Doom

The AMD Ryzen 7 9800X3D and AMD Radeon RX 9070 XT combination produces measured frame rates in Doom across 1080p, 1440p, and 4K. The data shows this pairing ranks 895 out of 3712 tested CPU+GPU combinations, a position well above the midpoint. The CPU's composite score percentile vs all CPUs is 87, while the GPU sits at the 55th percentile among all GPUs. These two metrics hint at a system where processor headroom is abundant and the graphics card is the more practical constraint—though the measured frames indicate both parts perform their roles capably.

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

The AMD Ryzen 7 9800X3D is an 8-core, 16-thread CPU with a base clock of 4.70 GHz and a boost clock of 5.20 GHz. It uses the Zen 5 architecture on TSMC's 4 nm process, and it is a desktop part on the AM5 socket. The L3 cache totals 96 MB shared, which is substantial for a desktop CPU and often plays a significant role in gaming workloads. In the measured benchmarks, the CPU achieved a 3DMark multi-thread score of 10081 and a single-thread score of 1212, while Cinebench R23 multicore score is 23230 and single-core is 2080. These numbers reflect a wide performance advantage in many threaded tasks. The CPU's average benchmark score of 39768 places it at the 87th percentile versus all CPUs, so roughly seven out of eight other processors tested score lower on average.

When compared to the nearest rival CPUs in the same benchmark pool, the measured delta percentages are all within 0.8% of the 9800X3D's score. Specifically, the AMD Ryzen 7 PRO 8840HS scores 39603 with a deltaPct of 0.4, meaning the 9800X3D is 0.4% higher on average. The AMD Ryzen AI 9 365 scores 40048 with a deltaPct of -0.7, so it is slightly below; the AMD Ryzen AI 7 450 is 0.7% lower, and the AMD Ryzen 7 7700 is -0.8%. In practical terms, the 9800X3D's performance is virtually identical to the nearest rival CPUs, with single-digit percentage differences that will hardly be perceptible in a game like Doom. The CPU's L2 cache is 1 MB per core, and its memory bandwidth is 89.6 GB/s over DDR5 dual-channel memory. The measured frame rates in Doom do not isolate the CPU's contribution directly, but given the high single-thread scores and the unusually large L3 cache, this CPU is well positioned to feed the GPU with a strong frame pipeline.

The CPU's 8-core, 16-thread configuration is more than enough for Doom, which is historically a well-optimized FPS engine that uses modern threading, and even the heaviest scenes are a mix of card. The measured frame rates at lower resolutions are far above the needs, as we will see. The CPU's TDP listed as 120 W, but that is an engine rating, not a measured power draw from the game. The GPU's role will determine the ultimate frame limit.

GPU Role

The AMD Radeon RX 9070 XT is the graphics component of this pairing. It has 16 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 256-bit bus, with a memory bandwidth of 644.6 GB/s. The base clock is 1660 MHz, with a boost clock of 2970 MHz, and the game clock is 2400 MHz. The effective memory speed is listed as 2518 MHz implied as 20.1 Gbps effective. The GPU includes 4096 shading units, 256 texture mapping units, and 128 ROPs, as well as 64 ray tracing cores, though Doom has no ray tracing. Its computational power is rated at 48.66 TFLOPS FP32 performance, a high figure. The GPU's average benchmark score across all tests is 13543, with 55th percentile among all GPUs. The nearest rivals listed by the average score are oddly in low-range products: the AMD Radeon HD 7770M (avg score 13536, delta 0.1), the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 570 (13515, delta 0.2), the NVIDIA P106-090 (13470, delta 0.5), and the AMD Radeon Pro 555 (13407, delta 1). Because these are the closest measured average scores to the RX 9070 XT, the GPU appears to have a very substantial average score gap in that list—but the delta percentage indicates differences of only 0.1% to 1%. This suggests that these rival cards are close in the unspecified test suite, even though the RX 9070 XT is designed for much higher frames in a high-load game like Doom.

The GPU matrix shows that the 16 GB VRAM is far more than needed for the game's ultra settings, and the memory bandwidth of 644.6 GB/s is adequate to feed the Rasterizer and processors at the tested resolutions. In Doom, the data indicates that the GPU is the decisive component for frame rates, since the average FPS changes with resolution and settings in a predictable fashion.

FAQ

Q: What is the CPU's launch MSRP?

A: The Ryzen 7 9800X3D carries a launch MSRP of $479.

Q: What is the GPU's launch MSRP?

A: The Radeon RX 9070 XT carries a launch MSRP of 599 USD.

Q: What is the base clock and boost clock of the Ryzen 7 9800X3D?

A: The base clock is 4.70 GHz and the boost clock is 5.20 GHz.

Q: How many cores and threads does the CPU have?

A: The CPU has 8 cores and 16 threads.

Q: What is the memory size and bandwidth of the RX 9070 XT?

A: The GPU has 16 GB of GDDR6 memory with a memory bandwidth of 644.6 GB/s.

Q: What is the GPU's base clock and game clock?

A: The base clock is 1660 MHz, the boost clock is 2970 MHz, and the game clock is 2400 MHz.

Q: What rank does this combo achieve in Doom?

A: The combo rank is 895 out of 3712 tested combos.

These answers are directly from the measured dataset.

How This Combo Ranks

In the global database of CPU+GPU combinations tested in Doom, this pairing holds the 895th position out of 3712. That is a rank in the top quarter of all tested combos (894 more combos are ahead, 2817 behind). The ranking is derived from the measured FPS across all resolutions and settings, aggregated into a single score. Taken in isolation, the CPU and GPU percentiles indicate a strong CPU but a more moderate GPU position. The CPU's percentile of 87 shows it is among the best processors available, while the GPU's 55th percentile is lower relative to all other graphics cards. This gap suggests that the RX 9070 XT is the limiting factor when the pair runs Doom, not the Ryzen chip. The frame rate numbers reinforce this: even at 1080p with Low settings, the GPU produces 314 avg FPS, so the CPU is not bottleneck genuinely. The rank 895 out of 3712 means the mix beats more than 75% of combos overall. For a modern, high-end pairing, the placement is strong, but not top-tier. It is the type of combo that would be ideal for a high-refresh 1440p center, rather than the absolute fastest at competitive 4K Ultra on older engines.

Measured FPS Breakdown

The measured FPS file provides exact average and some minimum/maximum values for three resolutions, each with four settings levels (Low, Medium, High, Ultra). The data is presented in full below.

4K / 3840x2160

• Low: average 110 FPS
• Medium: average 96 FPS (min 81, max 110)
• High: average 81 FPS
• Ultra: average 66 FPS

1440p / 2560x1440

• Low: average 203 FPS
• Medium: average 177 FPS (min 150, max 203)
• High: average 149 FPS
• Ultra: average 122 FPS

1080p / 1920x1080

• Low: average 314 FPS
• Medium: average 273 FPS (min 232, max 314)
• High: average 231 FPS
• Ultra: average 189 FPS

These figures include min and max for the Medium setting only, likely indicating that the quality of the run had some variance. Note that all other settings have only an average, so we cannot report min/max for them. The pattern is uniform: each step from Low to Ultra introduces a measurable FPS reduction. At 4K, Low 1116 FPS is 67% higher than Ultra (66). At 1440p, Low 203 is 66% higher than Ultra 122. At 1080p, Low 314 is 66% higher than Ultra 189. So the performance ratio between the lowest and highest settings is consistent across resolutions.

In 1080p, the lowest FPS average is 189 at Ultra, which is far above the 60 FPS floor for most displays. Even at this highest quality level, the GPU pushes around 189 frames per second. Moving to 1440p reduces that to 122 FPS at Ultra, still very smooth, and the Low preset reaches 203 FPS. At 4K, the Ultra setting drops to 66 FPS and Low produces 110 FPS. The Medium 4K profile stays safely above 60 FPS at 96.

The differences between setting tiers are clear: in each resolution, the average FPS decreases approximately by roughly 20% per step up as we go from Low→Medium→High→Ultra, though the Medium has less severe hit. The provided min and max for the Medium settings indicate that with the whole run, a typical range covers the average. For example, in 4K Medium, the min is 81 fps and max 110 fps, so there is a spread of 29 fps, but the average 96 shows a relatively stable experience.

Settings Recommendations

Based on the measured values, the best experience for a particular display depends primarily on your monitor's refresh rate and resolution. For a standard 60 Hz display, even Ultra settings at 4K (avg 66) is enough, though there is only 6 fps of headroom above 60. If you want a comfortable margin above 60, Medium at 4K gives 96 FPS, which is 44% above the monitor refresh, while High at 81 also provides a healthy cushion. For extended ultra-quality play, the 66 avg frames is playable but may dip occasionally; the data notes that Medium has a min of 81, which is far higher than the 66 average, so Medium gives a safer minimum.

At 1440p and 1080p, all settings are already at a high level. At 1440p, even Ultra produces 122 FPS, which is above 120 Hz-class monitors. But if you are after a stable 144 Hz (or 360 Hz high refresh), the data suggests that Medium yields 177 FPS and Low 203, giving plenty of headroom. Ultra on 1440p is still above 120, so it is a strong choice for players who favor quality over frame rate.

There is no direct common recommendation across all resolutions: the best preset for each resolution yields roughly three choices. If you prioritize a stable frame count above preset, choose Low for the absolute maximum, but the visual difference is likely noticeable. Medium appears as a clear sweet spot in every resolution: at 1080p it averages 273, at 1440p 177, at 4K 96 – all at least a third of the Low max and less than 20% lower than the average at the respective Low. High often sits directly between Medium and Ultra, but with likely more eye candy. The data suggests that Medium provides a strong compromise across the board, with the min FPS at Medium being higher than the average of the Ultra setting in almost every case (for 4K, Medium min 81 vs Ultra avg 66; at 1440p, Medium min 150 vs Ultra avg 122; at 1080p, Medium min 232 vs Ultra avg 189). Therefore, if you want a smooth, frame-dense experience with a guaranteed higher floor, Medium is the recommended preset. Ultra can be considered for 1080p or 1440p where the avg still exceeds 120 fps, but for 4K, the trade-offs to 66 avg may be acceptable if you own a G‑Sync/FreeSync monitors that loosens the extremes.

All three resolutions share the same trend: medium performs close to High but with a wider stable margin; Low should be avoided under normal play because it loses most of the visual quality without a proportional frame increase. For serious gaming, the ISO direction is: use 1080p Ultra or 1080p/1440p Medium and High. The measured rows support that Medium gives the most consistent numbers, while Ultra and Low are polar ends to be used only in specific cases.