Valorant

How This Combo Ranks

The Intel Core i5-10400F paired with the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3070 ranks 1,282 out of 1,650 tested combinations for Valorant. This places the combo in the lower-middle portion of the database, which is notable because Valorant is a highly optimized competitive FPS where even modest hardware can achieve high frame rates. The rank of 1,282 suggests that while this pairing delivers smooth gameplay, many other tested configurations—likely those with newer CPUs or higher-end GPUs—produce even higher average FPS. The CPU's percentile ranking of 73 versus all CPUs indicates it outperforms roughly three-quarters of processors, while the GPU's percentile of 72 places it similarly above most graphics cards. However, in Valorant specifically, the combo's rank implies that the combination does not fully exploit the potential of either component, as the game's engine tends to favor raw single-thread performance. The data shows a deltaPct of 0.4% versus the AMD EPYC 7552, meaning the i5-10400F is essentially equivalent to that server chip in average benchmark score, yet the EPYC's multi-threaded design would not be expected to excel in a game like Valorant. Conversely, the i5-10400F trails the AMD Ryzen 3 7320C by 0.8% and the Intel Core i5-8500 by 1.1% in average CPU score, indicating that this 10th-gen chip sits in a tightly contested performance band. For the GPU, the RTX 3070 is 0.9% ahead of the AMD Radeon RX 6600 XT and 1% ahead of the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 980 Ti, but falls 0.6% behind the AMD FirePro S7150 and 1.1% behind the AMD Radeon R9 M295X. These narrow margins suggest that in synthetic benchmarks, the components are closely matched with their immediate rivals, yet the in-game rank of 1,282 reflects how Valorant's specific workload interacts with this pairing.

GPU Role

The RTX 3070 brings 8 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 256-bit bus, delivering 448.0 GB/s of bandwidth. Its base clock runs at 1500 MHz, boosting to 1725 MHz, with memory clocked at 1750 MHz (14 Gbps effective). The GPU's 5888 shading units, 184 texture mapping units, and 96 raster output processors provide substantial compute capability, with a pixel rate of 165.6 GPixel/s and a texture rate of 317.4 GTexel/s. For Valorant, which is not graphically demanding, the RTX 3070's architecture (Ampere on an 8 nm process with 17,400 million transistors) is far more powerful than necessary. The measured FPS data confirms this: at 4K Ultra settings, the combo still achieves 281.7 FPS average, and even at 4K Low, it reaches 339.1 FPS. The GPU's passmark G3D score of 22,214 and its 72nd percentile ranking among all GPUs indicate strong overall performance, but in Valorant, the bottleneck shifts to the CPU. The GPU's FP32 compute of 20.31 TFLOPS and FP16 of 20.31 TFLOPS (1:1) are never stressed by this game's simple shaders. The RTX 3070's 46 ray tracing cores and 184 tensor cores are likewise idle in Valorant, as the game does not utilize ray tracing or DLSS. The 8 GB VRAM capacity is more than sufficient, as even at 4K, the game's textures require far less than that. The data shows that the GPU's role here is to provide headroom: it never becomes the limiting factor, as evidenced by the relatively small FPS differences between settings at each resolution. The GPU's launch MSRP is 499 USD, which reflects its positioning as a high-end card, yet in Valorant, it behaves like a mid-range part due to the game's low graphical requirements.

Settings Recommendations

Examining the measured FPS rows, the optimal preset for this combo depends on whether the user prioritizes maximum frame rate or visual fidelity. At 1080p, the Low preset delivers 390.2 FPS average, while Medium yields 327.4 FPS, High produces 323.2 FPS, and Ultra drops to 316.5 FPS. The difference between Low and Ultra at 1080p is 73.7 FPS, which is substantial, but even Ultra exceeds 300 FPS. At 1440p, Low gives 367.6 FPS, Medium 309.6 FPS, High 310.2 FPS, and Ultra 300.4 FPS. At 4K, Low reaches 339.1 FPS, Medium 291.1 FPS, High 285.8 FPS, and Ultra 281.7 FPS. The data indicates that Low settings provide the highest frame rates across all resolutions, with the largest gap between Low and the next preset (Medium) being 58.2 FPS at 4K. For competitive play, the Low preset is the best choice, as it maximizes FPS and minimizes input latency, which is critical in a fast-paced FPS like Valorant. However, if visual quality is preferred, Medium settings offer a balanced trade-off: at 1080p, Medium is only 62.8 FPS lower than Low, and at 1440p, the gap narrows to 58.0 FPS. Ultra provides diminishing returns, with only a 10.9 FPS difference between Ultra and High at 4K, suggesting that High is a better choice than Ultra for those seeking slightly better visuals without the full performance cost. The benchmark results show no min or max FPS data, so average FPS is the only metric available, but the consistent pattern across resolutions suggests that Low is the recommended preset for this combo in Valorant.

Measured FPS Breakdown

At 1920x1080, the measured average FPS figures are: Low 390.2, Medium 327.4, High 323.2, and Ultra 316.5. The spread from Low to Ultra is 73.7 FPS, with Medium, High, and Ultra clustering within 10.9 FPS of each other. This indicates that once the preset moves past Low, the FPS plateau is relatively flat, suggesting the CPU begins to limit performance. At 2560x1440, the values are: Low 367.6, Medium 309.6, High 310.2, and Ultra 300.4. Here, the gap between Low and Medium is 58.0 FPS, but Medium, High, and Ultra are within 9.8 FPS of each other. The 1440p data shows a similar pattern to 1080p, with Low being the outlier. At 3840x2160, the figures are: Low 339.1, Medium 291.1, High 285.8, and Ultra 281.7. The difference between Low and Medium is 48.0 FPS, and the cluster of Medium, High, and Ultra spans only 9.4 FPS. Across all resolutions, Low consistently provides a significant FPS advantage, while Medium, High, and Ultra are closely grouped. The absolute numbers show that even at 4K Ultra, the combo maintains 281.7 FPS, which is above the refresh rate of most high-end monitors. The data reveals that the FPS drops are more pronounced when moving from Low to Medium than from Medium to Ultra, which is typical for games where the Low preset disables certain effects that have a disproportionate performance impact. At 1080p, the difference between Low and Ultra is 73.7 FPS, while at 1440p it is 67.2 FPS, and at 4K it is 57.4 FPS, showing that the absolute FPS gap narrows as resolution increases.

Resolution Scaling

The FPS drop from 1080p to 4K reveals important information about the limiting component. At Low settings, the average FPS goes from 390.2 at 1080p to 367.6 at 1440p (a drop of 22.6 FPS, or 5.8%) and then to 339.1 at 4K (a further drop of 28.5 FPS, or 7.8%). At Medium settings, the progression is 327.4 at 1080p, 309.6 at 1440p (down 17.8 FPS), and 291.1 at 4K (down 18.5 FPS). At High settings, the values are 323.2 at 1080p, 310.2 at 1440p (down 13.0 FPS), and 285.8 at 4K (down 24.4 FPS). At Ultra, the figures are 316.5 at 1080p, 300.4 at 1440p (down 16.1 FPS), and 281.7 at 4K (down 18.7 FPS). The relative FPS drops from 1080p to 4K are: Low 13.1%, Medium 11.1%, High 11.6%, and Ultra 11.0%. These relatively small decreases—all under 14%—indicate that the GPU is not being taxed heavily even at 4K. If the GPU were the primary bottleneck, the FPS drop from 1080p to 4K would be much larger, often exceeding 40% in graphically demanding titles. The modest scaling suggests that the CPU is the limiting factor, as the FPS remains high even as resolution increases. The i5-10400F's single-thread performance, with a 3dmark single-thread score of 688 and a passmark single-thread score of 2,541, appears to cap the frame rate. The data implies that at 1080p Low, the CPU is already near its maximum output for Valorant, and increasing resolution does not significantly reduce FPS because the GPU has ample headroom. This behavior is characteristic of a CPU-bound scenario in a game with lightweight graphics.

CPU Role

The Intel Core i5-10400F is a 6-core, 12-thread processor based on Comet Lake architecture, built on a 14 nm process. It has a base clock of 2.90 GHz and a boost clock of 4.30 GHz, with a 65 W TDP. The CPU features 64 KB of L1 cache per core, 256 KB of L2 per core, and 12 MB of shared L3 cache. Its memory support is DDR4 with dual-channel configuration, providing 42.7 GB/s of bandwidth. In Valorant, which is known to be sensitive to single-thread performance, the i5-10400F's boost clock of 4.30 GHz is the key attribute. The CPU's benchmark scores include a 3dmark single-thread score of 688, a cinebench R23 single-core score of 1,453, and a geekbench single-core score of 1,454. These figures are modest compared to newer processors, and the data suggests they are the primary limitation for this combo. The CPU's passmark single-thread score of 2,541 and its average benchmark score of 14,168 place it at the 73rd percentile, but in Valorant, the game's engine relies heavily on the CPU for frame rendering. The measured FPS at 1080p Low of 390.2 is high, but it is not as high as what might be expected from a top-tier CPU paired with an RTX 3070. The CPU's multi-threaded performance, as seen in the cinebench R23 multicore score of 10,297, is not fully utilized in Valorant, which typically uses fewer than 6 cores. The 3dmark scores for 2 threads (1,350) and 4 threads (2,560) show that the CPU's strength lies in its boost clock rather than its core count for this workload. The CPU's nearest rivals include the AMD EPYC 7552 (0.4% higher avg score) and the Intel Core i5-8500 (1.1% higher), indicating that the i5-10400F is in a competitive band for its generation. In Valorant, the CPU's 6 cores and 12 threads provide sufficient parallelism for background tasks, but the game's main thread is likely the bottleneck, as evidenced by the FPS progression across resolutions. The data strongly suggests that upgrading the CPU would yield higher FPS in Valorant, while the RTX 3070 would remain underutilized.