Valorant

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

The AMD Ryzen 9 8945HX is a 16-core, 32-thread mobile processor built on the Zen 4 architecture and Dragon Range codename, manufactured on a 5 nm process at TSMC. Its base clock is 2.50 GHz with a boost clock of 5.40 GHz, and it carries a 55 W TDP. The CPU's cache hierarchy includes 64 KB L1 per core, 1 MB L2 per core, and 64 MB of shared L3 cache. This is a high-end mobile part, sitting in the 95th percentile of all CPUs according to benchmark data. Its average benchmark score is 76,212, which places it within a razor-thin margin of its nearest rivals: it is 0.1% ahead of the Intel Core Ultra 9 285HX (76,155), 0.6% ahead of the AMD Ryzen 9 9950X3D (75,779), and 0.4% behind both the AMD EPYC Embedded 8224P (76,492) and the AMD Ryzen Threadripper PRO 9945WX (76,513). These deltas are all under a single percentage point, indicating that the 8945HX is essentially performance-equivalent to the fastest desktop and mobile processors available.

For Valorant, the CPU's role is substantial because the game is known to scale with single-thread performance and high-frequency cores. The 8945HX's boost clock of 5.40 GHz is exceptionally high for a mobile part, and its Cinebench R23 single-core score of 6,030 confirms this strength. Multi-core performance is also formidable: Cinebench R23 multi-core score is 42,713, and Cinebench R20 multi-core reaches 17,939. These numbers suggest that even if the game engine tries to utilize more threads, the CPU has ample headroom. The L3 cache of 64 MB is another factor; Valorant's level geometry and game logic benefit from large caches, reducing memory latency. The CPU's PassMark single-thread score of 3,907 and multithread score of 51,405 further corroborate its position as a top-tier processor. In the context of the measured FPS data, where even at 4K Ultra the average frame rate never drops below 364, the CPU's contribution is clear: it is not the bottleneck at any tested setting. The data shows that the CPU can feed the GPU with enough frames to saturate even the fastest refresh-rate displays, which is critical for a competitive FPS title.

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

The NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4080 Mobile is based on the Ada Lovelace architecture, using the AD104 chip manufactured on a 5 nm process at TSMC. It has 7,424 shading units, 232 texture mapping units, and 80 raster output processors, along with 58 ray tracing cores and 232 tensor cores. The GPU's base clock is 1290 MHz with a boost clock of 1665 MHz, and memory runs at 2250 MHz (18 Gbps effective) across a 192-bit bus. VRAM is 12 GB of GDDR6, providing a bandwidth of 432.0 GB/s. The GPU supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4, and it uses a PCIe 4.0 x16 interface. Its TDP is 110 W, which is typical for a high-end mobile part. The RTX 4080 Mobile sits in the 81st percentile of all GPUs, with an average benchmark score of 38,135. Its nearest rivals include the NVIDIA GeForce MX570 (38,299, 0.4% ahead), the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5080 Mobile (38,349, 0.6% ahead), the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4070 (37,648, 1.3% behind), and the NVIDIA Tesla P4 (37,628, 1.3% behind). These small deltas again indicate that the RTX 4080 Mobile is positioned in a cluster of similarly-performing GPUs.

For Valorant, the GPU's role is generally secondary to the CPU because the game is designed to run on modest hardware. However, the measured FPS data indicates that the GPU still matters at higher resolutions and settings. At 4K Ultra, the average FPS drops to 364, which is noticeably lower than the 593 FPS at 1080p Low. This spread suggests that while the CPU is strong, the GPU does become more influential as pixel count and graphical load increase. The 12 GB VRAM is more than sufficient for Valorant, which is not a VRAM-intensive title; the data shows no signs of memory capacity limiting performance. The GPU's FP32 performance of 24.72 TFLOPS is far beyond what Valorant requires, but it explains why the game can run at hundreds of frames per second even at 4K. The pixel rate of 133.2 GPixel/s and texture rate of 386.3 GTexel/s are also relevant, as Valorant's clean art style and moderate geometry mean that fill-rate and texture throughput are rarely bottlenecks. In short, the RTX 4080 Mobile is overkill for Valorant, but the data shows it still provides meaningful scaling from Low to High settings, and the GPU's headroom ensures the CPU is the primary driver of frame rates at lower resolutions.

FAQ

Q: Which component is more important for Valorant with this setup?

A: The CPU appears to be the primary driver. The Ryzen 9 8945HX has a 5.40 GHz boost clock and a 95th percentile CPU ranking, while the RTX 4080 Mobile sits in the 81st percentile for GPUs. At 1080p Low, the average FPS is 593, and at 4K Ultra it is 364, indicating that resolution scaling impacts performance, but the CPU's high single-thread score (Cinebench R23 single-core of 6,030) suggests it can keep up with the GPU's output.

Q: How does the CPU compare to its nearest rival, the Intel Core Ultra 9 285HX?

A: The Ryzen 9 8945HX has an average benchmark score of 76,212, which is 0.1% higher than the Intel Core Ultra 9 285HX's 76,155. This is a negligible difference, effectively making them performance equals. In Valorant, this means either processor would deliver nearly identical frame rates.

Q: Is the GPU's 12 GB VRAM enough for Valorant?

A: Yes, the data shows no VRAM-related limitations. Valorant is not a VRAM-intensive game, and the 12 GB GDDR6 memory with 432.0 GB/s bandwidth is far more than needed. The measured FPS at 4K Ultra (364 average) is still very high, so memory capacity is not a constraint.

Q: What is the best settings preset for maximizing frame rate?

A: The Low preset at 1080p yields the highest average FPS at 593. If the goal is maximum performance, this is the best choice. For a balance of visual quality and performance, the Medium preset at 1080p provides 505 average FPS with a minimum of 430 FPS, which is still well above typical refresh rates.

Q: How does this combo rank among all tested combos?

A: This CPU-GPU combination ranks 741 out of 3,708 tested combos, placing it in the top 20% of all configurations. This is a strong result, though not at the very top, which reflects the fact that some other combos feature even more powerful components.

Q: Does the game's release date affect these results?

A: Valorant was released on 2020-06-01, and both the CPU (released 2025-04-22) and GPU (released 2023-01-02) are much newer. The data shows the game runs extremely well on this modern hardware, with no compatibility issues indicated by the measured FPS.

How This Combo Ranks

The combination of the AMD Ryzen 9 8945HX and the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4080 Mobile achieves a rank of 741 out of 3,708 tested combos in Valorant. This places it in the 80th percentile of all tested configurations, meaning it outperforms roughly 80% of other CPU-GPU pairings in this game. The rank is notable for a mobile setup, as many higher-ranked combos likely include desktop parts. The CPU's 95th percentile ranking among all CPUs and the GPU's 81st percentile ranking among all GPUs together produce a combo that is greater than the sum of its parts in Valorant, because the game is highly CPU-sensitive. The data shows that this combo delivers average FPS figures that are consistently above 360 even at the most demanding tested setting (4K Ultra), which is far beyond what most displays can show. For context, the nearest CPU rival (Intel Core Ultra 9 285HX) and the nearest GPU rival (NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5080 Mobile) are both within 0.6% of this combo's components, so a system with those parts would likely achieve a similar rank. The 741st position out of 3,708 suggests that while this is an elite-tier setup, there is a small group of combos that edge it out, likely due to slightly stronger GPUs or CPUs with higher benchmark scores. Nevertheless, for Valorant specifically, the rank is excellent, and the measured FPS data confirms that this combo is overqualified for the game's demands.

Settings Recommendations

Based on the measured FPS data, the optimal settings preset depends on the user's priority. For maximum frame rate, the Low preset at 1080p delivers an average of 593 FPS, which is the highest measured value across all rows. This is ideal for competitive play on high-refresh-rate monitors, as the minimum FPS is not recorded but the average is exceptionally high. The Medium preset at 1080p provides a balanced experience: 505 average FPS with a minimum of 430 FPS and a maximum of 581 FPS. This preset offers better visual quality than Low while still maintaining frame rates that far exceed any display's refresh rate. The High preset at 1080p yields 497 average FPS, which is only slightly lower than Medium. The Ultra preset at 1080p gives 489 average FPS, meaning the performance difference between Low and Ultra at 1080p is just 104 FPS (593 vs 489). This small gap indicates that the CPU-GPU combo has enough headroom to run Ultra settings without sacrificing competitive viability.

For users with 1440p displays, the Medium preset at 2560x1440 delivers 479 average FPS with a minimum of 407 FPS, which is still exceptionally smooth. The High preset at 1440p gives 471 average FPS, while Ultra gives 456. The Low preset at 1440p reaches 562 average FPS. At 4K, the Medium preset at 3840x2160 is the best balance: 402 average FPS with a minimum of 341 FPS and a maximum of 462 FPS. The High preset at 4K gives 382 average FPS, and Ultra gives 364. The Low preset at 4K is the only one that breaks the 500 FPS barrier at 522 average. Overall, the data suggests that the Medium preset offers the best combination of visual quality and performance across all resolutions, as it consistently outperforms High and Ultra while providing a more complete visual experience than Low. The minimum FPS values for Medium (341 at 4K, 407 at 1440p, 430 at 1080p) are all well above the 240 Hz refresh rate common in competitive monitors, so there is no risk of frame drops affecting gameplay.

Measured FPS Breakdown

At 1920x1080, the data shows the following average FPS values by preset: Low delivers 593 FPS, Medium delivers 505 FPS (with a minimum of 430 and maximum of 581), High delivers 497 FPS, and Ultra delivers 489 FPS. The difference between Low and Medium is 88 FPS, while the difference between Medium and Ultra is only 16 FPS, indicating diminishing returns at higher settings. At 2560x1440, the Low preset achieves 562 FPS, Medium achieves 479 FPS (minimum 407, maximum 551), High achieves 471 FPS, and Ultra achieves 456 FPS. The gap between Low and Medium at 1440p is 83 FPS, and between Medium and Ultra is 23 FPS. At 3840x2160, the Low preset reaches 522 FPS, Medium reaches 402 FPS (minimum 341, maximum 462), High reaches 382 FPS, and Ultra reaches 364 FPS. The gap between Low and Medium at 4K is 120 FPS, which is the largest drop between presets at any resolution. This indicates that at 4K, the GPU becomes more involved, and the graphical load increases are more impactful.

Comparing the same preset across resolutions reveals the scaling pattern. For Low, the FPS drops from 593 at 1080p to 562 at 1440p (a 31 FPS decrease) and then to 522 at 4K (a 40 FPS decrease from 1440p). For Medium, the FPS drops from 505 at 1080p to 479 at 1440p (26 FPS decrease) and then to 402 at 4K (77 FPS decrease). For High, the FPS drops from 497 at 1080p to 471 at 1440p (26 FPS decrease) and then to 382 at 4K (89 FPS decrease). For Ultra, the FPS drops from 489 at 1080p to 456 at 1440p (33 FPS decrease) and then to 364 at 4K (92 FPS decrease). These numbers show that the effect of resolution scaling becomes more pronounced at higher settings, with Ultra experiencing the largest total drop from 1080p to 4K (125 FPS), while Low experiences the smallest total drop (71 FPS). The Medium preset at 4K still maintains an average above 400 FPS, which is remarkable for a laptop configuration.

Resolution Scaling

The measured FPS data reveals how performance scales from 1080p to 4K, and what this implies about the limiting component. At 1080p Low, the combo produces 593 FPS. At 1440p Low, it produces 562 FPS, a 5.2% decrease. At 4K Low, it produces 522 FPS, a 12.0% decrease from 1080p. This relatively modest drop at Low settings suggests that the CPU is the primary limiter at lower resolutions, as the GPU has ample headroom to render frames quickly, but the CPU's frame generation rate caps the output. The fact that the FPS does not double when halving the resolution confirms this: if the GPU were the bottleneck, the FPS would scale much more dramatically with pixel count.

At Ultra settings, the pattern changes. The FPS drops from 489 at 1080p to 456 at 1440p (6.7% decrease) and then to 364 at 4K (25.6% decrease from 1080p). The larger drop at 4K Ultra indicates that the GPU becomes more of a limiting factor as both resolution and graphical complexity increase. However, even at 4K Ultra, the FPS does not drop below 364, which is still extremely high. The data suggests that the CPU remains the dominant bottleneck across all tested settings, because even the largest FPS drop (from 593 at 1080p Low to 364 at 4K Ultra) is only a 38.6% reduction, which is far less than the 4x increase in pixel count. This is consistent with Valorant's reputation as a CPU-bound game, where the GPU's role is secondary.

The medium preset provides the clearest view of this dynamic. At 1080p Medium, the FPS is 505. At 1440p Medium, it drops to 479 (5.1% decrease). At 4K Medium, it drops to 402 (20.4% decrease from 1080p). The minimum FPS values tell a similar story: 430 at 1080p, 407 at 1440p, and 341 at 4K. These minimums are all well above 300 FPS, meaning that even in the most demanding scenes, the combo never falls below a level that would be perceptible on any current display. The data indicates that the limiting component is the CPU at lower resolutions and settings, transitioning toward the GPU at 4K and Ultra settings, but never reaching a point where the GPU is fully saturated. This is the ideal scenario for a competitive FPS title, as the high frame rates ensure minimal input latency, and the CPU's strong single-thread performance (Cinebench R23 single-core score of 6,030) ensures consistent frame pacing.