Valorant

Valorant is notoriously forgiving of modest hardware, yet the measured results for the Intel Core Ultra 9 290K Plus paired with the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4060 reveal a system that is anything but modest. The data shows a combination capable of pushing frame rates into territory where the limiting factor shifts decisively from the GPU to the CPU and memory subsystem. At 1080p Low, the average frame rate hits 706 FPS, a figure that dwarfs the refresh rates of virtually all commercial displays and indicates that the processor is doing the heavy lifting in this esports title.

Resolution Scaling

The FPS drop from 1080p to 4K is surprisingly shallow, which reflects the CPU’s strength and the game’s lightweight rendering demands. At High settings, the average frame rate falls from 443 FPS at 1920x1080 to 378 FPS at 2560x1440, a reduction of roughly 15%. Moving further up to 3840x2160 sees the average drop to 302 FPS, which is another 20% decline from the 1440p figure. However, the total loss from 1080p to 4K is only about 32%, meaning the RTX 4060 is not being saturated even at the highest resolution tested.

This pattern becomes even more pronounced when examining the Low preset. At 1080p Low, the system produces 706 FPS. At 1440p Low, it still manages 602 FPS, and at 4K Low, it remains at a staggering 481 FPS. The scaling from 1080p to 4K here is a mere 32% performance reduction, which suggests that the GPU has ample headroom and is not the primary bottleneck. In contrast, the Medium preset shows a tighter spread: 465 FPS at 1080p, 397 FPS at 1440p, and 317 FPS at 4K. The Ultra preset follows a similar trajectory, with 422, 360, and 288 FPS respectively.

The data implies that Valorant’s pixel throughput is not the deciding factor. Even with a doubling of resolution, the frame rate does not halve, which would be the expected behavior if the GPU were fully constrained. Instead, the relatively modest declines indicate a system that is heavily CPU-bound, especially at lower resolutions. The difference between the Low and High presets at the same resolution (e.g., 706 FPS vs 443 FPS at 1080p) is substantial, but the scaling behavior across resolutions remains consistent, pointing to a rendering engine that does not scale its workload with resolution as steeply as other titles. The RTX 4060’s 8 GB of VRAM and 128-bit memory bus are clearly sufficient for this game’s needs, as the frame rates remain exceptionally high even at 4K.

Settings Recommendations

The measured rows provide a clear hierarchy for players seeking the best experience. At 1080p, the Low preset delivers the highest average frame rate at 706 FPS, but the Medium preset is only slightly slower at 465 FPS while offering improved visual fidelity. The High preset at 443 FPS and Ultra at 422 FPS are close, but Medium appears to be the sweet spot for competitive play, providing a significant boost over Low without a major FPS penalty. The data shows that the jump from Low to Medium costs roughly 34% of the frame rate, while the jump from Medium to Ultra costs only about 9%.

At 1440p, the same pattern holds. Low produces 602 FPS, Medium 397 FPS, High 378 FPS, and Ultra 360 FPS. The relative differences are similar, with Medium being the best balance of speed and image quality. The gap between Low and Medium is 34%, while the gap between High and Ultra is just 5%. For players with high-refresh-rate 1440p monitors, Medium is the recommended preset, as it stays well above the 360 FPS threshold that even the most demanding displays require, while High and Ultra remain viable if visual quality takes precedence.

At 4K, the story changes slightly. Low still leads with 481 FPS, but Medium drops to 317 FPS, High to 302 FPS, and Ultra to 288 FPS. The scaling is more compressed, with only a 40% difference between Low and Ultra. This suggests that at 4K, the GPU starts to become more relevant, though it still does not become the limiting factor. For 4K play, the Medium preset is still the best choice, as it maintains an average above 300 FPS while providing a richer visual experience than Low. The Ultra preset, at 288 FPS, is only 9% slower than Medium, making it a reasonable option for those with 240 Hz 4K displays, though the marginal FPS gain from dropping to High is negligible.

GPU Role

The NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4060, with its 8 GB of GDDR6 memory and 128-bit bus width, plays a supporting role in this configuration. Its memory clock is listed at 2125 MHz with 17 Gbps effective speed, and the card boasts a boost clock of 2460 MHz. The GPU’s benchmark scores are modest, with a Passmark G3D score of 19545 and a 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 score of 2302, placing it in the 61st percentile of all GPUs. Its nearest rivals include the AMD Radeon HD 7790 and the AMD Radeon 780M, which are far less powerful, indicating that the RTX 4060 is not a high-end part.

However, in Valorant, the GPU’s role is diminished. The measured FPS values are so high that they suggest the GPU is never fully utilized. Even at 4K Ultra, the average frame rate of 288 FPS is beyond the capability of most 4K displays, and the card’s 15.11 TFLOPS of FP32 performance is more than enough for this game’s simple shaders. The VRAM capacity of 8 GB is ample for Valorant’s textures, which are not memory-intensive. The data implies that the RTX 4060 is not the bottleneck; rather, it is the CPU that determines the ceiling. The GPU’s clock speeds and memory bandwidth are sufficient to keep up with the CPU’s request rate, and the frame times are likely limited by the processor’s single-thread performance.

FAQ

Q: What is the highest average frame rate achieved by this combo in Valorant?

A: The highest average frame rate is 706 FPS, recorded at 1920x1080 resolution with the Low settings preset.

Q: How does the frame rate scale from 1080p to 4K at High settings?

A: At High settings, the average frame rate drops from 443 FPS at 1920x1080 to 378 FPS at 2560x1440, and then to 302 FPS at 3840x2160, a total reduction of 32%.

Q: Is the RTX 4060 the limiting factor in this system for Valorant?

A: No, the data suggests the CPU is the primary limiter, as the FPS drop from 1080p to 4K is only about 32% at Low settings, indicating the GPU is not saturated.

Q: Which settings preset offers the best balance of FPS and visual quality at 1440p?

A: The Medium preset is the best balance, delivering 397 FPS average, which is 34% lower than Low but only 5% higher than Ultra, providing a solid middle ground.

Q: What is the combo’s rank among all tested combinations in this game?

A: The combo ranks 967 out of 2883 tested combinations, placing it in the top third of all systems benchmarked.

Q: What is the minimum FPS recorded for the 4K Medium preset?

A: The minimum FPS recorded for the 3840x2160 Medium preset is 270 FPS, with a maximum of 365 FPS.

How This Combo Ranks

The Intel Core Ultra 9 290K Plus and NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4060 combination holds a rank of 967 out of 2,883 tested combos in Valorant. This places it in the 66th percentile of all systems, meaning it outperforms roughly two-thirds of the configurations tested. The ranking is notable because the RTX 4060 is a mid-range GPU, yet the combo’s position is buoyed by the exceptional performance of the Core Ultra 9 290K Plus, which sits in the 96th percentile of all CPUs. The processor’s average benchmark score of 84,003 is only 0.2% higher than the Intel Core Ultra 9 285K, its closest rival, and 1.1% higher than the AMD EPYC 4584PX.

This rank suggests that Valorant is highly sensitive to CPU performance, and the 24-core, 24-thread processor with a 5.80 GHz boost clock is providing the necessary single-thread grunt. The fact that this combo ranks in the top third despite the GPU’s relatively low standing (61st percentile) underscores the game’s CPU-bound nature. The data implies that upgrading to a more powerful GPU would yield minimal gains in Valorant, as the frame rates are already above 288 FPS even at 4K Ultra. The combo’s rank is a direct reflection of the CPU’s dominance in this workload, and it validates the choice of a high-end processor for esports gaming.

CPU Role

The Intel Core Ultra 9 290K Plus is the clear star of this benchmark. With 24 cores and 24 threads, a base clock of 3.70 GHz, and a boost clock of 5.80 GHz, this processor is built for heavy workloads, but its performance in Valorant is driven by its single-core speed. The CPU’s Cinebench R23 single-core score of 7,303 and multi-core score of 51,731 indicate strong per-thread performance, which is critical for a game that relies on a single main thread for game logic and rendering commands. The Passmark single-thread score of 4,823 reinforces this, and the processor’s 96th percentile ranking among all CPUs confirms its top-tier status.

In Valorant, the CPU’s role is to feed the GPU with draw calls and process player actions. The measured FPS values, which exceed 700 at 1080p Low, show that the CPU is not the bottleneck, as it can produce frames faster than the GPU can render them. The L3 cache of 36 MB shared and the 192 KB L1 cache per core likely help keep frequently accessed data close to the execution units, reducing latency. The memory bandwidth of 115.2 GB/s over dual-channel DDR5 is also sufficient for this game’s data throughput. The processor’s TDP of 125 W is modest for its performance level, indicating efficient power delivery to the cores.

The data suggests that the CPU is the primary factor in achieving such high frame rates. The difference between 1080p Low (706 FPS) and 4K Low (481 FPS) is only 32%, which is far less than the theoretical 4x pixel count increase, proving that the CPU is setting the ceiling. This is a classic example of a CPU-bound scenario, where the graphics card is waiting for the processor to issue commands. The Core Ultra 9 290K Plus excels in this role, and its 5.80 GHz boost clock is likely the key attribute, as higher clocks directly translate to faster instruction execution in latency-sensitive game loops.

Measured FPS Breakdown

At 1920x1080, the frame rates are as follows: Low settings yield an average of 706 FPS, Medium yields 465 FPS with a minimum of 395 and a maximum of 535, High yields 443 FPS, and Ultra yields 422 FPS. The progression shows a clear drop from Low to Medium, but the differences between Medium, High, and Ultra are small, ranging from 422 to 465 FPS. This indicates that at 1080p, the CPU is the limiter, and the GPU has spare capacity even at Ultra.

At 2560x1440, the average frame rates are: Low at 602 FPS, Medium at 397 FPS (with a min of 337 and max of 456), High at 378 FPS, and Ultra at 360 FPS. The scaling from 1080p to 1440p is consistent, with a drop of approximately 15% for each preset. The Medium preset’s minimum of 337 FPS is still far above the refresh rate of most 1440p monitors, ensuring a smooth experience.

At 3840x2160, the averages are: Low at 481 FPS, Medium at 317 FPS (with a min of 270 and max of 365), High at 302 FPS, and Ultra at 288 FPS. The drop from 1440p to 4K is more pronounced, averaging a 20% reduction, but the absolute numbers remain high. The Ultra preset at 288 FPS is still playable on high-refresh-rate 4K displays, and the Low preset at 481 FPS is exceptional. The minimum FPS values recorded for the Medium preset across all resolutions (395 at 1080p, 337 at 1440p, and 270 at 4K) show that the system maintains high frame times even under load, with no significant stuttering indicated by the data.