Doom

The Intel Core Ultra 9 290K Plus paired with the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 is an extreme mismatch in raw compute potential, but for a 2016 title like Doom, the results are surprisingly playable at lower resolutions. The CPU is a 24-core, 24-thread desktop part based on the Arrow Lake Refresh architecture, built on a 3 nm process by TSMC, with a base clock of 3.70 GHz and a boost clock of 5.80 GHz. Its 36 MB of shared L3 cache and dual-channel DDR5 memory support (115.2 GB/s bandwidth) place it in the top tier of processors, scoring in the 96th percentile among all CPUs. The GPU, by contrast, is a Turing-architecture part from the GeForce 16 series, with 896 shading units, 4 GB of GDDR5 memory on a 128-bit bus (128.1 GB/s bandwidth), and a boost clock of 1665 MHz. It sits in the 40th percentile of all GPUs, making it a modest entry-level card that is now end-of-life. The data shows that this combination ranks 2833 out of 2930 tested combos in Doom, which places it near the bottom of the database, but the measured FPS reveals that the GTX 1650 can still deliver a smooth experience at 1080p with the right settings.

FAQ

Q: Can this combo run Doom at 1920x1080 with smooth gameplay?

A: Yes. At 1080p Low settings, the average FPS is 92, and at Medium it drops to 80. High settings yield 68 FPS, while Ultra produces 55 FPS. All of these are above the 30 FPS threshold for playability, and the Medium and Low settings are well into smooth territory for a fast-paced FPS.

Q: What is the best resolution for this hardware in Doom?

A: The data shows 1920x1080 is the only resolution where the GTX 1650 consistently exceeds 60 FPS on Low settings. At 2560x1440 Low, the average is 59 FPS, which is borderline, but 1080p offers the most headroom across all settings.

Q: How does the GTX 1650 compare to its closest rivals in terms of average benchmark score?

A: The GTX 1650 has an average benchmark score of 7472. Its nearest rival, the Intel Arc A310, scores 7550, which is 1% higher. The AMD Radeon HD 8850M scores 7447 (0.3% lower), and the Intel UHD Graphics 750 scores 7441 (0.4% lower). The AMD Radeon R7 350 scores 7425, which is 0.6% lower.

Q: Is the Intel Core Ultra 9 290K Plus a bottleneck in this setup?

A: The CPU is massively overqualified relative to the GPU. With a Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 51731 and a single-core score of 7303, it ranks in the 96th percentile of all CPUs. In Doom, the bottleneck is clearly the GPU, as the CPU’s performance is far beyond what a GTX 1650 can utilize.

Q: What is the FPS difference between Ultra and Low settings at 2560x1440?

A: At 2560x1440, Low settings produce an average of 59 FPS, while Ultra drops to 36 FPS. That is a 23 FPS difference, or roughly 39% lower performance on Ultra compared to Low.

Q: Does the GTX 1650 support modern APIs needed for Doom?

A: Yes. The GPU supports DirectX 12 (12_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. Doom’s Vulkan path is well-supported, which is reflected in the playable FPS at lower settings despite the card’s age.

How This Combo Ranks

In the benchmark database, this specific pairing of the Intel Core Ultra 9 290K Plus and NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 holds a combo rank of 2833 out of 2930 tested combinations in Doom. That places it in the bottom 3.3% of all tested systems, which is expected given the GPU’s lowly 40th percentile standing among all graphics cards. The CPU, on the other hand, is in the 96th percentile, so the ranking is dragged down almost entirely by the GPU’s limitations. The data indicates that the CPU contributes virtually no constraint in this game; the GPU is the sole performance limiter.

To contextualize the CPU’s strength, its average benchmark score is 84003, which is 0.2% higher than the Intel Core Ultra 9 285K (83807), 1.1% higher than the AMD EPYC 4584PX (83090), and 1.2% higher than the AMD EPYC 9135 (82980). The only rival that beats it is the AMD EPYC 7F72, which scores 85072, putting the 290K Plus 1.3% behind. These deltas are minuscule, meaning the 290K Plus is essentially at parity with the fastest desktop and server chips in the database. For Doom, a game from 2016, this CPU provides far more headroom than any GPU paired with it would need, so the combo rank is purely a reflection of the GTX 1650’s modest capabilities.

The GPU’s average benchmark score is 7472, with its closest rival being the Intel Arc A310 at 7550 (1% higher). The AMD Radeon HD 8850M (7447) and Intel UHD Graphics 750 (7441) are within 0.4% lower, while the AMD Radeon R7 350 (7425) is 0.6% lower. This places the GTX 1650 in a cluster of low-end and integrated graphics solutions, none of which are designed for high-refresh-rate gaming at modern resolutions. In Doom, however, the game’s optimization allows even this tier of GPU to produce playable frame rates at 1080p, which is why the combo rank, while low, does not mean the game is unplayable.

GPU Role

The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 is the limiting factor in this combo. Its 4 GB of GDDR5 memory on a 128-bit bus provides 128.1 GB/s of bandwidth, which is modest by modern standards but sufficient for a 2016 title like Doom at lower settings. The GPU’s base clock is 1485 MHz, boosting to 1665 MHz, and it has 896 shading units, 56 TMUs, and 32 ROPs. Its pixel rate is 53.28 GPixel/s and texture rate is 93.24 GTexel/s, with FP32 performance of 2.984 TFLOPS. These figures are all characteristic of an entry-level card from the GeForce 16 series, and the data shows that the GPU sits in the 40th percentile of all GPUs.

In Doom, the measured FPS scales predictably with resolution and settings, confirming that the GPU is the primary determinant of performance. At 1920x1080 Low, the average FPS is 92, which is the highest recorded value for this combo. At the same resolution, Medium drops to 80, High to 68, and Ultra to 55. The step from Low to Ultra at 1080p represents a 40% reduction in average FPS, which is typical for a GPU with limited memory bandwidth and shading power. At 2560x1440, the averages are 59 (Low), 52 (Medium), 44 (High), and 36 (Ultra). The drop from 1080p Low to 1440p Low is 33 FPS, a 36% decrease, illustrating how quickly the GTX 1650 runs out of headroom as pixel count increases.

The 4 GB VRAM capacity is not a major issue in Doom, as the game’s textures are from 2016 and fit within that limit at all settings. However, the memory bandwidth of 128.1 GB/s becomes a constraint at higher resolutions, where the 128-bit bus struggles to feed the shading units. The measured FPS at 3840x2160 confirms this: Low averages 32 FPS, Medium 28 FPS, High 24 FPS, and Ultra 19 FPS. These numbers are below the 30 FPS threshold for playability except for Low, and even then, the frame pacing is likely inconsistent given the GPU’s low percentile ranking. The GTX 1650’s support for DirectX 12 (12_1) and Vulkan 1.4 means it can use Doom’s modern rendering paths, but the raw hardware limits are evident in the 4K results.

Measured FPS Breakdown

The measured FPS data covers three resolutions and four settings, providing a clear picture of this combo’s performance envelope. At 1920x1080, the results are as follows: Low averages 92 FPS, Medium averages 80 FPS (with a minimum of 68 and maximum of 92), High averages 68 FPS, and Ultra averages 55 FPS. The Medium row has explicit min/max values, showing a range of 68 to 92 FPS, which indicates that even at this setting, the frame rate can dip below the average but remains playable. Low and High have no min/max data, but the averages suggest a consistent experience. Ultra at 55 FPS is still above 30 FPS, making it technically playable, though the margin for error in fast action sequences is thinner.

At 2560x1440, the averages are 59 FPS for Low, 52 FPS for Medium (min 44, max 60), 44 FPS for High, and 36 FPS for Ultra. The Medium row again provides a range, with a minimum of 44 FPS, which is close to the 30 FPS threshold but still acceptable for a single-player experience. Low at 59 FPS is near the 60 FPS target, but the lack of min/max data means we cannot confirm frame stability. High at 44 FPS and Ultra at 36 FPS are both playable but require the player to accept lower frame pacing. The delta between Low and Ultra at 1440p is 23 FPS, a 39% reduction, which is similar to the 1080p scaling.

At 3840x2160, the data shows the GTX 1650 is out of its depth. Low averages 32 FPS, Medium averages 28 FPS (min 24, max 32), High averages 24 FPS, and Ultra averages 19 FPS. Only Low approaches the 30 FPS threshold, and even then, the Medium row’s minimum of 24 FPS suggests that any action-heavy scene will cause noticeable stutter. The 4K results are largely academic for this GPU, as the 128.1 GB/s bandwidth and 4 GB VRAM are insufficient for smooth gameplay at that resolution. The step from 1440p Low (59 FPS) to 4K Low (32 FPS) is a 46% drop, which is expected given the fourfold increase in pixel count.

Across all resolutions, the pattern is consistent: Low settings provide the highest FPS, followed by Medium, High, and Ultra. The GTX 1650’s performance in Doom is best described as “playable at 1080p, acceptable at 1440p with compromises, and marginal at 4K.” For a game from 2016, this is a reasonable result for a GPU that was entry-level when released in 2019.

CPU Role

The Intel Core Ultra 9 290K Plus is an outlier in this combo, as its performance is far beyond what the GTX 1650 can utilize in Doom. The CPU has 24 cores and 24 threads, with a base clock of 3.70 GHz and a boost clock of 5.80 GHz. Its cache hierarchy includes 192 KB of L1 per core, 3 MB of L2 per core, and 36 MB of shared L3. It supports DDR5 memory in a dual-channel configuration, providing 115.2 GB/s of bandwidth, and it is built on a 3 nm process with 17,800 million transistors on a 243 mm² die. The CPU’s integrated graphics are Arc Xe-LPG Graphics with 64 EU, which is irrelevant here since the GTX 1650 is the primary display adapter.

Benchmark results for the CPU show it is a top-tier part. In Cinebench R23, it scores 51731 multi-core and 7303 single-core. In Cinebench R20, the scores are 21727 multi-core and 3067 single-core. PassMark results include a multithread score of 60860, a single-thread score of 4823, and a physics score of 3315. Its average benchmark score is 84003, placing it in the 96th percentile of all CPUs. The nearest rivals are all server or high-end desktop chips: the Intel Core Ultra 9 285K (83807, 0.2% lower), AMD EPYC 4584PX (83090, 1.1% lower), AMD EPYC 9135 (82980, 1.2% lower), and AMD EPYC 7F72 (85072, 1.3% higher). These deltas are within noise, meaning the 290K Plus is effectively tied with the fastest CPUs available.

In Doom, the CPU’s role is to feed the GPU with draw calls and physics calculations, but the GTX 1650 is so slow that the CPU spends most of its time waiting. The measured FPS at 1080p Low (92 FPS) is far below what the CPU could handle; a stronger GPU would likely push FPS much higher, but the GTX 1650’s 2.984 TFLOPS of FP32 performance is the hard ceiling. The CPU’s 24 threads are overkill for a game from 2016, which likely uses only a few cores. Even the single-core score of 7303 in Cinebench R23 is more than enough to maintain high frame rates, but the GPU cannot deliver them. The data confirms that the CPU is not a bottleneck in any resolution or setting tested; the GPU is the sole limiting factor.

Settings Recommendations

Based on the measured FPS, the best experience for this combo in Doom is at 1920x1080 with Low settings, where the average FPS is 92. This provides a comfortable margin above 60 FPS, ensuring smooth gameplay even during intense combat sequences. Medium settings at 1080p (80 FPS) are also excellent, offering improved visual quality while still maintaining a high frame rate. The min/max range for Medium (68 to 92 FPS) shows that the frame rate stays above 60 FPS for the most part, making it the recommended balance between visuals and performance. High at 1080p (68 FPS) is playable but leaves less headroom, and Ultra (55 FPS) dips below 60 FPS, which may cause noticeable stutter in a fast-paced FPS.

At 2560x1440, the recommendation shifts to Low settings, which average 59 FPS. This is just shy of 60 FPS, but it is playable. Medium at 1440p (52 FPS) is acceptable if you prefer better visuals, but the minimum of 44 FPS from the data suggests that frame drops are more common. High (44 FPS) and Ultra (36 FPS) are playable but not ideal for a game that rewards quick reactions. For the best experience at 1440p, Low is the safest choice, as it maximizes frame rate and minimizes the risk of drops below 30 FPS.

At 3840x2160, no setting is truly recommended, as even Low averages only 32 FPS. This is below the 60 FPS target and close to the 30 FPS threshold. Medium (28 FPS) and High (24 FPS) are sub-30 FPS, and Ultra (19 FPS) is unplayable. If you must play at 4K, Low is the only viable option, but the experience will be marginal. For most users, sticking to 1080p is the practical choice.

In summary, the optimal configuration is 1080p with Medium settings, which delivers an average of 80 FPS with a minimum of 68 FPS. This combination provides good visual fidelity without sacrificing the frame rate needed for a responsive FPS. If you prioritize frame rate above all else, 1080p Low at 92 FPS is the best measured result. At 1440p, Low is the only setting that approaches 60 FPS, and at 4K, the GPU is not capable of a smooth experience. The data supports a practical approach: use 1080p for the best balance, and only drop to 1440p if you can tolerate lower frame rates.