Doom

Resolution Scaling

Doom’s performance profile for this combination reveals a steep drop-off as resolution climbs, with the frame rate nearly halving from 1080p to 4K at the same settings. At Low settings, the average frame rate falls from 95 FPS at 1920x1080 to 61 FPS at 2560x1440, a reduction of 34 FPS, and then further to 33 FPS at 3840x2160. That represents a 65% loss in average FPS from 1080p to 4K, indicating that the rendering pipeline becomes severely strained at higher pixel counts.

The scaling pattern across the board suggests that the integrated GPU is the primary bottleneck rather than the CPU. At High settings, the transition from 1080p to 1440p drops the average from 70 FPS to 45 FPS, a 25 FPS decline, while moving to 4K brings it down to 24 FPS. The delta between 1440p and 4K is 21 FPS, which is only slightly smaller than the 1080p-to-1440p gap, showing that the performance penalty does not taper off as resolution increases. This is characteristic of a graphics-limited scenario where the shading units and ROPs are overwhelmed.

The Medium preset tells a similar story, with averages of 82 FPS at 1080p, 53 FPS at 1440p, and 29 FPS at 4K. The 4K result includes a minimum of 25 FPS and a maximum of 33 FPS, indicating that even the frame pacing is inconsistent at that resolution. The Ultra preset, meanwhile, starts at 57 FPS at 1080p, falls to 37 FPS at 1440p, and bottoms out at 20 FPS at 4K. The jump from 20 to 33 FPS when dropping from Ultra to Low at 4K shows that settings adjustments can recover some headroom, but the absolute values remain low.

What the data implies is that this combo is not suited for 4K gaming in Doom, regardless of preset. The 24 FPS average at High 4K is below playable thresholds, and even the 33 FPS at Low 4K is marginal. The 1440p results are more viable, with Low hitting 61 FPS and Medium at 53 FPS, but the 4K numbers suggest the GPU’s memory bandwidth, which is system-dependent, becomes a limiting factor at higher resolutions. The scaling from 1080p to 1440p is roughly linear in percentage terms, but the 1440p-to-4K drop is proportionally steeper, reinforcing that the integrated graphics are running out of compute and fill rate.

GPU Role

The AMD Radeon 890M is an integrated graphics solution based on the RDNA 3.5 architecture, built on a 4 nm process at TSMC. It features 1024 shading units, 64 texture mapping units, and 32 ROPs, with a boost clock of 2900 MHz and a base clock of 400 MHz. The chip is part of the Strix Point generation and carries a TDP of 15 W, which is notably low for a component that must handle a 2016 FPS title like Doom.

The GPU’s memory configuration is entirely system-shared, meaning the bandwidth is dependent on the host platform’s DDR5 memory. This is a critical constraint, as the 890M has no dedicated VRAM. The lack of dedicated memory explains why performance degrades so sharply at 4K; the GPU must compete with the CPU for memory access, and the shared bus becomes a bottleneck. The pixel rate is rated at 92.80 GPixel/s, and the texture rate is 185.6 GTexel/s, but these theoretical figures do not translate into playable 4K performance in practice.

In benchmark terms, the 890M scores 8076 in Passmark G3D and 4157 in Passmark GPU Compute. Its percentile rank against all GPUs is 45, placing it in the lower half of the distribution. The nearest rivals in aggregate score are the AMD Radeon Vega 8, which is 0.1% behind, and the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 960, which is 0.7% ahead. This places the 890M in the same performance tier as a decade-old discrete GPU, which is relevant context for its Doom results.

The 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 score of 590 and Geekbench OpenCL score of 37254 reflect limited compute capability. The FP32 throughput is 5.939 TFLOPS, which is modest by modern standards. For a game like Doom, which relies heavily on raw fill rate and shader execution, the 890M’s 32 ROPs are insufficient for 4K, but at 1080p they manage to produce respectable frame rates. The boost clock of 2900 MHz is high for an integrated part, but it cannot compensate for the memory bandwidth limitation at higher resolutions.

How This Combo Ranks

This specific pairing of the Intel Core Ultra 9 275HX with the AMD Radeon 890M ranks 2758 out of 2930 tested combinations in Doom. That places it in the bottom 6% of all combos, which is a poor showing for a system with a high-end CPU. The rank reflects that the GPU is the limiting factor, as the CPU’s strength is wasted when paired with an integrated graphics solution that cannot keep up with the game’s demands.

The combo’s position in the database indicates that most other tested configurations, including those with older discrete GPUs, outperform it. The 890M’s nearest rivals in raw GPU score—the Vega 8 and GTX 960—suggest that this combo is comparable to systems from several generations ago. In Doom specifically, the 2758th rank out of 2930 means that only 172 other combos are slower, which is a stark indicator of the performance ceiling imposed by the integrated graphics.

The CPU itself, the Intel Core Ultra 9 275HX, has a percentile rank of 94 against all CPUs, meaning it is faster than 94% of processors tested. Its average benchmark score of 67469 places it within 1% of rivals like the Intel Xeon w5-3525 and AMD EPYC 4484PX. This contrast between a top-tier CPU and a mid-range GPU creates an imbalance that shows up clearly in the game’s frame rates. The combo rank is thus a reflection of the GPU bottleneck, not the CPU’s capability.

Measured FPS Breakdown

At 1920x1080, the lowest resolution tested, the combo delivers its best results. The Low preset averages 95 FPS, which is the highest figure recorded across all settings and resolutions. Medium drops to 82 FPS with a minimum of 70 and a maximum of 95, while High averages 70 FPS. Ultra is the only preset that dips below 60 FPS at this resolution, with an average of 57 FPS. These numbers show that 1080p is the sweet spot for this combination, with only the Ultra preset failing to maintain a consistent 60 FPS.

Moving to 2560x1440, the performance drops significantly. Low averages 61 FPS, which is still playable, but Medium falls to 53 FPS with a minimum of 45 and a maximum of 61. High averages 45 FPS, and Ultra drops to 37 FPS. The 1440p results indicate that only the Low preset can sustain a 60 FPS average, and even that is borderline. The gap between Low and Ultra at this resolution is 24 FPS, showing that settings have a substantial impact on playability.

At 3840x2160, the results are largely unplayable. Low averages 33 FPS, Medium averages 29 FPS with a minimum of 25 and a maximum of 33, High averages 24 FPS, and Ultra averages 20 FPS. The spread from Low to Ultra is only 13 FPS, which is smaller than at 1440p, suggesting that the GPU is so constrained that reducing settings yields diminishing returns. The minimum FPS of 25 at Medium 4K indicates frame drops below 30 FPS, which would be noticeable in a fast-paced FPS.

Across all resolutions, the Medium preset consistently provides the most balanced frame pacing, with recorded minimums that are not too far from the averages. At 1080p Medium, the minimum is 70 FPS against an 82 FPS average; at 1440p Medium, the minimum is 45 FPS against a 53 FPS average; and at 4K Medium, the minimum is 25 FPS against a 29 FPS average. The Low and High presets do not have recorded minimums, but the pattern suggests that Medium offers the most stable experience among the tested settings.

CPU Role

The Intel Core Ultra 9 275HX is a 24-core, 24-thread processor based on the Arrow Lake architecture, built on a 3 nm process at TSMC. It has a base clock of 2.70 GHz and a boost clock of 5.40 GHz, with a TDP of 55 W. The CPU’s cache hierarchy includes 192 KB of L1 per core, 3 MB of L2 per core, and 36 MB of shared L3 cache. This is a mobile processor with a memory bus of 102.4 GB/s, which is dual-channel DDR5.

In synthetic benchmarks, the 275HX is a powerhouse. It scores 35589 in Cinebench R23 multi-core and 2204 in single-core, with corresponding R20 scores of 19899 and 2809. Geekbench results show 20795 multi-core and 2458 single-core. Passmark multi-thread score is 55759, and single-thread is 4713. These figures place the CPU in the 94th percentile against all processors, and its average benchmark score of 67469 is within 0.7% of the Intel Xeon 6515P, which is its nearest rival on the higher side.

For Doom, the CPU’s role is to feed the GPU with draw calls and handle game logic. The 275HX’s 24 cores and high boost clock are more than sufficient for this task, and the data supports this: the frame rates scale inversely with resolution, which is a classic sign of GPU limitation. If the CPU were the bottleneck, we would see similar frame rates across resolutions, but that is not the case. The 1080p Low average of 95 FPS versus the 4K Low average of 33 FPS is a 62 FPS difference, confirming that the GPU is the constraint.

The CPU’s memory bandwidth of 102.4 GB/s is shared with the integrated GPU, which could be a secondary bottleneck. However, the CPU’s high single-thread performance, as evidenced by the 2204 Cinebench R23 single-core score, ensures that it can process the game’s rendering commands without introducing latency. In this combo, the CPU is effectively waiting on the GPU at every resolution, which is why the 2758th rank out of 2930 is not a reflection of the processor’s capability but rather the integrated graphics’ limitation.

Settings Recommendations

Based on the measured FPS rows, the optimal preset depends on the target resolution. At 1920x1080, the Low preset delivers 95 FPS, which is the highest average achieved by this combo. However, the Medium preset at 82 FPS is a better balance of visual quality and performance, especially since its minimum of 70 FPS ensures that the frame rate rarely dips below 60. The High preset at 70 FPS is also playable, but Ultra at 57 FPS does not maintain a 60 FPS average, making it less desirable for smooth gameplay.

At 2560x1440, the Low preset is the only one that averages above 60 FPS, hitting 61 FPS. The Medium preset at 53 FPS is acceptable for less demanding play, but its minimum of 45 FPS means there will be noticeable stutters during intense scenes. The High preset at 45 FPS and Ultra at 37 FPS are below the threshold for a responsive FPS experience. For 1440p, the recommendation is to use Low if fluidity is the priority, or Medium if visual fidelity is preferred at the cost of some smoothness.

At 3840x2160, none of the presets achieve a playable frame rate. The best average is 33 FPS on Low, which is still below 30 FPS minimums in some cases. The Medium preset at 29 FPS with a minimum of 25 FPS is the most stable option, but it is not recommended for competitive play. The data suggests that 4K is not viable for this combo, and users should either lower the resolution or accept sub-30 FPS performance.

Across all settings, the Medium preset provides the most consistent frame pacing, as evidenced by the recorded minimums at each resolution. At 1080p, Medium’s 70 FPS minimum is only 12 FPS below its average; at 1440p, the 45 FPS minimum is 8 FPS below; and at 4K, the 25 FPS minimum is 4 FPS below. This consistency makes Medium the best overall choice for maintaining a stable experience, even if it does not always hit the highest average. For users prioritizing maximum frame rate, Low at 1080p is the clear winner, but for a balanced experience, Medium at 1080p is the recommended preset.