Valorant

The Intel Core Ultra 5 235 paired with the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3080 produces exceptionally high frame rates in Valorant, a competitive FPS where the combination of 14 cores, a 5.00 GHz boost clock, and a 10 GB GDDR6X buffer ensures that performance is consistently limited by the CPU rather than the GPU. The measured data shows this combo ranks 294th out of 2,883 tested combinations, placing it in the top 10.2% of all systems, with frame rates that exceed the refresh rates of nearly all high-end monitors at every resolution and settings preset tested. The following analysis breaks down how each component contributes to these results, how the system scales across resolutions, and what settings provide the optimal experience.

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

The Intel Core Ultra 5 235 is built on the Arrow Lake architecture and manufactured on a 3 nm process by TSMC, featuring 14 cores and 14 threads. Its base clock is 3.40 GHz with a boost clock of 5.00 GHz, and it carries a 24 MB shared L3 cache alongside 192 KB of L1 and 3 MB of L2 cache per core. The processor supports DDR5 memory over a dual-channel bus with a bandwidth of 102.4 GB/s, and it includes an integrated Arc Xe-LPG Graphics 24EU unit, though the discrete RTX 3080 handles all rendering in these benchmarks.

In Valorant, a title that relies heavily on single-core performance for game logic and frame pacing, the Ultra 5 235’s high boost clock is the primary driver of the observed frame rates. The processor scores 2,085 in Cinebench R23 single-core and 4516 in Passmark single-thread, which are strong figures that explain why the system achieves 686 FPS at 1080p Low settings. The 14-core configuration also provides substantial multi-threaded headroom, evidenced by a Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 14,769 and a Passmark multithread score of 37,816, though Valorant rarely utilizes more than a few cores effectively.

The CPU’s percentile rank of 89 versus all CPUs indicates it outperforms the vast majority of processors in the database, and its nearest rivals show how tightly clustered performance is at this tier. The AMD Ryzen AI 9 HX 375 scores 46,030 in average benchmark score, a delta of 0.1% from the Ultra 5 235’s 46,062, while the Intel Core i9-13900HX is just 0.1% ahead at 46,098. The AMD EPYC 4364P and EPYC 7303 both sit 0.2% behind, meaning the Ultra 5 235 is effectively in a dead heat with these four competitors, and any observed frame rate differences in Valorant would be imperceptible.

For a competitive shooter like Valorant, the data indicates that the CPU’s single-core boost capability is the bottleneck at lower resolutions and settings. At 1080p Low, the system produces 686 FPS, which is the highest measured frame rate across all configurations, suggesting the CPU is delivering near its maximum throughput. The Passmark physics score of 2,570 further reinforces that the processor can handle the game’s physics calculations without creating a performance ceiling, allowing the GPU to operate without constraint at lower graphical loads.

GPU Role — VRAM, clocks, and how they relate to this game's results

The NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3080 is based on the Ampere architecture with the GA102 chip, manufactured on an 8 nm process by Samsung with 28,300 million transistors on a 628 mm² die. It features 8,704 shading units, 272 texture mapping units, and 96 raster output units, along with 68 ray tracing cores and 272 tensor cores. The GPU’s base clock is 1440 MHz with a boost clock of 1710 MHz, and it is equipped with 10 GB of GDDR6X memory running at 19 Gbps effective on a 320-bit bus, delivering a bandwidth of 760.3 GB/s.

In Valorant, which is not a graphically demanding title, the RTX 3080’s role is to provide enough raw throughput to match the CPU’s frame generation. The GPU’s Passmark G3D score of 25,086 and its 68th percentile rank among all GPUs show it is a capable mid-to-high-tier card, though its nearest rivals in the database are notably weaker: the NVIDIA P106-100 is 0.3% below with a score of 23,249, the AMD Radeon Pro Vega 16 is 0.3% below at 23,250, and the AMD Radeon RX 6600M is 0.4% behind at 23,273. This clustering suggests the RTX 3080’s raw compute is not the limiting factor in Valorant, as even less powerful cards can produce high frame rates in this engine.

The GPU’s 10 GB VRAM is more than sufficient for Valorant’s textures and effects at all tested settings, even at 4K Ultra, where the system still averages 380 FPS. The memory bandwidth of 760.3 GB/s ensures that texture streaming and asset loading do not introduce stutters, which is critical for maintaining consistent frame times in a competitive environment. The RTX 3080’s FP32 performance of 29.77 TFLOPS and pixel rate of 164.2 GPixel/s provide ample headroom for the game’s rendering pipeline, meaning the GPU only becomes a limiting factor at the highest resolutions and settings where the CPU can no longer feed frames fast enough.

The measured data confirms this: at 1080p Low, the GPU is effectively idle relative to the CPU, producing 686 FPS, while at 4K Ultra, the frame rate drops to 380 FPS, showing the GPU’s workload increases but still remains far from its maximum capability. The GPU’s power draw of 320 W and suggested PSU of 700 W are not performance metrics but do indicate the card’s operational requirements, and its dual-slot design with a 12-pin power connector is standard for this generation.

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

The measured frame rates across resolutions reveal a clear scaling pattern that identifies the CPU as the primary bottleneck at lower settings and the GPU becoming more relevant as resolution increases. At 1080p Low, the system achieves 686 FPS, which drops to 650 FPS at 1440p Low (a 5.2% reduction) and further to 604 FPS at 4K Low (a 7.1% reduction from 1440p). This modest decline indicates that even at 4K, the CPU is still the limiting factor at Low settings, as the GPU has enough headroom to render frames at nearly the same rate.

The scaling becomes more pronounced at higher settings. At 1080p High, the system produces 575 FPS, which drops to 499 FPS at 1440p High (a 13.2% reduction) and 399 FPS at 4K High (a 20.0% reduction from 1440p). At Ultra settings, the frame rates are 557 FPS at 1080p, 476 FPS at 1440p, and 380 FPS at 4K, representing a 31.8% drop from 1080p to 4K. This larger percentage decline at higher settings suggests that the GPU begins to exert more influence on performance as the graphical load increases, though the absolute frame rates remain exceptionally high.

The Medium settings provide the only complete data with min and max FPS values, offering insight into frame time consistency. At 1080p Medium, the system averages 585 FPS with a min of 497 and max of 673, while at 1440p Medium it averages 524 FPS with a min of 446 and max of 603, and at 4K Medium it averages 419 FPS with a min of 356 and max of 482. The spread between min and max is roughly 30% across all resolutions at Medium settings, indicating that the system maintains consistent frame delivery without significant drops, which is essential for competitive play.

The overall pattern shows that the CPU is the dominant limiter at 1080p and 1440p across all settings, as the frame rate differences between Low and Ultra at the same resolution are relatively small: 686 vs 557 FPS at 1080p (a 18.8% gap) and 650 vs 476 FPS at 1440p (a 26.8% gap). At 4K, the gap between Low and Ultra widens to 604 vs 380 FPS (a 37.1% gap), indicating that the GPU’s workload at 4K Ultra is starting to approach a point where it could become the bottleneck, though the system still delivers 380 FPS, which is far above the refresh rate of any standard monitor.

How This Combo Ranks — use comboRankInGame vs other tested combos

This specific combination of the Intel Core Ultra 5 235 and the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3080 ranks 294th out of 2,883 tested combinations in Valorant, placing it in the 89.8th percentile of all systems in the database. This ranking is remarkably high given that the GPU itself only sits at the 68th percentile among all GPUs, indicating that the CPU’s strong single-core performance is the primary driver of this excellent ranking. The combo outperforms 2,589 other configurations, which includes many systems with more powerful GPUs but weaker CPUs, demonstrating that Valorant rewards processor speed over raw graphics power.

The ranking becomes even more impressive when considering the GPU’s nearest rivals, which are all significantly less powerful. The RTX 3080’s closest competitors in the database — the NVIDIA P106-100, AMD Radeon Pro Vega 16, AMD Radeon RX 6600M, and AMD Radeon R9 M290X — all score within 0.4% of the RTX 3080’s average benchmark score of 23,172, yet none of these would be expected to achieve the same combo ranking when paired with a different CPU. This underscores that the Ultra 5 235’s performance, particularly its 5.00 GHz boost clock and 14-core configuration, is what boosts this combo to the top 10% of all tested systems.

The combo’s rank of 294 is consistent with the CPU’s 89th percentile ranking, suggesting that the system performs in line with expectations for the processor. Had the GPU been a stronger model, the ranking might improve slightly, but the data shows that the RTX 3080 is sufficient to avoid being a bottleneck in Valorant. The high frame rates across all settings and resolutions confirm that this combo is well-balanced for this specific game, with the CPU providing the necessary headroom and the GPU capably handling the graphical output without limiting frame delivery.

FAQ

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

A: The highest measured average FPS is 686, achieved at 1920x1080 resolution with Low settings. The next highest is 650 FPS at 2560x1440 Low, and 604 FPS at 3840x2160 Low.

Q: How does the Intel Core Ultra 5 235 compare to its nearest CPU rivals?

A: The Ultra 5 235 has an average benchmark score of 46,062, which is 0.1% higher than the AMD Ryzen AI 9 HX 375 (46,030), 0.1% lower than the Intel Core i9-13900HX (46,098), and 0.2% higher than both the AMD EPYC 4364P (45,970) and AMD EPYC 7303 (45,960). These differences are negligible in real-world performance.

Q: What is the frame rate difference between 1080p and 4K at Ultra settings?

A: At Ultra settings, the system achieves 557 FPS at 1920x1080, 476 FPS at 2560x1440, and 380 FPS at 3840x2160. This represents a 31.8% drop from 1080p to 4K, indicating that the GPU becomes more of a limiting factor at 4K Ultra.

Q: Is the RTX 3080 a bottleneck in Valorant at any tested setting?

A: The data shows that the CPU is the primary bottleneck at all resolutions and settings tested. At 1080p Low, the system achieves 686 FPS, and at 4K Ultra it still produces 380 FPS, which is far above any monitor’s refresh rate. The GPU only becomes relatively more stressed at 4K Ultra, but it never limits the frame rate to a degree that would impact playability.

Q: What is the min and max FPS at Medium settings across resolutions?

A: At 1920x1080 Medium, the min FPS is 497 and max is 673 with an average of 585. At 2560x1440 Medium, the min is 446 and max is 603 with an average of 524. At 3840x2160 Medium, the min is 356 and max is 482 with an average of 419.

Q: How does this combo rank among all tested systems in Valorant?

A: This combo ranks 294th out of 2,883 tested combinations, placing it in the top 10.2% of all systems. This ranking is driven primarily by the CPU’s strong single-core performance, as the GPU’s 68th percentile rank is significantly lower.

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

The measured FPS data provides a comprehensive view of performance across three resolutions and four settings presets. At 1920x1080, the system produces 686 FPS on Low, 585 FPS on Medium (with min 497 and max 673), 575 FPS on High, and 557 FPS on Ultra. The spread from Low to Ultra is 129 FPS, indicating that the CPU maintains high throughput even as the GPU workload increases.

At 2560x1440, the frame rates are 650 FPS on Low, 524 FPS on Medium (with min 446 and max 603), 499 FPS on High, and 476 FPS on Ultra. The difference between Low and Ultra is 174 FPS, a larger gap than at 1080p, showing that the GPU begins to have a more noticeable impact on performance as resolution increases.

At 3840x2160, the system achieves 604 FPS on Low, 419 FPS on Medium (with min 356 and max 482), 399 FPS on High, and 380 FPS on Ultra. The gap between Low and Ultra expands to 224 FPS, confirming that 4K Ultra is the most demanding configuration tested, though the system still delivers 380 FPS, which is far above the refresh rate of virtually all gaming monitors.

The Medium settings are the only preset with complete min and max data, allowing for frame time analysis. At 1080p Medium, the min FPS of 497 represents 85% of the average, while at 1440p Medium, the min of 446 is 85% of the average, and at 4K Medium, the min of 356 is also 85% of the average. This consistency suggests that the system maintains stable frame delivery regardless of resolution, with no significant stutters or drops that would affect competitive play.

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

Given that the system produces frame rates far exceeding the refresh rate of any standard monitor (typically 144 Hz, 240 Hz, or 360 Hz), the best settings recommendation is to prioritize visual quality without sacrificing frame rate stability. At 1080p, all settings presets deliver above 550 FPS, so the Ultra preset at 557 FPS is the best choice, as it provides the highest visual fidelity while still maintaining a frame rate that is 1.5 times higher than a 360 Hz monitor’s refresh rate.

At 1440p, the Ultra preset at 476 FPS is also recommended, as it remains well above the 360 Hz threshold and offers the best visual experience. The High preset at 499 FPS is a viable alternative if slightly higher frame rates are desired, but the difference of 23 FPS is unlikely to be perceptible. The Medium preset at 524 FPS with a min of 446 FPS provides a safety margin for frame time consistency, but the Ultra preset’s benefits in visual quality outweigh this minor difference.

At 4K, the situation changes slightly. The Ultra preset at 380 FPS is still well above any monitor’s refresh rate, but the High preset at 399 FPS and Medium preset at 419 FPS offer incremental frame rate improvements. The data shows that the Medium preset at 419 FPS with a min of 356 FPS provides the best balance of visual quality and frame rate stability, as the min FPS of 356 is still above 99% of monitors’ refresh rates, while the Ultra preset’s 380 FPS average does not include min/max data.

For competitive play, the Low preset at any resolution provides the highest frame rates (686 FPS at 1080p, 650 FPS at 1440p, 604 FPS at 4K) and the lowest input latency, which can be beneficial in a fast-paced FPS. However, the visual downgrade may be unnecessary given that even the Ultra preset at 4K produces 380 FPS, which is far above the refresh rate of any commercially available monitor. The recommended approach is to enable the Ultra preset at 1080p or 1440p for the best visual experience, or the Medium preset at 4K to ensure frame time consistency, as the system is never GPU-limited in a way that would cause performance issues.