Doom

The AMD Ryzen 7 7800X3D paired with the AMD Radeon RX 6800 XT is a formidable combination for Doom, delivering frame rates that range from highly playable at 4K to exceptionally fast at 1080p. The data shows a system that is well-balanced across resolutions, though the performance scaling reveals where each component's influence is strongest. This analysis breaks down the measured results, contextualizes the CPU's role, and provides practical guidance based strictly on the benchmark data.

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

The AMD Ryzen 7 7800X3D is an 8-core, 16-thread processor based on the Zen 4 architecture (codenamed Raphael) and built on a 5 nm process at TSMC. It operates with a base clock of 4.20 GHz and a boost clock of 5.00 GHz, with a 120 W TDP. The CPU features a substantial 96 MB of shared L3 cache, which is a defining characteristic for gaming workloads, alongside 64 KB of L1 cache per core and 1 MB of L2 cache per core. It supports DDR5 memory in a dual-channel configuration with a bandwidth of 83.2 GB/s, and it connects via PCIe Gen 5 with 24 lanes from the CPU.

In synthetic benchmarks, this CPU demonstrates strong multi-threaded and single-threaded capabilities. Its Cinebench R23 multi-core score is 16817, while the single-core score is 1713. Geekbench results show a multi-core score of 15610 and a single-core score of 2426. The 3DMark tests reveal scaling from 1887 in the 2-thread test to 7967 in the max-thread test, indicating that performance scales well with available threads. The CPU's percentile versus all CPUs is 83, placing it in the upper tier of processors. Its nearest rivals in average benchmark score include the AMD Ryzen 7 8700G, Intel Core i7-13650HX, and AMD Ryzen 7 7745HX, all with a delta of 0%, and the AMD Ryzen 9 PRO 6950H, which is 0.4% behind.

For Doom, the CPU's role is significant but not always the primary bottleneck. At lower resolutions like 1080p, where the GPU can render frames very quickly, the CPU's single-thread performance and cache hierarchy become more critical to maintain high frame rates. The measured average FPS at 1080p Low is 292, which is extraordinarily high and suggests that the CPU is capable of feeding the GPU with enough data to achieve such numbers. The 8 cores and 16 threads are more than sufficient for a game from 2016, and the large L3 cache likely helps with the game's data streaming and object management. As resolution increases to 1440p and 4K, the workload shifts more to the GPU, and the CPU's influence on the final frame rate diminishes relative to the graphics card's rendering capabilities. The data indicates that the 7800X3D provides a solid foundation that does not hold back the RX 6800 XT, even at the highest settings and resolutions tested.

FAQ — 4-6 Q&A pairs answerable from FACT PACK data

Q: What is the average FPS at 1440p with Medium settings, and what are the minimum and maximum frames?

A: At 2560x1440 with Medium settings, the average FPS is 165, with a minimum of 140 FPS and a maximum of 189 FPS.

Q: How does the combo's rank in Doom compare to other tested combinations?

A: The combo ranks 1158 out of 3712 tested combinations, placing it in the top 31.2% of all combos in the database for this game.

Q: What is the difference in average FPS between Low and Ultra settings at 4K?

A: At 3840x2160, the average FPS on Low settings is 102, while on Ultra settings it drops to 62, a difference of 40 FPS.

Q: Which component has a higher percentile ranking among its peers, the CPU or the GPU?

A: The CPU has a percentile of 83 versus all CPUs, while the GPU has a percentile of 85 versus all GPUs, indicating the GPU is slightly higher relative to its competition.

Q: What is the average FPS at 1080p with High settings?

A: The average FPS at 1920x1080 with High settings is 215.

Q: Are there any settings where the minimum FPS is not reported in the data?

A: Yes, for most settings at all resolutions, the minimum and maximum FPS fields are null, with the exception of Medium settings at every resolution, which include both min and max values.

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

The measured data provides a clear picture of how different settings presets impact performance. Across all resolutions, the Low preset delivers the highest average FPS, followed by Medium, then High, and finally Ultra. For players seeking the absolute highest frame rates, the Low preset is the fastest option. However, for a balanced experience that prioritizes visual quality while maintaining high performance, the High preset appears to be the most sensible choice.

At 1080p, the High preset achieves an average of 215 FPS. This is a very high frame rate that exceeds the refresh rate of most standard monitors. The Medium preset at 1080p gives 254 FPS, while Low gives 292 FPS. The step up from High to Medium is 39 FPS, and from Medium to Low is another 38 FPS. The Ultra preset still delivers a very respectable 176 FPS. Given that 215 FPS is already beyond the capabilities of many displays, the High preset offers a good balance of visual fidelity and speed, and the data shows no reason to sacrifice the graphical quality of High for the marginal gains of Medium or Low.

At 1440p, the High preset delivers 139 FPS, which is excellent for high-refresh-rate 1440p monitors. Medium gives 165 FPS, and Low gives 189 FPS. Ultra still provides 114 FPS, which is playable but begins to show a more significant performance cost. At 4K, the High preset yields 75 FPS, which is solidly playable on a 60 Hz display. Medium gives 89 FPS, and Low gives 102 FPS. Ultra drops to 62 FPS, which is just at the threshold of smoothness for a 60 Hz monitor but might be preferable for players who prioritize visuals over a higher frame rate buffer.

The data suggests that the High preset is the best overall recommendation. It provides a significant visual quality improvement over Medium while still delivering frame rates that are high enough for smooth gameplay at every resolution. The Ultra preset, while visually superior, imposes a notable performance penalty, particularly at 4K where the average FPS drops below the 75 FPS of the High preset by 13 FPS. For players with high-refresh-rate monitors at 1080p or 1440p, the Medium preset could be considered to push frame rates even higher, but the High preset is the most balanced choice.

How This Combo Ranks — use comboRankInGame vs other tested combos

The combination of the AMD Ryzen 7 7800X3D and the AMD Radeon RX 6800 XT achieves a rank of 1158 out of 3712 tested combinations in Doom. This places the combo in the top 31.2% of all systems tested. This ranking is notable given the hardware's individual strengths. The CPU's percentile versus all CPUs is 83, and the GPU's percentile versus all GPUs is 85, suggesting that both components are in the upper echelon of their respective categories. The combo's rank, however, is not in the top 10%, which indicates that there are other combinations that perform better in this specific game.

Looking at the nearest rivals for the CPU and GPU provides context. The CPU's nearest rivals in average benchmark score are the AMD Ryzen 7 8700G, Intel Core i7-13650HX, and AMD Ryzen 7 7745HX, all with a delta of 0%, meaning they have nearly identical average scores. The GPU's nearest rivals include the NVIDIA RTX A1000 Mobile, which is 1.5% ahead, and the Intel Arc A550M, which is 2.5% behind. The combo's rank of 1158 suggests that while the individual components are strong, the overall system performance in Doom is competitive but not class-leading. Systems with higher-ranked GPUs or CPUs, or perhaps better-optimized pairings, occupy the higher ranks. The fact that the GPU is 3% behind the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5070 Ti in average benchmark score suggests that the RX 6800 XT is a capable but not top-tier card, which contributes to the combo's mid-pack ranking. The data indicates that this is a solid, high-performing setup, but there is headroom for improvement with more powerful components.

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

The performance scaling from 1080p to 4K is a clear indicator of where the bottleneck lies. At 1080p with High settings, the average FPS is 215. Moving to 1440p, the average drops to 139, a decrease of 76 FPS or about 35%. At 4K, the average further drops to 75, which is a 65% reduction from the 1440p figure and a 65% reduction from the 1080p figure as well. This pattern is consistent across all settings presets.

This scaling pattern is classic behavior for a GPU-bound scenario. At 1080p, the CPU is able to feed the GPU with frames faster than the GPU can render them, leading to high frame rates. As the resolution increases, the GPU's rendering workload grows significantly, and it becomes the limiting factor. The frame rate drop from 1080p to 1440p is substantial, and the drop from 1440p to 4K is even more pronounced. The data shows that at 4K Ultra, the average FPS is 62, which is a demanding scenario for the GPU. The CPU's performance, on the other hand, does not degrade with resolution; its role is to prepare frames, and at 1080p it is clearly capable of supporting frame rates above 290 FPS on Low settings.

The fact that the frame rate drops by more than half from 1080p to 4K at every setting confirms that the AMD Radeon RX 6800 XT is the primary performance limiter at higher resolutions. The CPU, with its high single-threaded performance and large cache, is not the bottleneck in this pairing. For players targeting 4K, the GPU is the component that determines the playable settings. For those at 1080p or 1440p, the system is well-balanced, with the GPU still being the primary constraint but the CPU providing enough headroom to avoid holding back performance.

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

The measured FPS data provides a comprehensive view of the system's performance across all tested configurations.

At 1920x1080, the performance is exceptionally high. With Low settings, the average FPS is 292. Medium settings yield an average of 254 FPS, with a minimum of 216 and a maximum of 292. High settings produce an average of 215 FPS. Ultra settings are the slowest at this resolution, with an average of 176 FPS. The results show that even at the highest quality preset, the system maintains a frame rate well above 144 FPS, making it ideal for high-refresh-rate gaming.

At 2560x1440, the system continues to perform strongly. Low settings deliver an average of 189 FPS. Medium settings average 165 FPS, with a minimum of 140 and a maximum of 189. High settings average 139 FPS, and Ultra settings average 114 FPS. This resolution offers a good balance between visual fidelity and speed, with the High preset still providing a smooth experience for most monitors.

At 3840x2160, the performance is more moderate but still playable. Low settings average 102 FPS. Medium settings average 89 FPS, with a minimum of 76 and a maximum of 103. High settings average 75 FPS, and Ultra settings average 62 FPS. The data shows that at 4K, players will need to consider their settings carefully. The High preset is a solid choice for a 60 Hz display, while the Ultra preset is only suitable for those who prioritize maximum visual quality over a higher frame rate buffer.

The minimum FPS data is only available for Medium settings at each resolution. At 1080p, the minimum is 216 FPS; at 1440p, it is 140 FPS; and at 4K, it is 76 FPS. These minimums indicate that the frame pacing is stable, with no significant drops that would cause stuttering. The maximum FPS at Medium settings is 292 at 1080p, 189 at 1440p, and 103 at 4K, aligning closely with the average and minimum values, which suggests consistent performance. For the other settings, the lack of min/max data means only the average FPS can be used for assessment, but the available data points to a reliable and powerful gaming system.