Valorant

The Intel Core i5-14600KF and NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4060 combination delivers excellent measured performance in Valorant. According to our database, this pairing is ranked 1364th out of 3708 tested combos for this game, placing it ahead of the majority of setups—specifically, it outperforms 65.3% of the field when counting upward from its rank (3708 minus 1364 gives 2344 combos that this configuration can beat). The data also shows that the CPU itself sits in the 90th percentile of all CPUs tested, while the GPU lands in the 61st percentile, indicating that the processor is the stronger component in this pairing relative to whole‑system results.

In Valorant, the measured FPS across all presets and resolutions are exceptionally high, with the lowest average observed being 288 FPS at 4K Ultra. This pattern underscores that the combination is not limiting in this title—even at the most demanding settings and resolution, the frame rate remains far above what any typical display can refresh. The rank reflects that while there are faster combos, this one delivers near‑top‑tier performance that pairs significant CPU headroom with a capable GPU. The combination’s placing in the upper half is no surprise given the CPU’s high single‑threaded power—its Cinebench R23 single‑core score of 4594 is a strong indicator of excellence for a lightly threaded esports title—and the GPU’s efficiency, though the latter is more relevant at higher presets.

How This Combo Ranks

The combo occupies the 1364th rank out of 3708 unique CPU+GPU configurations we have tested against Valorant. This is a better‑than‑median result, with a sign number of 65.3% of other combos falling below it (3708 minus 1364 gives 2344, which divided by 3708 yields 0.633). The ranking suggests that while extreme high‑end rigs can achieve higher averages, this pairing still provides a very competitive experience.

Looking at the synthetic benchmark data, the CPU stands out. The i5‑14600KF delivers an average score of 49,394 across many tests, placing it in the 90th percentile among all CPUs. Its immediate neighbours are the AMD Ryzen 9 7900, the Ryzen 7 PRO 5755G, the Intel Core Ultra 5 245, and the AMD Ryzen AI Max+ 388. The 14600KF runs 0.3% ahead of the Ryzen 9 7900, 0.4% above the Ryzen 7 Pro 5755G, and 0.8% ahead of the Core Ultra 5 245, while being 0.8% slower than the Ryzen AI Max+ 388. These deltas are tiny—the CPU does not just exceed those chips; it effectively matches them for headlines performance in this game’s frame generation.

On the GPU side, the RTX 4060 has an average benchmark score of 17,639 and a 61st percentile rank. Its closest rivals in the database—AMD Radeon HD 7790, Radeon 780M, Radeon Pro 560, and Radeon Pro 460—show it in a tight dance. The 4060 is 0.2% behind the Radeon HD 7790, but pulls ahead of the Radeon 780M by 0.3%, the Radeon Pro 560 by 0.5%, and the Radeon Pro 460 by 0.7%. These margins are small, but they place the GPU right in the middle of the pack. Since Valorant is not demanding on the GPU, the GPU’s modest standing does not hinder the measured performance.

Hence, the overall combo rank is dominated by the CPU’s capability to feed frames; the GPU simply needs to keep up at the maximum preset. The 1364th and a large stack of better‑ranking combos—such as those with top‑end GPUs or overclocked memory—still cannot gain a meaningful lead in this game because the game’s visual load is low. The measured FPS data confirm that every resolution the graphics card is far from being a wall, which is why this combo can beat many explicitly 'better' CPU models.

Settings Recommendations

The measured FPS data provides a clear guide for optimal settings. At any resolution, the Low preset generates the highest average frame rate—for instance, 647 FPS at 1920×1080, 602 FPS at 2560×1440, and 481 FPS at 3840×2160. When the goal is to extract the most raw frames per second to chase high refresh‑rate monitors, Low is the best choice. It consistently delivers roughly 100 – 170 FPS more than the highest‑fidelity presets, and the visual penalty in Valorant’s minimal art style is slight.

However, the Medium preset—the only one that has recorded minimum and maximum FPS values across all resolutions—also deserves attention because it provides a known stable range. At 1080p, Medium averages 465 FPS but with a minimum of 395 and a maximum of 535; at 1440p, average is 397, minimum 337, maximum 456; at 4K, average is 317, minimum 270, maximum 365. These min‑max spreads show a certain amount of variance, yet even the minimum at 4K amounts to 270 FPS, which is still far beyond any typical display’s refresh rate. Therefore, on the measurement rows, we can say that Medium is the only settings where frame pacing is documented, and the variability is acceptable for competitive play.

In terms of the best experience per the measured data, the Low preset would be the recommendation for players who obsess over frame rates, as it maximises the margin above refresh rate. The Ultra preset, on the other hand, still reaches over 288 FPS at 4K., so it is a candidate for those who prefer crisp visuals but refuse to drop the fidelity. Given that Valorant is an esports title, the returns between Low and Ultra are a few ms of frame latency, but the data also confirms that even at Ultra, the performance is beyond any e‑sports requirement. In short, the Low preset is, from the numbers, the most responsive, but any setting from Low to Ultra will keep the action smooth. The data supports Low as the best for frame‑rate‑focused players; the lack of intermediate presets differences means it doesn’t matter for stability, because every preset stays above 300 at 1080p.

Resolution Scaling

Plotting the average FPS from 1920×1080 to 2560×1440 to 3840×2160 reveals the typical scaling behavior. For each preset, the frame rate drops as resolution climbs, but the total drop is consistent. Starting with the Low preset: 647→602→481, a drop of 45 and then 121, for a total 166 decline going from 1080p to 4K. Medium: 465→397→317, a total decline of 148. High: 443→388→376? actually the table is 443→378→302, total 141. Ultra: 422→360→288, total 134. This means the absolute decrease with the higher resolution is 140–166 FPS across settings. The percentage drop from 1080p to 4K ranges from roughly 25% (Low) to just over 30% (High and Ultra). So the scaling is not drastic—the lowest preset loses 25% of its 1080p performance when going to 4K, while the heavier presets lose around a third of their FPS.

That behavior also tells us which component is the limiting factor. On the Low preset, the graphics load is minimal, so the CPU does the bulk of the frame generation. Even at 4K Low, we see 481 FPS, which implies the CPU can push out a huge number of frames as long as the game doesn’t need more geometry. In the heavier presets, the GPU begins to contribute more, yet the drop from 1080p to 4K is similar to that of Low, indicating that the GPU is still not a full ceiling. The absolute maximum FPS at 4K Ultra is 288—which is already high, but is 20% below 1080p Ultra. That shows a mild scaling cost, but not the heavy hit one would expect on a game that is ‘’heavier GPU’ type. In effect the components are so fast that resolution can scale up without wreaking havoc.

Because the game never pushes the GPU into full bottleneck, the CPU’s high boost clock (5.30 GHz) and decent IPC are the main resource. The strong scaling from 1080p to 4K further demonstrates that the 14600KF can throw out frames quickly; the reduction is mostly a matter of the GPU’s fill rate increasing at higher resolutions, but the CPU is still the more relevant contributor. The 4K Low setting has 481 FPS, which is well above the 1080p High (443 FPS) for most. Therefore, resolution scaling is controlled, and the limiting part is the CPU’s ability to feed each resolution with enough frame time, not the GPU architecture.

Measured FPS Breakdown

The database includes twelve measured performance rows, covering three resolutions × four graphical presets. The following table givens every fixed number.

| Resolution | Low | Medium | High | Ultra |

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

| 1920×1080 | 647 | 465 (min 395, max 535) | 443 | 422 |

| 2560×1440 | 602 | 397 (min 337, max 456) | 378 | 360 |

| 3840×2160 | 481 | 317 (min 270, max 365) | 302 | 288 |

The data show a clear hierarchy: Low is fast than Medium, which is faster than High, with Ultra slower still. At 1080p, Low hits 647 FPS, which is more than enough—the game looks smooth. The step from Low to Medium is a third penalty: Medium averages 465 FPS, 28% lower. That loss escalates further for High (443 FPS) and Ultra (422 FPS), though the gap between Medium and Ultra is only ~40 frames. At 1440p, the same ordering holds: Low 602, Medium 480, High 378, Ultra 360. Note that Medium has a better margin at 1440p–480 vs Ultra’s 360—a 33% advantage. At 4K, Low still outputs a hearty 481 FPS, while Medium’s 317 and Ultra has 288. The only settings with secondary data are Medium, which show a 4K min of 270 and max of 365, a 393 variance. This suggests that 4K Medium has a wider frame distribution than 1080p.

The data also highlight the penalty of resolution. Notice that 1080p Low (647) is just 45 FPS ahead of 1440p Low (602). But 1440p Ultra (360) equals about 296 FPS? Actually, let’s compare the FPS at low vs Ultra across different rows: 1080p Ultra (422) is higher than 1440p Medium (480)? Wait, 422 vs 480 is 58 FPS difference, so 1440p Medium is faster than 1080p Ultra. In fact, the 1440p Medium (480) at 1440p is still 37 FPS ahead of 1080p Ultra (422). The diagonal data show that selecting a lower quality at a higher resolution yields more FPS than a higher quality at a lower resolution. 4K Low (481) is above 1080p Ultra (422). So if a player needs more pixels, it is better to use Low at a high resolution than to use Ultra at a lower resolution.

GPU Role

The RTX 4060 uses an 8 GB GDDR6 memory with a 128‑bit bus, total bandwidth of 272.0 GB/s. It has 3072 shading units, 96 texture mapping units, and 48 ROPs. The active clock consists of a 1830 MHz base and a 2460 MHz boost. These resources, though modest in absolute terms, mesh well with the needs of Valorant. The game’s visual API inclusion is lightweight: most of the load per frame is CPU, though the GPU still handles rasterization and texture sampling. With 8 GB of VRAM, Valorant’s largest textures fit well; even at 4K Ultra the allocated memory footprint stays within the fit, so there is no noticeable hit from spills into memory pressure.

The GPU’s tensor cores and RT cores are not stressed in Valorant, as the game does not use extensive ray tracing or DLSS, but the extra hardware doesn't hurt. The measured performance shows the GPU can deliver high frame counts when pushed, but the CPU is typically the bottleneck. For instance, at 1080p Low, the GPU is probably not even half‑utilized, and only when we raise the preset does the GPU work harder. In scaling to 4K, the boost clock contributes to the still excellent numbers; the 2460 MHz boost rate helps the GPU out put over 300 FPS even at 4K Ultra. For context, the GPU’s 3Dmark Steel Nomad DX12 score is 2,302—about half of a high‑end card—but the corresponding impact on Valorant is minimal due to Cup‐bound physics.

More quantitatively, the GPU’s synthetic benchmark position reflects a mid-tier part: its average benchmark 17,639 puts it in the 61st percentile, and it is 0.2% behind an older HD 7790 but 0.3% faster than the Radeon 780M. Given that this GPU is intended for 60‑FPS AAA gaming, Valorant’s graphical load is trivial, so for this game the GPU is never the limiter. The result is a strange insight: the GPU’s value in Valorant is secondary to its ability to drive the display output and maintain frame pacing, but even modest settings yield 300+ FPS at 4K, which surpasses many monitors capabilities. In summary, the GPU is underutilized, an asset that ensures smoothness without any of the weaknesses that could cause dips.

CPU Role

The Intel Core i5-14600KF provides 14 cores, 20 threads, base clock 3.50 GHz, and a maximum boost to 5.30 GHz. It is built on Intel’s LGA 1700, an architecture named Raptor Lake, is on a 10 nm process. With L1 cache 80KB per core, L2 2MB per core, and a shared 24MB L3 cache, the CPU has strong multi‑core and single‑thread performance.