Valorant

Valorant on the AMD Ryzen 5 8400F and Intel Arc B370 combination presents a fascinating case study in system bottlenecking. The data shows a game that is remarkably playable across all tested configurations, yet the scaling patterns reveal a system where the integrated graphics solution is the primary constraint. This analysis walks through the measured FPS data to interpret what it means for the pairing's performance profile.

Resolution Scaling

The frame rate progression from 1080p to 4K clearly illustrates where the performance ceiling lies. At 1920x1080 with Low settings, the combo achieves an average of 299 FPS. Moving to 2560x1440 drops that to 255 FPS, a reduction of 44 FPS or approximately 14.7%. The jump to 3840x2160 further reduces the average to 204 FPS, another 51 FPS decline. This scaling pattern shows a consistent, predictable drop as pixel count increases.

However, the more telling data emerges when examining the High settings tier. At 1080p High, the average is 187 FPS. At 1440p High, it falls to 160 FPS, and at 4K High, it reaches 128 FPS. The percentage drops between these resolutions are steeper than those seen at Low settings. This indicates that as the graphical workload increases, the Intel Arc B370's limitations become more pronounced, even though the Ryzen 5 8400F has ample headroom.

The Ultra settings tier shows a similar pattern, with 178 FPS at 1080p, 152 FPS at 1440p, and 122 FPS at 4K. The gap between Low and Ultra at 1080p is 121 FPS (299 vs 178), but at 4K, that gap narrows to 82 FPS (204 vs 122). This convergence suggests that at higher resolutions, the GPU is nearing its maximum output capability, and further increasing settings has a diminishing absolute impact on frame rate.

What this scaling tells us about the limiting component is clear. The CPU, with its 6 cores and 12 threads running at a boost clock of 4.70 GHz, is not the bottleneck. If it were, we would expect to see frame rates plateau or even increase slightly at higher resolutions as the GPU takes on more work. Instead, the consistent decline across all resolution steps points directly to the integrated graphics solution as the performance limiter. The Arc B370, with its 25 W TDP and system-shared memory, simply cannot maintain the same frame rates as resolution climbs.

GPU Role

The Intel Arc B370 is a unique piece of silicon in this context. Its specifications reveal an integrated graphics processor with a base clock of 300 MHz and a boost clock of 2400 MHz. The memory configuration is entirely system-shared, meaning its bandwidth is "System Dependent" rather than fixed. This architecture has profound implications for gaming performance.

The GPU's raw compute capabilities are modest, with a FP32 throughput of 6.144 TFLOPS and a texture rate of 96.00 GTexel/s. The pixel rate of 48.00 GPixel/s further underscores its limited fill-rate capacity. These numbers explain why the measured FPS in Valorant, while playable, are not exceptional for a competitive FPS title. The 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 score of 1184 places this GPU in the 5th percentile of all tested GPUs, a stark indicator of its position in the performance hierarchy.

The nearest rivals for this GPU are telling. The ATI Mobility Radeon HD 5570 scores 1186, a delta of -0.2%, while the AMD Radeon HD 7650M scores 1192, a delta of -0.7%. These are legacy mobile parts from a different era of gaming. The data shows the Arc B370 performing essentially at parity with these much older solutions, which contextualizes its capabilities. It is not designed for high-refresh-rate competitive gaming at maximum settings; it is designed for basic graphical output.

The VRAM situation is entirely dependent on the system's main memory, as the GPU has no dedicated video memory. This means that texture loading and frame buffering compete with the CPU for memory bandwidth. The Ryzen 5 8400F supports dual-channel DDR5 with a memory bandwidth of 83.2 GB/s, but the GPU's share of that bandwidth is not quantified in the data. This system-dependent nature explains why the scaling between settings tiers is not linear; the shared resource pool creates variable performance characteristics.

FAQ

Q: What is the highest average frame rate achieved by this combo in Valorant?

A: The highest average frame rate is 299 FPS, achieved at 1920x1080 resolution with Low settings.

Q: How much does the frame rate drop from 1080p to 4K at Medium settings?

A: At Medium settings, the average FPS drops from 197 at 1080p to 168 at 1440p, and finally to 134 at 4K. The total drop from 1080p to 4K is 63 FPS.

Q: Is the CPU or GPU the limiting factor in this system?

A: The data indicates the GPU is the limiting factor. Frame rates decline consistently as resolution increases, which would not happen if the CPU were the bottleneck.

Q: What is the combo's rank among all tested combinations in Valorant?

A: The combo ranks 2645 out of 2883 total tested combinations, placing it in the lower percentile of systems tested for this game.

Q: Does the Intel Arc B370 have a launch MSRP?

A: No, the launch MSRP field for the Intel Arc B370 is null in the data provided.

Q: What is the minimum FPS recorded at 1440p Medium settings?

A: At 2560x1440 with Medium settings, the minimum FPS recorded is 143, with a maximum of 193.

Settings Recommendations

Based on the measured data, the optimal settings tier for this combination depends heavily on the user's resolution and refresh rate priorities. At 1080p, all settings tiers deliver playable frame rates. Low settings produce 299 FPS, which is exceptionally high and suitable for the most demanding competitive scenarios. Medium settings at 197 FPS still provide excellent responsiveness, while High at 187 FPS and Ultra at 178 FPS are nearly indistinguishable from each other in terms of average output.

The gap between Low and Medium at 1080p is 102 FPS, which is substantial. This suggests that the jump from Low to Medium incurs a significant performance cost. However, the gap between Medium and High is only 10 FPS, and the gap between High and Ultra is only 9 FPS. This indicates that once you pass the Low settings threshold, the game becomes increasingly GPU-bound, and further graphical enhancements have a diminished impact on frame rate.

At 1440p, the pattern shifts. Low settings produce 255 FPS, which remains highly competitive. Medium settings deliver 168 FPS, a drop of 87 FPS from Low. High settings at 160 FPS and Ultra at 152 FPS show that the upper tiers are tightly clustered. For users with a 144Hz monitor, Medium settings at 1440p provide a comfortable margin above the refresh rate. For those with a 240Hz display, only Low settings at 1440p would be appropriate.

At 4K, the situation becomes more constrained. Low settings deliver 204 FPS, which is still playable. Medium settings drop to 134 FPS, which is borderline for high-refresh-rate gaming. High settings at 128 FPS and Ultra at 122 FPS are very close together. The data suggests that for 4K gaming, Low settings are the only tier that provides a substantial frame rate buffer, while Medium and above cluster tightly in the 122-134 FPS range.

The measured minimum FPS values provide additional context. At 1080p Medium, the minimum is 167 FPS, which is still well above the 144Hz threshold. At 1440p Medium, the minimum is 143 FPS, which is just below 144Hz. At 4K Medium, the minimum is 114 FPS, which is below the 120Hz threshold. These minimums indicate that even at the lowest recorded points, the system maintains playable performance, but the margin for error shrinks as resolution increases.

Measured FPS Breakdown

The complete dataset provides a detailed picture of performance across all tested configurations. Starting at 1920x1080, the Low settings tier produces an average of 299 FPS. Medium settings produce 197 FPS, with a minimum of 167 and a maximum of 226. High settings deliver 187 FPS, and Ultra settings deliver 178 FPS. The progression from Low to Ultra shows a total reduction of 121 FPS, or approximately 40.5%.

Moving to 2560x1440, the Low settings tier produces an average of 255 FPS. Medium settings produce 168 FPS, with a minimum of 143 and a maximum of 193. High settings deliver 160 FPS, and Ultra settings deliver 152 FPS. The total reduction from Low to Ultra at this resolution is 103 FPS, or approximately 40.4%. The percentage drop is remarkably consistent with the 1080p result, suggesting a linear relationship between settings and performance at each resolution.

At 3840x2160, the Low settings tier produces an average of 204 FPS. Medium settings produce 134 FPS, with a minimum of 114 and a maximum of 154. High settings deliver 128 FPS, and Ultra settings deliver 122 FPS. The total reduction from Low to Ultra is 82 FPS, or approximately 40.2%. This consistency across all three resolutions is noteworthy; the relative impact of settings changes is nearly identical regardless of pixel count.

The resolution scaling within each settings tier tells a complementary story. For Low settings, the progression from 1080p to 1440p is a drop of 44 FPS, and from 1440p to 4K is a drop of 51 FPS. For Medium settings, the drops are 29 FPS and 34 FPS respectively. For High settings, the drops are 27 FPS and 32 FPS. For Ultra settings, the drops are 26 FPS and 30 FPS. The absolute FPS loss from resolution increases is larger at lower settings tiers, but the percentage loss is relatively stable across tiers.

CPU Role

The AMD Ryzen 5 8400F is a 6-core, 12-thread processor based on the Zen 4 architecture, codenamed Phoenix. It has a base clock of 4.20 GHz and a boost clock of 4.70 GHz. The CPU is manufactured on a 4 nm process by TSMC and features a 16 MB shared L3 cache, with 1 MB of L2 cache per core. This is a modern, capable desktop processor with a 65 W TDP.

In the context of Valorant, the CPU's role is to feed the GPU with draw calls and manage the game's simulation logic. The benchmark results show that the Ryzen 5 8400F is not the bottleneck in this system. The 3DMark scores demonstrate strong multi-threaded performance, with a max threads score of 6165 and a 16-thread score of 6091. The single-thread score of 951 is also respectable, which is relevant for a game like Valorant that often relies on single-core performance for frame generation.

The CPU's percentile ranking is 77, meaning it outperforms 77% of all tested CPUs. Its average benchmark score of 25005 places it in a tight cluster with its nearest rivals. The AMD Ryzen 5 7500F scores 24964, a delta of 0.2%, while the Intel Core i7-11850H scores 24935, a delta of 0.3%. The AMD EPYC 9474F scores 25103, a delta of -0.4%. These results show that the 8400F is well within the normal range for modern mid-range desktop processors.

The fact that frame rates scale smoothly with resolution and settings, without any sudden cliffs or plateaus, indicates that the CPU is providing consistent frame pacing. If the CPU were struggling, we would expect to see frame rates that are more uniform across resolution changes, as the CPU would be the constant limiting factor. Instead, the data shows the GPU's influence clearly, confirming that the Ryzen 5 8400F is more than capable of handling Valorant's CPU demands even at 299 FPS.

How This Combo Ranks

The combination of the AMD Ryzen 5 8400F and Intel Arc B370 ranks 2645 out of 2883 tested combinations in Valorant. This places it in the 91.7th percentile of all tested combos, meaning roughly 91.7% of all combinations tested perform better. This is a low ranking, which is unsurprising given the GPU's position in the 5th percentile of all GPUs.

The disconnect between the CPU's strong performance and the GPU's weak performance is the defining characteristic of this pairing. The Ryzen 5 8400F, with its 77th percentile ranking, is significantly more capable than the Arc B370's 5th percentile ranking. This imbalance creates a system where the GPU is the clear limiting factor in Valorant, as the measured FPS data confirms.

The rank of 2645 out of 2883 means that this combo is in the bottom 8.3% of all tested combinations. This is a stark contrast to the CPU's individual ranking, which is in the top 23% of all CPUs. The data shows that pairing a strong CPU with a weak integrated GPU results in a system that is ultimately constrained by its graphical capabilities, regardless of the CPU's potential.

For context, the GPU's nearest rivals in benchmark scores are all legacy mobile parts from over a decade ago. The ATI Mobility Radeon HD 5570 and AMD Radeon HD 7650M both score within 1% of the Arc B370. This comparison underscores the GPU's limited performance envelope. While the combo achieves playable frame rates in Valorant, it does so at the lower end of the performance spectrum, ranking in the bottom percentile of all tested systems.