Doom

This entry covers Doom with the Intel Core Ultra X7 368H and NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4070 Mobile. The measured rows cover Low, Medium, High, and Ultra at 1920x1080, 2560x1440, and 3840x2160. The game release date is 2016-05-12. The combination ranks 2033 out of 3712 tested combinations in Doom. The CPU has an average benchmark score of 40518, and the GPU has an average benchmark score of 27435.

CPU Role — cores, clocks, and how they relate to this game's results

The Intel Core Ultra X7 368H is a mobile processor from Intel’s Core Ultra Series 3, built on the Panther Lake architecture at a 3 nm process node. It has 16 cores and 16 threads, a base clock of 2.00 GHz, and a boost clock of 5.00 GHz. The cache layout is 192 KB of L1 per core, 2.5 MB of L2 per core, and 18 MB of shared L3 cache. The CPU supports LPDDR5X memory on a dual-channel bus with 153.6 GB/s of memory bandwidth. Its TDP is 25 W.

In general benchmark terms, this CPU records an average benchmark score of 40518, placing it in the 87th percentile of all CPUs in the database. Its nearest rivals by average score are tightly clustered. The Intel Core 7 253PE scores 40557, which is a delta of -0.1% from this CPU. The Intel Core 5 223PE scores 40585, also a delta of -0.2%. On the other side, the AMD Ryzen 9 7940H scores 40431 with a delta of 0.2%, and the Intel Xeon 6507P scores 40426 with a delta of 0.2%. Those small deltas show that the Core Ultra X7 368H sits in a competitive performance band rather than at the top of the CPU pool.

The CPU’s single-thread scores are notable for a game like Doom. Cinebench R23 single-core is 3984, Cinebench R20 single-core is 1673, and Passmark single-thread is 4005. Multi-thread scores are also present: Cinebench R23 multi-core is 28221, Cinebench R20 multi-core is 11852, Cinebench R15 multi-core is 2844, and Passmark multithread is 32956. The measured Doom results show a CPU that is capable of sustaining very high frame rates at lower resolutions. At 1920x1080 Low, the combo averages 227 FPS, which is the highest average in the entire dataset. At 1920x1080 Medium, the average is 198 FPS, and at High it is 167 FPS. The boost clock of 5.00 GHz is part of every measured row, so the frame rate changes across presets are better explained by rendering settings than by CPU clock changes.

The 16-core, 16-thread layout helps in threaded workloads, but the game data is measured across the whole system, not as a pure CPU result. Still, the single-thread benchmark scores and the high 1920x1080 Low result indicate that the CPU is not preventing the GPU from reaching high frame rates in the lighter settings measured here.

FAQ — 4-6 Q&A pairs answerable from FACT PACK data

Q: What are the average FPS values at 1920x1080 for this combo in Doom?

A: The measured averages are 227 at Low, 198 at Medium, 167 at High, and 137 at Ultra.

Q: Which rows include minimum and maximum FPS data?

A: Only the Medium rows include min/max values. At 1920x1080 Medium, the min is 168 and max is 228. At 2560x1440 Medium, the min is 109 and max is 148. At 3840x2160 Medium, the min is 59 and max is 80.

Q: How does this CPU compare to the AMD Ryzen 9 7940H in average benchmark score?

A: The Intel Core Ultra X7 368H has an average benchmark score of 40518, while the AMD Ryzen 9 7940H has 40431. The deltaPct is 0.2%, meaning the Intel part sits slightly above that AMD rival in the database’s CPU benchmark average.

Q: How does this GPU compare to the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3090?

A: The RTX 4070 Mobile has an average benchmark score of 27435, while the RTX 3090 has 27565. The deltaPct is -0.5%, so the mobile GPU trails that desktop-class GPU by a small margin in average benchmark score.

Q: What is the lowest measured average FPS in the dataset?

A: The lowest average is 48 FPS, at 3840x2160 with Ultra settings.

Q: What is this combo’s rank among tested combinations in Doom?

A: The combo rank in game is 2033 out of 3712 tested combinations.

Resolution Scaling — how FPS drops from 1920x1080 to 3840x2160 and what it says about the limiting component

The measured data shows a clear resolution scaling pattern. For Low settings, the average FPS is 227 at 1920x1080, 147 at 2560x1440, and 80 at 3840x2160. For Medium, the averages are 198, 128, and 69. For High, the averages are 167, 108, and 59. For Ultra, the averages are 137, 89, and 48.

Every preset loses a substantial amount of average FPS as resolution increases. The Low preset falls from 227 to 147 between 1920x1080 and 2560x1440, and then to 80 at 3840x2160. The Ultra preset falls from 137 to 89, and then to 48. This consistent decline across all four presets indicates that the rendering workload scales strongly with pixel count. The CPU does not change between these rows, so the resolution-dependent drop points to the GPU as the component whose throughput becomes more decisive at higher resolutions.

At 1920x1080 Low, the 227 average is the highest measured result in the dataset. That high frame rate suggests that the CPU is able to feed the GPU effectively when the graphics load is low. At 3840x2160 Ultra, the average falls to 48, which is the lowest measured average. The data does not separate CPU time and GPU time, but the pattern is consistent with a system that becomes more GPU-bound as resolution increases. The min/max values also support this interpretation: at 3840x2160 Medium, the min is 59, which equals the average of the 3840x2160 High row. In other words, the Medium preset at 4K can dip to the same level as the next preset up, reinforcing the resolution-heavy nature of the workload.

Measured FPS Breakdown — resolution by resolution, settings by settings, exact numbers

| Resolution | Settings | Avg FPS | Min FPS | Max FPS |

| --- | --- | ---: | ---: | ---: |

| 3840x2160 | High | 59 | — | — |

| 3840x2160 | Low | 80 | — | — |

| 3840x2160 | Medium | 69 | 59 | 80 |

| 3840x2160 | Ultra | 48 | — | — |

| 2560x1440 | High | 108 | — | — |

| 2560x1440 | Low | 147 | — | — |

| 2560x1440 | Medium | 128 | 109 | 148 |

| 2560x1440 | Ultra | 89 | — | — |

| 1920x1080 | High | 167 | — | — |

| 1920x1080 | Low | 227 | — | — |

| 1920x1080 | Medium | 198 | 168 | 228 |

| 1920x1080 | Ultra | 137 | — | — |

The dataset marks all rows as measured. Only the Medium rows include min/max values. At 1920x1080 Medium, the average is 198 with a minimum of 168 and maximum of 228. At 2560x1440 Medium, the average is 128 with a minimum of 109 and maximum of 148. At 3840x2160 Medium, the average is 69 with a minimum of 59 and maximum of 80.

The highest average in the dataset is 227 at 1920x1080 Low. The lowest average is 48 at 3840x2160 Ultra. The biggest collection of high frame rates appears at 1920x1080, where every preset averages above 137. At 2560x1440, every preset averages above 89. At 3840x2160, only Low and Medium average above 69, with High at 59 and Ultra at 48.

GPU Role — VRAM, clocks, and how they relate to this game's results

The NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4070 Mobile is an Ada Lovelace GPU based on the AD106 chip, built on a 5 nm process by TSMC. It has 4608 shading units, 144 texture mapping units, 48 ROPs, 36 RT cores, and 144 tensor cores. The base clock is 1395 MHz and the boost clock is 1695 MHz. The memory configuration is 8 GB of GDDR6 on a 128-bit bus, with a memory clock of 2000 MHz and 16 Gbps effective speed. Memory bandwidth is 256.0 GB/s. FP32 throughput is listed at 15.62 TFLOPS, and FP16 at 15.62 TFLOPS with a 1:1 ratio. The GPU has a TDP of 115 W and connects over PCIe 4.0 x8.

In general benchmarks, the RTX 4070 Mobile has an average benchmark score of 27435, placing it in the 73rd percentile of all GPUs. Its closest rival by average score is the AMD Radeon RX 6700 XT, which scores 27425 with a delta of 0%. The NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3090 scores 27565, a delta of -0.5%. The NVIDIA RTX PRO 4000 Blackwell scores 27135, a delta of 1.1%. The AMD Radeon Pro Vega 20 scores 27839, a delta of -1.5%. These deltas place the GPU in a tightly packed performance tier.

The GPU’s measured Doom results are visible across the resolution ladder. At 3840x2160, the GPU produces 80 FPS at Low, 69 at Medium, 59 at High, and 48 at Ultra. At 2560x1440, it produces 147 at Low, 128 at Medium, 108 at High, and 89 at Ultra. At 1920x1080, it produces 227 at Low, 198 at Medium, 167 at High, and 137 at Ultra. Those numbers show how the same GPU handle scales as the rendering load changes.

The 8 GB GDDR6 frame buffer and 256.0 GB/s bandwidth are part of every measured row. No VRAM usage measurements are included in the dataset, so the data does not show whether the frame buffer becomes a limit at 3840x2160 Ultra. What the data does show is that the 3840x2160 Ultra row is the only measured row below 48 FPS? Wait, it is 48, and no row is lower. The next lowest is 59 at High. The drop from High 59 to Ultra 48 is larger than the drop from Medium 69 to High 59, which suggests that the Ultra preset places additional strain on the GPU. The measured FPS at lower resolutions remains high enough that the GPU has clear headroom at 1920x1080 and 2560x1440.

Settings Recommendations — which preset gives the best experience per the measured rows

Based on the measured rows, the Medium preset offers the most balanced experience. At 1920x1080, Medium averages 198 FPS with a minimum of 168. That is higher than High’s 167 average and Ultra’s 137 average. At 2560x1440, Medium averages 128 FPS with a minimum of 109. That is higher than High’s 108 average and Ultra’s 89 average. At 3840x2160, Medium averages 69 FPS with a minimum of 59. That is higher than High’s 59 average and Ultra’s 48 average.

Low is the fastest preset at every resolution: 227 at 1920x1080, 147 at 2560x1440, and 80 at 3840x2160. If maximum average FPS is the only goal, Low is the measured choice. However, Medium provides the next FPS step above Low while also offering higher preset quality, and it is the only preset that keeps all three resolution averages in a usable range: 198, 128, and 69.

At 1920x1080, users who prioritize frame rate above all else can use Low for 227 FPS. Users who want a smoother minimum may prefer Medium, since its minimum of 168 is higher than the High average of 167. At 2560x1440, Medium’s 128 average and 109 minimum are strong for high-refresh-rate use. At 3840x2160, Low’s 80 average is the fastest, but Medium’s 69 average and 59 minimum are close while adding visual detail over Low. Ultra is the hardest setting in the dataset: 137 at 1920x1080, 89 at 2560x1440, and 48 at 3840x2160.

How This Combo Ranks — use comboRankInGame vs other tested combos

The combo rank in Doom is 2033 out of 3712 tested combinations. That places this CPU/GPU pairing below the middle of the tested pool in this specific game. The CPU alone is in the 87th percentile of all CPUs, and the GPU alone is in the 73rd percentile of all GPUs, but the game-specific combination rank of 2033 shows that general component percentiles do not directly translate into a top-tier Doom rank.

The measured data behind that rank includes a very wide performance spread: 227 FPS at 1920x1080 Low versus 48 FPS at 3840x2160 Ultra. The rank reflects the whole set of measured resolutions and presets, not just the best-case row. The general benchmark deltas against nearest rivals are also not game-specific. The CPU is within 0.2% of its nearest rival cluster, and the GPU is within 1.5% of its nearest rival cluster, but the Doom rank is determined by the measured FPS results listed above.

With 3712 total tested combinations, a rank of 2033 means the combo sits near the midpoint, with more combinations ranked ahead of it than behind it. The strongest measured rows for this combo are at 1920x1080, where the CPU’s high single-thread scores and the GPU’s throughput combine to produce 227 FPS at Low and 198 FPS at Medium. The weakest measured row is 3840x2160 Ultra, where the same combination drops to 48 FPS. Overall, the rank reflects a system that is capable of high frame rates at lower resolutions but loses ground at the highest rendering loads.