Doom

The Intel Core Ultra 7 265K paired with the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3080 delivers a robust 4K experience in Doom, though the performance scaling across resolutions reveals a clear shift in system bottlenecks. At 4K Ultra, the combo produces an average of 62.1 FPS, which climbs to 80.8 FPS at High settings. Dropping to Medium yields 92 FPS, and Low settings push the average to 102.9 FPS. The gap between Low and Ultra at 4K is 40.8 FPS, indicating that the GPU is heavily taxed by the highest preset. This is consistent with the RTX 3080's position in the broader market, as it sits in the 80th percentile among all GPUs.

Resolution Scaling

The frame rate scaling from 1080p to 4K demonstrates how the workload transitions from CPU-bound to GPU-bound. At 1080p with Low settings, the system achieves 299 FPS, which is the highest measured result in the dataset. This figure suggests that at lower resolutions and settings, the processor is able to feed the GPU sufficiently to reach near its maximum output. Moving to 1440p Low, the average drops to 193.7 FPS, a reduction of 105.3 FPS or roughly 35%. At 4K Low, the average falls further to 102.9 FPS. The percentage drop from 1080p to 4K at Low settings is approximately 65.6%, which is a substantial decline that points to the GPU becoming the limiting factor as pixel count increases.

For the High preset, the scaling is similar but less extreme. The 1080p High average is 218.6 FPS, which drops to 142.4 FPS at 1440p and 80.8 FPS at 4K. The transition from 1440p to 4K at High settings produces a 61.6 FPS decrease, representing a 43.3% reduction. This is a steeper relative drop than the 35% decline seen when moving from 1080p to 1440p at the same settings. The data indicates that the RTX 3080's memory bandwidth of 760.3 GB/s and its 10 GB GDDR6X frame buffer are being saturated at 4K, particularly with higher quality presets that increase texture and shading complexity.

The most telling observation is the difference between Low and Ultra at each resolution. At 1080p, the spread between Low (299 FPS) and Ultra (184.2 FPS) is 114.8 FPS. At 1440p, that spread narrows to 74.6 FPS (193.7 vs 119.1). At 4K, the spread is only 40.8 FPS (102.9 vs 62.1). This narrowing gap as resolution increases is a classic sign of a GPU-limited scenario. The CPU has enough headroom to handle the extra draw calls and physics at 1080p, but the GPU's rendering throughput becomes the dominant constraint at 4K.

CPU Role

The Intel Core Ultra 7 265K is a 20-core, 20-thread processor based on the Arrow Lake architecture, manufactured on a 3 nm process. It has a base clock of 3.90 GHz and a boost clock of 5.50 GHz. In synthetic benchmarks, it scores 50,009 in Cinebench R23 multi-core and 7,060 in single-core. These figures place it in the 97th percentile among all CPUs, indicating very strong processing capability.

For a game like Doom, which is an FPS title from 2016, the CPU's single-thread performance is often more critical than its multi-core might. The 265K's single-core Cinebench R23 score of 7,060 is notably high, and this is reflected in the 1080p Low result of 299 FPS. That frame rate is unlikely to be a hard CPU limit, as many modern high-end processors can exceed 300 FPS in this title. The data suggests that the CPU is not the primary bottleneck at 1080p Low, because the GPU is still capable of producing nearly 300 frames per second.

However, the CPU's role becomes more apparent when examining the 1440p and 4K results. At 1440p Medium, the system averages 169.6 FPS, and at 4K Medium, it drops to 92 FPS. The scaling from 1440p to 4K at Medium is a 45.8% reduction, which is consistent with a GPU-bound workload. The CPU's 30 MB of shared L3 cache and dual-channel DDR5 memory support with 102.4 GB/s of bandwidth provide ample data throughput for the game's engine. The processor's 20 cores are more than sufficient for Doom's threading model, which typically scales well up to eight threads. In comparison to its nearest rivals, the 265K scores 0.2% lower than the Intel Core Ultra 7 265KF and the Intel Core i9-14900KF, and 0.9% lower than the Intel Core i9-14900K. These differences are negligible in real-world gaming scenarios, meaning the CPU choice has minimal impact on the measured FPS in this particular title.

Settings Recommendations

Based on the measured FPS rows, the optimal balance between visual quality and performance depends on the target display resolution. For 4K displays, the Ultra preset yields 62.1 FPS, which is playable but close to the edge of what many gamers consider smooth. The High preset at 80.8 FPS provides a more comfortable margin, and the jump from Ultra to High is only an 18.7 FPS difference. This suggests that the Ultra preset's additional effects, likely including higher shadow quality and post-processing, are disproportionately expensive. For a 60 Hz 4K display, High is the recommended setting, as it stays well above the refresh rate threshold without sacrificing the majority of visual fidelity.

For 1440p, the High preset delivers 142.4 FPS, which is excellent for high-refresh-rate monitors. The Ultra preset at 119.1 FPS is also viable for 120 Hz displays, though it is 23.3 FPS slower than High. The Ultra preset's cost in performance is more acceptable at this resolution, as the absolute frame rates remain high. For 1080p, all presets exceed 184 FPS, meaning even the Ultra preset at 184.2 FPS is suitable for 144 Hz or 165 Hz monitors. The Low preset at 299 FPS is only relevant for competitive play where maximum frame rate is prioritized over visuals, but the difference between Low and Medium (263.2 FPS) is minimal in practical terms.

The data shows that the Medium preset offers a strong middle ground. At 4K it produces 92 FPS, which is 11.2 FPS higher than High and 29.9 FPS higher than Ultra. At 1440p, Medium yields 169.6 FPS, and at 1080p, it reaches 263.2 FPS. For users who prefer to maximize frame rate while retaining some visual enhancements, Medium is the most efficient choice. However, for the best visual experience that still maintains smooth gameplay, High is the recommended preset across all resolutions, as it provides the best ratio of quality to frame rate penalty.

How This Combo Ranks

Among the 1,681 tested CPU and GPU combinations in this database, the Intel Core Ultra 7 265K with the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3080 ranks 526th. This places it in the top 31.3% of all tested combos. The rank reflects the RTX 3080's position as a high-end but not flagship GPU, paired with a top-tier CPU. The GPU's 80th percentile score among all GPUs is the primary limiting factor for the combo's overall standing, as the CPU's 97th percentile score is well above the GPU's tier.

The combination's ranking is not surprising given the GPU's age relative to the CPU. The RTX 3080 was released in 2020 and is now end-of-life, while the 265K was released in late 2024. The benchmark results indicate that the CPU has significant headroom to drive even more powerful GPUs, but the RTX 3080's 10 GB of VRAM and 320-bit memory bus are the constraining factors in demanding 4K scenarios. The combo's rank of 526 out of 1,681 suggests that there are many faster combinations, but also that this pairing is far from the bottom of the pack. For a 1440p gaming rig, this combo is well-suited, as evidenced by the 142.4 FPS average at High settings. For 4K, it is capable but not ideal for Ultra settings, where the 62.1 FPS result is below what many users would prefer for a smooth experience.

FAQ

Q: What is the maximum average FPS this combo achieves in Doom?

A: The highest measured average FPS is 299 at 1080p with Low settings.

Q: Is the CPU or GPU the bottleneck at 4K Ultra?

A: The data shows the GPU is the limiting factor, as the frame rate drops to 62.1 FPS at 4K Ultra, while the CPU's single-core performance is high enough to exceed 200 FPS at lower resolutions.

Q: How much performance is lost when moving from 1440p High to 4K High?

A: The average FPS drops from 142.4 at 1440p High to 80.8 at 4K High, a reduction of 61.6 FPS.

Q: What is the recommended preset for a 1440p 120 Hz monitor?

A: The High preset at 142.4 FPS is recommended, as it exceeds the 120 Hz refresh rate, while the Ultra preset at 119.1 FPS is slightly below it.

Q: How does this combo rank compared to all other tested combinations?

A: It ranks 526th out of 1,681 total combinations, placing it in the top third of all tested systems.

Q: Does the Ultra preset offer a significant visual advantage over High at 4K?

A: The frame rate cost is 18.7 FPS (from 80.8 to 62.1), which is a 23.1% reduction, suggesting the Ultra preset's visual gains come at a substantial performance penalty.

Measured FPS Breakdown

At 1920x1080, the system produces its highest frame rates across all settings. The Low preset averages 299 FPS, which is the peak performance in the entire dataset. Medium settings yield 263.2 FPS, representing a 35.8 FPS drop from Low. High settings average 218.6 FPS, which is 44.6 FPS lower than Medium. The Ultra preset averages 184.2 FPS, a further 34.4 FPS reduction from High. The total spread from Low to Ultra at 1080p is 114.8 FPS.

Moving to 2560x1440, the frame rates decrease across the board. Low settings average 193.7 FPS, which is a 105.3 FPS drop from the 1080p Low result. Medium averages 169.6 FPS, a 24.1 FPS decrease from Low at the same resolution. High averages 142.4 FPS, which is 27.2 FPS lower than Medium. Ultra averages 119.1 FPS, a 23.3 FPS reduction from High. The spread from Low to Ultra at 1440p is 74.6 FPS.

At 3840x2160, the GPU becomes the dominant constraint. Low settings average 102.9 FPS, which is 90.8 FPS lower than the 1440p Low result. Medium averages 92 FPS, a 10.9 FPS drop from Low. High averages 80.8 FPS, which is 11.2 FPS lower than Medium. Ultra averages 62.1 FPS, a reduction of 18.7 FPS from High. The spread from Low to Ultra at 4K is 40.8 FPS, the narrowest of all resolutions, confirming the GPU-bound nature of the workload. The 4K Ultra result of 62.1 FPS is the lowest measured value in the dataset, while the 1080p Low result of 299 FPS is the highest.