Valorant

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

The measured data for Valorant with the Intel Core Ultra 7 265K and Intel Arc B390 shows a clear pattern when moving from 1920x1080 to 3840x2160. At Low settings, the average frame rate drops from 331 FPS at 1080p to 282 FPS at 1440p, then further to 225 FPS at 4K. That is a 32% reduction from 1080p to 4K at Low settings — a significant scaling penalty that points to the integrated GPU becoming the primary constraint as pixel count rises.

At High settings, the scaling is more dramatic in percentage terms. The average drops from 207 FPS at 1080p to 177 FPS at 1440p, and finally to 141 FPS at 4K. This represents a 31.9% loss from 1080p to 4K, nearly identical to the Low settings scaling. The consistency of this percentage drop across settings is telling: the bottleneck shifts from the CPU at 1080p Low to the GPU at 4K High, yet the relative penalty remains stable, suggesting the Arc B390's compute throughput is the limiting factor at higher resolutions regardless of preset.

Medium settings show a similar trend: 218 FPS at 1080p, 186 FPS at 1440p, and 149 FPS at 4K. The 4K result includes a minimum of 126 FPS and a maximum of 171 FPS, giving a 45 FPS spread — the widest variance in the entire dataset. This indicates that at 4K Medium, the system is operating near a threshold where occasional dips become more pronounced, likely due to the shared memory architecture struggling with increased bandwidth demands.

Ultra settings produce the lowest overall numbers: 198 FPS at 1080p, 169 FPS at 1440p, and 135 FPS at 4K. The jump from 1080p to 1440p costs 29 FPS, while 1440p to 4K costs another 34 FPS. This progressive degradation suggests that while the Core Ultra 7 265K has ample headroom at lower resolutions, the Arc B390's fixed resources — 1536 shading units and 24 ROPs — become the wall at 4K.

The data implies that at 1080p, the CPU is still feeding the GPU effectively; at 4K, the GPU is saturated. The fact that Low settings at 4K (225 FPS) still exceed Ultra settings at 1080p (198 FPS) by 13.6% highlights how much headroom exists in the CPU when the GPU is relieved of heavier shading work. A discrete GPU would likely shift this balance, but within this combo, the integrated graphics define the ceiling.

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

The Intel Arc B390 is an integrated graphics solution based on the Xe3-LPG architecture, fabricated on Intel's 3 nm process. Its base clock is 300 MHz, boosting to 2500 MHz — an 8.3x multiplier between idle and peak. In a competitive FPS like Valorant, which is not heavily VRAM-dependent, the "System Shared" memory configuration means the GPU draws from the same DDR5 pool as the CPU, with bandwidth listed as "System Dependent."

The GPU's 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 score is 1482, placing it in the 9th percentile of all GPUs. Its nearest rivals are notably older, low-end parts: the NVIDIA GeForce GT 520MX scores 1463 (1.3% behind), the GeForce 800M scores 1460 (1.5% behind), and the GeForce GT 625 OEM scores 1446 (2.5% behind). This positioning suggests the Arc B390 is comparable to entry-level discrete GPUs from over a decade ago, yet it still delivers playable frame rates in Valorant because the game is designed to run on modest hardware.

The GPU's pixel rate is 60.00 GPixel/s, and its texture rate is 120.0 GTexel/s. The FP32 throughput is 7.680 TFLOPS, with FP16 at 15.36 TFLOPS (2:1 ratio). These figures, while modest by modern discrete standards, are sufficient for Valorant's stylized, low-polygon aesthetic. The 12 RT cores are irrelevant for this title, as Valorant does not use ray tracing.

The measured FPS data shows that at 1080p Low, the Arc B390 delivers 331 FPS — far beyond the refresh rate of typical monitors. Even at 4K Ultra, the 135 FPS average remains above 120 Hz. This suggests that the GPU's raw throughput is not the primary limitation at lower resolutions; rather, the shared memory bandwidth becomes the bottleneck as resolution increases. The "System Dependent" bandwidth figure is key: the GPU's performance scales with the CPU's memory subsystem, and the Core Ultra 7 265K's dual-channel DDR5 at 102.4 GB/s provides adequate but not exceptional bandwidth.

The GPU's TDP is 80 W, and it uses no power connectors, being an IGP. This power envelope is remarkably efficient for the performance delivered — 331 FPS at 1080p Low from an integrated solution is notable. The 3 nm process node from Intel contributes to this efficiency, though the exact transistor count and die size are listed as "unknown."

In the context of Valorant, the GPU's role is secondary to the CPU at 1080p, but becomes dominant at 4K. The data shows that at High settings, the 4K average (141 FPS) is 31.9% lower than at 1080p (207 FPS), while at Low settings the drop is 32.0% (331 to 225). This near-identical scaling across presets indicates that resolution, not graphical complexity, is the primary driver of performance loss — a classic sign of a fill-rate-limited GPU.

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

The Intel Core Ultra 7 265K is a 20-core, 20-thread processor based on the Arrow Lake architecture, fabricated on TSMC's 3 nm process. Its base clock is 3.90 GHz, boosting to 5.50 GHz. This is a desktop-class CPU with a 125 W TDP, and it carries a launch MSRP of $394. In Valorant, which is known to be CPU-sensitive at high frame rates, this processor's single-thread performance is critical.

The CPU's benchmark scores are impressive: Cinebench R23 multi-core reaches 35850, single-core 2020; Geekbench multi-core is 23085, single-core 2713. Its PassMark single-thread score is 4928, and multi-thread is 58594. These results place it in the 94th percentile of all CPUs, with an average benchmark score of 70879. Its nearest rivals include the Intel Xeon 6511P (71051, 0.2% behind), the Intel Xeon Platinum 8270 (71370, 0.7% behind), the Intel Core i7-14700KF (70163, 1% ahead), and the AMD Ryzen 7 9700F (69996, 1.3% ahead). This places the 265K in elite company, well above the median processor.

In Valorant, the CPU's role is evident from the 1080p Low results: 331 FPS. This is 47.4% higher than the 4K Low result of 225 FPS, demonstrating that the CPU is not the limiting factor at 1080p — the GPU is. However, the CPU's high clock speeds (up to 5.50 GHz boost) and strong single-thread performance (Cinebench R23 single-core 2020) ensure that even at 4K Ultra, the system never drops below 135 FPS, which is still well above playable thresholds.

The 20 cores and 20 threads are more than Valorant can utilize — the game typically scales to 4-6 threads. This means most of the CPU's capacity is idle, but its high per-core performance ensures consistent frame pacing. The L3 cache is 30 MB shared, with 3 MB L2 per core and 192 KB L1 per core, providing ample cache for game logic and entity updates.

The CPU's memory bandwidth of 102.4 GB/s over dual-channel DDR5 is shared with the GPU. This shared bandwidth is likely the reason for the 4K performance drop: as the GPU demands more memory bandwidth for higher-resolution frame buffers, the CPU's access to memory is constrained, potentially causing micro-stutters. The data supports this: at 4K Medium, the minimum FPS is 126, which is 15.4% below the average of 149, indicating occasional bandwidth contention.

The CPU's integrated graphics (Arc Xe-LPG Graphics 64EU) are separate from the Arc B390's 1536 shading units, but both share the same memory subsystem. This dual-GPU configuration (one for display, one for compute) is unusual but does not appear to cause conflicts in the measured data. The Core Ultra 7 265K's 20 PCIe Gen 5 lanes (CPU only) are irrelevant here since the GPU is integrated.

FAQ

Q: Why does the frame rate drop more from 1080p to 4K at Low settings than at Ultra settings?

A: The percentage drop is nearly identical (32.0% at Low vs 31.9% at High), but the absolute drop is larger at Low (106 FPS) than at Ultra (63 FPS). This is because Low settings at 1080p (331 FPS) are so high that even a small resolution increase has a large absolute impact, while Ultra at 1080p (198 FPS) is already closer to the GPU's ceiling.

Q: Is the CPU or GPU the bottleneck at 1080p?

A: The data suggests the GPU is the bottleneck even at 1080p, since the Core Ultra 7 265K is in the 94th percentile of CPUs with a 5.50 GHz boost clock. At 1080p Low, the GPU produces 331 FPS, which is already near its limit; a more powerful GPU would likely push higher.

Q: How does the Arc B390 compare to its nearest GPU rivals?

A: The Arc B390 scores 1482 in 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12, which is 1.3% higher than the NVIDIA GeForce GT 520MX (1463) and 2.7% higher than the GeForce GT 710 (1443). It sits in the 9th percentile of all GPUs, indicating entry-level performance.

Q: What does the 4K Medium minimum FPS of 126 indicate?

A: The 126 FPS minimum (vs 149 average) represents a 15.4% variance, the largest in the dataset. This suggests memory bandwidth contention when the shared system memory is stressed at 4K, likely due to the CPU and GPU competing for the same DDR5 bandwidth.

Q: Is this combo suitable for high-refresh-rate monitors?

A: Yes. At 1080p, all settings exceed 198 FPS, and Low reaches 331 FPS. Even at 4K, the lowest measured average is 135 FPS (Ultra), which exceeds 120 Hz. For 240 Hz monitors, 1080p Low or Medium would be required.

Q: Why does the CPU have 20 cores but the game only uses a few?

A: Valorant is a competitive FPS that scales to roughly 4-6 threads. The Core Ultra 7 265K's 20 cores are not fully utilized, but its high single-thread performance (Cinebench R23 single-core 2020) ensures the game runs smoothly. The extra cores are irrelevant for this title.

How This Combo Ranks

The combo of Intel Core Ultra 7 265K and Intel Arc B390 ranks 2534 out of 2883 tested combinations in Valorant. This places it in the 12.1th percentile of all combos — meaning 87.9% of tested systems outperform it. This low ranking is almost entirely due to the GPU, as the CPU alone is in the 94th percentile among all CPUs.

The ranking disparity is stark: the CPU is near the top of its class, while the GPU is near the bottom (9th percentile). This imbalance means the combo's performance is capped by the weakest link. In Valorant, a game that can run on almost anything, this combo still delivers playable frame rates, but it cannot compete with systems using discrete GPUs.

The data suggests that pairing the Core Ultra 7 265K with a discrete GPU would dramatically improve the ranking, as the CPU has substantial headroom. The 1080p Low result of 331 FPS is already high, but the combo's rank of 2534 indicates that most other tested combinations achieve even higher frame rates, likely due to superior GPU performance. For context, the CPU's nearest rivals (like the i7-14700KF) typically pair with discrete GPUs, which explains the gap.

The combo's ranking is not a reflection of poor optimization — it is a direct consequence of using an integrated GPU in a game where most players use discrete graphics. The measured data (marked as "dataIsMeasured: true") confirms these results are from actual testing, not estimation.

Settings Recommendations

Based on the measured FPS data, the optimal settings depend on the target refresh rate and resolution. At 1920x1080, the Low preset delivers 331 FPS, which is suitable for 300+ Hz monitors. Medium delivers 218 FPS with a minimum of 185 FPS, making it the best choice for 240 Hz displays while maintaining higher visual quality. High provides 207 FPS, and Ultra 198 FPS — both are viable for 144 Hz monitors but do not reach 240 Hz.

At 2560x1440, Low delivers 282 FPS, Medium 186 FPS (minimum 158), High 177 FPS, and Ultra 169 FPS. For 1440p, Medium is the sweet spot: it maintains 186 FPS average with a 158 FPS minimum, staying above 144 Hz consistently. High and Ultra are acceptable for 144 Hz but leave less headroom for dips.

At 3840x2160, the recommended settings shift. Low delivers 225 FPS, Medium 149 FPS (minimum 126), High 141 FPS, and Ultra 135 FPS. For 4K gaming, the Medium preset is the best balance: 149 FPS average with a 126 FPS minimum is above 120 Hz, while High and Ultra drop below 144 FPS averages. Low is overkill for most 4K monitors (which typically run at 60-120 Hz) and sacrifices visual quality unnecessarily.

The data suggests that Medium settings offer the best experience across all resolutions, as they provide the highest frame rates that still maintain visual fidelity. At 1080p Medium, the 218 FPS average exceeds most monitor refresh rates; at 1440p Medium, 186 FPS is 29.2% higher than High; at 4K Medium, 149 FPS is 5.7% higher than High. The Medium preset also shows the only measured minimum FPS values in the dataset, indicating the testers found it stable enough to log.

Measured FPS Breakdown

1920x1080:

• Low: 331 FPS average
• Medium: 218 FPS average, 185 FPS minimum, 250 FPS maximum
• High: 207 FPS average
• Ultra: 198 FPS average

2560x1440:

• Low: 282 FPS average
• Medium: 186 FPS average, 158 FPS minimum, 214 FPS maximum
• High: 177 FPS average
• Ultra: 169 FPS average

3840x2160:

• Low: 225 FPS average
• Medium: 149 FPS average, 126 FPS minimum, 171 FPS maximum
• High: 141 FPS average
• Ultra: 135 FPS average

The data reveals a consistent pattern: Medium settings always produce a higher average FPS than High or Ultra, and the gap between Medium and High narrows as resolution increases. At 1080p, Medium is 5.3% faster than High; at 1440p, 5.1% faster; at 4K, 5.7% faster. This consistency suggests the Medium preset is optimally balanced for this hardware.

The maximum FPS values (250 at 1080p Medium, 214 at 1440p Medium, 171 at 4K Medium) show the system's peak capability, while the minimum values (185, 158, 126) indicate the lowest dips. The variance between min and max is 65 FPS at 1080p, 56 FPS at 1440p, and 45 FPS at 4K — decreasing with resolution, which indicates more stable frame delivery at higher resolutions where the GPU is more consistently saturated.

The Ultra preset shows the smallest differences across resolutions: 198 FPS at 1080p, 169 FPS at 1440p, 135 FPS at 4K. This 31.8% total drop from 1080p to 4K is the most gradual scaling of any preset, suggesting that Ultra settings are the most GPU-bound and therefore scale most predictably with resolution changes.