Valorant

Valorant is a competitive FPS where frame pacing and headroom often matter more than raw pixel count, and the pairing of an AMD Ryzen 5 8400F with an AMD Radeon RX 570 produces a distinctive profile in this benchmark database. The measured results show a combo that ranks near the bottom of the tested field, placing 3510 out of 3708 combos for this title, yet the actual frame rates remain surprisingly playable across most configurations. This contradiction — a low rank but high absolute performance — suggests that Valorant's engine rewards CPU strength more than GPU muscle, and this particular CPU is doing most of the heavy lifting.

How This Combo Ranks

The combo rank of 3510 out of 3708 tested combinations places this system in the bottom 5 percent of all tested pairings for Valorant. That sounds dire on the surface, but the rank reflects the entire pool of combos, many of which include far more powerful GPUs and newer CPUs. The data shows that this specific pairing is not competitive at the top tier, yet the measured average FPS numbers tell a different story: at 1080p Low, the system produces 286 FPS, which is far above the refresh rate of most monitors. The rank is likely dragged down by the GPU's age and memory capacity, not by an inability to run the game smoothly.

Looking at the CPU's nearest rivals provides context. The AMD Ryzen 5 8400F has an average benchmark score of 25005, which is only 0.2 percent ahead of the AMD Ryzen 5 7500F (24964) and 0.3 percent ahead of the Intel Core i7-11850H (24935). It trails the AMD EPYC 9474F by 0.4 percent (25103). These deltas are tiny, meaning the 8400F sits in a very tight performance cluster. For Valorant, where single-thread performance often dictates frame rates, this CPU's 3dmark single-thread score of 951 and Cinebench R23 single-core score of 2943 are respectable, though not class-leading. The combo's rank suggests that while the CPU is mid-pack, the GPU is the limiting factor in overall system classification.

The GPU's nearest rivals show a different story. The Radeon RX 570 has an average benchmark score of 28766, which is 0.4 percent behind the AMD Radeon RX 6800M (28874) and 0.8 percent behind the AMD Radeon RX 470 (28996). It is 0.7 percent ahead of the AMD Radeon R9 M295X (28580) and 1.2 percent ahead of the NVIDIA Quadro RTX 8000 (28421). These are all older or mobile parts, and the RX 570's percentile rank of 74 against all GPUs indicates it is better than most, but the field for Valorant includes much newer cards. The rank of 3510 likely reflects that most combos in the database use GPUs with more VRAM or higher clock speeds, making this pairing an outlier for competitive play at high settings.

GPU Role

The AMD Radeon RX 570 is a 2017-era Polaris 20 chip built on a 14 nm process, with a die size of 232 mm² and 5,700 million transistors. Its memory configuration is 4 GB of GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus, providing 224.0 GB/s of bandwidth. The base clock is 1168 MHz with a boost clock of 1244 MHz, and memory runs at 1750 MHz (7 Gbps effective). These are modest numbers by modern standards, and the GPU's 5.095 TFLOPS of FP32 performance shows its age. In Valorant, the GPU's role is to render relatively simple scenes, but the 4 GB VRAM can become a constraint at higher resolutions and settings.

The measured FPS data shows that the GPU's clock speeds directly impact performance across resolutions. At 3840x2160, the average FPS drops from 195 on Low settings to 117 on Ultra, a 40 percent reduction. At 2560x1440, the range is 244 FPS on Low down to 146 on Ultra, and at 1920x1080, it goes from 286 FPS on Low to 171 on Ultra. The scaling from Low to Ultra at each resolution is consistent, suggesting the GPU is the primary bottleneck when settings increase. The 4 GB VRAM is likely sufficient for Valorant even at 4K, but the shader count of 2048 and 32 ROPs limit pixel throughput, which is why Ultra settings at 4K only produce 117 FPS.

The GPU's pixel rate of 39.81 GPixel/s and texture rate of 159.2 GTexel/s are adequate for a game like Valorant, which uses relatively simple geometry. The bus interface is PCIe 3.0 x16, which is an older standard but not a limiting factor for this title. The GPU's 150 W TDP and 450 W suggested PSU are reasonable, but the end-of-life production status means no future driver optimizations are likely. The benchmark results show the GPU's 3dmark Steel Nomad DX12 score of 880 is low, but that test is not representative of Valorant's workload. Instead, the Geekbench Vulkan score of 42752 and OpenCL score of 32084 indicate moderate compute capability, which is more relevant to this game's rendering pipeline.

CPU Role

The AMD Ryzen 5 8400F is a Zen 4 (Phoenix) architecture CPU on a 4 nm process from TSMC, with 6 cores and 12 threads. Its base clock is 4.20 GHz with a boost clock of 4.70 GHz, and it has a 65 W TDP. The cache hierarchy includes 64 KB of L1 per core, 1 MB of L2 per core, and 16 MB of shared L3 cache. Memory support is DDR5 in dual-channel mode, providing 83.2 GB/s of bandwidth. This CPU was released in 2024 and has a launch MSRP of $170, with an unlocked multiplier for overclocking.

For Valorant, the CPU's single-thread performance is critical. The 3dmark single-thread score of 951 and Cinebench R23 single-core score of 2943 indicate strong per-core performance, which translates to high frame rates in CPU-bound scenarios. The multi-thread scores are also solid: Cinebench R23 multi-core is 20851, and Passmark multi-thread is 24389. The 8400F's percentile rank of 77 against all CPUs means it outperforms most processors, and its nearest rivals are all within 0.4 percent of its average score, showing a tightly competitive field.

The boost clock of 4.70 GHz is particularly important for Valorant, as the game's engine often relies on a single thread for game logic and draw calls. The data shows that at 1080p Low, the system achieves 286 FPS, which is likely CPU-limited because the GPU is not stressed at such low settings. The 16 MB of L3 cache helps with data locality, and the 4 nm process allows for high clock speeds without excessive power draw. The memory bandwidth of 83.2 GB/s is sufficient for the game's data streams, though not exceptional. The 8400F's 3dmark 2-thread score of 1874 and 4-thread score of 3563 suggest that even with fewer threads active, the CPU maintains strong performance, which is beneficial for a game that may not use all 12 threads efficiently.

FAQ

Q: What is the combo's overall rank in Valorant, and how many total combos are tested?

A: The combo ranks 3510 out of 3708 tested combinations for Valorant, placing it in the bottom 5 percent of the database.

Q: How does the Ryzen 5 8400F compare to its nearest CPU rivals in average benchmark score?

A: The 8400F scores 25005, which is 0.2 percent higher than the Ryzen 5 7500F (24964), 0.3 percent higher than the Intel Core i7-11850H (24935), and 0.4 percent lower than the AMD EPYC 9474F (25103).

Q: What is the maximum average FPS measured for this combo, and at which settings and resolution?

A: The maximum average FPS is 286, achieved at 1920x1080 resolution with Low settings. The same resolution on Medium produces 189 FPS, High produces 180 FPS, and Ultra produces 171 FPS.

Q: How does the RX 570 compare to its nearest GPU rivals in average benchmark score?

A: The RX 570 scores 28766, which is 0.4 percent behind the Radeon RX 6800M (28874), 0.8 percent behind the Radeon RX 470 (28996), 0.7 percent ahead of the Radeon R9 M295X (28580), and 1.2 percent ahead of the Quadro RTX 8000 (28421).

Q: What is the GPU's VRAM size and memory clock, and how does it affect high-resolution performance?

A: The GPU has 4 GB of GDDR5 memory with a clock of 1750 MHz (7 Gbps effective). At 3840x2160, the average FPS ranges from 195 on Low to 117 on Ultra, suggesting the VRAM is not the primary constraint but the GPU's compute limits are.

Q: Is the CPU or GPU more likely to be the bottleneck in Valorant at 1080p?

A: The data suggests the CPU is the limiting factor at 1080p Low (286 FPS) because the GPU is underutilized. At 1080p Ultra (171 FPS), the GPU becomes more relevant, but the CPU's single-thread performance still supports high frame rates.

Resolution Scaling

The measured FPS data reveals a clear pattern of performance scaling across resolutions. At 1920x1080, the average FPS ranges from 286 on Low to 171 on Ultra, a drop of 40 percent from the lowest to highest settings. At 2560x1440, the range is 244 FPS on Low down to 146 on Ultra, a 40 percent reduction as well. At 3840x2160, the range is 195 FPS on Low to 117 on Ultra, a 40 percent drop. This consistent 40 percent scaling across all resolutions indicates that the settings level has a uniform impact on frame rates, regardless of pixel count.

The drop from 1080p to 4K at the same settings is more telling. For Low settings, moving from 1920x1080 (286 FPS) to 2560x1440 (244 FPS) is a 15 percent reduction, and to 3840x2160 (195 FPS) is a 32 percent reduction from 1080p. For Ultra settings, the progression is 171 FPS at 1080p, 146 FPS at 1440p (15 percent drop), and 117 FPS at 4K (32 percent drop from 1080p). This scaling suggests that the GPU becomes more of a bottleneck as resolution increases, but the CPU still provides enough headroom to maintain playable frame rates even at 4K.

The fact that 4K Low (195 FPS) is higher than 1080p Ultra (171 FPS) highlights that settings have a greater impact than resolution for this combo. This implies the GPU's pixel throughput is more stressed by visual effects than by pixel count alone. The 4 GB VRAM is not exhausted at 4K, as evidenced by the 195 FPS on Low, but the GPU's 32 ROPs limit fill rate when effects are enabled. The data indicates that for competitive play, lowering settings at a given resolution yields better frame rates than reducing resolution at higher settings, which is a useful insight for players prioritizing FPS.

Settings Recommendations

Based on the measured FPS data, the Low preset at any resolution provides the highest average frame rates, but the Medium preset offers a better balance for most users. At 1920x1080, Low produces 286 FPS, while Medium produces 189 FPS — a 34 percent reduction for presumably better visual quality. However, Medium at 1080p (189 FPS) is still well above the 144 Hz refresh rate common in competitive monitors, and it provides a minimum FPS of 160, ensuring smooth gameplay. High at 1080p (180 FPS) is nearly identical to Medium, with no minimum FPS recorded, but the extra visual fidelity may not justify the slight drop.

At 2560x1440, Medium (161 FPS) has a minimum of 137 FPS, which is above the 120 Hz threshold for many gaming monitors. Low at 1440p (244 FPS) is excessively high for most displays, and the visual compromise is unnecessary. For 4K, Low (195 FPS) is still very fast, but Medium (129 FPS) with a minimum of 109 FPS is playable on 60 Hz displays. The Ultra preset is not recommended for this combo, as it produces the lowest frame rates (171 FPS at 1080p, 146 FPS at 1440p, 117 FPS at 4K) without a proportional visual benefit over High.

The data suggests that Medium is the sweet spot for this pairing. It provides a measurable minimum FPS (160 at 1080p, 137 at 1440p, 109 at 4K) that is absent from other presets, giving a clearer picture of worst-case performance. For players with 144 Hz monitors at 1080p, Medium offers a comfortable margin above the refresh rate. For those with 240 Hz displays, Low is the only preset that consistently exceeds that threshold, with 286 FPS at 1080p. The choice ultimately depends on the monitor's refresh rate and the user's tolerance for visual detail.

Measured FPS Breakdown

The full measured FPS data is as follows:

At 1920x1080, the average FPS is 286 on Low settings, 189 on Medium with a minimum of 160 and maximum of 217, 180 on High, and 171 on Ultra. No minimum or maximum values are provided for Low, High, or Ultra at this resolution.

At 2560x1440, the average FPS is 244 on Low, 161 on Medium with a minimum of 137 and maximum of 185, 153 on High, and 146 on Ultra. Again, only Medium includes min/max data.

At 3840x2160, the average FPS is 195 on Low, 129 on Medium with a minimum of 109 and maximum of 148, 123 on High, and 117 on Ultra.

The Medium preset is the only one with complete min/max data across all resolutions, which allows for a more detailed analysis of frame pacing. At 1080p Medium, the spread from 160 to 217 FPS indicates a 26 percent variance, which is typical for a CPU-bound game with occasional GPU spikes. At 1440p Medium, the spread is 137 to 185 FPS, a 26 percent variance as well. At 4K Medium, the spread is 109 to 148 FPS, a 26 percent variance. This consistency suggests the frame time distribution is stable across resolutions, pointing to a CPU that maintains a steady feed to the GPU.

The delta between Low and Ultra at each resolution is also consistent: 40 percent at 1080p (286 to 171), 40 percent at 1440p (244 to 146), and 40 percent at 4K (195 to 117). This uniform scaling indicates that the settings presets apply a predictable load increase on the GPU, while the CPU's contribution remains constant. The High preset sits between Medium and Ultra in every case, with 180 FPS at 1080p, 153 FPS at 1440p, and 123 FPS at 4K. The data shows that High is only marginally different from Medium (5 percent lower at 1080p, 5 percent lower at 1440p, 5 percent lower at 4K), making Medium the more efficient choice.