Doom

The pairing of the Intel Core i3-12100F with the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4090 presents a stark contrast in capabilities, one that the measured frame rates in Doom (2016) illustrate clearly. The data shows a system that is overwhelmingly capable at high resolutions but reveals a significant bottleneck when the workload shifts to lower resolutions. This analysis examines the measured FPS rows to determine how each component contributes to the overall experience and where the performance ceiling truly lies.

Resolution Scaling

The measured frame rates demonstrate a classic pattern of GPU and CPU load distribution across resolutions. At 3840x2160 with Ultra settings, the system delivers 93.2 FPS, which climbs to 114.2 FPS at High settings. Moving down to 2560x1440, the Ultra preset yields 172.6 FPS, while the High preset jumps to 210.8 FPS. At 1920x1080, the scaling compresses further: Ultra produces 269.6 FPS, and High reaches 324.7 FPS. The progression from 4K to 1080p shows that the frame rate does not scale linearly with pixel count, indicating a transition from a GPU-bound scenario at higher resolutions to a CPU-bound one at lower resolutions.

The most telling data point is the gap between settings at each resolution. At 4K, the difference between Low (153.7 FPS) and Ultra (93.2 FPS) is a substantial 60.5 FPS, suggesting that the graphics card is the primary limiter, as its workload increases with visual fidelity. However, at 1080p, the same Low-to-Ultra delta narrows to 88.5 FPS (358.1 vs. 269.6), yet the absolute numbers are so high that the CPU’s processing power becomes the constraining factor. The fact that 1080p Low (358.1 FPS) is only 33.4 FPS higher than 4K Low (153.7 FPS) — despite a 4x reduction in pixel count — confirms that the processor cannot feed the GPU enough frames at lower resolutions. The data suggests that the RTX 4090 is being starved of work at 1080p, as the i3-12100F’s four cores reach their limit.

GPU Role

The NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4090 is a flagship part, and its specifications in the data reflect that. It features 24 GB of GDDR6X memory on a 384-bit bus, yielding a bandwidth of 1.01 TB/s. Its boost clock is listed at 2520 MHz, with a base clock of 2235 MHz. The GPU’s raw compute capabilities are enormous, with an FP32 throughput of 82.58 TFLOPS and 16,384 shading units. In Doom, this hardware is clearly capable of pushing high frame rates at 4K, as evidenced by the 114.2 FPS at High settings. The GPU’s memory capacity is more than ample for this title, as the game’s demands are unlikely to exceed even a fraction of the 24 GB available.

The GPU’s performance percentile stands at 91, meaning it outperforms the vast majority of other graphics cards in the database. Its average benchmark score of 66473 places it near rivals like the NVIDIA Tesla T4 (66733, deltaPct -0.4) and the AMD Radeon Pro Vega 56 (67097, deltaPct -0.9). Within this game, the GPU’s role is most apparent at 3840x2160, where the measured FPS scales predictably with settings. The jump from Medium (137.6 FPS) to Ultra (93.2 FPS) at 4K shows a 44.4 FPS drop, indicating the card is working harder with each preset increase. The data implies that the RTX 4090 has sufficient headroom at lower resolutions, but its full potential is only realized when the pixel count is high enough to keep it busy.

CPU Role

The Intel Core i3-12100F is a four-core, eight-thread processor with a base clock of 3.30 GHz and a boost clock of 4.30 GHz. It has 12 MB of shared L3 cache. Its benchmark scores show a strong single-thread showing — a 3dmark_single_thread score of 893 and a passmark_single_thread score of 3444 — but its multi-threaded results are more modest, with a cinebench_r23_multicore score of 11912. The CPU’s percentile vs. all CPUs is 72, and its average benchmark score of 13516 is nearly identical to the AMD Ryzen Threadripper PRO 3975WX (13534, deltaPct -0.1) and the Intel Core i7-7700K (13280, deltaPct 1.8). This places the i3 in a competitive position among its peers, but its limits are exposed in this fast-paced title.

In Doom, the CPU’s role is defined by its inability to sustain the GPU at lower resolutions. At 1920x1080, the data shows that the frame rate caps out around 358.1 FPS on Low settings, and even on Ultra, it manages 269.6 FPS. These are high numbers, but they are far below what the RTX 4090 could theoretically produce if unconstrained. The 3dmark_4_threads score of 2859 and the 3dmark_max_threads score of 4023 suggest that the processor’s four cores are the limiting factor. The game’s engine, while not requiring many cores, benefits from higher clock speeds, and the i3’s 4.30 GHz boost is sufficient for decent performance but not for unlocking the GPU’s full potential. The data indicates that the CPU is the bottleneck at 1080p, where the measured FPS across settings (269.6 to 358.1) is tightly clustered compared to the wider spread at 4K.

How This Combo Ranks

The combination of the i3-12100F and RTX 4090 ranks 64th out of 1681 tested combos in this game, placing it in the top 4% of all systems in the database. This high rank is largely due to the GPU’s dominance, as the RTX 4090 is a top-tier part. However, the ranking also reflects the CPU’s ability to keep up at higher resolutions. At 4K, the combo’s performance is strong, with the Ultra preset achieving 93.2 FPS, which is playable for most users. The rank of 64 suggests that many other combinations, likely featuring more powerful CPUs, achieve higher frame rates, particularly at lower resolutions.

The comparison with the GPU’s nearest rivals shows that the RTX 4090’s average score of 66473 is slightly below the NVIDIA Tesla T4 (66733, deltaPct -0.4) and the AMD Radeon Pro Vega 56 (67097, deltaPct -0.9), but these are professional-grade cards not typically used for gaming. The CPU’s nearest rivals, such as the Intel Core i7-1250U (13462, deltaPct 0.4) and the Intel Core i3-10105 (13430, deltaPct 0.6), are similarly matched in average score, indicating the i3-12100F is not an outlier in its class. The combo’s overall rank reflects the GPU’s raw power, but the data suggests that pairing this GPU with a stronger CPU would yield significantly higher frame rates at 1080p and 1440p.

Settings Recommendations

Based on the measured FPS rows, the optimal settings depend on the target resolution and frame rate preference. For 3840x2160, the High preset (114.2 FPS) offers the best balance, as it is 20.9 FPS faster than Ultra (93.2 FPS) while still providing a high level of visual quality. The Low preset at 4K (153.7 FPS) is the only way to reach near-144Hz refresh rates, but the visual compromise may not be worth the gain. At 2560x1440, the High preset (210.8 FPS) is recommended for those with high-refresh-rate monitors, as it clears the 144Hz threshold comfortably. The Ultra preset (172.6 FPS) is also viable for 144Hz displays, but the 38.2 FPS drop from High to Ultra suggests diminishing returns.

For 1920x1080, the data shows that all presets deliver over 269 FPS, which exceeds the refresh rate of most monitors. The High preset (324.7 FPS) is a sensible choice, as it provides a significant visual upgrade over Low (358.1 FPS) with only a 33.4 FPS penalty. The Medium preset (346.1 FPS) is a middle ground, but the jump to High is minimal in terms of frame rate loss. The Ultra preset (269.6 FPS) is the most demanding, but it still remains above 240Hz, making it suitable for esports-level panels. Given the CPU bottleneck at this resolution, there is no practical reason to use Low settings, as the frame rate gain is marginal compared to the visual quality loss. The data ultimately suggests that High settings at any resolution provide the most consistent experience, balancing the GPU’s workload with the CPU’s limitations.