Doom

# FAQ

Q: What is the combo rank of the Intel Core Ultra 5 135H paired with the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5050 in Doom?

A: This combination ranks 2974th out of 3712 tested combos in Doom, placing it in the lower portion of the database. The rank reflects the measured average FPS across all resolution and settings combinations tested.

Q: Does the RTX 5050 outperform its nearest GPU rivals in synthetic benchmarks?

A: The RTX 5050’s average benchmark score is 21035, which is 1.6% ahead of the AMD Radeon RX 5600 XT (score 20713) but 0.6% behind the AMD Radeon RX Vega M GL (score 21153) and 1% behind the AMD Radeon HD 8970M (score 21237). It also trails the NVIDIA RTX A4000 Mobile (score 21379) by 1.6%.

Q: What is the RTX 5050’s video memory configuration?

A: The GPU comes with 8 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 128-bit bus, providing 320.0 GB/s of bandwidth. The memory clock is 2500 MHz, effective at 20 Gbps.

Q: What are the core and thread counts of the Intel Core Ultra 5 135H?

A: The CPU has 14 cores and 18 threads, with a base clock of 3.60 GHz and a boost clock of 4.60 GHz. Its L3 cache is 18 MB shared, with 2 MB L2 per core and 112 KB L1 per core.

Q: How does the CPU’s average benchmark score compare to its nearest rivals?

A: The Core Ultra 5 135H scores 29093 on average, which is 0.1% below the AMD Ryzen 7 5800X (score 29123) and 0.5% below the Intel Xeon Phi 7210 (score 29245). It is 0.5% above the AMD Ryzen 5 5600XT (score 28940) and 0.6% below the Intel Core i5-13500HX (score 29270).

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

A: The highest average FPS is 167, achieved at 1920x1080 with Low settings. The lowest average FPS is 35, recorded at 3840x2160 with Ultra settings.

GPU Role

The NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5050 serves as the primary rendering engine in this combo, and its specifications directly shape the measured FPS results. The GPU operates with a base clock of 2317 MHz and a boost clock of 2572 MHz, built on the Blackwell 2.0 architecture with the GB207 chip. Its 2560 shading units, 80 texture mapping units, and 32 raster output pipelines determine how efficiently it processes the visual data in Doom’s fast-paced scenes.

The 8 GB GDDR6 memory, paired with a 128-bit bus and 320.0 GB/s bandwidth, provides the data throughput necessary for texture streaming and frame buffer operations. At 3840x2160, the memory subsystem appears to become a limiting factor, as the average FPS drops to 43 at High settings and 35 at Ultra. The 20 RT cores and 80 tensor cores are present, though Doom’s traditional rasterization workload relies more heavily on the shading units and memory bandwidth than on ray tracing acceleration.

The GPU’s synthetic benchmark results place it in the 66th percentile of all GPUs, with a passmark G3D score of 17326 and a Geekbench Vulkan score of 89381. Its 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 score of 2502 indicates moderate DirectX 12 performance. When compared to its nearest rivals, the RTX 5050 sits within a narrow performance band: it is 1.6% faster than the RX 5600 XT but 1.6% slower than the RTX A4000 Mobile. This tight grouping suggests that the GPU’s real-world gaming performance will be sensitive to specific game optimizations and driver support.

The measured FPS data shows that the GPU’s 130 W TDP and PCIe 5.0 x8 interface are adequate for delivering 167 FPS at 1080p Low, but the frame rate drops precipitously as resolution increases. At 4K Ultra, the 35 FPS average indicates that the GPU is thoroughly saturated, with the 8 GB memory capacity and 320.0 GB/s bandwidth unable to keep pace with the demands of high-resolution textures and effects.

How This Combo Ranks

The Intel Core Ultra 5 135H with the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5050 achieves a rank of 2974 out of 3712 tested combinations in Doom. This places the combo in the bottom 20% of all tested configurations, indicating that while it can run the game, it does so at performance levels that are significantly below the median. The rank is derived from measured average FPS across all twelve resolution and settings combinations listed in the data.

The combo’s position in the rankings reflects a fundamental imbalance: the CPU is a mobile processor with an 81st percentile ranking among all CPUs (avg score 29093), while the GPU sits at the 66th percentile among all GPUs (avg score 21035). In Doom, a game that emphasizes high frame rates and responsive gameplay, the GPU’s relatively lower standing compared to the CPU suggests that the graphics card is the primary constraint on performance.

Relative to other combos in the database, this pairing is closer to the bottom than the top. The 2974th rank out of 3712 means that 738 combos perform worse, but a substantial majority of 2973 combos perform better. This is consistent with the GPU’s modest benchmark scores and the mobile CPU’s thermal constraints, which together limit the system’s ability to push high frame rates at demanding settings.

The data shows that the combo’s best case scenario is at 1080p Low, where it achieves 167 FPS, but even this is not exceptional when considering that many desktop-oriented combos exceed 200 FPS in Doom at similar settings. The ranking reflects a system that is adequate for casual play but not competitive for high-refresh-rate monitors or enthusiast-level performance.

Measured FPS Breakdown

At 1920x1080, the combo delivers its strongest results. Low settings produce an average of 167 FPS, Medium settings yield 146 FPS with a minimum of 124 and maximum of 168, High settings reach 123 FPS, and Ultra settings drop to 101 FPS. The progression from Low to Ultra represents a 39.5% reduction in average FPS, from 167 to 101.

Moving to 2560x1440, the performance scales down noticeably. Low settings average 108 FPS, Medium averages 94 FPS with a range of 80 to 108, High averages 80 FPS, and Ultra averages 65 FPS. The drop from 1080p Low to 1440p Low is 35.3%, and the drop from 1080p Ultra to 1440p Ultra is 35.6%, indicating a consistent resolution penalty across settings.

At 3840x2160, the combo struggles. Low settings average 59 FPS, Medium averages 51 FPS with a range of 43 to 59, High averages 43 FPS, and Ultra averages 35 FPS. The 4K Low result is barely playable, and 4K Ultra falls below the threshold for smooth gameplay. The gap between 1440p Ultra (65 FPS) and 4K Ultra (35 FPS) is a 46.2% reduction, highlighting the GPU’s inability to sustain high frame rates at 4K.

The data reveals that Medium settings at 1440p (94 FPS) are comparable to High settings at 1080p (123 FPS), suggesting that users can trade resolution for quality or vice versa. The minimum FPS values, where available, show that Medium settings maintain reasonable frame pacing at all resolutions, with the 1080p minimum of 124 FPS still exceeding the 1440p average for High settings.

Resolution Scaling

The measured FPS data shows a clear pattern of resolution scaling that reveals the GPU as the primary bottleneck. From 1080p to 1440p, the average FPS drops by approximately 35% across all settings: Low goes from 167 to 108, Medium from 146 to 94, High from 123 to 80, and Ultra from 101 to 65. This consistent reduction indicates that the GPU’s rendering throughput scales predictably with pixel count.

From 1440p to 4K, the drop becomes more severe. Low goes from 108 to 59, a 45.4% decrease. Medium goes from 94 to 51, a 45.7% decrease. High goes from 80 to 43, a 46.3% decrease. Ultra goes from 65 to 35, a 46.2% decrease. The steeper decline at higher resolutions suggests that the GPU is hitting memory bandwidth limits, as the 320.0 GB/s bandwidth and 8 GB capacity become increasingly strained.

The scaling behavior indicates that the limiting component is the GPU, not the CPU. The CPU’s 14 cores and 18 threads, with a boost clock of 4.60 GHz, are more than capable of feeding frames at 1080p, where the combo achieves 167 FPS. If the CPU were the bottleneck, we would expect the FPS to remain relatively flat across resolutions, but instead we see a nearly linear decline with pixel count.

The data suggests that at 1080p, the system is partially CPU-limited at Low settings, as the 167 FPS is below what the GPU could theoretically deliver based on its benchmark scores. However, at higher resolutions, the GPU becomes the clear constraint, with 4K Ultra delivering only 35 FPS. For users targeting 60 FPS, the combo can achieve this at 1080p Ultra (101 FPS), 1440p Low (108 FPS), or 4K Low (59 FPS, just below 60).

CPU Role

The Intel Core Ultra 5 135H is a mobile processor with 14 cores and 18 threads, based on the Meteor Lake architecture. Its base clock of 3.60 GHz and boost clock of 4.60 GHz provide sufficient single-thread performance for game logic and draw call processing. The 18 MB shared L3 cache and 2 MB L2 per core help reduce memory latency, which is beneficial for maintaining consistent frame times.

In Doom, the CPU’s role is to feed the GPU with rendered frames. The benchmark data shows that at 1080p Low, the combo achieves 167 FPS, which is a strong result that suggests the CPU is not the primary bottleneck at this resolution. The CPU’s Cinebench R23 scores of 11875.5 multi-core and 1700 single-core, along with a Passmark single-thread score of 3521, indicate solid performance for a mobile chip.

However, the CPU’s 28 W TDP and Intel BGA 2049 socket are designed for mobile form factors, which may limit sustained performance under load. The CPU’s percentile ranking of 81st among all CPUs suggests it is above average, but its nearest rivals include desktop processors like the AMD Ryzen 7 5800X (avg score 29123, delta -0.1%) and the Intel Core i5-13500HX (avg score 29270, delta -0.6%). This indicates that the 135H is competitive with mid-range desktop CPUs from previous generations.

The CPU’s 89.6 GB/s memory bandwidth is modest compared to the GPU’s 320.0 GB/s, but this is not a bottleneck in Doom because the game’s CPU workload is primarily single-threaded. The 18 threads provide headroom for background tasks, but the game’s performance is more dependent on the GPU’s ability to render frames quickly. The data shows that as resolution increases, the FPS drops consistently, confirming that the CPU is not the limiting factor at higher resolutions.

Settings Recommendations

Based on the measured FPS data, the optimal settings depend on the user’s target resolution and frame rate preference. At 1920x1080, all settings are playable, but the best balance of visual quality and performance is achieved at High settings, which deliver 123 FPS. This provides a 46% improvement over Ultra (101 FPS) while still maintaining high visual fidelity. For users with 144 Hz monitors, Medium settings at 146 FPS are the better choice, as they exceed the refresh rate while offering slightly reduced quality.

At 2560x1440, the recommendation shifts to Medium settings, which average 94 FPS and stay above 80 FPS at minimum. High settings at 80 FPS are playable but may feel less smooth on high-refresh-rate displays. Low settings at 108 FPS provide the highest frame rate but sacrifice visual quality. Ultra at 65 FPS is the borderline for 60 Hz monitors but will not deliver a smooth experience on 120 Hz displays.

At 3840x2160, the combo cannot maintain 60 FPS at any setting. Low settings average 59 FPS, which is just below the 60 FPS threshold, and Medium averages 51 FPS. High and Ultra drop to 43 and 35 FPS, respectively. For 4K gaming, users should accept Low settings for the closest-to-60 FPS experience, but they should be prepared for occasional dips. Alternatively, users should consider lowering the resolution to 1440p for a significantly better experience.

The data shows that Medium settings provide the most consistent frame pacing across all resolutions, with minimum FPS values of 124 at 1080p, 80 at 1440p, and 43 at 4K. This setting offers a balanced experience for users who prioritize steady performance over maximum visual quality. For users with adaptive sync displays, High settings at 1440p (80 FPS) or 1080p (123 FPS) may be preferable for the improved image quality, as frame rate fluctuations will be less noticeable.