Valorant

The Intel Core i7-13700K pairs with the AMD Radeon RX 7600 to deliver extremely high frame rates in Valorant, a competitive FPS released on 2020-06-01. Both components sit in the mid-to-high tier of their respective charts—the CPU scores at the 89th percentile against all CPUs, while the GPU sits at the 57th percentile against all GPUs. The measured data from this exact configuration shows average FPS ranging from 597 at 1080p Low to 243 at 4K Ultra, indicating the system can handle even the most demanding resolution and settings combos this game offers. The following sections break down exactly how the processor and graphics card contribute to these results, how the frame rate scales across resolutions, and what that means for a builder looking to assemble a similar setup.

CPU Role

The Intel Core i7-13700K is a 13th Gen Raptor Lake processor with 16 cores and 24 threads, running at a 3.40 GHz base clock and a 5.40 GHz boost clock. The L3 cache is 30 MB shared, and the memory support covers both. For a game like Valorant, which is heavily reliant on single-core speed, the high boost clock and the 16-core/24-thread count don't necessarily matter for maximum frame rates, but they do ensure the CPU never becomes the bottleneck. The integrated graphics is UHD Graphics 770, a passive addition to this combo since the system uses the AMD GPU.

The data shows that the i7-13700K's single-thread performance is especially strong. The Geekbench single-core score is 2529, while the multi-core score is 19429. The Cinebench R23 multi-core score is 16292, and the single-core score is 2,299. Wait—I need to fix that: Cinebench R23 multi-core is 16292? Actually from the pack: cinebench_r23_multicore: 30745, single: 2116. Also Cinebench R15 multicore 4507.5, single 303. These numbers show the CPU's raw capability. The 3DMark 1-thread score is 1136 and 4-thread is 2262, 8-thread 4469, 16-thread 10717, and max threads 12412. The multi-thread ratings are much higher due to the 16 cores, but Valorant usually doesn't employ more than a few threads.

When comparing the i7-13700K to its nearest rivals, the data shows it sits closely with the AMD Ryzen 9 5900, which has an avg benchmark score of 46971, just a delta of -0.2% from the i7. The AMD Ryzen AI 9 HX PRO 375 is at 47022 with -0.3%, and the AMD Ryzen 9 7845HX at 46654 with +0.5% — the i7 outruns it by 0.5%. The Intel Xeon w3-2535 is also at 46653 with a +0.5% delta. So the i7-13700K is positioned precisely in the pack of high-end desktop and mobile parts, but its advantage lies not in the absolute average score, but in the utilization of that power in frame-rate-oriented games. For Valorant at 1080p Low, the CPU easily drives to 597 FPS, demonstrating that the core architecture and single-core burst performance translates into the ultra-high refresh rates the game demands.

GPU Role

The AMD Radeon RX 7600 uses the Navi 33 chip on the 6 nm process with 13.3 billion transistors and a die size of 204 mm². Its memory config is 8 GB of GDDR6 on a 128-bit bus, delivering a bandwidth of 288.0 GB/s. Clocks are base 1720 MHz, boost 2655 MHz, and game clock 2250 MHz. The PCIe interface is Gen 4 x8, and it comes with DisplayPort 2.1 outputs. The GPU's TDP is 165 W, and the launch MSRP is 269 USD.

While the RX 7600 is a value-oriented desktop card, its 8 GB VRAM and 288 GB/s bandwidth are overkill for Valorant, which is known for being lightweight. The GPU's 2048 shading units, 128 TMUs, and 64 ROPs work hard to push pixels at higher resolutions. The 4K numbers in this benchmark show the greed for the GPU: at 4K Ultra, the average FPS is 243, still very high, but about 100 FPS lower than 1080p Low. The GPU's own percentile rank is 57%, meaning it outperforms slightly more than half of all other GPUs in average benchmark score, but among its nearest rivals are far less powerful cards: the RTX 3050 OEM (delta -0.2%), the Radeon Pro 560X (0.6%), the AMD Radeon 680M, and the aging GTX 660 Ti (0.7%). This indicates that the RX 7600 is a modern mainstream card that handles Valorant with extreme ease, and its limitation is not throughput at lower resolutions.

Looking at the measured FPS at 1080p Low, the GPU produces 597 FPS, which is likely the monitor limit or a loose cap, while at 1440p it rises to 510 and at 4K it drops to 407. The GPU's memory and shading resource are sufficient to manage the game's geometry, since Valorant's minimum spec is very low compared to this card. The GPU's FP32 9 TFLOPS and texture rate 339.8 GTexel/s are way beyond what the game's draw calls require, so the GPU ends up being an idle player in this pairing. Instead, the CPU is the more important part to keep the 1% lows and minimums in check. The minimum FPS numbers we have are for Medium settings: 228 FPS at 4K, 285 at 1440p, and 335 at 1080p. These lows are consistently above 200 FPS, indicating that no part is stalling, even at the highest GPU stress point (4K Medium).

Resolution Scaling

Data at 1920x1080, 2560x1440, and 3840x2160 were collected at four quality presets. When complication, the FPS is as follows:

• Low: 1080p: 597, 1440p: 510, 4K: 407
• Medium: 1080p: 394, 1440p: 336, 4K: 268
• High: 1080p: 375, 1440p: 320, 4K: 256
• Ultra: 1080p: 357, 1440p: 305, 4K: 243

Notice that at Low settings, the FPS drop from 1080 to 1440 (a reduction from 597 to 510) is a difference of 87 FPS, then further to 407 at 4K, another 103 FPS. The same trend holds for Ultra, with only 357 at 1080 down to 305 at 1440, and finally 243 at 4K. Looking at the gap in FPS between resolutions, you can see the slope of the line: as 4K requires 4x the pixels of 1080p, the frame rate falls from ~597 to ~407 at Low, a reduction of about 32%. At Ultra, the percentage is higher, from 357 at 1080 to only 243 at 4K, a 32% reduction too; the scaling is almost uniform across presets. This behavior indicates the GPU is becoming the limiting factor only when the pixel count increases, but the CPU is still so fast at 4K and still produces over 240 FPS. The Minimum FPS at Medium is 228 at 4K and 285 at 1440p, which are still higher than most monitors refresh.

The message from this scaling is clear: the system is exceptionally well-matched for high-refresh-rate 1080p gaming, with 597 FPS at Low and 394 at Medium, and the GPU is never fully stressed. Even at 1440p, all presets stay above 305 FPS, so a 144Hz or slower monitor still gets more than double the displayed frame rate from the GPU. At 4K, the whole thing drops below the 300, but still high. For a pure Valorant play, an 1080p monitor with a low refresh rate is a waste—the commenter should tune the presenter to Medium or possibly High to reach a balanced rather than forcing a 1440p or 4K not optimum.

FAQ

Q: What is the power of the CPU in this Valorant benchmark?

A: The Intel Core i7-13700K has 16 cores and 24 threads, with a boost clock of 5.40 GHz. In this game, the single-core performance drives the results. The Cinebench R23 single-core score is 2,298, and the multi-core is 2,116. The data suggests the CPU easily sustains high FPS even at 4K, where the average stays above 240 FPS.

Q: Is the AMD Radeon RX 7600 a sufficient GPU for Valorant?

A: Yes. The RX 7600 has a 8 GB VRAM with a 128-bit bus and a memory bandwidth of 288.0 GB/s. It managed to produce 407 FPS at 4K Low and 243 FPS at 4K Ultra. Its percentile is 57th overall, but the game doesn't utilize its full power, so no issues.

Q: How does the i7-13700K compare to other close CPUs like the AMD Ryzen 9 5900?

A: The nearest rival to the i7 according to the data is the AMD Ryzen 9 5900, which has an average benchmark score of 46971, just -0.2% away. The AMD Ryzen 9 7845HX is 46654 with -0.5%, and the Intel Xeon w3-2535 has a delta of +0.5%. So the i7-13700K's performance is practically in line with these, differing by less than 0.5% in aggregate scores.

Q: What frame rates can a 1080p player expect at different settings?

A: At 1920x1080, the averaged frame rates are: Low 123, Medium 394, High 375, and Ultra 357. The Medium setting has a minimum FPS of 335, which is still above typical refresh rates. This means the game is playable on any preset.

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

A: This combo is ranked 2194th out of 3708 tested combos in the game. That places it in the lower middle of the list, but the absolute FPS numbers are so high that the rank mostly reflects that many other combos also produce very high FPS. The dataset includes many extreme setups like multi-GPU or high-end 3DMark combos.

Q: Does the game use the CPU's 24 threads fully?

A: No practical use for that many threads. Valorant is a FPS that relies more on single-core performance. The i7-13700K's single-thread scores are 2529 in Geekbench, and it boosts to 5.40 GHz. The extra cores and threads only matter if the Intel UHD Graphics 7600 were used, which it isn't here.

How This Combo Ranks

The combo is ranked 2194 out of 3708 in the game's benchmark list. By strict, that means the 59th percentile of all tested combo combos (since better than about 30% of combos)? Actually, if the rank is 2194, that expression means it's not in the top 2194, so it's beat by 2194 combos of 3708. So it's below the midpoint. The advantage of the high FPS (597 at 1080p) is associated with a CPU that's only average in the overall pool, since there are many dual-channel with SLI etc. But the GPU also has a 57th percentile rating among GPUs, so the sum is lower than many built with the i-9 + RTX 4090 combos. Yet for Valorant specifically, the actual FPS are in the high hundreds, likely limited by the engine's max tick, meaning the rank is not the ultimate measure. For that, we have the measured FPS data to compare.

The CPU percentile is 89 percentile for all CPUs, meaning it's ahead of 89% of other CPUs. The GPU percentile is 57, so that puts the pair at an average of 73, but the measured frame rates rate high because the game is light. The rank in-game may not reflect the value of this Intel i7 with the Radeon 7600 when considering that many users want a system that maintains 1080p, and the FPS numbers are more reliable than composite scores.

Measured FPS Breakdown

All measured numbers are below, with the average FPS at each resolution and quality setting from the package.

1920x1080

• Ultra: 357 FPS
• High: 375 FPS
• Medium: 394FPS (min 335, max 453)
• Low: 597 FPS

At 1080p, the average exceeds 240 FPS no matter what. The gap between Ultra's 357 and Low's 597 is sizable, but both are far above typical gaming needs. Medium provides a middle ground at 394, with a known minimum of 335.

2560x1440

• Ultra: 305 FPS
• High: 320 FPS
• Medium: 336 FPS (min 285, max 386)
• Low: 510 FPS

At 1440p, the drops are smooth: each preset sequential ~10% lower than the previous one. Medium min 228 is about 5% lower than the average at 336, and Low 510.

3840x2160

• Ultra: 243 FPS
• High: 256 FPS
• Medium: 268 FPS (min 228, max 309)
• Low: 407 FPS

4K even Ultra stays above 150 FPS headroom. Medium shows a variability from 228 to 309, but the 243 fps on Ultra is marginal but . The 4K Medium's minimum of 228 is the lowest FPS recorded on the entire matrix, yet it still exceeds the typical 144Hz number.

The data indicates the combination is always playable; the weakest scenario (4K Ultra) would be far less than what many systems deliver. The average FPS at 4K low is 123, which is almost exactly equal to the 4K Ultra FPS at 1080p. That means the GPU spends only about a factor of two when you move up to 4K, showing how efficient this game is for light hardware.