Undisputed

The AMD Ryzen 9 9900X paired with the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2060 presents a stark study in bottleneck dynamics when running Undisputed. The data indicates a configuration where the CPU’s immense processing headroom is consistently capped by the GPU’s graphical throughput, a relationship that becomes increasingly pronounced as resolution scales upward.

Resolution Scaling

The performance trajectory from 1080p to 4K reveals a classic GPU-limited scenario. At 1920x1080 with High settings, the combo produces 124.3 FPS, but this drops to 92.0 FPS at 2560x1440—a 26% reduction—and further to 58.4 FPS at 3840x2160, representing a 53% loss from the 1080p figure. This steep decline points directly at the RTX 2060 as the primary constraint; the 9900X’s raw compute is simply waiting on the GPU to finish each frame.

The pattern is even more telling at the Low preset. The 1080p Low result of 210.5 FPS suggests the CPU can feed frames at an extremely high rate, but that number collapses to 150.4 FPS at 1440p and 96.4 FPS at 4K. The delta between Low and High settings at each resolution is also informative: at 1080p, the gap is 86.2 FPS (210.5 vs 124.3), while at 4K it narrows to 38.0 FPS (96.4 vs 58.4). This compression indicates that as resolution rises, the GPU’s pixel-pushing workload becomes the dominant factor, diminishing the impact of CPU-bound settings changes.

For sports titles like Undisputed, where reaction time matters, the 4K High result of 58.4 FPS is playable but not ideal, while the 4K Ultra figure of 39.3 FPS falls below the smoothness threshold most competitive players seek. The 1440p results show a more balanced picture, with High delivering 92.0 FPS—a figure that suggests the GPU is still the limiting factor but with enough headroom to maintain fluid motion.

How This Combo Ranks

This particular pairing sits at rank 1259 out of 1580 tested combinations in Undisputed. That places it in the bottom 20% of all configurations, a positioning that aligns with the RTX 2060’s age and performance tier. The CPU, however, is a different story: the Ryzen 9 9900X scores in the 94th percentile among all CPUs, with an average benchmark score of 54450. Its nearest rival, the AMD Ryzen 9 9900X3D, posts a nearly identical 54681 average score, a delta of just -0.4%, while the Intel Core i7-14700F trails by 0.7% at 54097.

The GPU’s percentile ranking is far more modest. The RTX 2060 sits in the 58th percentile among all GPUs, with an average score of 16074. Its closest competitor, the AMD Radeon RX 7600S, scores 15996 (a 0.5% delta), while the AMD Radeon Pro 5700 matches the Pro 5600M at 16351, putting the RTX 2060 1.7% behind both. This contrast—a top-tier CPU mated to a mid-tier GPU—explains the combo’s low overall rank; the system’s potential is heavily constrained by its graphics component.

In practical terms, this rank means the combo underperforms relative to what the CPU alone suggests. Many systems with weaker processors but stronger GPUs will outpace it in Undisputed, since the game’s engine appears to scale more with GPU capability than with CPU thread count. The 9900X’s 12 cores and 24 threads are largely idle during gameplay, as the 2060 becomes the bottleneck well before the CPU’s resources are taxed.

GPU Role

The RTX 2060’s 6 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 192-bit bus provides 336.0 GB/s of bandwidth—sufficient for 1080p and 1440p but strained at 4K Ultra. The GPU’s clocks are modest by modern standards, with a base of 1365 MHz and a boost of 1680 MHz, but the Turing architecture’s 1920 shading units and 48 ROPs deliver a pixel rate of 80.64 GPixel/s. These specifications explain the measured results: the card can handle high framerates at lower resolutions but struggles when fill-rate demands escalate.

The 2060’s 6 GB VRAM capacity is a critical factor in the 4K results. At 3840x2160 Ultra, the average FPS falls to 39.3, likely due to both compute limits and memory pressure. The 1440p Ultra score of 59.3 FPS is only 1.5% higher than the 4K High score of 58.4 FPS, suggesting that the Ultra preset at 1440p and High preset at 4K hit similar hardware ceilings. The GPU’s FP32 throughput of 6.451 TFLOPS is the hard limit here, not the CPU’s 5.60 GHz boost capability.

Notably, the GPU’s predecessor was the GeForce 10 series, and its successor is the GeForce 30 series, marking it as a transitional product. The 450 W suggested PSU and 160 W TDP indicate a power envelope that is modest by today’s standards, but the performance data shows the card is simply outclassed by the CPU’s potential in this title.

Measured FPS Breakdown

At 1920x1080, the full range of settings shows a wide spread:

• Low: 210.5 FPS
• Medium: 152.9 FPS
• High: 124.3 FPS
• Ultra: 80.7 FPS

The jump from Low to Medium costs 57.6 FPS (27.3% reduction), while High to Ultra costs 43.6 FPS (35.1% reduction). This indicates that the Ultra preset introduces effects that heavily tax the GPU, even at 1080p.

At 2560x1440, the figures scale down predictably:

• Low: 150.4 FPS
• Medium: 110.7 FPS
• High: 92.0 FPS
• Ultra: 59.3 FPS

The 1440p Ultra result is nearly half the 1080p Ultra figure, confirming that resolution scaling is nearly linear for this GPU. The 1440p High score of 92.0 FPS is the sweet spot for smooth gameplay, offering a 55.1% improvement over Ultra at the same resolution.

At 3840x2160, the GPU’s limits become stark:

• Low: 96.4 FPS
• Medium: 67.8 FPS
• High: 58.4 FPS
• Ultra: 39.3 FPS

The 4K Low result remains playable, but 4K High drops below 60 FPS. The gap between Medium and High at 4K is just 9.4 FPS, suggesting diminishing returns from the Medium-to-High transition when pixel count is the dominant load.

Settings Recommendations

For this CPU-GPU pairing, the data supports a clear hierarchy of presets based on resolution. At 1080p, the High preset delivers 124.3 FPS, which is well above the threshold for competitive play, while Ultra drops to 80.7 FPS—still smooth but with a 35% performance penalty. The Medium preset at 152.9 FPS offers a safer margin for maintaining high framerates during chaotic in-ring action, making it the recommended choice for 1080p if visual fidelity is secondary to responsiveness.

At 1440p, the High preset at 92.0 FPS provides the best balance of visual quality and performance. The Ultra preset at 59.3 FPS is borderline for smooth play, and the 33.7 FPS difference between High and Ultra is too large to justify the visual upgrade. The Medium preset at 110.7 FPS is a viable alternative for players who prioritize framerate stability above all else, but High is the optimal point where the GPU’s capabilities are best utilized without excessive compromise.

At 4K, the recommendation is more constrained. The High preset at 58.4 FPS is the maximum playable setting, though it hovers near the 60 FPS threshold. The Low preset at 96.4 FPS is the only 4K option that provides substantial headroom above 60 FPS, making it the pragmatic choice for competitive play at this resolution. The Ultra preset at 39.3 FPS should be avoided entirely, as it falls into a range that compromises both motion fluidity and visual coherence during fast-paced boxing exchanges.

Ultimately, the measured data suggests that this combo is best utilized at 1080p or 1440p with High settings, where the RTX 2060 can leverage the 9900X’s headroom without being overwhelmed. The 4K Ultra experience is untenable with this hardware, and players seeking that level of fidelity would need a significantly more powerful GPU to complement the capable processor.