Valorant

Valorant is a competitive FPS where frame pacing and headroom matter more than absolute visual fidelity, and the measured data for the Intel Core Ultra 5 135H paired with the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4080 paints a clear picture of a system that is dramatically overqualified for the game’s rendering demands. The benchmark results show that even at the most demanding preset, the average frame rate never dips below 364 FPS at 4K, which is far beyond the refresh rate capabilities of virtually all displays. This combination of a 14-core mobile processor and a flagship desktop-class GPU produces a dataset that is less about finding playable settings and more about understanding where the bottleneck shifts between CPU and GPU across resolutions. The numbers reveal a system where the GPU is barely taxed, while the CPU’s single-thread performance becomes the defining factor for maximum frame rates.

Settings Recommendations

The measured FPS rows across all four presets—Low, Medium, High, and Ultra—at three resolutions show that the differences in average frame rate are surprisingly narrow, which suggests that the game is not GPU-bound at any setting. At 1080p, the spread from Low to Ultra is just 92 FPS (529 to 437), while at 4K the spread is 102 FPS (466 to 364). The data indicates that the "Low" preset consistently delivers the highest average frame rates, with 529 FPS at 1080p, 502 FPS at 1440p, and 466 FPS at 4K. However, the "Medium" preset offers a more balanced experience, as it includes minimum frame rate data (338 FPS at 4K, 364 FPS at 1440p, 384 FPS at 1080p) that is not available for other presets, allowing for a more complete assessment of frame pacing stability.

Given that the average FPS at "Ultra" settings remains exceptionally high—437 at 1080p, 414 at 1440p, and 364 at 4K—the recommendation leans toward "Ultra" for the best visual experience without sacrificing competitive viability. The delta between "Ultra" and "Low" at 1080p is only 92 FPS, which is a negligible difference in a game where the refresh rate of a typical 240Hz or 360Hz monitor is the limiting factor. For players prioritizing absolute maximum frame rates, "Low" is the clear choice, but the data shows that the performance headroom is so vast that even "Ultra" provides frame rates that exceed the refresh rate of nearly all gaming monitors. The "Medium" preset, with its documented minimum FPS, offers the most consistent frame delivery, making it a prudent choice for those who value smoothness over peak numbers. In essence, the measured rows suggest that users can select any preset and still achieve frame rates that are three to five times higher than what most competitive displays can show, so the best experience is defined by personal preference for visual clarity versus raw FPS headroom.

GPU Role

The NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4080 in this configuration is a 16 GB GDDR6X card with a 256-bit memory bus and a bandwidth of 716.8 GB/s, paired with a boost clock of 2505 MHz. In Valorant, the GPU’s role is minimal, as evidenced by the benchmark scores and the measured FPS data. The GPU’s passmark G3D score is 34457, and it sits in the 86th percentile of all GPUs, but the game’s rendering engine is not designed to stress such hardware. The fact that the average FPS at 4K "Ultra" is 364 FPS, which is only 18% lower than the 4K "Low" result of 466 FPS, indicates that the GPU is operating well below its capacity. The VRAM capacity of 16 GB is entirely irrelevant for Valorant, as the game’s textures and geometry are simple enough to fit within a fraction of that allocation.

The GPU’s memory clock of 1400 MHz (22.4 Gbps effective) and its pixel rate of 280.6 GPixel/s are far beyond what this game requires, and the benchmark results confirm that the RTX 4080 is not the limiting component. Instead, the data suggests that the GPU is essentially idle, waiting for the CPU to feed it draw calls. The GPU’s nearest rivals, such as the RTX 4080 SUPER with a deltaPct of 0.1% and the AMD Radeon RX 6750 GRE 12 GB with a deltaPct of -2.6%, show that the RTX 4080 is not unique in its performance tier, but in Valorant, the differences between these GPUs would be imperceptible because the frame rates are capped by CPU performance. The GPU’s 76 RT cores and 304 tensor cores are features that have no bearing on Valorant’s rasterized rendering, further underscoring that this card is overkill for the game. The measured data implies that the GPU’s role is to ensure that frame rates never drop below 338 FPS even at 4K "Medium", which is the lowest minimum FPS recorded, providing a safety margin that no competitive player would ever need.

Resolution Scaling

The FPS drop from 1080p to 4K is remarkably small, which is a strong indicator that the CPU is the primary bottleneck across all resolutions. At "Low" settings, the average FPS goes from 529 at 1080p to 502 at 1440p (a 5.1% drop) and then to 466 at 4K (a 7.2% drop from 1440p). At "Ultra" settings, the progression is from 437 at 1080p to 414 at 1440p (a 5.3% drop) and then to 364 at 4K (a 12.1% drop from 1440p). This pattern shows that increasing resolution has a modest impact on frame rates, which is typical for a game that is heavily CPU-bound. The largest resolution-based drop occurs between 1440p and 4K at "Ultra" settings, where the average FPS falls by 50 FPS, but this is still a small absolute change compared to what a GPU-bound scenario would produce.

The data implies that the limiting component is the CPU’s ability to process game logic and issue draw calls, not the GPU’s ability to render pixels. If the GPU were the bottleneck, we would expect a much steeper decline from 1080p to 4K, as the pixel count quadruples. Instead, the RTX 4080’s rendering capacity is so vast that even at 4K, it can easily keep up with the CPU’s output. The scaling behavior also reveals that the "Low" preset is the most resolution-resilient, with only a 63 FPS difference between 1080p and 4K, while "Ultra" shows a 73 FPS difference. This suggests that the CPU’s single-thread performance, which is a key factor for Valorant’s engine, is the constraining factor, and the GPU’s workload only becomes slightly more significant at higher resolutions and settings. The benchmark results indicate that this system is capable of delivering competitive frame rates at any resolution, but the scaling curve confirms that users with 1080p or 1440p high-refresh-rate monitors will see the highest possible FPS, while 4K users will still experience frame rates that are far beyond what any current display can reproduce.

Measured FPS Breakdown

The complete dataset of measured FPS provides a detailed view of performance across all combinations of resolution and settings. At 1920x1080, the average FPS ranges from 529 on "Low" to 437 on "Ultra", with "Medium" at 451 and "High" at 444. The "Medium" preset at 1080p records a minimum FPS of 384 and a maximum of 519, which is the only preset at this resolution with full min/max data. At 2560x1440, the averages are 502 on "Low", 428 on "Medium", 421 on "High", and 414 on "Ultra", with "Medium" again providing a minimum of 364 and a maximum of 492. At 3840x2160, the averages are 466 on "Low", 397 on "Medium", 382 on "High", and 364 on "Ultra", with "Medium" showing a minimum of 338 and a maximum of 457.

The data shows a clear hierarchy: "Low" always delivers the highest average FPS, followed by "Medium", "High", and then "Ultra". The differences between "Medium", "High", and "Ultra" are small at each resolution, with only a 14 FPS gap between "High" and "Ultra" at 1080p (444 vs 437), a 7 FPS gap at 1440p (421 vs 414), and an 18 FPS gap at 4K (382 vs 364). This suggests that the visual settings have a minor impact on performance, which is consistent with a CPU-bound scenario. The "Medium" preset’s minimum FPS values are notable: 384 at 1080p, 364 at 1440p, and 338 at 4K, which are all well above the refresh rate of any standard monitor. The maximum FPS values for "Medium" show that the system can spike to 519 at 1080p, 492 at 1440p, and 457 at 4K, indicating that the hardware has significant headroom. The lack of min/max data for other presets limits the analysis, but the averages alone demonstrate that this system never falls below 364 FPS in any measured configuration, making it one of the highest-performing combos for Valorant.

How This Combo Ranks

The combination of the Intel Core Ultra 5 135H and the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4080 achieves a rank of 1166 out of 3708 tested combos in Valorant, placing it in the top 31.5% of all systems. This ranking is surprisingly modest given the raw power of the components, but it reflects the fact that Valorant is a game where CPU single-thread performance is paramount, and the mobile-oriented Core Ultra 5 135H is not a top-tier processor for this workload. The combo’s percentile position suggests that many desktop systems with higher-clocked CPUs, even with weaker GPUs, can achieve similar or better frame rates in this specific game. The rank of 1166 out of 3708 indicates that while this system is far above average, it is not in the elite tier for Valorant, which is dominated by desktop CPUs with higher boost clocks and lower latency.

The CPU’s nearest rivals in general benchmarks include the AMD Ryzen 7 5800X with a deltaPct of -0.1% and the Intel Core i5-13500HX with a deltaPct of -0.6%, showing that the Core Ultra 5 135H is competitive with these processors in overall workload scores. However, the combo rank in Valorant suggests that the game’s engine favors the higher single-core clock speeds of desktop parts, and the mobile CPU’s 4.60 GHz boost clock, while respectable, is not enough to push the system into the top echelon. The GPU’s nearest rivals, such as the RTX 4080 SUPER with a deltaPct of 0.1%, are essentially identical in performance, so the ranking is not influenced by GPU choice. The data implies that to improve this combo’s rank in Valorant, one would need a CPU with a higher boost clock or better single-thread performance, as the GPU is already providing more than enough rendering power. The rank of 1166 out of 3708 reflects the fact that Valorant is a CPU-bound game, and this mobile CPU, while capable, is not the best choice for chasing maximum FPS.

CPU Role

The Intel Core Ultra 5 135H is a 14-core, 18-thread mobile processor with a base clock of 3.60 GHz and a boost clock of 4.60 GHz, based on the Meteor Lake architecture and built on Intel’s 7 nm process. It has 18 MB of shared L3 cache and a passmark single-thread score of 3521, which places it in the 81st percentile of all CPUs. In Valorant, the CPU’s role is critical, as the game’s engine is known to be heavily dependent on single-thread performance. The measured FPS data supports this, as the frame rates are consistently high across all resolutions, but the combo’s rank of 1166 out of 3708 suggests that the CPU is not delivering the top-tier single-thread performance needed to compete with the best desktop processors.

The CPU’s benchmark scores, such as a Cinebench R23 single-core score of 1700 and a multi-core score of 11875.5, show that it is a capable processor, but its nearest rivals in average benchmark score include the AMD Ryzen 7 5800X (deltaPct -0.1%) and the Intel Core i5-13500HX (deltaPct -0.6%), which are both desktop or high-performance mobile parts. The data indicates that the CPU’s 4.60 GHz boost clock is a limiting factor in Valorant, as many desktop CPUs can boost to 5.0 GHz or higher, providing a significant advantage in frame rate generation. The 18 MB of L3 cache is shared across the 14 cores, but the game’s working set is likely small enough that cache size is not a major factor. The CPU’s TDP of 28 W is a clear indicator of its mobile nature, and while it delivers excellent performance for a laptop chip, it cannot match the sustained clock speeds of desktop parts. The benchmark results show that the CPU is the primary determinant of the system’s FPS ceiling, and the data suggests that upgrading to a CPU with a higher boost clock would yield a more significant improvement in Valorant performance than any GPU change.

FAQ

Q: What is the highest average FPS recorded for this combo?

A: The highest average FPS is 529, achieved at 1920x1080 resolution with the "Low" settings preset.

Q: Does the RTX 4080’s 16 GB VRAM make a difference in Valorant?

A: No, the measured data shows that the GPU is not the bottleneck, as frame rates remain above 364 FPS even at 4K "Ultra", indicating that VRAM capacity is irrelevant for this game’s rendering demands.

Q: Which settings preset provides the most stable frame delivery?

A: The "Medium" preset is the only one with documented minimum and maximum FPS values, showing a minimum of 338 FPS at 4K, 364 FPS at 1440p, and 384 FPS at 1080p, suggesting it offers the most consistent frame pacing.

Q: How does this combo rank compared to other tested systems in Valorant?

A: This combo ranks 1166 out of 3708 tested combos, placing it in the top 31.5% of all systems tested for this game.

Q: Is the CPU or GPU the limiting factor for FPS in Valorant?

A: The CPU is the limiting factor, as evidenced by the small FPS drop from 1080p to 4K (a maximum of 73 FPS at "Ultra" settings), which indicates that the GPU has ample headroom and the CPU’s single-thread performance determines the frame rate ceiling.

Q: What is the lowest minimum FPS recorded for this system?

A: The lowest minimum FPS is 338, recorded at 3840x2160 resolution with the "Medium" settings preset.