Valorant

The Intel Core i5-12400F and NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 combination delivers a remarkably smooth Valorant experience, with frame rates that far exceed the demands of competitive play at every tested resolution and settings preset. The data indicates that this pairing is heavily CPU-bound in most scenarios, a common characteristic for esports titles where the graphical load is relatively light compared to the physics and game logic calculations handled by the processor.

CPU Role

The Intel Core i5-12400F is a 6-core, 12-thread processor based on the Alder Lake architecture, built on Intel's 10 nm process node. It operates at a base clock of 2.50 GHz and can boost up to 4.40 GHz, providing the high single-thread performance that Valorant typically rewards. The processor features an 18 MB shared L3 cache and dual-channel memory support for DDR4 and DDR5, though the game’s performance is more directly tied to its core architecture and clock speeds than memory bandwidth.

In synthetic benchmarks, the i5-12400F posts a 3dmark_single_thread score of 909 and a passmark_single_thread score of 3481, indicating robust per-core capability. Its multi-threaded prowess is also substantial, with a passmark_multithread score of 19433 and a cinebench_r23_multicore score of 16518. The processor’s overall average benchmark score of 19221 places it in the 77th percentile of all CPUs, and it sits within a tight performance band relative to its nearest rivals. For instance, it is just 0.1% ahead of the Intel Core i7-8700K and 0.3% ahead of the Intel Core i5-1335U, while being 0.7% behind the AMD Ryzen 5 7533HS and 1.3% ahead of the AMD EPYC 7773X.

For Valorant, the CPU’s job is to handle the game’s deterministic simulation, player positions, and hit registration. The measured FPS data shows that even at 4K Ultra settings, the average frame rate is 115 FPS, which suggests the CPU is capable of feeding the GPU enough data to maintain high output. The gap between Low and Ultra settings at 1080p (285.6 FPS vs. 170.2 FPS) is significant, showing that while the GPU does influence final output, the CPU’s strong single-thread performance ensures it never becomes a bottleneck at lower resolutions where the GPU has less work to do. The 12 threads also help with background tasks and modern game engines that can offload some work to secondary cores, but the core count is more than sufficient for Valorant’s typical workload.

GPU Role

The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 is a Turing-architecture GPU built on TSMC's 12 nm process, featuring 896 shading units, 56 texture mapping units, and 32 ROPs. It comes with 4 GB of GDDR5 memory on a 128-bit bus, providing a bandwidth of 128.1 GB/s. The GPU’s base clock is 1485 MHz with a boost clock of 1665 MHz, and its memory runs at 2001 MHz (8 Gbps effective). Its compute capabilities are rated at 2.984 TFLOPS for FP32, and it supports DirectX 12 (12_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4.

The GTX 1650’s overall average benchmark score is 8713, placing it in the 43rd percentile of all GPUs. Its nearest rivals include the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3050 A Mobile (0.4% ahead) and the AMD Radeon 550X (0.4% ahead), while it sits 0.5% ahead of the NVIDIA Quadro P2200 and 0.4% behind the AMD Radeon Pro WX 5100. In Valorant, the GPU’s role is to render the final image, and its 4 GB VRAM is more than adequate for the game’s modest texture requirements. The data shows that the GTX 1650 is rarely the limiting factor; the primary variance in FPS comes from the CPU’s ability to issue draw calls.

The measured FPS data confirms this. At 1080p Low, the average is 285.6 FPS, which drops to 170.2 FPS at Ultra, a difference of 115.4 FPS. This scaling is typical for a GPU that is being pushed harder by higher graphical fidelity settings. At 4K, the difference between Low (196.3 FPS) and Ultra (115 FPS) is even more pronounced, showing that the GPU’s pixel fill rate and memory bandwidth become more important at higher resolutions. However, even at 4K Ultra, the average FPS of 115 remains well above the 60 FPS threshold for smooth gameplay, demonstrating that this GPU has enough headroom for Valorant’s stylized visuals.

FAQ

Q: What is the average frame rate at 1080p with Low settings?

A: The measured average FPS is 285.6, which is the highest result recorded for this combo and indicates that the CPU and GPU are both operating efficiently at this configuration.

Q: How does the CPU compare to its nearest rival, the Intel Core i7-8700K?

A: The Core i5-12400F has an average benchmark score of 19221, which is 0.1% higher than the Core i7-8700K’s score of 19210. This indicates nearly identical performance in synthetic tests.

Q: Is the GTX 1650’s 4 GB VRAM sufficient for Valorant?

A: Yes, the 4 GB of GDDR5 memory is more than enough for Valorant. The game’s texture and geometry data are relatively light, and the measured FPS at 4K Ultra (115 FPS) shows no signs of VRAM capacity limiting performance.

Q: What is the performance delta between the GTX 1650 and the AMD Radeon 550X?

A: The GTX 1650 has an average score of 8713, which is 0.4% lower than the Radeon 550X’s score of 8749. This places the two GPUs in the same performance tier.

Q: What is the frame rate drop when moving from 1080p Low to 1080p Ultra?

A: The average FPS drops from 285.6 at Low to 170.2 at Ultra, a decrease of 115.4 FPS. This represents a reduction of about 40% from the Low setting’s performance.

Q: Does the combo achieve playable frame rates at 4K?

A: Yes, the data shows a minimum average of 115 FPS at 4K Ultra settings and up to 196.3 FPS at 4K Low, both of which are well above the standard 60 FPS playability threshold.

Measured FPS Breakdown

The benchmark results show a clear scaling pattern across resolutions and settings. At 1920x1080, the lowest resolution tested, the combo achieves an average of 285.6 FPS on Low settings. Raising the quality to Medium results in 185.1 FPS, while High yields 176.5 FPS and Ultra drops to 170.2 FPS. The difference between High and Ultra is a modest 6.3 FPS, suggesting diminishing returns at the highest preset.

Moving to 2560x1440, the same trend continues but with lower overall numbers. Low settings produce an average of 246 FPS, while Medium, High, and Ultra deliver 158.3 FPS, 153.1 FPS, and 144.6 FPS, respectively. The gap between Low and the next tier (Medium) is 87.7 FPS, indicating that the GPU’s fill rate becomes a more significant factor at this resolution.

At 3840x2160, the highest resolution tested, the frame rates remain surprisingly high. Low settings yield an average of 196.3 FPS, which is still above the refresh rate of many high-end monitors. Medium drops to 127.3 FPS, High to 121 FPS, and Ultra to 115 FPS. The delta between Low and Ultra at 4K is 81.3 FPS, showing that the GTX 1650 is capable of handling the increased pixel count without a catastrophic performance hit. Across all resolutions, the data shows that the CPU’s strong single-thread performance keeps the minimum frame rates stable, though the average FPS is the primary metric provided.

How This Combo Ranks

In the database of tested hardware combinations for Valorant, this specific pairing of the Intel Core i5-12400F and NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 is ranked 1592 out of 1650 combos. This places it in the bottom 4.5% of all tested configurations, which is a surprising result given the high frame rates observed in the measured FPS data. The rank likely reflects the absolute performance ceiling of the combination compared to setups with more powerful CPUs and GPUs that can push frame rates into the 500-600 FPS range at 1080p Low.

The 77th percentile ranking of the CPU and the 43rd percentile ranking of the GPU suggest that while the individual components are mid-pack, their combined performance in Valorant is constrained by the GPU’s overall compute capability. However, the measured FPS data tells a different story for practical gameplay: the combo delivers an average of 285.6 FPS at 1080p Low, which is far higher than what most competitive players need. The rank of 1592 out of 1650 indicates that there are many other combos that can achieve higher raw frame rates, but this pairing still offers an excellent experience for the vast majority of users, with no resolution or settings combination dropping below 115 FPS average. The data suggests that this rank is a measure of peak potential rather than a reflection of playability, as the frame rates are consistently above the threshold for high-refresh-rate displays.