Doom

How This Combo Ranks

The Intel Core Ultra 9 290K Plus paired with the AMD Radeon RX 7700 places at rank 1314 out of 2930 tested combos in Doom. That puts this configuration in the 55th percentile of all tested system pairings, a mid-pack result that reflects a significant imbalance between the two components. The CPU is an elite performer sitting at the 96th percentile among all processors, while the GPU ranks at just the 58th percentile among all graphics cards. This gap is the defining characteristic of this combo: the processor has far more headroom than the graphics card can exploit in a title like Doom.

The rank itself, however, tells a more nuanced story when compared to the individual component standings. If both parts performed at their respective percentile levels, the combo would likely rank higher than 1314th, since the CPU is so far above average. The fact that it lands in the middle of the pack suggests that game performance is being constrained by the GPU in most scenarios, pulling the overall result down toward the graphics card's lower percentile standing. The data shows this is a CPU-heavy pairing where the processor's capabilities are largely wasted in Doom's specific workload demands.

Benchmark results indicate that the Core Ultra 9 290K Plus achieves an average benchmark score of 84003, placing it just 0.2% ahead of the Intel Core Ultra 9 285K and 1.1% ahead of the AMD EPYC 4584PX. Meanwhile, the RX 7700's average score of 15852 sits 1.7% behind the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3060 Ti and 1% behind the AMD Radeon RX 9060. The delta between these two components' standings relative to their nearest rivals reinforces the conclusion that this combo's overall rank is dragged down by the GPU side of the equation.

GPU Role

The AMD Radeon RX 7700 brings 16 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 256-bit bus, yielding a bandwidth of 624.1 GB/s. Memory clocks run at 2438 MHz with 19.5 Gbps effective transfer rates. The GPU's base clock is 1900 MHz, with a game clock of 2041 MHz and a boost clock of 2459 MHz. These specifications place the card in the Radeon RX 7000 series, built on the Navi 32 chip with RDNA 3.0 architecture and a 5 nm process from TSMC.

For Doom, a game originally released in 2016, the RX 7700's specifications are more than adequate on paper. The 16 GB frame buffer is generous for a title of this era, and the 256-bit memory interface ensures the GPU can feed its 2560 shading units without starvation. The card's 96 ROPs and 160 TMUs provide solid fill rate capabilities, with a pixel rate of 236.1 GPixel/s and a texture rate of 393.4 GTexel/s. The FP32 throughput of 25.18 TFLOPS gives the card ample compute headroom for the game's rendering tasks.

However, the benchmark data reveals that this GPU is the limiting factor in this combo. The RX 7700's percentile standing of 58 among all GPUs is modest, and its nearest rivals include the AMD Radeon R9 370X, which is a much older part. The card's average benchmark score of 15852 puts it in a competitive but not dominant position. In Doom specifically, the GPU's performance ceiling becomes evident when comparing frame rates across settings and resolutions: the card delivers playable but not exceptional results, particularly at higher quality presets where the frame rate drops noticeably.

The GPU's compute performance, as measured by Passmark's GPU compute test at 10963, and its 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 score of 2865, indicate a mid-range performer. The DirectX 12 Passmark score of 96 and DirectX 11 score of 186 show the card handles modern APIs reasonably well, which matters for Doom's Vulkan-based rendering. The card supports DirectX 12 Ultimate, OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4, covering all the API bases the game might use.

CPU Role

The Intel Core Ultra 9 290K Plus is a 24-core, 24-thread processor from the Core Ultra Series 2, based on the Arrow Lake Refresh codename with a 3 nm process from TSMC. It runs at a base clock of 3.70 GHz and boosts up to 5.80 GHz. The chip carries 36 MB of shared L3 cache, with 3 MB of L2 cache per core and 192 KB of L1 cache per core. Memory support is DDR5 via a dual-channel interface, providing 115.2 GB/s of bandwidth. The CPU's TDP is rated at 125 W, and it uses the Intel Socket 1851.

The processor's benchmark results are exceptional. In Cinebench R23, it scores 51731 in multi-core and 7303 in single-core tests. Cinebench R20 shows 21727 multi-core and 3067 single-core. The Passmark multi-thread score is 60860, with a single-thread score of 4823. The CPU's average benchmark score of 84003 places it at the 96th percentile among all CPUs, with its nearest rival being the Intel Core Ultra 9 285K at 83807, a mere 0.2% difference. The AMD EPYC 7F72 scores 85072, putting it 1.3% ahead of the 290K Plus.

For Doom, the CPU's role is primarily to feed the GPU with draw calls and game logic updates. The 24 cores and 24 threads provide massive parallel processing capability, and the 5.80 GHz boost clock ensures excellent single-thread performance for the game's main thread. The Cinebench R15 single-core score of 736 and multi-core score of 5214 demonstrate the chip's balanced capabilities. The Passmark single-thread score of 4823 places this among the fastest desktop processors for lightly threaded workloads.

The data strongly suggests that the CPU is not the bottleneck in this combo for Doom. At 1080p Low settings, the system achieves 241 FPS average, which approaches the practical ceiling for many displays. The CPU's ability to maintain high frame rates even at lower resolutions, where GPU load decreases, indicates it has ample headroom. The Core Ultra 9 290K Plus's 96th percentile standing among all CPUs means it can handle far more demanding scenarios than Doom presents, making the GPU the clear performance limiter in this pairing.

Measured FPS Breakdown

At 1920x1080 resolution, the combo delivers its strongest results. Low settings produce an average of 241 FPS, while Medium settings yield 210 FPS with a minimum of 179 and maximum of 242. High settings average 178 FPS, and Ultra settings drop to 145 FPS. These numbers show a clear progression: each step up in quality costs roughly 30-35 FPS on average, with the gap between Low and Ultra totaling 96 FPS.

Moving to 2560x1440, the frame rates remain highly playable but show the GPU beginning to strain. Low settings average 156 FPS, Medium averages 136 FPS with a minimum of 116 and maximum of 156, High averages 115 FPS, and Ultra averages 94 FPS. The scaling from 1080p to 1440p costs approximately 35% of the frame rate at each settings level, which is consistent with the increased pixel count of 1.78x that 1440p represents over 1080p.

At 3840x2160, the GPU's limitations become pronounced. Low settings average 85 FPS, Medium averages 74 FPS with a minimum of 63 and maximum of 85, High averages 62 FPS, and Ultra drops to 51 FPS. The 4K results show that only Low and Medium settings maintain averages above 60 FPS, while High sits right at the edge and Ultra falls below the 60 FPS threshold that many consider the minimum for smooth gameplay.

The frame rate data reveals consistent behavior across all resolutions: the gap between Low and Ultra settings remains roughly 60-65% of the Low setting's value. At 1080p, Ultra achieves 60.2% of Low's frame rate; at 1440p, it achieves 60.3%; and at 4K, it achieves 60%. This consistency suggests the GPU is scaling predictably with workload, and the CPU is not introducing variable bottlenecks across different quality settings.

Resolution Scaling

The scaling from 1080p to 4K shows a clear pattern of GPU limitation. At Low settings, the frame rate drops from 241 FPS at 1080p to 156 FPS at 1440p and then to 85 FPS at 4K. That represents a 35.3% drop from 1080p to 1440p and a further 45.5% drop from 1440p to 4K. The total drop from 1080p to 4K is 64.7%, which is very close to the theoretical 4x pixel count difference, indicating the GPU is fully saturated at higher resolutions.

At Medium settings, the progression is 210 FPS at 1080p, 136 FPS at 1440p, and 74 FPS at 4K. The drop from 1080p to 1440p is 35.2%, and from 1440p to 4K is 45.6%. These percentages are nearly identical to the Low settings scaling, confirming that the GPU's performance curve is consistent regardless of quality preset. The minimum frame rates at Medium settings also scale predictably: 179 at 1080p, 116 at 1440p, and 63 at 4K.

High settings show similar scaling: 178 FPS at 1080p, 115 FPS at 1440p, and 62 FPS at 4K. The drop from 1080p to 1440p is 35.4%, and from 1440p to 4K is 46.1%. Ultra settings follow the same pattern: 145 FPS at 1080p, 94 FPS at 1440p, and 51 FPS at 4K, with drops of 35.2% and 45.7% respectively.

The consistent scaling percentages across all four settings levels provide strong evidence that the GPU is the limiting component. If the CPU were the bottleneck, the scaling from 1080p to 4K would show diminishing frame rate drops, as the CPU would cap performance at lower resolutions. Instead, the frame rate drops nearly proportionally with pixel count, which is the signature of a GPU-bound scenario. The CPU's 96th percentile standing versus the GPU's 58th percentile supports this interpretation, as does the fact that even at 1080p Low, the system does not exceed 241 FPS, which is well within the CPU's capability ceiling given its single-thread performance.

Settings Recommendations

The measured data provides clear guidance for optimal settings based on target frame rates and resolution. At 4K, the choice is between Low and Medium settings. Low averages 85 FPS, which provides comfortable headroom above 60 FPS, while Medium averages 74 FPS with a minimum of 63 FPS. The minimum frame rate at Medium is just above the 60 FPS threshold, making it the better choice for visual quality without sacrificing playability. High at 62 FPS average is too close to the edge, and Ultra at 51 FPS falls below acceptable levels for smooth gameplay.

At 1440p, the recommendation shifts upward. Ultra settings average 94 FPS, which is well above 60 FPS and provides a smooth experience. Given that the minimum frame rates at Medium settings are 116 FPS, the system has substantial headroom even at Ultra. The data shows that 1440p Ultra is the sweet spot for this combo, delivering near-100 FPS performance with maximum visual quality. High settings at 115 FPS and Medium at 136 FPS are viable alternatives for those prioritizing higher frame rates, but they sacrifice visual fidelity without a proportional performance gain.

At 1080p, all settings produce playable frame rates, with the lowest being Ultra at 145 FPS. The recommendation here depends on the display's refresh rate. For 144 Hz displays, Ultra at 145 FPS is sufficient. For 240 Hz displays, High at 178 FPS or Medium at 210 FPS would be better choices. Low at 241 FPS approaches the limit of what most displays can show and would only be necessary for competitive play at the highest refresh rates.

The overall best experience per the measured rows is 1440p Ultra. This configuration delivers 94 FPS average, which is smooth and responsive, while offering the highest visual quality that still maintains a comfortable margin above 60 FPS. The alternative of 1080p Ultra at 145 FPS is also excellent, but the resolution increase at 1440p provides a more significant visual improvement than the frame rate difference between 94 and 145 FPS. The data shows that this combo is best utilized at 1440p, where the GPU's capabilities are fully engaged without exceeding its limits.