Doom

# Doom Performance Analysis: Intel Core Ultra 7 265 + AMD Radeon RX 9070

The Intel Core Ultra 7 265 paired with the AMD Radeon RX 9070 delivers a robust Doom experience across all tested resolutions, with the combo ranking in the 71st percentile (840th of 2,930 tested combinations). This pairing leverages a 20-core, 20-thread Arrow Lake processor with a 5.30 GHz boost clock alongside a 16 GB RDNA 4.0 GPU, producing frame rates that range from a playable 62 FPS at 4K Ultra to a blistering 296 FPS at 1080p Low. The data reveals a system that scales predictably with resolution and settings, with the GPU emerging as the primary constraint at higher fidelity levels while the CPU's substantial multi-threaded headroom keeps performance consistent at lower resolutions.

Resolution Scaling

The measured FPS data shows a clear and consistent scaling pattern as resolution increases from 1080p to 4K. At Ultra settings, the average frame rate drops from 178 FPS at 1920x1080 to 115 FPS at 2560x1440, and finally to 62 FPS at 3840x2160. This represents a 35% reduction from 1080p to 1440p, and a further 46% reduction from 1440p to 4K — a total decline of 65% from the highest to lowest resolution tested. Such a steep drop indicates that the GPU is becoming the limiting factor at higher resolutions, as the pixel throughput demands scale geometrically.

At Medium settings, the scaling pattern is similar but with slightly different magnitudes. The average FPS goes from 258 at 1080p to 167 at 1440p (a 35% drop), then to 90 at 4K (a 46% drop from 1440p). The consistency of these percentage drops across settings suggests that resolution scaling is largely independent of the quality preset — the GPU workload increases proportionally regardless of whether the game is running at Low or Ultra.

The Low preset shows the most interesting behavior in terms of scaling. At 1080p Low, the system achieves 296 FPS, which drops to 192 FPS at 1440p and 104 FPS at 4K. The relative drops are 35% and 46% respectively, matching the pattern seen at other settings. However, the absolute frame rates at 1080p Low approach what would be considered a CPU-bound scenario, where the 20-core processor's single-thread performance (a Cinebench R23 single-core score of 5,960) begins to matter more than GPU capabilities.

The 4K Ultra result of 62 FPS is particularly telling. This is the only tested configuration that dips below the 60 FPS threshold, and it does so by only 2 FPS. The data suggests that the RX 9070's 16 GB of GDDR6 memory operating at 644.6 GB/s bandwidth is sufficient for the game's texture and geometry demands at 4K, but the 36.13 TFLOPS of FP32 compute is just barely insufficient to maintain higher frame rates at maximum quality. The gap between 4K Ultra (62 FPS) and 4K High (76 FPS) indicates that the Ultra preset's additional effects impose a meaningful cost on the GPU.

CPU Role

The Intel Core Ultra 7 265 brings substantial processing power to this Doom configuration. With 20 cores and 20 threads arranged on a 3 nm TSMC process, the Arrow Lake-S chip has a base clock of 2.40 GHz and a boost clock of 5.30 GHz. The lack of hyperthreading (20 cores, 20 threads) is notable, but the high boost clock compensates in single-threaded workloads. The processor's Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 42,216 and single-core score of 5,960 place it in the 93rd percentile among all CPUs, demonstrating strong all-around capability.

In Doom, which is an FPS title from 2016 that executes primarily on a few main threads, the CPU's single-core performance is the more relevant metric. The 5.30 GHz boost clock provides the kind of raw clock speed that benefits older game engines with limited thread utilization. The PassMark single-thread score of 4,689 reinforces this assessment, indicating that the processor can handle the game's main simulation loop without becoming a bottleneck at high frame rates.

The data supports this interpretation through the 1080p Low result of 296 FPS. At this resolution and settings combination, the GPU's workload is relatively light, and the frame rate is likely constrained by the CPU's ability to feed draw calls and update game state. The fact that 1080p Medium achieves 258 FPS and 1080p High achieves 218 FPS shows that even as GPU load increases, the frame rate remains high, with the CPU providing enough headroom to avoid becoming the primary limiter until the very highest frame rates.

The processor's 30 MB of shared L3 cache and 192 KB per-core L1 cache provide ample fast storage for game code and data structures. The dual-channel DDR5 memory support with 102.4 GB/s bandwidth ensures that memory bandwidth is not a limiting factor, particularly at lower resolutions where the CPU must deliver frames quickly. The benchmark results, including a PassMark multi-thread score of 49,682 and floating-point math score of 172,776, confirm the processor's strength in general compute tasks that may be offloaded from the GPU in certain game scenarios.

GPU Role

The AMD Radeon RX 9070 is the dominant component in this pairing for most tested configurations. Built on the RDNA 4.0 architecture with a 4 nm process, the Navi 48 chip contains 3,584 shading units, 224 texture mapping units, and 128 raster output units. The GPU's boost clock of 2,520 MHz and game clock of 2,070 MHz drive a 36.13 TFLOPS FP32 throughput. Memory is provided by 16 GB of GDDR6 on a 256-bit bus, yielding 644.6 GB/s of bandwidth.

The GPU's PassMark G3D score of 25,381 places it in the 69th percentile of all GPUs, with nearest rivals including the NVIDIA GeForce GTX TITAN Z (0.6% ahead) and AMD Radeon RX 6800S (0.8% behind). This midfield positioning explains the GPU's behavior as the primary bottleneck at 4K Ultra, where the 62 FPS result falls just short of the 60 FPS target. The 4K High result of 76 FPS shows that reducing the quality preset from Ultra to High recovers approximately 23% performance, highlighting the Ultra preset's additional GPU demands.

At 1440p, the GPU demonstrates more comfortable performance margins. The 1440p Ultra result of 115 FPS is well above typical high-refresh-rate monitor capabilities, while 1440p High achieves 141 FPS and 1440p Medium reaches 167 FPS. The GPU's 128 ROPs and 564.5 GTexel/s texture rate are sufficient to handle the pixel and texture throughput required at this resolution across all settings.

The 16 GB VRAM capacity is a notable advantage in this test. Doom's texture streaming and level data can consume significant memory at higher resolutions, and the 256-bit memory bus ensures that the 16 GB pool is accessed with sufficient bandwidth. The memory clock of 2,518 MHz (20.1 Gbps effective) provides the 644.6 GB/s bandwidth that keeps texture reads and frame buffer operations from becoming a constraint, even at 4K where the 62 FPS Ultra result still maintains playable performance.

How This Combo Ranks

Among the 2,930 tested CPU-GPU combinations in the database, this pairing achieves a rank of 840, placing it in the 71st percentile. This ranking reflects the overall performance across all tested games and configurations, not just Doom. The Intel Core Ultra 7 265's 93rd percentile CPU ranking (with an average benchmark score of 64,640) is notably higher than the RX 9070's 69th percentile GPU ranking (average score of 23,877), suggesting that the processor has more headroom relative to its peers than the graphics card does.

The CPU's nearest rivals in aggregate benchmarking are the AMD EPYC 4464P (0.3% higher score), Intel Core Ultra 7 265F (0.3% lower), AMD EPYC 7343 (0.7% lower), and AMD EPYC 9124 (0.7% higher). These small deltas indicate that the Core Ultra 7 265 is well-positioned among high-end desktop and workstation processors. The GPU's nearest rivals include the NVIDIA GeForce GTX TITAN Z (0.6% higher), AMD Radeon RX 6800S (0.8% lower), NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3080 Mobile (1.1% higher), and NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2080 SUPER (1.2% lower), showing that the RX 9070 sits in a competitive mid-range segment.

In the context of Doom specifically, the combo's performance is strong relative to its aggregate ranking. The game's 2016 release date means it does not push modern hardware as hard as newer titles, allowing this combination to achieve frame rates that would be considered excellent in more demanding games. The 840th rank out of 2,930 suggests that while there are faster combinations available, this pairing delivers performance well above the median tested configuration.

Settings Recommendations

Based on the measured FPS data, the optimal settings depend on the target resolution and refresh rate. At 4K, the High preset delivers 76 FPS, which is the best balance of visual quality and performance for a standard 60 Hz display. The Ultra preset's 62 FPS is technically playable but leaves little margin for frame time spikes, and the Medium preset's 90 FPS sacrifices visual fidelity for a comfortable buffer. For 4K gaming, High settings are recommended as the sweet spot.

At 1440p, the situation is more flexible. The 1440p High preset's 141 FPS is well-suited for 120 Hz displays, while the Medium preset's 167 FPS supports 144 Hz monitors with headroom. The Ultra preset's 115 FPS is also viable for high-refresh-rate displays, though it does not quite reach the 144 FPS threshold for maximum smoothness. For 1440p, High or Ultra settings are recommended depending on whether the user prioritizes visual quality (Ultra at 115 FPS) or higher frame rates (High at 141 FPS).

At 1080p, the system has substantial performance to spare. The 1080p High preset's 218 FPS exceeds the refresh rate of most monitors, while the Medium preset's 258 FPS and Low preset's 296 FPS approach the limits of what the CPU can deliver. For 1080p gaming, Ultra settings at 178 FPS provide the best visual experience without sacrificing fluidity, making Ultra the recommended choice at this resolution.

Measured FPS Breakdown

At 1920x1080, the system delivers its highest frame rates across all settings. The Low preset achieves an average of 296 FPS, while Medium reaches 258 FPS with a minimum of 219 FPS and maximum of 296 FPS. The High preset produces 218 FPS average, and Ultra reduces performance to 178 FPS. These results show a 40% performance difference between Low and Ultra at 1080p, with the Medium preset's 258 FPS representing a 13% reduction from Low.

At 2560x1440, performance scales down proportionally. The Low preset averages 192 FPS, Medium achieves 167 FPS (minimum 142 FPS, maximum 192 FPS), High delivers 141 FPS, and Ultra produces 115 FPS. The spread from Low to Ultra is 40%, identical to the 1080p scaling. The Medium preset's minimum of 142 FPS indicates that even in demanding scenes, the frame rate remains well above 60 FPS.

At 3840x2160, the GPU's workload increases significantly. The Low preset averages 104 FPS, Medium achieves 90 FPS (minimum 77 FPS, maximum 104 FPS), High delivers 76 FPS, and Ultra drops to 62 FPS. The performance gap between Low and Ultra is 40% at 4K as well, consistent with the other resolutions. The Medium preset's minimum of 77 FPS shows that the system maintains playable frame rates even in the most demanding 4K scenarios, with only the Ultra preset falling below 60 FPS at its lowest point.