Valorant

The Intel Core i5-14400F paired with the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4090 in Valorant presents an interesting case: one of the fastest consumer GPUs on the market combined with a mid-range desktop processor in a game that rewards high, consistent frame rates. The measured data shows this combination delivers exceptionally high FPS across all tested settings, but the scaling patterns reveal that Valorant is far more sensitive to the CPU than to the GPU. This analysis unpacks the measured results to help you decide which preset and resolution make sense for this hardware combination.

Resolution Scaling

Moving from 1920x1080 to 3840x2160 changes the average frame rate by a remarkably small amount. At the Low preset, the averages drop from 563 fps at 1080p, to 534 fps at 1440p, and then to 496 fps at 4K. On the Medium preset the figures are 480,456, and 423 fps respectively, the same trend. The High preset produces 473 fps at 1080p, 448 at 1440p, and 416 at 4K, while the Ultra preset yields 465, 441, and 409 framer values respectively. In percentage terms, every preset loses only about 12% of its average frame rate from 1080p to 4K. This is a very shallow slope, and it strongly indicates that the rendering load at higher resolutions does not directly throttle the GPU. A fully GPU-bound scenario would expect the 4x pixel increase to cut frame rates by a factor of four, yet the data shows a fraction of that.

The pattern persists consistently across all quality settings, which confirms that the frame rate is limited by something other than the GPU’s pixel throughput. In practice, that limiter is the CPU. Valorant is known for its heavy dependence on a few core threads, and the i5-14400F’s 10 physical cores and 16 threads can only produce a fixed number of frames per second once the game’s main thread becomes saturated. The RTX 4090, even in a 4K Ultra setting, is instead waiting on the CPU at every resolution for the data it needs to render. The fact that the FPS at 4K Ultra sits at 409 while 1080p Low reaches 563 demonstrates that the GPU—even at its most heavily loaded state—can almost keep the CPU’s pace, and is merely idling. For builders, this means that if they already have a capable CPU like the i5-14400F, moving to a more expensive or higher power GPU will not unlock noticeably higher Valorant frame rates until the CPU is also updated.

The measured data also includes minimum and maximum frames for the Medium preset. Across resolutions, the gap between the minimum and maximum is consistent: 1080p Medium shows a min of 408 fps and a max of 552 fps, 1440p Medium shows 387 to 524 fps, while at 4K Medium it drops to 359 to 486 fps. This tight distribution shows a stable frame time behavior with no noticeable stutter or spikes, regardless of resolution. The overall frame pacing smoothness falls beyond the any refresh rate a gamer is likely to own.

How This Combo Ranks

In the overall pool of tested system combinations for Valorant, this hardware ranks 808th out of 3708 tested combinations. That places it firmly in the upper quarter of the ranking, though not at the absolute top. The ranking is a combination of the CPU’s contribution to the game’s total system load and the GPU’s ability to keep up with it. The i5-14400F processors sit at the 83rd percentile of all CPUs, while the RTX 4090 holds the 88th percentile for all GPUs. That gap of 5 percentage points is small but hints at the difference in headroom: the GPU is ready to do more work while the CPU is delivering frame rates at its limit.

Looking at stress benchmarks, the CPU’s nearest stablemates in the average benchmark score are AMD Ryzen 7 PRO 8840U (0.1% higher) and Intel Core i9-11900 (0.2% higher) according to the deltaPct values. The RTX 4090 finds itself comparably close to the many cards such as the Intel Arc Pro A60 (0% difference) and AMD Radeon Pro Vega 48 (0.3% higher. The fact that Valorant almost nowhere near its GPU’s potential is evident because the game’s frame rate—even at 4K Ultra, 409 fps—sits much higher than the CPU’s feasible output. Had the game been constrained entirely by GPU muscle, the CPU’s and GPU’s performance would matter more evenly; the raw ranking in the game’s measurement reflects the CPU’s dominant role. In short, this combo ranks well because the CPU is comparable to many top-tier desktop SKUs, much less one that it carries an RTX 4090, but the CPU itself is still the one that ultimately dictates where it lands in the middleware.

GPU Role

The NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4090 is a 5nm Ada Lovelace chip under the hood, with 76,300 million transistors on a 609 mm² die. It launches with a 24 GB GDDR6X video memory pool across a 384-bit bus, providing 1.01 TB/s memory bandwidth. The card’s base clock shares 2235 MHz and the boost clock speeds up to 2520 MHz. With 16,384 shaders and 512 TMUs, these specs are far beyond the demands of a competitive shooter like Valorant.

For this game, the GPU’s contribution can be summarized as “never the bottleneck.” Even at a 1920x1080 display resolution—the least resolution at which the CPU is most limiting—the average FPS is 563 on Low preset, which points to herculean CPU effort. The strongest evidence is that Valots at 4K Ultra, rendering 8.2M more pixels per second, still only delivers 409 average fps. That’s a performance drop of roughly 12% from the 1080p Ultra number (465 fps), a tax that would be far larger if the GPU’s pixel throughput were scaling the work load. With 24 GB of GDDR6X available, the game’s all and typical textures create no risk on memory but by volume, painting a portion that tells nothing else.

The GPUs raw compute is reflected in a PassMark G3D score of 38,194, which corresponds to the 88th percentile of all GPUs. But in Valorant the smallest assumption that the game saturates the card is not the case; the system runs into CPU limit far before sequence yield. This is typical for a game that works with relatively light, low-cost GPUs to produce wall-of-fire frame ranges. The importance of the RTX 4090’s specs—the frequency at which the card operates, its bandwidth, and its VRAM capacity—does not directly subtract in this title. For a gamer building around this game, the GPU is overkill in the best sense: it gives you an absolute certainty of a permanently high frame rate, both at 4K, and it leaves relative unrestrain on the CPU to find its own ceiling. This system unheard.

Measured FPS Breakdown

| Resolution | Settings | Average FPS | Minimum FPS | Maximum FPS |

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

| 1920x1080 | Low | 563 | | |

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

| 1920x1080 | High | 473 | | |

| 1920x1080 | Ultra | 465 | | |

| 2560x1440 | Low | 534 | | |

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

| 2560x1440 | High | 448 | | |

| 2560x1440 | Ultra | 441 | | |

| 3840x2160 | Low | 496 | | |

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

| 3840x2160 | High | 416 | | |

| 3840x2160 | Ultra | 409 | | |

The table holds the exact data as measured. The Medium preset is the only one that recorded both minimum and maximum frame values at each resolution, so it provides the only visible look at frame pacing variability. The gap between the lowest and highest frame is reasonably stable: 144 frames at 1080p, 137 at 1440p, and 127 at 4K. The minimums are still well above 300 fps, indicating that even on one-second dips, the experience remains smooth and no drop below the 300 fps threshold happens.

For the other preset, the average frame numbers are all that are listed. It shows a pattern where lowering the on preset quality gives a small absolute benefit. The difference between Low and Ultra at 1080p increases by 98 fps, but the 1440p difference is 93 fps, and at 4K it is 87 fps. Those numbers are minor relative quality vs value. Considering that Ultra still reaches 409 fps on Ultra at 4K, the mixture of the graphics preset does practically nothing to break the smooth deliverable experience.

FAQ

Q: What is the average frame rate for this combo at 4K with Ultra settings?

A: For this configuration in Riot’s Valorant, the average FPS at 3840x2160 with the Ultra preset is 409 fps.

Q: What is the combo rank for this CPU and GPU within Valorant?

A: The combination ranks 808th out of the 3708 tested CPU-GPU pairings recorded for Valorant.

Q: How much VRAM is available on the GPU?

A: The NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4090 is equipped with 24 GB of GDDR6X VRAM.

C: What is the performance of the i5-14400F in a typical CPU benchmark?

A: In the Cinebench R23 multi-core test, the CPU scores 21,645 points.

Q: Does the resolution heavily affect the FPS in this game?

A: No, increasing from 1920x1080 to 3840x2160 only lowers the average FPS by about 12% for any setting; this shows the game is not GPU-limited.

C: Which preset at 1440p delivers the highest average FPS?

A: The Low preset at 2560x1440 yields 534 average FPS, the highest of any preset at that resolution.

Settings Recommendations

The measured data provide a clear answer for set-up on this user. At the highest boosting panel resolution, 1920x1080 with Ultra effects yields a 465 average fps, while the Low preset hits 563. Every preset, whatever the resolution, gives an average over 400 fps, meaning any individual frame rate that is well above the display refresh rate for off-the-shelf gaming monitors. Because the resolution step makes a remarkably small difference of only about 12% from 1080p to 4K, the choice of preset should be driven by the player’s visual preference rather than by lowering the frame minimum.

If the priority is maximizing frame rate, the Low preset won the top marks, but only by a insignificant write of 98 fps on the high end. However, the Medium preset includes the min/max data showing that even 408 fps at its lowest point at 1080p or 359 fps at 4K—which are lowest reads—remain comfortably at high levels. The gap between the Quality and the high frame volumes is not even a 20% difference at worst. Exactly, a player using a 240 Hz or even 360 Hz display can attach to any preset.

Notably, the Ultra preset curtails only a minuscule amount of speed – from 473 fps High to 416 at 4K High, or from 465 to 409 at Ultra. Given the extremely high absolute values, the Ultra preset at 4K should not be avoided even if the game favors high dpi. The data gives no reason to keep the install to add optional quality; the speed difference is inside the effective margin of the CPU’s capacity. For a system where the user knows they’re going for a high display Speed, select High or Ultra to enjoy the game’s visual features while keeping frame rates in the second. If a user cares more about uncompressed input latency and has the monitor high refresh, the Low preset is also a valid pick—the 563 fps average at 1080p withstands. Both extremes are excellent; the real trade-off is your own eyes and the quality to which that respond.

In short, this system has more than enough power for Valorant in every setting and resolution pair tested. The CPU, i5-14400F, is the real upload chieftain of the boundary, but it is now the one that restricts the absolute number of frames. Take a central location: the High preset or Medium gives a fair balance for high-res displays, while Low just shaves off a fraction to push visible but not that close to the headline number. For a user that wants the most robust experience with no compromise, the Ultra preset across the board matches the expected frame minimums above 400 fps, a comfortable place to be.