Doom

The Intel Core Ultra 9 290K Plus paired with the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4070 Ti delivers an exceptional Doom experience, with frame rates that remain firmly in high-refresh-rate territory even at 4K Ultra settings. The data shows this combination produces an average of 78 FPS at 3840x2160 Ultra, 143 FPS at 2560x1440 Ultra, and 221 FPS at 1920x1080 Ultra. This places the combo at rank 333 out of 2930 tested combinations, putting it in the top 11.4% of all configs. The 24-core Arrow Lake Refresh processor, with its 3.70 GHz base and 5.80 GHz boost clocks, combined with the Ada Lovelace GPU’s 2310 MHz base and 2610 MHz boost, creates a system that scales predictably across resolutions and settings. The RTX 4070 Ti, with 12 GB of GDDR6X memory on a 192-bit bus delivering 504.2 GB/s bandwidth, demonstrates that it is the primary driver of performance differences between settings presets, while the CPU’s strength ensures that even at 1080p Low the system reaches 368 FPS without bottlenecking.

FAQ

Q: What is the combo’s overall rank among tested systems for Doom?

A: The combination of the Intel Core Ultra 9 290K Plus and NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4070 Ti ranks 333rd out of 2930 tested combos, placing it in the top 11.4% of all configurations. This high percentile reflects the hardware’s ability to maintain strong frame rates across all tested scenarios.

Q: How does the CPU compare to its nearest rivals in average benchmark score?

A: The Core Ultra 9 290K Plus has an average benchmark score of 84003, which is 0.2% higher than the Intel Core Ultra 9 285K (83807) and 1.1% higher than the AMD EPYC 4584PX (83090). It trails the AMD EPYC 7F72 (85072) by 1.3%, showing the processor sits in a tight competitive band with these high-end chips.

Q: What is the GPU’s percentile ranking and how does it compare to similar cards?

A: The RTX 4070 Ti holds an 84th percentile ranking among all GPUs, with an average benchmark score of 44795. It outperforms the NVIDIA RTX A6000 (44075) by 1.6%, while the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5090 Mobile (45152) leads it by 0.8%, and the AMD Radeon Pro 5500 XT (45384) is ahead by 1.3%.

Q: What are the measured frame rates at 1080p with different settings?

A: At 1920x1080, the combo achieves 368 FPS on Low, 321 FPS on Medium (with a minimum of 273 and maximum of 369), 271 FPS on High, and 221 FPS on Ultra. These figures indicate that even at the highest preset, the system far exceeds the requirements for smooth gameplay on high-refresh displays.

Q: How much performance drops when moving from 1440p to 4K at Ultra settings?

A: At 2560x1440 Ultra, the average is 143 FPS, while at 3840x2160 Ultra, the average drops to 78 FPS. This represents a 45.5% reduction in frame rate when moving from 1440p to 4K, highlighting the significant pixel-pushing demands of 4K rendering on the GPU.

Q: Is the measured data based on actual testing or estimates?

A: The data is marked as measured, with the "dataIsMeasured" field set to true. This indicates the frame rates were obtained through direct benchmarking rather than theoretical calculations, providing reliable performance figures for this specific hardware pairing.

GPU Role

The NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4070 Ti plays the dominant role in determining Doom’s frame rates, particularly as resolution increases and settings are raised. The GPU’s 12 GB of GDDR6X memory, operating at 1313 MHz with 21 Gbps effective speed across a 192-bit bus, provides 504.2 GB/s of bandwidth. This memory configuration is sufficient to handle Doom’s texture and geometry demands at all tested resolutions, as evidenced by the consistent scaling between Low and Ultra presets. The GPU’s boost clock of 2610 MHz, up from a 2310 MHz base, allows it to maintain high throughput during extended gaming sessions, though the measured frame rates show that thermal and power constraints do not prevent it from hitting impressive averages.

The RTX 4070 Ti’s 7680 shading units, 240 TMUs, and 80 ROPs deliver a raw compute capacity of 40.09 TFLOPS FP32, which is more than adequate for a 2016 title like Doom, even at 4K. The 60 RT cores and 240 tensor cores are largely irrelevant for this game, as Doom does not utilize ray tracing or DLSS features, but they do not hinder performance. At 1080p Low, the GPU produces 368 FPS, which suggests the CPU is capable of feeding it enough data to saturate its rendering pipeline. However, the gap between Low and Ultra at each resolution reveals the GPU’s sensitivity to shading and texture complexity: at 1080p, Ultra (221 FPS) is 40% slower than Low (368 FPS), while at 4K, Ultra (78 FPS) is 39.5% slower than Low (129 FPS). This proportional drop indicates that the GPU is consistently the limiting factor when settings are increased, while the CPU maintains a stable input stream.

The GPU’s 84th percentile ranking among all GPUs, with an average benchmark score of 44795, places it in the upper tier of graphics cards. Its nearest rival, the NVIDIA RTX A6000, scores 44075, which is 1.6% lower, while the RTX 5090 Mobile leads by 0.8%. In Doom specifically, the 4070 Ti’s performance is strong enough that the CPU rarely becomes a constraint, as shown by the 271 FPS average at 1080p High, which is likely near the maximum the game engine can output without frame rate caps. The 12 GB VRAM is never a limiting factor in this title, as Doom’s maximum memory footprint at 4K Ultra fits comfortably within this capacity, avoiding any texture swapping or stutter that might occur with smaller buffers.

Resolution Scaling

The measured frame rates reveal a clear pattern of resolution scaling that points to the GPU as the primary bottleneck, with the CPU’s influence diminishing as pixel count rises. At 1080p Low, the system achieves 368 FPS, which drops to 238 FPS at 1440p Low (a 35.3% decrease) and further to 129 FPS at 4K Low (a 45.8% decrease from 1440p and a 64.9% decrease from 1080p). This scaling is steeper than what pure pixel count alone would predict, indicating that the GPU’s fill rate and memory bandwidth are being stressed at higher resolutions. The RTX 4070 Ti’s pixel rate of 208.8 GPixel/s and texture rate of 626.4 GTexel/s are being pushed to their limits at 4K, while the CPU’s 24 cores and 5.80 GHz boost clock provide ample headroom, as evidenced by the fact that even at 1080p Low, the frame rate does not exceed 368 FPS, which may be near an engine or driver limit rather than a CPU ceiling.

Moving to Medium settings, the scaling shows similar characteristics: 1080p Medium yields 321 FPS, 1440p Medium drops to 208 FPS (35.2% lower), and 4K Medium falls to 112 FPS (46.2% lower than 1440p). The minimum frame rates at Medium also scale predictably, with 1080p recording a minimum of 273 FPS, 1440p a minimum of 176 FPS, and 4K a minimum of 96 FPS, showing that consistency is maintained even as average performance declines. At High settings, the pattern continues: 271 FPS at 1080p, 175 FPS at 1440p (35.4% decrease), and 95 FPS at 4K (45.7% decrease from 1440p). Ultra settings produce 221 FPS at 1080p, 143 FPS at 1440p (35.3% decrease), and 78 FPS at 4K (45.5% decrease from 1440p). The consistency of these percentage decreases across all settings presets—roughly 35% from 1080p to 1440p and 45% from 1440p to 4K—strongly suggests that the GPU is the limiting component, as the CPU’s workload does not scale with resolution, yet frame rates drop in a uniform manner.

The data also shows that the gap between settings presets widens slightly at higher resolutions. At 1080p, Ultra (221 FPS) is 39.9% slower than Low (368 FPS). At 4K, Ultra (78 FPS) is 39.5% slower than Low (129 FPS). This near-identical proportional difference indicates that the GPU is equally stressed by both resolution and settings increases, with no single factor dominating. The CPU, with its 115.2 GB/s memory bandwidth and 36 MB of shared L3 cache, is clearly not a constraint at any resolution, as even the most demanding 4K Ultra scenario shows no signs of CPU-induced frame drops, with the minimum FPS at 4K Medium (96) remaining high relative to the average (112). For gamers targeting 4K, the 78 FPS average at Ultra is still smooth, while those with 1080p or 1440p high-refresh monitors can expect frame rates well above 200 FPS, making this combo suitable for esports-level responsiveness in Doom.

How This Combo Ranks

The combo’s rank of 333 out of 2930 tested combinations places it in the top 11.4% of all systems benchmarked for Doom. This high ranking is driven by the balanced strengths of both components: the CPU’s 96th percentile ranking among all processors (average benchmark score 84003) and the GPU’s 84th percentile ranking (average benchmark score 44795). The CPU’s nearest rivals in average benchmark score include the Intel Core Ultra 9 285K (83807, 0.2% lower), the AMD EPYC 4584PX (83090, 1.1% lower), and the AMD EPYC 7F72 (85072, 1.3% higher). While these rival CPUs cluster closely in raw compute, the 290K Plus’s 5.80 GHz boost clock and 24 threads (24 cores, 24 threads) provide sufficient single-threaded performance for Doom’s engine, which is primarily GPU-bound in this configuration.

The GPU’s nearest rivals in average benchmark score are the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5090 Mobile (45152, 0.8% higher), the AMD Radeon Pro 5500 XT (45384, 1.3% higher), the NVIDIA RTX A6000 (44075, 1.6% lower), and the Intel Arc A730M (45592, 1.7% higher). Notably, the RTX 4070 Ti sits between these competitors, yet in Doom’s measured frame rates, it delivers performance that is competitive with or superior to cards with higher average benchmark scores. For instance, the RTX 5090 Mobile, despite having a 0.8% higher average score, would likely not outperform the 4070 Ti in this specific title given the desktop card’s 285 W TDP and dedicated cooling, though direct comparisons are not available in the data. The rank of 333 indicates that, among the 2930 tested combos, only 332 configurations achieve higher frame rates in Doom, which includes systems with more powerful GPUs like the RTX 4090 or newer 50-series cards, but the 4070 Ti’s performance is still within striking distance of the top tier.

The combo’s rank is particularly impressive given that the RTX 4070 Ti is marked as end-of-life production status, having been released on 2023-01-02. Despite this, the data shows it remains a highly capable choice for Doom, with 4K Ultra averaging 78 FPS, which is above the 60 FPS threshold for comfortable play. The CPU’s position at the 96th percentile for all processors, with an average benchmark score of 84003, means that this combo benefits from one of the fastest consumer CPUs available, ensuring that the GPU is never starved for data. The rank of 333 also suggests that, for this specific game, the combination of a top-tier CPU and a high-end GPU is more than sufficient, and users with lower-ranked combos would need to drop settings or resolution to match the frame rates seen here.

Settings Recommendations

For the best experience according to the measured rows, the Medium preset at any resolution offers the optimal balance of visual quality and frame rate, particularly when considering the minimum FPS data. At 1080p Medium, the system averages 321 FPS with a minimum of 273 FPS, providing a buttery-smooth experience that exceeds the refresh rate of most monitors. Stepping up to High at 1080p yields 271 FPS, which is still excellent but represents a 15.6% reduction in average FPS compared to Medium. Ultra at 1080p drops to 221 FPS, a 31.2% reduction from Medium, which may be noticeable on 240 Hz or 360 Hz displays. The Medium preset’s minimum FPS of 273 at 1080p ensures there are no perceptible stutters, even during intense combat sequences, making it the recommended choice for competitive play.

At 1440p, Medium delivers 208 FPS average with a minimum of 176 FPS, which is more than adequate for 144 Hz or 165 Hz monitors. High at 1440p averages 175 FPS, still above 144 Hz, but Medium’s higher minimum (176 vs. 175 average for High) suggests better frame pacing. Ultra at 1440p drops to 143 FPS, which is just below 144 Hz, potentially causing missed frames on such displays. For 4K gaming, Medium is the standout choice, averaging 112 FPS with a minimum of 96 FPS, ensuring smooth gameplay on 60 Hz or 120 Hz displays. High at 4K averages 95 FPS, which is still playable but with less headroom, while Ultra at 4K averages 78 FPS, which may feel less responsive during fast-paced action. The Low preset, while offering the highest frame rates (368 FPS at 1080p, 238 FPS at 1440p, 129 FPS at 4K), sacrifices significant visual fidelity for marginal gains in smoothness, making it less desirable for most users.

The data suggests that Medium is the sweet spot because it provides the largest average FPS increase over High (18.5% at 1080p, 18.9% at 1440p, 17.9% at 4K) while still maintaining solid minimum FPS figures. The jump from Medium to Low yields larger increases (14.6% at 1080p, 14.4% at 1440p, 15.2% at 4K), but the visual downgrade is more severe, and the frame rates are already above any practical display refresh rate. For users with 144 Hz monitors, Medium at 1440p (208 FPS) provides ample headroom, while those with 60 Hz 4K displays can enjoy Medium at 4K (112 FPS) with significant overhead. The Ultra preset, while visually superior, reduces average FPS by 31.2% at 1080p, 31.3% at 1440p, and 30.4% at 4K compared to Medium, which is a substantial penalty for incremental visual improvements in a fast-paced shooter where frame rate is paramount.

Measured FPS Breakdown

At 1920x1080, the system delivers its highest frame rates across all settings, with the Low preset reaching 368 FPS average, Medium at 321 FPS (minimum 273, maximum 369), High at 271 FPS, and Ultra at 221 FPS. The Medium preset’s maximum of 369 FPS is nearly identical to the Low average, indicating that the engine’s frame rate ceiling is around 370 FPS for this hardware, and that the CPU can fully saturate the GPU at this resolution. The progression from Low to Ultra shows a consistent 13-18% reduction in average FPS per settings tier, with the largest single drop occurring between Medium and High (15.6%) and between High and Ultra (18.5%). These numbers confirm that at 1080p, the GPU is the limiting factor, as even the fastest settings cannot push beyond the ~370 FPS ceiling, likely due to engine or driver limitations rather than hardware constraints.

At 2560x1440, the frame rates scale down proportionally, with Low averaging 238 FPS, Medium at 208 FPS (minimum 176, maximum 239), High at 175 FPS, and Ultra at 143 FPS. The Medium preset’s maximum of 239 FPS is just above the Low average, suggesting that at 1440p, the GPU is still capable of hitting high frame rates but with less headroom. The minimum FPS at Medium (176) is 84.6% of the average (208), showing good frame consistency. The drop from Low to Medium is 12.6%, from Medium to High is 15.9%, and from High to Ultra is 18.3%, which mirrors the 1080p scaling pattern. This consistency indicates that the GPU’s performance scales linearly with settings, and the CPU’s 24 threads are more than sufficient to keep up with the demands of 1440p rendering.

At 3840x2160, the system still delivers playable frame rates, with Low averaging 129 FPS, Medium at 112 FPS (minimum 96, maximum 129), High at 95 FPS, and Ultra at 78 FPS. The Medium preset’s minimum of 96 FPS is particularly notable, as it ensures that even the most demanding scenes do not drop below the 60 FPS threshold for smooth gameplay. The scaling from Low to Medium is 13.2%, Medium to High is 15.2%, and High to Ultra is 17.9%, which is slightly steeper than at lower resolutions, confirming that the GPU’s memory bandwidth (504.2 GB/s) and pixel rate (208.8 GPixel/s) are being taxed more heavily at 4K. The Ultra preset’s 78 FPS average is still above 60 FPS, making it viable for cinematic play, but the Medium preset’s 112 FPS provides a much better balance of visual quality and responsiveness. Overall, the measured FPS breakdown shows that this combo excels at 1080p and 1440p, with 4K performance that is respectable but requires a modest settings reduction to maintain high refresh rates.