Undisputed

The AMD Ryzen 7 5800XT and AMD Radeon RX 7600 XT combination delivers a robust 1080p and 1440p experience in Undisputed, with the pairing landing mid-pack among all tested configurations. The data shows a clear performance hierarchy across the four tested presets, where the GPU's 16 GB frame buffer and high boost clocks prove decisive at higher resolutions. This analysis breaks down the measured results, contextualizes the hardware's role, and offers settings guidance based strictly on the recorded frames per second.

FAQ

*Q: What is the best average FPS recorded for this combo in Undisputed?*

A: The highest average FPS is 240, achieved at 1920x1080 with Low settings. The lowest recorded average is 42 FPS at 3840x2160 with Ultra settings.

Q: How does the combo rank among all tested hardware combinations in this game?

A: The combination ranks 2359 out of 3718 tested combos, placing it in the lower-middle portion of the overall performance distribution for Undisputed.

Q: What is the GPU's memory configuration and how does it affect performance?

A: The GPU features 16 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 128-bit bus with 288.0 GB/s bandwidth. The large frame buffer is a key factor in maintaining playable averages at 1440p and 4K, where memory capacity often becomes a bottleneck.

Q: What are the CPU's core and thread counts?

A: The Ryzen 7 5800XT has 8 cores and 16 threads, based on the Zen 3 architecture. Its base clock is 3.80 GHz and boost clock is 4.80 GHz.

Q: Is there a significant FPS drop between Medium and Ultra settings at 1440p?

A: Yes. At 2560x1440, the average drops from 125 FPS on Medium to 67 FPS on Ultra, a reduction of 58 FPS. This indicates a heavy GPU load increase at the highest preset.

Q: What is the GPU's boost clock and how does it compare to its base clock?

A: The boost clock is 2755 MHz, significantly higher than the base clock of 1980 MHz. The game clock is listed at 2470 MHz, reflecting typical sustained performance under load.

GPU Role

The AMD Radeon RX 7600 XT is built on the RDNA 3.0 architecture with the Navi 33 chip, fabricated on a 6 nm process by TSMC. Its 16 GB of GDDR6 memory, paired with a 128-bit bus, yields 288.0 GB/s of bandwidth. This memory configuration is notable for Undisputed, a sports title that typically demands moderate VRAM but benefits from headroom at high resolutions. The 4K High preset averages 65 FPS, suggesting the memory subsystem handles the load without stutter, while the 4K Ultra average of 42 FPS indicates the GPU's compute limits rather than a memory shortfall.

The GPU's clock speeds are substantial: base 1980 MHz, game 2470 MHz, and boost 2755 MHz. These figures translate to a pixel rate of 176.3 GPixel/s and a texture rate of 352.6 GTexel/s. The FP32 performance of 22.57 TFLOPS, with FP16 at the same rate (1:1), provides ample shading power for the game's physics-based boxing animations. The 32 ray accelerators are less relevant here, as Undisputed does not emphasize ray-traced effects, but they remain available via DirectX 12 Ultimate support.

The GPU's thermal and power design includes a 190 W TDP, a dual-slot cooler, and a single 8-pin power connector, with a suggested PSU of 450 W. The PCIe 4.0 x8 interface is sufficient for this workload, as the game's frame data shows no bandwidth-related anomalies at any resolution. The 60th percentile ranking among all GPUs, with an average benchmark score of 17083, places it near the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3070 (avg score 17208, delta -0.7%) and slightly above the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 690 (avg score 17037, delta 0.3%).

In Undisputed, the GPU's role is primarily rasterization of character models and arena environments. The 4K Medium preset shows a range of 67 to 91 FPS with an average of 79, indicating the GPU can maintain fluid motion when settings are moderated. However, the jump to Ultra at 4K cuts the average nearly in half to 42 FPS, a clear sign that the higher preset engages more expensive shading and post-processing effects that exceed the GPU's comfortable envelope at that pixel count.

How This Combo Ranks

The combo ranks 2359 out of 3718 configurations tested in Undisputed, placing it in the 63rd percentile of all results. This mid-pack position reflects a balanced pairing where neither component severely bottlenecks the other at common gaming resolutions. The CPU, with a percentile of 81 among all processors, outperforms the GPU's 60th percentile, suggesting the graphics card is the limiting factor in most scenarios.

Relative to its nearest rivals, the GPU's average benchmark score of 17083 is within 0.7% of the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3070 (17208) and 0.3% above the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 690 (17037). The CPU's average score of 29879 is effectively tied with the AMD Ryzen 7 7840H (29868, delta 0%) and trails the AMD Ryzen 7 8845HS (29955, delta -0.3%) by a negligible margin. This means the combo's in-game ranking is driven more by the GPU's resolution scaling than by processor arithmetic throughput.

The rank of 2359 out of 3718 indicates that a majority of tested combos achieve higher frame rates in Undisputed. However, the measured FPS data shows this pairing still delivers 240 FPS at 1080p Low and 174 FPS at 1440p Low, which are strong results for a sports title. The rank reflects the full spectrum of presets, including the demanding Ultra settings where the average drops to 42 FPS at 4K, pulling the overall position down relative to combos with more powerful GPUs.

The gap between the GPU's 60th percentile and the CPU's 81st percentile is informative. In Undisputed, which is not CPU-intensive due to its arena-based gameplay, the 5800XT's 8 cores and 16 threads are more than adequate, leaving the RX 7600 XT as the primary determinant of frame rates. The combo's rank would likely improve if the GPU were paired with a weaker processor, but as configured, the data shows a balanced, if not class-leading, setup.

Measured FPS Breakdown

At 1920x1080, the combo demonstrates its highest performance ceiling. Low settings produce an average of 240 FPS, which is the maximum recorded across all rows. Medium settings average 173 FPS, with a range from 147 to 199 FPS. High settings yield 143 FPS average, while Ultra drops to 92 FPS. This progression shows a steep falloff from Low to Ultra, with a 148 FPS difference between the extremes, indicating that Ultra settings impose a significant rendering cost even at 1080p.

Moving to 2560x1440, the averages scale down predictably. Low settings average 174 FPS, Medium averages 125 FPS (range 106 to 144), High averages 103 FPS, and Ultra averages 67 FPS. The 1440p Medium result is still above 120 FPS, which is a common threshold for smooth gameplay on high-refresh monitors. The Ultra preset at 1440p halves the Medium average, reinforcing the pattern seen at 1080p where Ultra is disproportionately demanding.

At 3840x2160, the combo strains under the pixel load. Low settings average 110 FPS, which is respectable for 4K. Medium averages 79 FPS (range 67 to 91), High averages 65 FPS, and Ultra falls to 42 FPS. The 4K results show that the GPU can handle lower presets comfortably but cannot sustain high frame rates at the highest quality settings. The 4K Medium range of 67 to 91 FPS suggests some scene-dependent variance, but the average remains playable.

The data reveals a consistent pattern: the gap between Medium and High is smaller than the gap between High and Ultra. For example, at 1440p, the difference from Medium to High is 22 FPS (125 to 103), while from High to Ultra it is 36 FPS (103 to 67). This suggests Ultra enables effects that disproportionately tax the GPU, such as higher shadow resolution or ambient occlusion, which are not present in High.

Across all resolutions, Low settings provide the least demanding workload, with the 1080p result hitting 240 FPS, likely capped by the display refresh rate or the game's internal frame limiter. The absence of minimum FPS data for Low and High presets means only averages are available, but the Medium presets include full ranges, offering a glimpse of frame time consistency. At 1080p Medium, the 147 to 199 FPS range indicates a 52 FPS spread, while at 4K Medium, the 67 to 91 FPS range shows a 24 FPS spread, tighter at higher resolutions due to GPU-bound scenarios.

Settings Recommendations

For players prioritizing high refresh rates, Low settings at 1080p deliver 240 FPS, which is ideal for competitive play on a 240 Hz monitor. The 1440p Low preset at 174 FPS is also excellent for high-refresh 1440p displays, offering a substantial frame rate buffer. These presets are recommended when maximum fluidity is the goal, accepting reduced visual fidelity.

For a balanced experience, Medium settings are the sweet spot. At 1080p, Medium averages 173 FPS with a minimum of 147, ensuring no dips below 144 FPS in the measured data. At 1440p, Medium averages 125 FPS with a minimum of 106, which remains above 100 FPS and is suitable for 120 Hz panels. The 4K Medium preset, averaging 79 FPS with a range of 67 to 91, is the only 4K option that stays above 60 FPS on average, making it the recommended choice for 4K displays.

High settings offer a marginal visual upgrade over Medium but at a significant FPS cost. At 1080p, High drops to 143 FPS average, still playable but below the Medium's minimum. At 1440p, High averages 103 FPS, which is adequate but not as smooth as Medium. The 4K High preset at 65 FPS is on the edge of playability, with no minimum recorded, suggesting potential dips below 60 FPS in demanding scenes.

Ultra settings are not recommended for this combo. At 1080p, Ultra averages 92 FPS, which is smooth but represents a 81 FPS drop from Medium. At 1440p, Ultra averages 67 FPS, and at 4K, it falls to 42 FPS, which is below the 60 FPS threshold for fluid gameplay. The visual improvements from High to Ultra do not justify the performance penalty observed in the data.

The optimal strategy is to use Medium settings as a baseline. At 1080p and 1440p, this preset provides high averages with acceptable minimums, while at 4K, it is the only preset that maintains a playable average. Players with 60 Hz displays can consider High at 1440p or 4K, but those with higher refresh rates should stick to Medium or lower.

CPU Role

The AMD Ryzen 7 5800XT is a Zen 3 processor with 8 cores and 16 threads, base clock of 3.80 GHz, and boost clock of 4.80 GHz. It is built on TSMC's 7 nm process with 4,150 million transistors on a 74 mm² die. The cache hierarchy includes 64 KB L1 per core, 512 KB L2 per core, and 32 MB shared L3. This configuration supports dual-channel DDR4 memory with a bandwidth of 51.2 GB/s.

In Undisputed, the CPU's role is modest. The game's arena-based boxing matches involve a limited number of on-screen characters, reducing the demand for multi-threaded physics or AI. The 5800XT's 16 threads provide ample headroom, as evidenced by the CPU's 81st percentile ranking among all processors. The 3DMark results show a single-thread score of 959 and a max-thread score of 7680, indicating strong scaling across cores, though the game likely uses fewer than 8 threads effectively.

The CPU's benchmark scores reinforce its capability. Cinebench R23 multi-core scores 23794, while single-core scores 3359. These figures indicate that the processor can handle both lightly-threaded and heavily-threaded tasks without issue. In this game, the CPU is unlikely to bottleneck the GPU at any resolution, as the FPS scaling from 1080p to 4K follows the GPU's load pattern rather than CPU limitations.

The nearest CPU rivals show minimal performance deltas. The AMD Ryzen 7 7840H scores 29868 (delta 0%), the AMD Ryzen 7 8845HS scores 29955 (delta -0.3%), and the AMD Ryzen 5 9600X scores 29713 (delta 0.6%). These negligible differences mean the 5800XT's in-game performance is representative of its class, and any frame rate differences in Undisputed would be attributable to the GPU.

The processor's 105 W TDP and AMD Socket AM4 compatibility make it a straightforward upgrade for existing platforms. The 4.80 GHz boost clock ensures that single-threaded game logic, such as collision detection or referee AI, executes with minimal latency. However, the measured FPS data shows no scenario where CPU performance is the limiting factor; the 240 FPS cap at 1080p Low is more likely a game engine or display limit than a processor ceiling.