Doom

The Intel Core i7-12700KF paired with the AMD Radeon RX 6650 XT delivers a solid 1080p and 1440p experience in Doom, though 4K gaming requires compromises. This combination sits in the 65th percentile of all tested combos for this title, indicating it outperforms a majority of systems while remaining accessible for high-refresh-rate play at lower resolutions. The data shows a clear pattern: this is a GPU-limited pairing at higher resolutions, but the CPU has ample headroom to push frames at 1080p.

Resolution Scaling

The measured FPS figures reveal how performance scales as resolution increases, and the pattern is consistent with a GPU-bound scenario. At 1080p with Low settings, the combo achieves 200 FPS. Moving to 1440p Low drops this to 129 FPS, a reduction of approximately 35.5%. At 4K Low, the average falls to 70 FPS, which is another 45.7% drop from 1440p. This steep decline between 1440p and 4K indicates the RX 6650 XT's 8 GB GDDR6 memory and 128-bit bus become the limiting factor as pixel count quadruples.

The scaling from 1080p to 1440p at High settings shows a similar trend: 147 FPS at 1080p drops to 95 FPS at 1440p, a 35.4% decrease. At 4K High, the average is 51 FPS, which is 46.3% lower than 1440p. These consistent percentage drops across settings suggest the GPU is the bottleneck throughout, as the CPU's performance headroom (evidenced by its 85th percentile ranking among all CPUs) is not being fully utilized at higher resolutions.

At Ultra settings, the scaling becomes even more pronounced. The system manages 120 FPS at 1080p, 78 FPS at 1440p, and only 42 FPS at 4K. The 4K Ultra result is particularly telling—it falls below the 60 FPS threshold that most players consider the minimum for smooth gameplay, and the gap between 1440p and 4K Ultra (46.2% reduction) mirrors the pattern seen in other settings. This indicates that the RX 6650 XT, with its 2048 shading units and 64 ROPs, simply cannot sustain playable frame rates at 4K with maximum visual fidelity.

The Medium settings row provides additional insight, as it includes min and max FPS data. At 4K Medium, the average is 61 FPS with a minimum of 52 FPS and maximum of 70 FPS. The 18 FPS spread between min and max suggests some scene-dependent variability, but the minimum stays above 50 FPS, which is acceptable for most players. At 1440p Medium, the average is 113 FPS with a min of 96 and max of 129, while 1080p Medium averages 174 FPS with a min of 148 and max of 200. The tighter range at lower resolutions (52 FPS spread at 1080p versus 18 FPS at 4K) indicates that at 4K, the GPU is consistently near its limits, while at 1080p, there is more headroom for occasional spikes.

Settings Recommendations

Based on the measured FPS rows, the optimal settings depend heavily on the target resolution and refresh rate. For 1080p gaming, the data supports using Ultra settings, as the 120 FPS average comfortably exceeds the 60 FPS baseline and remains well above the 100 FPS mark that many competitive players prefer. The 147 FPS at High settings offers additional headroom for high-refresh-rate monitors, but the visual fidelity gain from Ultra is worthwhile given the performance surplus.

At 1440p, High settings provide the best balance, with a 95 FPS average that stays smooth on most displays. The 78 FPS Ultra result is playable but leaves less margin for demanding scenes, while the 113 FPS Medium setting sacrifices visual quality for minimal practical benefit. The 129 FPS Low setting at 1440p is unnecessary unless targeting a 120Hz or higher refresh rate, but the data suggests High is the sweet spot for visual quality without compromising fluidity.

For 4K, the situation is more constrained. The 70 FPS Low average is the only setting that reliably exceeds 60 FPS, while High (51 FPS), Medium (61 FPS), and Ultra (42 FPS) all fall short of that target. The Medium setting's 61 FPS average with a 52 FPS minimum is borderline—it works for slower-paced gameplay but may stutter in intense combat sequences. The data strongly recommends Low settings at 4K for consistent performance, or alternatively, dropping to 1440p with High settings (95 FPS) for a much better experience overall. The 42 FPS Ultra result at 4K is best avoided entirely.

FAQ

Q: Can this combo run Doom at 4K with playable frame rates?

A: Yes, but only at Low settings, which produce a 70 FPS average. Medium settings yield 61 FPS, but the 52 FPS minimum indicates occasional drops below 60 FPS. High and Ultra settings at 4K average 51 and 42 FPS respectively, which are not ideal for fast-paced gameplay.

Q: What is the best settings preset for 1440p gaming?

A: High settings provide the best experience, with a 95 FPS average. Ultra drops to 78 FPS, while Medium and Low offer 113 and 129 FPS respectively. The High preset balances visual quality with a comfortable frame rate margin.

Q: How does the RX 6650 XT's memory configuration affect Doom performance?

A: The GPU has 8 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 128-bit bus with 280.3 GB/s bandwidth. The significant FPS drops between 1440p and 4K (approximately 45-46% across all settings) suggest that memory bandwidth becomes a limiting factor at higher resolutions, even though the game is from 2016 and not particularly VRAM-hungry.

Q: Is the i7-12700KF holding back the GPU in this game?

A: The data does not indicate CPU bottlenecking. The CPU scores in the 85th percentile of all processors, and the consistent FPS scaling across resolutions suggests the GPU is the limiting component. At 1080p Low, the 200 FPS result shows the CPU can feed the GPU effectively at high frame rates.

Q: What frame rate can I expect at 1080p with Ultra settings?

A: The measured average is 120 FPS. This is well above the 60 FPS baseline and suitable for most high-refresh-rate monitors, though players with 144Hz displays might prefer High settings (147 FPS) or Low settings (200 FPS) for maximum smoothness.

Q: How does the combo's performance compare to other tested systems?

A: This combo ranks 2418 out of 3712 tested combinations for Doom, placing it in the upper third of all systems. The GPU itself is in the 65th percentile among all GPUs, while the CPU is in the 85th percentile, indicating the GPU is the weaker link in this pairing.

How This Combo Ranks

The combo ranks 2418 out of 3712 tested combinations for Doom, which places it in the 65th percentile of all systems evaluated. This is a respectable position, though it reflects the GPU's mid-range standing rather than the CPU's high-end capabilities. The RX 6650 XT's 65th percentile ranking among all GPUs aligns closely with the combo's overall rank, confirming that the graphics card is the primary determinant of Doom performance in this pairing.

Examining the GPU's nearest rivals provides context for its performance tier. The AMD FirePro W7000 scores 19905 in average benchmarks, which is 0.7% higher than the RX 6650 XT's 19765. The NVIDIA Tesla K40m trails by 0.6% at 19885, while the AMD FirePro D300 scores 19637 (0.7% lower) and the NVIDIA Quadro K5200 scores 19602 (0.8% lower). These professional workstation cards bracket the RX 6650 XT's performance, though they lack the gaming-oriented features like DirectX 12 Ultimate support that Doom can utilize.

The CPU's ranking is notably stronger. The i7-12700KF sits in the 85th percentile of all CPUs, with an average benchmark score of 35365. Its nearest rivals include the Intel Core i7-13700T (35403, 0.1% higher), Intel Core i5-13600T (35305, 0.2% lower), Intel Core 5 213PE (35428, 0.2% higher), and Intel Core i7-12700K (35287, 0.2% lower). This clustering indicates the 12700KF is well-matched with upper-mid-range CPUs, providing substantial processing power that exceeds what Doom requires.

The disparity between the CPU's 85th percentile and the GPU's 65th percentile explains why the combo's overall rank (65th percentile) mirrors the GPU's position. In a game like Doom, which is not particularly demanding on CPU resources, the 12700KF's capabilities are largely untapped, while the RX 6650 XT works at full capacity, especially at higher resolutions.

CPU Role

The Intel Core i7-12700KF brings 12 cores and 20 threads to the pairing, running at a base clock of 3.60 GHz and boosting to 5.00 GHz. This Alder Lake-S processor, built on Intel's 10 nm process, features a 25 MB shared L3 cache and supports both DDR4 and DDR5 memory. In benchmark tests, it scores 28838 in Cinebench R23 multicore and 4071 in single-core tests, along with 14367 in Geekbench multicore and 2255 in single-core—numbers that place it firmly in the high-performance desktop segment.

For Doom, a 2016 title, the CPU's role is primarily about maintaining high minimum frame rates and ensuring the GPU receives data without stalling. The measured FPS data indicates the 12700KF succeeds in this regard. At 1080p Low, the system achieves 200 FPS, which approaches the practical limit for many displays and demonstrates the CPU's ability to drive high frame rates when the GPU is not the bottleneck. The 147 FPS at 1080p High and 120 FPS at 1080p Ultra further confirm that even at lower resolutions, the CPU does not constrain performance.

The 3dmark benchmark results provide additional context. The processor scores 1043 in single-thread tests, 4011 in 4-thread tests, and 9983 in max-thread tests. This scaling from 2 threads (2065) to 20 threads (9983) shows strong multi-threading capabilities, though Doom's engine from 2016 primarily relies on fewer threads. The Passmark physics score of 1780 and integer math score of 113521 indicate robust computational performance, but these are not directly reflected in Doom's frame rates, which are more dependent on GPU throughput.

The CPU's 125W TDP and unlocked multiplier suggest it is designed for overclocking, though the benchmark data reflects stock settings. With PCIe Gen 4 support offering 20 lanes, the CPU can feed the GPU's PCIe 4.0 x8 interface without bandwidth constraints. The 12700KF's 85th percentile ranking among all CPUs means it outperforms the vast majority of processors, making it an unlikely bottleneck for this game or similar titles.

Measured FPS Breakdown

At 1920x1080, the combo delivers its strongest performance. Low settings produce an average of 200 FPS, while Medium achieves 174 FPS with a minimum of 148 and maximum of 200. High settings average 147 FPS, and Ultra drops to 120 FPS. All 1080p results exceed the 60 FPS threshold by a wide margin, and even the lowest average (120 FPS at Ultra) provides smooth gameplay on standard displays. The 52 FPS spread between minimum and maximum at Medium (148 to 200) indicates some variability but no problematic dips.

Moving to 2560x1440, performance remains strong but shows the expected decline. Low settings average 129 FPS, Medium averages 113 FPS with a minimum of 96 and maximum of 129, High averages 95 FPS, and Ultra averages 78 FPS. The Medium setting's 96 FPS minimum is particularly notable—it stays above 90 FPS even in demanding scenes, making 1440p gaming comfortable across all settings. The 33 FPS spread between min and max at Medium (96 to 129) is tighter than at 1080p, suggesting more consistent performance as the GPU approaches its limits.

At 3840x2160, the RX 6650 XT's limitations become apparent. Low settings average 70 FPS, Medium averages 61 FPS with a minimum of 52 and maximum of 70, High averages 51 FPS, and Ultra averages 42 FPS. The Medium setting's 18 FPS spread (52 to 70) is the narrowest of any resolution, indicating the GPU is consistently near its maximum output. The 42 FPS Ultra result is the only measured average below 50 FPS, making 4K Ultra impractical for smooth gameplay. The progression from Low (70 FPS) to Ultra (42 FPS) at 4K represents a 40% performance penalty for maximum visual settings, which is significant given the already reduced frame rates.

Across all resolutions, the pattern is consistent: Low settings provide the highest frame rates, followed by Medium, High, and Ultra in descending order. The gaps between settings widen at higher resolutions—at 1080p, the difference between Low and Ultra is 80 FPS (200 vs 120), while at 4K, it narrows to 28 FPS (70 vs 42). This narrowing suggests that at 4K, the GPU is the limiting factor regardless of settings, and reducing visual quality has diminishing returns as the pixel throughput requirement dominates.