Doom

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

The AMD Ryzen 7 9800X3D is an 8-core, 16-thread desktop processor built on the Zen 5 architecture (Granite Ridge) using a 4 nm process from TSMC. It operates with a base clock of 4.70 GHz and a boost clock of 5.20 GHz, and carries a 120 W TDP. The cache hierarchy is substantial: 80 KB of L1 per core, 1 MB of L2 per core, and a large 96 MB of shared L3 cache. This processor supports DDR5 memory over a dual-channel bus, with 89.6 GB/s of memory bandwidth, and it uses the AMD Socket AM5 platform with PCIe Gen 5 connectivity (24 lanes from the CPU).

In synthetic benchmarks, the processor demonstrates strong multi-threaded capability. Its Cinebench R23 multi-core score is 34004, while the single-core score is 4800. The Geekbench multi-core result is 18413, and the single-core result is 3341. The 3DMark 16-thread test yields a score of 10081, while the max-thread test scores 10067, indicating that scaling beyond 16 threads is minimal. PassMark multi-thread performance is 40009, and single-thread performance is 4430.

For Doom, the game was released in 2016 and is an FPS title. The measured frame rates across all tested settings and resolutions show that the CPU is not the limiting factor in most configurations. At 1080p with Low settings, the combo reaches 243.5 FPS average, which is more than double the 4K Ultra result of 50 FPS. The gap between 1080p Low and 1080p Ultra is 97.8 FPS (from 243.5 down to 145.7), which suggests that even at lower resolutions and higher settings, the GPU is handling the bulk of the rendering workload. The processor's high single-thread performance and large L3 cache are beneficial for the engine's draw-call processing, but the data indicates that the GPU becomes the bottleneck well before the CPU's limits are reached.

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

The measured FPS rows provide four settings presets (Low, Medium, High, Ultra) at each of three resolutions. At 1080p, the Low preset delivers an average of 243.5 FPS, which is the highest measured value for this combo. Medium drops to 211 FPS, High to 176.8 FPS, and Ultra to 145.7 FPS. The differences between presets are significant: moving from Low to Ultra at 1080p reduces performance by 97.8 FPS, or roughly 40% of the Low value. However, even the Ultra preset at 1080p provides a very high frame rate that exceeds the refresh rate of most monitors.

At 1440p, the pattern is similar but with lower absolute numbers. Low yields 154.3 FPS, Medium 138.3 FPS, High 114.4 FPS, and Ultra 95.3 FPS. The drop from Low to Ultra is 59 FPS. At 4K, the results compress further: Low produces 82.1 FPS, Medium 74.6 FPS, High 60.6 FPS, and Ultra 50 FPS. The delta between Low and Ultra at 4K is 32.1 FPS.

For a smooth experience, the data suggests that the High preset at 1440p (114.4 FPS) provides a strong balance between visual fidelity and performance, especially for displays with a 120 Hz refresh rate. At 1080p, even the Ultra preset (145.7 FPS) remains well above 144 FPS, so users with high-refresh 1080p monitors can comfortably use Ultra. At 4K, the High preset (60.6 FPS) is the only setting that keeps the average above 60 FPS, while Ultra drops to 50 FPS. The Medium preset at 4K (74.6 FPS) offers a more comfortable margin above 60 FPS if slightly lower image quality is acceptable.

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

The measured FPS data shows a clear and consistent scaling pattern across all settings as resolution increases from 1920x1080 to 3840x2160. At Low settings, the average FPS drops from 243.5 at 1080p to 154.3 at 1440p (a 36.6% reduction) and then to 82.1 at 4K (a 46.8% reduction from the 1440p value). At Medium settings, the progression is 211 → 138.3 → 74.6, with a 34.5% drop from 1080p to 1440p and a 46.1% drop from 1440p to 4K. High settings follow the same trend: 176.8 → 114.4 → 60.6, representing a 35.3% drop and then a 47.0% drop. Ultra settings show 145.7 → 95.3 → 50, with a 34.6% drop and then a 47.5% drop.

The consistent ~35% reduction from 1080p to 1440p and ~47% reduction from 1440p to 4K across all four presets indicates that the scaling is driven by pixel count rather than settings complexity. The number of pixels at 1440p is 1.78 times that of 1080p, and 4K is 2.25 times that of 1440p. The observed FPS reductions are close to these pixel-count ratios, which is the signature of a GPU-bound workload. If the CPU were the limiting factor, the FPS would not drop so steeply with resolution, as the CPU's workload is largely independent of pixel count. The data strongly suggests that the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5060 is the primary constraint in this combo for Doom, particularly at higher resolutions.

How This Combo Ranks — use comboRankInGame vs other tested combos

The combo of AMD Ryzen 7 9800X3D + NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5060 ranks 836 out of 1681 tested combos in Doom. This places it in the middle of the distribution, around the 50th percentile (specifically, 836/1681 is approximately 49.7% from the top). The rank reflects the pairing of a high-end CPU (the 9800X3D is in the 90th percentile vs all CPUs) with a mid-range GPU (the RTX 5060 is in the 73rd percentile vs all GPUs).

The CPU's nearest rivals in average benchmark score are all Intel parts: the Intel Xeon 6353P (37811 average score, -0.1% delta), Intel Core Ultra 5 225 (37831, -0.1%), Intel Core i9-13900HK (38020, -0.6%), and Intel Core i5-13600KF (38028, -0.7%). The 9800X3D's average benchmark score is 37780, which is essentially tied with these rivals—the largest delta is -0.7% vs the i5-13600KF. This indicates that the CPU's raw compute performance is competitive with these parts, but none of them dramatically outperform it.

The GPU's nearest rivals show a tighter grouping: the AMD Radeon RX 7700 XT (30097 average score, 0% delta), AMD Radeon RX 570 (30158, -0.2%), NVIDIA Tesla M60 (29969, +0.5%), and NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5070 Mobile (29928, +0.6%). The RTX 5060's average benchmark score is 30109, placing it nearly exactly between the RX 7700 XT and the RX 570. This suggests that in general compute workloads, the RTX 5060 performs on par with these cards, though the RX 570 is an older architecture.

The mid-pack rank of 836 indicates that while the CPU is a top-tier part, the GPU holds the combo back from the upper echelons of the Doom benchmark leaderboard. Combos with faster GPUs would naturally rank higher, as the game is GPU-bound according to the resolution scaling analysis.

GPU Role — VRAM, clocks, and how they relate to this game's results

The NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5060 is built on the Blackwell 2.0 architecture (chip GB206) using a 5 nm process from TSMC. It has 8 GB of GDDR7 memory on a 128-bit bus, providing 448.0 GB/s of memory bandwidth. The GPU operates with a base clock of 2280 MHz and a boost clock of 2497 MHz, with memory running at 1750 MHz (28 Gbps effective). It features 3840 shading units, 120 TMUs, and 48 ROPs, along with 30 RT cores and 120 tensor cores. The pixel rate is 119.9 GPixel/s, and the texture rate is 299.6 GTexel/s. FP32 performance is 19.18 TFLOPS, with FP16 at the same rate (1:1). The card has a 145 W TDP and uses a single 8-pin power connector.

In synthetic benchmarks, the GPU achieves a Geekbench OpenCL score of 120785 and a Vulkan score of 116626. The PassMark G3D score is 20891, with a GPU compute score of 10899. For Doom, the GPU's 8 GB VRAM is sufficient for the game's 2016-era requirements, as the measured frame rates do not show anomalies that would indicate VRAM capacity issues. The memory bandwidth of 448.0 GB/s is more than adequate for the game's texture streaming, even at 4K Ultra settings.

The RTX 5060's percentile rank among all GPUs is 73, meaning it outperforms roughly three-quarters of tested GPUs. However, in this Doom-specific combo, the GPU is clearly the limiting component at higher resolutions. The 4K Ultra result of 50 FPS suggests that the GPU's raw compute and fillrate capabilities are stretched by the combination of high resolution and high settings. The ROP count of 48 is relatively low for a modern GPU, which likely contributes to the significant FPS drops at 4K.

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

At 1920x1080, the measured average FPS values are as follows: Low settings produce 243.5 FPS, Medium settings produce 211 FPS, High settings produce 176.8 FPS, and Ultra settings produce 145.7 FPS. The spread between the lowest and highest settings at this resolution is 97.8 FPS. The Low preset exceeds 240 FPS, which is ideal for 240 Hz displays, while the Ultra preset remains above 144 FPS, suitable for 144 Hz monitors.

At 2560x1440, the average FPS values are: Low at 154.3 FPS, Medium at 138.3 FPS, High at 114.4 FPS, and Ultra at 95.3 FPS. The spread here is 59 FPS. The Low preset clears 144 FPS, but the Ultra preset falls below 100 FPS. For a 1440p 144 Hz display, the Medium preset (138.3 FPS) is the closest match, with High (114.4 FPS) still providing a smooth experience for 120 Hz displays.

At 3840x2160, the average FPS values are: Low at 82.1 FPS, Medium at 74.6 FPS, High at 60.6 FPS, and Ultra at 50 FPS. The spread narrows to 32.1 FPS. Only the Low preset (82.1 FPS) and Medium preset (74.6 FPS) provide comfortable margins above 60 FPS. The High preset barely clears 60 FPS, while Ultra falls to 50 FPS, which would be noticeably less smooth on a 60 Hz display. The data shows a consistent pattern where each step up in settings costs roughly 15-25% performance, regardless of resolution, confirming the GPU-bound nature of this workload.