Valorant

The Intel Core i5-13400F and AMD Radeon RX 6800 XT pairing delivers a wide spread of frame rates in Valorant, from a 592 FPS average at 1080p Low to a 77 FPS average at 4K Ultra. The measured results indicate a combination that scales strongly with resolution and settings, but which is clearly CPU-bound at low resolutions and GPU-bound at high resolutions. This analysis breaks down the data from the benchmark database for this exact set of components and game preset combinations.

Resolution Scaling

The scaling pattern from 1080p to 4K is heavily resolution-dependent. At 1080p Low, the combo reaches 592 FPS average, while at 1440p Low it drops to 374 FPS, and further to 195 FPS at 4K Low. That progression shows a 218 FPS drop from 1080p to 1440p (a 37% reduction by simple arithmetic) and a 179 FPS drop from 1440p to 4K (a 48% reduction). The data shows the scaling slows slightly at higher resolutions, but the absolute loss is still large.

Look at the High preset across resolutions: 372 FPS at 1080p, 235 FPS at 1440p, and 123 FPS at 4K. That represents a 147 FPS drop when moving from 1080p to 1440p, then a 112 FPS drop from 1440p to 4K. The 4K result is only about a third of the 1080p result, even though the pixel count is four times. This indicates that at 1080p the CPU is the primary limiter, while deeper resolutions gradually shift the workload onto the GPU.

The Ultra preset shows the most pronounced drop: 233 FPS at 1080p, 147 FPS at 1440p, and 77 FPS at 4K. That 4K result is less than half of the 1080p Ultra frame time. Low settings at 4K (195 FPS) actually outperform High settings at 1080p (123 FPS), which suggests the setting preset often matters as much as the resolution in determining performance.

CPU Role

The Intel Core i5-13400F belongs to the Raptor Lake generation, built on Intel’s 10 nm process (listed as such in the pack). It packs 10 cores and 16 threads, with a 2.50 GHz base clock and a 4.60 GHz boost clock. Its L3 cache is 20 MB shared, and the rated cache per core is 1.25 MB L2 and 80 KB L1. This CPU is a desktop part with a TDP of 65 W, compatible with the Intel Socket LGA1700 platform and supports both DDR4 and DDR5 memory.

The measured benchmark scores provide context. In a 3DMark single-thread test it scores 960, and in Cinebench R23 single-core it reaches 3191 points. Those single-thread numbers are relevant for Valorant, which in this dataset runs far faster at 1080p Low (592 FPS) than at 4K Ultra (77 FPS), suggesting that the CPU can sustain extremely high draw-call throughput when the GPU is not the bottleneck. In multithreaded tests, the CPU shows a Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 22604 and a 3DMark 16-thread score of 7314. The core count of 10 cores / 16 threads is likely more than enough for the game’s engine, but the actual limit is often the single-thread clock.

The academic benchmark compares the CPU. The i5-13400F sits in the 77th percentile of all CPUs, with an average benchmark score of 25292. Its nearest rivals in the pack are: AMD Ryzen 9 6900HS (avgScore 25284, deltaPct 0), Intel Core 5 120 (avgScore 25362, deltaPct -0.3), AMD Ryzen 5 5600X3D (avgScore 25365, deltaPct -0.3), and AMD Ryzen 7 6800H (avgScore 25201, deltaPct 0.4). So it sits basically even with the Ryzen 9 6900HS and is about 0.3% behind the Intel Core 5 120 and the Ryzen 5 5600X3D. This indicates the i5-13400F is competitive at its tier, though not the absolute top performer in the list.

The CPU’s launch MSRP is $196. (Neither the value prop nor any cost analysis is part of this summary.) The measured frame rates show that the 4.60 GHz boost clock, combined with a robust 3DMark single-thread score of 960, is sufficient to maintain a near-600-frame average at 1080p Low.

GPU Role

The AMD Radeon RX 6800 XT is built on RDNA 2.0 architecture (Navi 21 chip) and uses a 7 nm TSMC process. It packs 4608 shading units, 288 texture units, and 128 ROPs, with a base clock of 1825 MHz and a boost clock of 2250 MHz. The framebuffer is 16 GB of GDDR6 type (with 256-bit bus and 512.0 GB/s memory bandwidth). Its FP36 throughput is rated at 20.74 TFLOPS, and it has 72 ray-tracing cores.

When the GPU is heavily stressed – as in the 4K Ultra benchmark – the frame rate drops to 77 FPS. This is almost certainly the GPU limit. At 1080p Low, the measured 592 FPS is far above what the GPU can possibly produce by itself; the GPU is unquestionably not a chunk of the raw limit. Instead, at low resolution, the CPU is the pole. At 1080p Ultra, the measured 233 FPS average, which sits higher than the 4K Ultra (77 FPS) but far below the 1080p Low outcome, indicates that settings – not resolution – determine whether the GPU is the hop point.

The GPU maintains a 85th percentile percentile rating and its average benchmark score is 48477. Its nearest rivals include the NVIDIA RTX A1000 Mobile (avgScore 47743, deltaPct 1.5), Intel Arc A550M (avgScore 49737, deltaPct -2.5), and NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5070 Ti (avgScore 49957, deltaPct -3). The RX 6800 XT holds a clear margin over the RTX A1000 Mobile (about 1.5% faster) but trails the RTX 5070 Ti by about 1.5%, and is behind the Intel Arc A550M and RTX 5070 Ti by -2.5% and -3% respectively. Its 16 GB VRAM and 512.0 GB/s bandwidth provide substantial headroom; the benchmark results show a DirectX 12 PassMark score of 100 (note this is that specific test), but the overall GPU score is in the top percentile.

The GPU’s launch MSRP is $649 USD. The data from this pairing indicates the GPU becomes the constraining factor only when the resolution asks it to fill that kind of pixel fill rate, which is exactly what the 4K Ultra result (77 FPS) depicts.

Measured FPS Breakdown

The following table lays out the exact measured averages from the dataset, along with the measured minima and maxima for Medium settings. The numbers are directly from the FACT PACK and are given in frames per second (FPS).

| Resolution | Settings | Avg FPS | Min / Max (if present) |

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

| 1920x1080 | Low | 592 | — |

| 1920x1080 | Medium | 469 | 399 / 539 |

| 1920x1080 | High | 372 | — |

| 1920x1080 | Ultra | 233 | — |

| 2560x1440 | Low | 374 | — |

| 2560x1440 | Medium | 296 | 252 / 340 |

| 2560x1440 | High | 235 | — |

| 2560x1440 | Ultra | 147 | — |

| 3840x2160 | Low | 195 | — |

| 3840x2160 | Medium | 155 | 131 / 178 |

| 3840x2160 | High | 123 | — |

| 3840x2160 | Ultra | 77 | — |

The data shows that every increase in resolution reduces the average FPS for a given settings preset. The spread between presets is also interesting. With r = 1920x1080, the gap between Low (592) and Ultra (233) is a 70 FPS difference. At 4K, the Low-to-Ultra difference is from 195 down to 77 – a broader relative drop. The 4K Medium data also includes the only min/max data in the 4K set, with a 155 FPS average, and minimum 131 FPS and maximum 178 FPS. That range (47 FPS of disparity) hints that even the Medium settings at 4K is subject to engine frame-pacing variation. These numbers reflect a combo that can achieve a silky-smooth 1080p Ultra experience at 233 FPS, while at 4K Ultra it hovers just above 60 FPS.

How This Combo Ranks

The database reports a combination rank of 3214 for Valorant among 3708 tested combos. That rank places this pairing in the lower tier of tested combinations, meaning the vast majority of rival system configurations in the database appear on a lower rank (i.e., a better numerical score). It is notably the measured FPS values themselves are not weighted into the ranking calculation, and the rank may be influenced by how the test methodology samples each individual component performance. Still, the rank indicates that for this title specifically, a higher-performing combo – one that likely leverages newer or more specialized cores – is common.

The CPU’s and GPU's individual placings (77th and 85th percentiles respectively) do not translate into a top-tier tier combined rank when the game requires a very high frame rate, such as this competitive shooter. However, the frame rates actually measured in-game are far from unusable; a 592 FPS average at 1080p Low is excellent for a 144–165 Hz monitor, and even the 4K Ultra result (77 FPS) is. It appears that the ranking algorithm incorporates factors beyond raw FPS, such as frequency of bad frame, but the dataset does not provide a deeper redo. The combo sits at rank 3214 out of 3708 precisely, and no outside data should be read in.

FAQ

Q: At which resolution does this system deliver the greatest average FPS?

A: The highest average FPS is achieved at 1920x1080 with Low settings, where the measured average reaches 592 FPS. Caption: The lowest average FPS is at 4K Ultra, where the # 77 average is seen.

Q: What frame rate is this system expected to produce in Valorant at 1080p High settings?

A: According to the measured data, the 1920x1080 High preset yields an average of 372 FPS. That value is surpassed by the 1080p Medium preset (469 FPS) and the 1080p Low preset (592 FPS).

Q: Is the RX 6800 – XT sufficient for 4K gaming in Valorant?

A: The dataset shows a range of settings. At 4K Low, the card generates about 196 FPS average; at 4K Medium it averages 155 FPS; at 4K High it averages 43 FPS; and at 4K Ultra it drops to 77 FPS. All values exceed 60 FPS, indicating that the GPU can handle 4K, but the experience is softer when at High or Ultra preset.

Q: Is Valorant more CPU-bound or GPU-bound for this combination?

A: The data shows high FPS at 1080p (592 FPS on Low), which far exceeds the GPU's raw capacity at that resolution; the mark is constrained by the CPU. As the resolution increases to 4K, the GPU usage scales and the FPS declines notably (195 at Low, 155 at Medium, 123 at High, 77 at Ultra), reflecting that the GPU becomes the dominant limiter at 4K.

Q: What are the minimum and maximum FPS recorded at 1440p with Medium settings?

A. For 2560x1440 at Medium, the minimum FPS is 252 and the maximum is 340, with an average of 296 FPS. The same data point is also present for 1080p Medium (min 399, max 539, average 369) and 4K Medium (min 131, max 178, average 155).

Q: Is the i5-13400F on par with the Ryzen 7 6800H in any benchmark?

A: The database lists the i5-13400F’s nearest CPU rival, the Ryzen 7 6800H, as having an average score of 25201, which is 0.4% faster than the i5-13400F's own 25292 average. The Intel CPU is within 0.4% of the Ryzen part, and also within 0.3% of the Intel Core 5 120. The data shows no significant difference, but with the i5-13400F having a higher single-thread 3DMark lock at 960 compared to data that’s not specifically broken by rival.