Ready Or Not

How This Combo Ranks

The AMD Ryzen 5 8400F paired with the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4070 SUPER lands at rank 312 out of 1748 tested combinations in Ready Or Not. That places this combo in the top 17.9% of all configurations tested for this tactical shooter. The ranking reflects a system that comfortably outpaces the median tested setup while not sitting among the absolute elite configurations.

Benchmark results indicate this pairing is well-balanced for the game's demands. The CPU's average benchmark score of 25064 places it in the 82nd percentile among all processors, while the GPU's average score of 42576 puts it in the 84th percentile among all graphics cards. Both components sit at similar relative positions, suggesting neither is dramatically holding back the other in this title.

Comparing the CPU to its nearest rivals shows tight clustering. The Ryzen 5 8400F scores 0.3% higher than the AMD Ryzen 5 7500F, a 0.1% gap behind the AMD Ryzen AI 5 PRO 340, and effectively matches the AMD Ryzen 7 2700X with a 0% delta. The AMD EPYC 9474F trails by 0.2%. These margins are negligible in real-world gaming, meaning the 8400F's placement among its peers is essentially a statistical tie.

For the GPU, the RTX 4070 SUPER sits 0.2% behind the NVIDIA RTX A6000 and 0.3% behind the AMD Radeon RX 7650 GRE. It leads the AMD Radeon Pro 580X by 1.4% and the NVIDIA Tesla M40 by 1.6%. Again, these deltas are small, indicating the 4070 SUPER performs in a well-established performance tier.

GPU Role

The RTX 4070 SUPER brings 12 GB of GDDR6X memory across a 192-bit bus, yielding 504.2 GB/s of bandwidth. For Ready Or Not, a tactical shooter with detailed environments and multiple AI-controlled suspects, this memory configuration proves sufficient across all tested settings and resolutions.

Clock speeds are notable: the GPU runs at a base of 1980 MHz and boosts to 2475 MHz. The memory operates at 1313 MHz with 21 Gbps effective speed. These frequencies translate into a pixel rate of 198.0 GPixel/s and a texture rate of 554.4 GTexel/s. The FP32 throughput of 35.48 TFLOPS indicates strong raw compute capability.

The GPU's architecture uses 7168 shading units, 224 texture mapping units, and 80 raster output units. It includes 56 RT cores and 224 tensor cores, though Ready Or Not's measured results do not isolate ray tracing or DLSS performance. The card supports DirectX 12 Ultimate, OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4, all of which are compatible with modern game engines.

With a TDP of 220 W and a suggested PSU of 550 W, the power envelope is reasonable for a dual-slot card measuring 267 mm in length. The 16-pin power connector is the sole power input. The GPU's production status is end-of-life, but benchmark data remains valid for current performance assessment.

Settings Recommendations

The measured data shows a clear hierarchy across settings presets at each resolution. The sweet spot depends on the target display resolution and desired frame rate headroom.

At 1920x1080, all presets deliver exceptionally high frame rates. Ultra averages 230.6 FPS, High reaches 325.6 FPS, Medium hits 356.9 FPS, and Low peaks at 406.4 FPS. For 1080p displays with high refresh rates, even Ultra provides ample performance. The jump from Ultra to High adds 95 FPS, a 41.2% improvement, making High the sensible choice for maximizing visual quality while keeping frame rates far beyond typical display refresh rates.

At 2560x1440, the pattern shifts. Ultra averages 144.2 FPS, High hits 205.9 FPS, Medium reaches 225 FPS, and Low tops out at 259.4 FPS. Here, High offers a 42.8% improvement over Ultra while still delivering over 200 FPS. Medium adds another 19.1 FPS over High. For 1440p, High or Medium provides excellent experiences; Ultra remains playable but with less headroom.

At 3840x2160, the GPU faces more demanding conditions. Ultra drops to 74 FPS, High rises to 108.4 FPS, Medium reaches 118.5 FPS, and Low hits 135.8 FPS. For 4K, Ultra is still playable but near the threshold where frame pacing becomes noticeable. High offers a 46.5% improvement over Ultra and remains comfortably above 100 FPS. Medium adds another 10.1 FPS. For 4K displays, High delivers the best balance of visual fidelity and performance.

Measured FPS Breakdown

The measured FPS data covers three resolutions and four settings presets, providing a complete picture of performance scaling.

At 1920x1080, the combo delivers extraordinary performance. Low settings produce 406.4 FPS, Medium yields 356.9 FPS, High achieves 325.6 FPS, and Ultra still manages 230.6 FPS. The scaling from Ultra to Low represents a 76.2% increase in frame rate. These numbers indicate the CPU-GPU pairing is not bottlenecked at 1080p; even the most demanding preset leaves substantial headroom.

At 2560x1440, performance remains strong. Low reaches 259.4 FPS, Medium hits 225 FPS, High achieves 205.9 FPS, and Ultra drops to 144.2 FPS. The transition from 1080p to 1440p costs roughly 36% of frame rate at each preset, consistent with the increased pixel count of 77.8%. The Ultra preset at 1440p still exceeds 144 FPS, making it viable for high-refresh monitors.

At 3840x2160, the GPU begins to show its limits. Low produces 135.8 FPS, Medium reaches 118.5 FPS, High achieves 108.4 FPS, and Ultra falls to 74 FPS. The 4K resolution demands 2.25 times the pixels of 1440p, and the data reflects this: Ultra at 4K delivers only 51.3% of the frame rate seen at 1440p Ultra. High at 4K remains above 100 FPS, a threshold many players consider minimum for smooth tactical gameplay.

Across all resolutions, the gap between Medium and High is smaller than between High and Ultra. At 1080p, the Medium-to-High delta is 31.3 FPS, while High-to-Ultra costs 95 FPS. At 1440p, Medium-to-High is 19.1 FPS, while High-to-Ultra costs 61.7 FPS. At 4K, Medium-to-High is 10.1 FPS, while High-to-Ultra costs 34.4 FPS. This consistent pattern suggests Ultra settings impose disproportionately larger rendering costs.

FAQ

Q: What is the best resolution for this combo in Ready Or Not?

A: The data shows playable frame rates at all three tested resolutions. At 1920x1080, even Ultra averages 230.6 FPS. At 2560x1440, Ultra averages 144.2 FPS. At 3840x2160, Ultra averages 74 FPS while High reaches 108.4 FPS. The choice depends on display capability and preference for visual detail versus frame rate headroom.

Q: How much performance does Ultra settings cost compared to High?

A: The penalty for Ultra over High is substantial at every resolution. At 1080p, Ultra is 95 FPS lower (230.6 vs 325.6). At 1440p, Ultra is 61.7 FPS lower (144.2 vs 205.9). At 4K, Ultra is 34.4 FPS lower (74 vs 108.4). The relative cost increases with resolution.

Q: Does the Ryzen 5 8400F bottleneck the RTX 4070 SUPER?

A: Benchmark data shows the CPU scores 25064 (82nd percentile) and the GPU scores 42576 (84th percentile). Their nearest rivals show negligible deltas. The high frame rates at 1080p, where CPU load is typically highest, suggest the 8400F keeps pace with the GPU. The 6-core, 12-thread processor with a boost clock of 4.70 GHz provides sufficient throughput.

Q: Is this combo suitable for 4K gaming?

A: At 3840x2160, High settings deliver 108.4 FPS and Medium reaches 118.5 FPS. Ultra drops to 74 FPS. The data indicates 4K is viable with High or Medium presets for smooth gameplay. Low settings reach 135.8 FPS, offering headroom for competitive play.

Q: How does the CPU compare to its closest rivals?

A: The Ryzen 5 8400F scores 25064, matching the AMD Ryzen 7 2700X (25057, 0% delta) and the AMD Ryzen AI 5 PRO 340 (25099, -0.1%). It edges the AMD Ryzen 5 7500F (24993, 0.3%) and the AMD EPYC 9474F (25103, -0.2%). All differences are within 0.3%, indicating near-identical average performance.

Q: What frame rate can I expect at 1440p with High settings?

A: The measured data shows 205.9 FPS at 2560x1440 with High settings. This provides ample headroom for high-refresh-rate monitors. Medium settings increase this to 225 FPS, while Ultra reduces it to 144.2 FPS.

CPU Role

The AMD Ryzen 5 8400F is a 6-core, 12-thread processor based on the Zen 4 architecture with the Phoenix codename. It operates on a 4 nm TSMC process node with 25,000 million transistors on a 178 mm² die. The base clock is 4.20 GHz with a boost clock of 4.70 GHz. The 65 W TDP makes it a modest power consumer for a desktop processor.

Cache configuration includes 64 KB of L1 per core, 1 MB of L2 per core, and 16 MB of shared L3 cache. Memory support is limited to DDR5 with dual-channel access, providing 83.2 GB/s of bandwidth. The processor uses the AMD Socket AM5 and supports PCIe Gen 4 with 20 lanes from the CPU. It has no integrated graphics, so the discrete GPU is mandatory.

Benchmark scores show a balanced profile. Single-thread performance is solid: 3dmark single-thread scores 951, Cinebench R23 single-core reaches 2943, and PassMark single-thread hits 3684. Multi-thread results are proportionally strong: Cinebench R23 multicore scores 20851, PassMark multithread reaches 24530, and 3dmark max threads scores 6165. The scaling from 2 threads (1874) to 16 threads (6091) shows efficient utilization across cores.

The CPU's role in Ready Or Not is to feed the GPU with game logic, AI pathfinding, and physics calculations. The 3dmark physics score of 1391 and PassMark physics score of 1391 indicate competent physics processing. The data compression score of 288994 and encryption score of 16684 suggest strong general-purpose throughput. The find prime numbers score of 92 is low, but this is a synthetic test that does not directly impact gaming performance.

The processor's 82nd percentile ranking against all CPUs, combined with the GPU's 84th percentile, places both components in similar performance tiers. The combo's rank of 312 out of 1748 in Ready Or Not reflects this balance. With a launch MSRP of $170 for the CPU, the platform sits in the mid-range desktop segment, though pricing analysis is outside this benchmark's scope.

The 4.70 GHz boost clock is the key for single-threaded game tasks, while the 6 cores handle background threads and multi-threaded game systems. The 16 MB of L3 cache is shared across all cores, which helps with data locality in game workloads. The 83.2 GB/s memory bandwidth supports the GPU's 504.2 GB/s bandwidth without creating a CPU-side bottleneck, as evidenced by the high frame rates at 1080p where CPU limits typically appear first.