Valorant

The dataset for Valorant with the Intel Core i5-12400F and AMD Radeon RX 570 presents a clear headline: a combo ranked near the bottom of the tested pool, yet delivering frame rates that are far from bottom-of-the-barrel. The CPU is a 6-core/16-thread Alder Lake part holding a 73rd percentile ranking against all CPUs, and the GPU is a Polaris 20 chip with a 74th percentile standing against all GPUs, but together they place at 3510 of 3708 combos in this game. That low overall rank does not translate into a weak experience: every measured preset, at every resolution the data records, produces an average above 117 FPS. From 1920x1080 Low at 286 FPS to 3840x2160 Ultra at 117 FPS, this configuration keeps Valorant comfortably fluid, which is the core finding of this analysis.

Resolution Scaling

In the measured rows for the i5-12400F and RX 570, increasing resolution from 1920x1080 to 3840x2160 wears a significant but consistent toll on performance. Starting with the Low preset, 1920x1080 yields 286 FPS, 2560x1440 drops to 244 FPS, and 3840x2160 lands at 195 FPS. That is a high-capability baseline that remains far above the refresh range of typical displays even at the four-K extreme, illustrating that resolution is not the primary bottleneck for this card and CPU pair. The Medium preset shows the same shape: 189 FPS at 1920x1080, 161 at 2560x1440, and 129 at 3840x2160, which is a much narrower slab. Both High and Ultra also slide downward when pixel count climbs, with High going from 180 to 152 down to 123, and Ultra from 171 to 146 down to 117.

A key observation emerges when comparing these numbers: the difference between 1920x1080 and 3840x2160 is stark in all presets but does not involve a massive collapse. The lowest preset jumps from 286 FPS down to 195 FPS, a notable but not dramatic change. The High preset loses 57 FPS across that span, from 180 to 123, and the Ultra preset loses 54 FPS, from 171 to 117. This pattern suggests that at lower resolutions, the fram The frame rate is not being tied to raw pixel count as much as it is to the CPU's single-thread strength and the game's light render stack. Valorant's engine places far more weight on core performance and far less on raw GPU throughput, so the RX 570, with its 224.0 GB/s bandwidth and 3,120 shading units, has enough headroom to keep rendering the scene regardless of output resolution.

At 1440p the numbers drop an intermediate step each time. From 286 at 1080p Low, resolution goes to 244 and then to 195; from 189 measured at 1080p Medium, it passes through 161 at 1440p and ends at 129 at 4K. The identical shape of the curve across all presets implies the scaling behavior is tied to the engine's typical ″fill + parallel″ workload, where each higher pixel count adds a similar absolute cost to the frametime. If the GPU were the unconstrained limit, the 4x increase in pixel area would drag the FPS down by far more than the roughly 100-point gap seen here. The fact that a mere ~41 point drop between 1080p and 4K accompanies a 4x pixel area supports the conclusion that the limiting component is the per-frame engine throughput more than the draw strength of the RX 570.

The mentioned Medium preset also includes minimum and maximum frame markers, which add colour to the scaling story. At 1080p Medium the min is 160, max 217; at 1440p Medium the min is 137, max 185; at 4K Medium the min is 109, max 148. So the frame window narrows as resolution rises to the same extent as the average does, which means the stutter and all. No severe outliers are recorded: the worst minimum, 109 at 4K 1080, is still above a common 60 Hz standard and only 20 frames below the 129 average at that setting. For a fast FPS, a min of 109 at 4K ultra is subtle; but if the reader is across the measured rows, the data suggests that at any resolution, these two parts produce a smooth time line.

A subtle limiting-component takeaway is that the 1080p results do not stretch as far as the GPU would permit if the chip were the only guard. The Low preset at 1080p hits 286 FPS; at 4K it stays at 195. The gap of approximately 108 points, i.e., less than half of the pixel-area increase, is the signature of a CPU that may be doing more of the heavy lifting. In a lighter esports, the i5-12400F's single thread capability--shown by a 3DMark single thread of 909 and Cinebench R23 single score of 1680—can become the ceiling at lower resolutions, while the RX 570's , its 138 graphics units ratio, remain busy but not overly stressed.

Settings Recommendations

Examining the measured rows, the ordering of typical presets by framerate is striking: Low is the fastest at every resolution, followed by Medium, then High, then Ultra. At 1920x1080 the sequence is 286 for Low, 189 for Medium, 180 for High, and 171 for Ultra. Exactly the same order appears at 2560x1440 (244, 161, 153 and 146) and at 3840x2160 (195, 129, 123 and 117). The most important operational find is that Medium beats High by a comfortable margin at all three resolutions: +9 FPS at 1080p, +8 at 1440p, and +6 at 4K. The data shows that a player who pushes from Medium to High does not buy extra framerate — it actually makes the game slower in the measured average. Ultra is worst of all, sitting 18 FPS below Medium at 1080p, 15 FPS below at 1440p, and 12 FPS below at 4K.

This result points to the engine's rendering order: the game's High and Ultra tiers appear to implement special effects that, on the Polaris 20 card, cost more than the smaller pixel load gains. The frequency of the pattern offers an empirical benchmark-based rule: No matter the display, Medium is the highest FPS among the three main presets, and Low is a quantum step above all of them. If the other aim is competitive (a high refresh display running past the 200 Hz), the Low preset with 286 FPS at 1080p is the only choice that reaches that target. The data records 1440p Low at 244 FPS and some high, so for many high-refresh monitors, even QHD with the Low is enough. If visual quality matters more, Medium is the sweet spot: it returns the maximum FPS among High and Ultra while also retaining good geometry and lighting, and it is the only measured tier in which the dataset logs a min/max window, which, is useful. For a fixed refresh and experience, the recommendation from these rows is to use Medium for a balanced output and Low when `e the player accepts lower geometry for extra speed. High and Ultra bring no measured benefit and therefore are, in the data set, generally not worth their cost.

CPU Role

The processor at heart of this combination is a 12th-generation Intel Core i5-12400F, part of the Alder Lake-S generation. Its specification includes 6 physical cores and 12 threads, a base clock of 2.50 GHz and a boost clock of 4.40 GHz, backed by 80 KB of L1 cache per core, 1.25 MB per core of L 2, and 18 MB of shared L3 cache. In synthetic workloads, it scores 909 in the 16-thread mark, 1699 in the 2-thread mark, 3067 in the 4-thread mark, 4779 in the 8-thread mark, and 5912 at max threads. Absents is a full 122-axis, but the essential is: the single-thread score of 909, the 2-thread 1699, and the Cinebench R23 single-core 1680 indicate a processor that handles low-thread games extremely well. A lightweight esport like Valorant rarely stresses more than a few threads, so those numbers are the relevant ones—and they place the chip in the top performance tier where disk matters.

In Geekbench, the multi-core result reaches 9472 and a single-core 1964, while PassMark gives a multithread score of 19433, a single thread 3481, and various workloads—floating point math 46759, integer math 59995, data compression 233327, extended instructions 15834—that speak its general purpose speed. Low-thread load (the ones the game cares about) show a comfortable margin: the 4-thread score of 3067 translates to good responsiveness for a small batch of player shadows and ballistic component, and threads gain to 12 for heavy multiplayer spam, with the Cinebench R23 multiplop of 12380 indicating capacity far beyond what a 6-core price-point chip needs.

Placement among the system's nearest rivals is far tight, with all four about a 0:0-0.3 percentage point difference. The CPU's average benchmark score is 19039. The nearest comparable is the award test. AMD Ryzen 5 7535HS at 19047 score, a zero percent difference. Then by delta: the Intel Core 3 201E comes in 19056, a -0.1% difference, meaning slightly lower (or the definition is left static); the Intel core i5-1335U has 18982 points, a delta of 0.3%, and the AMD EPIC 7773X also 18979, delta 0.3%. This cluster means the user can expect within 0.3% of very recent competitor mid chips. In the game, a single-thread performance is not, per the data, a deficiency: the game's highest preset at 1080p yields 171 FPS, which is a high number, and at 4K it stays at 1177. There is no evidence that the CPU breaks a sweat, so for practical purposes the i5-12400F delivers the measured numbers without bottlenecking the RX 570.

How This Combo Ranks

The measured combo rank for Valorant with these parts is continuous, at 3510 out of a total set of 3708 combinations. This means that with only a small