Doom

The Intel Core i5-11400F is a 6-core, 12-thread processor based on the Rocket Lake architecture, with a base clock of 2.60 GHz and a boost clock of 4.40 GHz. In synthetic benchmarks, it posts a Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 14340 and a single-core score of 2024, placing it in the 71st percentile of all CPUs tested. Its nearest rivals in average benchmark score include the AMD EPYC 7H12 (0.3% higher), the Intel Core i5-12450H (0.4% lower), and the AMD Ryzen 3 PRO 8300G (0.6% lower). This places the i5-11400F in a tightly contested mid-range performance band, where its 12 MB of shared L3 cache and dual-channel DDR4 memory support (51.2 GB/s bandwidth) are typical for a desktop part of its generation.

In Doom, the CPU’s role is largely about maintaining a high enough frame ceiling so that the GPU can stretch its legs, particularly at lower resolutions where the graphics card is not the bottleneck. The data shows that at 1080p with Low settings, the combo reaches 312 FPS average, indicating that the i5-11400F can feed the Radeon RX 7900 XT well beyond typical 144Hz monitor refresh rates. However, the processor’s 6-core/12-thread configuration is not overkill for this title; Doom is an older FPS (released in 2016) that scales well with strong single-thread performance, where the i5-11400F’s 3DMark single-thread score of 868 and PassMark single-thread score of 2981 are respectable. The CPU’s 65W TDP also suggests it runs cool enough that thermal throttling is unlikely to be the limiting factor in sustained play, though the benchmark results do not explicitly measure temperatures.

Comparing the i5-11400F to its rivals, the deltaPct values are all within a fraction of a percent, meaning that swapping to an AMD EPYC 7H12 or an Intel Core Ultra 7 164U would yield virtually identical average scores in general CPU benchmarks. For Doom specifically, the game’s engine is not heavily multi-threaded, so the i5-11400F’s 3DMark 2-thread score of 1691 is more indicative of real-world performance than its max-thread score of 5652. The Cinebench R15 single-core score of 204 further reinforces that the CPU has adequate per-core strength to avoid bottlenecking the GPU at high frame rates, but it is not a high-end part that would excel in heavily threaded workloads. Overall, the CPU provides a solid foundation for this pairing, but the benchmark data suggests that the GPU will dominate the performance picture in most scenarios.

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

The Core i5-11400F’s 6 cores and 12 threads are more than sufficient for Doom, which was designed to run on much older hardware. The game’s engine benefits from high single-thread performance, and the processor’s 4.40 GHz boost clock is where most of the work happens. In the measured results, the jump from 1080p Low (312 FPS) to 1080p Ultra (203 FPS) shows a 35% drop in frame rate, which is primarily driven by the GPU workload, but the CPU still has to keep up with the increased draw calls and physics calculations. The i5-11400F’s L3 cache of 12 MB shared is adequate for the game’s streaming assets, though it is not as large as some higher-end competitors.

The CPU’s 3DMark 16-thread score of 5619 and max-thread score of 5652 are nearly identical, indicating that the processor is fully utilized at 12 threads and does not suffer from significant scaling issues beyond that point. In Doom, which rarely uses more than 4-6 threads, the CPU’s 4-thread score of 3171 is more relevant, suggesting that the processor has enough headroom to handle the game’s logic without becoming a bottleneck. The PassMark physics score of 842 is a direct indicator of the CPU’s ability to handle the game’s collision detection and particle effects, and it aligns with the observed 1080p frame rates that exceed 200 FPS at most settings.

When compared to its nearest rivals, the i5-11400F’s average benchmark score of 17177 is statistically tied with the AMD EPYC 7H12 (17120) and the Intel Core i5-12450H (17239). This means that in a CPU-bound scenario, the user would not notice a meaningful difference between these parts. However, the i5-11400F has the advantage of being a desktop part with a 65W TDP, which typically allows for more consistent boost clocks than mobile counterparts like the i5-12450H. For Doom, the CPU’s performance is more than adequate; the real question is whether the GPU can maintain high frame rates at the desired resolution and settings, which the data shows it does.

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

The AMD Radeon RX 7900 XT is a high-end graphics card based on the RDNA 3.0 architecture, featuring 20 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 320-bit bus, yielding a bandwidth of 800.0 GB/s. Its boost clock of 2394 MHz and game clock of 2025 MHz are key to its performance, and the card’s 84 ray tracing cores and 5376 shading units provide substantial compute power. In Doom, which is not a ray tracing-heavy title in its original release, the GPU’s raw rasterization performance is what drives the frame rates. The card’s PassMark G3D score of 29009 and 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 score of 5623 place it in the 55th percentile of all GPUs, which is lower than expected for a top-tier card, but the benchmark data is what it is.

The GPU’s nearest rivals include the AMD Radeon 660M (0.5% lower average score), NVIDIA RTX A2000 Mobile (0.5% lower), and AMD Radeon RX 9070 XT (1.5% higher). This is a strange grouping, as the RX 7900 XT is clearly a more powerful card than an integrated Radeon 660M, but the average benchmark scores suggest that the synthetic tests do not fully capture the card’s gaming capabilities. In Doom, the measured FPS tells a different story: at 4K High, the combo averages 87 FPS, which drops to 71 FPS at 4K Ultra. This indicates that the GPU is the primary driver of performance at 4K, as the CPU is unlikely to be a bottleneck at those high resolutions.

The 20 GB VRAM is more than enough for Doom, even at 4K Ultra, as the game’s textures are not particularly demanding by modern standards. The GPU’s memory clock of 2500 MHz (20 Gbps effective) and 800.0 GB/s bandwidth ensure that texture streaming and asset loading are not limiting factors. The card’s 192 ROPs and 336 TMUs provide high pixel and texture fill rates (459.6 GPixel/s and 804.4 GTexel/s, respectively), which are directly relevant to Doom’s fast-paced rendering. At 4K Low, the combo reaches 119 FPS, showing that the GPU can still push high frame rates even at a demanding resolution when settings are reduced. The GPU’s 300W TDP and suggested 700W PSU are typical for a card of this class, but the benchmark data does not indicate any thermal throttling issues.

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

The measured FPS data shows a clear scaling pattern from 1080p to 4K, and this reveals the limiting component at each resolution. At 1080p Low, the combo achieves 312 FPS, but at 4K Low, it drops to 119 FPS, a 62% reduction. This large drop indicates that the GPU is the primary bottleneck at higher resolutions, as the CPU’s workload does not change significantly with resolution. At 1080p High, the average is 249 FPS, dropping to 161 FPS at 1440p High (35% drop) and then to 87 FPS at 4K High (46% drop from 1440p). The scaling is not linear, which suggests that the GPU is hitting its limits as the pixel count increases.

Looking at the Medium settings, the 1080p average is 295 FPS, 1440p is 191 FPS, and 4K is 103 FPS, with minimum FPS recorded at 251, 162, and 88 respectively. The minimum FPS at 4K Medium (88) is still above 60, indicating a playable experience, but the gap between average and minimum widens at higher resolutions, suggesting occasional frame hitches. At Ultra settings, the 1080p average is 203 FPS, 1440p is 132 FPS, and 4K is 71 FPS. The drop from 1440p to 4K at Ultra is 46%, which is consistent with the High preset. This consistency implies that the GPU is the limiting factor across all settings, and the CPU has enough headroom to avoid becoming a bottleneck even at 1080p.

The data shows that the combo is well-balanced for 1440p gaming, where it can maintain over 130 FPS at Ultra and over 190 FPS at Medium. At 4K, the user must accept lower settings to achieve high frame rates, as the GPU cannot sustain 100+ FPS at Ultra. The fact that 4K Low (119 FPS) is faster than 1080p Ultra (203 FPS) by 41% slower demonstrates that the GPU’s fill rate is the bottleneck, not the CPU. This is typical for a high-end GPU paired with a mid-range CPU, but the CPU’s 71st percentile ranking suggests it is not holding the GPU back at any resolution tested.

FAQ

Q: Can this combo run Doom at 4K 60 FPS with High settings?

A: Yes, the measured data shows an average of 87 FPS at 4K High, which is well above 60 FPS. The minimum FPS was not recorded for this setting, but the average suggests a smooth experience.

Q: What is the best resolution to play at for a 144Hz monitor?

A: At 1440p, the combo achieves 161 FPS on High and 132 FPS on Ultra, both of which are close to or above 144Hz. For a 144Hz monitor, 1440p High is the recommended setting, as it provides a 22% higher frame rate than Ultra.

Q: Is the CPU or GPU more important for high FPS in Doom?

A: The GPU is the limiting component, as evidenced by the 62% frame rate drop from 1080p Low to 4K Low. The CPU’s performance is adequate, as shown by the high frame rates at 1080p (312 FPS on Low), which would not be possible if the CPU were the bottleneck.

Q: How does the RX 7900 XT compare to its nearest rival in terms of average benchmark score?

A: The RX 7900 XT has an average benchmark score of 13745, which is 0.5% lower than the AMD Radeon 660M and 1.5% lower than the AMD Radeon RX 9070 XT. However, in Doom, the actual gaming performance is far superior to the integrated graphics competitor.

Q: Does the i5-11400F bottleneck the RX 7900 XT at 1080p?

A: No, the data shows 312 FPS at 1080p Low and 203 FPS at 1080p Ultra, which indicates that the CPU can feed the GPU effectively. The CPU’s 6 cores and 12 threads, along with a 4.40 GHz boost clock, are sufficient for this game.

Q: What is the frame rate difference between 4K Medium and 4K Ultra?

A: The difference is 32 FPS, with 4K Medium averaging 103 FPS and 4K Ultra averaging 71 FPS. The minimum FPS on Medium is 88, which is still above 60, while the Ultra minimum was not recorded.

How This Combo Ranks

The combo of the Intel Core i5-11400F and AMD Radeon RX 7900 XT ranks 780th out of 3712 tested combos in Doom, placing it in the top 21% of all pairings in the database. This rank is surprisingly low for a GPU of this class, but it reflects the fact that many other combos use higher-end CPUs that can push even higher frame rates at 1080p. The data shows that the combo is not CPU-bound in Doom, so the rank is likely influenced by the GPU’s relative performance compared to other tested graphics cards. The GPU’s 55th percentile ranking among all GPUs suggests that there are many faster cards in the database, which pulls the combo’s overall rank down despite the high absolute frame rates.

The combo’s rank of 780 out of 3712 means that it outperforms 79% of all tested combinations, which is respectable but not top-tier. This is because Doom is an older game that can be run at very high frame rates with less powerful hardware, so the RX 7900 XT’s advantages are not fully realized. For context, the combo’s measured 4K Ultra average of 71 FPS is lower than what many high-end combos achieve at 1440p, but the rank is based on the entire set of test results. The ranking indicates that while this combo is capable, there is room for improvement by pairing the GPU with a faster CPU, though the data does not show a specific CPU that would yield a dramatically higher rank.

Settings Recommendations

Based on the measured FPS data, the best experience depends on the user’s resolution and refresh rate. For a 1440p monitor with a 144Hz refresh rate, the High preset is the sweet spot, delivering 161 FPS average, which is 22% higher than Ultra’s 132 FPS. The Ultra preset at 1440p is still playable at 132 FPS, but the visual difference between High and Ultra may not justify the 18% performance hit. For those with a 1080p 240Hz monitor, the Medium preset at 295 FPS is recommended, as it provides a 19% improvement over High (249 FPS) while maintaining a minimum FPS of 251, which is above the 240Hz threshold.

At 4K, the data suggests that the Medium preset offers the best balance, with an average of 103 FPS and a minimum of 88 FPS. This is a 48% improvement over Ultra (71 FPS) and only a 16% drop from Low (119 FPS). The High preset at 4K averages 87 FPS, which is also playable, but the minimum FPS was not recorded, so Medium is a safer choice for consistent frame pacing. For users prioritizing visual fidelity at 4K, Ultra is playable at 71 FPS average, but the drop below 60 FPS may occur in demanding scenes, so a 60Hz display would be the target. In all cases, the Low preset is not recommended unless the user is chasing maximum frame rates for competitive play, as the visual quality hit is substantial for a relatively modest FPS gain at 1440p and 4K.