Undisputed

Undisputed, a Sports title released in 2023, has been measured on a pairing that raises immediate questions: a mobile Intel Core Ultra X9 388H CPU bolted to a desktop-class NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4080. This is not a typical off-the-shelf laptop configuration, and the benchmark data shows a machine whose GPU is clearly the senior partner. The following analysis works through the measured frame rates resolution by resolution, asks what the scaling curves reveal about which component is limiting, and situates the combo against the broader field of tested pairings in this game. All figures below are drawn directly from the measured dataset.

Resolution Scaling

The scaling story here is one of a GPU working progressively harder as pixels multiply. At 1080p, the pairing delivers 344 average FPS on Low, 247 on Medium, 205 on High, and 132 on Ultra. Move to 1440p and those numbers fall to 248, 179, 148, and 95 respectively. At 4K the same four presets return 157, 113, 94, and 60.

The interesting question is what the shape of that decline implies. From 1080p to 1440p, Low drops by roughly 96 frames; from 1440p to 4K it drops a further 91. That near-identical absolute loss across two resolution steps — while pixel count grows far faster in the second step — hints that at Low settings the CPU may be starting to cap the ceiling even at 4K, or at minimum that the Low preset removes so much GPU workload that the frame rate becomes less resolution-sensitive. Compare that with Ultra, where 132 at 1080p falls to 95 at 1440p and then to 60 at 4K. The Ultra curve degrades more proportionally with pixel count, which is the classic signature of a GPU-bound configuration: the RTX 4080's 9728 shading units, 112 ROPs, and 716.8 GB/s of memory bandwidth are being fed progressively more work, and the frame rate follows.

There is a crossover worth pausing on. At 1080p Medium the combo averages 247 FPS with a minimum of 210 and a maximum of 284 — a tight band that suggests consistent frame pacing rather than stutter-prone variance. At 4K Medium, the average of 113 sits between a recorded minimum of 96 and maximum of 130. Notably, 4K Medium's average of 113 is within two frames of 1440p Ultra's 95... more precisely, it exceeds it by 18 frames. A player could therefore choose between crisper image quality at 4K Medium or a higher preset at 1440p and land in a similar performance neighborhood. The Medium rows are the only ones with min/max data recorded, which itself indicates those were the runs with full telemetry captured.

The High preset shows the steepest proportional loss at the top end: 205 at 1080p to 94 at 4K, a drop of well over half the frame rate. That suggests High introduces the heaviest GPU-side features of the middle presets — likely the kind of workload that leans on the 76 RT cores and 304 tensor cores of the AD103 die, though the dataset does not specify which effects dominate.

GPU Role

The RTX 4080 is the defining component of this pairing. Built on TSMC's 5 nm process with 45,900 million transistors packed into a 379 mm² die at 121.1 million transistors per square millimetre, it carries a base clock of 2205 MHz and a boost clock of 2505 MHz, with GDDR6X memory running at an effective 22.4 Gbps across a 256-bit bus. That memory subsystem delivers 716.8 GB/s of bandwidth to a 16 GB framebuffer.

For Undisputed specifically, the question is whether any of that capacity is actually being stressed. A Sports title measured at 60 FPS minimum average (4K Ultra) is nowhere near exhausting 16 GB of GDDR6X in a way the data can demonstrate — the dataset records no VRAM utilization figures, so any claim beyond the frame rates themselves would be speculation. What the data does show is raw throughput translating into frames: 48.74 TFLOPS of FP32 compute and a texture fill rate of 761.5 GTexel/s underpinning frame rates that remain above 60 at every measured resolution and preset combination in the table.

Contextualizing the card: it sits in the 86th percentile of all GPUs in the database, with an average benchmark score of 54247. Its nearest rivals by that aggregate metric are the RTX 4080 SUPER at 54209 (a 0.1 percent gap — effectively indistinguishable), the Radeon Pro W5700X at 54828 (1.1 percent ahead), the Radeon RX 6750 GRE 12 GB at 55698 (2.6 percent ahead), and the Radeon 8060S at 55757 (2.7 percent ahead). Those aggregate gaps are small, and they suggest that in a game like Undisputed, which appears far more GPU-throughput-limited than feature-limited at higher resolutions, an RTX 4080 SUPER would deliver essentially identical frame rates. The card's benchmark résumé includes a 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 score of 6567, a Geekbench Vulkan score of 263779, a Geekbench OpenCL score of 214739, and a PassMark G3D score of 34457.

One wrinkle: the card's production status is listed as End-of-life, with the GeForce 50 series named as its successor. Its launch MSRP was 1,199 USD. This is a discontinued flagship-tier part now being paired with a very new mobile CPU — an unusual generational mix that the ranking data, discussed below, partially reflects.

How This Combo Ranks

Out of 3718 tested CPU/GPU combinations in Undisputed, this pairing ranks 1220th. That placement invites scrutiny, because on raw hardware pedigree this is an asymmetric pairing: an 86th-percentile GPU attached to a mobile CPU. A rank in the top third of tested combos is respectable, but it is well below where a desktop CPU of comparable class to the RTX 4080 would likely place this GPU.

The plausible reading is that Undisputed's frame rates at lower resolutions are partially constrained by the CPU side of the equation. If the game scales with CPU performance at 1080p — and the near-flat Low-preset scaling noted earlier is consistent with that — then the Core Ultra X9 388H's 88th-percentile aggregate CPU performance becomes the ceiling at high frame rates. The 4K numbers, being GPU-bound, are likely close to what any competent modern CPU would deliver alongside this card. In other words: the rank of 1220 probably understates the GPU and accurately reflects the CPU's contribution at the resolutions where CPU throughput matters most.

Against that interpretation, the CPU's own rivals tell a story of parity rather than weakness: the Ryzen 5 7500X3D averages 44573 versus this chip's 44466 (0.2 percent ahead), the Core i9-13950HX averages 44342 (0.3 percent behind), the Ryzen AI Max 385 averages 44309 (0.4 percent behind), and the Core i5-13600 averages 44240 (0.5 percent behind). These are all tightly clustered, meaning the 388H trades blows with a mixed field of desktop and mobile parts. Nothing here suggests a dramatic CPU bottleneck — but nothing suggests the CPU is raising the pairing's rank either.

Measured FPS Breakdown

The complete measured dataset, all average frame rates, is as follows.

1920x1080:

• Low: 344 avg FPS
• Medium: 247 avg FPS (min 210, max 284)
• High: 205 avg FPS
• Ultra: 132 avg FPS

2560x1440:

• Low: 248 avg FPS
• Medium: 179 avg FPS (min 152, max 206)
• High: 148 avg FPS
• Ultra: 95 avg FPS

3840x2160:

• Low: 157 avg FPS
• Medium: 113 avg FPS (min 96, max 130)
• High: 94 avg FPS
• Ultra: 60 avg FPS

Several patterns deserve calling out. First, the Low-to-Medium step costs more frames than Medium-to-High at every resolution: at 1080p it is 97 frames versus 42, at 1440p it is 69 versus 31, and at 4K it is 44 versus 19. Whatever the Medium preset enables — and the data does not itemize individual effects — it is the most expensive single settings change in the game's preset ladder. Players chasing maximum frame rates should therefore think carefully about whether Medium is worth nearly double the cost of the High step above it.

Second, 4K Ultra lands at exactly 60 average FPS. That is a meaningful threshold: it clears a standard 60 Hz refresh, but with no minimum-frame data recorded for that row, whether dips below 60 occur is unknown. The 4K Medium row, with its recorded minimum of 96, offers far more headroom assurance.

Third, 1440p Ultra at 95 average FPS and 4K High at 94 are effectively identical — a coincidence that frames a real choice. Identical frame rates, different image: 1440p with the top preset versus 4K with one step down. For a Sports title where motion clarity matters, either works; the 4K option pairs higher pixel density with the High preset's visual features.

Fourth, the 1080p Medium row's max of 284 against a min of 210 shows a spread of 74 frames — a ratio that suggests stable, predictable delivery rather than the wild swings that plague poorly paced titles.

Settings Recommendations

For high-refresh play, the data points to 1080p Medium as the sweet spot: 247 average FPS with a floor of 210 recorded, comfortably feeding displays well beyond standard refresh rates while retaining far more visual detail than the Low preset. Players who need absolute maximum frames — competitive scenarios in a fighting/sports context — can take Low at 344 FPS at 1080p, but the drop to Medium buys substantial fidelity for a still-enormous frame rate.

At 1440p, Medium's 179 average with a 152 minimum is the balanced pick. High at 148 is also viable if the target is a 144 Hz-class display, and even Ultra's 95 clears 60 comfortably. The 1440p Ultra versus 4K High equivalence noted above makes 1440p Ultra a strong choice for players who value the top preset's features over raw pixel count.

At 4K, the recommendation splits by priority. High at 94 average FPS preserves a high frame rate with strong detail. Ultra at 60 is playable but sits exactly at the 60 FPS line with no recorded minimum — the riskiest row in the table for frame-time consistency. Medium at 4K, averaging 113 with a verified minimum of 96, is arguably the safest 4K configuration in the dataset for anyone who wants both resolution and guaranteed smoothness.

Across the board, the measured results indicate there is no bad setting here — every combination tested clears 60 average FPS. The real question is which trade-off fits the display in use, and the Medium-preset rows with their min/max telemetry provide the most confident answers.

FAQ

Q: Can this setup run Undisputed at 4K Ultra?

A: Yes, at 60 average FPS. That is the lowest number in the entire measured table, and no minimum frame rate was recorded for that row, so it is the least-documented configuration — but it does clear 60 on average.

Q: Which resolution and preset gives the highest frame rate?

A: 1920x1080 on Low, at 344 average FPS. The next closest is 1080p Medium at 247 FPS (min 210, max 284).

Q: Is the CPU or GPU the limiting factor in this pairing?

A: The data suggests it depends on resolution and preset. The near-flat decline of the Low preset across resolutions points toward a CPU-side ceiling at high frame rates, while the proportional degradation of the Ultra preset from 132 to 60 FPS indicates GPU-bound behaviour as resolution climbs.

Q: How does the Intel Core Ultra X9 388H compare to rival CPUs?

A: Its average benchmark score of 44466 sits within half a percent of the AMD Ryzen 5 7500X3D (44573), Intel Core i9-13950HX (44342), AMD Ryzen AI Max 385 (44309), and Intel Core i5-13600 (44240) — a tightly clustered field.

Q: How does the RTX 4080 compare to the RTX 4080 SUPER in this data?

A: By aggregate benchmark score they are statistically tied: 54247 versus 54209, a 0.1 percent gap. In a throughput-limited game like Undisputed, effectively identical results would be expected.

Q: Where does this combo rank among tested configurations in Undisputed?

A: Rank 1220 out of 3718 tested combinations — inside the top third, which is consistent with a strong GPU paired with a mobile-class CPU that caps performance at lower resolutions.

CPU Role

The Core Ultra X9 388H is a Panther Lake mobile part: 16 cores and 16 threads on Intel's 3 nm process, with a 2.10 GHz base clock and a 5.10 GHz boost clock, all inside a 25 W TDP on the Intel BGA 2540 socket. Its cache hierarchy comprises 192 KB of L1 per core, 3 MB of L2 per core, and 18 MB of shared L3. Memory support is dual-channel LPDDR5X delivering 153.6 GB/s of bandwidth — a figure worth noting, because it is less than a quarter of the RTX 4080's own memory bandwidth, and it is the conduit through which the CPU must feed game state to the GPU.

How does that translate into Undisputed's numbers? The single-threaded credentials are solid: a Cinebench R23 single-core score of 2200.5, R20 single-core of 1849, R15 single-core of 309.5, and a PassMark single-thread score of 4280. Multi-threaded results include 18911 in Cinebench R23, 13101 in R20, 2955 in R15, and a PassMark multithread score of 36811. For a Sports title — a genre that typically leans on one or two fast threads for game logic, physics, and animation states rather than broad core sprawl — those single-core figures are what matter most, and they explain why the combo holds frame rates well even at 4K where CPU demands are at their least punishing.

The questioning angle: is the 25 W envelope leaving performance on the table at 1080p? The scaling data offers circumstantial evidence. A Low-preset frame rate that barely responds to resolution changes usually means the CPU pipeline is saturated — and a mobile chip boosting to 5.10 GHz within 25 W cannot sustain that boost across all 16 cores the way a desktop part would. The 88th-percentile aggregate placement and the razor-thin margins against desktop rivals like the Core i5-13600 suggest the deficit, if any, is small. Still, the combo's rank of 1220 in a field of 3718, despite an 86th-percentile GPU, is the quiet fingerprint of that asymmetry: this pairing is GPU-led at 4K, CPU-tempered at 1080p, and evenly matched somewhere in between.