Valorant

# Valorant with Intel Core i7-14700F + AMD Radeon RX 9060

The Intel Core i7-14700F pairs 20 cores (8 performance and 12 efficiency) with 28 threads, a 2.10 GHz base clock, and a 5.40 GHz boost clock, built on Intel's 10 nm Raptor Lake-R architecture with 33 MB of shared L3 cache. The AMD Radeon RX 9060, based on the Navi 44 chip with RDNA 4.0 architecture on TSMC's 4 nm process, brings 1792 shading units, 112 texture mapping units, and 64 raster operation units, with a 2400 MHz game clock and 2990 MHz boost clock. In Valorant, this combination delivers exceptionally high frame rates across every tested configuration, with the CPU's strong single-thread performance (a Geekbench single-core score of 2429 and Cinebench R23 single-core score of 4958) proving crucial for a competitive FPS where frame pacing and responsiveness matter more than raw multi-core throughput. The GPU's 8 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 128-bit bus with 288.0 GB/s bandwidth is more than sufficient for this esports title, which is not particularly demanding on memory bandwidth at the resolutions tested.

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

Valorant is a CPU-sensitive title, and the data reflects that. The Core i7-14700F's composition — 20 cores and 28 threads — is overkill for a game that rarely scales beyond a handful of threads, but the architecture's high boost clock and robust single-core performance are what matter. The CPU's Cinebench R23 single-core score of 4958 and Geekbench single-core score of 2429 place it in the 91st percentile among all CPUs, and benchmark results indicate that this headroom translates into consistently high frame rates even at lower resolutions where CPU overhead dominates.

At 1080p Low settings, the combo produces 647 FPS average, which strongly suggests the CPU is capable of feeding frames well beyond what most displays can show. The CPU's 5.40 GHz boost clock is the key enabler here; at lower resolutions, the GPU has less work to do per frame, so the CPU's ability to issue draw calls and process game logic becomes the limiting factor. With a PassMark single-thread score of 4257 and a PassMark physics score of 2455, the CPU demonstrates the kind of per-core throughput that competitive shooters demand.

The 65 W TDP and dual-channel memory support for both DDR4 and DDR5 mean this CPU can sustain high clocks without exotic cooling, though the data shows its performance ceiling is well above what Valorant requires. The CPU's nearest rivals in average benchmark score — the Intel Xeon 6505P at 53701 (0.2% higher), Intel Xeon Phi 7290 at 53469 (0.3% lower), AMD Ryzen 9 7900X at 53288 (0.6% lower), and AMD EPYC 7313P at 53206 (0.8% lower) — are all within a percentage point, indicating this processor sits in a competitive tier for compute workloads. However, in Valorant specifically, the single-core performance advantage over these server and workstation chips likely matters more than the aggregate score.

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

Q: What is the maximum average FPS this combo achieves in Valorant?

A: The highest recorded average FPS is 647 at 1920x1080 resolution with Low settings. The next best is 559 FPS at 2560x1440 with Low settings, and 447 FPS at 3840x2160 with Low settings.

Q: How does the Core i7-14700F compare to its nearest rival in CPU benchmark scores?

A: The Core i7-14700F has an average benchmark score of 53620, placing it in the 91st percentile of all CPUs. Its closest rival, the Intel Xeon 6505P, scores 53701, which is 0.2% higher. The AMD Ryzen 9 7900X scores 53288, 0.6% lower, and the AMD EPYC 7313P scores 53206, 0.8% lower.

Q: Is the Radeon RX 9060's performance competitive with other GPUs in its class?

A: The RX 9060 has an average benchmark score of 16014, placing it in the 59th percentile of all GPUs. Its nearest rival, the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3060 Ti, scores 16129, which is 0.7% higher. The AMD Radeon RX 7700 scores 15852, which is 1% lower.

Q: What resolution and settings combination yields the highest minimum FPS?

A: The data shows minimum FPS only for Medium settings. At 1920x1080 Medium, the minimum FPS is 367; at 2560x1440 Medium, it is 313; and at 3840x2160 Medium, it is 250. The 1080p Medium configuration offers the highest guaranteed frame floor.

Q: How does the combo rank among all tested CPU-GPU combinations in Valorant?

A: This combo ranks 1335 out of 2883 tested combinations, placing it in the upper half of all tested systems. The rank reflects the combination's overall performance profile, not just peak FPS.

Q: Does the GPU's 8 GB memory capacity limit performance in Valorant?

A: Based on the measured FPS data, there is no evidence of memory capacity limiting performance. The game runs at 447 FPS at 4K Low and 280 FPS at 4K High, suggesting the 8 GB GDDR6 buffer is sufficient even at the highest resolution tested.

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

The measured FPS data reveals a clear scaling pattern across resolutions. At Low settings, the average FPS drops from 647 at 1920x1080 to 559 at 2560x1440 (a 13.6% reduction) and then to 447 at 3840x2160 (a 30.9% reduction from 1440p). This relatively modest decline as resolution increases indicates that at Low settings, the CPU remains the primary bottleneck even at 4K — the GPU has enough headroom to handle the increased pixel count without dramatic frame rate loss.

At High settings, the pattern shifts. The average FPS goes from 411 at 1080p to 351 at 1440p (a 14.6% drop) and then to 280 at 4K (a 20.2% drop from 1440p). The larger percentage drops at higher settings suggest the GPU begins to take on more of the workload as visual complexity increases. Medium settings show a similar trend: 432 FPS at 1080p, 368 at 1440p (down 14.8%), and 294 at 4K (down 20.1% from 1440p). Ultra settings follow the pattern with 391 FPS at 1080p, 334 at 1440p (down 14.6%), and 267 at 4K (down 20.1% from 1440p).

The most telling comparison is between Low and Ultra at each resolution. At 1080p, the gap between Low (647 FPS) and Ultra (391 FPS) is 256 FPS, or 39.6% lower. At 4K, the gap narrows to 180 FPS (447 FPS vs 267 FPS), or 40.3% lower. This consistency in relative performance across resolutions indicates that both CPU and GPU scaling are well-balanced for this title. The fact that even at 4K Ultra, the combo still delivers 267 FPS average — far above the refresh rates of most monitors — suggests that neither component is pushed to its absolute limit in Valorant.

How This Combo Ranks — use comboRankInGame vs other tested combos

This Intel Core i7-14700F + AMD Radeon RX 9060 combination ranks 1335 out of 2883 tested combos in Valorant. That places it just inside the top 46.3% of all tested systems, which is a solid mid-pack result for a game that rewards high-refresh-rate performance. The ranking considers the overall measured FPS across all tested configurations, and the data shows this combo outperforms a majority of systems while being outpaced by those with more powerful GPUs or CPUs.

The rank becomes more meaningful when compared against the component-level percentiles. The CPU sits in the 91st percentile of all CPUs, while the GPU sits in the 59th percentile of all GPUs. This disparity suggests the combo's ranking is somewhat held back by the GPU relative to the CPU's strength. However, in Valorant specifically, the CPU's influence on the final frame rate is substantial, and the measured FPS numbers reflect that the CPU's high single-core performance is being effectively utilized.

Relative to the GPU's nearest rivals, the RX 9060's performance is closely matched with the RTX 3060 Ti (0.7% higher score) and the Radeon RX 7700 (1% lower score). These small deltas in synthetic benchmarks translate to nearly identical real-world performance in a game like Valorant, where the GPU is rarely the primary constraint at competitive settings. The combo's rank of 1335 suggests that many other pairings with similar or slightly better GPU performance achieve higher FPS, but the overall experience remains exceptional for competitive play.

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

For players targeting the highest possible frame rates, Low settings at 1920x1080 provide the best measured experience with 647 FPS average. This configuration maximizes the CPU's advantage and minimizes GPU workload, making it ideal for competitive play where every frame counts. The jump from Low to Medium at 1080p costs 215 FPS (down to 432), which is a substantial reduction for marginal visual gains in a fast-paced shooter.

For those who want a balance between visual fidelity and performance, Medium settings at 1920x1080 deliver 432 FPS average with a minimum of 367 FPS. This ensures the frame rate never drops below the 360 Hz refresh rate that some high-end monitors support. At 2560x1440, Medium settings provide 368 FPS average with a 313 FPS minimum, which still comfortably exceeds 300 Hz displays. The 4K Medium configuration offers 294 FPS average with a 250 FPS minimum, making it viable for 240 Hz 4K monitors, though the minimum is tighter.

High settings represent a middle ground that trades some performance for improved visuals. At 1080p High, the combo produces 411 FPS average, which is nearly identical to the 391 FPS at Ultra. The 20 FPS difference between High and Ultra at 1080p is negligible, so choosing Ultra at 1080p (391 FPS) or High at 1080p (411 FPS) is largely a visual preference. At 1440p, High gives 351 FPS and Ultra gives 334 FPS — both well above 300 FPS. At 4K, High produces 280 FPS and Ultra produces 267 FPS, both above 240 Hz but with less headroom.

The data suggests that Medium settings at 1080p or 1440p offer the best balance of frame rate stability (with known minimums) and visual quality. Low settings are optimal for pure performance, while Ultra is only recommended if visual fidelity takes priority over frame rate.

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

1920x1080 (1080p)

• Low: 647 FPS average
• Medium: 432 FPS average, 367 FPS minimum, 496 FPS maximum
• High: 411 FPS average
• Ultra: 391 FPS average

At 1080p, the combo demonstrates its peak performance. Low settings break the 600 FPS barrier, while Medium, High, and Ultra all remain above 390 FPS. The range from Low to Ultra spans 256 FPS, indicating that settings have a significant impact on performance at this resolution, but even the most demanding preset delivers frame rates that exceed the refresh rate of virtually all displays.

2560x1440 (1440p)

• Low: 559 FPS average
• Medium: 368 FPS average, 313 FPS minimum, 423 FPS maximum
• High: 351 FPS average
• Ultra: 334 FPS average

At 1440p, the performance remains exceptionally high. Low settings still produce 559 FPS, which is higher than the 1080p Ultra result. The Medium preset shows a 55 FPS gap between minimum and maximum (313 to 423), suggesting some scene-to-scene variance but maintaining a floor above 300 FPS. The drop from Low to Medium is 191 FPS, while the drop from High to Ultra is only 17 FPS.

3840x2160 (4K)

• Low: 447 FPS average
• Medium: 294 FPS average, 250 FPS minimum, 338 FPS maximum
• High: 280 FPS average
• Ultra: 267 FPS average

At 4K, the combo still delivers playable competitive frame rates across all settings. Low settings produce 447 FPS, which is above 99% of displays' refresh rates. Medium settings provide 294 FPS average with a 250 FPS minimum, making it suitable for 240 Hz 4K monitors. High and Ultra settings both stay above 260 FPS, showing that the RX 9060 has ample bandwidth for this game even at maximum resolution. The scaling from 1080p to 4K at each settings level shows consistent performance degradation, with Low settings retaining the highest absolute FPS at every resolution.