Valorant

# Valorant with Intel Core i5-12400F + AMD Radeon RX 6750 XT

The Intel Core i5-12400F paired with the AMD Radeon RX 6750 XT produces frame rates that are exceptional across all tested configurations in Valorant, a competitive FPS where high refresh rates matter more than absolute visual fidelity. The measured data shows this combination never drops below 303.5 FPS average at any resolution or settings preset, placing it at rank 645 out of 1650 tested combos in this game. With a 6-core, 12-thread Alder Lake processor boosting to 4.40 GHz and a RDNA 2.0 GPU with 2560 shading units and 12 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 192-bit bus, the system delivers headroom that far exceeds the requirements of standard 144 Hz and 240 Hz displays. The benchmark results indicate that the primary constraint shifts from the GPU to the CPU only at the lowest settings and resolutions, where the i5-12400F's single-thread performance—evidenced by a 3dmark single-thread score of 909 and a passmark single-thread score of 3481—becomes the deciding factor.

Settings Recommendations

For players prioritizing maximum competitive responsiveness, the Low preset at 1920x1080 delivers the highest measured average frame rate in the dataset: 529.8 FPS. This configuration extracts the most from the hardware, though the gap to the Medium preset at the same resolution is substantial—453.3 FPS—representing a 76.5 FPS difference. The data suggests that Low settings minimize GPU workload enough that the i5-12400F's single-thread ceiling becomes the limiting factor, and the RX 6750 XT's 13.31 TFLOPS of FP32 compute is largely idle.

The Medium preset at 1080p offers a more balanced experience, delivering 453.3 FPS while presumably enabling additional visual features over Low. Given that Valorant is a tactical shooter where clarity of enemy silhouettes and consistent frame pacing are critical, the measured 453.3 FPS still provides massive headroom above any current high-refresh display. At 2560x1440, the High preset achieves 399.4 FPS, which remains far beyond the 240 Hz ceiling of most esports monitors.

For users with 4K displays, the High preset at 3840x2160 yields 320.8 FPS, while Ultra drops to 303.5 FPS. The difference between High and Ultra at 4K is only 17.3 FPS, suggesting diminishing returns from the Ultra preset's additional graphical demands. The recommendation from the measured data is clear: the Medium preset at 1080p or the High preset at 1440p provides the best balance of frame rate and visual quality, as both exceed 399 FPS and avoid the unnecessary performance expenditure of Ultra settings, which at 1080p actually measures lower (438.8 FPS) than High (443.4 FPS) and Medium (453.3 FPS).

FAQ

Q: What is the highest average frame rate this combination achieves in Valorant?

A: The highest measured average is 529.8 FPS, achieved at 1920x1080 with the Low settings preset. The next highest is 504.1 FPS at 2560x1440 with Low settings, showing that resolution scaling is modest at the lowest quality tier.

Q: How does the Ultra preset compare to High at 1080p?

A: At 1920x1080, the Ultra preset delivers 438.8 FPS, which is 4.6 FPS lower than High (443.4 FPS) and 14.5 FPS lower than Medium (453.3 FPS). This indicates that Ultra settings introduce overhead that reduces performance without a corresponding benefit in measured frame rate.

Q: Is this combination CPU-limited or GPU-limited in Valorant?

A: The data shows a CPU-bound scenario at lower resolutions and settings. At 1080p Low (529.8 FPS) versus 4K Low (469.7 FPS), the drop is only 60.1 FPS, suggesting the CPU's single-thread performance, with a passmark single-thread score of 3481 and a 3dmark single-thread score of 909, is the primary limiter. At High settings, the 1080p-to-4K drop is 122.6 FPS, indicating the GPU becomes more involved.

Q: What rank does this combo hold among all tested configurations in Valorant?

A: The combination ranks 645th out of 1650 tested combos, placing it in the 61st percentile of all configurations. This is a strong showing for a mid-range pairing, given that Valorant is highly sensitive to single-thread CPU performance.

Q: How much performance is lost when moving from 1080p Low to 4K Ultra?

A: The measured frame rate drops from 529.8 FPS at 1080p Low to 303.5 FPS at 4K Ultra, a reduction of 226.3 FPS or approximately 42.7%. Despite this, the 4K Ultra result remains above 300 FPS, which is still exceptional for competitive play.

Q: Are the frame rates consistent across different settings at the same resolution?

A: No, there is notable variance. At 1440p, Low achieves 504.1 FPS, Medium 418.6 FPS, High 399.4 FPS, and Ultra 376.5 FPS. The spread of 127.6 FPS between Low and Ultra indicates that settings choices have a significant impact on frame rate, though all results remain above 376 FPS.

How This Combo Ranks

The combination of the Intel Core i5-12400F and AMD Radeon RX 6750 XT holds rank 645 out of 1650 tested combos in Valorant, placing it in the upper 39% of all configurations. This ranking is notable because the pairing does not rely on top-tier components; the CPU's percentile vs all CPUs is 77, and the GPU's percentile vs all GPUs is 79, yet the in-game result is strong due to Valorant's moderate graphical demands. The i5-12400F's nearest rival, the Intel Core i7-8700K, shows an average benchmark score of 19210 against the i5's 19221, a delta of 0.1%, meaning the two are effectively tied in synthetic tests—yet the newer architecture's single-thread performance likely contributes to the strong FPS results.

On the GPU side, the RX 6750 XT's nearest rival is the AMD Radeon RX 5600M, with an average score of 35264 versus 35327, a delta of 0.2%. The NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3080 is 1.3% ahead in average benchmark score (35787), but in Valorant, the RX 6750 XT's 12 GB of memory and 432.0 GB/s bandwidth prove more than adequate for the game's light asset streaming. The ranking at 645/1650 suggests that many combos with more expensive GPUs or higher-core-count CPUs do not necessarily translate to better Valorant performance, as the game rewards high single-thread throughput over raw multi-core or GPU compute. The measured FPS data confirms that this mid-range pairing outperforms a significant portion of the tested field, with the 1080p Medium result of 453.3 FPS exceeding what many higher-ranked combos would deliver in practice.

Measured FPS Breakdown

At 1920x1080, the measured average frame rates are 529.8 FPS (Low), 453.3 FPS (Medium), 443.4 FPS (High), and 438.8 FPS (Ultra). The Low preset stands out as the clear outlier, providing a 76.5 FPS advantage over Medium, while the difference between Medium and High is 9.9 FPS, and between High and Ultra is 4.6 FPS. This pattern suggests that Low settings remove a significant GPU bottleneck, allowing the CPU to push frames at its maximum rate, while Medium through Ultra impose increasingly similar GPU-side constraints.

At 2560x1440, the results are 504.1 FPS (Low), 418.6 FPS (Medium), 399.4 FPS (High), and 376.5 FPS (Ultra). The Low-to-Medium gap narrows to 85.5 FPS, while Medium-to-High is 19.2 FPS and High-to-Ultra is 22.9 FPS. The 1440p Low result of 504.1 FPS is only 25.7 FPS lower than the 1080p Low result, indicating that at the lowest settings, the CPU remains the dominant limiter even as resolution increases. The spread between Low and Ultra at 1440p is 127.6 FPS, larger than the 91.0 FPS spread at 1080p, showing that higher resolution amplifies the impact of settings on GPU workload.

At 3840x2160, the measured figures are 469.7 FPS (Low), 330.6 FPS (Medium), 320.8 FPS (High), and 303.5 FPS (Ultra). The Low preset still achieves nearly 470 FPS, but the drop to Medium is a substantial 139.1 FPS, the largest single-step decline in the entire dataset. From Medium to High the loss is 9.8 FPS, and from High to Ultra it is 17.3 FPS. The 4K Low result is 60.1 FPS lower than 1080p Low, while 4K Ultra is 135.3 FPS lower than 1080p Ultra, demonstrating that at Ultra settings the GPU's 432.0 GB/s bandwidth and 166.4 GPixel/s pixel rate become the limiting factors, whereas at Low settings the CPU's single-thread ceiling persists even at 4K.

Resolution Scaling

The frame rate scaling from 1080p to 4K reveals distinct behavior depending on the settings preset. At Low settings, the transition from 1920x1080 (529.8 FPS) to 2560x1440 (504.1 FPS) incurs a loss of 25.7 FPS, and from 1440p to 3840x2160 (469.7 FPS) another 34.4 FPS, for a total 1080p-to-4K drop of 60.1 FPS or 11.3%. This relatively modest decline indicates that at Low settings, the i5-12400F's single-thread performance—reflected in a 3dmark single-thread score of 909 and cinebench r23 single-core score of 2332—is the primary bottleneck, as the RX 6750 XT has ample headroom to handle the increased pixel count without significant frame rate penalties.

At Medium settings, the 1080p result is 453.3 FPS, dropping to 418.6 FPS at 1440p and 330.6 FPS at 4K. The total loss from 1080p to 4K is 122.7 FPS or 27.1%, a much steeper decline than Low. This suggests that Medium settings begin to engage the GPU more substantially, and the 4K resolution pushes the RX 6750 XT's 13.31 TFLOPS compute and 2560 shading units toward their limits. The step from 1440p to 4K is 88.0 FPS, compared to only 34.7 FPS from 1080p to 1440p, indicating a nonlinear scaling where the pixel count increase from 3.7 million to 8.3 million creates a proportionally larger GPU workload.

At High settings, the scaling is 443.4 FPS (1080p) to 399.4 FPS (1440p) to 320.8 FPS (4K), a total drop of 122.6 FPS or 27.6%. The Ultra preset shows 438.8 FPS (1080p) to 376.5 FPS (1440p) to 303.5 FPS (4K), a total drop of 135.3 FPS or 30.8%. The increasing percentage loss from Low (11.3%) to Ultra (30.8%) demonstrates that as settings rise, the GPU becomes the limiting component, and the RX 6750 XT's 192-bit memory bus with 432.0 GB/s bandwidth and 64 ROPs face growing pressure at higher resolutions. The data clearly shows that for this combination, the CPU is the limiting factor at Low settings across all resolutions, while the GPU takes over as the constraint at Medium and above, particularly at 4K where the Ultra preset's 303.5 FPS still represents a playable but comparatively reduced experience.