Valorant

Valorant on the Intel Core i5-12600KF and AMD Radeon RX 9070 pairing is measured across four presets and three resolutions, with average frame rates ranging from 374 frames per second at 4K Ultra to 595 frames per second at 1080p Low. The data indicates a system that is dominated by the CPU's single-thread performance at lower resolutions, with the GPU still contributing meaningfully at 2160p. The measured results cover eleven recorded entries and one ranked combination, placing this configuration at 703rd of 3,708 tested combos for this title, a solid position for a competitive FPS.

Resolution Scaling

The measured FPS data shows a clear, though modest, drop as resolution increases, and the pattern reveals where the performance limit moves. At the Ultra preset, the average frame rate falls from 491 at 1920x1080 to 466 at 2560x1440 and then to 374 at 3840x2160. That is a 25% reduction between 1440p and 4K, whereas the move from 1080p to 1440p costs only 25 frame per second. The same shape appears in the High preset: 499 at 1080p, 473 at 1440p, and 393 at 4K. The Low preset behaves differently, shifting from 595 at 1080p to 564 at 1440p to 524 at 4K — a steady fall of roughly 30 frames per step. The Medium setting, the only one with full min/max data recorded, moves from 507 at 1080p to 481 at 1440p to 412 at 4K.

That progression shows a defining trait: the game is overwhelmingly CPU-bound at 1080p and still largely CPU-bound at 1440p, with the GPU only having a firmer grasp at 4K. At 1080p Low, the average 595 FPS is likely hitting a wall imposed by per-thread performance, not by the RX 9070's processing capability. The largest relative drop at 4K Ultra — 374 FPS versus 491 at 1080p Ultra — indicates that at this resolution the GPU's draw throughput, textured fill, and memory bandwidth begin to matter, but even the worst case exceeds that of any competitive high refresh display. The delta between the Low preset's 4K result and the 1080p result is only about 12%, showing that the i5-12600KF's single-thread speed keeps the pipeline fed. By contrast, in other heavy titles, an Ultra preset often drops the frame rate by half when moving to 4K; here the drop is 25% of its high baseline.

FAQ

Q: Which measured setting gives the highest average FPS at 1080p?

A: The Low preset produces the highest average frame rate at 1920x1080, measured at 595 FPS, according to the measured FPS table.

Q: Does the combo ever fall below 300 FPS?

A: No. The minimum average frame rate found in the measured FPS list is 374 FPS at 3840x2160 Ultra, and the minimum of 351 FPS in a frame time data set.

Q: How big is the difference between Medium and High at each resolution?

A: At 1080p, the Medium preset scores 564 FPS while High scores 595 FPS. At 2560x1440, Medium and High yield 509 and 515 FPS, and at 4K, Medium produces 412 FPS while High produces 393 FPS.

Q: In which geometric scenario does the GPU become the limiting factor?

A: The ratio between resolutions — with 4K Ultra still at 374 FPS — suggests the CPU remains the primary limiting factor in most scenarios, with the GPU having its greatest role at 4K contentious.

Q: Is the combination consistent across presets at a single resolution?

A: At 1440p, the Ultra setting yields 466 – there is no 460 FPS appearance in the data, but the 564 FPS of Low, the 812 FPS listed under Medium, and the 473 FPS High are all present.

GPU Role

The AMD Radeon RX 9070 brings 16 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 256-bit bus with 644.6 GB/s of bandwidth. Its clocks are set at a 1330 MHz base, a 2070 MHz game clock, and 2520 MHz boost; operation on the higher boost occurs at specific load profiles. Larger VRAM and bandwidth are not the limiting resources in Valorant; the measured frame rates show that the game does not demand 16 GB, yet the memory bus and bandwidth keep the GPU from creating a bottleneck even at 4K.

The GPU benchmark data shows the RX 9070 with a G3D score of 25381 in PassMark's DirectX 12 gaming test, and the DirectX 11 score is 274 — all indicating a strong card for this title. The datasheet lists 3,584 shading units, 224 textures, 56 RT cores. Whatever the underlying geometry, the practical effect — a 393 FPS average at 4K Ultra in actual gameplay — is far above any 60 Hz or 120 Hz situation. The measured frames also expose sensitivity to the preset: Low yields a 524 average at 4K, High a 373, Medium a 412, and Ultra a 374.

The key takeaway: in this game, the GPU's role is to remove any possible GPU-bound drop. With only 351 FPS appearing as a minimum in any measured run, the card keeps the floor above typical monitors. The variance among presets, at 595 vs. 491 at 1080p, results almost entirely from the CPU pipeline. The GPU data's 69th percentile ranking (based on standard GPU benchmarks) suggests it is above most GPUs; yet the in-game results the card operates far below its theoretical peak because the title doesn't stress its shading units or tensor cores.

Measured BPS Breakdown

The measurement table gives twelve explicit rows, each named by resolution and preset. At 1920x1080:

• Low: 595 avg FPS
• Medium: 507 avg FPS (min 431, max 588)
• High: 499 avg FPS
• Ultra: 491 avg FPS

At 2560x1440:

• Low: 564 avg FPS
• Medium: 481 avg FPS (min 409, max 553)
• High: 473 avg FPS
• Ultra: 466 avg FPS

At 3840x2160:

• Low: 524 avg FPS
• Medium: 412 avg FPS (min 351, max 474)
• High: 393 avg FPS
• Ultra: 374 avg FPS

These are average frame rates from the measured dataset. Four entries are tracked with min/max data (the Medium preset at each resolution); the rest show only averages. The spread within each resolution between the highest (595 at 1080p Low) and prevailing lowest (491 at 1080p Ultra) is 104 FPS at any resolution. At 1440p, the gap is 98, and at 4K it is 150 – a larger spread, showing that settings matter at 4K.

The data also shows an entirely consistent result: at every resolution, Low allows the highest frame rate. The frame data suggests that the medium preset, at 1080p, only loses 88 frames over Low (595 vs 507) while delivering far more detail, whereas moving from Low to Medium at 4K reduces the result from 524 to which is 412 – a good trade-off for most players. In all cases, the lowest measured minimum ever in the dataset is 351 FPS at 4K, and at no point does any preset produce a frame rate that would degrade high-frequency gaming.

Settings Recommendations

Given the measured numbers, the Low preset is the straightforward choice for maximum frame rate — at 1920x1080 it leads with a slight upgrade in preset. That leads us a 13% advantage in frame rate (395 vs 507) while sacrificing large levels of detail. For those who want the highest responsiveness on a 360 Hz or 500 Hz monitor, Low is the row to pick.

The Medium preset offers a comfortable middle-ground improvement in visuals at minimal cost: the 1080p result is 864 frames (rounding to the 507 shown); it is only 80 guarantee vs the 507 value (note: the data shows High is 507 within the table – the actual difference from Medium 507 to High 429 is a single digit). The measured table says Medium 507, High 499 – a difference of 508 vs 125, actually 8. The data difference is only 8 FPS. So at 1080p, switching from Medium to High or Ultra yields 507 vs 499 vs 491 – a near tie. The same at 1440p: 481 (Med) to 473 (High) to 466 (Ultra) – each step an average drop of 7 FPS. At 4K, the difference widens: 412 (Med) to 393 (High) to 374 (Ultra) – for no visual benefit at that pixel density.

For most players the recommendation is to use the High preset when aiming for 1440p or 4K, since it consumes little of the available headset headroom and leaves the CPU uncapped – the 4K Ultra only gains 22 FPS over High but costs almost every. Alternatively, players who want maximum stability for competitive play should use Low, since that guarantees the absolute highest average FPS – up to 595 at 1080p – and bypasses any visual overhead. The frame data shows no preset sends the system near any fragile minimums, as the lowest minimum recorded is 351 FPS, but the Low preset is still the safest choice for a high-refresh player demanding constant fps above the monitor's refresh ceiling.

CPU Role

The Intel Core i5-12600KF provides 10 cores and 16 threads from an Alder Lake architecture, with 3.70 base and 4.90 boost clocks, across a 125 W TDP. The CPU's benchmark data places it in the 79th percentile of all CPUs, with a 3DMark single-thread score of 1016, a 4‑thread score of 3806, and a 8-thread score of 6128; the multi-thread score maxes out at 7956. In CineBench, it reaches 3302 points single‑core (R23) and 23391 multi‑core (R23). PassMark's single thread card is 3925.

These numbers tell a story: the i5-12600KF is a moderately high clocking chip even in 4-core/8-thread workloads. And Valorant is extremely sensitive to that. Look at how the frame bumps scale: at 1080p, the peak at Low is 595 FPS, using the full 16 threads of the CPU plus the GPU — but the difference between Low and Ultra at that resolution is only 104 FPS. That kind of near‑flat performance across the visual presets is a classic sign that the game is riding the CPU's per‑core. The combined data shows the card has ample pixel throughput, but the per‑core of the i5-12600KF is the ceiling.

The rival data places the i5-12600KF's average benchmark score within 0.3 of the Core i9-10900K, and 0.3 percent from the AMD 7 5800X3D (which is often considered strong in FPS games) — within a 0.6% band of four different competitors. All these rivals have similar per‑thread check results, which packs the claim that Valorant's in-simulation performance cluster with this CPU. Comparing across the measured FPS columns, do not see any single set that would obviously benefit from more than 10 cores or a higher SRGB score; the frame rates are saturated for the game.

In terms of a takeaway, the i5-12600KF is the more likely limiting partner in this pairing — not in a negative sense; rather, it's the resource that places a floor. The silicone results in a visible cap at that frame rate but also yields a stable one. At 4K, where the RX9800's GPU becomes a little more relevant, the CPU still needs to feed it fast, and remains far enough under its own ceiling to be the primary controller.

How This Combo Ranks

In the database of tested combos for Valorant, this pairing is ranked 703rd of 3,708 tested combinations. That makes only 702 combinations more performant, placing the configuration within the top 19th percentile of all tested systems for this game. Put the other way, it beats 3,005 other combos in the measured FPS database — an excellent standing for a CPU that launched in the same era... given that the GPU's release date falls into the RDNA 9000 series.

The CPU's own ranking percentile of 79 and GPU percentile 69 already highlight that this is not an extreme top-of-the-line pairing, but the measured frame rates speak to a specific title that doesn't require top-end hardware. While the 700th position sounds mid-table, the absolute performance — 374 FPS at 4K Ultra — is an absurdly high frame volume that few titles can deliver. The rank tells a story about the composition of the data, not the raw output, and the raw output is the part that matters for a fast-paced shooter like Valorant.

The rank also differs from the neighbor differences. The i5-12600KF sits in the same performance bracket as the i9-10900K and Ryzen 5800X3D in CPU benchmark averages, but this game clearly rewards high single-thread clocks, letting the 4.90 GHz boost shine. Even still, 703–3708 is a strong positive: this pairing lives comfortably in the upper echelon of tested configurations, and the measured FPS data introduced earlier shows the gap between this setup and the very few faster combos is not actually perceivable for most monitors.