Doom

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

The Intel Core Ultra 7 265 is a 20-core, 20-thread processor from the Core Ultra Series 2, based on the Arrow Lake architecture and built on a 3 nm process by TSMC. Its base clock is 2.40 GHz with a boost clock of 5.30 GHz, and it carries a 65 W TDP. The chip features a 30 MB shared L3 cache and 3 MB of L2 per core, with 192 KB of L1 per core. Memory support is DDR5 over a dual-channel bus, yielding 102.4 GB/s of bandwidth. The processor's transistor count is 17,800 million on a 243 mm² die.

In general-purpose benchmarks, this CPU ranks at the 93rd percentile among all processors, with an average benchmark score of 64,640. Its nearest rival is the AMD EPYC 4464P, which scores 64,823, a delta of -0.3%, meaning the Ultra 7 265 is essentially tied with that server chip. Against the Intel Core Ultra 7 265F, the 265 is 0.3% ahead (64,438 vs. 64,640), and against the AMD EPYC 9124, it is 0.7% ahead (65,104 vs. 64,640). In single-thread performance, the Cinebench R23 single-core score is 5,960, while the multi-core score is 42,216. The Cinebench R20 single-core score is 884, with multi-core at 6,268. The Cinebench R15 single-core score is 600 and multi-core is 4,255.

For Doom, a game originally released in 2016, the CPU's high single-thread performance is the relevant metric. The game's engine is known to be well-optimized for high refresh rates, and the Ultra 7 265's 5.30 GHz boost clock, combined with a strong single-core Cinebench score, provides ample headroom for the game's simulation and draw-call processing. The 20 cores and 20 threads are far more than Doom can utilize, but the high per-core throughput ensures that the CPU is not the bottleneck in most scenarios. In the measured FPS data, the CPU's role becomes evident at 1080p, where frame rates reach as high as 292 FPS on Low settings. This suggests that the processor can feed frames to the GPU well above typical display refresh rates. The PassMark single-thread score of 4,689 and the physics score of 2,923 further corroborate the CPU's strong per-thread capabilities, which are critical for maintaining high average FPS in a fast-paced FPS like Doom.

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

The AMD Radeon RX 6800 XT is based on the Navi 21 chip and the RDNA 2.0 architecture, built on a 7 nm process by TSMC. It has 4,608 shading units, 288 texture mapping units, and 128 ROPs, along with 72 ray tracing cores. The GPU's base clock is 1,825 MHz, with a boost clock of 2,250 MHz and a game clock of 2,015 MHz. Memory is 16 GB of GDDR6 on a 256-bit bus, with a bandwidth of 512.0 GB/s and a memory clock of 2000 MHz (16 Gbps effective). The card's FP32 performance is 20.74 TFLOPS, and its texture rate is 648.0 GTexel/s, with a pixel rate of 288.0 GPixel/s. It supports DirectX 12 Ultimate, OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4, and connects via PCIe 4.0 x16. The GPU is end-of-life, having been released in late 2020, but its 16 GB VRAM remains a substantial resource for modern games.

In GPU benchmarks, the RX 6800 XT ranks at the 85th percentile among all GPUs, with an average benchmark score of 48,477. Its nearest rival is the NVIDIA RTX A1000 Mobile, which scores 47,743, a delta of 1.5% in favor of the RX 6800 XT. The Intel Arc A550M scores 49,737, which is 2.5% higher, and the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5070 Ti scores 49,957, which is 3% higher. The AMD Radeon RX Vega 64 scores 50,001, which is 3% higher. The 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 score is 3,689, and the Geekbench Vulkan score is 136,875, with OpenCL at 171,304 and Metal at 181,337. The PassMark G3D score is 24,980, with a G2D score of 1,030.

For Doom, the GPU's role is defined by its raw throughput and memory bandwidth. At 4K, the GPU is clearly the limiting factor, as frame rates drop to 62 FPS on Ultra settings. The 16 GB VRAM is more than sufficient for Doom's textures, even at 4K, so capacity is not a concern; instead, the GPU's compute and fillrate capabilities determine performance. The 512.0 GB/s bandwidth is ample for the game's data streaming, and the 288.0 GPixel/s pixel rate handles the fillrate demands. The measured data shows that the GPU scales predictably with resolution, and its 85th percentile ranking indicates it is a strong performer, but not at the very top tier. The gap to the RTX 5070 Ti in average benchmark score (3%) is reflected in the FPS differences at higher resolutions, where the RX 6800 XT's older architecture shows its limits in compute-heavy scenes.

FAQ

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

A: The highest average FPS is 292, achieved at 1920x1080 with Low settings.

Q: How does the Intel Core Ultra 7 265 compare to its nearest rival, the AMD EPYC 4464P?

A: The Ultra 7 265 has an average benchmark score of 64,640, which is 0.3% lower than the EPYC 4464P's score of 64,823, indicating they are nearly identical in overall performance.

Q: What is the lowest average FPS recorded in the measured data?

A: The lowest average FPS is 62, which occurs at 3840x2160 with Ultra settings.

Q: How much VRAM does the AMD Radeon RX 6800 XT have, and what type is it?

A: The GPU has 16 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 256-bit bus.

Q: What is the frame rate difference between Low and Ultra settings at 1440p?

A: At 2560x1440, the Low preset averages 189 FPS, while Ultra averages 114 FPS, a difference of 75 FPS.

Q: What percentile does the GPU rank in among all GPUs?

A: The AMD Radeon RX 6800 XT ranks at the 85th percentile in the database.

Measured FPS Breakdown

The measured FPS data for this combination of Intel Core Ultra 7 265 and AMD Radeon RX 6800 XT covers three resolutions and four settings presets. Starting at 1920x1080, the Low preset produces an average of 292 FPS. The Medium preset averages 254 FPS, with a minimum of 216 and a maximum of 292. High settings average 215 FPS, and the Ultra preset averages 176 FPS. The scaling from Low to Ultra at 1080p shows a drop of 116 FPS, or roughly 40%, indicating that the GPU is increasingly taxed as settings rise, but the CPU maintains high throughput.

Moving to 2560x1440, the Low preset averages 189 FPS, a significant step down from 1080p Low. Medium averages 165 FPS, with a minimum of 140 and a maximum of 189. High settings average 139 FPS, and Ultra averages 114 FPS. The delta between Low and Ultra at 1440p is 75 FPS. Compared to 1080p, the same settings show a reduction: Low drops by 103 FPS, Medium by 89 FPS, High by 76 FPS, and Ultra by 62 FPS. This pattern suggests that the GPU is becoming the primary limiter at this resolution, as the FPS drops are larger in absolute terms.

At 3840x2160, the Low preset averages 102 FPS. Medium averages 89 FPS, with a minimum of 76 and a maximum of 103. High settings average 75 FPS, and Ultra averages 62 FPS. The delta between Low and Ultra at 4K is 40 FPS. Compared to 1440p, the drops are steep: Low falls by 87 FPS, Medium by 76 FPS, High by 64 FPS, and Ultra by 52 FPS. At 4K, the GPU is unequivocally the bottleneck, as the CPU's high single-thread performance is no longer sufficient to compensate for the GPU's fillrate and compute limits.

The data shows a clear hierarchy: at 1080p, the CPU is more relevant, allowing frame rates to exceed 290 FPS, while at 4K, the GPU's capabilities cap performance at just over 100 FPS even on Low. The minimum and maximum values provided for Medium settings at each resolution bracket the average, showing that the frame times are stable, but the spread widens slightly at lower resolutions, likely due to CPU-driven frame pacing variations.

Resolution Scaling

Resolution scaling analysis reveals how the limiting component shifts as pixel count increases. From 1920x1080 to 2560x1440, the average FPS on High settings drops from 215 to 139, a 35.3% reduction. On Low settings, the drop is from 292 to 189, a 35.3% reduction as well. On Medium, the drop is from 254 to 165, a 35.0% reduction, and on Ultra, from 176 to 114, a 35.2% reduction. This consistent ~35% decline across all settings when moving from 1080p to 1440p indicates that the GPU is scaling uniformly with pixel count, as the resolution increase is 1.78 times the pixel count, but the FPS drop is less than proportional, suggesting some CPU headroom is being absorbed.

Moving from 2560x1440 to 3840x2160, the High setting drops from 139 to 75, a 46.0% reduction. On Low, the drop is from 189 to 102, a 46.0% reduction. On Medium, from 165 to 89, a 46.1% reduction, and on Ultra, from 114 to 62, a 45.6% reduction. The larger percentage drop at 4K compared to 1440p indicates that the GPU is becoming severely constrained. The pixel count from 1440p to 4K increases by 2.25 times, but the FPS falls by roughly half, which is a near-linear relationship. This suggests that at 4K, the GPU is operating at its compute and memory bandwidth limits, and the CPU is no longer a factor.

The scaling behavior also shows that the FPS drop from 1080p to 4K on Low settings is from 292 to 102, a 65.1% reduction. On Ultra, the drop is from 176 to 62, a 64.8% reduction. The consistency of these percentages across settings implies that the GPU's performance curve is smooth and that neither the CPU nor the GPU introduces a sudden cliff. The limiting component at 1080p is the CPU, as frame rates exceed 290 FPS, which is beyond what most displays can show, but the GPU still has headroom. At 4K, the GPU is the sole limiter, as even the lowest settings cannot exceed 102 FPS. The data indicates that this combo is best suited for high-refresh-rate 1080p or 1440p gaming, where the CPU's strength can be fully utilized, while 4K gaming will be GPU-bound with lower frame rates.

Settings Recommendations

Based on the measured FPS rows, the optimal settings preset depends on the target resolution and display refresh rate. At 1920x1080, the Ultra preset averages 176 FPS, which is well above the 144 Hz refresh rate common on many monitors. The High preset averages 215 FPS, and Medium averages 254 FPS. For a 240 Hz display, the Medium preset at 254 FPS is the best choice, as it provides a high average with a minimum of 216 FPS, ensuring smooth frame delivery. The Low preset at 292 FPS offers the maximum headroom but may introduce visual artifacts that detract from the experience. For most users at 1080p, Ultra at 176 FPS is a strong balance, as it maintains high frame rates while maximizing visual fidelity, and the lack of minimum FPS data suggests it is stable.

At 2560x1440, the Ultra preset averages 114 FPS, which is suitable for a 120 Hz display. High settings average 139 FPS, which is ideal for a 144 Hz monitor, as it stays above the refresh rate with some margin. Medium averages 165 FPS, which is excellent for 144 Hz and even 165 Hz displays, with a minimum of 140 FPS. For users with a 144 Hz panel, the High preset is recommended, as it delivers 139 FPS on average, close to the refresh rate. The Medium preset at 165 FPS is a better choice for those with 165 Hz monitors, as it provides a buffer above the refresh rate. Low settings at 189 FPS are only necessary for the most competitive play, as the visual quality reduction is significant.

At 3840x2160, the situation changes. The Ultra preset averages 62 FPS, which is playable but below the 60 FPS threshold for smoothness on some displays. High settings average 75 FPS, which is a better experience for 60 Hz displays, as it provides a comfortable margin. Medium averages 89 FPS, which is excellent for 60 Hz and even 90 Hz displays, with a minimum of 76 FPS ensuring no drops below the refresh rate. Low settings at 102 FPS are the best for high refresh rate 4K monitors. The recommendation for 4K is to use the High preset at 75 FPS, as it balances visual quality with smoothness. The Medium preset at 89 FPS is the best overall choice if the user prioritizes frame rate over visual fidelity, as it maintains a high average with a stable minimum.

Across all resolutions, the Medium preset consistently provides the best balance of performance and quality, with the data showing stable minimums (216 FPS at 1080p, 140 FPS at 1440p, 76 FPS at 4K) that prevent stutter. The Ultra preset is viable at 1080p and 1440p, but at 4K it dips to 62 FPS, which may not be ideal for fast-paced action. The Low preset offers the highest frame rates but sacrifices too much visual quality for most users. The data suggests that High settings are a safe middle ground, but Medium offers the best measured stability.

How This Combo Ranks

In the database of tested combinations for Doom, this pairing of the Intel Core Ultra 7 265 and AMD Radeon RX 6800 XT ranks 866th out of 2,930 total combos. This places it in the top 29.6% of all tested systems, which is a respectable position for a mid-to-high-end setup. The rank reflects the overall performance across the measured FPS data, but it is important to contextualize this rank with the specific strengths and weaknesses of the components.

The CPU's 93rd percentile ranking among all processors is a strong indicator that the processor is not a limiting factor in this combo. Its nearest rivals, such as the AMD EPYC 4464P and the EPYC 9124, are server-class chips that score similarly, but the Ultra 7 265's high single-thread performance is more relevant for gaming. The GPU's 85th percentile ranking is also solid, but its nearest rivals in the benchmark database include the NVIDIA RTX 5070 Ti, which scores 3% higher, and the Intel Arc A550M, which scores 2.5% higher. These small deltas in synthetic benchmarks translate into measurable FPS differences in Doom, particularly at 4K.

The combo rank of 866 out of 2,930 suggests that many other combinations of newer CPUs and GPUs outperform this setup, likely due to the GPU's age. The RX 6800 XT is end-of-life, and its 85th percentile ranking reflects that it is outclassed by newer cards like the RTX 5070 Ti. However, the combo's performance in Doom is still strong, as evidenced by the 4K High preset averaging 75 FPS. The rank is a holistic measure, and it is likely pulled down by the GPU's performance at higher resolutions, where it cannot maintain the same frame rates as newer competitors.

The data indicates that this combo is best suited for 1440p gaming at high refresh rates, where the CPU's strength and the GPU's 16 GB VRAM are fully utilized. At 1080p, the combo excels, with frame rates exceeding 290 FPS on Low settings. At 4K, it is playable but not exceptional, with the Ultra preset dipping to 62 FPS. The rank of 866 out of 2,930 is a fair assessment: it is a competent gaming system that is not at the top tier but offers solid performance for its components. The delta percentages between the GPU and its rivals (1.5% to 3%) suggest that the combo's rank is competitive with systems using similar-generation hardware, but it falls behind when paired with newer, higher-performing GPUs.