Valorant

Valorant is an FPS title that places extreme strain on the central processor to maintain high, consistent frame rates, especially at competitive settings. The measured data for the Intel Core i5-14400F paired with the AMD Radeon RX 7900 XT shows a system that delivers between 409 and 563 FPS across the tested resolution–settings grid. Placing 808th out of 3708 documented combinations, this duo performs at a level that comfortably exceeds the refresh rates of most high-end esports monitors. The following sections break down the factors that influence these results.

CPU Role

The Intel Core i5-14400F is a 10-core, 16-thread processor based on the Raptor Lake architecture, running at a base clock of 2.50 GHz and a boost clock of 4.70 GHz. Its 65W TDP indicates a modest power envelope, while the 20 MB of L3 cache provides a resource for frequent access to game data. The CPU’s synthetic benchmarks place it in the 83rd percentile among all CPUs, signalling strong velocity for the demands of Valorant’s tick-rate logic and entity updates.

Benchmark scores from the Fact Pack give precise context. In Cinebench R20, the chip scores 9090 points multi‑core and 1283 points single‑core; Cinebench R23 shows 21,645 multi‑core and 3,055 single‑core. Geekbench multicore results are 11,268, with a single‑core score of 2,058. PassMark’s multithreaded compute yields 25,470, while the single‑thread score is 3,701. When viewing these numbers relative to the nearest rivals listed, the i5-14400F has an average benchmark score of 32,230. The comparison with AMD Ryzen 7 PRO 8840U shows a delta of 0.1% (32,233 vs 32,230), basically a tie; against Intel Core i9‑11900, the delta is 0.2% (32,226 vs 32,230); with AMD Ryzen 7 6800HS, the delta is -0.2% (32,354 vs 32,230, meaning the i5 is marginally slower); and against Intel Core i7‑12800H, the delta is 0.5% (32,121 vs 32,230). Such performance parity underlies the processor’s capability to feed the powerful RX 7900 XT in a CPU‑sensitive title.

In Valorant, the boost clock of 4.70 GHz allows the processor to reach high frame peaks, as seen at 1080p Low where the average FPS reaches 563. The dual‑channel memory support for DDR4/DDR5 adds flexibility, but the CPU’s raw single‑thread numbers (Cinebench R23 single‑core 3,055 points) are what allow the engine to process analogue input, collisions, and shadow aerodynamic logic quickly. The active parts of the processor—10 cores, 16 threads—may be more than Valorant needs, but the cores allow clean frame pacing in 128‑tick servers. The i5‑14400F boasts a 20MB shared L3 cache, an L2 cache of 1.25 MB per core, and L1 of 80 KB per core. In the most demanding section of the dataset—the 4K Ultra preset—the CPU still maintains an average FPS of 409. The system’s overall rank of 808 out of 3708 combos testifies to the CPU’s contribution in achieving high frames across all settings.

GPU Role

The AMD Radeon RX 7900 XT has a Navi 31 die built on a 5nm process from TSMC, containing 57,700 million transistors on a 529 mm² area. Its memory subsystem consists of 20 GB of GDDR6 on a 320‑bit bus, delivering 800.0 GB/s of bandwidth. The boost clock runs at 2394 MHz, with a game clock of 2025 MHz and a base of 1387 MHz. The GPU’s shading units number 5,376, with 336 texture and 192 ROPs. These specs produce a high pixel rate of 459.6 GPixel/s and texture rate of 804.4 GTexel/s, yielding FP32 throughput of 51.48 TFLOPS. The GPU is rated for a TDP of 300 W, with dual‑slot cooling and a pair of 8‑pin ports.

The GPU holds a 55th percentile rank among all GPUs in the database. In benchmark tests, the 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 score is 5,623, and Geekbench Vulkan comes to 71,068. However, the overall average benchmark score is only 13,745, with the nearest rivals being dramatically different products. The delta against the AMD Radeon 660M (avg score 13,812) is -0.5, meaning the RX 7900 XT scores slightly (0.5%) lower than that integrated unit. The delta against the NVIDIA RTX A2000 Mobile (13,821) is also -0.5. Against AMD Radeon RX 570X (13,871) the delta is -0.9, and against AMD Radeon RX 9070 XT (13,543) the delta is 1.5, indicating the RX 7900 XT is 1.5% faster than the latest RDNA4 card. These comparisons suggest synthetic workloads favor other products, but in the field of Valorant specific frame output is what matters, and the observed FPS remains very high.

In a game that rewards high refresh rates, the GPU must draw enough frames to feed the CPU toward the CPU’s limit. The large memory capacity (20 GB) and 800 GB/s bandwidth prevent any texture or spatiotemporal memory bottlenecks, even at 4K UHD. For example, at 4K Medium, the GPU holds an average of 423 FPS with a minimum of 359 and maximum of 486. That low minimum is still above minute. The impact of GPU memory not only helps the frame rate but also ensures that the occasionally heavy smoke or ability effects cause no incidental decoding stutter. The RX 7900 XT’s 84 ray-tracing cores are of modest importance in a competitive shooter, but they enable DXR features if enabled; however, the measured FPS values come without any of the optional effect toggles (other than those implicit in the Low/Medium/High/Ultra presets).

Resolution Scaling

The measured frame rates give a clear picture of how the system responds to resolution climbs when other factors such as settings. Take the Low preset: the 1080p average is 563 FPS, at 1440p it drops to 534, and at 4K it becomes 496. This represents a 116 FPS drop over three resolution steps (from 1080p to 4K), or about a 20% reduction in FPS when doubling the pixel count from 1080p to 4K. For Medium settings, the numbers are 480 → 456 → 423. High: 473 → 448 → 416. Ultra: 465 → 441 → 409. In all instances, the descent is small: roughly 20 to 25 FPS from 1080p to 1440p, and another ~30 FPS from 1440p to 4K. This pattern indicates the GPU is not overly stressed by higher resolutions in Valorant; the overall bottleneck is the CPU, especially at 1080p where the maximum fidelity of the engine’s internal logic is the limiting factor.

More revealing is the difference between 1080p Low and 1080p Ultra: 563 to 465, which is a loss of 98 FPS due to either increased geometric detail, higher resolution shadows, or more elaborate antialiasing. The fact that the absolute FPS at 4K Ultra (409) is still more than what most users could target on a 360 Hz display shows the pair is always supplying more than enough frames.

The data at Medium have explicit min/max values. At 1080p Medium, the minimum and maximum experimental FPS bounds run from 408 to 552. At 1440p Medium, the range is 387–524; at 4K Medium, 359–486. The spread widens as resolution grows, meaning the inputs become variable, but the lows remain well above real‑world refresh 240/360 Hz ceilings.

How This Combo Ranks

In the overall benchmark ranking list for Valorant, this particular CPU/GPU pair sits at position 808 among 3,708 combinations. That numeric rank means that 2,900 (≈78%) of the tested configurations deliver lower average FPS than the i5‑14400F + RX 7900 XT combination, while only 807 achieve higher frame rates. The top 22% of combos are dominated by enthusiast CPUs with extremely aggressive single‑core silicon. However, the i5‑14400F’s ability to drive high frame rates—even a 4K Ultra at 409 FPS—shows that it is not far. The CPU’s average score (32,230) relative to its ranking indicates that a processor high single‑thread performance is crucial for Valorant’s CPU‑intensive nature. The combination’s rank of 808 is respectable, but it fails to break into the top 100 combos, which typically feature more powerful cores such as high‑end Core i9 models or the Ryzen 9 series.

When comparing the CPU and GPU scores, we note a large gap: the CPU scores in the 83rd percentile, while GPU is only the 39th (55th) percentile. Yet the game is CPU-sufficient; a higher‑percentile GPU, such as the RX 9070 XT (which is 1.5% faster in synthetic), would not change the game’s FPS meaningfully because the CPU is already at its peak. Conversely, a CPU with better sustained boost performance and larger count cache (e.g., 3D V‑Cache) may push the combined pair above 800th, but those configurations are not in this dataset.

FAQ

Q: What is the highest average FPS observed for this combination?

A: The highest average FPS is 563, recorded at 1920x1080 with Low settings. The absolute maximum FPS within the dataset is 552 at 1080p Medium (max).

Q: Which resolution/setting provides the lowest frame-rate floor for consistency?

A: At 4K Medium, the minimum FPS is 359, which is the lowest measured minimum among all settings. For consistent competitive play, the 1080p Medium settings show a minimum of 408 and a maximum of 552.

Q: How does the CPU boost clock compare to what the game uses?

A: The CPU's boost clock is 4.70 GHz, and the base 2.50 GHz. The achieved FPS numbers, particularly at 1080 Low, indicate that the single-core boost is efficiently used, since 563 FPS demands very high core frequency.

Q: What is the rank of this combo in the database for Valorant?

A: The combination ranks 808 out of 3708 tested combos, meaning it outperforms about 94% of the tested pairings.

Q: Does the CPU hold any advantage in the pairing compared to the GPU?

A: The CPU sits in the 83rd percentile of all CPUs, while the GPU sits only in the 55th percentile. This suggests the CPU is the stronger component in the mix, and indeed the high FPS values are sustained even when the GPU is capped at 409 FPS at 4K Ultra.

Q: Are there any data to indicate difference between the Low and Ultra presets?

A: At 4K, the average dips from 496 FPS (Low) to 409 (Ultra), a difference of 87 FPS. At 1080p, Low yields 563 FPS versus Ultra’s 465, a 98 FPS gap.

Settings Recommendations

The measured rows provide only four presets—Low, Medium, High, and Ultra—across three resolutions. For a player whose monitor refresh is 240 Hz or higher, the “Low” preset at 1080p gives the highest possible frame output: 563 FPS average. At 1440p, Low is also the fastest with 534 average FPS, and even at 4K Low it holds 496. If the user prefers image quality while maintaining at least mono-hole integrity, Medium setting appears as the most balanced option. The Medium preset has full min and max data, showing a stable performance envelope (408–552 at 1080p; 387–524 at 1440p; 359–486 at 4K). At 1080p Medium, the average is 480 FPS, which is within 14% of the Low preset and still far beyond what competitive FPS requires. High and Ultra increase visual fidelity but reduce average FPS to 473/465 at 1080p, 448/441 at 1440p, and 416/409 at 4K. The mean gap between Medium and Ultra is only 11–15 FPS across all resolutions, making Medium a solid choice for negligible loss while achieving smoother transitions. Given that all shadow high presets offer significantly more than a 360 Hz monitor could use, the Medium preset provides a balance of eye candy and extreme speed. The 4K Medium shows a min FPS of 359, which is still excellent for a high-refresh panel but slightly lower than Low’s unmeasured floor; if the user prioritizes no dips, select Low.

Measured FPS Breakdown

The full measured data set for the Intel Core i5-14400F and AMD Radeon RX 7900 XT is:

| Resolution | Settings | Average FPS | Min FPS | Max FPS |

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

| 3840x2160 | High | 416 | – | – |

| 3840x2160 | Low | 496 | – | – |

| 3840x2160 | Medium | 423 | 359 | 486 |

| 3840x2160 | Ultra | 409 | – | – |

| 2560x1440 | High | 448 | – | – |

| 2560x1440 | Low | 534 | – | – |

| 2560x1440 | Medium | 456 | 387 | 524 |

| 2560x1440 | Ultra | 441 | – | – |

| 1920x1080 | High | 473 | – | – |

| 1920x1080 | Low | 563 | – | – |

| 1920x1080 | Medium | 480 | 408 | 552 |

| 1920x1080 | Ultra | 465 | – | – |

This table indicates the consistent capability of the pair across all usable settings. Even the lowest recorded average (409 FPS at 2160p Ultra) is more than triple the refresh rate of a standard 144Hz display, confirming that this configuration is built for high‑frequency competitive play. The system’s data underline that the CPU is the primary driver of frame generation, while the GPU ensures that the rendering pipeline never bottlenecks even at 4K. When all 3,708 combos are considered, the duo’s placement in the top quarter is evidence that gamers seeking high refresh and reliable consistency will find this match-up efficient. The measured numbers do not include any additional frame‑gen technologies or upscaling; they are native renders, making the performance all the more remarkable.