Doom

The AMD Ryzen 7 9850X3D and NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4060 combination delivers a solid 1080p and 1440p experience in Doom, with 4K remaining playable only at reduced settings. The data shows a clear performance hierarchy driven primarily by the graphics card, while the processor’s high core count and clock speeds ensure it never becomes the limiting factor.

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

The AMD Ryzen 7 9850X3D is an 8-core, 16-thread processor built on the Zen 5 architecture (Granite Ridge) using a 4 nm process at TSMC. It operates with a base clock of 4.70 GHz and a boost clock of 5.60 GHz, supported by a 96 MB shared L3 cache and 1 MB L2 cache per core. This configuration places it in the 92nd percentile among all CPUs in the benchmark database, with an average benchmark score of 58,386.

In Doom, a title from 2016 that is not particularly demanding on modern processors, the 9850X3D’s capabilities are more than sufficient. The game’s engine scales well with multiple threads, but the measured frame rates across all resolutions and settings suggest the CPU is delivering frames faster than the GPU can render them. For instance, at 1080p Low settings, the combo reaches 228 FPS, a figure that is far beyond what the RTX 4060 can sustain at higher settings, indicating the CPU is not a bottleneck at this resolution.

The nearest rivals in CPU benchmarks provide context for the 9850X3D’s positioning. It sits 0.1% ahead of the Intel Xeon Platinum 8260M (which scores 58,323) and 0.5% ahead of the Intel Core i9-14900 (which scores 58,115). Conversely, it trails the AMD Ryzen AI 9 HX 470 by 0.7% (which scores 58,826) and the Intel Xeon w5-2545 by 0.2% (which scores 58,504). These are sub-1% deltas, meaning in practical gaming terms, the 9850X3D is statistically equivalent to these alternatives for Doom’s workload.

The processor’s memory bandwidth of 89.6 GB/s over DDR5 dual-channel support provides ample data throughput for the game’s texture streaming. With a TDP of 120 W and support for PCIe Gen 5 (24 lanes), the platform is future-proof, but for Doom specifically, the CPU’s role is to maintain consistent frame pacing. The measured minimum FPS values (where recorded) show stability: at 1440p Medium, the minimum is 109 FPS against an average of 128 FPS, which is a narrow variance. This suggests the CPU’s 5.60 GHz boost clock is effectively handling any single-threaded game logic without producing frame hitches.

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

The NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4060 is an Ada Lovelace architecture GPU (chip AD107) manufactured on a 5 nm process at TSMC. It features 8 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 128-bit bus, delivering 272.0 GB/s of bandwidth. The GPU’s base clock is 1830 MHz, boosting to 2460 MHz, with memory clocked at 2125 MHz (17 Gbps effective). It has 3,072 shading units, 96 texture mapping units, and 48 raster output units, along with 24 RT cores and 96 tensor cores. The pixel rate is 118.1 GPixel/s, and the texture rate is 236.2 GTexel/s, with FP32 performance of 15.11 TFLOPS.

The RTX 4060 sits in the 61st percentile among all GPUs, with an average benchmark score of 17,639. Its nearest rivals in the database are older or integrated parts: it is 0.2% behind the AMD Radeon HD 7790 (score 17,666), 0.3% ahead of the AMD Radeon 780M (score 17,588), 0.5% ahead of the AMD Radeon Pro 560 (score 17,551), and 0.7% ahead of the AMD Radeon Pro 460 (score 17,509). This places the RTX 4060 in a mid-range tier, and Doom’s measured results reflect that positioning.

In Doom, the GPU’s 8 GB VRAM is not stressed at 1080p or 1440p, given the game’s age and texture sizes. The limiting factor is raw rasterization throughput. At 1080p High, the combo produces 167 FPS, but dropping to Low yields 228 FPS — a 36.5% increase. At 1440p, the same settings drop from 147 FPS (Low) to 108 FPS (High), a 26.5% penalty. This scaling shows the GPU is the primary driver of performance changes when settings are adjusted, as the CPU headroom remains constant.

The GPU’s boost clock of 2460 MHz is high for a mid-range part, and it allows the card to push frame rates well above 60 FPS at 1440p High. However, at 4K Ultra, the combo falls to 48 FPS, indicating the GPU’s 15.11 TFLOPS is insufficient for maxed-out settings at that resolution. The 128-bit memory bus and 272 GB/s bandwidth become a constraint at 4K, where higher resolution textures and pixel fill rates demand more data movement than the 8 GB VRAM and its associated bandwidth can efficiently provide.

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

The measured FPS data across three resolutions (1920x1080, 2560x1440, 3840x2160) reveals a predictable scaling pattern that identifies the GPU as the bottleneck. Starting with High settings, the average FPS goes from 167 at 1080p to 108 at 1440p, a 35.3% drop, and then to 59 at 4K, a further 45.4% drop from 1440p. The total drop from 1080p to 4K is 64.7%.

At Low settings, the scaling is similar: 228 FPS at 1080p, 147 FPS at 1440p (a 35.5% drop), and 80 FPS at 4K (a 45.6% drop from 1440p). The consistency of these percentage drops across different settings — roughly 35% from 1080p to 1440p and 45% from 1440p to 4K — indicates a purely GPU-bound scenario. If the CPU were limiting, the percentage drops would flatten out at lower resolutions, but they do not.

The Medium settings data includes minimum and maximum FPS values, which further clarify the scaling. At 1080p Medium, the range is 168-228 FPS (average 198). At 1440p Medium, it is 109-148 FPS (average 128). At 4K Medium, it is 59-80 FPS (average 70). The minimum-to-maximum spread narrows as resolution increases, from 60 FPS at 1080p to 39 FPS at 1440p to 21 FPS at 4K. This tightening suggests that at lower resolutions, the CPU can push frames faster than the GPU can render, creating a wider variance, while at 4K, the GPU is consistently saturated, reducing variance.

The 4K Ultra result of 48 FPS is the only sub-60 FPS measurement in the entire dataset, and it represents a 65.1% drop from the 1080p Ultra score of 137 FPS. This is the steepest penalty in the dataset, confirming that the RTX 4060’s compute and memory bandwidth are exhausted at 4K with maxed settings. Conversely, the 1080p Low score of 228 FPS is likely near the ceiling of what the game engine can output, suggesting the CPU is capable of even higher figures if the GPU were not the constraint.

How This Combo Ranks — use comboRankInGame vs other tested combos

The combination of the AMD Ryzen 7 9850X3D and NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4060 ranks 1,540th out of 2,930 tested combos in Doom. This places it in the 47.4th percentile of all combinations tested (calculated as 1,540/2,930). In other words, just under half of all tested CPU-GPU pairs outperform this setup in this specific game.

This ranking makes sense given the GPU’s mid-range position. The CPU is top-tier (92nd percentile), but the GPU is firmly middle-of-the-pack (61st percentile). The combo’s overall rank is dragged down by the GPU, as Doom is a GPU-bound title at the resolutions measured. The rank of 1,540 suggests that many other combos pair stronger GPUs with weaker CPUs, and those combos still achieve higher frame rates in Doom because the game is not CPU-sensitive.

The data indicates that the 9850X3D’s high benchmark score (58,386) does not translate into a high combo rank in Doom, because the RTX 4060’s average score of 17,639 is the limiting factor. The deltaPct values for the CPU’s nearest rivals (all within ±0.7%) show that swapping the 9850X3D for any of those CPUs would produce virtually identical Doom performance, as the GPU would remain the bottleneck. Conversely, swapping the RTX 4060 for a stronger GPU would yield a significant rank improvement, as the CPU has ample headroom to feed a faster graphics card.

The combo rank of 1,540 is a static snapshot. The measured FPS data shows that at 1080p Low (228 FPS) and 1440p High (108 FPS), the setup delivers smooth gameplay, but at 4K Ultra (48 FPS), it falls short of the 60 FPS target. This places the combo in a tier where it is competitive for 1080p and 1440p gaming but not for 4K maxed settings.

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

Based on the measured FPS rows, the optimal settings depend on the target resolution and desired frame rate. The data provides four settings presets (Low, Medium, High, Ultra) at each of three resolutions.

For 1080p, all four presets produce playable frame rates. Ultra delivers 137 FPS, which is well above the 60 FPS threshold and smooth for a fast-paced FPS. High yields 167 FPS, Medium 198 FPS, and Low 228 FPS. The jump from Ultra to High is 30 FPS (21.9% increase), while Medium to Low is also 30 FPS (15.2% increase). For 1080p, the best experience per the data is High settings at 167 FPS, as it provides a substantial visual fidelity improvement over Medium (which is 31 FPS faster) while still maintaining a frame rate that exceeds most 144Hz monitors’ refresh rates. Ultra at 137 FPS is also viable, but the 30 FPS sacrifice for the highest preset may not be worth the visual gain in a fast-paced game.

At 1440p, the recommendation shifts. Ultra drops to 89 FPS, which is still playable but approaches the edge of high-refresh territory. High produces 108 FPS, Medium 128 FPS, and Low 147 FPS. The data suggests High settings at 1440p is the sweet spot, offering 108 FPS — comfortably above 60 FPS and suitable for 100Hz+ displays. Medium at 128 FPS is also excellent if the user prefers higher frame rates over visual detail. Ultra at 89 FPS is the only preset below 100 FPS at 1440p, making it less ideal for competitive play.

At 4K, the options are limited. Ultra produces 48 FPS, which is below the 60 FPS threshold and may feel stuttery in a fast FPS. High yields 59 FPS, which is just shy of 60 FPS and likely perceptible as slightly less smooth. Medium produces 70 FPS, and Low reaches 80 FPS. The data clearly indicates that Medium is the best 4K preset, as it is the first setting to exceed 60 FPS (70 FPS) while still providing better visuals than Low. High at 59 FPS is a borderline case, but the measured average of 59 FPS suggests occasional dips below 60, making Medium the safer choice.

Overall, the best experience per the measured rows is High settings at 1440p (108 FPS) for a balance of quality and speed, with Medium at 4K (70 FPS) as the fallback for 4K displays.

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

The measured FPS data is as follows, with averages and, where available, minimum and maximum values.

At 1920x1080:

• Low: 228 FPS average, no min/max recorded
• Medium: 198 FPS average, with a minimum of 168 FPS and maximum of 228 FPS
• High: 167 FPS average, no min/max recorded
• Ultra: 137 FPS average, no min/max recorded

At 2560x1440:

• Low: 147 FPS average, no min/max recorded
• Medium: 128 FPS average, with a minimum of 109 FPS and maximum of 148 FPS
• High: 108 FPS average, no min/max recorded
• Ultra: 89 FPS average, no min/max recorded

At 3840x2160:

• Low: 80 FPS average, no min/max recorded
• Medium: 70 FPS average, with a minimum of 59 FPS and maximum of 80 FPS
• High: 59 FPS average, no min/max recorded
• Ultra: 48 FPS average, no min/max recorded

The Medium preset is the only one with min/max data, which provides insight into frame variance. At 1080p, the spread from min to max is 60 FPS (168 to 228), indicating significant headroom and likely CPU-bound behavior at the minimum. At 1440p, the spread narrows to 39 FPS (109 to 148), and at 4K, it narrows further to 21 FPS (59 to 80). This progressive tightening confirms that as resolution increases, the GPU becomes fully utilized, reducing frame-time variance.

The delta between Low and Ultra at each resolution is consistent: 91 FPS at 1080p (228 vs 137), 58 FPS at 1440p (147 vs 89), and 32 FPS at 4K (80 vs 48). The absolute difference shrinks at higher resolutions, but the percentage difference remains roughly 40% (39.9% at 1080p, 39.5% at 1440p, 40.0% at 4K). This uniformity across resolutions reinforces that the GPU is scaling linearly with settings, and the CPU is not introducing any variability.

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

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

A: The measured average FPS at 1920x1080 with Ultra settings is 137 FPS.

Q: Does this combo achieve 60 FPS at 4K with any settings?

A: Yes, at 4K Medium settings, the average FPS is 70, and at Low settings, it is 80. High settings average 59 FPS, just below 60, and Ultra averages 48 FPS.

Q: How does the RTX 4060 compare to its nearest rival, the AMD Radeon 780M?

A: In the benchmark database, the RTX 4060 has an average score of 17,639, which is 0.3% higher than the AMD Radeon 780M’s score of 17,588.

Q: What is the combo’s rank out of all tested combinations in Doom?

A: The AMD Ryzen 7 9850X3D and RTX 4060 combination ranks 1,540th out of 2,930 tested combos.

Q: At 1440p High settings, what is the average FPS, and is it above 100?

A: At 2560x1440 with High settings, the average FPS is 108, which is above 100.

Q: What is the maximum FPS recorded for this combo at any resolution?

A: The maximum FPS recorded is 228, which occurs at 1920x1080 with Low settings. The same value appears as the maximum for the Medium preset at 1080p.