Valorant

How This Combo Ranks

The Core i5-14400F paired with the RTX 3070 ranks 1,024th out of 3,708 tested combinations in Valorant within the database. This places the combo in the upper third of all recorded configurations, roughly the 72nd percentile among tested pairs. The ranking reflects the substantial headroom both components show in this title, as the game's low absolute demands allow even mid-range hardware to post extremely high frame rates. The 1,024th position, while not near the top, is still a strong showing given that many higher-ranked combos use newer or more expensive parts.

The database records this combo as measured data, not simulated or extrapolated. That means the figures come directly from controlled runs at each resolution and settings preset. The measured FPS values, ranging from 326 at 4K Ultra to 563 at 1080p Low, confirm the pair delivers a consistently high-refresh experience across the board. For context, the CPU alone sits at the 83rd percentile among all processors in the database, while the GPU sits at the 61st percentile among all graphics cards. The gap between those two percentiles suggests the CPU has more relative strength than the GPU, yet in Valorant the balance works because the game leans heavily on single-thread performance and low-latency rendering.

The combo's rank also benefits from the game's engine being particularly responsive to high-clock CPUs. With a boost clock of 4.70 GHz and a strong single-core Cinebench R23 score of 3,055, the i5-14400F provides the kind of raw per-core throughput that Valorant's tick-rate and netcode demand. Meanwhile, the RTX 3070's 8 GB of GDDR6 memory and 448.0 GB/s bandwidth are more than sufficient for the game's modest texture and shader workloads. The result is a configuration that never appears to be GPU-limited at 1080p, and only begins to show mild GPU pressure at 4K.

CPU Role

The Intel Core i5-14400F uses the Raptor Lake architecture, specifically the Raptor Lake-R refresh, built on Intel's 10 nm process. It has 10 cores and 16 threads, with a base clock of 2.50 GHz and a boost clock of 4.70 GHz. The chip carries 20 MB of shared L3 cache, plus 1.25 MB of L2 per core and 80 KB of L1 per core. This cache hierarchy matters in Valorant because the game frequently re-evaluates the same small sets of map geometry and agent abilities; a larger L3 reduces memory latency and keeps frequently used data close to the execution units.

The CPU's Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 21,645 and single-core score of 3,055 indicate a balanced part. In Valorant, the single-core figure is the more relevant metric, as the game's main thread rarely scales beyond a few cores. The database's measured FPS at 1080p Low (563 average) versus 1080p Ultra (465 average) shows a 98 FPS drop when settings rise, but even the lower figure is far above any competitive threshold. That 563 FPS at Low suggests the CPU is capable of driving the game engine to very high frame rates when the GPU is not burdened with extra effects.

The i5-14400F's 65 W TDP and dual-channel DDR4 or DDR5 memory support mean the platform is flexible, but the measured results do not depend on memory type in the database. The chip's PassMark single-thread score of 3,701 and multi-thread score of 25,470 further confirm its position as a strong mid-range desktop part. In nearest-rival comparisons, the CPU's average benchmark score of 32,279 places it just 0.1% above the AMD Ryzen 7 PRO 8840U (32,233), 0.2% above the Intel Core i9-11900 (32,226), and 0.5% above the Intel Core i7-12800H (32,121). The AMD Ryzen 7 6800HS scores 32,354, which is 0.2% higher than the i5-14400F. These deltas are tiny, indicating the i5-14400F performs nearly identically to those laptops and older desktop parts in synthetic averages. In Valorant specifically, the boost clock of 4.70 GHz gives it an edge in frame pacing, as the game's responsiveness scales with maximum turbo frequency.

The CPU's integrated graphics are listed as N/A, so all rendering falls to the RTX 3070. The part also supports ECC memory, which is unusual for a consumer desktop chip, but that feature does not affect gaming performance. The 16 PCIe Gen 5 lanes from the CPU are more than enough for the GPU's PCIe 4.0 x16 interface, and the database shows no bandwidth bottleneck at any resolution tested.

FAQ

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

A: The highest average FPS is 563, achieved at 1920x1080 with Low settings. The next highest is 534 at 2560x1440 Low, followed by 496 at 3840x2160 Low.

Q: How does the combo perform at 4K Ultra compared to 1080p Low?

A: At 3840x2160 Ultra, the average FPS is 326. At 1920x1080 Low, it is 563. That is a 237 FPS difference, representing a 42% reduction in frame rate from the lowest settings at 1080p to the highest settings at 4K.

Q: Does the RTX 3070's 8 GB VRAM cause any issues in Valorant?

A: The database shows no VRAM-related issues. The measured FPS at 4K Ultra (326 average) is still far above playable levels, and the game's texture and shader workloads fit comfortably within the 8 GB GDDR6 memory, which has a bandwidth of 448.0 GB/s.

Q: What is the combo's rank among all tested configurations in this game?

A: The combo ranks 1,024th out of 3,708 tested combinations. This places it in the upper 27% of all recorded pairs, indicating strong overall performance for this title.

Q: How does the CPU's single-core performance compare to its nearest rivals?

A: The i5-14400F scores 3,055 in Cinebench R23 single-core. Its nearest rivals in average benchmark score are the AMD Ryzen 7 PRO 8840U (0.1% lower), Intel Core i9-11900 (0.2% lower), AMD Ryzen 7 6800HS (0.2% higher), and Intel Core i7-12800H (0.5% lower). All are within a fraction of a percent in synthetic terms.

Q: Which settings preset shows the smallest drop from 1080p to 4K?

A: The High preset drops from 473 FPS at 1080p to 342 FPS at 4K, a 131 FPS reduction. The Low preset drops from 563 to 496, a 67 FPS reduction. The Medium preset drops from 480 to 360, a 120 FPS reduction. The Ultra preset drops from 465 to 326, a 139 FPS reduction. So Low shows the smallest absolute drop.

Measured FPS Breakdown

The database records 12 measured runs for this combo, covering four settings presets across three resolutions. Each run reports an average FPS, with only the Medium preset providing min and max values.

At 1920x1080, the Low preset delivers 563 average FPS. This is the single highest number in the entire dataset. The Medium preset at 1080p averages 480 FPS, with a min of 408 and a max of 552. High settings at 1080p average 473 FPS, and Ultra averages 465 FPS. The spread from Low to Ultra at 1080p is 98 FPS, which is the smallest relative gap among the three resolutions in percentage terms. The difference between Medium and High is just 7 FPS, and between High and Ultra it is another 8 FPS, indicating diminishing returns beyond Medium.

At 2560x1440, the Low preset averages 534 FPS, which is 29 FPS lower than the same settings at 1080p. Medium at 1440p averages 450 FPS, with a min of 382 and a max of 517. High averages 428 FPS, and Ultra averages 408 FPS. The drop from 1080p to 1440p at each preset is as follows: Low loses 29 FPS, Medium loses 30 FPS, High loses 45 FPS, and Ultra loses 57 FPS. The larger losses at High and Ultra indicate the GPU begins to take on more work as pixel count rises, but the CPU still holds the frame rate high.

At 3840x2160, the Low preset averages 496 FPS, which is 38 FPS lower than at 1440p and 67 FPS lower than at 1080p. Medium at 4K averages 360 FPS, with a min of 306 and a max of 413. High averages 342 FPS, and Ultra averages 326 FPS. The drop from 1440p to 4K at each preset: Low loses 38 FPS, Medium loses 90 FPS, High loses 86 FPS, and Ultra loses 82 FPS. The Medium preset shows the largest absolute loss when moving to 4K, but it still holds above 300 FPS minimum.

The Medium preset's min and max values are the only ones recorded. At 1080p Medium, the min of 408 and max of 552 show a 144 FPS range. At 1440p Medium, the min of 382 and max of 517 show a 135 FPS range. At 4K Medium, the min of 306 and max of 413 show a 107 FPS range. This tightening of the frame time distribution at higher resolutions suggests that the GPU's workload becomes more consistent as it becomes the limiting factor, whereas at lower resolutions the CPU's scheduling and memory access create more variance.

Resolution Scaling

Moving from 1920x1080 to 2560x1440, the average FPS across all settings drops by a moderate amount. At Low, the drop is 29 FPS (5.2%). At Medium, it is 30 FPS (6.3%). At High, it is 45 FPS (9.5%). At Ultra, it is 57 FPS (12.3%). These percentages show that the scaling penalty increases with settings complexity, which is expected because higher presets add more pixel-shading work that the GPU must complete per frame.

Moving from 2560x1440 to 3840x2160, the drops are larger. At Low, the drop is 38 FPS (7.1%). At Medium, it is 90 FPS (20%). At High, it is 86 FPS (20.1%). At Ultra, it is 82 FPS (20.1%). The jump from 1440p to 4K nearly triples the pixel count, and the data shows a roughly 20% FPS loss at Medium, High, and Ultra. The Low preset's smaller loss (7.1%) indicates that at Low, the CPU is still the primary limiter even at 4K, because the GPU has very little per-pixel work to do.

The pattern across all resolutions suggests a CPU-bound system at Low settings, transitioning to a more balanced or GPU-bound system as settings rise. At 1080p Low, the 563 FPS average is close to what the CPU can push with minimal GPU interference. At 4K Ultra, the 326 FPS average shows the GPU now has a more significant role, but it is still far from being overwhelmed. The fact that 4K Low (496 FPS) is higher than 1080p Ultra (465 FPS) is telling: even with 4 times the pixels, the Low preset's minimal shading workload allows the CPU to drive higher frame rates than the Ultra preset's heavier effects at 1080p.

The database's minimum FPS values at Medium further illustrate the scaling. At 1080p Medium, the min is 408. At 1440p Medium, it is 382. At 4K Medium, it is 306. The drop from 1080p to 4K for minimums is 102 FPS, which is a 25% reduction. This indicates that even the worst-case frame times remain well above 300 FPS at 4K, so the combo never dips into territory that would cause noticeable stutter on a standard 144 Hz or 240 Hz monitor.

Settings Recommendations

The measured data provides a clear picture of how each preset trades frame rate for visual fidelity. At 1080p, the Low preset yields 563 FPS, Medium 480, High 473, and Ultra 465. The difference between Medium and Ultra is just 15 FPS, meaning that a player who wants near-maximum visuals at 1080p sacrifices only 3.1% of the frame rate compared to Medium. The gap between Low and Medium is 83 FPS, which is a 17.3% reduction, but the visual upgrade from Low to Medium in Valorant is substantial, as Low disables many shadows and ambient effects.

At 1440p, the same pattern holds: Low 534, Medium 450, High 428, Ultra 408. The Medium to Ultra gap is 42 FPS (9.3%), while Low to Medium is 84 FPS (18.7%). At 4K, Low 496, Medium 360, High 342, Ultra 326. The Medium to Ultra gap is 34 FPS (9.4%), and Low to Medium is 136 FPS (37.8%). The 4K Low to Medium drop is the largest relative penalty in the entire dataset, suggesting that Medium settings at 4K add enough pixel work to shift the balance firmly toward the GPU.

For competitive play, the database's highest frame rates come from Low settings at any resolution. At 1080p Low, the 563 FPS average provides the maximum input responsiveness, and the min FPS at 1080p Medium (408) is still far above the 240 Hz ceiling of most esports monitors. A player using a 360 Hz display would see the most consistent benefit from Low settings, as the 563 average leaves headroom above the refresh cap.

For players prioritizing visual clarity over raw frame rate, Medium settings at 1080p or 1440p offer the best balance. The Medium preset at 1440p (450 average) is only 20% lower than Low at 1080p, while providing higher resolution and better textures. The Ultra preset's gains over High are minimal in the recorded data: at 1080p, Ultra is 8 FPS lower than High; at 1440p, it is 20 FPS lower; at 4K, it is 16 FPS lower. In no case does Ultra provide a higher frame rate than High, so the extra settings cost performance without a corresponding benefit in the measured rows.

The minimum FPS values for Medium across all resolutions (408, 382, 306) suggest that Medium is the safest preset for maintaining a stable frame time. Low settings do not have recorded min values, but the higher averages imply the mins would also be higher. The database does not include min or max for Low, High, or Ultra, so the Medium min values serve as the only frame-time floor data. At 4K Medium, the min of 306 is still above 300, which is a strong result for a 4K competitive shooter.

GPU Role

The NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3070 uses the GA104 chip built on Samsung's 8 nm process, with 17,400 million transistors on a 392 mm² die. It has 5,888 shading units, 184 texture mapping units, 96 ROPs, 46 RT cores, and 184 tensor cores. The base clock is 1500 MHz, with a boost clock of 1725 MHz. Memory runs at 1750 MHz, which translates to 14 Gbps effective, across a 256-bit bus, yielding 448.0 GB/s bandwidth and 8 GB of GDDR6 VRAM.

The GPU's PassMark G3D score of 22,214 and 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 score of 3,162 place it in the 61st percentile among all graphics cards. Its nearest rivals in average benchmark score include the AMD Radeon RX 7600 XT (0.7% higher), NVIDIA GeForce GTX 690 (1% higher), and AMD Radeon HD 7970M (1.1% higher). The NVIDIA Tesla K40c scores 1.5% higher. These deltas are small, but the RTX 3070's modern feature set, including DirectX 12 Ultimate and Vulkan 1.4, gives it advantages those older cards lack.

In Valorant, the GPU's role becomes visible primarily at higher resolutions and settings. The measured FPS at 1080p Low (563) is likely near the CPU's maximum output, as the GPU has very little work. At 4K Ultra (326), the GPU is doing substantially more per-pixel work, yet the frame rate remains high. The 8 GB VRAM is never a limiting factor in this game, as the database shows no stutter or frame drops attributable to memory capacity. The 448.0 GB/s bandwidth is also more than sufficient for the game's texture streaming.

The GPU's pixel rate of 165.6 GPixel/s and texture rate of 317.4 GTexel/s are high enough that even at 4K, the fill rate does not become a bottleneck. The 20.31 TFLOPS FP32 performance provides ample compute for the game's shader effects, which are modest compared to AAA titles. The RTX 3070's power draw of 220 W and suggested 550 W PSU are not relevant to the measured FPS, but they indicate the card is a mid-range power consumer.

The GPU's end-of-life production status and 2020 release date mean it is an older part, but the measured data shows it remains highly capable for Valorant. The 61st percentile ranking among all GPUs is lower than the CPU's 83rd percentile, which aligns with the observed scaling: at 1080p, the CPU dominates the frame rate, while at 4K, the GPU's lower relative standing shows up in the larger FPS drops. The nearest rival comparisons confirm the RTX 3070 sits near the AMD RX 7600 XT and older high-end cards, but its Ampere architecture provides robust driver support and feature compatibility for modern esports titles.