Valorant

The AMD Ryzen 7 9700F and NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5070 combination ranks at position 119 out of 2883 tested combos for Valorant, placing it in the top 4.1% of all configurations evaluated. This is an exceptional result that places the combo firmly in the elite tier for competitive play, where frame rates well above monitor refresh rates are the norm. The data confirms that this pairing is not merely adequate for Valorant but is overbuilt for the task, delivering performance that exceeds the capabilities of most displays currently on the market.

How This Combo Ranks

The comboRankInGame value of 119 out of 2883 combos (top 4.1%) is a standout metric that positions this configuration among the best-performing systems tested for Valorant. This rank reflects the synergy between the two components, where neither part bottlenecks the other in this specific title. The Ryzen 7 9700F, with its 8 cores and 16 threads, provides the high single-thread performance that Valorant heavily relies on, while the RTX 5070's raw throughput ensures that even at lower resolutions where the CPU becomes the primary driver, the system maintains extremely high frame rates.

What makes this rank particularly notable is the breadth of competition it outperforms. With 2883 combinations tested, the 119th position means this setup is ahead of the vast majority of systems, including many with higher-tier GPUs or CPUs that may not pair as effectively for this game's engine. The data suggests that Valorant's optimization favors the combination of a strong single-threaded CPU and a capable GPU, and this pairing delivers exactly that. The percentile ranking of the CPU at 94 and the GPU at 82 individually are already strong, but the combined result in-game is greater than the sum of those parts, indicating that the two components complement each other without creating a significant bottleneck in either direction.

GPU Role

The NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5070 is the graphics component in this pairing, and its role in Valorant is characterized by its 12 GB of GDDR7 memory on a 192-bit bus, providing 672.0 GB/s of bandwidth. The GPU's clock speeds are set at a base of 2325 MHz and a boost of 2512 MHz, with memory running at 1750 MHz (28 Gbps effective). These specifications are more than sufficient for Valorant, which is not a graphically demanding title by modern standards, yet the data shows the GPU still contributes meaningfully to the overall frame rates, particularly at higher resolutions and settings.

Benchmark results for the RTX 5070 show a PassMark G3D score of 29137 and a GPU compute score of 15787, with a percentile ranking of 82 against all GPUs. The nearestRivals data compares this GPU to AMD Radeon Pro 580 (deltaPct 0.1), AMD Radeon Pro WX 7100 (deltaPct 0.8), AMD Radeon Pro 5300 (deltaPct -1.2), and NVIDIA RTX A500 Mobile (deltaPct 2). These deltas are all within 2% of the RTX 5070's average benchmark score of 40377, which indicates that the GPU's performance is tightly clustered with its closest competitors in synthetic tests, but in-game results for Valorant show a different story. The measured FPS at 1080p Low reaches 715, which is a figure that far exceeds what those synthetic rivals would likely produce in this title, highlighting that Valorant's engine is particularly responsive to the RTX 5070's architecture, Blackwell 2.0, built on a 5 nm process with 31,100 million transistors.

The GPU's memory configuration, while not stressed by Valorant's modest texture requirements, ensures that frame times remain consistent even when the game's draw calls increase during chaotic team fights. The 192-bit bus width and 672.0 GB/s bandwidth are ample for the data throughput required at 4K Ultra, where the average FPS still holds above 400. The RTX 5070's 6144 shading units and 192 texture mapping units, combined with its 80 ROPs, provide the pixel throughput of 201.0 GPixel/s and texture rate of 482.3 GTexel/s that allow the GPU to keep up with the CPU's high frame generation.

Resolution Scaling

The measured FPS data reveals a clear pattern of resolution scaling that points to the CPU as the primary limiter at lower resolutions and the GPU taking on a larger role as resolution increases. At 1080p Low, the combo achieves 715 FPS, which drops to 678 FPS at 1440p Low (a 5.2% decrease) and further to 629 FPS at 4K Low (a 12.0% decrease from 1440p). This relatively modest drop when moving from 1080p to 1440p indicates that the CPU is still the dominant factor at these settings, as the GPU has ample headroom to handle the increased pixel count without significantly impacting frame rates.

The scaling pattern changes more dramatically when looking at higher settings presets. At High settings, the progression from 1080p (599 FPS) to 1440p (557 FPS) shows a 7.0% drop, and then to 4K (445 FPS) shows a 20.1% drop from 1440p. This steeper decline at 4K High suggests that the GPU is beginning to become more involved in the rendering pipeline, though the absolute numbers remain exceptionally high. At Ultra settings, the drops are even more pronounced: 1080p Ultra yields 590 FPS, 1440p Ultra drops to 530 FPS (10.2% decrease), and 4K Ultra falls to 424 FPS (20.0% decrease from 1440p). The data shows that the gap between 1440p and 4K grows as settings increase, which is a classic indicator of the GPU becoming the limiting factor at higher resolutions and quality presets.

The Medium settings row provides additional insight with min and max FPS values. At 1080p Medium, the average is 609 FPS with a minimum of 518 and maximum of 701, while at 1440p Medium, the average is 578 FPS with a minimum of 491 and maximum of 665. At 4K Medium, the average is 467 FPS with a minimum of 397 and maximum of 537. The minimum FPS values are particularly relevant for competitive play, as they represent the worst-case scenarios during intense gameplay moments. The 4K Medium minimum of 397 FPS is still far above any competitive threshold, but the spread between min and max (140 FPS at 4K Medium) is larger than at 1080p Medium (183 FPS spread), suggesting that the GPU's frame time consistency varies more at higher resolutions.

Settings Recommendations

Based on the measured FPS rows, the optimal settings preset for this combo depends on the user's display resolution and refresh rate priorities. At 1080p, all settings presets deliver average frame rates above 590 FPS, with Low reaching 715 FPS, Medium at 609 FPS, High at 599 FPS, and Ultra at 590 FPS. The difference between Low and Ultra at 1080p is only 125 FPS (17.5% reduction), which is negligible for most players given that even the lowest of these values is far beyond any current display's refresh rate. However, the Ultra preset's 590 FPS average comes with no min FPS data provided, while the Medium preset shows a minimum of 518 FPS, indicating that Medium might offer better frame time consistency for those who prioritize smoothness over maximum frame rate.

At 1440p, the same pattern holds with Low at 678 FPS, Medium at 578 FPS, High at 557 FPS, and Ultra at 530 FPS. The gap between Low and Ultra widens to 148 FPS (21.8% reduction), but again, all values remain exceptionally high. For players with 1440p displays running at 240 Hz or 360 Hz, the Medium preset at 578 FPS average with a 491 FPS minimum provides ample headroom to maintain the display's maximum refresh rate without dipping, making it the recommended choice for balancing visual quality and performance. The High preset's 557 FPS average is also viable, but the Medium preset's documented minimum of 491 FPS offers more certainty for maintaining consistent frame delivery.

At 4K, the settings choice becomes more consequential. Low delivers 629 FPS, Medium 467 FPS, High 445 FPS, and Ultra 424 FPS. While all of these are above 400 FPS, the gap between Low and Ultra is now 205 FPS (32.6% reduction), which is more significant. For 4K users, the Medium preset at 467 FPS average with a 397 FPS minimum is the sweet spot, as it provides a substantial visual upgrade over Low while maintaining frame rates that are still far beyond what any current 4K display can display. The High preset at 445 FPS is only 22 FPS lower than Medium, but the Medium preset's min FPS of 397 provides a documented floor that gives confidence in performance stability.

Measured FPS Breakdown

The measured FPS data provides a comprehensive picture of performance across three resolutions and four settings presets. At 1080p, the Low preset achieves 715 FPS average, the Medium preset delivers 609 FPS average with a minimum of 518 FPS and maximum of 701 FPS, the High preset reaches 599 FPS average, and the Ultra preset produces 590 FPS average. The spread from Low to Ultra at 1080p is 125 FPS, with the Low preset being 19.9% faster than Medium and Medium being just 1.7% faster than High, while High is only 1.5% faster than Ultra. This tight clustering between Medium, High, and Ultra suggests that the visual quality improvements at these presets come at minimal performance cost at 1080p.

At 1440p, the Low preset yields 678 FPS average, Medium produces 578 FPS average with a minimum of 491 FPS and maximum of 665 FPS, High reaches 557 FPS average, and Ultra achieves 530 FPS average. The difference between Low and Medium is 100 FPS (14.7% reduction), which is the largest single-step drop at this resolution. The gap from Medium to High is 21 FPS (3.6% reduction), and from High to Ultra is 27 FPS (4.8% reduction). The Medium preset's max FPS of 665 is remarkably close to the Low preset's average of 678, indicating that the Medium preset can occasionally match Low in peak performance while providing better visuals.

At 4K, the Low preset delivers 629 FPS average, Medium achieves 467 FPS average with a minimum of 397 FPS and maximum of 537 FPS, High reaches 445 FPS average, and Ultra produces 424 FPS average. The scaling from 1080p to 4K at Low settings shows a 12.0% reduction (from 715 to 629 FPS), while at Medium the reduction is 23.3% (from 609 to 467 FPS), at High it is 25.7% (from 599 to 445 FPS), and at Ultra it is 28.1% (from 590 to 424 FPS). This increasing percentage drop as settings rise confirms that the GPU becomes progressively more important at higher resolutions and quality levels, though the CPU remains dominant even at 4K Ultra given the absolute frame rates achieved.

CPU Role

The AMD Ryzen 7 9700F is the central processing unit in this combination, and its specifications are particularly well-suited to Valorant's engine. The CPU features 8 cores and 16 threads based on the Zen 5 architecture, codenamed Granite Ridge, built on TSMC's 4 nm process with 8,315 million transistors. The base clock is 3.80 GHz with a boost clock of 5.50 GHz, and the cache hierarchy includes 80 KB of L1 per core, 1 MB of L2 per core, and a shared 32 MB L3 cache. The single-thread performance, as measured by PassMark, is 4691, which is a critical metric for Valorant since the game's engine is heavily dependent on individual core performance.

The CPU's benchmark results show a PassMark multithread score of 36470 and a single-thread score of 4691, with an average benchmark score of 69996 and a percentile ranking of 94 against all CPUs. The nearestRivals data places this CPU against AMD Ryzen 9 7940HX (deltaPct 0.2), Intel Core i7-14700KF (deltaPct -0.2), AMD Ryzen 9 7950X (deltaPct 0.7), and Intel Core i7-14700K (deltaPct 0.9). These deltas are all within 1% of the Ryzen 7 9700F's average score, indicating that the CPU is performance-equivalent to these high-end alternatives in synthetic benchmarks, which translates to similar in-game behavior for Valorant's CPU-bound scenarios.

The memory support for DDR5 with dual-channel configuration and 89.6 GB/s bandwidth ensures that the CPU has sufficient data throughput to feed its cores, which is important for maintaining high frame rates in a game like Valorant where draw calls and game logic updates happen at very high frequencies. The 65W TDP indicates efficient power delivery, and the unlocked multiplier allows for overclocking potential, though the stock boost clock of 5.50 GHz already provides the high single-thread performance that the measured FPS data reflects. In the context of this game, the CPU's role is to generate frames as quickly as possible, and the data shows that at 1080p Low, the combo reaches 715 FPS, a figure that is likely CPU-limited given the GPU's capability at higher resolutions.