Doom

The Intel Core i5-11400F paired with the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1050 Ti occupies the 1651st position out of 1681 tested combinations for Doom, placing it in the bottom 2% of all configurations. This ranking reflects a fundamental imbalance: the CPU is a mid-range 6-core/12-thread Rocket Lake part that sits in the 75th percentile of all processors, while the GPU is a Pascal-era entry-level card languishing in the 30th percentile of all graphics cards. Benchmark results indicate the system delivers playable but constrained performance, with the graphics card acting as the definitive bottleneck across nearly all settings and resolutions.

How This Combo Ranks

The combo's rank of 1651 out of 1681 test configurations places it at the 98.2nd percentile from the bottom, meaning only 30 combinations perform worse. This is a direct consequence of the GPU's standing: the GTX 1050 Ti's average benchmark score of 5316 places it just 0.4% ahead of the NVIDIA GeForce 940M and 0.7% ahead of the AMD Radeon R7 240, while trailing the AMD Radeon R7 M445 by 0.8%. In contrast, the i5-11400F's average score of 17181 places it statistically tied with the AMD Ryzen 7 5700U (deltaPct 0), 0.2% behind the Intel Core i7-1260P, and 0.2% ahead of the Intel Core i5-1240U.

The disparity between component tiers explains why the system's actual gaming performance lags what the CPU alone might suggest. In Doom, the i5-11400F demonstrates strong computational headroom — its Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 14372 and single-core score of 2029 are robust for a 14nm part — but the GTX 1050 Ti's 768 shading units and 2.138 TFLOPS FP32 throughput cap frame delivery. The data shows that at 1080p Ultra, the combo achieves 46.6 FPS, which is 38% below the 75.1 FPS seen at 1080p Low, indicating the rendering workload scales with settings rather than being CPU-bound. This GPU-limited profile is consistent with the card's 30th percentile ranking, which places it in the same performance tier as mobile and entry-level desktop parts.

FAQ

Q: Is the Intel Core i5-11400F strong enough for Doom, or does the GPU hold the system back?

A: The CPU is not the limiting factor. The i5-11400F scores in the 75th percentile of all CPUs with a Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 14372, while the GTX 1050 Ti sits in the 30th percentile of GPUs. The frame rate spread across settings — 75.1 FPS at 1080p Low versus 46.6 FPS at 1080p Ultra — shows the GPU governs performance.

Q: How does this combo compare to other GTX 1050 Ti systems?

A: The GPU's nearest rivals are all within 0.8% of its average score: the GeForce 930A (deltaPct 0), GeForce 940M (0.4% slower), Radeon R7 240 (0.7% slower), and Radeon R7 M445 (0.8% faster). This indicates the combo's performance is representative of the GPU's class.

Q: Can this system handle 4K in Doom?

A: No. At 3840x2160, the best result is 27 FPS on Low settings, dropping to 15.2 FPS on Ultra. These figures fall below the 30 FPS threshold for acceptable playability, even on the lowest preset.

Q: What is the best resolution for this combo?

A: 1920x1080 is the only resolution where the system consistently exceeds 45 FPS, with Low achieving 75.1 FPS, Medium 62.8 FPS, and High 55.3 FPS. At 2560x1440, only Low (45.5 FPS) crosses the 45 FPS mark.

Q: How does the CPU's multi-threaded performance compare to its rivals?

A: The i5-11400F's average score of 17181 is virtually identical to the Ryzen 7 5700U (17189), 0.2% lower than the Core i7-1260P (17212), and 0.2% higher than the Core i5-1240U (17141). Its 12 threads provide ample headroom for Doom's engine.

Q: Does the system perform better at Low or Medium settings at 1080p?

A: Low yields 75.1 FPS, which is 19.6% higher than Medium's 62.8 FPS. The 12.3 FPS gap suggests the GPU is sensitive to texture and shading complexity, making Low the safer choice for high-refresh displays.

Resolution Scaling

The frame rate degradation from 1080p to 4K follows a predictable GPU-bound curve, but the magnitude varies by settings preset. At Low settings, the drop from 75.1 FPS (1080p) to 45.5 FPS (1440p) represents a 39.4% reduction, further falling to 27 FPS at 4K — a 64% total loss from 1080p. At High settings, the decline is steeper: 55.3 FPS at 1080p becomes 34.9 FPS at 1440p (−36.9%) and 21.8 FPS at 4K (−60.6%). The Ultra preset shows the most severe scaling, collapsing from 46.6 FPS at 1080p to 28.1 FPS at 1440p (−39.7%) and 15.2 FPS at 4K (−67.4%).

These scaling patterns indicate the GTX 1050 Ti's 128-bit memory bus and 112.1 GB/s bandwidth are the primary constraints. The 4K Ultra result of 15.2 FPS is 67.4% lower than 1080p Ultra, while 4K Low's 27 FPS is only 64% lower than 1080p Low — a modest difference that confirms the GPU's pixel throughput rather than CPU logic is the limiting factor. The i5-11400F's 51.2 GB/s memory bandwidth and 12 MB L3 cache provide sufficient data feeding, as evidenced by the consistent frame rate gaps across presets. If the CPU were the bottleneck, the scaling would show diminishing returns at lower resolutions, but instead the drop from 1080p to 1440p remains steep across all settings, reinforcing the GPU-bound diagnosis.

Measured FPS Breakdown

At 1920x1080, the system delivers a usable range: Low averages 75.1 FPS, Medium 62.8 FPS, High 55.3 FPS, and Ultra 46.6 FPS. The spread between Low and Ultra is 28.5 FPS, with each step up in settings costing roughly 9-10 FPS. This resolution is the only one where Ultra exceeds 45 FPS, making it the viable choice for quality-conscious users.

Moving to 2560x1440, performance drops sharply: Low averages 45.5 FPS, Medium 43.8 FPS, High 34.9 FPS, and Ultra 28.1 FPS. The gap between Low and Medium narrows to just 1.7 FPS, suggesting the GPU struggles with the added pixel count regardless of settings. High and Ultra fall below the 35 FPS mark, rendering them marginal for smooth gameplay.

At 3840x2160, all presets become impractical: Low averages 27 FPS, Medium 24.6 FPS, High 21.8 FPS, and Ultra 15.2 FPS. The difference between Medium and High is only 2.8 FPS, while Ultra takes a severe 9.4 FPS hit below Medium. None of these figures reach the 30 FPS minimum for comfortable play, confirming 4K is outside this combo's capability envelope.

The data shows a consistent pattern: at every resolution, Low delivers 18-24% more FPS than Medium, and Medium outperforms High by 11-13%. Ultra always sits 16-20% below High. This consistent ordering indicates the GPU's 4 GB GDDR5 memory and 768 shading units handle each preset tier predictably, with no anomalous spikes or collapses.

Settings Recommendations

For 1080p gaming, the measured data supports Medium as the optimal preset. It delivers 62.8 FPS, which is 13.3% below Low's 75.1 FPS but 13.5% above High's 55.3 FPS, offering a balanced trade-off between visual fidelity and frame rate. Users prioritizing smoothness should choose Low for its 75.1 FPS, while those accepting lower frame rates can use High at 55.3 FPS — still above the 50 FPS threshold for responsive play. Ultra at 46.6 FPS is borderline; it works for slower-paced segments but risks noticeable stutter in combat.

At 2560x1440, only Low (45.5 FPS) and Medium (43.8 FPS) remain playable, with the former being the clear choice. The 1.7 FPS difference between them does not justify the visual upgrade, so Low is recommended for consistent performance. High (34.9 FPS) and Ultra (28.1 FPS) fall below the 35 FPS comfort zone and should be avoided.

For 3840x2160, the data suggests no preset is viable. Even Low's 27 FPS falls short of the 30 FPS minimum, and Ultra's 15.2 FPS is effectively unplayable. Users should either reduce resolution to 1440p or lower, or accept that 4K requires a hardware upgrade. The 4K results also reveal the GPU's 4 GB memory capacity is insufficient for high-detail textures at this resolution, as evidenced by the 61% drop from Low to Ultra.

The best overall experience per the measured rows is 1080p Medium, which balances the 62.8 FPS average with reasonable visual quality. This configuration maximizes the GTX 1050 Ti's capabilities while leaving the i5-11400F with ample headroom for frame pacing. For competitive play, 1080p Low's 75.1 FPS provides the highest frame rate available, though it sacrifices texture detail and effects. The system's ranking of 1651 out of 1681 is a direct reflection of this GPU-bound reality, and users should calibrate expectations accordingly.