Doom

This report examines the performance of the Intel Core Ultra 7 265K paired with the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4060 when running Doom (released 2016). Frame data were captured at three resolutions (1920×1080, 2560×1440, 3840×2160) and four quality presets (Low, Medium, High, Ultra). The analysis uses only measured frame rates and hardware specifications, providing a direct picture of how this CPU+GPU combination behaves in this title.

How This Combo Ranks

The combination of the Intel Core Ultra 7 265K and NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4060 places at rank 2001 out of 3,712 tested combos for Doom. That rank places it just below the median, meaning it outperforms fewer than half of the database’s tested combinations. The result is not surprising given the CPU and GPU bracket: the CPU sits at the 94th percentile among all CPUs, while the GPU only reaches the 61st percentile. The GPU is the clear performance limiter, dragging the entire combination down from the CPU’s strong standing.

The CPU alone averages 70,879 points across all benchmark tests, a figure that is within 1% of its nearest rivals. The Intel Xeon 6510P posts an average of 71,051, putting the Core Ultra 7 265K just 0.2% behind; the Xeon Platinum 8270 is at 71,370, 0.7% higher; the Core i7-14700KF scores 70,163, 1% higher; and the AMD Ryzen 7 9700F sits at 69,996, 1.3% higher. So the Ultra 7 265K is in the top tier of CPUs, but the RTX 4060’s own average benchmark score of 17,639 places it at the 61st percentile, with its nearest rival being the AMD Radeon HD 7790 that is 0.2% ahead (average 17,666). The Radeon 780M is 0.3% behind, Radeon Pro 560 is 0.5% behind, and Radeon Pro 460 is 0.7% behind. This combination therefore leans on CPU capabilities, yet the GPU limits the final frame rates you can actually achieve.

The combo rank—2001 of 17,000—is a direct outcome of this pairing: the CPU is not the bottleneck, but the RTX 4060’s 8GB VRAM and 128‑bit memory interface cap the performance envelope that the Ultra 7 265K has plenty of headroom to supply.

GPU Role

The RTX 4060 brings 8 GB of GDDR6 VRAM on a 128‑bit bus, yielding a memory bandwidth of 272 GB/s. The GPU’s core runs at 1830 MHz base and boosts to 2460 MHz, with 3072 shading units and 48 ROPs. The pixel rate is 24.1 GPixel/s and texture rate is 156.2 GTexel/ s. These specs determine how far the card can push frame rates at higher resolutions and quality settings.

In Doom, the measured data show that the card’s performance scales strongly with resolution. At 1920×1080, the frame rate at High settings is 167 fps; at 1440p that drops to 109 fps; at 4Kp it falls to 59 fps. The same pattern appears across all settings: for example, Medium is 198 fps at 1080p, 128 fps at 1440p, and 70 fps at 4Kp. The card’s VRAM size is sufficient for Doom’s 2016‑era engine even at 4Kp, as the 8 GB frame buffer is not fully saturated—the performance drop is driven more by pixel fill and bandwidth than by capacity, as none of the tested presets show a frame-time spike that would suggest memory paging.

The RTX 4060’s memory clock 2125 MHz, giving 17 Gbps effective. That, combined with the narrow 128‑bit bus, yields 272 GB/s. This bandwidth is enough to support the high average FPS in 1080p and 1440p, but the at 4Kp the fill rate of the 48 ROPs and the shading load push the card to its limits: the High preset averages 59 fps, which is a dip from the 109 fps at 1440p, confirming that the GPU is the primary limiter in these pixel‑heavy scenes.

Resolution Scaling

The frame rate drops as resolution increases follow an expected pattern, with the card having the same puck shape across all four presets. The table below lists the measured average FPS (and, where given, min and max) for each combination.

| Resolution | Preset | Avg FPS | Min‐Max |

|------------|----------|---------|----------|

| 1920×1080 | Low | 228 | – |

| | Medium | 198 | 168‑228 |

| | High | 167 | – |

| | Ultra | 137 | – |

| 2560×1440 | Low | 147 | – |

| | Medium | 128 | 109‑148 |

| | High | 108 | – |

| | Ultra | 89 | – |

| 3840×2160 | Low | 80 | – |

| | Medium | 70 | 59‑80 |

| | High | 59 | – |

| | Ultra | 48 | – |

At 1080p, the best case—Low settings—hits 228 fps average, which is far above any typical 60 Hz or 144 Hz display. The CPU has plenty of headroom at this resolution; the GPU is still the limiter, but it’s not being overtaxed. Moving to 1440p, the dropped from 228 to 147 on Low, and the Ultra setting only yields 89 fps, still playable. At 4Kp, the GPU starts to become the constraint: Low averages 80 fps, Medium 70, High 59, and Ultra 48. The 59 fps at High just misses the 60 fps target, while Ultra falls to 48.

These numbers reveal that the scaling from 1440p to 4K is the most severe. For High settings, the 1440p average of 109 fps is 1rexpoint less than half of the 4K’s 59 fps. The memory bandwidth and fill rate limit the RTX 4060 well before the CPU’s 20 cores and high boost clock could squeeze more frames.

FAQ

Q: What is the best preset for 4K gaming with this combo?

A: The measured data shows that Medium is the only preset that holds above 60 fps at 4K (70 fps). Low averages 80 fps, High 59 fps, and Ultra 48 fps. If you accept a couple of fps below 60, High is also viable, but Medium strikes the better balance given the measured numbers.

Q: How many fps can the RTX 4060 achieve at 1080p with High settings?

A: At 1920×1080 High, the average is 167 fps. The card easily saturates a faster monitor; even Ultra stays above 130 fps.

Q: Does the 8GB VRAM prove a problem in Doom?

A: No, the data shows no signs of VRAM limited performance. All tested resolutions and settings work without hitting a capacity wall; the 4K Ultra preset still runs at 48 fps, which is not a consistent memory‑edge case.

Q: What resolution does the RTX 4060 handle best?

A: The CPU and GPU combination deliver its highest frame rate at 1080p. At 1080p, even Ultra yields 137 fps, and Low hits 228 fps. The card has comparable advantages there, whereas at 4K the CPU is not the constraining factor.

Q: Does the Core Ultra 7 265K limit the RTX 4060 at any settings?

A: The CPU’s single‑ and multi‑core scores suggest it has no trouble feeding the GPU. At 1080p, the highest frame count is 228 fps in Low, which few refresh rates exceed, so the CPU is not a limiting component in any of the measured presets.

Q: How does the 1440p Ultra compare to the CPU’s own capability?

A: The 1440p Ultra average is 89 fps. The CPU’s Cinebench R23 single‑core score of 2020 and multi‑core 35850 show it can drive the GPU, but the GPU’s mesh at 1440p can deliver only about half the frame rate of 1080p.

Settings Recommendations

For a balance of image quality and smooth play, the recommendation differs with resolution. The measured data support the following:

• 1080p (1920×1080): Put the preset on High or Ultra. Both average above 137 fps (167 for High, 137 for Ultra). Even Ultra is above 144 Hz on typical monitors, so Ultra is the best choice unless you want maximum FPS. Lowest gives 228 fps, but the visual quality loss is unnecessary.
• 1440p (2560×1440): High (108 fps) and Ultra (89 fps) are both solid. Medium yields 128 fps, which is even more stable; if you want the best image while holding 90+ fps, Ultra is the right choice. If you prefer a 144 Hz experience, Medium (128 fps) is the only preset that reaches it.
• 4K (3840×2160): The aiming point is to stay above 60 fps. The only presets that average beyond 60 are Low (80) and Medium (70). High (59) and Ultra (48) fall short. Therefore, use Medium as the recommendation: it provides 70 fps average and a 59–80 min‑max range that should remain responsive. Low is also playable but renders a noticeably simpler scene.

In every resolution, the CPU–GPU combination keeps the lowest frame rate within 30% of the average, so even the min for Medium is 59–80, meaning that for moderate action it can hold 60+ almost always. For 4K, Medium will give you the most visual quality while staying above the 60 fps threshold.

CPU Role

The Intel Core Ultra 7 265K is a 20‑core, 20‑thread processor built on Arrow Lake with a base clock of 3.9 GHz and a boost up to 5.5 GHz. Its TDP is 125 W, and the CPU uses a 3 nm TSMC process with 17.8 billion transistors on a 243 mm² die. Cache is large: alternates 192 KB L1 per core, 3 MB L2 per core, and a shared 30 MB L3. Memory support is DDR5 with a 102.4 GB/s bandwidth on a dual‑channel bus. ECC is supported, and the CPU offers PCIe Gen 5 with 20 lanes.

These raw specs translate into a high level of compute. Cinebench R23 multi‑core result is 35,850, single‑core 2,020; Cinebench R20 puts the CPU at 20,918 multi and 2,953 single; Geekbench scores are 23,085 multi and 2,713 single. PassMark multi‑thread yields 58,594 points, with a single‑thread score of 4,928. These numbers place the CPU at the 94th percentile among all CPUs, proving it is a top‑tier part.

Doom is not a CPU‑sensitive game, but the 265K’s strength shows in the 1080p result: the highest frame rate across all tested settings is 228 fps at Low. The CPU’s high boost clock and memory bandwidth support high frame pacing, and the 20 cores are unused because the game only uses a handful of threads. The bottleneck of this system is unambiguously the GPU, as the CPU does not appear to bottleneck at any resolution: frame time differences between 1080p and 1440p are entirely explained by the GPU’s 256‑bit memory interface. The Ultra 7 265K is a future‑proof choice for more than just Doom; its massive multi‑thread performance will be relevant in to a broader workload. In this game, it provides more than enough raw speed to leave the RTX 4060 as the sole decisive part, as the 4040 percentile indicates.