Undisputed

The AMD Ryzen 7 5800XT and NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4090 combination delivers exceptionally high frame rates in Undisputed, with the data showing a clear pattern where the GPU becomes the primary limiting factor as resolution increases. The pairing ranks 139th out of 3718 tested combinations in this game, placing it in the top percentile of all configurations measured.

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

The AMD Ryzen 7 5800XT is an 8-core, 16-thread processor built on the Zen 3 Vermeer architecture, fabricated on a 7 nm TSMC process. It operates with a base clock of 3.80 GHz and a boost clock of 4.80 GHz, with a 105 W TDP. The CPU supports DDR4 memory in a dual-channel configuration, providing 51.2 GB/s of memory bandwidth. Its cache hierarchy includes 64 KB of L1 cache per core, 512 KB of L2 per core, and a shared 32 MB L3 cache.

Benchmark results indicate that this processor's multi-threaded performance is substantial. In Cinebench R23, the 5800XT scores 23794 points in multi-core and 3359 points in single-core. The 3DMark 16-thread test yields a score of 7683, while the 2-thread test produces 1879. This scaling pattern — from 959 in single-thread to 7680 in max-thread — shows strong thread utilization efficiency, with the 8-thread score of 6141 representing roughly 80% of the maximum-thread performance.

For Undisputed, a sports title, the CPU's role is primarily to maintain a consistent frame pacing floor. The measured FPS data shows that at 1080p Low settings, the combination achieves 530 average FPS, which far exceeds what most displays can present. At this extreme frame rate, the CPU's single-thread performance becomes relevant, as the 3DMark single-thread score of 959 and Cinebench R23 single-core score of 3359 indicate strong per-core capability. The PassMark single-thread score of 3535 further confirms this trend.

The processor sits at the 81st percentile among all CPUs in the benchmark database, with an average benchmark score of 29879. Its nearest rivals in the database include the AMD Ryzen 7 7840H with an average score of 29868 (0% delta), the AMD Ryzen 7 8845HS at 29955 (-0.3% delta), and the AMD Ryzen 5 9600X at 29713 (0.6% delta). This proximity to mobile and newer desktop parts suggests the 5800XT remains competitive in raw compute terms, though its DDR4 memory support and PCIe Gen 4 lanes (20 CPU lanes) may influence real-world gaming scenarios differently than the benchmarks alone suggest.

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

*Q: What is the highest average frame rate recorded for this CPU-GPU combination in Undisputed?*

A: The highest average FPS recorded is 530, achieved at 1920x1080 resolution with Low settings. This represents the peak performance envelope of the combination.

Q: How does the Ryzen 7 5800XT compare to its nearest rival in the database?

A: The Ryzen 7 5800XT has an average benchmark score of 29879, placing it at a 0% delta compared to the AMD Ryzen 7 7840H (29868). It trails the AMD Ryzen 7 8845HS by -0.3% (29955 score) and the AMD Ryzen 7 7840HS by -0.3% (29955 score), while leading the AMD Ryzen 5 9600X by 0.6% (29713 score).

Q: What is the lowest average frame rate observed in the measured data?

A: The lowest average FPS is 93, recorded at 3840x2160 resolution with Ultra settings. This is the most demanding configuration tested and still delivers a playable frame rate.

Q: Does the RTX 4090 achieve its peak performance relative to rivals at any resolution?

A: The RTX 4090 has an average benchmark score of 60347, placing it at the 88th percentile among all GPUs. Its nearest rival, the Intel Arc Pro A60, scores 60326 (0% delta), while the AMD Radeon Pro Vega 48 scores 60140 (0.3% delta) and the AMD Radeon Pro W6600M scores 61896 (-2.5% delta).

Q: How much does the average FPS drop from 1080p Low to 4K Ultra?

A: The average FPS drops from 530 at 1080p Low to 93 at 3840x2160 Ultra, representing a reduction of 437 FPS. The 4K Ultra setting produces 82.5% fewer frames per second than the 1080p Low setting.

Q: What is the frame time variance like at medium settings across resolutions?

A: The Medium settings preset includes minimum and maximum FPS data. At 1920x1080, the range spans from 324 to 438 FPS (381 average). At 2560x1440, the range is 234 to 317 FPS (275 average). At 3840x2160, the range narrows to 148 to 200 FPS (174 average).

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

The measured data reveals a consistent pattern of frame rate reduction as resolution increases, with the scaling behavior differing significantly between settings presets. At Low settings, the average FPS progresses from 530 at 1920x1080 to 383 at 2560x1440 and finally to 242 at 3840x2160. This represents a 27.7% drop from 1080p to 1440p and a 36.8% drop from 1440p to 4K, showing that even at Low settings, the resolution scaling is not linear — the 4K step imposes a heavier penalty relative to the 1440p step.

At High settings, the averages are 315 FPS at 1080p, 228 FPS at 1440p, and 144 FPS at 4K. The percentage drops are 27.6% from 1080p to 1440p and 36.8% from 1440p to 4K, nearly identical proportions to the Low preset. This similarity suggests the rendering workload scales predictably with pixel count regardless of the quality level, at least between these two presets.

The Medium settings show a slightly different pattern: 381 FPS at 1080p, 275 FPS at 1440p, and 174 FPS at 4K. The drop from 1080p to 1440p is 27.8%, while the drop from 1440p to 4K is 36.7%. The Ultra preset, however, behaves differently: 203 FPS at 1080p drops to 147 FPS at 1440p (a 27.6% reduction), then falls to 93 FPS at 4K (a 36.7% reduction). The consistent proportional drops across all presets indicate that the GPU's pixel throughput capability is the dominant factor in these scaling ratios.

The data suggests that the RTX 4090's 82.58 TFLOPS of FP32 compute and 1.01 TB/s of memory bandwidth are sufficient to maintain very high frame rates even at 4K, but the pixel rate of 443.5 GPixel/s becomes increasingly burdened as resolution climbs. At 1080p Low, the 530 FPS average suggests the CPU or some other bottleneck may be reached before the GPU's full pixel throughput is taxed. The 4K Ultra result of 93 FPS, by contrast, shows the GPU working much harder relative to its peak capability.

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

At 1920x1080, the combination produces its highest frame rates across all settings. Low settings deliver an average of 530 FPS. Medium settings yield 381 FPS with a minimum of 324 and a maximum of 438. High settings produce 315 FPS. Ultra settings drop to 203 FPS. The spread from Low to Ultra at this resolution is 327 FPS, demonstrating the substantial impact of quality presets on performance.

At 2560x1440, the averages are 383 FPS on Low, 275 FPS on Medium (minimum 234, maximum 317), 228 FPS on High, and 147 FPS on Ultra. The difference between Low and Ultra at 1440p is 236 FPS, a smaller absolute gap than at 1080p but a similar proportional relationship. The Medium preset's minimum of 234 FPS indicates that even the lowest recorded frame rates at this resolution remain comfortably above typical display refresh rates.

At 3840x2160, the averages are 242 FPS on Low, 174 FPS on Medium (minimum 148, maximum 200), 144 FPS on High, and 93 FPS on Ultra. The gap between Low and Ultra narrows to 149 FPS in absolute terms. The Medium preset at 4K shows the tightest frame time variance of all Medium presets, with a 52 FPS range between minimum and maximum, compared to 114 FPS at 1080p and 83 FPS at 1440p. This indicates that at 4K, the rendering workload becomes more consistent, likely because the GPU is operating closer to its sustained throughput limits.

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

The NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4090 is built on the Ada Lovelace architecture with the AD102 chip, fabricated on a 5 nm TSMC process. It contains 76,300 million transistors on a 609 mm² die, with a transistor density of 125.3M per mm². The GPU has a base clock of 2235 MHz and a boost clock of 2520 MHz, with memory clocked at 1313 MHz or 21 Gbps effective. Its 24 GB of GDDR6X memory operates across a 384-bit bus, delivering 1.01 TB/s of bandwidth.

The GPU's compute resources are extensive: 16384 shading units, 512 texture mapping units, 176 render output units, 128 RT cores, and 512 tensor cores. This configuration produces a pixel rate of 443.5 GPixel/s, a texture rate of 1,290.2 GTexel/s, and 82.58 TFLOPS of FP32 performance. The 450 W TDP and 850 W suggested PSU rating indicate the power requirements are substantial, though no power consumption data is included in the measured FPS results.

In Undisputed, the RTX 4090's role is evident from the resolution scaling data. At 1080p Low, the 530 FPS average likely approaches the CPU's frame delivery ceiling, given that the Ryzen 7 5800XT's single-thread scores are strong but not class-leading. The GPU's 24 GB VRAM is more than sufficient for a sports title at any resolution, and the 1.01 TB/s bandwidth ensures texture and geometry data can be fed at the high rates these frame numbers require.

The GPU's benchmark profile shows a PassMark G3D score of 38194 and a PassMark GPU Compute score of 26613. In Geekbench, the OpenCL score is 255416 and Vulkan is 271631. The 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 score is 9223. These synthetic results place the RTX 4090 at the 88th percentile among all GPUs, with an average benchmark score of 60347. Its nearest rivals in the database include the Intel Arc Pro A60 at 60326 (0% delta), the AMD Radeon Pro Vega 48 at 60140 (0.3% delta), and the AMD Radeon Pro W6600M at 61896 (-2.5% delta). The proximity of these scores indicates that the RTX 4090's synthetic benchmark average is closely matched by several workstation-oriented GPUs, though the gaming-specific measured FPS data shows the 4090's real-world advantage in this title.

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

The measured data provides clear guidance for selecting a settings preset based on the target display refresh rate and resolution. At 1920x1080, all four presets exceed 200 FPS, with Low at 530, Medium at 381, High at 315, and Ultra at 203. For a 144 Hz display, even Ultra settings provide sufficient headroom, and for 240 Hz displays, High settings at 315 FPS offer a comfortable margin. The Medium preset at 381 FPS with a minimum of 324 FPS is the most balanced option, delivering high average performance while maintaining frame consistency.

At 2560x1440, the choice narrows. Low at 383 FPS and Medium at 275 FPS support high refresh rate displays, while High at 228 FPS remains viable for 240 Hz monitors. Ultra at 147 FPS is suitable for 144 Hz displays but leaves little margin for demanding scenes. The Medium preset's minimum of 234 FPS ensures no frame drops below 144 Hz thresholds, making it the recommended choice for competitive play at this resolution.

At 3840x2160, the situation changes significantly. Low at 242 FPS, Medium at 174 FPS, and High at 144 FPS all support 144 Hz displays, with Medium offering the best balance between visual quality and performance. Ultra at 93 FPS is the only preset that falls below 144 Hz, and it would be appropriate for 60 Hz displays or for players prioritizing maximum visual fidelity over frame rate. The Medium preset's minimum of 148 FPS at 4K means it never dips below the 144 Hz threshold, whereas the High preset's average of 144 FPS sits right at that boundary, making Medium the safer choice for consistent high-refresh-rate gameplay.

The overall recommendation from the data is that Medium settings provide the most consistent experience across all three resolutions, with minimum FPS values that never fall below 148 at 4K, 234 at 1440p, and 324 at 1080p. The Ultra preset sacrifices significant frame rate for marginal visual gains, and the Low preset's performance advantage is often wasted on displays that cannot present such high frame rates. For most users, Medium represents the optimal intersection of visual quality and frame rate stability, while High serves as a viable alternative for those prioritizing image quality over the last few frames per second.