Undisputed

The AMD Ryzen 5 7600 and AMD Radeon RX 7900 XT combination delivers a robust experience in Undisputed, with benchmark data showing that the GPU is the primary driver of performance at higher resolutions, while the CPU’s single-thread capabilities are sufficient to keep frame rates very high at 1080p. This analysis breaks down the measured FPS across resolutions and settings to determine the system’s behavioral profile.

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

The AMD Ryzen 5 7600 is a 6-core, 12-thread processor based on the Zen 4 architecture, operating at a base clock of 3.80 GHz and a boost clock of 5.10 GHz. For a sports title like Undisputed, which typically relies on a few primary threads for game logic and physics, the processor’s single-core performance is critical. The data shows a 3dmark_single_thread score of 999, which is competitive for its class. In multi-threaded workloads, the CPU scores 6503 in 3dmark_max_threads and 22992 in cinebench_r23_multicore, indicating that the 6-core/12-thread configuration provides ample headroom for background tasks without bottlenecking gameplay.

The processor’s performance relative to its nearest rivals is tight. In the average benchmark score, the Ryzen 5 7600 sits at 26617, which is a negligible 0.2% ahead of the AMD Ryzen 7 5800X3D (26574) and 0.2% ahead of the AMD EPYC 8024P (26555). It trails the Intel Core i9-12900HK by a mere 0.2% (26672). This puts the 7600 in a position where CPU-bound scenarios are unlikely to produce significant frame rate differences against these alternatives. The 32 MB of shared L3 cache is also a factor; while it is not a 3D V-Cache variant, the ample cache helps reduce memory latency, which is beneficial for maintaining consistent frame pacing in a fast-action boxing sim.

Given the measured FPS, the CPU is not the limiting factor at 1080p. At that resolution with Low settings, the system reaches 401.1 FPS, which far exceeds the refresh rate of most displays. The CPU’s 12 threads are more than sufficient to feed the GPU in this context. The processor's 83rd percentile ranking among all CPUs further confirms it is a strong performer, not a bottleneck for this title. The boost clock of 5.10 GHz is the key asset here; it ensures that the game’s primary simulation thread can execute quickly, keeping the frame rate from being dragged down by single-thread limitations.

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

The AMD Radeon RX 7900 XT is a high-end RDNA 3.0 graphics card with a boost clock of 2394 MHz and a game clock of 2025 MHz. It is equipped with 20 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 320-bit bus, providing a bandwidth of 800.0 GB/s. This memory configuration is more than adequate for Undisputed, which is not a VRAM-intensive title; even at 4K Ultra settings, the GPU is unlikely to be constrained by memory capacity. The 5376 shading units and 192 ROPs provide substantial raw compute power, reflected in its FP32 throughput of 51.48 TFLOPS.

The GPU’s benchmark scores corroborate its high-end status. In 3dmark_steel_nomad_dx12, it scores 5623, and it achieves a passmark_g3d score of 29009. Its average benchmark score is 38358, placing it in the 82nd percentile of all GPUs. The nearest rivals show a tight cluster: it is statistically tied with the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5080 Mobile (38349, 0% delta), and it is 0.3% ahead of the NVIDIA CMP 70HX (38225) and 0.6% ahead of the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4080 Mobile (38135). The only negative delta is against the NVIDIA GeForce MX570 (38494, -0.4%), but that is likely a statistical anomaly given the vast performance difference in real-world gaming.

In Undisputed, the GPU’s role becomes dominant as resolution increases. At 1080p, the GPU easily handles the load, but at 4K Ultra, the frame rate drops to 68.4 FPS, indicating that the GPU is now the bottleneck. The 20 GB VRAM is a future-proofing asset, but for this specific game, the raw shader throughput and clock speeds are what determine the scaling from 1440p to 4K. The card’s 300 W TDP and dual-slot design are not performance metrics, but they contextualize the high clock speeds necessary to achieve the measured results.

Resolution Scaling — how FPS drops from 1080p to 4K and what it says about the limiting component

The measured FPS data shows a clear scaling pattern that shifts the bottleneck from the CPU to the GPU as resolution increases. At 1080p Low settings, the system achieves 401.1 FPS. This is a CPU-bound scenario, as the GPU is not being fully utilized. Moving to 1440p Low, the frame rate drops to 295 FPS, a 26.4% decrease. This is a significant drop, but the frame rate remains exceptionally high, suggesting the GPU is starting to take on more work. At 4K Low, the frame rate falls to 184.5 FPS, a 54% drop from the 1080p figure. This steep decline indicates that the GPU is now the primary limiting component, as the pixel fill rate demands are outpacing the CPU’s ability to feed frames.

For higher settings, the scaling is more pronounced due to increased GPU load. At High settings, the frame rate goes from 239.5 FPS at 1080p to 174.1 FPS at 1440p (a 27.3% drop) and then to 111.8 FPS at 4K (a 53.3% drop from 1080p). The percentage drops are remarkably consistent between Low and High, which suggests that the rendering pipeline is well-optimized and that the GPU’s compute resources are the scaling factor. The Ultra preset shows the most dramatic decline, starting at 153.1 FPS at 1080p, dropping to 112.4 FPS at 1440p (a 26.6% drop), and finally hitting 68.4 FPS at 4K (a 55.3% drop from 1080p).

This pattern reveals that the Ryzen 5 7600 is strong enough to maintain high frame rates at 1080p, but it is the RX 7900 XT that determines the experience at higher resolutions. The consistent ~27% drop from 1080p to 1440p and the ~54% drop from 1080p to 4K across all settings indicate that the GPU is the scaling bottleneck. The CPU’s performance headroom is evident in the fact that even at 4K Ultra, the frame rate does not collapse to unplayable levels, which would happen with a weaker processor. The data suggests that for 1440p gaming, this combo is perfectly balanced, while 4K Ultra pushes the GPU to its limits.

FAQ

Q: What is the highest average FPS recorded in the data, and at which settings?

A: The highest average frame rate is 401.1 FPS, achieved at 1920x1080 resolution with Low settings. This indicates a CPU-bound scenario where the GPU is not the limiting factor.

Q: How does the Ryzen 5 7600 compare to the Intel Core i9-11900K in average benchmark score?

A: The Ryzen 5 7600 has an average benchmark score of 26617, which is 0.3% higher than the Intel Core i9-11900K’s score of 26546. This places the two processors within a negligible performance delta.

Q: What is the frame rate drop from 1440p to 4K on Ultra settings?

A: At 2560x1440 Ultra, the average FPS is 112.4. At 3840x2160 Ultra, it drops to 68.4 FPS, representing a 39.1% decrease. This is the largest percentage drop in the dataset, highlighting the GPU's load at 4K.

Q: Does the RX 7900 XT lead or trail the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4080 Mobile in benchmarks?

A: The RX 7900 XT has an average benchmark score of 38358, which is 0.6% higher than the RTX 4080 Mobile’s score of 38135. The RX 7900 XT leads in this comparison.

Q: Is the 1080p High preset more demanding on the CPU or the GPU?

A: At 1080p High, the system achieves 239.5 FPS, which is a high enough rate that the CPU is likely the primary contributor to frame generation, while the GPU still has headroom. The low frame rate at 4K Ultra (68.4 FPS) confirms the GPU becomes the bottleneck only at higher resolutions.

Q: What is the percentile ranking of the RX 7900 XT among all GPUs?

A: The RX 7900 XT is in the 82nd percentile among all GPUs, based on its average benchmark score. This places it in the upper echelon of graphics cards.

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

The measured data provides a complete matrix of average frame rates across three resolutions and four settings presets.

At 1920x1080, the performance is exceptionally high across the board. Low settings yield 401.1 FPS, Medium settings produce 288.6 FPS, High settings deliver 239.5 FPS, and Ultra settings still manage an impressive 153.1 FPS. The scaling from Low to Ultra at this resolution shows a 61.8% reduction in frame rate, indicating that the graphical preset has a significant impact on the GPU load, but even the lowest performance figure is far above the 60 FPS threshold for smooth gameplay.

Moving to 2560x1440, the frame rates remain high but show a clear step down. Low settings average 295 FPS, Medium settings hit 211.1 FPS, High settings reach 174.1 FPS, and Ultra settings drop to 112.4 FPS. The drop from 1080p to 1440p is consistent at roughly 26-27% for each preset, suggesting a uniform increase in pixel count is the primary factor. The 1440p Ultra figure of 112.4 FPS is still very playable on high-refresh-rate monitors, and the 1440p High preset at 174.1 FPS is excellent for competitive play.

At 3840x2160, the GPU is the clear limiting factor. Low settings average 184.5 FPS, Medium settings drop to 135.3 FPS, High settings fall to 111.8 FPS, and Ultra settings bottom out at 68.4 FPS. The 4K Low figure is still high, but the Ultra preset drops below the 70 FPS mark, making it the only preset in the dataset that approaches the limit of smooth 60 FPS gameplay. The progression from Low to Ultra at 4K shows a 62.9% reduction in frame rate, which is similar to the 1080p scaling, but the absolute numbers are much lower due to the 4x pixel count increase from 1080p.

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

Based on the measured frame rates, the optimal preset depends heavily on the target resolution and refresh rate. For 1080p displays, the Ultra preset at 153.1 FPS is the best choice for maximizing visual fidelity without sacrificing smoothness, as it remains well above the 144 Hz refresh rate common in gaming monitors. If a player has a 240 Hz display, the High preset at 239.5 FPS is the ideal match, providing a near-perfect frame rate for the refresh rate while maintaining high visual quality.

For 1440p, the High preset at 174.1 FPS offers the best balance of visual quality and performance, easily supporting 144 Hz to 165 Hz monitors. The Ultra preset at 112.4 FPS is still viable for 120 Hz displays, but the High preset provides a more comfortable margin for frame time consistency. The Medium preset at 211.1 FPS is unnecessary for most displays, as the visual downgrade is not worth the extra frames beyond what High offers.

At 4K, the High preset at 111.8 FPS is the recommended setting for most users, as it provides a smooth experience on 120 Hz displays while maintaining good visual detail. The Ultra preset at 68.4 FPS is playable but sits close to the 60 FPS threshold, which may result in noticeable frame drops during intense gameplay moments. The Medium preset at 135.3 FPS is a solid alternative for those who prioritize frame rate over visual quality, but the High preset offers a better balance. The data shows that the Low preset is only useful for benchmarking, as the frame rates it yields (184.5 FPS at 4K) are far beyond what any display can utilize, and the visual compromise is substantial.