Valorant

Valorant is a competitive FPS where frame rate consistency matters more than absolute graphical fidelity, and the measured data for the Intel Core i5-10400F and NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 combination reflects that dynamic. This pairing delivers playable, often high, frame rates across the board, but the scaling patterns reveal a system that is primarily bound by the CPU at lower resolutions and transitions to a GPU limitation as pixel count rises. The benchmark results indicate a capable esports setup, though its ranking among all tested combos places it in the lower percentile of the database.

Resolution Scaling

The frame rate drop from 1080p to 4K is significant, but the shape of that curve tells the story of where the bottleneck lies. At 1080p with Low settings, the combo achieves an average of 285.8 FPS, which is a remarkably high figure that suggests the CPU is doing the heavy lifting, as the GTX 1650 is not being taxed heavily at this resolution and preset. Moving to 1440p Low, the average drops to 242.4 FPS, a reduction of roughly 15%, and at 4K Low, it falls further to 197 FPS. This indicates that while the GPU is starting to take on more work, the system is still capable of pushing well beyond the refresh rates of most standard monitors.

The scaling behavior changes dramatically when looking at higher graphical presets. At 1080p Ultra, the average FPS is 166.4, which is a substantial drop from the Low preset’s 285.8 FPS. At 1440p Ultra, the average is 144.3 FPS, and at 4K Ultra, it plummets to 114.1 FPS. The delta between 1080p and 4K at Ultra settings is a 52.3 FPS loss, whereas at Low settings, the delta is 88.8 FPS. This data suggests that at Low presets, the CPU is the limiting factor, as the frame rate is high but scales down with resolution as the GPU becomes more involved. At Ultra presets, the GPU is clearly the primary constraint, as the frame rates are much closer together across resolutions, indicating that the graphics card is saturated with work regardless of the pixel count.

How This Combo Ranks

Within the database of tested combinations for Valorant, this specific pairing of the Core i5-10400F and GTX 1650 holds a rank of 1611 out of 1650 combos. This places it in the bottom 2.4% of all tested systems, which is a crucial context for interpreting the absolute FPS numbers. While the frame rates are playable, the data shows that a vast majority of other CPU-GPU pairings achieve higher average frame rates in this title. The combo’s rank is not a reflection of a broken experience, but rather a positioning that shows this is an entry-level setup for Valorant when compared to the rest of the field.

The CPU itself, the Intel Core i5-10400F, has a percentile ranking of 73 against all CPUs, indicating it is a solid mid-range processor. Its average benchmark score of 14168 places it in close competition with its nearest rivals, such as the AMD EPYC 7552, which has a deltaPct of 0.4%, and the AMD Ryzen 3 7320C, which is -0.8% slower. This suggests the processor is not a weak link in the chain; its six cores and twelve threads are sufficient for the game's logic. The GPU, however, has a percentile ranking of only 43 against all GPUs, and its average benchmark score of 8713 is nearly on par with the NVIDIA Quadro P2200 (deltaPct of 0.5%) and AMD Radeon 550X (deltaPct of -0.4%). This indicates that the graphics card is the component dragging the combo down in the rankings, as it is a modest performer in the absolute sense.

GPU Role

The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650’s role in this combo is defined by its memory and clock speeds, which directly impact the frame rates seen at higher settings. The GPU has 4 GB of GDDR5 memory on a 128-bit bus, providing a bandwidth of 128.1 GB/s. In a game like Valorant, which is not known for massive texture requirements, this memory configuration is adequate, but it does not provide the headroom seen in higher-tier cards. The base clock is 1485 MHz, with a boost clock of 1665 MHz, and the card has 896 shading units. These specifications are modest, and the benchmark results reflect that it is a limiting factor when the visual load increases.

The data shows that the GTX 1650 is a consistent performer, but its limitations are exposed at 4K resolution, where the average FPS at High settings is 120 and at Ultra it is 114.1. This is in contrast to the 1080p Low result of 285.8 FPS, where the GPU is not the bottleneck. The card’s pixel rate of 53.28 GPixel/s and texture rate of 93.24 GTexel/s are the physical constraints that prevent higher frame rates at higher resolutions. The GPU is positioned close to its nearest rivals in the database, with the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3050 A Mobile being only -0.4% different in average score, indicating that this is a performance tier with little variation. The fact that the card has no power connectors and a 75 W TDP suggests it is designed for efficiency, but that efficiency comes at the cost of raw performance in demanding scenarios.

Measured FPS Breakdown

The measured FPS data provides a comprehensive look at the performance across all settings and resolutions. At 1920x1080, the Low preset yields an average of 285.8 FPS, which is the highest figure recorded for this combo. The Medium preset at 1080p delivers 187 FPS, while High drops to 176.6 FPS, and Ultra settles at 166.4 FPS. This shows a predictable decline as settings increase, but all values are above the 144 Hz threshold that many competitive players target.

At 2560x1440, the performance remains strong. The Low preset averages 242.4 FPS, which is still exceptionally high. Medium averages 156.3 FPS, High averages 148.8 FPS, and Ultra averages 144.3 FPS. The transition from 1080p to 1440p at Low settings is a 43.4 FPS drop, but at Ultra settings, it is only a 22.1 FPS drop. This reinforces the idea that the CPU is more of a factor at lower settings, while the GPU becomes the main constraint at higher ones.

Moving to 3840x2160, the GPU is clearly taxed. The Low preset averages 197 FPS, which is still playable but shows a significant 88.8 FPS drop from 1080p Low. The Medium preset averages 127.8 FPS, High averages 120 FPS, and Ultra averages 114.1 FPS. The spread between the lowest and highest settings at 4K is only 82.9 FPS, much narrower than the 119.4 FPS spread seen at 1080p. This indicates that at 4K, the GPU is the constant limiting factor, and changing settings has a reduced impact on frame rate compared to lower resolutions.

Settings Recommendations

Based on the measured rows, the optimal settings for this combo depend on the target refresh rate and resolution. For players with a 1080p 144 Hz monitor, the High preset is the best choice, as it provides an average of 176.6 FPS, which is comfortably above the refresh rate, while also offering better visual quality than Low or Medium. Pushing to Ultra at 1080p is viable with an average of 166.4 FPS, but the visual improvement is often negligible in a fast-paced shooter, and the data shows a 10.2 FPS loss compared to High.

For those with a 1440p monitor, the High preset is again the recommended starting point, with an average of 148.8 FPS. This is slightly above the 144 Hz target, but the margin is thin. The Medium preset at 1440p offers a more comfortable buffer with 156.3 FPS, making it a safer option for maintaining a stable frame rate. The Ultra preset at 1440p, with 144.3 FPS, is right at the edge of the 144 Hz limit, and any minor in-game variance could cause drops below that threshold.

At 4K resolution, the data suggests that the Low preset is the only way to achieve a high refresh rate experience, with an average of 197 FPS. The Medium preset at 127.8 FPS is playable on a 120 Hz display, but the High and Ultra presets, at 120 FPS and 114.1 FPS respectively, are better suited for 60 Hz monitors. Given that Valorant is a competitive title where frame rate is king, the Low preset at 4K provides the best balance of smoothness and visibility. For most users, however, the sweet spot for this combo is 1080p with High settings, which offers a significant visual upgrade over Low while maintaining a high average frame rate that is well suited for competitive play.