Valorant

Resolution Scaling

Valorant is a competitive FPS, and the data for this combination of Intel Core i5-13400F and NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2060 SUPER shows just how far the engine can stretch. The benchmark results show a clear pattern: this game is not GPU-bound until you push to the highest resolutions. At 1920x1080 with Low settings, the average frame rate hits 552.4 FPS. When the resolution climbs to 3840x2160, the same Low preset drops to 404 FPS. That is a reduction of approximately 27%, which is substantial but still leaves the system far beyond the threshold of competitive play.

The scaling from 1080p to 4K tells a more interesting story about the bottleneck. At 1080p High, the average is 374.2 FPS. At 1440p High, it drops to 317.4 FPS. At 4K High, it reaches 251.6 FPS. The frame rate penalty from 1080p to 1440p is roughly 15%, and from 1440p to 4K it is roughly 21%. In a less CPU-sensitive game, the drop from 1440p to 4K would be larger, as the GPU would be fully saturated. Here, the relatively modest penalty suggests that the processor is still doing heavy lifting even at 4K, keeping frame rates high despite the increased pixel count.

The Low preset data reinforces this analysis. The gap between 1080p Low (552.4 FPS) and 1440p Low (507.3 FPS) is only about 8%. This is a small margin for a 78% increase in pixel count. When the GPU is under less load, the CPU becomes the primary limiter, and the i5-13400F's performance ceiling is what holds the system to just over 500 FPS. At 4K Low, the 404 FPS result is still exceptionally high, proving that even at 4K, this GPU can handle Valorant's low-fidelity geometry with ease.

The data indicates that the RTX 2060 SUPER is not the limiting component in most scenarios. The GPU's percentile ranking among all GPUs is 63, and its average benchmark score is 19774. The CPU, by contrast, sits at the 82nd percentile with an average score of 25236. The system is performing near the top of its class, but the frame rate ceiling at lower settings is a function of the processor's single-thread performance and memory subsystem, not the graphics card. The key takeaway is that users seeking maximum frame rates should focus on CPU performance, while those playing at 4K Ultra will still see excellent numbers, with 242.1 FPS being the lowest result recorded across all configurations.

FAQ

Q: What is the highest average frame rate recorded for this combination?

A: The highest average frame rate in the measured data is 552.4 FPS, achieved at 1920x1080 resolution with the Low settings preset.

Q: How much faster is the Low preset compared to Ultra at 1440p?

A: At 2560x1440, the Low preset averages 507.3 FPS, while the Ultra preset averages 301.5 FPS. This means the Low preset is approximately 68% faster than Ultra at the same resolution.

Q: Does the system maintain high frame rates at 4K?

A: Yes. Even at 3840x2160 with Ultra settings, the average frame rate is 242.1 FPS. The lowest recorded average across all settings at 4K is 242.1 FPS, which is still well above standard high-refresh-rate monitors.

Q: What is the performance difference between 1080p and 4K on High settings?

A: On High settings, the system averages 374.2 FPS at 1080p and 251.6 FPS at 4K. The 4K result is roughly 33% lower than the 1080p result.

Q: How does this CPU compare to its nearest rivals in general benchmarks?

A: The Intel Core i5-13400F has an average benchmark score of 25236. Its nearest rival, the Intel Core i7-13620H, scores 25201, which is a 0.1% difference. The AMD Ryzen 5 5600X3D scores 25365, putting it 0.5% ahead of the i5-13400F.

Q: What is the GPU's standing relative to other graphics cards?

A: The NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2060 SUPER has an average benchmark score of 19774, placing it in the 63rd percentile of all GPUs. Its closest competitor, the NVIDIA GeForce GTX TITAN, scores 19706, which is a 0.3% difference.

GPU Role

The RTX 2060 SUPER is the graphics component in this pairing, and its specifications define the visual boundaries of the system. The GPU is built on the Turing architecture and uses the TU106 chip, fabricated on a 12 nm process at TSMC. It houses 2176 shading units, 136 texture mapping units, and 64 raster output units. The card also includes 34 ray tracing cores and 272 tensor cores, though Valorant does not utilize these features in the measured results. The texture rate is 224.4 GTexel/s, and the pixel rate is 105.6 GPixel/s, which are more than sufficient for a competitive title like Valorant.

Memory configuration is a key factor for high-resolution play. The card comes with 8 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 256-bit bus, delivering 448.0 GB/s of bandwidth. The memory clock is listed as 1750 MHz, translating to 14 Gbps effective. For a game like Valorant, which is not graphically intensive, this memory bandwidth is overkill. The measured results support this: the difference between 1080p and 4K on the same preset is significant but not dramatic, indicating that the GPU's memory subsystem is never saturated. The 8 GB capacity is also ample, as Valorant's texture pools are modest.

The GPU's clock speeds are a more relevant metric for this game. The base clock is 1470 MHz, and the boost clock is 1650 MHz. In a game that is light on shader complexity, these clocks directly influence frame rates. The fact that the system reaches 552.4 FPS at 1080p Low shows that the GPU can process the simple geometry at very high speed. However, the GPU's overall performance percentile is 63, which is lower than the CPU's 82nd percentile. This suggests that in synthetic workloads, the GPU is a mid-range part, but in Valorant specifically, it is not the limiting factor until 4K with higher settings.

The GPU's role is further clarified by its average benchmark score of 19774. Its nearest rivals include the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2070, which scores 19680, a 0.5% difference. The performance delta is minimal, meaning the RTX 2060 SUPER is positioned just below the RTX 2070 in raw compute. In Valorant, this translates to a card that can push 4K Ultra at 242.1 FPS, a result that would be considered excellent for any modern competitive shooter. The power draw is rated at 175 W, and the card requires a single 8-pin power connector, with a suggested power supply of 450 W. This makes it a straightforward drop-in for most gaming systems.

Measured FPS Breakdown

The measured frame rates are presented across three resolutions and four settings presets, providing a comprehensive view of performance.

At 1920x1080, the system performs at its peak. The Low preset yields an average of 552.4 FPS. Moving to Medium, the average drops to 389 FPS, a reduction of 30%. High settings produce 374.2 FPS, which is only 4% lower than Medium. Ultra settings bring the average down to 356.4 FPS. The scaling from Low to Ultra at 1080p is a 35% performance penalty, which is substantial but leaves the system far above the refresh rates of most competitive monitors.

At 2560x1440, the same pattern holds, but the absolute numbers are lower. The Low preset averages 507.3 FPS. Medium settings drop to 329.5 FPS, which is 35% lower than Low. High settings come in at 317.4 FPS, and Ultra at 301.5 FPS. The difference between High and Ultra at 1440p is only 5%, suggesting diminishing returns for the highest preset. The transition from 1080p to 1440p on the Low preset only reduces frame rates by 8%, indicating the CPU is still the dominant factor at this resolution.

At 3840x2160, the GPU starts to take on more responsibility. The Low preset averages 404 FPS, which is still incredibly high. Medium settings drop to 264 FPS, a 35% reduction from Low. High settings average 251.6 FPS, and Ultra averages 242.1 FPS. The gap between Medium and Ultra at 4K is 8%, showing that the GPU is becoming more strained as pixel count increases. The total range at 4K, from 404 FPS on Low to 242.1 FPS on Ultra, represents a 40% swing, the largest of any resolution tested.

The data also reveals the impact of settings on frame rates. Across all resolutions, the Low preset is always the fastest, and Ultra is always the slowest. The Medium preset is consistently close to High, with less than a 5% difference at 1080p and 1440p. The largest single-step drop is always from Low to Medium, averaging around 32% across all resolutions. This indicates that the Medium preset introduces significant visual effects that tax the GPU, while the step from Medium to Ultra is less demanding.

Settings Recommendations

Based on the measured frame rates, the optimal settings depend on the target display refresh rate. For users with 360 Hz monitors, the 1080p Low preset is the only configuration that guarantees frame rates above 500 FPS, with an average of 552.4 FPS. This preset maximizes competitive advantage by minimizing visual clutter and latency. The 1440p Low preset also clears the 500 FPS threshold with 507.3 FPS, making it a viable option for high-refresh 1440p panels.

For users with 240 Hz displays, more visual fidelity is available without sacrificing performance. At 1080p, the Medium preset averages 389 FPS, and High averages 374.2 FPS, both well above 240 FPS. Even Ultra at 1080p, with 356.4 FPS, leaves headroom. At 1440p, Medium (329.5 FPS) and High (317.4 FPS) both comfortably exceed 240 FPS. The 4K resolution is the only place where 240 Hz becomes challenging, with Ultra averaging 242.1 FPS, which barely clears the mark but may dip under in heavy combat.

For users with standard 144 Hz monitors, the system offers immense flexibility. At 1080p, every preset, from Low to Ultra, exceeds 350 FPS, meaning the user can enable maximum visual quality without any risk of dropping below the refresh rate. At 1440p, even the Ultra preset (301.5 FPS) is more than double the 144 Hz threshold. At 4K, the High preset (251.6 FPS) and Ultra preset (242.1 FPS) both provide a comfortable margin over 144 Hz, making 4K gaming viable with near-maximum settings.

The best experience per the measured rows is the High preset. It offers a balanced visual upgrade over Low and Medium while staying within 5% of Medium's frame rate at all resolutions. At 1440p High, the system averages 317.4 FPS, which is ideal for high-refresh monitors. At 4K High, the 251.6 FPS result is excellent for a competitive title. The Ultra preset provides only marginal visual improvements over High, as indicated by the small frame rate deltas, and is only recommended for users who prioritize image quality over maximum frame rates and have a 144 Hz monitor.

The data suggests avoiding the Medium preset. It offers no meaningful visual benefit over High, but it does result in lower frame rates at every resolution. For example, at 1080p, Medium (389 FPS) is slightly faster than High (374.2 FPS), but the difference is negligible, and High likely includes better texture filtering and shadow quality. The Low preset remains the go-to for esports purists seeking the highest possible frame rates, but for most users, High provides the best combination of visual fidelity and performance.