 36.9%, reflecting the increased pixel count. None of the 1440p settings reach 60 FPS except Low, which just barely crosses the threshold. Ultra at 1440p is below 40 FPS, making it marginal for smooth gameplay.

At 3840x2160, the GPU is overwhelmed. Low produces 34.3 FPS, Medium 30.1 FPS, High 23.6 FPS, and Ultra 18.4 FPS. The gap between Low and Ultra at 4K is 15.9 FPS, with Ultra delivering less than half the frame rate of Low. Even the best 4K result (34.3 FPS) is below the 60 FPS target, and the playability at 4K is severely compromised across all settings.

The resolution scaling shows a consistent pattern: each step from 1080p to 1440p to 2160p reduces frame rates by roughly 30-40% at equivalent settings. This linear degradation indicates the GPU's fill rate and memory bandwidth are the limiting factors, not the CPU.

Settings Recommendations

For 1920x1080, the High preset at 68.1 FPS offers the best balance of visual quality and performance. Ultra at 55 FPS is playable but may experience occasional dips below the 60 FPS threshold. Low at 94 FPS is suitable for competitive play where frame rate takes priority over visuals. Medium at 82.1 FPS is a solid middle ground, but High provides better visuals at a modest FPS cost.

At 2560x1440, Low at 59.3 FPS is the only preset that approaches the 60 FPS target. Medium at 51.6 FPS is acceptable for slower-paced gameplay, while High at 46.8 FPS and Ultra at 36.4 FPS are less optimal. The recommendation for 1440p is Low or Medium, depending on tolerance for lower visual fidelity.

At 3840x2160, none of the presets deliver playable frame rates. Low at 34.3 FPS is the best option, but even this is below the 30 FPS minimum for some players. The data suggests avoiding 4K entirely with this combo, or accepting significantly reduced visual quality and frame rates. The 18.4 FPS Ultra result is effectively a slideshow and not recommended for any gameplay scenario.

Overall, the best experience per the measured rows is 1920x1080 with High settings, yielding 68.1 FPS. This configuration provides a smooth frame rate while maintaining reasonable visual detail. For users prioritizing frame rate, 1920x1080 Low at 94 FPS is the optimal choice. For those wanting the highest visual quality at a playable frame rate, 1920x1080 Ultra at 55 FPS is the ceiling, but High offers better margin for frame time consistency.