Doom

The AMD Ryzen 9 8945HX paired with the AMD Radeon 760M is a combination defined by its extremes. The 8945HX is a 16-core, 32-thread mobile powerhouse sitting in the 95th percentile of all CPUs, while the 760M is an integrated graphics solution that lands in just the 35th percentile of all GPUs. In Doom, a 2016 title that scales well across hardware, this pairing produces playable results only under specific conditions. The data shows a combo that is entirely GPU-limited, where the processor's immense capability is largely irrelevant to the final frame rate.

Settings Recommendations

Given the measured performance data, the optimal experience for this specific CPU-GPU combination is at 1920x1080 with Low settings. This preset delivers an average of 65 FPS, which is the only configuration in the entire dataset that achieves a frame rate high enough for a smooth, responsive experience on a standard 60Hz display. The jump from Low to Medium at this resolution costs 8 FPS (from 65 to 57), which is a 12% performance hit. While 57 FPS is still technically playable, it is much closer to the edge of perceptible stutter and frame pacing issues.

At 2560x1440, the situation becomes significantly more challenging. The Low preset here produces an average of 42 FPS. This is a playable frame rate for a slower-paced title, but for a fast-paced FPS like Doom, it falls short of the smoothness most players require. The Medium preset at this resolution drops to 37 FPS, and High falls to 31 FPS. None of these settings offer a consistently fluid experience. Therefore, 1440p should only be considered if you are willing to accept a significant compromise in responsiveness.

The data strongly advises against using the High or Ultra presets at any resolution. At 1080p, High yields 48 FPS and Ultra drops to 39 FPS, both of which are suboptimal for a game that demands quick reactions. At 1440p, these settings produce 31 FPS and 25 FPS respectively, which are borderline unplayable. At 4K, the performance collapses entirely, with High producing a mere 17 FPS and Ultra a slideshow-like 14 FPS. The performance cost of the higher presets is not justified by the visual gains, as the integrated GPU is simply overwhelmed.

The most practical advice is to prioritize frame rate over visual fidelity. Start with the Low preset at 1080p. If you find the visual quality too barren, the Medium preset at 1080p is the only other viable option, provided you can tolerate an average FPS in the high 50s. The data indicates that the Ultra preset is essentially a non-starter, as the performance penalty is severe across all resolutions, with the average FPS dropping by nearly half compared to Low settings. For this combo, the "best" experience is the one that keeps the frame rate above the 60 FPS threshold, which only the 1080p Low preset achieves.

FAQ

Q: Can this CPU and GPU combo run Doom at 4K resolution?

A: No, not at a playable frame rate. The measured data shows that at 3840x2160, the average FPS ranges from a low of 14 on Ultra settings to a maximum of 23 on Low settings. These frame rates are far too low for a playable experience in a fast-paced FPS.

Q: What is the highest average FPS this combination can achieve?

A: The highest average FPS recorded in the data is 65, achieved at 1920x1080 resolution with the Low settings preset. This is the only configuration that breaks the 60 FPS barrier.

Q: How does the Ultra preset compare to the Low preset at 1080p?

A: The performance cost is substantial. The Low preset averages 65 FPS, while the Ultra preset averages 39 FPS. This represents a 26 FPS (or 40%) drop in performance for the highest visual quality settings.

Q: Is the AMD Ryzen 9 8945HX a bottleneck for the AMD Radeon 760M in this game?

A: No, the data indicates the opposite. The CPU is in the 95th percentile of all processors, while the GPU is in the 35th percentile. The frame rates scale directly with resolution and settings, which is a classic sign of a GPU bottleneck. The CPU has ample headroom, but the integrated GPU cannot keep up with its demands.

Q: What is the performance difference between 1080p and 1440p on the High preset?

A: At 1920x1080 on High, the average FPS is 48. At 2560x1440 on High, the average FPS drops to 31. This is a 17 FPS (or 35%) reduction in performance when moving from 1080p to 1440p.

Q: Is the Medium preset a good compromise for this system?

A: At 1080p, the Medium preset is a viable option, delivering an average of 57 FPS. However, at 1440p, the Medium preset's 37 FPS average is less ideal for a game like Doom. It represents a compromise, but the 1080p Low preset is the only one that provides a consistently smooth experience.

Resolution Scaling

The performance degradation from 1080p to 4K is steep and consistent, clearly demonstrating that the AMD Radeon 760M is the limiting component. Moving from 1920x1080 to 2560x1440 on the Low preset drops the average frame rate from 65 FPS to 42 FPS, a reduction of 35%. The scaling on the High preset is similar, with a drop from 48 FPS to 31 FPS, also a 35% reduction. This consistent percentage drop across different settings is a hallmark of a GPU-bound scenario.

The jump to 3840x2160 is even more punishing. On the Low preset, the average FPS falls from 42 at 1440p to 23 at 4K, a further 45% reduction. The High preset sees an even steeper decline, falling from 31 FPS to 17 FPS, a 45% drop. This non-linear scaling is typical when a GPU's memory bandwidth and shader throughput are completely saturated. The 760M, with its System Shared memory and modest 512 shading units, is being asked to render four times the pixels of 1080p, and it simply does not have the resources.

The data tells a clear story: this is a 1080p-class integrated GPU. The 16-core Ryzen 9 8945HX is more than capable of feeding the GPU with draw calls and game logic at any resolution, but the graphical output is entirely dependent on the Radeon 760M's capabilities. The frame rate is determined by the GPU's fill rate and pixel processing power, not by the CPU's clock speed or core count. The steep drop-off at higher resolutions is a direct consequence of the integrated GPU's limited memory bandwidth, which is "System Dependent" and shared with the CPU, and its 16 ROPs, which are responsible for the final pixel output.

Measured FPS Breakdown

The measured FPS data provides a comprehensive look at the performance envelope of this combination. At 1920x1080, the results are as follows:

• Low: Average 65 FPS. This is the peak performance of the combo, offering the only truly smooth experience.
• Medium: Average 57 FPS, with a minimum of 48 FPS and a maximum of 66 FPS. This is a playable setting, but the minimum frame rate shows there are moments of slowdown.
• High: Average 48 FPS. This is a noticeable step down from Medium and is on the edge of playability.
• Ultra: Average 39 FPS. This setting is too demanding for smooth gameplay, representing a significant compromise.

At 2560x1440, the performance drops into a less desirable range:

• Low: Average 42 FPS. This is the best case at this resolution, but it is still below the 60 FPS target.
• Medium: Average 37 FPS, with a minimum of 31 FPS and a maximum of 42 FPS. The minimum frame rate here is quite low.
• High: Average 31 FPS. This is a significant drop and is not recommended for a fast-paced FPS.
• Ultra: Average 25 FPS. The game becomes difficult to play smoothly at this level.

At 3840x2160, the performance collapses, rendering the game practically unplayable:

• Low: Average 23 FPS. The frame rate is too low for any kind of fluid motion.
• Medium: Average 20 FPS, with a minimum of 17 FPS and a maximum of 23 FPS. The frame rate is consistently in the low 20s.
• High: Average 17 FPS. This is a slideshow.
• Ultra: Average 14 FPS. The lowest recorded performance in the entire dataset, making the game unresponsive.

The pattern is clear. The Medium preset at 1080p is the highest quality setting that maintains an average FPS above 50. The Low preset at 1080p is the only one that consistently hits the 60 FPS mark. All other resolutions and settings combinations result in average frame rates below 50 FPS, which is not ideal for a game that requires quick reflexes.

How This Combo Ranks

The data places this specific combination at 2919 out of 2930 tested combos for Doom. This is a rank in the bottom 0.4% of all tested systems, indicating that it is one of the weakest combinations for this particular game. This is a stark illustration of the performance gulf between the CPU and GPU. The Ryzen 9 8945HX is a top-tier processor, but it is paired with an integrated GPU that is in the 35th percentile of all GPUs.

This ranking makes sense when considering the individual components. The CPU's nearest rivals include the Intel Core Ultra 9 285HX, which has an average score 0.1% higher, and the AMD Ryzen 9 9950X3D, which is 0.6% higher. These are all flagship-level processors. However, the GPU's nearest rivals include the dedicated AMD Radeon RX 6400, which has an average score only 0.3% higher, and the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 770M, a mobile GPU from a previous generation. This shows that the Radeon 760M is performing at the level of a low-end dedicated GPU from years ago.

The combination of a 95th-percentile CPU with a 35th-percentile GPU creates a massive imbalance. The combo's rank of 2919 is almost entirely determined by the GPU's performance. In a game like Doom, which is heavily reliant on the GPU for rendering, the CPU's 16 cores and 32 threads are left mostly idle, waiting for the integrated graphics to catch up. The result is a system that, despite having one of the most powerful mobile processors available, ranks near the bottom of the pile for gaming performance.

CPU Role

The AMD Ryzen 9 8945HX is a 16-core, 32-thread processor based on the Zen 4 architecture. It has a base clock of 2.50 GHz and a boost clock of 5.40 GHz. This is an enormous amount of processing power, as evidenced by its 95th percentile ranking among all CPUs and its multi-core scores like 42,713 in Cinebench R23. In synthetic benchmarks, it trades blows with top-tier desktop and mobile processors. For example, it is 0.1% slower than the Intel Core Ultra 9 285HX and 0.4% slower than the AMD Ryzen Threadripper PRO 9945WX, but 0.6% faster than the AMD Ryzen 9 9950X3D.

However, in Doom, this processing power is almost entirely untapped. The game's engine, while well-optimized, does not require 16 cores to run. The bottleneck is clearly the AMD Radeon 760M. The GPU has 512 shading units, 32 texture mapping units, and 16 render output units. Its performance, as measured by the 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 test, is a score of 400, and its Passmark G3D score is 5310. These are low numbers, placing it in the 35th percentile.

The CPU's role in this pairing is to feed the GPU with data and process game logic, which it does with ease. The frame rates are not limited by the CPU's ability to calculate physics or AI, but by the GPU's ability to render frames. The data shows that the 8945HX is not a bottleneck. If it were, we would see frame rates that are more consistent across different resolutions, as the CPU load would be the limiting factor. Instead, we see a clear and dramatic drop in FPS as resolution increases, which is the definitive signature of a GPU bottleneck. The CPU is a silent partner, waiting for the GPU to finish its work.