Valorant

Measured FPS Breakdown

The recorded data for Valorant with the Intel Core i3-12100F and Intel Arc B390 combination shows a clear pattern: this system delivers frame rates far above the 60 FPS playability threshold across every resolution and preset tested. The measurements cover three resolutions (1920x1080, 2560x1440, and 3840x2160) and four graphics presets (Low, Medium, High, and Ultra), with average FPS figures recorded for all settings, while min and max values are available only for the Medium preset.

At 1920x1080, the most common competitive resolution, the combination starts at 331 FPS on Low settings. Moving to Medium, the average drops to 218 FPS, with a minimum of 185 FPS and a maximum of 250 FPS. High settings produce 207 FPS on average, while Ultra yields 198 FPS. The gap between Low and Ultra at this resolution is 133 FPS, which represents a 40% reduction in average frame rate when maxing out the preset. Even the most demanding setting at 1080p, Ultra at 198 FPS, leaves enormous headroom above the 60 FPS threshold.

At 2560x1440, the same pattern persists but with lower absolute numbers. Low settings deliver 282 FPS, Medium averages 186 FPS with a minimum of 158 FPS and a maximum of 214 FPS, High produces 177 FPS, and Ultra drops to 169 FPS. The difference between Low and Ultra here is 113 FPS, or a 40% reduction. The Medium preset at 1440p shows a minimum of 158 FPS, which is still more than 2.6 times the playability threshold. This resolution demonstrates that the system scales well when pixel count increases, with Ultra still clearing 60 FPS by a wide margin.

At 3840x2160, 4K resolution, the combination remains fully playable. Low settings produce 225 FPS, Medium averages 149 FPS with a minimum of 126 FPS and a maximum of 171 FPS, High delivers 141 FPS, and Ultra drops to 135 FPS. The reduction from Low to Ultra at 4K is 90 FPS, a 40% decrease, which mirrors the relative scaling seen at lower resolutions. The Medium preset at 4K has a minimum of 126 FPS, meaning even the worst-case recorded frame time stays well above double the 60 FPS threshold. Ultra at 4K, at 135 FPS average, still offers more than double the playability requirement.

Analyzing the resolution scaling, going from 1080p to 1440p reduces Ultra performance from 198 FPS to 169 FPS, a 15% drop. Going from 1440p to 4K reduces Ultra from 169 FPS to 135 FPS, a 20% drop. The total scaling from 1080p Ultra to 4K Ultra is a 32% reduction. For Low settings, the scaling is steeper: 331 FPS at 1080p drops to 282 FPS at 1440p (15% lower), then to 225 FPS at 4K (20% lower from 1440p), for a total 32% reduction from 1080p to 4K. This consistent scaling pattern indicates the GPU is the primary limiter as resolution increases, though the CPU still provides enough throughput to maintain very high frame rates.

The Medium preset is the only one with complete min and max data. At 1080p, the spread from min to max is 65 FPS (185 to 250). At 1440p, the spread is 56 FPS (158 to 214). At 4K, the spread is 45 FPS (126 to 171). The narrowing spread at higher resolutions suggests that frame time consistency improves as the GPU becomes more fully utilized, with less variance relative to the average frame rate.

FAQ

Q: Can the Intel Core i3-12100F and Intel Arc B390 run Valorant at 60 FPS or higher?

A: Yes, at every resolution and preset combination tested. The lowest recorded average FPS is 135 FPS at 3840x2160 on Ultra settings, which is more than double the 60 FPS playability threshold. Even the minimum frame rate recorded, 126 FPS at 4K Medium, exceeds 60 FPS by a significant margin.

Q: What is the best preset to use at 1080p?

A: Ultra settings at 1920x1080 produce an average of 198 FPS, which is the highest quality preset while still maintaining a frame rate far above the playability threshold. Since all presets at 1080p exceed 60 FPS, the most demanding preset is the recommended choice.

Q: How does performance change between 1080p and 4K?

A: At Ultra settings, performance drops from 198 FPS at 1080p to 169 FPS at 1440p, then to 135 FPS at 4K. This represents a 32% reduction from 1080p to 4K. At Low settings, the drop is from 331 FPS to 282 FPS to 225 FPS, also a 32% reduction across the same resolution range.

Q: Is the Medium preset stable at 4K resolution?

A: The Medium preset at 3840x2160 shows an average FPS of 149, with a minimum of 126 FPS and a maximum of 171 FPS. The minimum frame rate of 126 FPS is still more than twice the playability threshold, indicating stable and consistent performance.

Q: How much performance is lost when going from Low to Ultra settings?

A: At 1080p, the average FPS drops from 331 (Low) to 198 (Ultra), a 40% reduction. At 1440p, the drop is from 282 to 169, also a 40% reduction. At 4K, the drop is from 225 to 135, again a 40% reduction. The relative cost of Ultra settings is consistent across all resolutions.

Q: What frame rates can be expected at 1440p with High settings?

A: High settings at 2560x1440 produce an average of 177 FPS. This is more than sufficient for competitive play, providing a large margin above the 60 FPS threshold and enough headroom for demanding scenes or background processes.

Similar Performance Alternatives

The recorded data places this CPU and GPU combination at a specific position within the database of tested hardware. Looking at the CPU first, the Intel Core i3-12100F has an average benchmark score of 13494, placing it in the 68th percentile among all CPUs. Its nearest rivals in the database show very close performance: the Intel Core 3 N355 scores 13492, a 0% delta; the Intel Core i5-9500 scores 13452, 0.3% lower; the Intel Core 5 120UL scores 13594, 0.7% higher; and the Intel Core i7-1250U scores 13351, 1.1% lower. These four alternatives would behave nearly identically to the i3-12100F in Valorant, with performance differences of at most 1.1%, which is unlikely to produce any measurable FPS difference in the recorded data.

For the GPU, the Intel Arc B390 has an average benchmark score of 1482, placing it in the 9th percentile among all GPUs. Its nearest rivals are all NVIDIA parts with similar scores: the GeForce GT 520MX scores 1463, 1.3% lower; the GeForce 800M scores 1460, 1.5% lower; the GeForce GT 625 OEM scores 1446, 2.5% lower; and the GeForce GT 710 scores 1443, 2.7% lower. These GPUs would produce very similar frame rates in Valorant, though the Arc B390 maintains a slight edge of 1.3% to 2.7% over each of these rivals based on the recorded benchmark scores.

Combining these perspectives, a system with any of the rival CPUs paired with the Arc B390 would deliver nearly identical performance to the tested configuration. Similarly, the i3-12100F paired with any of the rival GPUs would show a small but measurable performance reduction, with the GT 710 being the slowest of the group at 2.7% behind the Arc B390 in the database benchmark. In practical terms for Valorant, these differences translate to single-digit FPS changes, meaning all of these alternative combinations would still comfortably exceed the 60 FPS playability threshold at every resolution tested.

The Verdict

The data shows a definitive answer: this PC can run Valorant at 60 FPS or higher at all tested resolutions and presets. The verdict by resolution confirms that every resolution, from 3840x2160 down to 1920x1080, has all four presets (Low, Medium, High, and Ultra) listed as playable. The best settings at each resolution are the Ultra preset, with average FPS of 198 at 1080p, 169 at 1440p, and 135 at 4K.

The margin above the playability threshold is substantial. At 1080p Ultra, the average FPS of 198 is 3.3 times the 60 FPS threshold. At 1440p Ultra, 169 FPS is 2.8 times the threshold. At 4K Ultra, 135 FPS is 2.25 times the threshold. Even the worst-case recorded frame rate across all data points, the 126 FPS minimum at 4K Medium, remains more than double the playability requirement. This indicates that the system not only clears 60 FPS but does so with enough headroom to absorb frame time spikes without dropping below the threshold.

For competitive play, where higher frame rates directly translate to smoother aim and lower input latency, the system offers excellent performance. At 1080p, even Ultra settings at 198 FPS provide sufficient frame throughput for high-refresh-rate monitors. At 1440p, the 169 FPS average on Ultra still supports 144Hz displays. At 4K, the 135 FPS average on Ultra exceeds the 60 FPS threshold but would not fully saturate a 144Hz display, making it more suitable for 60Hz or 120Hz panels.

Best Settings per Resolution

The database identifies the most demanding preset that remains at or above 60 FPS at each resolution. Since all presets clear 60 FPS, the Ultra preset is the best choice at every resolution.

At 1920x1080, Ultra settings deliver 198 FPS on average. This is the highest visual quality available in the test matrix while still providing a frame rate that exceeds 60 FPS by a factor of 3.3. The gap between Ultra and High at this resolution is only 9 FPS (207 to 198), so the visual quality increase comes at a minimal performance cost.

At 2560x1440, Ultra settings produce 169 FPS on average. The difference from High (177 FPS) is 8 FPS, again a small cost for the highest preset. The 169 FPS figure is still 2.8 times the playability threshold, leaving ample room for demanding scenes or background tasks.

At 3840x2160, Ultra settings average 135 FPS. This is 2.25 times the 60 FPS threshold and only 6 FPS below the High preset (141 FPS). The performance cost of choosing Ultra over High at 4K is minimal, making Ultra the clear recommendation for maximum visual fidelity without sacrificing playability.

In all three cases, the Ultra preset at the given resolution maintains a minimum FPS that is not recorded in the dataset (only Medium has min/max values), but the average figures are sufficiently high that even a 20% frame time variance would keep the minimum above 60 FPS. The Medium preset, which does have min/max data, shows minimums of 185 FPS at 1080p, 158 FPS at 1440p, and 126 FPS at 4K, all well above the threshold.

How This Combo Ranks

Within the database of tested hardware combinations for Valorant, this specific CPU and GPU pairing ranks 3284 out of 3708 tested combos. This places the combination in the bottom 11% of all tested systems, which is consistent with the GPU's low percentile ranking of 9th among all GPUs. The CPU, in contrast, ranks in the 68th percentile, showing that it is a relatively strong component compared to the GPU.

The rank of 3284 out of 3708 indicates that the majority of tested combinations outperform this system in Valorant. However, the absolute performance data shows that this ranking does not translate to an unplayable experience. The game is highly optimized and runs well on modest hardware, so even a low-ranked combo delivers frame rates that are multiples of the playability threshold. The rank reflects relative performance among all tested systems, not absolute capability.

The discrepancy between the combo rank and the actual FPS results is notable: a system in the 89th percentile of performance still produces 135 FPS at 4K Ultra. This suggests that Valorant's performance ceiling is high, and even lower-ranked hardware can achieve competitive frame rates. The data indicates that for this game, the combo rank is a less useful predictor of playability than the absolute FPS figures, which are uniformly excellent across all tested settings.

CPU and GPU Roles

The recorded data allows for an analysis of which component matters more for Valorant at each resolution. The CPU, Intel Core i3-12100F, has a benchmark score of 13494 and ranks in the 68th percentile of all CPUs. The GPU, Intel Arc B390, has a benchmark score of 1482 and ranks in the 9th percentile of all GPUs. This large disparity in relative performance suggests the GPU is the limiting factor in most scenarios.

Looking at the resolution scaling, the FPS drops consistently as resolution increases. From 1080p to 1440p, Ultra performance falls from 198 FPS to 169 FPS, a 15% reduction. From 1440p to 4K, it falls to 135 FPS, another 20% reduction. This scaling pattern is typical of a GPU-bound scenario, where increasing pixel count directly increases the GPU workload. If the CPU were the primary bottleneck, the FPS would remain roughly constant across resolutions, as the CPU workload for game logic and draw calls does not scale with resolution. The consistent 32% total reduction from 1080p to 4K across all presets confirms that the GPU is the dominant factor at every resolution.

The preset scaling also points to GPU limitation. At 1080p, Low produces 331 FPS while Ultra produces 198 FPS, a 40% reduction. This large gap indicates that higher presets increase GPU workload significantly, while the CPU can maintain high frame rates even at Ultra. If the CPU were the bottleneck, the preset scaling would show smaller differences, as the CPU workload is relatively unaffected by texture quality and shadow details.

At 4K, the same 40% reduction from Low (225 FPS) to Ultra (135 FPS) is observed, further confirming that the GPU is the limiting component. The CPU's role is to feed the GPU with draw calls and maintain frame pacing, and the i3-12100F with its 4 cores and 8 threads appears sufficient for this task at all resolutions. The fact that even at 4K Ultra, the system maintains 135 FPS, indicates the CPU is not holding back the GPU in any meaningful way.

In summary, the GPU is the primary determinant of FPS in Valorant for this combination, with the CPU providing ample headroom. The resolution scaling and preset scaling both point to GPU-bound performance, while the CPU's high percentile rank and consistent performance across resolutions show it is not a limiting factor. This means that upgrading the GPU would yield larger FPS gains than upgrading the CPU, though the current performance is already sufficient for all tested scenarios.