Doom

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

The Intel Core i5-13400F is a 10-core, 16-thread desktop processor from the Raptor Lake generation, with a base clock of 2.50 GHz and a boost clock of 4.60 GHz. Its cache hierarchy includes 80 KB of L1 per core, 1.25 MB of L2 per core, and 20 MB of shared L3 cache. The chip carries a 65 W TDP and supports both DDR4 and DDR5 memory through a dual-channel memory bus.

In synthetic benchmarks, this CPU posts a Cinebench R23 multicore score of 21279 and a single-core score of 3004. The Geekbench results show 10971 multicore and 2301 single-core. These numbers place the i5-13400F in the 82nd percentile against all CPUs, with an average benchmark score of 25236. Its nearest rivals in aggregate score include the Intel Core i7-13620H at 25201 (0.1% faster), the AMD Ryzen 5 5600X3D at 25365 (0.5% slower), and the AMD EPYC 9474F at 25103 (0.5% faster). This indicates the chip sits in a tightly contested performance band where fractional percentage differences separate it from competitors.

For Doom, the CPU's role is primarily about maintaining high frame pacing. At 1080p Low settings, the system reaches 296.7 FPS average. The 3DMark single-thread score of 960 and the PassMark single-thread score of 3634 suggest strong per-core performance, which matters for a game engine that often relies on one or two heavily loaded threads. The 16 threads provide ample headroom for background tasks and engine overhead, but the data shows that even at the lowest settings, the frame rate does not exceed 300 FPS, indicating that the CPU's boost clock and single-thread efficiency are the limiting factors at this extreme.

The 3DMark 16-thread score of 7314 versus the 2-thread score of 1880 shows excellent scaling, but Doom's engine does not appear to demand all 16 threads simultaneously. The 20 MB of L3 cache is beneficial for keeping frequently accessed game data on-chip, reducing latency. The chip's 82nd percentile ranking versus all CPUs means it outperforms the majority of processors in the database, yet its position relative to the Ryzen 5 5600X3D (a 0.5% aggregate difference) suggests that in CPU-bound scenarios, this chip is competitive but not decisively ahead.

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

The AMD Radeon RX 9070 is built on the RDNA 4.0 architecture using TSMC's 4 nm process, featuring the Navi 48 chip with 53,900 million transistors on a 357 mm² die. It operates with a base clock of 1330 MHz, a boost clock of 2520 MHz, and a game clock of 2070 MHz. The memory subsystem consists of 16 GB of GDDR6 on a 256-bit bus, delivering 644.6 GB/s of bandwidth with a memory clock of 2518 MHz (20.1 Gbps effective).

The GPU's compute resources include 3584 shading units, 224 texture mapping units, and 128 raster operation pipelines, along with 56 ray tracing cores. Its peak pixel rate is 322.6 GPixel/s and texture rate is 564.5 GTexel/s, with FP32 performance rated at 36.13 TFLOPS. The card carries a 220 W TDP and requires a 550 W suggested PSU.

In synthetic benchmarks, the RX 9070 scores 25381 in PassMark G3D and 14737 in GPU compute. Its 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 score is 6290, while Geekbench OpenCL and Vulkan scores are 133741 and 165532, respectively. The GPU sits in the 79th percentile against all GPUs, with an average benchmark score of 34780. Its nearest rivals include the NVIDIA A2 at 34866 (0.2% faster), the NVIDIA Quadro GV100 at 34677 (0.3% slower), and the AMD Radeon HD 7970 at 34541 (0.7% slower).

For Doom, the 16 GB VRAM is more than sufficient at all tested resolutions and settings. The game's maximum VRAM usage at 4K Ultra is not explicitly listed in the data, but the fact that the card maintains playable frame rates at 4K across all settings indicates no memory capacity bottleneck. The 644.6 GB/s bandwidth becomes relevant at higher resolutions where texture streaming demands increase.

The boost clock of 2520 MHz is the key differentiator. At 4K Ultra, the system averages 63.2 FPS, which is a substantial drop from 1080p Ultra's 176.2 FPS. This scaling pattern — a 64% reduction in frame rate from 1080p to 4K at Ultra settings — points to the GPU being the primary constraint at higher resolutions. The GPU's 79th percentile ranking versus all GPUs shows it outperforms most cards in the database, but its nearest rivals are all within 0.8% in aggregate score, indicating a crowded performance tier.

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

The measured FPS data reveals a clear scaling pattern across resolutions. At Low settings, the system runs 296.7 FPS at 1080p, 195 FPS at 1440p, and 107.1 FPS at 4K. This represents a 34% drop from 1080p to 1440p, followed by a 45% drop from 1440p to 4K. The total reduction from 1080p to 4K at Low settings is 64%.

At Medium settings, the progression is 260.2 FPS (1080p), 167.8 FPS (1440p), and 87.4 FPS (4K). The percentage drops are 36% and 48% respectively. High settings show 219.8 FPS at 1080p, 142.3 FPS at 1440p, and 79.1 FPS at 4K — drops of 35% and 44%. Ultra settings exhibit the steepest curve: 176.2 FPS at 1080p, 113 FPS at 1440p, and 63.2 FPS at 4K, with drops of 36% and 44%.

The consistency of these percentage drops across settings — roughly 35% from 1080p to 1440p and 45% from 1440p to 4K — suggests that the resolution scaling is driven by the GPU's pixel throughput capabilities. The pixel rate of 322.6 GPixel/s and the FP32 performance of 36.13 TFLOPS determine how quickly the GPU can process the increasing pixel count.

However, the gap between Low and Ultra settings at each resolution is telling. At 1080p, the difference between Low (296.7 FPS) and Ultra (176.2 FPS) is 120.5 FPS, a 41% reduction. At 4K, the same comparison yields a 43.9 FPS difference, a 41% reduction. This consistency implies that the GPU is the limiting factor across all settings, not the CPU. If the CPU were the bottleneck, we would expect the gap between settings to shrink at lower resolutions as the GPU becomes less stressed.

The data indicates that at 1080p Low, the system approaches but does not exceed 300 FPS, suggesting the CPU or engine physics limit is near this threshold. The 3DMark 2-thread score of 1880 and single-thread score of 960 support the idea that a single core's performance caps the absolute maximum frame rate.

FAQ

Q: What is the highest average FPS this combo achieves in Doom?

A: The highest measured average is 296.7 FPS at 1920x1080 with Low settings.

Q: How does the RX 9070 compare to its nearest rival, the NVIDIA A2?

A: The RX 9070 has an average benchmark score of 34780, while the NVIDIA A2 scores 34866. The RX 9070 trails by 0.2% in aggregate GPU benchmarks.

Q: Is the i5-13400F faster or slower than the AMD Ryzen 5 5600X3D?

A: The i5-13400F has an average score of 25236, while the Ryzen 5 5600X3D scores 25365. The i5-13400F is 0.5% slower in aggregate CPU benchmarks.

Q: What is the frame rate difference between 1080p and 4K at High settings?

A: At 1080p High, the system averages 219.8 FPS. At 4K High, it averages 79.1 FPS. This represents a 64% reduction in frame rate.

Q: Does the GPU have enough VRAM for Doom at 4K Ultra?

A: The RX 9070 has 16 GB of GDDR6 memory. The measured data shows playable frame rates of 63.2 FPS at 4K Ultra, indicating no memory capacity bottleneck.

Q: What percentile does this CPU rank in versus all CPUs?

A: The Intel Core i5-13400F ranks in the 82nd percentile against all CPUs in the database.

Measured FPS Breakdown

The measured FPS data covers four settings presets (Low, Medium, High, Ultra) across three resolutions. All values are average FPS with no minimum or maximum frame data available.

At 1920x1080, the system delivers 296.7 FPS on Low, 260.2 FPS on Medium, 219.8 FPS on High, and 176.2 FPS on Ultra. The spread from Low to Ultra is 120.5 FPS, with each step up in settings costing between 40.4 FPS (Low to Medium) and 43.6 FPS (High to Ultra).

At 2560x1440, the results are 195 FPS on Low, 167.8 FPS on Medium, 142.3 FPS on High, and 113 FPS on Ultra. The spread narrows to 82 FPS. The step from Medium to High costs 25.5 FPS, while High to Ultra costs 29.3 FPS.

At 3840x2160, the system achieves 107.1 FPS on Low, 87.4 FPS on Medium, 79.1 FPS on High, and 63.2 FPS on Ultra. The total spread is 43.9 FPS. The smallest step is from Medium to High at 8.3 FPS, while the largest is from High to Ultra at 15.9 FPS.

The data reveals that at 4K, the performance penalty for each settings increase becomes proportionally larger relative to the total frame rate. At 4K Low, the system is 41% faster than at 4K Ultra. At 1080p, the same comparison shows a 41% difference, indicating consistent relative scaling.

The combination ranks 541st out of 1681 combos in this game's database, placing it in the upper third of all tested configurations.

Settings Recommendations

For players targeting 60 FPS as a minimum threshold, all settings presets at all resolutions meet this criterion. The lowest measured average is 63.2 FPS at 4K Ultra, which remains above 60 FPS.

For 4K displays, the High preset at 79.1 FPS offers the best balance. Ultra provides 63.2 FPS, which is playable but leaves less headroom for demanding scenes. The difference between High and Ultra at 4K is 15.9 FPS — a 20% reduction for the visual upgrade. Medium at 87.4 FPS is also viable if the user prioritizes frame rate over visual fidelity.

At 1440p, High delivers 142.3 FPS, which exceeds the refresh rate of most 144 Hz monitors. Ultra at 113 FPS remains above 100 FPS and is the recommended choice for users with high-refresh displays who want maximum visual quality. Medium at 167.8 FPS and Low at 195 FPS are only necessary for competitive play where every frame matters.

At 1080p, all settings exceed 170 FPS. Ultra at 176.2 FPS is sufficient for 144 Hz displays, while Low at 296.7 FPS approaches the practical limit of the CPU. For esports-style play, Low or Medium is recommended, but for general use, Ultra provides the best visual experience without dropping below 144 Hz.

The data suggests that the High preset is the sweet spot across all resolutions. At 4K it maintains 79.1 FPS, at 1440p it reaches 142.3 FPS, and at 1080p it hits 219.8 FPS. The step from High to Ultra costs 16-21% of frame rate at every resolution, which is a significant trade-off for incremental visual improvements. Given that the system ranks in the 541st position out of 1681 combos, these frame rates are respectable but not top-tier, so preserving frame rate headroom is advisable.