Doom

Intel Core Ultra 7 165H pairs with the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5090 to deliver an exceptionally strong showing in Doom, a 2016 FPS that remains a demanding benchmark for modern hardware. This analysis breaks down the measured performance data, focusing on how the CPU’s core configuration influences results, which settings provide the best experience, and how this specific combination stacks up against the broader test pool.

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

The Intel Core Ultra 7 165H is a mobile processor built on the Meteor Lake architecture, featuring 16 cores and 22 threads. Its base clock is 3.80 GHz with a boost clock of 5.00 GHz. This hybrid arrangement, typical of modern Intel mobile chips, combines performance and efficiency cores to balance workload demands. For a game like Doom, which is well-optimized for multi-threading, the 22 threads ensure that background tasks and the game’s render threads have ample resources, preventing CPU bottlenecks even at high frame rates.

The processor’s benchmark scores place it in the 84th percentile of all CPUs, indicating strong general-purpose performance. Its Cinebench R23 multicore score of 14551 and single-core score of 1759 show a balanced profile. In Doom, the single-core performance is crucial for game logic and physics, while the multicore capability helps with asset streaming and AI. The data suggests this CPU is more than capable of feeding the RTX 5090, as the bottleneck in most scenarios will shift to the GPU, especially at higher resolutions.

Comparing the CPU to its nearest rivals, the data shows it sits in a tight performance cluster. It is 0.3% ahead of the Intel Core Ultra 5 338H in average benchmark score, while being 0.4% behind the AMD EPYC 4244P and AMD Ryzen AI 7 350, and 0.5% behind the AMD Ryzen 7 3700X. These sub-1% deltas are negligible in real-world gaming, meaning the 165H’s raw compute power is effectively on par with these alternatives. For Doom specifically, this means the CPU is unlikely to be the limiting factor when paired with a top-tier GPU like the RTX 5090.

The memory bandwidth of 89.6 GB/s, combined with 24 MB of shared L3 cache, provides sufficient data throughput for the game’s textures and geometry. The processor’s 28W TDP is a mobile-focused figure, but the benchmark results indicate it sustains high clocks under load. The RTX 5090’s massive 32 GB GDDR7 memory and 1.79 TB/s bandwidth dwarf the CPU’s memory subsystem, reinforcing that the GPU is the primary driver of frame rates in this pairing.

Settings Recommendations — which preset gives the best experience per the measured rows

The measured FPS data provides clear guidance on the optimal settings preset for different priorities. For the smoothest experience at maximum visual quality, the Ultra preset is viable but demanding. At 1920x1080, Ultra yields an average of 198 FPS, which is excellent for high-refresh-rate monitors. However, at 2560x1440, the average drops to 128 FPS, and at 3840x2160, it falls to 70 FPS. While 70 FPS is playable, it may not feel as fluid as the lower settings.

The Medium preset offers a compelling balance between visual fidelity and performance. At 1080p, it delivers 287 FPS average, with a minimum of 244 FPS and a maximum of 331 FPS. This consistency is ideal for competitive play. Moving to 1440p, the Medium preset still maintains a high 186 FPS average, with a minimum of 158 FPS. At 4K, it drops to 101 FPS average, with a minimum of 86 FPS, which remains well within the range for smooth gameplay on most displays.

For maximum frame rates, the Low preset is the clear winner. It produces 330 FPS at 1080p, 214 FPS at 1440p, and 116 FPS at 4K. This setting is best for esports-style play where every millisecond counts, but it sacrifices visual detail. The High preset sits between Low and Medium. It offers 243 FPS at 1080p, 157 FPS at 1440p, and 85 FPS at 4K.

Given the data, the Medium preset is recommended for most users. It provides a substantial performance headroom over Ultra while retaining enough visual quality to appreciate Doom’s aesthetic. The minimum FPS figures for Medium are also the only ones recorded for all resolutions, showing a stable frame pacing. For 4K users, Medium is the sweet spot, as the 101 FPS average is significantly better than Ultra’s 70 FPS, and the visual difference between Medium and Ultra is often less impactful than the 44% performance gain.

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

Analyzing the FPS drop across resolutions reveals a classic GPU-bound scenario. Moving from 1920x1080 to 2560x1440 on the Medium preset, the average FPS drops from 287 to 186, a reduction of 35%. When moving from 1440p to 3840x2160, the average further drops to 101 FPS, a 46% reduction from the 1440p figure. These substantial drops indicate that the rendering load is scaling heavily with pixel count, which is the primary function of the GPU.

The Low preset shows a similar trend: 330 FPS at 1080p, 214 FPS at 1440p (a 35% drop), and 116 FPS at 4K (a 46% drop from 1440p). The consistency of these percentage drops across different settings is a strong indicator that the RTX 5090 is the limiting component. The CPU is capable of maintaining high frame rates, but as the resolution increases, the GPU’s rendering workload becomes the constraining factor.

If the CPU were the bottleneck, we would expect to see smaller FPS differences between 1080p and 1440p, as the CPU’s workload stays relatively constant while the GPU’s increases. Instead, the data shows a proportional decline in FPS with each resolution step, which is the signature of a GPU-bound system. The RTX 5090’s immense compute power (104.8 TFLOPS FP32) is being fully utilized, but even it cannot overcome the pixel throughput demands of 4K in Doom at higher settings.

This analysis is corroborated by the fact that the RTX 5090 is a desktop-class GPU in a mobile context, with a 575W TDP. The performance gap between the 1080p and 4K results is entirely attributable to the GPU’s fill rate and shading capacity. For users seeking to maximize frame rates at 4K, the data suggests that lowering settings to Low (116 FPS) is a more effective strategy than overclocking the CPU, as the bottleneck is clearly on the graphics side.

How This Combo Ranks — use comboRankInGame vs other tested combos

The combination of the Intel Core Ultra 7 165H and the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5090 achieves a combo rank of 788 out of 3712 tested combinations in Doom. This places it in the top 21% of all systems tested, which is a strong result given the CPU’s mobile nature. The rank reflects the overall FPS performance across all tested resolutions and settings, weighted by the data collected.

This ranking is impressive when considering that the RTX 5090 is the dominant component. The GPU’s average benchmark score of 79842 puts it in the 92nd percentile of all GPUs, and it outperforms its nearest rival, the AMD Radeon Pro Vega 64X, by 1.4%. The CPU’s 84th percentile ranking is slightly lower, but the combination still lands in a high percentile due to the GPU’s massive performance headroom.

The rank of 788 suggests that there are 787 combinations that perform better, likely featuring higher-end desktop CPUs such as the AMD Ryzen 7 3700X or Intel Core Ultra 5 338H, which are in the CPU’s nearest rival list. However, the delta in CPU performance is less than 1%, which likely translates to a negligible difference in Doom’s frame rates. The ranking is more a reflection of the GPU’s capability than the CPU’s, and the 165H does not hold back the RTX 5090 in this title.

In practical terms, a rank of 788 out of 3712 means this combo is in the upper echelon of gaming systems. It will deliver high frame rates at all resolutions, and the only systems that would outperform it are those with even more powerful GPUs (which are rare) or significantly faster CPUs that can push the RTX 5090 to its absolute limits in CPU-bound scenarios. For Doom, this combo is a top-tier performer.

FAQ

Q: What is the best resolution for this combo to achieve over 200 FPS average?

A: The data shows that at 1920x1080 with Low settings, the combo achieves an average of 330 FPS, and with Medium settings, it hits 287 FPS. At 2560x1440 with Low settings, it drops to 214 FPS. So, for a consistent 200+ FPS experience, 1080p with any setting or 1440p with Low settings are the viable options.

Q: How does the CPU compare to its nearest rivals in raw performance?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 7 165H has an average benchmark score of 34083. It is 0.3% ahead of the Intel Core Ultra 5 338H and 0.4% behind the AMD EPYC 4244P and AMD Ryzen AI 7 350. It is 0.5% behind the AMD Ryzen 7 3700X. These differences are minimal and unlikely to affect gaming performance.

Q: Is the RTX 5090 the bottleneck in this system?

A: Yes, the resolution scaling data indicates a GPU-bound scenario. The FPS drops by roughly 35% from 1080p to 1440p and another 46% from 1440p to 4K on multiple settings, which is characteristic of the GPU being the limiting factor. The CPU has sufficient headroom to feed the GPU.

Q: What is the minimum FPS recorded for the Medium preset at 1080p?

A: The measured data for 1920x1080 with Medium settings shows a minimum FPS of 244, an average of 287, and a maximum of 331. This minimum is the only one recorded for that resolution, indicating stable performance.

Q: How does this combo rank against all other tested systems in Doom?

A: The combo ranks 788th out of 3712 tested combinations. This places it in the top 21% of all systems, which is an excellent result given the mobile CPU paired with a top-tier desktop GPU.

Q: Does the CPU’s single-core performance limit the game’s frame rate?

A: The CPU’s Cinebench R23 single-core score is 1759, and it is in the 84th percentile of all CPUs. Given that the system is GPU-bound at higher resolutions, the single-core performance is sufficient. The data does not show any CPU-related stutters or frame drops that would indicate a bottleneck.

Measured FPS Breakdown — resolution by resolution, settings by settings, exact numbers

The following table details the exact measured average FPS for each resolution and settings preset. Minimum and maximum FPS are included where recorded.

1920x1080

• Low: 330 FPS average
• Medium: 287 FPS average, 244 FPS min, 331 FPS max
• High: 243 FPS average
• Ultra: 198 FPS average

2560x1440

• Low: 214 FPS average
• Medium: 186 FPS average, 158 FPS min, 214 FPS max
• High: 157 FPS average
• Ultra: 128 FPS average

3840x2160

• Low: 116 FPS average
• Medium: 101 FPS average, 86 FPS min, 116 FPS max
• High: 85 FPS average
• Ultra: 70 FPS average

The data shows a clear progression: for every resolution, the order of performance from fastest to slowest is Low, Medium, High, then Ultra. The Medium preset consistently provides a significant boost over High, with a 18% increase at 1080p (287 vs 243 FPS), an 18% increase at 1440p (186 vs 157 FPS), and a 19% increase at 4K (101 vs 85 FPS). The jump from Ultra to Medium is even more pronounced, with a 45% increase at 1080p (287 vs 198 FPS), a 45% increase at 1440p (186 vs 128 FPS), and a 44% increase at 4K (101 vs 70 FPS).

At 4K, the difference between Low and Ultra is 46 FPS (116 vs 70), which is a 66% improvement in favor of Low. This makes Low the only preset that comfortably exceeds 100 FPS at 4K. For 1440p gaming, all presets exceed 120 FPS, making it the ideal resolution for high-refresh-rate monitors (144Hz+). At 1080p, the system is capable of exceeding 300 FPS on Low, but even Ultra maintains a high 198 FPS, suitable for most gaming displays. The recorded minimum FPS figures for Medium show that the 1% lows are within 13% of the average, indicating smooth frame pacing without significant hitches.