Valorant

Valorant is a title where high frame rates are the primary goal, and the Intel Core i5-13400F paired with the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 delivers a performance profile that is defined more by the CPU than the GPU. The data set for this combo shows a system that is firmly positioned in the lower echelons of tested hardware, yet it manages to produce playable and often very high frame rates due to the game's efficient engine. The following analysis breaks down the measured performance data, contextualizes the component roles, and offers practical settings guidance based strictly on the recorded figures.

How This Combo Ranks

Within the benchmark database, this specific combination of the Intel Core i5-13400F and the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 holds a combo rank of 3556 out of 3708 tested combinations for Valorant. This places the system in the bottom 5% of all tested configurations, indicating that while it is fully capable of running the game, it is outclassed by a significant majority of other hardware pairings in the database. This low ranking is primarily attributable to the GPU's modest performance tier, which anchors the system's overall standing despite the CPU's much stronger relative position.

The CPU itself, however, is a different story. The Core i5-13400F achieves an average benchmark score of 25292, which places it in the 77th percentile of all tested CPUs. This is a strong showing, indicating that the processor is a high-performing component in its own right. Its nearest rivals in the synthetic benchmarks are the AMD Ryzen 9 6900HS (scoring 25284, a 0% delta), the Intel Core 5 120 (scoring 25362, a -0.3% delta), and the AMD Ryzen 5 5600X3D (scoring 25365, a -0.3% delta). The performance deltas between these chips are negligible, all within 0.4% of each other, which suggests that the i5-13400F's processing power is very much in line with these other competitive options.

The GPU tells a contrasting tale. The GeForce GTX 1650 has an average benchmark score of 7472, placing it in the 40th percentile of all GPUs. Its nearest rivals are the AMD Radeon HD 8850M (scoring 7447, a 0.3% delta), the Intel UHD Graphics 750 (scoring 7441, a 0.4% delta), and the AMD Radeon R7 350 (scoring 7425, a 0.6% delta). Interestingly, it also sits close to the Intel Arc A310, which scores 7550, representing a -1% delta for the GTX 1650. This places the GTX 1650 in a performance tier with integrated graphics and older entry-level discrete cards, which explains the low combo ranking. In Valorant, this combination means the CPU is significantly more capable than the GPU, a dynamic that heavily influences the performance scaling seen at different resolutions and settings.

GPU Role

The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 is built on the Turing architecture using the TU117 chip, fabricated on a 12 nm process by TSMC. It is a dual-slot card with a board length of 229 mm and a total of 896 shading units, 56 texture mapping units, and 32 raster output units. The card operates with a base clock of 1485 MHz and a boost clock of 1665 MHz. Its memory subsystem consists of 4 GB of GDDR5 memory on a 128-bit bus, running at 2001 MHz (effectively 8 Gbps) to provide a bandwidth of 128.1 GB/s. This configuration results in a pixel rate of 53.28 GPixel/s and a texture rate of 93.24 GTexel/s, with an FP32 performance of 2.984 TFLOPS.

For Valorant, the GTX 1650's role is that of a limiting factor, particularly as resolution and graphical demands increase. The GPU's 4 GB VRAM is not heavily taxed by a game like Valorant, but the sheer computational throughput of the card is the bottleneck. The data shows that the GTX 1650 performs best when the load is reduced. At 1080p with Low settings, the system achieves an average of 285 FPS, but this is likely a scenario where the CPU is doing most of the work, and the GPU is still keeping up. However, as settings are raised to Ultra at 1080p, the average drops to 170 FPS, illustrating the GPU's increasing workload. The GPU's 40th percentile ranking among all GPUs and its close benchmark scores to integrated solutions like the Intel UHD Graphics 750 underscore its entry-level status, making it the clear performance ceiling for this combo.

Resolution Scaling

The impact of the GPU as the bottleneck becomes starkly evident when analyzing performance scaling from 1080p to 4K. The measured FPS data shows a substantial performance penalty as resolution increases, which is a classic indicator of a GPU-bound system at higher resolutions.

At 1080p Low settings, the combo produces an average of 285 FPS. Moving to 1440p Low, that average falls to 243 FPS, a drop of 42 FPS. At 4K Low, the average further declines to 194 FPS. This pattern is consistent across all settings. For High settings, the progression is 179 FPS (1080p) to 152 FPS (1440p) to 122 FPS (4K). The Medium settings show a similar trend: 188 FPS (1080p), 160 FPS (1440p), and 128 FPS (4K). Finally, Ultra settings produce 170 FPS (1080p), 145 FPS (1440p), and 116 FPS (4K).

The consistent and significant FPS drops at each resolution step indicate that the GTX 1650 is the primary limiting component. As the number of pixels to render increases, the GPU's workload scales correspondingly, and its performance degrades in a linear fashion. The CPU, which is powerful enough to handle the game's logic at any of these resolutions, is not the constraining factor in these higher-resolution scenarios. The data suggests that users targeting the highest refresh rates should stay at 1080p, while 4K is still playable but with a significant reduction in frame rate that might not be ideal for competitive play.

Measured FPS Breakdown

The measured FPS data provides a granular look at the combo's performance across all tested resolutions and settings. The dataset includes average FPS, and for Medium settings, it also provides minimum and maximum FPS figures.

1080p (1920x1080):

• Low: Average FPS is 285. This is the highest performance point in the entire dataset, indicating a scenario where the system is able to stretch its legs.
• Medium: Average FPS is 188, with a minimum of 159 and a maximum of 216. The variance of 57 FPS between min and max suggests some frame pacing inconsistency under this load.
• High: Average FPS is 179. This is a solid performance level, still well above the 144 FPS threshold for high refresh rate monitors.
• Ultra: Average FPS is 170. The difference between High and Ultra is only 9 FPS, suggesting that the Ultra preset adds graphical features that are not overly taxing on the GPU at this resolution.

1440p (2560x1440):

• Low: Average FPS is 243. This remains exceptionally high, showing that even at a higher resolution, the game is very playable on Low settings.
• Medium: Average FPS is 160, with a minimum of 136 and a maximum of 184. The minimum FPS of 136 is still above 120, ensuring a smooth experience on most displays.
• High: Average FPS is 152. This is a noticeable step down from 1080p High, highlighting the GPU's growing workload.
• Ultra: Average FPS is 145. Performance remains stable, but the gap between High and Ultra narrows further, with only a 7 FPS difference.

4K (3840x2160):

• Low: Average FPS is 194. Even at 4K, Low settings provide a frame rate that is highly competitive. This shows the game's scalability.
• Medium: Average FPS is 128, with a minimum of 109 and a maximum of 147. The minimum FPS here is the lowest recorded in the dataset, but it still provides a playable experience.
• High: Average FPS is 122. This is a substantial drop from the 152 FPS seen at 1440p High, showing a 30 FPS penalty for moving to 4K.
• Ultra: Average FPS is 116. This is the lowest average FPS recorded, but it remains above 60, ensuring the game is still playable, albeit not at high refresh rates.

CPU Role

The Intel Core i5-13400F is a 10-core, 16-thread processor from the Raptor Lake generation, built on a 10 nm process. It has a base clock of 2.50 GHz and a boost clock of 4.60 GHz, with a 65 W TDP. The CPU features a hybrid architecture with 80 KB of L1 cache per core, 1.25 MB of L2 cache per core, and a shared 20 MB L3 cache. It supports both DDR4 and DDR5 memory in a dual-channel configuration and connects via PCIe Gen 5 with 16 lanes.

In Valorant, the CPU's role is to handle game logic, physics, and the simulation of the game world. The i5-13400F's strong single-threaded performance, evidenced by a 3dmark_single_thread score of 960 and a passmark_single_thread score of 3634, is crucial for achieving high frame rates in an FPS title. The benchmark data supports this, as the system is able to produce very high frame rates at 1080p Low, where the GPU is less of a bottleneck. The CPU's 77th percentile ranking and its near-identical average score to rivals like the Ryzen 9 6900HS indicate that it is not the limiting factor in most scenarios tested.

The data shows that the CPU is capable of feeding the GPU at all tested resolutions. If the CPU were the bottleneck, we would expect to see similar frame rates regardless of resolution or settings, which is not the case. Instead, we see a clear decline in performance as resolution increases, which is a hallmark of GPU limitation. The CPU's power is also reflected in its 3dmark_16_threads score of 7314 and its cinebench_r23_multicore score of 22604, which demonstrate substantial multi-threaded capabilities that are more than sufficient for Valorant's demands.

FAQ

Q: What is the best resolution for this combo to achieve the highest frame rates?

A: The data shows that 1920x1080 (1080p) provides the highest frame rates across all settings. At Low settings, the average FPS is 285, which is significantly higher than the 243 FPS at 1440p and 194 FPS at 4K.

Q: Is the CPU or GPU the primary bottleneck for this system in Valorant?

A: The GPU is the primary bottleneck. Evidence for this is that performance drops consistently and significantly as resolution increases, from 1080p to 1440p to 4K, indicating the GPU's rendering workload is the limiting factor. The CPU's high percentile ranking (77th) and strong single-thread scores suggest it is not the constraint.

Q: Can this system maintain a stable 144 FPS at 1440p?

A: At 1440p, the system averages above 144 FPS only on Low settings (243 FPS). On Medium settings, the average is 160 FPS, but the minimum FPS recorded is 136, which dips below 144. High and Ultra settings average 152 and 145 FPS respectively, but with no minimum FPS data, stability is less certain.

Q: How does the GTX 1650 compare to its closest rivals in synthetic benchmarks?

A: The GTX 1650 has an average benchmark score of 7472. Its closest rival is the Intel Arc A310 with a score of 7550, representing a -1% delta. It is also close to the AMD Radeon HD 8850M (7447, +0.3%), Intel UHD Graphics 750 (7441, +0.4%), and AMD Radeon R7 350 (7425, +0.6%).

Q: What is the minimum FPS recorded for the Medium preset at 1080p?

A: At 1920x1080 with Medium settings, the minimum FPS recorded is 159, with an average of 188 and a maximum of 216.

Q: Is the combo more powerful than the average CPU or GPU in the database?

A: The Intel Core i5-13400F performs better than 77% of all CPUs in the database. However, the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 only performs better than 40% of all GPUs, indicating the GPU is below average while the CPU is above average.

Settings Recommendations

Based on the measured FPS data, the optimal settings depend on the user's performance goals and display capabilities.

For users with a 1080p 144Hz monitor, the High preset is the best choice. It delivers an average FPS of 179, which provides a comfortable margin above the 144 FPS refresh rate, ensuring a smooth and responsive experience. The Ultra preset is also viable, with an average of 170 FPS, but the 9 FPS difference over High is likely not worth the potential for slightly lower minimums. The Low preset provides the highest frame rate at 285 FPS, but it sacrifices visual quality for a performance margin that is unnecessary for most 144Hz displays.

For users with a 1440p monitor, the Low preset is recommended for competitive play, as it is the only setting that guarantees an average above 200 FPS (243 FPS). The Medium preset offers a good balance with an average of 160 FPS, but the minimum FPS of 136 could lead to occasional dips below 144. The High preset, with an average of 152 FPS, is also viable, but users should be prepared for potential frame rate fluctuations.

For 4K gaming, the Low preset is the recommended choice. It provides an average of 194 FPS, which is surprisingly high and suitable for high refresh rate 4K displays. The Medium preset, with an average of 128 FPS, is acceptable for 120Hz displays, but the minimum FPS of 109 might be noticeable in fast-paced action. The High and Ultra presets are playable, with averages of 122 and 116 FPS respectively, but they are best suited for users with 60Hz or 120Hz displays who prioritize visual fidelity over raw speed.