Doom

# FAQ

Q: What is the AMD Ryzen 9 9900X's position among all tested CPUs?

A: The Ryzen 9 9900X sits in the 92nd percentile against all CPUs tracked. Its average benchmark score of 57,498 places it nearly even with the AMD EPYC 9015 (57,555, a 0.1% advantage for the EPYC) and just 0.2% ahead of the AMD EPYC 7313 (57,399). It trails the Intel Core i9-14900 by 1.1% (58,115) and the Intel Xeon Platinum 8260M by 1.4% (58,323).

Q: How does the Radeon RX 6650 XT compare to its nearest GPU rivals?

A: The RX 6650 XT holds an average benchmark score of 19,765, placing it in the 65th percentile among all GPUs. Its closest competitor, the NVIDIA Tesla K40m (19,885), is 0.6% faster, while the AMD FirePro W7000 (19,905) is 0.7% ahead. Conversely, the AMD FirePro D300 (19,637) and NVIDIA Quadro K5200 (19,602) are 0.7% and 0.8% slower, respectively.

Q: What is the Ryzen 9 9900X's multi-threaded performance profile?

A: The 12-core, 24-thread processor achieves a Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 32,172 and a single-core score of 2,253. In 3DMark tests, it scales from 2,519 with 2 threads to 13,929 with maximum threads, showing strong scaling across its core count. PassMark multi-thread score reaches 54,643, with integer math at 181,056 and floating-point math at 120,083.

Q: What memory bandwidth does the CPU support?

A: The Ryzen 9 9900X supports DDR5 memory through a dual-channel interface, providing a memory bandwidth of 89.6 GB/s. The CPU also supports ECC memory. This bandwidth figure is part of the platform's overall capability alongside PCIe Gen 5 with 24 lanes from the CPU.

Q: What are the RX 6650 XT's core clock specifications?

A: The GPU has a base clock of 2055 MHz, a game clock of 2410 MHz, and a boost clock of 2635 MHz. Memory runs at 2190 MHz with 17.5 Gbps effective speed. The card has 2048 shading units, 128 texture mapping units, and 64 raster operation units, with 32 ray-tracing cores on the RDNA 2.0 architecture.

Q: How does the combo rank in Doom specifically?

A: This CPU-GPU combination ranks 2,418 out of 3,712 tested combos for Doom, placing it in approximately the 35th percentile from the top. This rank reflects the measured FPS data across all resolution and settings combinations tested for this specific pairing.

# How This Combo Ranks

The AMD Ryzen 9 9900X paired with the AMD Radeon RX 6650 XT achieves a combo rank of 2,418 out of 3,712 tested combinations in Doom. This places the pairing in the lower-middle portion of the database, which is somewhat surprising given the CPU's strong 92nd percentile standing overall. The data suggests that the GPU becomes the decisive factor in this specific title, dragging the overall combo position down from what the processor alone might suggest.

Examining the CPU's nearest rivals provides context. The Ryzen 9 9900X averages 57,498 across all benchmark suites, nearly identical to the AMD EPYC 9015 (57,555, -0.1% delta) and the AMD EPYC 7313 (57,399, +0.2% delta). The Intel Core i9-14900 (58,115) and Intel Xeon Platinum 8260M (58,323) sit 1.1% and 1.4% higher, respectively. These are all server or high-end desktop parts, indicating the 9900X's compute capability is firmly in flagship territory. Yet in Doom, the combo's rank of 2,418 out of 3,712 means roughly 65% of tested pairings outperform it.

The GPU's percentile standing tells a similar story. The RX 6650 XT sits at the 65th percentile among all GPUs with an average score of 19,765. Its nearest rivals span a narrow band — the NVIDIA Tesla K40m (19,885, -0.6%), AMD FirePro D300 (19,637, +0.7%), AMD FirePro W7000 (19,905, -0.7%), and NVIDIA Quadro K5200 (19,602, +0.8%). This clustering around the 19,600-19,900 range shows a GPU that is competent but not exceptional, and in a fast-paced FPS like Doom, that mid-tier positioning shows through in the combo rank.

What makes this rank particularly interesting is the imbalance between components. The CPU is near the top of its class, while the GPU is solidly mid-pack. The combined rank of 2,418 reflects not an average of these positions, but rather the bottleneck dynamics of this specific game. Doom's engine appears to reward GPU throughput more than CPU muscle, which explains why a 92nd-percentile CPU cannot lift the pairing above the 65th-percentile GPU's natural ceiling.

# GPU Role

The AMD Radeon RX 6650 XT brings 8 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 128-bit bus, delivering 280.3 GB/s of bandwidth. This memory configuration is adequate for Doom at the tested resolutions, though the 8 GB capacity may constrain ultra-high texture loads at 4K. The GPU's clock behavior — 2055 MHz base, 2410 MHz game, and 2635 MHz boost — provides a solid frequency envelope, with the boost clock representing a 28% uplift over base.

The RDNA 2.0 architecture (Navi 23 chip) contains 2048 shading units, 128 TMUs, and 64 ROPs, producing a pixel rate of 168.6 GPixel/s and a texture rate of 337.3 GTexel/s. FP32 throughput is 10.79 TFLOPS, with FP16 at 21.59 TFLOPS (2:1 ratio). These figures indicate a GPU designed for 1080p and 1440p gaming, with 4K as a stretch goal at reduced settings.

In Doom specifically, the GPU's role becomes clear when examining the FPS deltas across settings at each resolution. At 1080p, the card delivers 200 FPS on Low, 174 FPS on Medium, 147 FPS on High, and 120 FPS on Ultra. This progression shows a 40% drop from Low to Ultra, indicating the GPU is being pushed harder as settings increase, but the absolute numbers remain high enough for smooth gameplay. The 120 FPS floor at 1080p Ultra demonstrates that the RX 6650 XT has sufficient headroom for high-refresh monitors at this resolution.

Moving to 1440p, the same pattern emerges with lower absolute values: 129 FPS on Low, 113 FPS on Medium, 95 FPS on High, and 78 FPS on Ultra. The gap between Low and Ultra grows to 39.5%, slightly larger than at 1080p. At 4K, the GPU's limitations become more apparent: 70 FPS on Low, 61 FPS on Medium, 51 FPS on High, and 42 FPS on Ultra. The Low-to-Ultra drop is 40%, but the absolute figures dip below the 60 FPS threshold at High and Ultra settings, suggesting the 8 GB frame buffer and 280.3 GB/s bandwidth are stressed at this resolution.

The 32 ray-tracing cores are present in the hardware, though Doom's 2016 release predates widespread ray-tracing adoption, so their impact on this title's measured results is negligible. The GPU's DirectX 12 Ultimate support (12_2) ensures API compatibility, and its Vulkan 1.4 support aligns with Doom's Vulkan rendering path, which likely contributes to the strong FPS numbers relative to the GPU's overall market position.

# Measured FPS Breakdown

At 1920x1080, the RX 6650 XT paired with the 9900X produces its strongest results. Low settings yield 200 FPS average, which appears to be the ceiling for this combination — the Medium preset also shows a maximum of 200 FPS, suggesting a cap or engine limit. Medium averages 174 FPS with a minimum of 148, High averages 147 FPS, and Ultra averages 120 FPS. The step-down pattern is consistent: Low to Medium loses 13%, Medium to High loses 15.5%, and High to Ultra loses 18.4%. This increasing percentage drop as settings rise indicates the GPU is progressively more loaded, though even the Ultra minimum (not separately listed, but implied by the average) remains well above 60 FPS.

The 2560x1440 results show a predictable decline. Low settings produce 129 FPS, Medium 113 FPS (minimum 96, maximum 129), High 95 FPS, and Ultra 78 FPS. The percentage losses between presets are 12.4% from Low to Medium, 15.9% from Medium to High, and 17.9% from High to Ultra. The minimum of 96 FPS on Medium indicates that even in demanding scenes, the frame rate stays above 90 FPS, offering a comfortable margin for 1440p gaming. The Ultra setting's 78 FPS average remains playable, though the gap from High is the largest single-step decline in the dataset.

At 3840x2160, the GPU's mid-tier positioning becomes evident. Low settings deliver 70 FPS, Medium 61 FPS (minimum 52, maximum 70), High 51 FPS, and Ultra 42 FPS. The drops between presets measure 12.9% from Low to Medium, 16.4% from Medium to High, and 17.6% from High to Ultra. The Medium minimum of 52 FPS is concerning for smooth gameplay, and the High average of 51 FPS falls below the 60 FPS threshold that many players consider the minimum for a fluid experience. Ultra at 42 FPS is playable but noticeably less smooth.

Comparing across resolutions reveals the scaling cost. At High settings, moving from 1080p to 1440p costs 35.4% of the frame rate (147 to 95 FPS), and moving from 1440p to 4K costs another 46.3% (95 to 51 FPS). The total 1080p-to-4K drop at High settings is 65.3%. At Low settings, the drops are 35.5% from 1080p to 1440p and 45.7% from 1440p to 4K, totaling 65%. These consistent percentages suggest the GPU is the primary limiter across all settings, as a CPU-bound scenario would show smaller drops at higher resolutions.

# Settings Recommendations

For players targeting 1080p, the data supports Ultra as the optimal choice. The 120 FPS average on Ultra is 18.4% below High's 147 FPS, but the visual quality gain is substantial, and 120 FPS still exceeds the refresh rate of most standard monitors. If the display supports 144Hz or higher, High at 147 FPS provides a better match for the refresh window, with Low at 200 FPS only making sense for competitive play where every frame matters and visual fidelity is secondary.

At 1440p, High settings (95 FPS) offer the best balance. Ultra drops to 78 FPS, which is a 17.9% reduction for marginal visual improvements. Medium at 113 FPS is viable for players who prioritize frame rate over fidelity, and its minimum of 96 FPS ensures consistent performance. Low at 129 FPS is the choice for esports-style play, though the visual compromises are significant at this resolution. The recommended preset for most users is High, as it stays above 90 FPS while maintaining the game's visual identity.

For 4K, the recommendation must be more conservative. Low at 70 FPS is the only preset that comfortably exceeds 60 FPS. Medium at 61 FPS is borderline — the minimum of 52 FPS means occasional drops below the smoothness threshold, but the average is acceptable. High at 51 FPS and Ultra at 42 FPS are playable but will feel less fluid, particularly during fast-paced combat sequences common in Doom. The data suggests either Low for a locked experience or Medium for players willing to accept occasional frame dips in exchange for better visuals.

The overall pattern across all resolutions points to High as the default recommendation for this combo. It provides the most consistent experience: 147 FPS at 1080p, 95 FPS at 1440p, and 51 FPS at 4K. The 4K High result is the weakest link, but for players primarily using 1080p or 1440p displays, High offers the best balance of visual quality and performance. Medium serves as a strong fallback for 4K users, while Ultra is only recommended for 1080p where the 120 FPS average still provides excellent smoothness.

# CPU Role

The AMD Ryzen 9 9900X contributes 12 cores and 24 threads based on the Zen 5 architecture (Granite Ridge), built on a 4 nm process at TSMC with 16,630 million transistors across a 2x 70.6 mm² die design. Base clock is 4.40 GHz with a boost clock of 5.60 GHz, and the CPU supports DDR5 memory with 89.6 GB/s bandwidth over a dual-channel interface. These specifications position the CPU as a high-end desktop part, with the 92nd percentile ranking confirming its capability.

In Doom, the CPU's role is less pronounced than the GPU's. The game's engine, released in 2016, does not heavily tax modern multi-core processors. The 9900X's single-thread performance — Cinebench R23 single-core score of 2,253 and 3DMark single-thread score of 1,286 — is more relevant for this title than its multi-thread capabilities. Even the 2-thread 3DMark score of 2,519 suggests that Doom's primary thread load is well within the CPU's capacity.

The CPU's benchmark profile shows exceptional scaling: 3DMark scores rise from 2,519 (2 threads) to 4,886 (4 threads), 9,114 (8 threads), 12,552 (16 threads), and 13,929 (max threads). This near-linear scaling through 8 threads indicates strong core efficiency, but Doom's 2016 architecture likely uses only a handful of threads. The PassMark multi-thread score of 54,643 and Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 32,172 are impressive for productivity workloads, but they do not translate to proportional gains in this game.

Evidence that the CPU is not the bottleneck in Doom comes from the consistent FPS drops between resolutions. If the CPU were limiting, we would expect smaller FPS differences between 1080p and 4K, as the CPU work per frame stays constant while GPU load increases. Instead, the data shows roughly 65% FPS drops from 1080p to 4K across all settings, indicating the GPU is the constraint. The CPU has sufficient headroom to feed the RX 6650 XT at all tested settings and resolutions.

The 9900X's 64 MB L3 cache and 1 MB L2 per core provide ample on-die storage for game assets, and the 5.60 GHz boost clock ensures rapid single-thread response. The CPU's 120 W TDP (with the GPU at 176 W) suggests a balanced power envelope for this pairing, though the exact system power draw is not part of this dataset. The 89.6 GB/s memory bandwidth exceeds what Doom's engine requires, further confirming that the CPU is not a limiting factor.

# Resolution Scaling

The measured FPS data reveals how this combo scales across resolutions. At Low settings, the progression is 200 FPS at 1080p, 129 FPS at 1440p, and 70 FPS at 4K. This represents a 35.5% drop from 1080p to 1440p and a 45.7% drop from 1440p to 4K, for a total 65% reduction from 1080p to 4K. These percentages are nearly identical across Medium (174 to 113 to 61, drops of 35.1% and 46.0%), High (147 to 95 to 51, drops of 35.4% and 46.3%), and Ultra (120 to 78 to 42, drops of 35% and 46.2%).

The consistency of these scaling percentages is the key analytical finding. When a system is CPU-bound, resolution scaling typically shows smaller FPS drops at higher resolutions because the CPU work per frame is constant, and the GPU has spare capacity at lower resolutions. Here, the uniform ~35% drop from 1080p to 1440p and ~46% drop from 1440p to 4K across all four settings presets indicates the GPU is the limiting component at every configuration.

This conclusion is reinforced by the absolute FPS values. At 1080p, even Ultra settings produce 120 FPS, which is far above the CPU's potential frame rate ceiling for this game (if Doom were CPU-limited at, say, 200 FPS, we would expect the Low preset to hit that ceiling and stay there — and indeed Low does hit exactly 200 FPS at 1080p, with Medium also showing a 200 FPS maximum). The fact that Low and Medium both touch 200 FPS at 1080p suggests a possible engine frame cap, not a CPU limitation.

The scaling behavior also has practical implications. Players using a 1080p monitor with a 144Hz refresh rate will find that High settings (147 FPS) cannot fully saturate the display, while Low (200 FPS) exceeds it. At 1440p, High (95 FPS) is below 100 FPS, which some players perceive as the threshold for "buttery smooth" gameplay. At 4K, only Low (70 FPS) stays comfortably above 60 FPS, and even that drops to 52 FPS minimums on Medium.

The GPU's memory bandwidth of 280.3 GB/s and 8 GB capacity are likely contributors to the steep 4K scaling. At 4K, texture data exceeds the 8 GB frame buffer more easily, potentially causing data thrashing that reduces effective throughput. The 128-bit memory bus, while delivering adequate bandwidth for 1080p and 1440p, may struggle to feed the 2048 shading units at 4K resolutions. These architectural characteristics align with the observed scaling pattern, where 4K FPS falls to roughly one-third of 1080p performance across all settings.