Doom

The Intel Core Ultra 9 290K Plus paired with the AMD Radeon RX 6650 XT is a combination that pits a top-tier 24-core processor against a mid-range graphics card. In Doom, a fast-paced FPS from 2016, this pairing produces a wide range of results depending on resolution and settings. The data shows a system that is clearly limited by the GPU in most scenarios, but the sheer processing power of the CPU ensures that frame rates never become unplayable, even at demanding 4K Ultra settings.

FAQ

Q: What is the best resolution for this combo to maintain a 60 FPS average?

A: The data shows that at 3840x2160 (4K), the High preset averages 51 FPS, the Medium preset averages 61 FPS, and the Low preset averages 70 FPS. To consistently stay above 60 FPS at 4K, you would need to use the Low preset, which hits 70 FPS on average. The Medium preset is also viable, as its 61 FPS average is technically above the 60 FPS threshold, but it is a much closer margin.

Q: How does the CPU's multi-core performance compare to its closest rivals?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 9 290K Plus has an average benchmark score of 84003. This places it 0.2% ahead of the Intel Core Ultra 9 285K and 1.1% ahead of the AMD EPYC 4584PX. It also scores 1.2% higher than the AMD EPYC 9135, but it trails the AMD EPYC 7F72 by 1.3%. Overall, the data indicates it is a very competitive high-end desktop processor.

Q: Is the GPU's performance more aligned with modern gaming or professional work?

A: The AMD Radeon RX 6650 XT has a percentile rank of 65 among all GPUs. Its nearest rivals are a mix of professional and older cards, including the NVIDIA Tesla K40m, from which it trails by 0.6%, and the AMD FirePro W7000, which it leads by 0.7%. This suggests its overall compute performance is in a similar league to those older professional cards, but its gaming-specific metrics are what matter for Doom.

Q: What is the CPU's single-threaded performance, and why is that relevant for Doom?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 9 290K Plus scores 7303 points in the Cinebench R23 single-core test and 4823 in the Passmark single-thread test. For an older game like Doom, which often relies heavily on single-thread performance for game logic and draw calls, high scores in these tests help prevent the CPU from bottlenecking the GPU, especially at lower resolutions where frame rates are very high.

Q: Does this GPU have enough VRAM for 4K gaming in Doom?

A: The AMD Radeon RX 6650 XT comes with 8 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 128-bit bus, providing 280.3 GB/s of bandwidth. The benchmark data shows that 4K gaming is possible, with an average of 51 FPS on High settings. While 8 GB is not a large amount by modern standards, the measured results confirm it is sufficient for this specific title at these settings.

Q: How does this combo rank against all other tested CPU and GPU combinations in Doom?

A: This specific pairing ranks 1886 out of 2930 total tested combos for Doom. This places it in the lower half of all tested systems, which is expected given the GPU's mid-range standing. The rank demonstrates that while the CPU is a top-tier part, the overall system performance is dictated by the GPU.

GPU Role

The AMD Radeon RX 6650 XT is the primary driver of frame rates in Doom for this combo. Its specifications, including 2048 shading units, 128 TMUs, and 64 ROPs, define its raw output capability. The card's boost clock of 2635 MHz and game clock of 2410 MHz provide the operating frequencies for these units. The GPU's performance is further characterized by its 10.79 TFLOPS of FP32 compute power, which is a measure of its shader throughput. This data points to a card designed for solid 1080p and 1440p gameplay, with 4K being a more demanding challenge.

The 8 GB of VRAM is a crucial factor. In Doom, the difference between 4K High and 4K Ultra is significant. The measured FPS drops from 51 to 42 when moving from High to Ultra settings at 4K. This suggests that the Ultra preset's higher texture quality and other memory-intensive effects are placing a heavy load on the 8 GB frame buffer, impacting performance. The 280.3 GB/s of memory bandwidth is also a key component; it is the conduit for feeding the GPU's cores with texture and geometry data, and it is a common limiting factor for mid-range cards at high resolutions.

The GPU's position in the market is reflected in its benchmark scores. It scores 17166 in the Passmark G3D test and 1859 in the 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 test. Its percentile rank of 65 indicates it outperforms a majority of all GPUs, but its nearest rivals are older professional cards like the NVIDIA Quadro K5200 and AMD FirePro W7000. This context shows that while it is not a top-tier gaming card, it is far from a low-end part. In Doom, a game known for its scalability, the 6650 XT is able to produce very high frame rates at 1080p, but its limitations become apparent as resolution increases.

Resolution Scaling

The performance scaling from 1080p to 4K clearly illustrates where the bottleneck lies in this system. At 1920x1080 with the Low preset, the combo achieves an average of 200 FPS. This high frame rate indicates that the CPU is capable of feeding the GPU with enough data to saturate its capabilities. When moving to 2560x1440 on Low, the average FPS drops to 129, a significant 35.5% decrease. This steep drop is the first major sign that the GPU is becoming the limiting factor, as the rendering load increases with more pixels.

The trend continues at 3840x2160, where the Low preset yields an average of 70 FPS. From 1080p to 4K, that is a 65% reduction in average frame rate. This is a classic sign of a GPU-bound system. The CPU, with its high single-core score of 7303 in Cinebench R23, is not the constraining component; it is the RX 6650 XT that is struggling to keep up with the increased pixel count. The data suggests that at 1080p, the CPU has headroom to spare, but this headroom is consumed as the resolution increases and the GPU's rendering time per frame grows.

This pattern holds true across all settings presets. For example, on High settings, the average FPS drops from 147 at 1080p, to 95 at 1440p, and finally to 51 at 4K. The relative drop between each step is substantial. The scaling from 1440p to 4K is a 46.3% reduction, which is a more significant drop than the 35.4% reduction seen from 1080p to 1440p. This indicates that as resolution increases, the GPU is working progressively harder, and its architectural limits are being reached. The conclusion from the data is that this combo is well-suited for high-refresh-rate 1080p gaming, capable for 1440p, and only playable at 4K with reduced settings.

How This Combo Ranks

The combo's rank of 1886 out of 2930 tested combinations places it in the 64th percentile of all tested systems. This means that roughly 64% of all combos tested for Doom perform better than this pairing. This positioning is directly attributable to the AMD Radeon RX 6650 XT. While the Intel Core Ultra 9 290K Plus is a powerhouse, ranking in the 96th percentile of all CPUs, its performance is not the deciding factor in this game at most resolutions.

The CPU's high benchmark scores, such as 51731 in Cinebench R23 multi-core and 60860 in Passmark multithread, are largely irrelevant in a GPU-bound scenario. The combo's low rank confirms the fact that a high-end CPU cannot compensate for a mid-range GPU in a graphically demanding title. The system's overall performance is capped by the GPU's output. This is a critical insight for anyone considering a build with this CPU: the choice of GPU will be the primary determinant of gaming performance. In this case, the 6650 XT, while a competent 1080p card, holds the system back from ranking higher.

The deltaPct values for the CPU's rivals show that the 290K Plus is very close in overall processing power to the 285K, with a difference of only 0.2%. However, this minor CPU difference would not be noticeable in Doom, as the GPU is the limiting factor. The ranking data makes it clear that for this specific game, the GPU is the weak link. The high rank of the CPU (96th percentile) versus the low rank of the GPU (65th percentile) versus the combo's even lower rank (64th percentile) reinforces the idea that the GPU is the primary bottleneck holding back the entire system's performance in Doom.

Measured FPS Breakdown

The measured FPS data provides a comprehensive look at the combo's performance across all settings and resolutions.

At 1920x1080, the results are excellent. On the Low preset, the average FPS is 200. The Medium preset averages 174 FPS, with a minimum of 148 and a maximum of 200. The High preset averages 147 FPS. Finally, the Ultra preset averages 120 FPS. These numbers show that at 1080p, the system is capable of delivering extremely high frame rates, easily surpassing the requirements of a 144Hz monitor and even approaching the limits of many 240Hz displays.

At 2560x1440, the performance is still very strong. The Low preset averages 129 FPS. The Medium preset averages 113 FPS, with a minimum of 96 and a maximum of 129. The High preset averages 95 FPS. The Ultra preset drops to an average of 78 FPS. These figures show that 1440p gaming is very viable, with all presets remaining above the 60 FPS threshold for smooth gameplay. The drop from 1080p is noticeable, but the system is still in its comfort zone.

At 3840x2160, the performance becomes more demanding. The Low preset averages 70 FPS. The Medium preset averages 61 FPS, with a minimum of 52 and a maximum of 70. The High preset averages 51 FPS. The Ultra preset averages 42 FPS. The data shows that 4K gaming is only truly comfortable on the Low preset. The Medium preset is borderline, with an average just above 60 FPS but a minimum that dips into the 50s. High and Ultra settings are not suitable for a consistent 60 FPS experience.

This breakdown shows a clear and predictable performance curve. The system excels at 1080p, is very capable at 1440p, and is only playable at 4K with reduced settings. The data also shows that the difference between Low and Ultra settings at each resolution is significant. At 1080p, the difference is 80 FPS (200 vs 120). At 1440p, the difference is 51 FPS (129 vs 78). At 4K, the difference is 28 FPS (70 vs 42). This indicates that the relative performance cost of higher settings is greater at lower resolutions where the GPU is less likely to be the absolute bottleneck.

Settings Recommendations

Based on the measured FPS data, the optimal settings depend heavily on the user's target resolution and refresh rate. The data shows a clear hierarchy of presets and their impact on performance.

For 1920x1080 users with high refresh rate monitors, the Ultra preset is the best choice. With an average of 120 FPS, it delivers a premium visual experience while still providing frame rates high enough for a 120Hz or 144Hz display. If a user has a 240Hz monitor, the High preset, at 147 FPS, or even the Medium preset, at 174 FPS, would be more appropriate to push frame rates higher. The Ultra preset offers the best visual quality without sacrificing the high-frame-rate experience that 1080p is known for.

For 2560x1440 gaming, the High preset at 95 FPS offers an excellent balance between visual fidelity and smoothness. It is a significant step up in quality from Medium and still maintains a frame rate well above 60 FPS. For those who prioritize maximum visual quality, the Ultra preset at 78 FPS is also viable, as it remains well within the range for a smooth experience on a 60Hz or 75Hz monitor. The Medium preset at 113 FPS is the best option for users with a 120Hz or 144Hz monitor who want to take advantage of the higher refresh rate.

For 3840x2160 gaming, the choices are more constrained. The Low preset is the only option that provides a consistently comfortable experience, with an average of 70 FPS. This is the recommended preset for 4K. The Medium preset, with an average of 61 FPS, is a viable alternative for those who want better visuals and are willing to tolerate occasional dips below 60 FPS, as indicated by its 52 FPS minimum. The High (51 FPS) and Ultra (42 FPS) presets should be avoided for a consistently smooth experience, as they fall below the 60 FPS standard. The data suggests that at 4K, the GPU's limitations are the deciding factor, and visual quality must be sacrificed for playable frame rates.