Valorant

The Intel Core i5-13400F and AMD Radeon RX 6600 XT deliver some of the highest frame rates measured in Valorant, with a 1920×1080 Low preset averaging 552 FPS and even a 4K Ultra preset still holding 242 FPS. All results below come from on-machine measurement; the data set includes 12 resolution/preset combinations, each with average values and min/max ranges on Medium settings.

FAQ

Q: What is the highest measured average FPS for this combo in Valorant?

A: The top average sits at 552 FPS at 1920×1080 with Low settings. That is effectively the ceiling for this pairing at the lowest workload, with 406 FPS available at the same preset in 4K.

Q: How does 1440p performance compare to 1080p?

A: At Medium settings, moving from 1920×1080 to 2560×1440 reduces the average from 392 FPS to 334 FPS, a drop of roughly 15%. Low settings trade 552 FPS to 507 FPS, a smaller relative decline of about 8%.

Q: Are there any out-of-range framerate values in the data?

A: Only Medium settings include reported minimum and maximum values. At 1920×1080 the scene spans 333 to 451 FPS, at 2560×1440 284 to 384 FPS, and at 3840×2160 227 to 307 FPS. No min/max values are given for Low, High, or Ultra.

Q: How big is the gap between Low and Ultra presets?

A: At all three resolutions, the Ultra preset reduces the average by roughly a quarter to a third. For example, at 2560×1440 Low averages 507 FPS, while Ultra averages 361 FPS, a 197 FPS gap. In 4K, Low 405 FPS versus Ultra 242 FPS shows a similar proportional decline.

Q: Does the combination scale well at higher resolutions?

A: The difference between 1080p and 1440p is modest (e.g., 20% slower at Medium), but the 1440p→4K jump is more severe—about a 20% loss across every preset. This suggests a CPU or memory limitation is exposed at the 1440–4K transition.

Q: How does this combo rank against other tested systems in Valorant?

A: The combo places 2321st out of 3709 tested device combos in the game’s leaderboard, which is below the median but still well inside the top half of all — actually it sits in the lower half, since 2321 is above the halfway mark. Nevertheless, absolute FPS numbers are high.

Settings Recommendations

For a game where reaction time matters more than visual flourishes, the Low preset is the single strongest choice. It produces the highest average FPS at every resolution—552 at 1080p, 507 at 1440p, and 406 at 4K. If the player is targeting a 360 Hz monitor at 1080p, Low is the only preset that meaningfully outpaces that refresh rate in average terms; even Medium stays at 392 FPS, which is already beyond 240 Hz.

Medium is the better balance visually and performance-wise. The 1920×1080 Medium average is 392 FPS, with a minimum scene at 333 FPS, ensuring that even the slowest parts of a map stay above a 300 Hz display rate. At 2560×1440 Medium averages 334 FPS, with a minimum of 284 FPS—enough for a 240 Hz panel. Notably, the Medium preset’s min/max values are the only ones recorded in the data, suggesting the test methodology tracks frame variability more closely here, but the numbers show consistent indices.

High settings are nearly as fast as Medium margin; the 1080p average is 373 FPS, just 19 FPS lower than the Medium 392, while 1440p High sits at 361 FPS. In practice, the visual upgrade from Medium→High is probably minimal for even a large display.

Ultra is the orientation for players who prioritise image quality above all, but it sacrifices performance in a game that is rarely GPU-limited. At 1080p it averages 355 FPS, at 1440p 303 FPS, and at 4K 242 FPS. All still above 144 Hz, but the CPU headroom is left unexploited.

The data indicates a clear recommendation: for the most consistent competitive play, choose Medium at 1080p or Low at 1440p. Medium holds average 392 FPS and a 333 FPS minimum at 1080p, which is a wider margin than most GPUs can sustain in other esports titles. If raw throughput is the only goal, Low at any resolution never dips to playable range—it always sits above 400 FPS.

📊 Resolution Scaling

The table below uses only the measured data, showing average FPS for each preset across the three resolutions:

| Preset | 1920×1080 | 2560×1440 | 3840×2160 |

|-------|-----------|-----------|-----------|

| Low | 552 | 507 | 406 |

| Medium| 392 | 334 | 267 |

| High | 373 | 318 | 255 |

| Ultra | 355 | 303 | 242 |

The 1080p→1440p step costs only 5% on Low (552 to 507 FPS) and roughly 8% on Ultra (355 to 303 FPS). That is a mild resolution hit for most titles, signaling that the CPU (Intel Core i5-13400F) is handling the frame rate at these lower pixel counts. Valorant’s rendering is notoriously peripheral-friendly, so the 8.5% drop is close to pure extra shading cost.

The 1440p→4K transition is much steeper: Low falls 19.3%, Medium 20.8%, High 20.3%, and Ultra 20.9%. This sharply larger drop that appears at 4K even at Low (507→406) indicates that the GPU’s shading resources finally become the binding constraint at the 3840×2160 pixel count. With a 128-bit memory bus and 256.0 GB/s bandwidth, the RX 6600 XT is not pushing enough texels and shader output to keep up with the CPU once the polygon count quadruples.

The pattern across is toolkit: relatively flat scaling from 1080p to 1440p, then a sharper decline into 4K. That dollars: the combo is still largely CPU-limited in typical esports conditions; the GPU performance only starts to shake off at the highest resolution.

🏆 How This Combo Ranks

In the combo leaderboard, the i5-13400F + RX 6600 XT comes away with 2321st place out of 3708 tested configurations. This position puts it in the bottom 38% of all combos, a humbling rank given how blistering the raw frame rates are. A higher rank improves in two ways: they often combine a stronger processor and/or a faster graphics, leading to similar frame rates at even 4K Ultra.

The average benchmark score of the entire CPU—the 25292 Cinebench R23 multicore, with a percentileVsAllCpus of 77—indicates this is a robust midrange part, but not a flagship. In the game’s own leaderboard, the strengths of 10,000+ FPS are not unique; many combos with fewer tested units outperform it purely on CPU single-thread dominance.

Looking at the nearest CPU rivals to the i5-13400F (all within ±0.4% average benchmark score), the AMD Radeon RX 6600 XT is a common pairing. The Ryzen 9 6900HS, Intel Core 5 120, Ryzen 5 5600X3D, and Ryzen 7 6800H have contextually identical overall scores. So the Verdict: the i5-13400F’s high frequency + 20 MB L3 cache puts it in the same performance class as other flagship laptop/desktop 8-core parts, with only small single-core gains.

Given that Valorant is not poly-threaded, the CPU’s single-core score of 3191 in Cinebench R23 helps push the high FPS. The dominance of this CPU over the RX 6600 XT’s rivals (which range from 10% to 13% of the CPU's CE) ensures the GPU can run freely, even at 4K where frames still ride above 200.

🎬 GPU Role

The AMD Radeon RX 6600 XT brings a 8 GB GDDR6 buffer across a 128-bit bus with 256.0 GB/s bandwidth, alongside 2048 shading units and 32 RT cores. Its base clock is 2308 MHz and boost 2589 MHz; the game clock is listed at 2359 MHz. These are frequencies that most games do not utilise at full potential in an esports title, but they provide a comfortable ceiling.

The measured 1080p averages (552 FPS peak) show the GPU is only modestly stressed: the geometric computation of a competitive shooter rarely pushes 8 GB to its limits. Valorant itself is light on VRAM, so the relative rest of the frame delivery is entirely the CPU’s twin thread count plus sustained clock.

The role of the RX 6600 XT in this pairing is to keep up, not to dominate. The 256.0 GB/s memory bandwidth is more than sufficient for 4K Low (406 FPS), where the card is still capable of delivering quarter of a damn thousand per second. The 2048 shading units handle the rendering throughput of the game’s deterministic but crowded scenes with high efficiency.

The GPU’s average benchmark score (24442) with a 70th percentile rank places it among the strongest cards of the previous generation. Its nearest rivals in benchmark suite—GTX 1630, Arc A350M, GTX 780 Ti, RTX 2080 SUPER—all sit between –2% and –1% of performance, so the 6600 XT is not a recipe for a bottleneck. The RTX 2080 SUPER’s 1.1% better score indicates that even older cards in the same class are competitive, indirectly confirming that the CPU is the primary friction point in Valorant.

The measured impact of the GPU appears mostly at high resolutions; the RT cores are irrelevant here, and the base 1968 MHz clock rarely starts boosting under this load. Launch MSRP was 379 USD for the GPU, while the CPU listed at $196, indicating the combo’s overall cost structure—though not necessarily its qualitative.

📊 Measured FPS Breakdown

1920×1080

• Low: 552 FPS average. This is the top measured performance for any setting/resolution.
• Medium: 392 average with a minimum of 333 and max 451. Smooth across the board.
• High: 373 average.
• Ultra: 355 average.

2560×1440

• Low: 507 FPS average – closing in on the 1080p Low outcome.
• Medium: 334 average (min 284, max 384).

• High: 318 average.
• Ultra: 303 average.

3840×2160

• Low: 406 FPS average – still well above 360.
• Medium: 267 average (min 227–307). This is the first scenario that approaches a 240 Hz.
• High: 255 average.
• Ultra: 242 average – the lowest recorded in the entire set, but still comfortably supports 144 Hz.

The trend across all resolutions is consistent: Low gives the highest double-digit improvement via Medium (e.g., 552 to 402, a ~37. Data for min/max only for Medium might hint at frame-time variation under higher fidelity, but the averages are stable across the board.

The combo is fundamentally a high refresh rate machine, with not even the most demanding 4K Ultra preset dipping below 242 FPS, which is a threshold only the most powerful GPUs usually touch in older esports titles. The i5-13400F’s strong single-threading, paired with the RX 6600 XT’s impressive memory bandwidth, proves overkill for Valorant at any resolution but ensures the GPU is rarely the last visual line.