Valorant

The data for Valorant on this Intel Core i5-13400F and AMD Radeon RX 570 combo reveals a surprising stability across resolutions. This is a game built for high frame rates, and the measured FPS figures show that the biggest performance lever is the settings preset, not the resolution. The jump from 1080p to 4K is far less punishing than the drop from Low to High settings, which points to a system that is not strictly bound by the GPU at lower settings. A closer look at the numbers shows a curious pattern: the performance ceiling is very high, but the floor is dictated by how the game’s engine treats different quality presets.

Resolution Scaling

The FPS drop from 1080p to 4K is remarkably modest for this combination. At Low settings, the average frame rate only falls from 290.9 FPS at 1920x1080 to 197.8 FPS at 3840x2160. That is a substantial absolute drop of 93.1 FPS, but the percentage change is roughly 32%, which is surprisingly small when you consider the pixel count quadruples. This indicates that at Low settings, the system is heavily bottlenecked by the CPU or the game's engine logic, not the rendering pipeline. The RX 570 is not being pushed to its limits at 1080p Low; it has headroom to spare.

The story changes slightly when we look at the High and Ultra presets. At High settings, the FPS drops from 177.2 FPS at 1080p to 122.2 FPS at 4K, a 31% reduction. At Ultra, the drop is from 173.6 FPS to 117.2 FPS, a similar 32% decrease. The consistency of this percentage across all settings strongly suggests that the scaling factor is tied to the game's engine and the CPU's ability to feed the GPU. The data implies that the limiting component shifts from the CPU at 1080p to a more balanced state at 4K, but the CPU remains a significant constraint even at the highest resolution. The fact that 4K Low (197.8 FPS) is faster than 1080p Ultra (173.6 FPS) is a clear sign that the GPU is not the primary gatekeeper for this title.

CPU Role

The Intel Core i5-13400F is a 10-core, 16-thread processor from the Raptor Lake architecture, with a base clock of 2.50 GHz and a boost clock of 4.60 GHz. Its benchmark scores suggest it is a very capable part, sitting in the 82nd percentile of all CPUs. In multi-threaded workloads, it scores 21,279 in Cinebench R23 and 25,032 in Passmark multithread. However, Valorant is not a heavily multi-threaded game; it relies on a few fast cores. The single-thread performance is strong, with a Cinebench R23 single-core score of 3,004 and a Passmark single-thread score of 3,634.

The data shows that the CPU is the dominant factor in this combo's performance at lower resolutions. The fact that increasing resolution from 1080p to 1440p only drops the Low preset from 290.9 FPS to 248.4 FPS suggests the CPU is still hitting its ceiling. The gap between Low and Ultra at the same resolution is also telling. At 1080p, the gap is 117.3 FPS (290.9 vs 173.6), which is a massive difference that cannot be explained by GPU load alone. This indicates that the CPU is struggling to process the game's draw calls and logic fast enough to keep up with the GPU's potential when the graphical load is low. The processor's 20 MB of shared L3 cache and 1.25 MB per-core L2 cache likely help, but the game's engine seems to be the limiting factor. The CPU is powerful enough to deliver high frame rates, but the engine's single-threaded nature means it cannot fully utilize the 16 threads available.

GPU Role

The AMD Radeon RX 570 is a much older part, based on the GCN 4.0 architecture and a 14 nm process. It features 2,048 shading units and 32 ROPs, with a boost clock of 1244 MHz. Its memory configuration includes 4 GB of GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus, providing 224.0 GB/s of bandwidth. The GPU's average benchmark score places it in the 74th percentile of all GPUs, which is respectable but not high-end. Its FP32 performance is listed at 5.095 TFLOPS.

The GPU's role in this combo becomes more apparent at 4K. While the CPU is the bottleneck at 1080p, the RX 570 starts to show its limits at higher resolutions. The difference between 4K Low (197.8 FPS) and 4K Ultra (117.2 FPS) is 80.6 FPS, which is a larger absolute gap than at 1080p. This suggests that the GPU is doing more work at 4K, and the settings are having a greater impact on its performance. The 4 GB VRAM is likely sufficient for Valorant, but the GPU's raw compute power is what limits the Ultra settings at high resolutions. The data shows that the GPU is not the bottleneck at 1080p, but it is a co-bottleneck at 4K, especially on higher presets. The texture and pixel fill rates, while adequate for a competitive shooter, are not enough to maintain the same frame rate as the CPU would allow if the game were less graphically intensive.

How This Combo Ranks

This specific combination of the Intel Core i5-13400F and the AMD Radeon RX 570 ranks 1541 out of 1650 tested combos in Valorant. This is a low ranking, placing it in the bottom 7% of all tested configurations. This is a crucial data point that puts the absolute FPS numbers into perspective. While 122 FPS at 4K High is playable, the ranking indicates that the vast majority of other hardware combinations tested on this site achieve higher frame rates.

The ranking is heavily influenced by the GPU. The CPU, while strong, is paired with a GPU that is far behind modern competitors. The GPU's nearest rivals list includes the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5060 and the AMD Radeon RX 7700 XT, which have average scores that are nearly identical (30,109 and 30,097 respectively) but represent much newer, more powerful hardware. The RX 570's score of 30,158 is only 0.2% higher than the RTX 5060, which reflects how the benchmark averages can be skewed. However, in actual gaming, the newer cards would be significantly faster. The low combo rank suggests that the i5-13400F is being held back by the RX 570. The CPU is capable of much higher frame rates, but the GPU cannot deliver them. This is a classic case of a mismatched pairing where the CPU's potential is not fully realized.

Measured FPS Breakdown

The measured FPS data provides a clear picture of the performance envelope. At 1920x1080, the Low preset achieves an average of 290.9 FPS, which is the highest score recorded for this combo. The Medium preset drops to 189.5 FPS, and High sits at 177.2 FPS. Ultra is the slowest at 1080p, with an average of 173.6 FPS. The gap between Low and Medium is a massive 101.4 FPS, indicating that the Medium preset introduces a significant graphical load that impacts performance.

Moving to 2560x1440, the Low preset still delivers a very high 248.4 FPS. Medium drops to 161.2 FPS, High to 153.1 FPS, and Ultra to 144.7 FPS. The pattern is consistent: Low is always significantly faster than the other presets. At 3840x2160, the Low preset manages 197.8 FPS, which is still higher than the 1080p Ultra score. Medium drops to 128 FPS, High to 122.2 FPS, and Ultra to 117.2 FPS. The data shows that the Low preset is the only one that consistently pushes the frame rate above the refresh rate of most high-end monitors, while the other presets are more suitable for standard 60Hz or 144Hz displays. The difference between 1080p Low and 4K Low (93.1 FPS) is larger than the difference between 1080p Ultra and 4K Ultra (56.4 FPS), reinforcing the idea that the CPU bottleneck is most prominent at low graphical loads.

FAQ

Q: Is this CPU-GPU combo capable of running Valorant at 144Hz?

A: Yes, but only at lower settings. The data shows that at 1080p, the Low preset achieves 290.9 FPS, and at 1440p, the Low preset achieves 248.4 FPS. The High and Ultra presets at 1080p (177.2 and 173.6 FPS) also exceed 144Hz, but the Medium preset at 1440p (161.2 FPS) is just above the threshold.

Q: Why is the frame rate at 4K Low (197.8 FPS) higher than at 1080p Ultra (173.6 FPS)?

A: This implies the CPU is the limiting factor at lower resolutions and settings. The game's engine is not fully utilizing the GPU at Low settings, so the frame rate is capped by CPU performance. At Ultra settings, the GPU is doing more work, lowering the frame rate even at a lower resolution.

Q: What is the biggest performance gap between settings?

A: The largest gap is between Low and Medium presets at 1080p, where the average FPS drops from 290.9 to 189.5, a difference of 101.4 FPS. This suggests that the Medium preset enables specific graphical features that have a disproportionate performance cost.

Q: How does this combo rank against other tested hardware?

A: It ranks 1541 out of 1650 total combos, placing it in the bottom 7% of all tested configurations. This low rank is primarily due to the GPU, which is an older part with lower performance compared to modern rivals.

Q: Is the CPU or GPU the main bottleneck at 4K Ultra?

A: The data suggests a co-bottleneck. The GPU is clearly being pushed harder at 4K, as evidenced by the larger FPS drop from Low to Ultra (80.6 FPS). However, the CPU is still a factor, as the 4K Ultra score of 117.2 FPS is significantly lower than what the CPU could potentially deliver.

Q: What is the highest average FPS recorded for this combo?

A: The highest average FPS is 290.9, achieved at 1920x1080 with the Low preset. This is the only configuration that approaches the 300 FPS mark.

Settings Recommendations

Based on the measured rows, the optimal experience for this hardware depends on the target refresh rate. For players with a 240Hz monitor, the 1080p Low preset is the only viable option, delivering 290.9 FPS. There is no other preset at any resolution that comes close to this. For 144Hz displays, the 1080p High preset (177.2 FPS) offers a good balance of visual quality and performance, while the 1440p Medium preset (161.2 FPS) also clears the bar. The Ultra preset at 1080p (173.6 FPS) is also sufficient, but it offers only a marginal visual improvement over High for a negligible FPS cost.

For 4K gaming, the Low preset is the only one that provides a frame rate above 144Hz (197.8 FPS). The High preset (122.2 FPS) is playable on a 120Hz monitor, but the Ultra preset (117.2 FPS) sits just below the 120Hz threshold. The data suggests that the Low preset is the "sweet spot" for this combo if maximizing frame rate is the priority, as it unlocks the CPU's full potential. If visual fidelity is more important, the High preset at 1080p provides the best balance, sacrificing only 113.7 FPS compared to Low while offering a significantly better image. The Medium preset is the least efficient, offering a small visual step up from Low but with a massive performance penalty. Ultimately, the benchmark results indicate that this system is best suited for competitive play at Low settings, where it can push frame rates high enough to take full advantage of a high-refresh-rate monitor.