Valorant

Valorant is a 2020 competitive FPS engineered to reward high frame rates, and the measured data for the Intel Core i5-9400 + NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5080 pairing reflects that: every resolution and settings combination sustains 267+ average FPS. However, the system’s aggregate performance among 3,708 tested combos sits at 2,939, which places it behind 79% of other configurations. The CPU’s 47th percentile benchmark score and the GPU’s 87th percentile score reveal a clear imbalance: the i5-9400 is an aging 6-core/6-thread Coffee Lake part with a 4.10 GHz boost, while the RTX 5080 is a Blackwell flagship with a 90+ TFLOPS compute ceiling. This mismatch defines the observed behavior—the CPU limits frame rates at every resolution, even as the GPU remains largely underutilized.

Resolution Scaling

The measured FPS tables show a negligible impact from raising resolution. Across all four settings, dropping from 1920×1080 to 2560×1440 reduces the average FPS by roughly 5–7 points, and moving further to 3840×2160 brings the total drop to approximately 12%. For example, on Low settings, the 1080p average of 368 FPS falls to 349 FPS at 1440p and then to 324 FPS at 4K — a compound loss of 44 FPS, or 12% of the 1080p starting value. On High settings, the numbers are 309 → 293 → 272, a 12% descent. Medium sees 314 → 298 → 276, and Ultra goes from 304 → 288 → 267. In all cases, the systematic 12% error is uniform, which is a classic sign of a CPU-bound workload. A GPU-bound title would show much sharper gradient, often halving FPS at 4K relative to 1080p. Instead, the measured consistency implies that the i5-9400 is already issuing draw calls and game logic up to the engine’s maximum capacity, and increasing pixel count taxes only the graphics pipeline, which the RTX 5080 consumes without sweat.

This behavior has practical impact: players on 1440p or 4K monitors will see only a modest FPS reduction compared to 1080p. The 12% difference is small enough that even a 240 Hz monitor is still fully driven at 4K Ultra — the 267 FPS figure is above 240, so refresh rate limits are met. The data suggests that 1080p is not necessary to unlock further speed; the CPU is the hard ceiling, not the pixel count.

CPU Role

The Intel Core i5-9400 is a Coffee Lake refresh chip from 14nm lithography, with 6 physical cores and 6 threads, base clock 2.90 GHz and boost 4.10 GHz. It has a 9 MB shared L3 cache, dual-channel DDR4 memory bandwidth of 42.7 GB/s, and a TDP of 65 W. Its benchmark scores land near the 47th percentile in the database, with a composite average of 2,254 points. That average positions it almost exactly alongside processors like the Intel Core i7-1068NG7 (2,259, −0.2% delta), the i7-10710U (2,248, +0.3%), and the Ryzen 5 PRO 1500 (2,246, +0.4%) — all within a few points of each other. This indicates the 9400 poses an average computing capability, not a streaming or high-frames marvel.

In Valorant, which heavily favors single-core IPC and clock bursts, the 9400’s boost of 4.10 GHz is decent but not top-tier. The measured frame rates of 368 FPS at 1080p Low illustrate the CPU’s capacity to issue draw calls and game command predited on a typical 60 Hz gameplay loop. Yet the remaining 79% of combos rank superior because other CPUs with higher single-core scores—such as those from later Core i5s or AMD’s ZEN3—feed the GPU with more frames per second. The 9400’s 6-thread count is adequate since Valorant rarely uses more than 4 threads, but the 4.10 GHz ceiling is the final limiter.

The single-core benchmarks: Cinebench R23 single-core score of 935 and Geekbench of 1,389. Multi-core scores are 6,629 (Cine R23) and 5,141 (Geekbench). These numbers, relative to the 5080’s GPU capabilities, make it clear the CPU is the downbound agent.

GPU Role

The NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5080 is Blackwell 2.0 architecture, produced on TSMC 5nm, with 45,600 million transistors and a die size of 378 mm². It packs 10,752 shading units, 336 TMUs, 112 ROPs, 84 RT cores, and 336 tensor cores. Clock frequencies: base 2,295 MHz, boost 2,617 MHz, and memory running at 1,875 MHz (30 Gbps effective) to feed 16 GB of GDDR7 slices via a 256‑bit bus — total memory bandwidth of 960.0 GB/s. Its raw throughput numbers are staggering at apex: FP32 performance of 56.28 TFLOPS and texture fill rate of 879.3 GT/s.

The GPU’s benchmark standing is an average raw score of 56,083 and 87th percentile overall. It is adjacent to competitors like AMD Radeon RX 9070 GRE (57,367, +2.2% difference), and other boundary hypers. In Valorant, such GPU brute force yields oxbow performance. The measured frame rates are CPU-anchored, but the GPU still demonstrates it can push at 4K 304 FPS (1080p) or 267 FPS at 4K Ultra. The consistent fact that raising settings from Low to Ultra only drops FPS by about 4–8% (e.g., 304 vs 368 at 1080p) shows the GPU has more than enough shadow to render the game’s modest topological, while leaving headroom for future titles.

The combined elimination and 96% of CPUs in the comparison list being bottled by the CPU is backed by the GPU’s peak compute and the absence of any observable GPU-imposed cap across the measured rows.

FAQ

Q: Why does my system still achieve hundreds of FPS if it ranks only 55th percentile in performance?

A: The FPS numbers are measured from the specific configuration, not from the CPU percentile. The combo ranking of 2,939 out 3,708 means that 79% of tested pairs produce higher average FPS in Valorant, but the i5‑9000 + RTX 5080 still produces 267–368 FPS. For a competitive game like Valorant, these numbers are plenty, but rival combos with more single‑core power hit even higher peaks.

Q: What is the effect of resolution in this game?

A: The measured data shows that the average FPS falls only by about 12% when moving from 1080p to 4K, across all settings (e.g., Low: 368 → 324; Ultra: 304 → 267). Because the game’s engine is CPU‑limited, pixel count has diminishing impact. Players with 1440p or 4K displays will experience frame rates nearly as high as 1080p, which is unusual for high-power GPUs.

Q: Is the GeForce RTX 5080 needed for this game?

A: The RTX 5080’s 87th percentile benchmark score is far above what Valorant requires. Its measured performance shows that the GPU does not throttle the frame rate — the frame limit is set by the i5‑9400. Consequently, spending on an RTX 5080 delivers no better Valorant FPS than a GPU of a lower fraction, but it does reserve capacity for other, more demanding titles.

Q: Which settings give the highest FPS?

A: Low settings produce the highest raw average at any resolution: 368 FPS at 1080p, 349 FPS at 1440p, and 324 FPS at 4K. The losses for moving from Low to Medium are about 15–20%, while High and Ultra cause only a small additional reduction (e.g., Medium → Ultra loses ~3–'s 18 FPS at 1080p). For a pure competitive shooter, Low is the ban‑the‑bottle.

Q: Why does the Medium preset record minimum and maximum FPS values, while other presets do not?

A: The dataset includes a min/max split only for Medium: at 1080p, lows of of 267 and max 361; at 1440p, 253/342; at 4K, 235/318. That indicates noticeable frame-time deviation under Medium settings, likely due to GPU runtime variations that are less pronounced at the other presets—but these fluctuations are still far above typical refresh rates.

Q: Would a different CPU boost the frame rate?

A: Yes. Since the CPU benchmarks show the 9400 to be placed around mid-range (47th percentile), and the game is CPU‐latency driven, pairing the RTX 5080 with a higher single‑core performer (e.g., a more recently designed Core i5, as seen in the nearestRivals list with scores slightly higher) would likely push the average FPS above 400‑500 at 1080p. The current combo is bounded by the constant ~368 FPS ceiling from the CPU.

Measured FPS Breakdown

The following table lists all measured average frame rates by resolution and preset. Min and max are only provided for the Medium preset.

| Resolution | Settings | Avg FPS | Min FPS | Max FPS |

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

| 1920×1080 | Low | 368 | – | – |

| 1920×1080 | Medium | 314 | 267 | 361 |

| 1920×1080 | High | 309 | – | – |

| 1920×1080 | Ultra | 304 | – | – |

| 2560×1440 | Low | 349 | – | – |

| 2560×1440 | Medium | 298 | 253 | 342 |

| 2560×1440 | High | 293 | – | – |

| 2560×1440 | Ultra | 288 | – | – |

| 3840×2160 | Low | 324 | – | – |

| 3840×2160 | Medium | 276 | 235 | 318 |

| 3840×2160 | High | 272 | – | – |

| 3840×2160 | Ultra | 267 | – | – |

All measured rows reflect actual game data; all other fields not listed are absent from the database.

Settings Recommendations

Based on the measured FPS, the most optimal compromise between image quality and frame throughput depends on the user’s target refresh rate and resolution. For competitive play, the Low preset yields the absolute highest frames: 368 FPS at 1080p, 349 Fps at 1440p, and 324 Fps at 4K. The gap between Low and Medium is significant in absolute terms — a drop of 54, 51, and 48 FPS, respectively — and that difference diminishes further with each higher preset. Moving from Medium to High costs only 5 FPS in 1080p, and from High to Ultra costs another 5 FPS, so the variation typically ranges from 5 to 10 FPS.

If the monitor refreshes at 144 Hz, any preset can comfortably hit that cap; even the slowest 4K Ultra profile’s 267 FPS exceeds 240 Hz displays. However, for a low‑latency advantage, Low and Medium stand out. Medium—while still maintaining—its frame‑time spread (267–361 FPs) might be less stable than Low’s uninterrupted flat values, making Low garnestly the reason. The composite benchmark ranking of the i5‑9400 shows it is not a top performer for esports at extreme frame rates, so extracting every CPU frame — as Low does — yields the best measured outcome.

Therefore, this analysis recommends the Low preset if the monitor can handle it, especially for 1080p or 1440p play. If the player values visual fidelity over raw FPS, the difference between Low and Ultra is small (64 FPS at 1080p, 57 at 1440p, 57 at 4K) and still leaves the game well above 250 FPS. Since the i5-9400 can only feed the 5080 through a narrow band, there is no reason to chase extra frames over minimal graphics changes—the highest setting is not the obstacle, the CPU is.