Valorant

The raw frame-rate data for Valorant on the Intel Core Ultra 7 265 with the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4080 is remarkably high across every measured configuration. The game never drops below 507 FPS, even at 4K with Ultra settings, and the best measured result reaches 713 FPS at 1080p with Low graphics. This combination stands at rank 59 out of 3,708 tested CPU/GPU pairs, placing it in the top 1.6% of all evaluated systems. The following analysis dissects what the CPU’s 20 cores and the GPU’s 16 GB frame buffer contribute to these results, using only the benchmark data provided.

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

The Intel Core Ultra 7 265 is a 20‑core, 20‑thread processor built on Arrow Lake‑S. It runs at a base clock of 2.40 GHz and boosts to 5.30 GHz. The CPU has a 30 MB shared L3 cache, 3 MB per core L2, and 192 KB per core L1. It supports DDR5 memory with a 102.4 GB/s bandwidth. In the benchmark suite, the CPU scores 42,216 in Cinebench R23 multicore, 5,960 in single‑core, and an average benchmark score of 64,640. This places it at the 93rd percentile among all CPUs. Its nearest rivals are all extremely close: the AMD EPYC 4464P scores 64,823 (‑0.3% delta), the Intel Core Ultra 7 265F scores 64,438 (+0.3%), the AMD EPYC 7343 scores 64,202 (+0.7%), and the AMD EPYC 9124 scores 65,104 (‑0.7%). The performance gap to the closest alternative is less than one percentage point, meaning the Ultra 7 265 is effectively indistinguishable from its nearest peers in overall compute.

How does this translate to Valorant? The FPS results are all above 500 in every tested configuration. The CPU’s ability to sustain such high frame rates across all resolutions and quality levels suggests that its 20 cores, running at a 5.30 GHz boost, are more than sufficient for a competitive FPS like Valorant. The minimum average FPS in any row is 507, which is still beyond the refresh rate of even the fastest gaming monitors. The CPU’s single‑thread performance—which is often critical for game logic and rendering commands—is strong: a Cinebench R23 single‑score of 5,960 and a PassMark single‑thread score of 4,689. Given that the game engine typically draws on only a few cores for the main thread, these high single‑thread numbers likely keep the frame rate CPU‑bounded, and yet even at 4K Ultra the CPU manages above 500 FPS.

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

The NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4080 is a GPU from the 40‑series, built on the Ada Lovelace architecture with a 5nm process. It has 16 GB of GDDR6X video memory on a 256‑bit bus, providing a peak bandwidth of 716.8 GB/s. The core runs at base 2,205 MHz and boosts up to 2,505 MHz. With 9,728 shading units, 304 TMUs, and 112 ROPs, the RTX 4080 delivers 48.74 TFLOPS FP32 performance. Its average benchmark score is 54,247, placing it at the 86rnd percentile of GPUs. The nearest rivals are again extremely close: the RTX 4080 SUPER scores 54,209 (‑0.1%), the Radeon Pro W5700X scores 54,208 (‑1.1%), the Radeon RX 6750 GRE 12 GB scores 55,698 (‑2.6%), and the Radeon 8060S scores 55,757 (‑2.7%). Notably, the RTX 4080 performs only 0.1% below the RTX 4080 SUPER, and its benchmark superiority over the other Radeon cards is within a few percent.

Within Valorant, the GPU is clearly not a limiting factor. Even at 4K Ultra, the average frame rate is 507, and at 4K Low it jumps to 628. The 16 GB VRAM is more than ample for a game that requires only a few GB; in fact, the measured frame rates indicate that the GPU is not saturating its capabilities. The high clock rates and GDDR6X memory bandwidth are far beyond what Valorant can use. The performance difference between Low and Ultra at the same resolution is modest—for example, at 1920x1080 Low delivers 713 FPS while Ultra delivers 588, a gap of only 125 FPS (about 18%). This small delta across settings suggests that the GPU is not heavily taxed by the game’s graphical load; even the most demanding settings only drop FPS by a small mount. In essence, the RTX 4080’s compute power is largely wasted overhead in this title, but the extra headroom ensures the frame rate is always high.

FAQ — 4-6 Q&A answerable from the provided data

**Q: What is the highest average FPS recorded for this CPU/GPU combo?

A:** The highest average FPS is 713, achieved at 1920x1080 resolution with Low settings. The lowest measured average FPS is 507, found at 3840x2160 with Ultra settings.

**Q: How does the CPU’s performance compare to the two closest rivals?

A** The Intel Core Ultra 7 265 has an average benchmark score of 64,640. The AMD EPYC 9654P scores 64,823 (−0.3%), the Intel Core Ultra 7 265F scores 64,438 (+0.3%), the AMD EPYC 7343 scores 64,202 (+0.7%), and the AMD EPYC 9124 scores 65,104 (−0.7%). Consequently, the Ultra 7 is basically in the middle of a four-way tie, with a spread of only one percent.

**Q: How does the GPU perform against its direct rival, the RTX 4080 SUPER?

A** The RTX 4080 has an average bench mark score of 54,247. The RTX 4080 SUPER scores 54,209, which is 0.1% higher. The difference is essentially a negligible benchmark variance, and the GPU is within 1% of the next two cards (Radeon Pro W5700X, −1.1%, and Radeon RX 6750 GRE, −2.6%).

**Q: Are there any min/max FPS measurements in the provided data?

A** Yes. Only for the Medium settings do we have both minimum and maximum FPS. At 3840x2160 Medium, the min and max are 455 and 616; at 2560x1440 Medium they are 490 and 663; and at 1920x1080 Medium they are 517 and 699. All other settings report only an average.

**Q: What underlying component is likely to cap the frame rate in Valorant?

A** Based on the data, the CPU is more likely to be the limiting factor than the GPU. At any given resolution, the FPS change from Low to High is fairly small; for example, at 1920x1080 a change from Low to Ultra reduces FPS from 713 to 588, a gap of just 125 FPS. The CPU’s high clock speeds and strong per-thread performance (Cinebench R23 single‑core 5960) make it hard to close that gap by lowering graphics settings. Also, the 5.30 GHz boost clock is a frequent contributor to playable framerates in low‑overhead esports titles. The GPU, by contrast, has far more capability than the game demands, so it never becomes the primary constraint.

How This Combo Ranks

The benchmark database lists this combination at rank 59 out of 3,708 tested combos. That places it in the 98.4th percentile of all tested systems. Only 58 CPU/GPU paired setups deliver higher frame rates in Valorant. The numerical rank aligns with the fact that both components are extremely high‑end: the Intel Ultra 7 265 sits at the 93rd percentile of all CPUs, and the RTX 4080 sits at the 86th percentile of all GPUs. While few rivals outperform this pairing, the data indicates that the ranking is not linear—there is no single dominating factor. The processor and graphics card are almost perfectly balanced for this title, with the GPU never bottlenecking and the processor able to feed it enough to exceed 500 FPS at 4K Ultra.

Measured FPS Breakdown — resolution by resolution, settings by settings

The measured numbers are as follows (all averages per second):

• 1920x1080 (1080p):
• Low: 713 FPS
• Medium: 608 FPS (min 517, max 699)
• High: 598 FPS
• Ultra: 588 FPS

• 2560x1440 (1440p):
• Low: 676 FPS
• Medium: 577 FPS (min 490, max 663)
• High: 567 FPS
• Ultra: 558 FPS

• 3840x2160 (2160p / 4K):
• Low: 628 FPS
• Medium: 535 FPS (min 455, max 616)
• High: 527 FPS
• Ultra: 507 FPS

Across the board, the four‑geometry rises and falls are consistent. At every resolution, the order is Low > Medium > High > Ultra, with the spread between Low and Ultra being roughly 125 FPS at 1080p and about 105 FPS at 4K (628 – 507 = 121, actually 628-507 is 121; the numbers are).

Looking at specific numbers: At 1080p, Medium and High are very close (608 vs 598), while Ultra is only 10 FPS lower than High. At 1440p, Medium (577) and High (567) are 10 FPS apart, and Ultra at 558 is a further 34 FPS. At 4K, Medium (616) – wait, the 4K Ultra is 507, that difference is 21 FPS from High 527. The pattern shows that the game scales smoothly with quality, but the differences are never large enough to require a compromise for high refresh rates.

The Minimum and Maximum are only available for Medium settings: they show respectable consistency, with the 1920x1080 medium having a spread from 517 to 699 (a 182‑frame range), while at 4K the range is 503 (455–616). This indicates some frame-time spikes exist, but at such high average FPS, even the minimum at 1080p Medium (517) is well above any monitor’s refresh capabilities.

Settings Recommendations

Based on the measured collective values, the best settings to maximize frame rate are obviously Low; however, the game runs so fast that even Ultra at wide display retains 588 FPS at 1080p, 558 at 1440p, and 507 at 4K. There is no scenario where the frame rate drops below 500 FPS, regardless of the settings. So the choice of quality vs. performance depends solely on user preferences.

If the goal is to push a high refresh‑rate monitor (e.g., 360Hz), all settings are acceptable, but the Low preset provides headroom. At 1080p Low, you get 713 FPS, at which point the CPU—at 5.30 GHz boost—might still have more to give, but the compiler's highest is capped by the game’s engine or the monitor limit.

A more balanced approach is to use High instead of Ultra. From the numbers, moving from Ultra to High gains 10 FPS at 1080p (588 → 598), 9 FPS at 1440p (558 → 567), and 20 FPS at 4K (507 → 527). This is as difference of only a few percentage points. Since High and Ultra probably appear similar, a developer can justify High as the best compromise between visual fidelity and raw FPS. Conversely, Medium and High differ by 9 FPS at 1080p, 9 at 1440p, and 9 at 4K; such change is negligible.

Given the excellent raw performance, we simply say that something like High offers a near-maximum frame rate (≥568) while avoiding potentially unnecessary extra load on the GPU. However, if a gamer prefers to use a 4K display, the available 4K Ultra at 507 FPS still exceeds any monitor’s input.

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

The FPS decreases monotonically as resolution increases at each quality level. For Low: 1080p 713 → 1440p 676 → 4K 628. That is a 37‑frame cut from 1080p to 1440p and a further 48‑frame drop to 4K, a total of 85 Frames lost (−11.9%). For Medium: 608 → 577 → 535, a drop of 31 and 42 frames respectively, total 73 (−12%). High: 598 → 567 → 527, total 71 FPS (−11.4%). Ultra: 588 → 558 → 507, total 81 FPS (−13.8%). The relative drop is nearly identical across settings—always about 12% to 14%. This consistency reveals that the game’s performance scales almost linearly with the pixel count.

The fact that the drop from 1080p to 4K is only about 12% indicates that the main workload does not balloon when resolution increases; otherwise the frame rate would fall much more severely. In CPU‑bound games, the resolution change usually has a small effect because the CPU still prepares frames at the same rate; the GPU only spends more time on each frame. In GPU‑bound titles, you would see a doubling of cost per pixel. Because the raw numbers here only reduce by ~12%, it strongly suggests that the game is heavily CPU‑bound, and the RTX 4080 has so much headroom that even quadrupling the pixel count (1080p to 4K) barely makes it break a sweat.

Another perspective: the difference between Low and Ultra at the same resolution (e.g., 1080p Low 713 vs 1080p Ultra 588) is 125 FPS, while the difference between 1080p Low and 4K Low is 85 FPS. So settings have a larger impact on FPS than resolution does. This again implies that the CPU is the bottleneck: changing graphics settings affect only GPU work, but the CPU’s workload remains high, so the GPU can absorb those extra settings without falling much.

Conversely, the mixed precision is very high (86th percentile GPU) but its utilization in Valorant is low, the RTX 4080 is never limiting, so the CPU performance determines the FPS. The result that even at 4K Ultra (507 FPS) the game never goes below, confirms the CPU is the main driver, and the GPU is effectively tasked with glowing. The consistent drop of ~80–70 FPS when moving from 1080p to 4K is likely due to the CPU’s constant ability to feed frames, while the GPU only barely inflects.

Thus, the measured data suggests that this system is ideal for competitive play: the CPU’s broad power ensures that at any resolution, you stay above 500 FPS, and the GPU’s overly strong specifications are unused. For Valorant, the Intel Core Ultra 7 7 265 + RTX 4080 yields a top‑tier experience, ranking 10th out of 3700 combos, and the observed FPS drop would be perfectly tolerable on a 500 Hz monitor or at any refresh rate common in tournaments.