Doom

The Intel Core Ultra 9 290K Plus paired with the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4070 SUPER delivers a formidable showing in Doom, with the data indicating a system that scales predictably across resolutions. The combination of a high-end 24-core processor and a 12 GB Ada Lovelace GPU provides a wide performance envelope, though the benchmarks reveal where each component’s influence wanes and where the other takes over. This analysis breaks down the measured FPS across resolutions and presets, contextualizes the GPU’s role, and offers actionable settings guidance based strictly on the observed data.

Resolution Scaling

The measured frame rates in Doom demonstrate a clear and expected scaling pattern as resolution increases, with the most dramatic shifts occurring between 1080p and 1440p. At 1920x1080 with Ultra settings, the combo produces an average of 210 FPS. Moving to 2560x1440 at the same preset, the average drops to 136 FPS, a reduction of approximately 35%. This substantial decline indicates that while the CPU is capable of feeding the GPU at lower resolutions, the rendering load at 1440p begins to assert more pressure on the graphics card. The trend continues to 3840x2160, where the Ultra preset averages 74 FPS, representing another 46% drop from the 1440p figure. This scaling pattern is classic behavior for a system where the GPU becomes the primary limiting factor as pixel count grows.

The data suggests that at 1080p, the system is heavily CPU-bound, particularly at lower settings. For instance, switching from Low to Ultra at 1080p only reduces the average from 349 FPS to 210 FPS, a relatively modest penalty of 40% given the massive difference in visual fidelity. This relatively small spread indicates that the Intel Core Ultra 9 290K Plus, with its high boost clock of 5.80 GHz, is capable of maintaining high throughput even when the GPU is not fully saturated. The story changes at 4K, where the resolution scaling becomes steeper. At 3840x2160, the gap between Low (123 FPS) and Ultra (74 FPS) widens to a 40% performance difference as well, but the absolute numbers are far lower, confirming that the RTX 4070 SUPER’s rendering throughput is the dominant constraint.

Comparing the Medium preset across resolutions provides the most consistent view of scaling. At 1080p Medium, the average is 304 FPS; at 1440p Medium, it falls to 197 FPS; and at 4K Medium, it reaches 107 FPS. The scaling from 1080p to 1440p is a 35% reduction, while the step from 1440p to 4K is a 46% reduction. This non-linear scaling is typical for modern GPUs, where the increase in pixel count from 1440p to 4K (2.25x the pixels) outpaces the raw compute scaling, leading to a steeper FPS drop. The measured minimum FPS for Medium settings—259 at 1080p, 167 at 1440p, and 91 at 4K—further illustrates that the frame pacing remains stable, but the headroom for maintaining high averages diminishes significantly at higher resolutions.

The overall pattern indicates that for competitive or high-refresh-rate play, 1080p is where this combo excels, with all presets exceeding 210 FPS. For a balance of visual quality and smoothness, 1440p remains viable, though the Ultra preset’s 136 FPS average is still above typical 120 Hz refresh rates. At 4K, the system is firmly in GPU-limited territory, and users must accept either the 90 FPS High preset or the 74 FPS Ultra preset, both of which are playable but not exceptionally high for a game as fast-paced as Doom.

GPU Role

The NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4070 SUPER serves as the primary performance arbiter in this configuration, particularly as resolution increases. The GPU’s memory configuration includes 12 GB of GDDR6X across a 192-bit bus, yielding a bandwidth of 504.2 GB/s. This bandwidth is sufficient for the textures and geometry in Doom, as evidenced by the consistent frame times at 4K. The memory clock runs at 1313 MHz, or 21 Gbps effective, which contributes to the card’s ability to handle high-resolution assets without stuttering. The benchmark results show the GPU scores 29,995 in Passmark G3D, placing it in the 83rd percentile among all GPUs, with an average benchmark score of 43,223.

The GPU’s compute capabilities are substantial, with 7,168 shading units and 224 texture mapping units, alongside 80 ROPs. This configuration yields a pixel rate of 198.0 GPixel/s and a texture rate of 554.4 GTexel/s. For a game like Doom, which relies heavily on fast-paced rendering and particle effects, these rates are critical. The FP32 performance of 35.48 TFLOPS provides ample raw compute for the game’s lighting and post-processing effects. The card’s boost clock of 2475 MHz, up from a base of 1980 MHz, ensures that the GPU can dynamically scale its frequency to maintain performance under load, though the exact sustained clocks are not measured in this data.

Comparing the RTX 4070 SUPER to its nearest rivals in the database highlights its positioning. It is virtually tied with the NVIDIA Quadro M6000 24 GB, which has a deltaPct of -0.1%, and the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5050 Mobile, also at -0.1%. The desktop RTX 4090 Mobile is 1% faster, according to the average benchmark scores. This indicates that the 4070 SUPER sits in a performance tier where small differences in synthetic benchmarks translate to negligible real-world variance. In Doom specifically, the GPU’s role is evident in the 4K scaling: the 74 FPS Ultra result confirms the card’s ability to handle the game’s Vulkan-based rendering, though it is far from the 200+ FPS seen at 1080p.

The GPU’s VRAM capacity of 12 GB does not appear to be a bottleneck in Doom, as the game’s release in 2016 predates the massive texture loads of modern titles. The 192-bit memory bus, while narrower than higher-tier cards, still provides sufficient bandwidth for the game’s requirements. The data shows no anomalies in frame times at 4K Medium, where the minimum FPS of 91 is only 15% below the average of 107, suggesting that the memory subsystem is not causing hitches. The RTX 4070 SUPER’s power draw is rated at 220 W, and it requires a 550 W power supply, but these figures are not directly reflected in the measured FPS; rather, they indicate the card’s overall efficiency profile.

How This Combo Ranks

Within the database of tested combinations, this specific pairing of the Intel Core Ultra 9 290K Plus and the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4070 SUPER achieves a combo rank of 448 out of 2,930 total combinations. This places it in the top 15.3% of all tested combos, which is a strong result considering the GPU is not the absolute fastest available. The ranking reflects the balance between the CPU’s high multi-threaded performance and the GPU’s solid mid-to-high-end gaming capabilities. The CPU itself ranks in the 96th percentile among all CPUs, with an average benchmark score of 84,003, which is 0.2% ahead of the Intel Core Ultra 9 285K and 1.1% ahead of the AMD EPYC 4584PX. This CPU performance headroom ensures that the combo is rarely held back by processor limitations, even at lower resolutions.

The combo’s rank of 448 suggests that there are 447 other combinations that achieve higher overall performance in Doom, likely featuring more powerful GPUs such as the RTX 4090 or higher-tier AMD offerings. However, the data indicates that this combo is not bottlenecked by the CPU, as the scaling from 1080p to 4K follows a GPU-bound trajectory. The nearest CPU rival, the Intel Core Ultra 9 285K, has an average score that is 0.2% lower, which would translate to a negligible difference in Doom’s frame rates. The AMD EPYC 4584PX, with a deltaPct of 1.1%, is also closely matched, though its server-oriented design may not offer the same gaming performance due to different architectural priorities.

The GPU’s percentile ranking of 83 places it above the majority of graphics cards, but its nearest rivals are all within 1% of its average score. This means that the combo’s ranking is more dependent on the GPU’s absolute performance than on the CPU’s, as the CPU is clearly capable of supporting higher-tier GPUs. For users considering this combo, the data shows that it provides a robust 1440p experience and a passable 4K experience, but it will not compete with top-tier GPU combinations that exceed 4K Ultra at 100+ FPS. The rank of 448 out of 2,930 is a solid mid-pack result, indicating that this is a dependable, balanced system rather than an outlier at either end of the performance spectrum.

Measured FPS Breakdown

The measured FPS data provides a comprehensive view of the system’s capabilities across three resolutions and four quality presets. At 1920x1080, the system demonstrates its highest performance ceiling. With Low settings, the average FPS is 349, which is exceptionally high and indicates a CPU-bound scenario where the GPU has significant headroom. Moving to Medium settings, the average drops to 304 FPS, with a minimum of 259 and a maximum of 350. The High preset yields 257 FPS average, while Ultra reduces the average to 210 FPS. These figures show that at 1080p, even the most demanding preset remains well above 200 FPS, making this an ideal resolution for high-refresh-rate monitors up to 240 Hz.

At 2560x1440, the performance remains strong but shows the first signs of GPU limitation. The Low preset averages 226 FPS, which is still very high and suitable for competitive play. Medium settings produce an average of 197 FPS, with a minimum of 167 and a maximum of 227, indicating consistent frame delivery. High settings average 166 FPS, and Ultra drops to 136 FPS. These numbers suggest that 1440p is the sweet spot for this combo, as even the Ultra preset maintains an average above 135 FPS, which is sufficient for most 120 Hz or 144 Hz displays. The scaling from Low to Ultra at 1440p is a 40% performance hit, which is expected given the increased pixel count and visual effects.

At 3840x2160, the system’s limits become apparent. The Low preset averages 123 FPS, which is playable but not buttery smooth for a fast-paced FPS. Medium settings average 107 FPS, with a minimum of 91 and a maximum of 123. High settings average 90 FPS, and Ultra averages 74 FPS. The step from Medium to High is a 16% reduction, while High to Ultra is an 18% reduction, showing that the GPU is increasingly taxed at 4K. The minimum FPS of 91 at Medium is notable, as it indicates that the system can maintain a playable framerate even during intense scenes, but the average of 74 FPS at Ultra means that users seeking 4K gaming will need to compromise on settings or accept lower than 60 FPS in the most demanding scenarios.

The data reveals a clear tiering: 1080p is for maximum frame rates, 1440p is for high-quality high-refresh gaming, and 4K is for visual fidelity at moderate frame rates. The Medium preset at 4K, with its 107 FPS average, is particularly interesting as it offers a good balance between visual quality and performance, with the minimum of 91 FPS ensuring a smooth experience.

Settings Recommendations

Based on the measured FPS data, the optimal settings for this combo depend heavily on the target resolution and desired refresh rate. For users with a 1080p 144 Hz or 240 Hz monitor, the High preset at 257 FPS is the best choice, as it provides a significant visual upgrade over Medium while still exceeding 240 FPS. The Ultra preset at 210 FPS is also viable for 144 Hz displays, but the marginal visual gains over High do not justify the 18% performance drop for most users. If maximum competitive advantage is the goal, the Low preset at 349 FPS offers the fastest response, but the visual quality is severely reduced.

For 1440p gaming, the Medium preset at 197 FPS is the standout recommendation. It offers a 19% performance improvement over High (166 FPS) while maintaining a minimum of 167 FPS, which is above the 144 Hz threshold. This combination ensures smooth gameplay with no noticeable frame drops. The High preset is also acceptable for 120 Hz displays, as the 166 FPS average provides sufficient headroom. Users prioritizing visual fidelity can opt for Ultra at 136 FPS, but they should have a 120 Hz monitor to fully benefit, as the average does not reach 144 FPS.

At 4K, the recommendations shift toward visual quality over sheer performance. The Medium preset at 107 FPS is the best overall choice, as it delivers a playable experience with a minimum of 91 FPS, which is above the 60 FPS baseline for smooth gameplay. The High preset at 90 FPS is also viable for 60 Hz displays, but the 16% performance drop from Medium is not worth the visual upgrade for most users. The Ultra preset at 74 FPS is only recommended for users with a 60 Hz display who prioritize maximum graphical fidelity, as the frame rate is still above 60 but leaves little headroom for demanding scenes.

A practical approach is to start with the Medium preset at 4K or High at 1440p, as these provide the best balance of visual quality and performance based on the measured averages. For 1080p, the High preset is the default recommendation, with Ultra as a viable alternative for users with VRR displays that can handle the 210 FPS average.

FAQ

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

A: The data shows that 2560x1440 with Medium settings provides a 197 FPS average with a 167 FPS minimum, making it the best balance for high refresh rates. At 4K, Medium averages 107 FPS, which is playable but not as smooth.

Q: How does the CPU affect performance at 1080p?

A: At 1920x1080, the system is CPU-bound, as evidenced by the 349 FPS average at Low settings. The Intel Core Ultra 9 290K Plus, with a 5.80 GHz boost clock, ensures that the GPU is not the limiting factor at this resolution, allowing for maximum frame rates.

Q: Is the RTX 4070 SUPER’s 12 GB VRAM sufficient for Doom?

A: Yes, the 12 GB GDDR6X memory is more than adequate for Doom, as the game’s 2016 release does not require extensive VRAM. The memory bandwidth of 504.2 GB/s is sufficient to maintain consistent frame times, as shown by the minimum FPS figures at 4K Medium.

Q: How does this combo compare to the Intel Core Ultra 9 285K with the same GPU?

A: The CPU scores show the Ultra 9 290K Plus is 0.2% ahead of the Ultra 9 285K in average benchmark scores. In Doom, this difference is negligible, meaning the two CPUs would produce nearly identical frame rates with the same GPU.

Q: What is the expected performance drop from 1080p to 4K at Ultra settings?

A: At Ultra settings, the average FPS drops from 210 at 1080p to 136 at 1440p, and then to 74 at 4K. This represents a 65% reduction from 1080p to 4K, indicating that the GPU is the primary bottleneck at higher resolutions.

Q: Is this combo suitable for 4K gaming at 60 FPS?

A: Yes, the data shows that at 4K, the High preset averages 90 FPS and the Ultra preset averages 74 FPS, both of which are above the 60 FPS threshold. The Medium preset offers a 107 FPS average with a 91 FPS minimum, ensuring a stable experience above 60 FPS.