Valorant

The Intel Core i5-9400 is a six-core, six-thread processor from the Coffee Lake architecture, with a base clock of 2.90 GHz and a boost clock of 4.10 GHz. It relies on 9 MB of shared L3 cache and a dual-channel DDR4 memory bus with 42.7 GB/s of bandwidth. In Valorant, this CPU configuration proves more than sufficient to drive high frame rates; the data shows that even at the most demanding settings, the measured average FPS never drops below 265.9, indicating that the processor is not the limiting factor in this pairing. Its benchmark scores, such as 7969 in Cinebench R23 multi-core and 1125 in single-core, place it at the 50th percentile of all CPUs, showing it is a mid-pack processor in general compute tasks. However, Valorant is a title that rewards high single-thread performance and low latency, and the i5-9400’s boost clock of 4.10 GHz appears adequate for the task, as the frame rates remain consistently high across all tested configurations.

The processor’s nearest rivals in terms of average benchmark score—the Intel Core i3-10305 and i3-1125G4, both with a deltaPct of 0.2, and the Intel Xeon E-2134 with a deltaPct of 0.4—show that the i5-9400 is essentially tied with these alternatives in raw compute power. Meanwhile, the Intel Core i7-8809G sits slightly ahead with a deltaPct of -0.6, indicating it is marginally faster. This context matters: while the i5-9400 is not a top-tier CPU by synthetic benchmarks, its performance in Valorant is clearly not constrained by processing power, as evidenced by the high FPS figures. The 65W TDP and end-of-life production status are worth noting for builders considering this combo, but for this specific game, the CPU’s six cores and six threads are fully utilized without becoming a bottleneck.

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

The Core i5-9400’s six physical cores and six threads, combined with a boost clock of 4.10 GHz, are the key specifications that influence Valorant’s performance. Unlike heavily multi-threaded titles, Valorant scales primarily with clock speed and per-core efficiency. The measured data supports this: at 1080p with Low settings, the combo reaches 370.7 FPS, and even at 4K with High settings, it maintains 271 FPS. This consistency suggests that the CPU is delivering frames faster than the GPU can render them at lower resolutions, but at higher resolutions, the GPU becomes the primary driver. The L3 cache of 9 MB (shared) is also relevant, as Valorant benefits from fast access to frequently used game data, though the exact impact cannot be quantified from the provided data alone. The processor’s memory bandwidth of 42.7 GB/s, while modest by modern standards, does not appear to hinder performance, as the frame rates remain exceptionally high.

Looking at the CPU’s synthetic benchmarks, the Cinebench R23 scores of 7969 (multi-core) and 1125 (single-core) show a processor that is balanced but not exceptional. The 50th percentile ranking among all CPUs reinforces this, but in Valorant, the i5-9400 punches above its weight. The nearest rival comparison shows a tight cluster: the i3-10305 and i3-1125G4 are virtually identical in average score, while the Xeon E-2134 is just 0.4% slower. This tells a builder that the i5-9400 is not a unique performer, but its specific architecture and clock behavior are well-suited to this game. The fact that the FPS does not collapse when moving from 1080p to 1440p or 4K indicates that the CPU is not the limiting component; rather, it maintains a high ceiling that the GPU can leverage.

GPU Role — VRAM, clocks, and how they relate to this game's results

The NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4070 SUPER is the dominant component in this pairing, featuring 12 GB of GDDR6X memory on a 192-bit bus with 504.2 GB/s of bandwidth. Its boost clock of 2475 MHz and base clock of 1980 MHz, combined with 7168 shading units, provide substantial rendering power. In Valorant, a game that is not particularly GPU-intensive, the RTX 4070 SUPER is clearly overqualified, which explains why the frame rates are so high across all settings and resolutions. The GPU’s 80 ROPs and 224 TMUs handle pixel and texture processing efficiently, and the 35.48 TFLOPS of FP32 compute ensures that even the most demanding graphics settings are rendered without issue.

The GPU’s benchmark performance places it at the 84th percentile of all GPUs, with an average score of 42576. Its nearest rivals—the NVIDIA RTX A6000 (deltaPct -0.2), AMD Radeon RX 7650 GRE (deltaPct -0.3), and AMD Radeon Pro 580X (deltaPct 1.4)—show that the RTX 4070 SUPER is competitively positioned, though the differences are small. The 12 GB of VRAM is more than adequate for Valorant, which uses far less, but it does future-proof the combo for other titles. The GPU’s 220W TDP and 550W suggested PSU are practical considerations, but in this game, the GPU’s raw power means that it is rarely stressed. At 1080p, the GPU is often idle, waiting for the CPU to feed it data, but at 4K, it takes on a more significant role, as evidenced by the FPS drop from 370.7 (1080p Low) to 323.6 (4K Low).

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

The measured FPS data reveals a clear pattern of scaling across resolutions. At 1080p with Low settings, the combo achieves 370.7 FPS, which drops to 349.8 at 1440p and 323.6 at 4K. This represents a 12.7% drop from 1080p to 4K, a relatively small decrease that indicates the CPU is still keeping up with the GPU’s output. However, at High settings, the drop is more pronounced: 307.2 FPS at 1080p, 293 at 1440p, and 271 at 4K, a 11.8% reduction. The pattern is similar for Medium and Ultra settings, where the 4K figures hover around 276.3 and 265.9, respectively, versus 315.7 and 302.5 at 1080p.

This scaling behavior suggests that the system is CPU-bound at 1080p, where the GPU is not fully utilized, and becomes more GPU-bound as resolution increases. The fact that the FPS does not halve when going from 1080p to 4K tells a builder that the RTX 4070 SUPER has ample headroom, and the i5-9400 is providing a stable frame delivery. The difference between Low and Ultra settings at 4K is 57.7 FPS (323.6 vs 265.9), which is a 17.8% performance cost for higher visual fidelity. This is a modest penalty, reinforcing that the GPU is the primary driver at 4K, while the CPU maintains a consistent baseline. Overall, the scaling data indicates a well-balanced combo where neither component is a severe bottleneck, though the CPU is closer to its limits at lower resolutions.

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

For players prioritizing maximum frame rate, the Low preset at 1080p delivers the highest measured average of 370.7 FPS, which is ideal for competitive play where every millisecond counts. However, the jump to Medium at 1080p only costs 55 FPS (315.7 vs 370.7), a 14.9% reduction, while likely improving visual clarity. The High preset at 1080p yields 307.2 FPS, and Ultra drops to 302.5 FPS, showing that the graphical settings have a relatively small impact on performance at this resolution. Given that the difference between Low and Ultra at 1080p is just 68.2 FPS, a builder might choose High or Ultra for a better visual experience without sacrificing the high refresh rate capabilities of a 144Hz or 240Hz monitor.

At 1440p, the Low preset still delivers 349.8 FPS, which is excellent, but the Medium preset at 297.6 FPS is a more balanced choice for those with 144Hz displays. At 4K, the Low preset (323.6 FPS) is the only option that exceeds 300 FPS, while High (271 FPS), Medium (276.3 FPS), and Ultra (265.9 FPS) all fall short of that mark. For a 4K 120Hz or 144Hz display, the Low preset is the safest recommendation to maintain a high refresh rate, though Medium is a viable compromise if visual fidelity is more important than raw FPS. The data suggests that Medium settings offer the best balance of performance and quality across all resolutions, as it consistently sits within a few FPS of High while providing a noticeable improvement over Low.

How This Combo Ranks — use comboRankInGame vs other tested combos

This specific combination of the Intel Core i5-9400 and NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4070 SUPER ranks 1327 out of 1650 tested combos in Valorant. This places it in the lower-mid range of all pairings, which might seem surprising given the high FPS numbers. The rank is relative to other CPU-GPU combinations, and it reflects that many other setups, likely with newer or higher-end CPUs paired with similarly powerful GPUs, achieve even higher frame rates. The data does not specify the exact scores of the other combos, but the rank of 1327 out of 1650 indicates that this pairing is not at the top tier, despite the RTX 4070 SUPER’s strong GPU performance.

The CPU’s 50th percentile ranking and the GPU’s 84th percentile ranking suggest that the combo is held back by the processor. While the i5-9400 is sufficient for Valorant, it is not the best CPU for maximizing the RTX 4070 SUPER’s potential in this game. Builders with a higher-end CPU, such as a newer Intel Core i5 or i7, would likely see this combo rank higher. However, for the specific hardware in question, the rank of 1327 out of 1650 is a practical measure of where it stands, and the measured FPS data shows that the experience is still excellent, with no visible stuttering or frame drops reported. The rank is a relative metric, and the absolute performance is what matters most for the end user.

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

The measured FPS data provides a comprehensive view of performance across three resolutions and four settings presets. At 1920x1080, the average FPS ranges from 370.7 (Low) to 302.5 (Ultra). The specific figures are: Low 370.7, Medium 315.7, High 307.2, and Ultra 302.5. This shows a 68.2 FPS spread between the lowest and highest settings, with Low being the fastest and Ultra the slowest. At 2560x1440, the numbers are slightly lower: Low 349.8, Medium 297.6, High 293, and Ultra 287. The drop from 1080p to 1440p is most pronounced at Low settings (20.9 FPS), while at Ultra, the drop is only 15.5 FPS, indicating that the GPU is handling the extra pixels more efficiently at higher settings.

At 3840x2160, the performance remains strong: Low 323.6, Medium 276.3, High 271, and Ultra 265.9. The difference between Low and Ultra at 4K is 57.7 FPS, which is a larger absolute gap than at 1080p (68.2 FPS) but a smaller percentage drop (17.8% vs 18.4%). The data shows that the combo can maintain over 265 FPS even at the highest settings and resolution, which is exceptional for any game. For a builder, these numbers mean that the system is capable of driving high refresh rate monitors at 1080p and 1440p, and even at 4K, it can exceed the refresh rate of most gaming displays. The measured data is consistent, with no outliers or unexpected dips, confirming the stability of this pairing.