Undisputed

The Intel Core i5-13400F and AMD Radeon RX 9070 XT pairing delivers a high-refresh-rate experience in Undisputed, with the data showing that the GPU is the primary driver of performance scaling across settings and resolutions. The 10-core, 16-thread CPU, with a base clock of 2.50 GHz and a boost clock of 4.60 GHz, provides ample processing power to avoid bottlenecking the graphics card in this sports title. Benchmark results indicate that the CPU’s multi-threaded performance, evidenced by a Cinebench R23 multicore score of 21279, is more than sufficient for the game’s physics and AI calculations, while its single-thread score of 3004 ensures responsive frame pacing. The processor sits at the 82nd percentile among all CPUs, placing it in a competitive position against rivals like the Intel Core i7-13620H, which it trails by just 0.1% in average benchmark score, and the AMD Ryzen 5 5600X3D, which is 0.5% faster. This performance headroom means that in most gameplay scenarios, the frame rate will be dictated by the graphics card rather than the processor.

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

The Core i5-13400F’s hybrid architecture, featuring 10 cores and 16 threads, is well-suited for Undisputed, a sports simulation that relies on consistent CPU performance for player physics and match logic. With a base clock of 2.50 GHz and a boost clock of 4.60 GHz, the processor can quickly ramp up speed when needed, though the game’s demands rarely push it to its limits. The data suggests that the CPU is not a limiting factor at any tested setting, as even at 1080p Low, where the GPU is least stressed, the average frame rate reaches 372 FPS, a figure that would typically be constrained by CPU processing power in less capable systems. The 20 MB of shared L3 cache helps maintain low latency for game data, and the 3DMark 16-thread score of 7314, along with a Passmark multithread score of 25032, confirms that the chip can handle simultaneous tasks without dropping frames. Compared to its nearest rivals, the i5-13400F’s average benchmark score of 25236 places it just 0.5% behind the AMD EPYC 9474F and 0.5% ahead of the AMD Ryzen AI 5 PRO 340, indicating that its compute capabilities are on par with a broad range of other processors.

The single-thread performance, reflected in a Geekbench single-core score of 2301, is particularly relevant for Undisputed’s frame generation and input response. Even at 4K Ultra, where the GPU is heavily loaded, the average FPS of 67 suggests that the CPU can feed frames consistently without stutter. The processor’s 65 W TDP and Intel Socket 1700 compatibility make it a practical choice for a gaming build, but the performance data shows that its real strength lies in providing a stable foundation for the GPU to operate at full capacity. The benchmark results indicate that the CPU’s 3DMark 2-thread score of 1880, while modest, is sufficient for the game’s core logic, as frame rates scale almost linearly with GPU load rather than CPU load. In essence, the i5-13400F is a capable partner that ensures the RX 9070 XT’s output is not artificially capped, allowing the measured FPS to reflect true graphics card performance.

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

The AMD Radeon RX 9070 XT is the undisputed performance driver in this combo, and its specifications directly explain the measured FPS figures. With 16 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 256-bit bus, providing 644.6 GB/s of bandwidth, the card has no trouble handling the texture and geometry data required by Undisputed at any resolution. The boost clock of 2970 MHz, supported by a base clock of 1660 MHz and a game clock of 2400 MHz, allows the GPU to scale its processing power dynamically, which is reflected in the substantial frame rate differences between settings. The 4096 shading units and 128 ROPs deliver a pixel rate of 380.2 GPixel/s, which is crucial for maintaining high FPS at 4K resolution. The data shows that at 1080p Low, the card achieves 372 FPS, a figure that leverages the full boost clock, while at 4K Ultra, it drops to 67 FPS, indicating the GPU is working near its limits under maximum load.

The GPU’s 82nd percentile ranking among all graphics cards is corroborated by its performance in synthetic benchmarks, such as a 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 score of 7260 and a Passmark G3D score of 26795. Its nearest rivals, including the AMD Radeon Pro 575 and NVIDIA RTX A500 Mobile, have average scores that differ by less than 0.6%, but the RX 9070 XT’s 16 GB VRAM and RDNA 4.0 architecture provide a significant advantage in modern games like Undisputed. The 304 W TDP and suggested 700 W PSU indicate that this is a power-hungry card, but the performance payoff is clear in the measured data. The transition from High to Ultra settings at 1440p results in a drop from 158.5 FPS to 105.2 FPS, a 33.7% reduction that is purely GPU-driven, as the CPU’s capabilities remain unchanged. This pattern confirms that the RX 9070 XT is the limiting component in this pairing, but it is a very capable limit, as it still delivers playable frame rates at even the most demanding settings.

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

Q: What is the highest average FPS recorded for this combo, and at what settings?

A: The highest average FPS is 372, achieved at 1920x1080 resolution with Low settings. This demonstrates the CPU-GPU combo’s ability to push extremely high frame rates when graphical load is minimized.

Q: How does the CPU’s performance compare to its closest rival?

A: The Intel Core i5-13400F has an average benchmark score of 25236, which is 0.1% higher than the Intel Core i7-13620H (25201) and 0.5% lower than the AMD Ryzen 5 5600X3D (25365). This indicates near-parity with these alternatives.

Q: What is the GPU’s memory bandwidth, and how does it affect 4K performance?

A: The GPU has a memory bandwidth of 644.6 GB/s. This high bandwidth allows it to sustain an average of 104.1 FPS at 4K High settings, showing that memory throughput is not a bottleneck even at high resolutions.

Q: Is the CPU or GPU more likely to limit performance in this game?

A: The data suggests the GPU is the limiting factor. For example, at 1440p, raising settings from Low (269.6 FPS) to Ultra (105.2 FPS) causes a significant drop, while CPU performance metrics remain constant, indicating the graphics card is responsible for the changes.

Q: What is the combo’s rank among all tested combinations?

A: The combo ranks 408th out of 1580 tested combinations in Undisputed. This places it in the top 26% of all pairings, indicating strong overall performance.

Q: How does the GPU’s raw compute power compare to its nearest rival?

A: The GPU’s average benchmark score is 39647, which is 0.1% lower than the AMD Radeon Pro 575 (39703) and 0.2% higher than the NVIDIA RTX A500 Mobile (39568). This shows very close performance to these competitors.

How This Combo Ranks — use comboRankInGame vs other tested combos

In the context of all tested hardware combinations for Undisputed, this pairing of the Intel Core i5-13400F and AMD Radeon RX 9070 XT secures the 408th position out of 1580 combinations. This ranking places the combo in the upper quartile of all systems tested, indicating that it outperforms roughly 74% of the other CPU and GPU pairings evaluated. The rank reflects the balance between the CPU’s solid 82nd percentile standing and the GPU’s equally strong 82nd percentile, resulting in a synergistic setup that avoids severe bottlenecks. While it is not at the very top of the charts, the 408th rank suggests that this combo is well above average for this game, likely due to the GPU’s high memory bandwidth and the CPU’s robust multi-threading. The data implies that most of the 1,172 combos ranked higher likely feature more premium processors or graphics cards, but the margin in real-world FPS may be small, as evidenced by the high frame rates achieved. For a builder seeking a high-performance system without chasing the absolute best hardware, this rank confirms that the combo is a strong contender.

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

The measured FPS data reveals a clear pattern of performance scaling as resolution increases, which directly points to the GPU as the limiting component. At 1080p Low, the combo achieves 372 FPS, but this drops to 269.6 FPS at 1440p Low, a 27.5% decrease, and further to 173.6 FPS at 4K Low, a 53.3% decrease from 1080p. This scaling is typical of GPU-bound scenarios, where the number of pixels to render increases exponentially, demanding more from the graphics card’s shading units and ROPs. The CPU’s performance, as measured by its fixed benchmark scores, does not change with resolution, so the observed FPS drops can only be attributed to the GPU’s workload. The pattern holds across all settings; for example, at High settings, the FPS goes from 224.6 at 1080p to 158.5 at 1440p (a 29.4% drop) and then to 104.1 at 4K (a 53.7% drop from 1080p). This consistency indicates that the game’s rendering pipeline is heavily reliant on GPU throughput.

The most telling evidence of GPU limitation comes from the Ultra settings, where the FPS drops from 142.6 at 1080p to 105.2 at 1440p and then to 67 at 4K. The 4K Ultra figure is the lowest in the dataset, showing that the RX 9070 XT is fully saturated at this extreme setting. In contrast, the CPU’s 16 threads and high boost clock ensure that it can maintain frame delivery even at 1080p Low, where the GPU is less stressed. If the CPU were the limiting factor, we would expect to see a plateau in FPS at lower resolutions, but instead, the FPS continues to rise as resolution decreases, confirming that the graphics card is the bottleneck. This means that for users with a 1080p monitor, the combo is overkill for Low settings, but it provides headroom for ultra-high refresh rate displays. At 4K, the combo is still capable of smooth gameplay, but the user must be willing to adjust settings to achieve higher FPS, as the GPU cannot maintain triple-digit averages at Ultra.

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

At 1920x1080, the combo demonstrates its peak performance capabilities. At Low settings, the average FPS is 372, which is the highest figure recorded for this configuration. Moving to Medium settings, the FPS drops to 270.3, a reduction of 27.3% from Low, indicating that the game’s medium presets introduce additional shading and texture work. At High settings, the average FPS is 224.6, which is a 39.6% drop from Low. The most demanding 1080p preset, Ultra, yields an average of 142.6 FPS. This still provides a very smooth experience for high-refresh-rate monitors, but it shows a 61.7% performance loss compared to Low settings.

At 2560x1440, the performance scales down as expected. Low settings produce an average of 269.6 FPS, which is 27.5% lower than the 1080p Low result. Medium settings average 194.1 FPS, a 28% drop from 1440p Low and a 28.2% drop from 1080p Medium. High settings at 1440p achieve 158.5 FPS, which is 29.4% lower than the 1080p High figure. Ultra settings at 1440p average 105.2 FPS, representing a 26.2% decrease from 1440p High and a 26.2% decrease from 1080p Ultra. This resolution is the sweet spot for the combo, offering high FPS even at Ultra settings, which is ideal for 1440p 144Hz displays.

At 3840x2160, the GPU is pushed to its limits. Low settings yield an average of 173.6 FPS, which is 35.6% lower than the 1080p Low result, showing that even at low graphical fidelity, 4K resolution demands significant GPU power. Medium settings average 124.1 FPS, a 28.5% drop from 4K Low and a 36% drop from 1440p Medium. High settings produce 104.1 FPS, which is 34.3% lower than 1440p High. The lowest recorded FPS is at 4K Ultra, with an average of 67 FPS. This is 36.3% lower than 1440p Ultra and 53% lower than 1080p Ultra. While 67 FPS is still playable, it falls short of the high-refresh-rate standards set by lower resolutions. The data shows that for 4K gaming, users should opt for High settings to maintain an average above 100 FPS, as the jump to Ultra results in a substantial 35.6% performance penalty.