Counter-Strike 2

Counter-Strike 2 is a competitive first-person shooter that demands high frame rates for smooth, responsive aiming. The data for this specific configuration—an AMD Ryzen 5 8400F paired with an Intel Arc B390—paints a picture of a system that can deliver playable performance at lower resolutions and settings, but which struggles to maintain competitive frame rates at higher graphical presets. The measured FPS values show a clear pattern of scaling, revealing the Arc B390 as the primary bottleneck for this demanding esports title when pushed to higher visual fidelity.

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

The AMD Ryzen 5 8400F is a 6-core, 12-thread processor based on the Zen 4 architecture, built on a 4 nm process. It operates with a base clock of 4.20 GHz and a boost clock of 4.70 GHz. This processor’s multi-threaded capabilities are reflected in its benchmark scores, such as a Cinebench R23 multicore score of 20851 and a Passmark multithread score of 24389. These numbers indicate strong productivity performance, but for gaming, the single-threaded performance is often more critical. The Ryzen 5 8400F posts a Cinebench R23 single-core score of 2943 and a Passmark single-thread score of 3685, which are robust figures for a modern desktop CPU.

In the context of Counter-Strike 2, the CPU is responsible for processing game logic, physics, and player actions. At 1080p with Low settings, the configuration achieves an average FPS of 179. This high frame rate suggests the CPU is capable of feeding frames to the GPU without being the limiting factor at this resolution and setting. The CPU’s performance percentile of 77 places it above three-quarters of all CPUs in the database, and its average benchmark score of 25005 is nearly identical to that of the AMD Ryzen 5 7500F, which scores 24964, a mere 0.2% difference. This proximity in score indicates the 8400F delivers comparable computational performance to its direct rival.

However, as the resolution and settings increase, the CPU’s role becomes less prominent compared to the GPU’s workload. The fact that the system can hit 179 FPS at 1080p Low indicates the CPU is not a significant bottleneck in this specific scenario. The 12 threads and high boost clock provide enough headroom for the game’s engine. In contrast, the GPU struggles at higher settings, which reflects the CPU’s ability to keep up with the data demands of the game, even when the graphics card is saturated. The processor’s 16 MB of shared L3 cache and 83.2 GB/s of DDR5 memory bandwidth also contribute to its capacity to handle the game’s data flow efficiently.

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

The Intel Arc B390 is an integrated graphics processor (IGP) based on the Xe3-LPG architecture and a 3 nm process. It features 1536 shading units, 48 texture mapping units, and 24 raster operation pipelines. The GPU operates with a base clock of 300 MHz and a boost clock of 2500 MHz. Critically, its memory is "System Shared," meaning it uses a portion of the system’s main RAM instead of having its own dedicated VRAM. The memory bandwidth is therefore "System Dependent," which can be a significant limiting factor for a game like Counter-Strike 2.

The GPU’s benchmark presence is minimal, with only a single 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 score of 1482. This places the Arc B390 in the 9th percentile of all GPUs, indicating it is a very low-performance part. Its nearest rivals in the database include the NVIDIA GeForce GT 520MX, which scores 1463 (1.3% lower), and the NVIDIA GeForce GT 710, which scores 1443 (2.7% lower). This comparison clearly establishes the Arc B390 as an entry-level graphics solution, more suited for basic tasks than for high-end gaming.

In practice, this GPU is the main constraint on performance. The measured FPS data shows a stark drop as graphical settings are increased. At 1080p, the average FPS falls from 179 on Low to 86 on Ultra. This dramatic reduction is a direct consequence of the IGP’s limited compute power and its reliance on shared system memory for texture and frame buffer data. The GPU’s low fillrate (60.00 GPixel/s) and texture rate (120.0 GTexel/s) are insufficient to handle the complex shaders and high-resolution textures of Counter-Strike 2 at higher presets. The 7.680 TFLOPS of FP32 performance, while not negligible, is simply not enough to maintain high frame rates at 4K resolution, where the average FPS drops to 32 on Ultra settings.

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

The measured FPS data reveals the classic signature of a GPU-bound system. When the resolution increases, the number of pixels the GPU must render increases exponentially, which directly reduces the frame rate. This is precisely what the data shows for this configuration.

At Low settings, the average FPS scales from 179 at 1920x1080 to 118 at 2560x1440, and further down to 66 at 3840x2160. This represents a 34% drop from 1080p to 1440p, and a 63% drop from 1080p to 4K. This steep decline is expected when the GPU is the limiting factor. At High settings, the trend continues: 111 FPS at 1080p, 73 FPS at 1440p, and 41 FPS at 4K. The frame rate at 4K High is less than half of what is achievable at 1080p High.

The consistency of this pattern across all settings presets confirms that the Intel Arc B390 is the bottleneck. If the CPU were the limiting factor, we would expect to see the FPS remain relatively flat across different resolutions, as the CPU workload would not change significantly with the number of pixels being rendered. Instead, the FPS falls sharply with each increase in resolution, indicating that the GPU’s rendering throughput is the primary constraint. At 1080p Low, the CPU is able to push the GPU to its maximum output, resulting in 179 FPS. But as the pixel count rises, the GPU’s limited processing power becomes overwhelmed, and the frame rate collapses accordingly.

FAQ

Q: What is the best resolution to play Counter-Strike 2 with this hardware?

A: The data indicates that 1920x1080 is the only resolution where the configuration can consistently exceed 100 FPS, which is a common target for competitive play. At 2560x1440, only the Low preset manages to stay above 100 FPS with an average of 118.

Q: How does the Intel Arc B390 compare to its closest rivals?

A: The Arc B390 has an average benchmark score of 1482. This is 2.7% higher than the NVIDIA GeForce GT 710 (score 1443) and 1.3% higher than the NVIDIA GeForce GT 520MX (score 1463). This puts it in the 9th percentile of all GPUs, indicating very low overall performance.

Q: Is the AMD Ryzen 5 8400F a strong performer for its class?

A: Yes, the CPU posts an average benchmark score of 25005, placing it in the 77th percentile. It is nearly identical in performance to the AMD Ryzen 5 7500F, which scores 24964, a negligible 0.2% difference. Its single-core performance, as measured by Cinebench R23 at 2943, is solid for gaming.

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

A: At 1920x1080, the average FPS drops from 179 on Low settings to 86 on Ultra settings. This is a 93 FPS reduction, showing a very large performance cost for the higher visual fidelity.

Q: Does the configuration support high frame rates at 4K resolution?

A: No. The highest average FPS at 3840x2160 is 66, achieved on Low settings. At Ultra settings, the average FPS falls to 32, which is not smooth for a competitive FPS game.

Q: Which component is the primary bottleneck in this system?

A: The benchmark results indicate the Intel Arc B390 GPU is the limiting factor. This is evidenced by the significant FPS drops when increasing resolution or settings, which is characteristic of a GPU-bound workload.

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

The measured data provides a complete picture of performance across three resolutions and four settings presets. At 1920x1080, the configuration delivers its best results. The Low preset yields an average of 179 FPS. The Medium preset averages 149 FPS, with a minimum of 126 and a maximum of 171. High settings average 111 FPS, while the Ultra preset drops to an average of 86 FPS. This shows that even at the native resolution, the Ultra preset costs a significant amount of performance.

Moving to 2560x1440, the frame rates decrease noticeably. The Low preset averages 118 FPS. Medium settings average 98 FPS, with a minimum of 84 and maximum of 113. The High preset averages 73 FPS, and Ultra falls to an average of 57 FPS. This pattern shows that 1440p is only viable for competitive play on the Low preset, which just manages to stay above the 100 FPS mark.

At 3840x2160, the performance is limited. The Low preset is the only one that provides a somewhat playable experience, with an average of 66 FPS. The Medium preset averages 55 FPS, with a minimum of 47 and a maximum of 63. High settings average 41 FPS, and the Ultra preset drops to an average of 32 FPS. These numbers indicate that 4K gaming is not a realistic option for this hardware combination, as even the lowest settings fail to maintain high frame rates.

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

For a competitive game like Counter-Strike 2, frame rate and stability are paramount. The data shows that the best experience is achieved at 1920x1080 with the Low preset, which delivers an average of 179 FPS. This is the only configuration that provides an FPS high enough to fully utilize a high-refresh-rate monitor, which is critical for smooth and responsive aiming. The jump from Low to Medium at 1080p results in a 30 FPS loss, bringing the average down to 149 FPS. While still playable, this is a noticeable reduction in smoothness.

At 2560x1440, the Low preset is the only viable option for a competitive experience, with an average of 118 FPS. While this is lower than the 1080p Low result, it may be acceptable for users who prioritize resolution over maximum frame rate. However, the Medium preset at 1440p drops to 98 FPS, which is below the 100 FPS threshold that many competitive players consider a minimum. The High and Ultra presets at 1440p, with averages of 73 and 57 FPS respectively, are not recommended for serious play.

The 3840x2160 resolution is not recommended for this configuration. Even the Low preset only achieves 66 FPS, which is far below the standard for competitive play. The higher presets at 4K are effectively unplayable for a fast-paced FPS, with average frame rates in the 32-55 range. Consequently, the optimal strategy for this hardware is to play at 1080p with Low settings to maximize performance. If a user insists on higher visual quality, the Medium preset at 1080p, with an average of 149 FPS and a minimum of 126, offers a reasonable compromise between visual fidelity and performance, still maintaining a high enough frame rate for smooth gameplay.