Doom

The AMD Ryzen 9 9900X and AMD Radeon RX 7600 XT pairing delivers a fascinating case study in bottleneck dynamics when running Doom. The data reveals a system where the CPU’s substantial headroom is consistently capped by the GPU’s output, yet the specific frame rates across resolutions and settings paint a nuanced picture of where this combo excels and where it struggles.

Resolution Scaling

The performance drop from 1080p to 4K is stark and unequivocal. At Low settings, the average FPS falls from 197.4 at 1920x1080 to 127.7 at 2560x1440, a reduction of roughly 35%, before settling at 72 at 3840x2160. This trajectory shows a system that is heavily GPU-bound; the RX 7600 XT’s rendering throughput is the primary constraint as pixel count rises. The scaling is not linear, but the consistent decline indicates that the GPU is working at its limit.

At Ultra settings, the pattern is even more pronounced. The frame rate drops from 122 at 1080p to 77.2 at 1440p, and then plummets to 40 at 4K. This last figure is particularly telling—a near-halving of performance from 1440p to 4K suggests that the GPU’s memory bandwidth and shading resources are completely saturated by the Ultra preset’s demands at higher resolutions. The data implies that 4K Ultra is simply beyond this GPU’s capability in this title, regardless of the CPU’s power. The CPU, with its 12 cores and 24 threads, is not the limiting factor here; the RX 7600 XT’s 128-bit memory bus and 288.0 GB/s bandwidth are the bottlenecks at higher resolutions.

GPU Role

The RX 7600 XT’s specifications directly explain these results. With a base clock of 1980 MHz and a boost clock of 2755 MHz, the GPU has a solid core frequency, but its 16 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 128-bit bus yields a bandwidth of 288.0 GB/s. In Doom, a fast-paced FPS, this bandwidth is crucial for feeding the 2048 shading units and 64 ROPs. The data shows that at 1080p, the GPU can keep up with the CPU, but as resolution increases, the bandwidth becomes a wall.

The GPU’s 22.57 TFLOPS of FP32 performance is respectable, yet the benchmark results show it struggling to maintain 60 FPS at 4K High (52.3) and failing to do so at 4K Ultra (40). The transition from High to Ultra at 4K costs over 12 FPS, indicating that the Ultra preset introduces effects that disproportionately tax the GPU’s resources. The GPU’s percentile ranking of 63 vs all GPUs places it in the mid-range, and its nearest rival, the AMD Radeon RX 7600, is only 0.6% behind in average score, confirming its position as a capable but not top-tier part.

Settings Recommendations

Given the measured rows, the optimal experience depends on the target resolution. At 1920x1080, the High preset offers an excellent balance, delivering 144.7 FPS—well above the 144 Hz refresh rate common in gaming monitors. The Ultra preset still provides a very playable 122 FPS, so users with a 120 Hz display could opt for maximum visual fidelity. The Medium preset at 171.9 FPS is only useful for those chasing extremely high refresh rates, as the visual trade-off is significant for a marginal FPS gain over High.

At 2560x1440, the High preset is the clear recommendation, with 95.5 FPS providing a smooth experience on 60 Hz and most 100 Hz monitors. The Ultra preset drops to 77.2 FPS, which is still playable but may be less stable during intense combat scenes. For 4K, the data suggests that High is the highest viable setting, yielding 52.3 FPS—borderline for a smooth experience. Low at 4K (72 FPS) is the only way to achieve a consistent 60+ FPS, but this sacrifices visual quality significantly. The Medium preset at 4K (64.1 FPS) is a compromise, but the jump to High is relatively small in cost, making it the better choice if a 60 FPS target is acceptable.

Measured FPS Breakdown

The full dataset provides a clear matrix of performance. At 1920x1080, the average FPS ranges from 197.4 (Low) down to 122 (Ultra), with Medium at 171.9 and High at 144.7. This shows a linear progression of about 25 FPS per preset step, indicating that each quality tier adds a consistent load. At 2560x1440, the numbers are 127.7 (Low), 111.2 (Medium), 95.5 (High), and 77.2 (Ultra). The gap between Medium and High is larger here (15.7 FPS) than between Low and Medium (16.5 FPS), suggesting that the High preset introduces more demanding effects at this resolution.

At 3840x2160, the performance collapses. Low yields 72 FPS, Medium 64.1, High 52.3, and Ultra 40. The drop from High to Ultra is 12.3 FPS, which is the largest single-step reduction in the entire dataset. This indicates that the Ultra preset at 4K includes features, likely related to shadow quality or post-processing, that are disproportionately expensive for this GPU. The data shows a system that is perfectly capable at 1080p, acceptable at 1440p, but overwhelmed at 4K with the highest settings.

How This Combo Ranks

In the grand scheme of tested combinations, this pairing ranks 1111 out of 1681 combos for Doom. This places it in the lower third of all tested systems, which is surprising given the individual components’ capabilities. The CPU is a high-end part, ranking in the 94th percentile vs all CPUs, but the GPU’s 63rd percentile ranking drags the overall combo down. The rank suggests that many other GPU and CPU combinations achieve higher frame rates in this game, likely due to more balanced pairings.

The CPU’s nearest rivals—the AMD Ryzen 9 9900X3D (-0.4% deltaPct) and Intel Core Ultra 5 245K (-1.5%)—have similar average scores, but the GPU’s rivals, such as the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2060 SUPER (1.9% deltaPct), are closely matched. This indicates that the combo’s rank is not due to a weak CPU or GPU in isolation, but rather the specific pairing’s performance in Doom. The data implies that a stronger GPU would significantly improve the rank, as the CPU has ample headroom.

CPU Role

The AMD Ryzen 9 9900X, with its 12 cores and 24 threads, is a powerhouse that is largely underutilized in this game. Its base clock of 4.40 GHz and boost clock of 5.60 GHz, combined with 64 MB of L3 cache, provide ample single-thread performance. The Cinebench R23 multicore score of 46438 and single-core score of 6555 confirm its capability. However, in Doom, the frame rates are consistently limited by the GPU, not the CPU.

The CPU’s percentile ranking of 94 vs all CPUs shows it is in the top tier, but its nearest rivals are all within 1.8% of its average score, indicating that the CPU is not a differentiator in this title. The data shows that at 1080p Low, the CPU can push the GPU to 197.4 FPS, but at 4K Ultra, the CPU is essentially idle waiting for the GPU. The CPU’s role here is to ensure that the GPU is never starved of data, and it succeeds in that task. The bottleneck is unequivocally the RX 7600 XT, and any performance gains would require a GPU upgrade, not a CPU change.

FAQ

Q: What is the best resolution for this combo to maintain a high refresh rate?

A: At 1920x1080, the High preset delivers 144.7 FPS, which is ideal for a 144 Hz monitor. The Ultra preset at 122 FPS is also viable for a 120 Hz display.

Q: Can this system play Doom at 4K with acceptable performance?

A: At 4K High, the average FPS is 52.3, which is below the 60 FPS threshold. The Low preset achieves 72 FPS, but the Medium preset at 64.1 FPS is the only way to get close to 60 FPS without major visual sacrifices.

Q: How does the CPU compare to its closest rivals in computational benchmarks?

A: The Ryzen 9 9900X has an average benchmark score of 54450, which is 0.4% lower than the Ryzen 9 9900X3D (54681) but 0.7% higher than the Intel Core i7-14700F (54097).

Q: What is the GPU’s performance ranking relative to other graphics cards?

A: The RX 7600 XT has an average benchmark score of 20146, placing it in the 63rd percentile vs all GPUs. Its nearest rival, the AMD Radeon RX 7600, is only 0.6% faster in average score.

Q: Is the CPU or GPU the limiting factor in this game?

A: The data clearly shows the GPU is the limiting factor. The CPU’s high scores and the significant FPS drops at higher resolutions indicate that the RX 7600 XT cannot keep up with the CPU’s output.

Q: What is the frame rate difference between the Low and Ultra presets at 1440p?

A: At 2560x1440, the Low preset averages 127.7 FPS, while the Ultra preset averages 77.2 FPS, a difference of 50.5 FPS. This shows the substantial cost of the Ultra preset’s visual effects.