Valorant

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

The measured frame rates for this Valorant configuration reveal a surprisingly shallow performance curve as resolution climbs. At 1080p Low, the combo delivers 594 FPS average. Moving to 1440p Low, that figure drops to 563 FPS — a decline of roughly 5.2%. Pushing further to 4K Low yields 523 FPS, which represents another 7.1% reduction from the 1440p result. The total scaling from 1080p Low to 4K Low is just 71 FPS, or approximately 12% fewer frames. That is an exceptionally mild penalty for a 4x increase in pixel count.

For a typical GPU-bound title, the transition from 1080p to 4K would cut frame rates by 40-60%. Here, the data shows only a single-digit percentage drop at each step. This pattern strongly indicates the system is not GPU-limited at lower resolutions. The RTX 5090 is simply not breaking a sweat rendering Valorant's relatively modest geometry and effects workload at 1080p or 1440p. Even at 4K, the GPU's enormous shading throughput — 104.8 TFLOPS FP32 across 21,760 shading units — is more than sufficient to maintain triple-digit frame rates.

The interesting question is where the ceiling actually lies. At 1080p Low, the CPU is likely the primary constraint. The Ryzen 5 7600's six Zen 4 cores with 12 threads, boosting to 5.10 GHz, are being pushed to their limits feeding the GPU. The 594 FPS figure at 1080p Low suggests a CPU-bound ceiling in the neighborhood of 600 FPS for this processor in Valorant's engine. The fact that 4K Low only drops to 523 FPS — a 71 FPS reduction — indicates that even at 4K, the system remains partially CPU-limited. The GPU has so much headroom that the pixel count increase barely matters.

The settings-based scaling tells a similar story. Across all three resolutions, the gap between Low and Ultra settings is remarkably consistent. At 1080p, Low produces 594 FPS while Ultra produces 490 FPS — a 104 FPS spread. At 1440p, the same settings yield 563 and 465 FPS respectively, a 98 FPS gap. At 4K, Low delivers 523 FPS while Ultra delivers 431 FPS, a 92 FPS difference. This narrow and stable delta across resolutions suggests that the settings menu is primarily shifting the CPU-side workload — likely draw call counts and shadow complexity — rather than heavily taxing the GPU.

What the data implies is that this combination is wildly over-provisioned for Valorant. The bottleneck analysis points to the CPU as the limiting factor at all tested settings, with the GPU's role remaining largely passive. This has practical implications: players could theoretically pair this GPU with a more modest processor and see nearly identical results, though the data available here only covers this specific pairing. The measured results also indicate that the 4K experience is essentially free in performance terms — the penalty for quadrupling resolution is less than 100 FPS at every settings level.

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

The RTX 5090 brings extraordinary hardware to a game that does not demand it. Its 32 GB of GDDR7 memory on a 512-bit bus delivers 1.79 TB/s of bandwidth — figures that are entirely irrelevant to Valorant's actual memory footprint, which is unlikely to stress even a fraction of that capacity. The GPU's 176 ROPs and 680 texture mapping units render the game's relatively simple scenes with ease. Its boost clock of 2407 MHz, up from a 2017 MHz base, provides the raw speed necessary to maintain high frame rates, but the benchmark data suggests the GPU is rarely the active constraint.

The evidence for GPU headroom is compelling. At 1080p Ultra, the RTX 5090 produces 490 FPS average. At 4K Ultra, it produces 431 FPS. That is a mere 59 FPS difference when pixel count quadruples. If the GPU were the bottleneck, the 4K result would collapse far more dramatically. Instead, the data shows a gentle decline consistent with a system that is CPU-bound at every resolution. The GPU's PassMark G3D score of 39,650 and its 92nd percentile ranking among all GPUs confirm its elite status, but Valorant simply cannot leverage that power.

The GPU's compute capabilities — 104.8 TFLOPS FP32 and FP16 — are similarly underutilized. Valorant is not a compute-heavy title; it relies more on traditional rasterization and draw call throughput. The RTX 5090's tensor cores and RT cores, of which there are 680 and 170 respectively, are essentially idle in this game. The Vulkan score of 376,728 in Geekbench and OpenCL score of 334,370 indicate strong API performance, but Valorant's engine does not push those APIs in ways that stress this GPU.

Memory bandwidth is another area where the hardware vastly exceeds requirements. The 1.79 TB/s figure is more than 20 times what a game like Valorant would typically consume. Even at 4K with Ultra settings, the frame buffer requirements are modest, and the GPU's 32 GB capacity means there is zero pressure on memory allocation. The effective memory clock of 1750 MHz (28 Gbps effective) is fast, but the game does not need it.

The practical takeaway from the data is that the RTX 5090's role in this pairing is to remove any possibility of GPU-induced frame drops. The measured minimum FPS figures, where available, support this. At 4K Medium, the minimum is 379 FPS and the maximum is 513 FPS. At 1080p Medium, the range is 431 to 583 FPS. These ranges are tight and high, indicating consistent frame pacing without GPU stalls. The GPU is essentially a safety net — it guarantees that the CPU is the only thing that can limit performance, and in Valorant, that CPU limit is still extremely high.

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

The Ryzen 5 7600 is the more interesting component in this pairing, because the data suggests it is the active bottleneck. Its six cores and 12 threads run at a base clock of 3.80 GHz and boost to 5.10 GHz. The Zen 4 architecture, built on TSMC's 5 nm process, delivers strong single-thread performance — the 3DMark single-thread score of 999 and Cinebench R23 single-core score of 1,852 reflect this. Valorant is notoriously sensitive to single-thread performance, and the 7600's high boost clock is well-suited to the game's engine.

The CPU's multi-threaded capabilities are also relevant, though to a lesser extent. The Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 12,735 and Geekbench multi-core score of 13,413 show solid throughput for a six-core part. The 32 MB of shared L3 cache helps with game data locality, and the dual-channel DDR5 memory support with 83.2 GB/s bandwidth provides sufficient memory bandwidth for the game's needs. The CPU's 78th percentile ranking among all CPUs, with an average benchmark score of 26,324, places it as a solid mid-to-upper-range processor.

The nearest rivals in CPU benchmark terms are informative. The AMD Ryzen 9 6900HX scores 26,274, just 0.2% lower. The AMD Ryzen 7 7435HS scores 26,402, 0.3% higher. The Intel Core i9-11900KF scores 26,212, 0.4% lower, and the AMD Ryzen 5 8540U scores 26,187, 0.5% lower. These are all mobile or older desktop parts that perform within 0.5% of the 7600 in aggregate benchmarks. This tight clustering suggests that the 7600's CPU-bound performance in Valorant would be nearly identical to these rivals — the game cares more about the per-core speed than the core count.

The measured FPS data supports the CPU-bound hypothesis. At 1080p Low, the system produces 594 FPS. That is likely very close to the maximum the CPU can feed the GPU in Valorant. The fact that 4K Low only reduces this to 523 FPS — a 12% drop — reinforces that the CPU is the limiting factor. If the GPU were the constraint, the 4K number would be dramatically lower. The CPU's inability to scale beyond roughly 600 FPS in this title is a function of its single-thread throughput and the game's engine limitations.

The settings-based FPS differences also point to CPU involvement. Raising settings from Low to Ultra at 1080p reduces FPS from 594 to 490 — a 104 FPS drop. This is not a GPU effect; it is the CPU doing more work per frame (more shadows, more effects, more draw calls). The CPU's PassMark physics score of 1,776 and its multi-thread score of 27,058 indicate it can handle the added workload, but the frame rate penalty is still noticeable. The data shows that Valorant's settings menu directly impacts CPU workload in ways that are independent of resolution.

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

At 1920x1080, the configuration delivers its highest frame rates across all settings. Low settings produce an average of 594 FPS. Medium settings yield 507 FPS average, with a minimum of 431 FPS and a maximum of 583 FPS. High settings produce 498 FPS average. Ultra settings deliver 490 FPS average. The spread from Low to Ultra at 1080p is 104 FPS, with the medium preset sitting nearly exactly between Low and High in performance.

At 2560x1440, the frame rates remain exceptionally high. Low settings average 563 FPS. Medium settings average 480 FPS, with a minimum of 408 FPS and a maximum of 552 FPS. High settings produce 473 FPS average. Ultra settings deliver 465 FPS average. The resolution increase from 1080p to 1440p costs between 31 FPS (Low) and 25 FPS (Ultra). The medium preset's minimum of 408 FPS is the lowest recorded across all resolutions, indicating that 1440p Medium is where the system experiences its most pronounced dips, though still above 400 FPS.

At 3840x2160, the performance is still remarkably strong. Low settings average 523 FPS. Medium settings average 446 FPS, with a minimum of 379 FPS and a maximum of 513 FPS. High settings produce 439 FPS average. Ultra settings deliver 431 FPS average. The step from 1440p to 4K costs between 40 FPS (Low) and 34 FPS (Ultra). The 4K Medium minimum of 379 FPS is the lowest single data point in the entire measured set, but it remains far above any refresh rate likely to be used with this hardware.

The overall pattern across all resolutions is consistent: Low settings always yield the highest FPS, followed by Medium, then High, then Ultra. The gap between High and Ultra is small at every resolution — just 8 FPS at 1080p, 8 FPS at 1440p, and 8 FPS at 4K. The gap between Low and Medium is larger — 87 FPS at 1080p, 83 FPS at 1440p, and 77 FPS at 4K. This suggests that the Medium preset introduces a significant workload increase over Low, while the Ultra preset is only marginally more demanding than High.

# FAQ

Q: Is this system more CPU-limited or GPU-limited in Valorant?

A: The data strongly indicates a CPU-limited scenario. The FPS drop from 1080p Low (594 FPS) to 4K Low (523 FPS) is only 71 FPS, or about 12%, despite a 4x increase in pixel count. If the GPU were the constraint, the 4K result would be far lower.

Q: What is the highest average FPS measured for this combo?

A: The highest measured average is 594 FPS, achieved at 1920x1080 with Low settings. The lowest average is 431 FPS, recorded at 3840x2160 with Ultra settings.

Q: How much performance is lost by switching from Low to Ultra settings at 4K?

A: At 3840x2160, Low settings produce 523 FPS while Ultra produces 431 FPS, a difference of 92 FPS or approximately 17.6%. The same settings comparison at 1080p shows a 104 FPS difference.

Q: Does increasing resolution have a larger impact at Low or Ultra settings?

A: The resolution penalty is slightly larger at Low settings. From 1080p Low to 4K Low, the drop is 71 FPS. From 1080p Ultra to 4K Ultra, the drop is 59 FPS. This suggests the CPU is slightly more of a constraint at higher settings, reducing the relative impact of resolution.

Q: What are the minimum FPS figures recorded?

A: Minimum FPS data is only available for Medium settings. At 4K Medium, the minimum is 379 FPS. At 1440p Medium, it is 408 FPS. At 1080p Medium, it is 431 FPS. These figures indicate no significant frame drops below the high averages.

Q: How does the CPU compare to its nearest benchmark rivals?

A: The Ryzen 5 7600's average benchmark score of 26,324 is within 0.5% of its nearest rivals. The AMD Ryzen 9 6900HX scores 0.2% lower, the AMD Ryzen 7 7435HS scores 0.3% higher, the Intel Core i9-11900KF scores 0.4% lower, and the AMD Ryzen 5 8540U scores 0.5% lower. This indicates the 7600 is competitively positioned for CPU-bound scenarios.

# Settings Recommendations

The measured data provides clear guidance on which preset offers the best experience. The Medium preset appears to be the optimal choice across all resolutions. At 1080p, Medium delivers 507 FPS average with a minimum of 431 FPS — a tight, consistent range. The 87 FPS drop from Low to Medium suggests a meaningful visual upgrade, while the subsequent drops from Medium to High (9 FPS) and High to Ultra (8 FPS) are small, indicating diminishing returns at higher presets.

At 1440p, the pattern is identical. Medium produces 480 FPS average with a 408 FPS minimum and 552 FPS maximum. The range of 144 FPS between minimum and maximum is the largest at any resolution, but the average remains exceptionally high. The difference between Medium and Ultra is just 15 FPS, meaning players can choose either preset without significant performance loss.

At 4K, Medium delivers 446 FPS average with a 379 FPS minimum and 513 FPS maximum. This is the only resolution where the minimum dips below 400 FPS, but it still far exceeds any consumer display's refresh rate. The 15 FPS gap between Medium and Ultra at 4K is the same as at 1440p, suggesting the Ultra preset is not disproportionately demanding at higher resolutions.

The recommendation of Medium is based on the data showing it as the inflection point in the settings curve. Low settings sacrifice a substantial amount of visual quality for a 15-17% FPS gain, while High and Ultra offer minimal FPS reductions relative to Medium. For competitive play, the Low preset's 594 FPS at 1080p might appeal to players seeking absolute maximum frame rates, but the Medium preset's 507 FPS is still far beyond what any monitor can display. The measured minimums for Medium — 431 FPS at 1080p, 408 FPS at 1440p, and 379 FPS at 4K — show no risk of noticeable stuttering.

# How This Combo Ranks

This specific combination of AMD Ryzen 5 7600 and NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5090 ranks 604th out of 3,708 tested combos in Valorant, placing it in the top 16.3% of all configurations. This ranking is notable because the hardware is significantly more powerful than what the game requires, yet the rank is not higher. The data implies that many other combinations — likely those with stronger CPUs — achieve higher frame rates in Valorant, despite having far less capable GPUs.

The rank of 604 out of 3,708 suggests that the CPU is the limiting factor preventing a higher placement. The RTX 5090's GPU power is essentially irrelevant to this ranking; the Ryzen 5 7600's single-thread performance is what determines the outcome. The CPU's 78th percentile ranking among all CPUs, with an average benchmark score of 26,324, is respectable but not top-tier. CPUs with higher single-thread scores would likely push this combination higher in the Valorant rankings.

The GPU's 92nd percentile ranking among all GPUs, with an average benchmark score of 79,842, is elite. Its nearest rivals in synthetic benchmarks — the NVIDIA Tesla P100 PCIe 16 GB (0.3% lower), Tesla P100 PCIe 12 GB (0.6% lower), and AMD Radeon RX 6850M XT (1.1% lower) — are all data-center or mobile parts that would perform differently in real-world gaming. The RTX 5090's massive lead in GPU-bound titles does not translate to Valorant, where the CPU dictates performance.

The implication of this rank is that users seeking the absolute highest frame rates in Valorant should prioritize CPU single-thread performance over GPU capability. The data shows that this combination, despite its extreme GPU, cannot break past approximately 600 FPS at 1080p Low. A configuration with a faster CPU and a more modest GPU could potentially achieve higher frame rates in this specific title, though the differences would be marginal and likely imperceptible given display refresh rate limitations. The 604th rank out of 3,708 combos is a strong result, but it highlights the unusual nature of Valorant's performance scaling — one where the GPU is almost entirely secondary to the CPU.