Doom

# Doom Performance Analysis: AMD Ryzen 7 7800X3D + AMD Radeon RX 9070

This configuration places in the 572nd position out of 1,681 tested combinations for Doom, landing it in the upper third of all systems evaluated. The pairing of AMD's 8-core Zen 4 processor with RDNA 4.0 graphics produces a balanced platform capable of high refresh rates across most settings, though the data reveals interesting scaling behaviors that merit closer inspection. The measured frame rates show a system that excels at lower resolutions but begins to show its limits as pixel count increases, particularly under maximum quality presets.

How This Combo Ranks

The rank of 572 out of 1,681 combos translates to roughly the 66th percentile among all tested systems for Doom. This places the combination firmly in the upper performance tier, though not at the very top of the leaderboard. The CPU contributes significantly to this standing — the Ryzen 7 7800X3D sits at the 87th percentile versus all CPUs, with an average benchmark score of 31,580. Its nearest rivals in aggregate CPU performance include the Intel Core i7-12700F at 31,543 (just 0.1% behind), the AMD Ryzen 9 5980HX at 31,495 (0.3% behind), and the AMD Ryzen 7 8700G at 31,407 (0.6% behind). This tight clustering suggests the 7800X3D is performing essentially at the expected level for its class in Doom's CPU-bound scenarios.

The GPU side tells a similar story. The Radeon RX 9070 holds the 79th percentile versus all GPUs with an average benchmark score of 34,780. Its nearest rivals include the NVIDIA A2 at 34,866 (0.2% ahead), NVIDIA Quadro GV100 at 34,677 (0.3% behind), and AMD Radeon HD 7970 at 34,541 (0.7% behind). The GPU's percentile ranking is notably lower than the CPU's, hinting that graphics horsepower may be the more limiting factor in this pairing. Yet the combined result still lands in a respectable position, suggesting the system's overall balance works well for Doom's engine demands.

GPU Role

The Radeon RX 9070 brings 16 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 256-bit bus, delivering 644.6 GB/s of bandwidth. This memory configuration proves ample for Doom at all tested resolutions, as even the most demanding 4K Ultra preset only requires enough capacity and throughput to sustain 64.6 FPS average. The GPU's clock behavior shows a base of 1330 MHz, a game clock of 2070 MHz, and a boost clock of 2520 MHz — the wide gap between base and boost indicates significant headroom under load. Memory operates at 2518 MHz with 20.1 Gbps effective speed, which aligns well with the card's 128 ROPs and 224 TMUs for this game's rendering style.

The FP32 throughput of 36.13 TFLOPS and pixel rate of 322.6 GPixel/s suggest the card has substantial raw compute for Doom's id Tech engine. At 1080p, the GPU clearly operates within its comfort zone, delivering 294.5 FPS on Low settings. The scaling from Low to Ultra at 1080p shows a drop from 294.5 to 177 FPS — a 40% reduction that reflects the increased shading and texture work. At 4K, the same settings comparison shows 106.4 FPS on Low versus 64.6 FPS on Ultra, a 39% reduction, indicating consistent GPU utilization patterns regardless of resolution.

Resolution Scaling

The frame rate progression from 1080p to 4K reveals where this system's bottleneck shifts. At High settings, the average FPS moves from 218.6 at 1080p to 140 at 1440p to 74 at 4K — a 66% reduction from 1080p to 4K. This steep decline points to the GPU becoming increasingly saturated as pixel count grows, with the CPU's 8 cores and 96 MB of L3 cache proving more than sufficient to feed the graphics card at lower resolutions.

The Low settings curve tells a similar story: 294.5 FPS at 1080p drops to 191.6 at 1440p (35% reduction) and then to 106.4 at 4K (a further 44% reduction from 1440p). The fact that even at 4K Low the system maintains over 100 FPS average suggests the combination handles reduced visual loads admirably. However, the gap between Low and Ultra widens as resolution increases — at 1080p the difference is 117.5 FPS, while at 4K it shrinks to 41.8 FPS. This compression indicates that at higher resolutions, even the Low preset's rendering workload becomes significant enough to limit the GPU's ability to stretch its legs.

Measured FPS Breakdown

At 1920x1080, the system delivers its strongest performance across all presets. Low settings produce 294.5 FPS average, Medium reaches 255.6 FPS, High hits 218.6 FPS, and Ultra bottoms out at 177 FPS. The progression from Low to Ultra represents a 40% performance drop, yet even the worst-case 1080p result exceeds the refresh rates of most monitors.

Moving to 2560x1440, the averages step down predictably. Low yields 191.6 FPS, Medium achieves 168 FPS, High manages 140 FPS, and Ultra falls to 113.3 FPS. The gap between Low and Ultra narrows to 41% at this resolution, with each preset tier showing roughly a 15-17% reduction from the one above it. All 1440p results remain above 110 FPS, making this resolution entirely playable at maximum quality.

At 3840x2160, the system begins to show strain under heavier presets. Low still produces a respectable 106.4 FPS, Medium drops to 90.1 FPS, High reaches 74 FPS, and Ultra falls to 64.6 FPS. The Ultra result, while above the 60 FPS threshold, leaves little headroom for demanding scenes. Interestingly, the gap between Medium and High at 4K is 16.1 FPS, while the gap between High and Ultra is 9.4 FPS — suggesting diminishing returns in performance cost as quality increases.

FAQ

Q: Is this combination better suited for 1440p or 4K gaming in Doom?

A: The data shows 1440p as the sweet spot, with all presets exceeding 110 FPS average. At 4K, Ultra settings dip to 64.6 FPS, which is playable but leaves minimal margin, while High at 4K offers 74 FPS as a more comfortable option.

Q: How much performance does the Ultra preset cost compared to Low at each resolution?

A: At 1080p, Ultra delivers 177 FPS versus 294.5 FPS on Low — a 117.5 FPS difference. At 1440p, the gap narrows to 78.3 FPS (113.3 vs 191.6). At 4K, Ultra costs 41.8 FPS compared to Low (64.6 vs 106.4).

Q: Does the CPU or GPU limit performance more in this game?

A: The CPU ranks at the 87th percentile versus all CPUs, while the GPU sits at the 79th percentile. The frame rate scaling from 1080p to 4K shows a 66% drop at High settings, indicating the GPU becomes the primary constraint as resolution increases.

Q: What is the largest performance jump between adjacent settings presets?

A: At 1080p, moving from Ultra (177 FPS) to High (218.6 FPS) yields a 41.6 FPS improvement. At 1440p, the same transition gains 26.7 FPS. At 4K, the jump from Ultra to High adds 9.4 FPS, while Low to Medium gains 16.3 FPS.

Q: Can this system maintain 60 FPS at 4K with any settings?

A: Yes, all four tested presets at 4K exceed 60 FPS average, with Low at 106.4 FPS, Medium at 90.1 FPS, High at 74 FPS, and Ultra at 64.6 FPS.

Q: How does the 7800X3D compare to its nearest CPU rival in aggregate benchmarks?

A: The Ryzen 7 7800X3D scores 31,580 on average, just 0.1% ahead of the Intel Core i7-12700F (31,543) and 0.3% ahead of the AMD Ryzen 9 5980HX (31,495).

CPU Role

The AMD Ryzen 7 7800X3D brings 8 cores and 16 threads based on Zen 4 architecture, with a base clock of 4.20 GHz and boost clock of 5.00 GHz. Its 96 MB of shared L3 cache is the standout feature for gaming workloads, providing substantial on-die storage for frequently accessed data. The CPU's benchmark results show strong multi-threaded capability — Cinebench R23 multicore scores 29,149, while Geekbench multicore reaches 15,101. Single-thread performance is equally solid, with Cinebench R23 singlecore at 4,115 and Geekbench singlecore at 2,725.

In Doom specifically, the CPU's role appears secondary to the GPU at higher resolutions but becomes more relevant at 1080p. The 3DMark 16-thread score of 7,980 and max-thread score of 7,967 indicate the processor scales well with full core utilization, which matters for games that use multiple threads for physics and AI. The 120 W TDP and dual-channel DDR5 support with 83.2 GB/s bandwidth provide ample memory throughput for the CPU's demands. The processor's 87th percentile ranking versus all CPUs confirms it as a top-tier gaming chip, though its nearest rivals cluster within 0.6% in average benchmark scores, suggesting diminishing returns beyond this performance level.

Settings Recommendations

For 1080p gaming, the Ultra preset at 177 FPS is the clear choice — the performance remains far above any display's refresh rate requirements, and the visual quality gains come at no practical cost. Even at 1440p, Ultra at 113.3 FPS provides an excellent experience, making it the recommended preset for this resolution. The 1440p Ultra result stays comfortably above 100 FPS, which is ideal for high-refresh-rate monitors.

At 4K, the recommendation shifts based on preference. The High preset at 74 FPS offers a strong balance of visual fidelity and smoothness, providing a 14.5% improvement over Ultra's 64.6 FPS while still maintaining high-quality visuals. For players prioritizing frame rate, Medium at 90.1 FPS offers another 21.8% boost over High. The Low preset at 106.4 FPS is available for competitive play, but the visual compromise is substantial. The data suggests 4K High as the optimal choice for most users, with Medium as a fallback for those sensitive to frame pacing. The 16 GB VRAM capacity ensures no memory-related stuttering at any tested configuration, making the choice purely about rendering load rather than capacity constraints.