Valorant

Valorant with the Intel Core Ultra 5 245 and NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4090 produces extraordinarily high frame rates across all tested configurations, firmly establishing this pairing as a top-tier esports setup. The data shows that the combination ranks 88th out of 2883 tested combos in this game, placing it in the top 3% of all systems evaluated. Even at 4K resolution with Ultra settings, the average frame rate never dips below 500 FPS, indicating that the system is overwhelmingly CPU-bound at lower resolutions and remains exceptionally capable even when graphical load increases.

Resolution Scaling

The frame rate scaling from 1080p to 4K reveals a system that is primarily limited by the processor rather than the graphics card. At 1080p with Low settings, the average FPS is 697, which drops to 661 at 1440p and further to 613 at 4K. This represents a 12% performance reduction from 1080p to 4K, which is remarkably small for a resolution change that quadruples the pixel count. The relatively minor FPS drop indicates that the RTX 4090 is nowhere near its performance ceiling in Valorant, even at 4K.

The pattern holds across all settings presets. With High settings, the average FPS goes from 584 at 1080p to 554 at 1440p and finally to 514 at 4K, a 12% total decline. Medium settings show similar behavior: 594 at 1080p, 564 at 1440p, and 523 at 4K. The Ultra preset demonstrates the same trend, with averages of 575, 545, and 506 across the three resolutions. The consistency of this ~12% scaling across all presets strongly suggests that the game's frame rate is constrained by the CPU's single-thread performance rather than the GPU's rendering capabilities.

The limiting component becomes even clearer when examining the gap between settings at the same resolution. At 1080p, the difference between Low and Ultra settings is only 122 FPS (697 vs 575), while at 4K the same comparison shows a 107 FPS gap (613 vs 506). If the GPU were the bottleneck, the gap between Low and Ultra would expand significantly at higher resolutions. Instead, the settings-based variance remains nearly constant, reinforcing that the Intel Core Ultra 5 245's 5.10 GHz boost clock is the primary driver of performance.

FAQ

Q: How does the RTX 4090 perform in Valorant compared to its nearest GPU rivals?

A: The RTX 4090's average benchmark score of 60347 places it essentially neck-and-neck with the Intel Arc Pro A60, which scores 60326 (0% delta). It sits 0.3% ahead of the AMD Radeon Pro Vega 48 (60140) and 2.9% ahead of the AMD Radeon PRO V710 (58657), but trails the AMD Radeon Pro W6600M by 2.5% (61896).

Q: Is the CPU or GPU the bottleneck for this system in Valorant?

A: The data strongly indicates a CPU bottleneck. The frame rate drops only 12% when moving from 1080p to 4K, regardless of settings preset. A GPU-bound scenario would show much larger performance degradation at higher resolutions. The Intel Core Ultra 5 245's strong single-thread performance, evidenced by its 4648 Cinebench R23 single-core score, is the key factor.

Q: What is the best resolution and settings combination for competitive play?

A: For maximum frame rates, 1080p with Low settings delivers the highest average at 697 FPS. This configuration minimizes graphical overhead and leverages the CPU's raw speed. However, even 4K Ultra maintains 506 FPS, so players prioritizing visual quality over marginal frame rate gains can comfortably use higher settings.

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

A: The combination ranks 88th out of 2883 tested combos, placing it in the 97th percentile. This top-tier ranking reflects the exceptional performance of both components, though the CPU's single-thread capabilities are particularly well-suited to Valorant's engine.

Q: What do the minimum FPS numbers look like at Medium settings?

A: At Medium settings, the minimum FPS values are 505 at 1080p, 479 at 1440p, and 445 at 4K. These minimums are still far above typical high-refresh-rate monitor refresh rates, indicating no noticeable stuttering or frame drops during gameplay.

Q: Does the RTX 4090's 24 GB of VRAM matter for Valorant?

A: In practical terms, no. Valorant is a lightweight esports title that does not stress VRAM capacity. The 24 GB GDDR6X memory is far more than the game requires, and the GPU's 82.58 TFLOPS FP32 performance is vastly underutilized at the frame rates observed.

GPU Role

The NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4090's role in this Valorant configuration is somewhat paradoxical: it is an extremely powerful graphics card that is barely challenged by the game's workload. The GPU's specifications—24 GB of GDDR6X memory on a 384-bit bus with 1.01 TB/s bandwidth, 16384 shading units, and a 2520 MHz boost clock—are overkill for a title that produces 697 FPS at 1080p Low settings. The card's 82.58 TFLOPS FP32 performance and 1,290.2 GTexel/s texture rate are never fully utilized, as evidenced by the minimal FPS scaling across resolutions.

The GPU's clock behavior is noteworthy in this context. With a base clock of 2235 MHz and a boost clock of 2520 MHz, the RTX 4090 maintains high operating frequencies, but the actual workload in Valorant is so light that these clocks rarely represent the limiting factor. The memory running at 21 Gbps effective provides ample bandwidth for any data the game requires, but Valorant's modest texture and geometry demands mean that even a fraction of this bandwidth would suffice.

The RTX 4090's 128 RT cores and 512 tensor cores are similarly underutilized in Valorant, which does not employ ray tracing or DLSS in its standard rendering path. The card's percentile ranking of 88 among all GPUs reflects its overall compute capability, but in this specific game, the GPU's contribution to the final frame rate is secondary to the CPU's instruction throughput. The data shows that the GPU is effectively a high-end component operating in a low-demand environment, with the CPU dictating the performance ceiling.

How This Combo Ranks

This specific combination of the Intel Core Ultra 5 245 and NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4090 achieves a combo rank of 88 out of 2883 tested systems in Valorant, placing it in the top 3.05% of all configurations. This ranking is particularly impressive given that the CPU is a mid-range processor (14 cores, 14 threads, 65 W TDP) paired with the most powerful consumer GPU available. The rank demonstrates that Valorant's engine favors the CPU's 5.10 GHz boost clock and high single-thread performance over raw GPU compute.

The CPU's percentile ranking of 90 among all processors, combined with the GPU's 88th percentile, suggests that both components are strong performers in their respective categories. However, the combo's 88th rank out of 2883 (97th percentile) exceeds what either component's individual percentile would predict, indicating a synergistic match for this particular game. The Intel Core Ultra 5 245's nearest rivals—the AMD Ryzen 7 PRO 5755G (-0.4%), AMD Ryzen 9 7900 (-0.5%), Intel Xeon Gold 5318H (+0.6%), and Intel Core i5-14600K (+0.8%)—all have similar average benchmark scores, but the combo ranking suggests that Valorant's specific workload benefits from the Core Ultra 5's architecture.

The gap between this combo and the very top-ranked systems is likely attributable to CPUs with even higher single-thread performance or more favorable memory configurations. Nevertheless, ranking 88th out of 2883 means that only 87 combinations (approximately 3%) outperform this setup in Valorant. For a game where frame rates already exceed 500 FPS at 4K Ultra, this ranking confirms that the system delivers near-elite competitive performance.

Settings Recommendations

The optimal settings for this combination depend on the player's priorities, but the measured data provides clear guidance. For players with 240 Hz or 360 Hz monitors seeking maximum competitive advantage, the 1080p Low preset delivers the highest average FPS at 697, with a 122 FPS advantage over Ultra settings at the same resolution. This setting minimizes GPU load and allows the CPU's 5.10 GHz boost clock to drive frame rates to their absolute maximum.

For players with 4K displays who prioritize visual fidelity without sacrificing responsiveness, the 4K Ultra preset still maintains an average of 506 FPS, which exceeds the refresh rate of virtually all gaming monitors. The 4K Medium preset offers a slight improvement at 523 FPS, while 4K High sits at 514 FPS. The differences between these presets are minimal, suggesting that players can choose based on visual preference rather than performance concerns.

The Medium preset deserves special attention, as it is the only configuration with recorded minimum FPS values. At 1080p Medium, the minimum is 505 FPS, at 1440p Medium it is 479 FPS, and at 4K Medium it is 445 FPS. These minimums are still exceptionally high, indicating that even the worst-case frame drops do not approach perceptible stuttering. For players who want a balance between visual quality and headroom, Medium settings at 1440p or 4K provide an excellent experience, with the 4K medium offering a 523 FPS average that is only 25% below the absolute maximum.

Measured FPS Breakdown

At 1920x1080, the measured average frame rates across settings are: Low at 697 FPS, Medium at 594 FPS (with a minimum of 505 and maximum of 683), High at 584 FPS, and Ultra at 575 FPS. The spread from lowest to highest is 122 FPS, with Low settings providing a 21% performance boost over Ultra. The Medium preset's minimum of 505 FPS represents the lowest recorded frame rate at this resolution, still far above any display's refresh rate.

Moving to 2560x1440, the averages are: Low at 661 FPS, Medium at 564 FPS (minimum 479, maximum 648), High at 554 FPS, and Ultra at 545 FPS. The resolution increase from 1080p costs approximately 5-6% of performance across all presets, with the Low setting showing the largest absolute drop of 36 FPS. The Medium preset's minimum of 479 FPS remains comfortably above competitive thresholds.

At 3840x2160, the averages are: Low at 613 FPS, Medium at 523 FPS (minimum 445, maximum 601), High at 514 FPS, and Ultra at 506 FPS. The jump from 1440p to 4K incurs an additional 7-8% performance penalty, bringing the total scaling from 1080p to 4K to approximately 12% across all settings. The 4K Medium minimum of 445 FPS is the lowest recorded value in the entire dataset, but it still exceeds the refresh capabilities of any commercially available monitor.

The data reveals a consistent pattern: Low settings provide the highest frame rates at every resolution, followed by Medium, High, and Ultra in descending order. The gap between High and Ultra is consistently small (9-10 FPS), while the gap between Low and Medium is substantial (103-107 FPS). This suggests that the Medium preset offers the best balance of visual quality and performance, with the Ultra preset providing marginal visual improvements at a modest 4-5% performance cost.