Valorant

The Intel Core i5-9400 is a 6-core, 6-thread processor from the Coffee Lake Refresh generation, running at a base clock of 2.90 GHz and a boost clock of 4.10 GHz. It has a 9 MB shared L3 cache and a TDP of 65 W. In synthetic benchmarks, it scores 6629 points in Cinebench R23 multi-core and 935 points in single-core, with a Geekbench multi-core score of 5141. The CPU sits at the 47th percentile of all tested processors, with an average benchmark score of 2254. Its nearest rivals in aggregate performance are the Intel Core i7-1068NG7 (0.2% faster), the Intel Core i7-10710U (0.3% slower), the AMD Ryzen 5 PRO 1500 (0.4% slower), and the Intel Core i3-10305 (0.4% faster). These deltas are negligible, meaning the i5-9400 performs in a tight band around these chips in general compute workloads.

The NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4070, by contrast, is a far more powerful component. Built on the 5 nm Ada Lovelace architecture with the AD104 chip, it features 5888 shading units, 12 GB of GDDR6X memory on a 192-bit bus, and a boost clock of 2475 MHz. Its FP32 throughput is 29.15 TFLOPS, and it achieves a PassMark G3D score of 26927. The GPU sits at the 81st percentile of all GPUs, with an average benchmark score of 37648. Its nearest rivals include the NVIDIA Tesla P4 (0.1% faster), the AMD Radeon RX Vega 56 (0.4% faster), the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4080 Mobile (1.3% faster), and the AMD Radeon PRO W6400 (1.3% slower). In Valorant, this pairing produces extraordinary frame rates, but the data reveals a clear bottleneck: the CPU is the limiting factor, especially at lower resolutions.

CPU Role — cores, clocks, and how they relate to this game's results

Valorant is a competitive FPS that is notoriously sensitive to single-thread performance and memory latency. The Intel Core i5-9400, with its 6 cores and 6 threads, is a generation-old mid-range part that was designed for mainstream gaming in 2018. Its 4.10 GHz boost clock is respectable, but its architecture lacks the higher IPC of newer designs. In this context, the CPU’s role is to feed frames to the RTX 4070 as quickly as possible, and the measured FPS shows that it does this adequately, but not spectacularly. The CPU’s Cinebench R23 single-core score of 935 points places it in the lower half of modern processors, which explains why it cannot fully saturate a GPU as fast as the RTX 4070 at 1080p.

The data shows that at 1920x1080 with Low settings, the average FPS is 368. At 2560x1440 Low, it drops to 349, and at 3840x2160 Low, it is 324. This scaling pattern is telling: the FPS drops by only 44 frames from 1080p to 4K, which is a modest 12% reduction. If the GPU were the primary bottleneck, the frame rate would typically fall much more sharply as resolution increases, because the GPU’s pixel and texture throughput would become the limiting factor. Instead, the relatively flat FPS across resolutions indicates that the CPU is the constraining component. The i5-9400’s 6 threads are likely being fully utilized, and its single-core performance is not high enough to push the RTX 4070 to its limits at lower resolutions.

The CPU’s memory bandwidth of 42.7 GB/s and dual-channel DDR4 support are also relevant. Valorant’s engine benefits from low-latency memory access, and the i5-9400’s 9 MB L3 cache is shared across all cores, which can help in some scenarios but also creates contention. In contrast, the RTX 4070 has 504.2 GB/s of memory bandwidth, which is more than sufficient for this game. The imbalance between the CPU’s modest compute capabilities and the GPU’s immense throughput is the defining characteristic of this combo. The CPU’s percentile rank of 47 versus the GPU’s percentile rank of 81 highlights this mismatch: the GPU is a high-end part, while the CPU is firmly mid-range.

FAQ — 4-6 Q&A pairs answerable from FACT PACK data

Q: Is the Intel Core i5-9400 strong enough for Valorant at high frame rates?

A: Yes, the measured data shows average FPS above 300 at 1080p across all settings, and above 267 at 4K Ultra. The CPU is capable of delivering competitive frame rates, though it does limit the GPU’s potential at lower resolutions.

Q: How does the i5-9400 compare to its nearest rivals in synthetic benchmarks?

A: The i5-9400 has an average benchmark score of 2254. It is 0.2% slower than the Intel Core i7-1068NG7 and 0.4% slower than the Intel Core i3-10305. It is 0.3% faster than the Intel Core i7-10710U and 0.4% faster than the AMD Ryzen 5 PRO 1500. These differences are within noise.

Q: What is the FPS difference between Low and Ultra settings at 1440p?

A: At 2560x1440, the Low preset averages 349 FPS, while the Ultra preset averages 288 FPS. That is a 61 FPS difference, or about 17.5% lower performance at Ultra compared to Low.

Q: Does the RTX 4070 bottleneck the i5-9400 in Valorant?

A: No, the data indicates the opposite. The FPS drop from 1080p to 4K is only 44 frames at Low settings (368 to 324), which is a small decrease. This suggests the CPU is the limiting factor, as the GPU’s workload increases with resolution but the FPS does not scale down proportionally.

Q: What is the best resolution for this combo based on the measured FPS?

A: At 1080p, the lowest FPS recorded is 304 at Ultra, which is still very high. At 4K, the lowest is 267 at Ultra. All resolutions deliver playable frame rates, but 1080p offers the highest headroom for competitive play.

Q: How does the combo rank among all tested combinations?

A: The combo ranks 2939 out of 3708 tested combos in Valorant. This places it in the 79th percentile of all combos, meaning it outperforms roughly 79% of tested systems, despite the CPU being a limiting factor.

How This Combo Ranks — use comboRankInGame vs other tested combos

The combo of the Intel Core i5-9400 and NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4070 ranks 2939 out of 3708 tested combos in Valorant. This is a percentile rank of approximately 79%, meaning that this system outperforms 79% of all tested combinations in this game. While that sounds strong, it is important to contextualize this rank against the hardware’s potential. The RTX 4070 is a top-tier GPU, sitting at the 81st percentile of all GPUs, and its average benchmark score of 37648 is nearly 17 times higher than the CPU’s average score of 2254. The combo rank suggests that the CPU is dragging the overall performance down relative to what the GPU alone could achieve.

In practical terms, the rank of 2939 means that there are 769 combos that perform better in Valorant. Many of those likely pair the RTX 4070 with a stronger CPU, such as a modern 8-core or higher-clocked part. The data shows that the i5-9400’s single-core performance, as indicated by its Cinebench R23 score of 935, is below the median, which is a critical metric for Valorant’s engine. The gap between the CPU’s percentile (47) and the GPU’s percentile (81) is 34 points, which is a significant mismatch. This is not a balanced build; it is a GPU-heavy system that is held back by its processor in CPU-bound scenarios like this one.

Measured FPS Breakdown — resolution by resolution, settings by settings, exact numbers

The measured FPS data provides a clear picture of performance across three resolutions and four settings presets. At 1920x1080, the average FPS ranges from 304 at Ultra to 368 at Low. The Medium preset averages 314 FPS, with a minimum of 267 and a maximum of 361. The High preset averages 309 FPS. At this resolution, the CPU is the primary bottleneck, as the FPS differences between Low and Ultra are relatively small—only 64 FPS separates the two extremes. The minimum FPS recorded at 1080p Medium is 267, which is still well above the refresh rate of most monitors, but it indicates that there are occasional dips that could be noticeable in fast-paced gameplay.

At 2560x1440, the average FPS drops slightly. Low averages 349 FPS, Medium averages 298 FPS (min 253, max 342), High averages 293 FPS, and Ultra averages 288 FPS. The spread between Low and Ultra is 61 FPS. The minimum FPS at Medium is 253, which is lower than the 1080p minimum of 267. This suggests that the GPU is starting to take on more work, but the CPU is still the limiting factor. The FPS drop from 1080p to 1440p is only about 5-6% for most settings, which is modest.

At 3840x2160, the average FPS continues to decrease. Low averages 324 FPS, Medium averages 276 FPS (min 235, max 318), High averages 272 FPS, and Ultra averages 267 FPS. The spread between Low and Ultra is 57 FPS. The minimum FPS at 4K Medium is 235, which is the lowest recorded value across all resolutions and settings. This is still a very playable frame rate, but it shows that the system can dip below 240 FPS under load. The FPS drop from 1080p to 4K is larger here—about 12% for Low settings and 12% for Ultra—but it is still not as severe as one would expect if the GPU were the sole bottleneck.

Resolution Scaling — how FPS drops from 1080p to 4K and what it says about the limiting component

The resolution scaling behavior of this combo is revealing. From 1080p Low to 4K Low, the average FPS drops from 368 to 324, a decrease of 44 frames or 12%. From 1080p Ultra to 4K Ultra, the FPS drops from 304 to 267, a decrease of 37 frames or 12.2%. These are remarkably consistent percentage drops across all settings. If the GPU were the limiting factor, one would expect the FPS to drop much more steeply as resolution increases, because the GPU’s fill rate and memory bandwidth would become saturated. For example, a 4X increase in pixel count (from 1080p to 4K) would typically halve or more the FPS on a GPU-bound system. Here, the FPS only drops by about 12%, which is a strong indicator that the CPU is the bottleneck.

The data also shows that the absolute FPS difference between Low and Ultra settings is relatively constant across resolutions. At 1080p, the difference is 64 FPS; at 1440p, it is 61 FPS; at 4K, it is 57 FPS. This consistency suggests that the GPU is not being stressed by higher settings, but rather that the CPU’s frame generation rate is the ceiling. The RTX 4070 is capable of rendering these frames much faster, but it is waiting on the CPU to send draw calls. This is a classic CPU-bound scenario, and it means that upgrading the CPU would yield significant FPS gains, especially at 1080p and 1440p.

At 4K, the FPS drop is slightly larger in absolute terms, but it is still modest. The minimum FPS at 4K Medium is 235, which is the lowest recorded value. This could be due to the CPU’s memory subsystem being stressed by the higher resolution’s data demands, but the overall trend is clear: the i5-9400 is the limiting component. The RTX 4070’s 504.2 GB/s of memory bandwidth and 29.15 TFLOPS of compute are more than enough for Valorant, which is a lightweight game by modern standards. The CPU’s 6 threads and 9 MB cache are the real constraints.

Settings Recommendations — which preset gives the best experience per the measured rows

Based on the measured FPS data, the Low preset at 1080p offers the highest average FPS at 368, with no recorded minimum FPS below 267 at Medium. For competitive play, where frame rate is king, the Low preset is the best choice. It delivers the highest average FPS and minimizes input latency, which is critical in a game like Valorant. The difference between Low and Ultra at 1080p is 64 FPS, which is a significant margin for a competitive shooter. If you have a 360 Hz monitor, the Low preset at 1080p is the only setting that can come close to saturating it, with an average of 368 FPS.

However, if you prefer visual fidelity without sacrificing too much performance, the Medium preset at 1440p is a strong compromise. It averages 298 FPS, with a minimum of 253 and a maximum of 342. This is still well above 240 FPS, which is the refresh rate of many high-end gaming monitors. The Medium preset at 1080p is also viable, averaging 314 FPS, but it offers no advantage over the 1440p Medium in terms of FPS headroom, and the higher resolution provides a sharper image. At 4K, the Medium preset averages 276 FPS, which is excellent for 4K gaming, but the minimum of 235 FPS could be a concern for players who are sensitive to frame drops.

For most players, the recommended setting is Medium at 1440p. It provides a good balance between image quality and performance, with an average FPS of 298 and a minimum that stays above 253. The Ultra preset at any resolution is not recommended for competitive play, as it offers no meaningful visual advantage in Valorant but does reduce FPS by about 17% compared to Low. If you are chasing the absolute maximum frame rate, the Low preset at 1080p is the clear winner. If you want a smooth experience at a higher resolution, Medium at 1440p is the best measured option. The data does not show any scenario where High or Ultra settings provide a better experience than Medium, given the small FPS differences and the lack of recorded minimums for those presets.