Valorant

This combo of the Intel Core i5-9400 and AMD Radeon RX 6700 XT is built to push high frame rates in a lightweight shooter. The CPU carries a 9425 average benchmark score (Cinebench R23 multicore 6629, single-core 935) and sits in the 47th percentile in the global rankings, while the GPU posts an average score of 27425 to rank in the 72nd percentile. Together, they translate to measured average FPS of 368 at 1080p Low settings, and even at 4K Ultra, the average holds above 250 frames. This makes the pairing a strong match for Valorant, though the CPU's lower relative standing means it will likely be the first component to bottleneck if you push above typical refresh rates.

How This Combo Ranks

In the Valorant performance database, this CPU + GPU pair is recorded at rank 2939 out of 3708 tested combos. That places it close to the median when unaccounted, but the particular dynamics of valorant's engine are rarely the first notice. The CPU's average benchmark score of 2254 sits close to several rivals: the Intel Core i7-10710U scores 2248 (deltaPct +0.3%), which is the single closest score; the AMD Ryzen 5 PRO 1500 scores 2246 (+0.4%), the Core i5-10305 scores 2264 (–0.4%), and the Core i7-1068NG7 scores 2259 (–0.2%). These margins are all within sub-1% territory, so the i5-9400 sits in a tightly packed mid-range processor band. Its single thread merits, as measured by Cinebench R23 single-core at 935, are not dominant, but a fast clock can depend.

On the graphics side, the RX 6700 XT posts an average benchmark score of 27425, which is effectively equal to the GeForce RTX 4070 Mobile's 27435 (0.0% delta), and only a fraction behind the RTX 3090's 27565 (–0.5%). Because the CPU is only mediocre by today's standard, the GPU is clearly the more competitive part of this pairing. Yet in Valorant, the CPU demands are not low; the engine runs on dense CPU-physics and many units, so a 6-core, 6-thread chip that lacks Hyper-Threading may still be the limiting factor before the GPU becomes the bottleneck. The rank of 2939 out of 3708 has been influenced by both components, but the fps results are so high that the actual tape per component is a luxury.

GPU Role

The AMD Radeon RX 6700 XT carries 12 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 192-bit interface, yielding a 384.0 GB/s memory bandwidth. Its base clock is 2321 MHz, boost to 2581 MHz, and a typical game clock . The GPU's 13.21 TFLOPS FP32 and 413.0 GTexel/s texture rate are high enough for even 4K gaming; the card is clearly not made to be a terrible holding in this game. The pixel rate of 165.2 GPixel/s and 64 ROPs crank out high fill rates.

In this title, the GPU pushes over 300 FPS at 1440p on Low (349 avg) and even at 4K on High (312 avg). The 12GB VRAM is far more than the game needs, and the spec for high res textures is not the issue– the RPX's bandwidth the is itself enough. The GPU bench shows a mix of DX scores (Passmark D3D12 only 77) but the real-world performance in this directX11 title is strong because the dx_driver is mature. At 1080p, even Ultra setting yields 304 FPS on average, proving the GPU is not stressed.

Resolution Scaling

The table below lists the measured FPS for the three core resolutions. FPS scales with resolution as expected, but the differences are relatively modest compared to typical GPU-bound titles.

• 4K (3840×2160): Low 324, Medium 276 (min 235 max 318), High 272, Ultra 267
• 1440p (2560×1440): Low 349, Medium 298 (min 253 max 342), High 293, Ultra 288
• 1080p (1920×1080): Low 368, Medium 314 (min 267 max 361), High 309, Ultra 304

In a CPU-intense game like Valorant, going from 1080p to 1440p only reduces average FPS by a small margin in each preset—for example, Low goes from 368 to 349, and High from 309 to 293. The drop from 1440p to 4K is larger, but still keeps the frame count well above 200: Low from 349 to 324, Medium from 348 to 352 (differs –18?), and Ultra from 288 to 312? Wait, check: From 1440p Ultra 288 to 4K Ultra 312? Actually the table says 4K Ultra 312? No, the pack says 4K Ultra is 267. I misread. Let's check exact values from the FACT PACK:

• 3840x2160: High 272, Low 324, Medium avg 276 (235-318), Ultra 267.
• 2560x1440: High 293, Low 349, Medium 298 (253-342), Ultra 288.
• 1920x1080: High 309, Low 368, Medium 314 (267-361), Ultra 304.

So let's use these exact numbers.

So from 1080p Low 368 to 1440p Low 349, a 19 average FPS difference from 1080p to 1440p across the same settings is relatively small. From 1440p to 4K, each setting shows a larger drop because the GPU starts to become the limiting factor at 4K. For example, High: 309 → 293 → 272, Low: 368 → 349 → 324. The CPU can feed the card until 4K begins to require more GPU resources.

The min and max values that we have for Medium presets are informative: at 1080p, the Medium preset bottom 267 and tops 361, so the minimum frame rate does not complain. At 1440p, the medium hangs from 253 to 342, and at 4K, it falls to a 235 minimum. None of these low dips are below 235 FPS, which is still an exceptionally smooth experience on any display.

Thus, the data indicates that the RX 6700 XT offers a pleasant headroom: even at 4K, it averages 341 at Winter's worst + over 250 FPS. The i5-9400's role is to stay ahead of the GPU's demand.

Measured FPS Breakdown

The table below lists the twelve measured combinations. The fps numbers are average frame rates, with min and max listed for the Medium preset because it is the only one with both.

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

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

| 3840x2160 | High | 272 | - | - |

| 3840x2160 | Low | 324 | - | - |

| 3840x2160 | Medium | 276 | 235 | 318 |

| 3840x2160 | Ultra | 267 | - | - |

| 2560x1440 | High | 293 | - | - |

| 2560x1440 | Low | 349 | - | - |

| 2560x1440 | Medium | 298 | 253 | 342 |

| 2560x1440 | Ultra | 288 | - | - |

| 1920x1080 | High | 309 | - | - |

| 1920x1080 | Low | 368 | - | - |

| 1920x1080 | Medium | 314 | 267 | 361 |

| 1920x1080 | Ultra | 304 | - | - |

At 1080p, the lowest measured average is 304 FPS on Ultra; the highest is 368 on Low. So even in the most demanding quality preset, the system produces more than enough frames for any current high-refresh display. The Medium setting at 1080p has a minimum of 267 FPS, meaning that even in busy scenes, it doesn't dip below that.

CPU Role

The Intel Core i5-9400 is a 6-core, 6-thread processor based on Coffee Lake, using four cores and six threads. It has a 2.90 GHz base clock and a 4.10 GHz boost clock. The stock TDP is a moderate 65 W. The cache structure includes 9 MB shared L3, 256 KB L2 per core, and 64 KB L1 per core.

In terms of benchmark results, the CPU's Cinebench R23 multicore score is 663 and single core is 935, while Geekbench multicore is as 5141 and single core 1389. Within its own percentile (47th) and average, this processor is placed just above mid-range. The nearest rival data shows that the AMD Ryzen 5 PRO 1500 scores 2246, virtually matching the i5's own score of 2254 (delta +0.4%), meaning the two chips are interchangeable within error. Similarly, the same-generation i3-10305 is within 0.4% – a testament that this six-thread CPU is a solid baseline for gaming, but not a top-tier chip.

In Valorant, the CPU is responsible for AI, physics, and frame-gen logic. The measured results show that the processor is not a bottleneck at any tested setting; FPS never drops below 300 in the lowest resolution unless it's a Medium setting minus minimums are jotting above 267. This suggests that at 1080p and above, the CPU leads the game's time. At 4K, the GPU becomes more the limiter, but the CPU still isn't a problem because the FPS remain high.

The boost to 4.10 GHz is typical for this class; since Valorant is not going to max out all six cores, the frequency and IPC are the likely prime movers, though we have no specific "OC" test.

Settings Recommendations

Based on the measured data, the most favorable settings for a from-publish experience are the Low preset at each resolution. It produces the highest average FPS: 368 at 1080p, 349 at 1440p, and 324 at 4K. The Low preset does not sacrifice too much visual clarity in a game where visibility matters more than vegetation; the game's minimal illusions remain usable. For a balanced approach, the Medium preset offers a small reduction in FPS (314 at 1080p) but adds eye candy and still delivers a handsome 206-300c. The min FPS on Medium at 1080p is 267, so you are still above typical high-freshness.

The Ultra preset still produces frame rates above 300 at 1080p, and above 260 at 4K, which is a luxury for a very visual mode. The fact that the framerate only drops 4 FPS between Low and Ultra at 1080p (The 308 vs 364) indicates that the GPU is not being stressed anywhere near its limit at that resolution.

For those who habitually play on a 240 Hz monitor, the "Low" setting is the clearest path to exceed that target in every scene – at 1080p, 1440p, and even 4K, the average is higher than 240. The "Medium" setting also stays above 200–260 at all resolutions, but the relatively smaller margin in Low.

In summary, any preset will play smoothly, but the choice is easy: Low if you need the absolute fastest reaction and max FPS, Medium if you want a balance and textured edges, and Ultra only for pure look at the cost of a bit of headroom. None of the measured frames dip below what a good high-refresh display demands, so use your own.