Valorant

Settings Recommendations

Between the four preset-level configurations, Low scores the highest average FPS at every tested resolution: 609 at 1920×1080, 577 at 2560×1440, and 536 at 3840×2160. Medium and High follow a less consistent ordering: at 1080p High averages 510 and Medium 519; at 1440p High is 484 and Medium 492; at 4K High is 393 and Medium 412. In all three cases Medium wins by a slim margin. Ultra is always the slowest: 502, 468, and 374 FPS at 1080p, 1440p, and 4K respectively. That leaves a clear hierarchy: Low > Medium > High > Ultra for average FPS, though the gap between Medium and High is under 30 FPS at any resolution.

For competitive play, the raw frame rate matters, but so does frame consistency. Medium is the only preset row that reports both minimum and maximum FPS values across all resolutions: at 1080p it delivers an average of 519 FPS, with 441 min and 597 max; at 1440p an average of 492, min 418, max 566; at 4K an average of 412, min 351, max 474. These documented lows are still far above the typical 144 Hz refresh target, and the span between min and max is tight enough to feel stable. Low, while faster on average, provides no min/max records, which means there is no guarantee its frame pacing is as contained. Since the data set deliberately includes the min and max for Medium, using Medium gives a more predictable experience. Furthermore, Medium’s advantage over High is consistent at all three resolutions, so it offers a better cost in terms of quality degradation relative to the FPS gain.

Therefore, the recommended preset for this CPU/GPU combination is Medium, not least because it has the only complete frame-time data. For users who accept a bit more visual detail at no loss of smoothness, High is only a few FPS behind, but the data shows Medium to be the best measured midpoint. At Ultra, the FPS still reaches 374 at 4K, but the extremely high frame rates of this pairing mean that dropping to Medium costs little while securing headroom for competitive scenarios.

GPU Role

The Radeon RX 9070 supplies the rendering power here. Its 16 GB VRAM is paired with GDDR6 memory on a 256-bit bus, producing 644.6 GB/s of bandwidth. In this game, the rendering load does not appear to stress that allocation: at the most demanding preset (3840×2160 Ultra), the system still averages 374 FPS. That indicates the GPU has more resources than the game demands, leaving performance headroom. The clock configuration also matters: a base clock of 1330 MHz, a game clock of 2070 MHz, and a boost of 2520 MHz. With such high frame numbers, the GPU is only lightly loaded, yet its clock behavior remains stable.

The GPU’s identity is further defined by its compute metrics: 3584 shading units, 128 ROPs, 224 TMUs, and a 53,900 million transistor design. In the 3D Mark Steel Nomad DX12 test it posts a 6290 score, while Geekbench Vulkan yields 58705; both sit in the upper end of the chart. The percentile vs all GPUs is 69, meaning the RX 9070 operates in the top half of all graphics cards. Its nearest rivals in raw average benchmark scores include the NVIDIA GeForce GTX TITAN Z (avg 23736, delta +0.6%), the AMD Radeon RX 6800S (avg 24063, delta -0.8%), the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3080 Mobile (avg 23628, delta +1.1%), and the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2080 SUPER (avg 24170, delta -1.2%). The difference between them is under 1.2%, so the card’s placement in the mid- to high-range is consistent.

Given that the GPU sits in the 69th percentile and yet the system pushes past 600 FPS at 1080p Low, the card is clearly not the bottleneck in Valorant. The measured frame counts are GPU‑agnostic to a degree; they are high enough to suggest the load is shifted towards the CPU. The 16 GB VRAM remains mostly unused, as even 4K does not cause a measurable drop in performance that would imply VRAM limitation.

How This Combo Ranks

The combination of the Intel Core i7-12700K and the AMD Radeon RX 9070 achieves a ranking of 625th out of 3708 tested combinations in this game. That is a top-6% placement when expressed as a fraction of the total, though the database only records the rank itself. Being in the 600s out of nearly 3700 scenes puts this pairing well above the median. To contextualize: more than 80% of the tested combinations yield lower FPS results. The CPU and GPU individually have their own percentile scores (CPU 84th, GPU 69th), and this pair leverages both strengths.

The CPU’s average benchmark score is 35287, sitting at percentile 84. Its nearest rival, the Core i5-13600T, has an avg score of 35305 and a deltaPct of -0.1%, meaning the 12700K is essentially a 0.1% behind the 13600T. The 12700KF is only 0.2% behind, and the i7-13700T is 0.3% behind. The GPU's average is 23877, percentile 69, with the closest competitor being the GTX TITAN Z at 23736 (+0.6%). This narrow margin underscores that both components are solidly mid-generation performers. In the game, the combined rank of 625/3708 indicates that the part’s strengths translate well into competitive valorant against a huge sample of other builds.

Measured FPS Breakdown

The measured data includes four settings per resolution, so there are twelve 3×4 combinations. Here they are:

• 1920×1080 High: avg 510
• 1920×1080 Low: avg 609
• 1920×1080 Medium: avg 519, min 441, max 597
• 1920×1080 Ultra: avg 502
• 2560×1440 High: avg 484
• 2560×1440 Low: avg 577
• 2560×1440 Medium: avg 492, min 418, max 566
• 2560×1440 Ultra: avg 468
• 3840×2160 High: avg 393
• 3840×2160 Low: avg 536
• 3840×2160 Medium: avg 412, min 351, max 474
• 3840×2160 Ultra: avg 374

In summary: on the least heavy preset, Low, the minimum average is 536 FPS at 4K and the peak is 609 FPS at 1080p. Medium introduces a stable buffer: 412 at 4K, 492 at 1440p, 519 at 1080p. High lags behind Medium by roughly 15–20 FPS at each resolution, and Ultra is just 5–8 FPS behind High. The most substantial drop appears when moving from 1080p to 1440p, where every preset loses between roughly 25 and 30 FPS (the exact numbers are given above). The gap between 1440p and 4K is larger: around 20-25% more loss, still leaving averages slogged above 370 FPS in every case.

This data synthesis shows that the 1920×1080 row is where the system is most limber. All presets at 1080 yield more than 500 frames, except Ultra at 502 being just clipped. The 4K Ultra is still above 360, which is an exceptional result for any gaming machine.

Resolution Scaling

From 1080p to 1440p, each setting sees an approximate drop of 20–30 FPS. For example, Low goes from 609 to 577, Medium from 519 to 492, High from 510 to 484, and Ultra from 502 to 468. This is a consistent loss pattern across all presets. Moving from 1440p to 4K, the drop is much steeper: Low goes from 577 to 536, Medium 492 to 412, High 484 to 393, Ultra 468 to 374. The span between Low and Ultra at 4K is thus 162 FPS (536 – 374) which is important to note, but that number was already present.

The behavior of the scaling indicates that the frame count jogo is not purely resolution-limited. Since even at 1080p the stats are nearly the same as at 1440p, the bottleneck is likely to be the CPU and memory hierarchy. The 12.1 GB/s of memory bandwidth (from the GPU) does not appear to be the delimiter. Instead, the consistent reduction as resolution climbs suggests that the GPU is taking on more of the load, but the many frames per second system still has enough headroom to

CPU Role

The core of the system is the Intel Core i7-12700K, a 12-core, 30-thread processor with a base clock of 3.60 GHz and a boost of 5.00 GHz. It sits on the LGA1700 socket (Socket 1700) and uses the Alder Lake architecture on Intel’s 10 nm process. The cache hierarchy includes 80 KB L1 per core, 1.25 MB L2 per core, and 25 MB L3 shared. This CPU’s performance in synthetic benchmarks reinforces its strength: Cinebench R20 single-core 1726, R23 multi-core 19784, 3D mark single-thread 1043, and Geekbench single-core 2308. The Multi-thread score of 15790 in Geekbench, and PassMark’s single-thread 4013 highlights its efficiency in lightly threaded workloads.

In the tested game, the CPU side often determines the peak frame cap. The data shows the FPS points are not scaling widely with resolution; the change from 1080p to 4K is only about 12–18% relative to the total values. For example, from 1080p Low (609) to 4K Low (336) gives a delta of 25%, but that's a raw shift of 73 FPS. No other numerical derivative is allowed, so we simply note the direction. The CPU’s 20 threads provide more than enough parallelism for a typical FPS engine; the single-core scores are particularly high (Geekbench 2308, Cinebench R23 single-core 1850.5), which is exactly what a game like Valorant favors. With a launch MSRP of $409, the CPU is positioned for high-frequency usage.

The 3DMark 2-thread test reports 2065 and the 4-thread 4011, indicating that thread scaling is almost linear. Given the measured FPS in all settings, it is evident that the CPU is not a limiting factor. A 34th-percentile CPU score places it in the top. Its nearest competitor, the i5-13600T, is behind by a deltaPct of -1.2% in the 3.6% margin, while the i7-12700KF is 0.2% behind. Even this small gap shows the 12700K is practically comparable to its sim, still remaining a robust choice.

In summary, the combination’s 625nd place among 3708 total combos directly reflects the CPU’s strong thread count, high clocks, and the GPU’s ample bandwidth. The measured results single out a CPU-centric performance: the processor maintains a nearly constant p, so the GPU is free to render frames quickly. The 0.8% delta to the closest AARC competitor IT shows how close these benchmarks are, but the 12700K's advantages in frequency and cache makes it a top performer in this title.