Counter-Strike 2

Resolution Scaling

The measured FPS data for Counter-Strike 2 with this AMD Ryzen 5 8400F and NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2060 combo reveals a dramatic resolution scaling curve that shifts character depending on the quality preset. At Low settings, the average frame rate drops from 294 FPS at 1920x1080 to 194 FPS at 2560x1440, a reduction of 34%, and then to 109 FPS at 3840x2160, a further 44% drop from the 1440p figure. This steep decline suggests that even at Low settings, the GPU becomes increasingly dominant as pixel count rises, though the 1080p result of 294 FPS indicates the CPU is still capable of pushing very high frame rates.

The Medium preset tells a similar story with slightly compressed margins: 244 FPS at 1080p falls to 162 FPS at 1440p (a 34% reduction) and then to 90 FPS at 4K (a 44% drop from 1440p). High settings show 182 FPS at 1080p, 121 FPS at 1440p (33% lower), and 67 FPS at 4K (45% lower). Ultra settings produce 142 FPS at 1080p, 94 FPS at 1440p (34% lower), and 52 FPS at 4K (45% lower). The consistency of these percentage drops across all four presets — roughly one-third from 1080p to 1440p and another 44-45% from 1440p to 4K — points to a scaling pattern that is remarkably uniform regardless of visual complexity.

What does this uniformity imply about the limiting component? If the CPU were the bottleneck at lower resolutions, one would expect the 1080p-to-1440p drop to be smaller than the 1440p-to-4K drop, since the CPU load remains constant while GPU load rises. Instead, the data shows nearly identical relative reductions at each step, which indicates the RTX 2060 is the primary constraint even at 1080p with Low settings. The fact that 294 FPS at 1080p Low still falls 34% when moving to 1440p suggests the GPU's fill rate and shading capacity are already being taxed at the lower resolution, leaving little headroom for the CPU to reveal its true ceiling.

Interestingly, the absolute gap between Low and Ultra at each resolution narrows as resolution increases. At 1080p, Low beats Ultra by 152 FPS (294 vs 142). At 1440p, that gap shrinks to 100 FPS (194 vs 94). At 4K, the gap is just 57 FPS (109 vs 52). This compression at higher resolutions is a classic sign of GPU-bound operation, where the cost of additional shading work becomes relatively smaller compared to the massive pixel throughput required at 4K. The data implies that players targeting 4K will see diminishing returns from lowering settings, while 1080p players can extract substantial frame rate gains by reducing quality.

CPU Role

The AMD Ryzen 5 8400F brings six cores and twelve threads from the Zen 4 (Phoenix) architecture, with a base clock of 4.20 GHz and a boost clock of 4.70 GHz. Its 16 MB of shared L3 cache and dual-channel DDR5 memory support with 83.2 GB/s bandwidth position it as a modern mid-range part, and benchmark data confirms its placement: the CPU sits at the 77th percentile among all tested CPUs, with an average benchmark score of 25005. Its nearest rival, the AMD Ryzen 5 7500F, scores 24964 (a 0.2% delta), while the Intel Core i7-11850H and i7-13620H are 0.3% and 0.4% behind respectively, and the AMD EPYC 9474F is 0.4% ahead.

In Counter-Strike 2, the CPU's role is best understood through the 1080p Low setting result of 294 FPS. This figure represents the upper bound of what this processor can sustain in this game when the GPU is given the least work. The fact that the 1080p Low score is nearly double the 4K Low score (109 FPS) indicates that at 1080p, the CPU is likely the limiting factor, while at 4K, the GPU takes over. The single-thread performance, measured at 951 in 3DMark single-thread and 3685 in PassMark single-thread, is critical for an esports title like Counter-Strike 2, where frame pacing and responsiveness matter as much as raw throughput.

The multi-threading capability shows in the Cinebench R23 multicore score of 20851, but the game's engine appears to benefit more from the high boost clock of 4.70 GHz than from the twelve threads. Evidence for this comes from the 3DMark scores: 2-thread score of 1874 jumps to 4-thread at 3563 (90% increase), but the 8-thread score of 5275 only adds 48% over 4-thread, and max-thread score of 6165 adds just 17% over 8-thread. This diminishing scaling suggests that Counter-Strike 2 may not fully utilize all twelve threads, making the 4.70 GHz boost clock more valuable than additional core count. The data implies that overclocking, enabled by the unlocked multiplier, could yield modest gains in CPU-bound scenarios at 1080p, though the measured results already show strong performance.

Settings Recommendations

Examining the measured FPS rows, the Medium preset emerges as the most balanced option across all three resolutions. At 1920x1080, Medium delivers 244 FPS average with a minimum of 208 and maximum of 281 — well above the 142 FPS of Ultra and only 50 FPS behind Low's 294. At 2560x1440, Medium produces 162 FPS (min 137, max 186), which remains comfortably playable on high-refresh displays, while Ultra falls to 94 FPS and Low reaches 194. At 3840x2160, Medium's 90 FPS (min 77, max 104) is borderline for smooth 4K play, but it beats Ultra's 52 FPS by 73% while staying just 19 FPS behind Low's 109.

For competitive play at 1080p, Low settings provide the maximum frame rate of 294 FPS, which is ideal for 240 Hz monitors. The jump from Low to Medium costs 50 FPS (17% reduction), while Medium to High costs another 62 FPS (25% reduction), and High to Ultra costs 40 FPS (22% reduction). These diminishing returns suggest that players prioritizing response time should stick with Low, but those wanting better visuals without sacrificing much performance should consider Medium, as the 208 FPS minimum still ensures smooth gameplay.

At 1440p, the recommendation shifts toward Medium or High. Medium's 162 FPS average with 137 FPS minimum provides a solid experience for 144 Hz displays, while High's 121 FPS is acceptable but leaves less headroom. Ultra at 94 FPS is playable but may feel inconsistent on fast-moving scenes. For 4K, the data shows a tough trade-off: Low's 109 FPS is the only preset that consistently exceeds 100 FPS, while Medium's 90 FPS with 77 FPS minimum could cause noticeable stutters in intense firefights. Players with 60 Hz 4K monitors may find Medium acceptable, but those with higher refresh 4K panels should consider lowering resolution or sticking with Low.

The measured data indicates that Medium is the sweet spot for this combo, offering the best balance of visual quality and frame rate stability across all resolutions. The presence of min/max FPS data only for Medium settings suggests that this preset represents the expected baseline for testing, and the 208-281 FPS range at 1080p and 137-186 FPS at 1440p show consistent frame delivery without major dips.

How This Combo Ranks

The combo of AMD Ryzen 5 8400F and NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2060 ranks 2936 out of 3719 tested combinations in Counter-Strike 2, placing it in the 21st percentile of all combos. This rank is notably lower than what the individual component percentiles might suggest — the CPU sits at the 77th percentile and the GPU at the 58th percentile among their respective categories. The discrepancy implies that Counter-Strike 2's performance depends heavily on specific hardware interactions, and this particular pairing is not optimally matched for this game.

Looking at the GPU's nearest rivals provides context for this ranking. The RTX 2060's average benchmark score of 15290 is nearly identical to the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 580 (15283, 0% delta), the AMD Radeon 680M (15270, 0.1% delta), and the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3050 OEM (15199, 0.6% delta), with the AMD Radeon RX 7600 just 0.8% ahead at 15171. These razor-thin margins suggest that the RTX 2060 is performing at a level where minor architectural differences could swing game-specific results, and Counter-Strike 2 appears to favor other GPUs in this performance class.

The CPU's nearest rivals show a similar picture: the Ryzen 5 7500F is just 0.2% ahead, the i7-11850H and i7-13620H are 0.3% and 0.4% behind, and the EPYC 9474F is 0.4% ahead. With such tight competition around both components, the combo's low rank in this game suggests that the RTX 2060's 6 GB VRAM or its Turing architecture may be a specific liability in Counter-Strike 2, despite the CPU being well-equipped for the task. The data implies that a different GPU in the same performance band could yield a significantly higher ranking, while the CPU is likely not the primary factor dragging down this combo's position.

GPU Role

The NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2060 employs the TU106 chip on a 12 nm process with 10,800 million transistors, featuring 1920 shading units, 120 texture mapping units, and 48 ROPs. Its 6 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 192-bit bus provides 336.0 GB/s of bandwidth, with base and boost clocks of 1365 MHz and 1680 MHz respectively. The GPU's average benchmark score of 15290 places it at the 58th percentile of all GPUs, and its nearest rivals are all within 0.8% of its score, indicating a highly competitive performance tier.

In Counter-Strike 2, the GPU's role becomes increasingly dominant as resolution rises, as evidenced by the FPS scaling discussed earlier. The memory bandwidth of 336.0 GB/s is sufficient for the game's texture streaming at 1080p, but the 6 GB VRAM capacity may become a constraint at higher resolutions with Ultra settings. The 4K Ultra result of 52 FPS suggests that the GPU is severely taxed, and the lack of min/max data for that preset may indicate unstable frame delivery. Comparing the 4K Low (109 FPS) to 1080p Low (294 FPS), the 63% reduction highlights the GPU's fill rate limitations at 4K.

The RTX 2060's 30 RT cores and 240 tensor cores are largely irrelevant for Counter-Strike 2, which is a competitive FPS without ray tracing support in the measured data. The FP32 throughput of 6.451 TFLOPS is what drives the rasterization performance, and the 201.6 GTexel/s texture rate and 80.64 GPixel/s pixel rate determine how quickly the GPU can fill the screen. At 1080p, the GPU can maintain over 290 FPS on Low, but the pixel rate becomes a bottleneck at 4K, where the 52 FPS Ultra result shows the GPU's limits. The data suggests that players with 4K monitors would benefit from a GPU with higher pixel throughput, while the RTX 2060 remains competitive for 1080p and 1440p play.

Measured FPS Breakdown

At 1920x1080, the full settings range produces the following average FPS: Low at 294, Medium at 244 (min 208, max 281), High at 182, and Ultra at 142. The progression from Low to Ultra shows a 52% reduction in frame rate, with the largest single drop occurring between Medium and High (62 FPS, or 25%). The 1080p Medium minimum of 208 FPS ensures that even in busy scenes, the frame rate stays above 200, which is excellent for competitive play.

At 2560x1440, the averages are: Low at 194, Medium at 162 (min 137, max 186), High at 121, and Ultra at 94. The drop from 1080p to 1440p is consistent at roughly one-third across all presets, but the Medium minimum of 137 FPS means that 144 Hz displays may experience occasional dips below their refresh rate. The 1440p Ultra result of 94 FPS is the first preset where the average falls below 100, indicating that this resolution and quality combination is pushing the hardware to its limits.

At 3840x2160, the averages are: Low at 109, Medium at 90 (min 77, max 104), High at 67, and Ultra at 52. The 4K Medium minimum of 77 FPS is the lowest recorded minimum across all tested configurations, suggesting that 4K gaming with this combo requires careful settings management. The gap between Low and Medium at 4K is 19 FPS, while the gap between High and Ultra is just 15 FPS, showing that the GPU's performance curve flattens as settings increase. For 4K players, the data clearly shows that Low settings are necessary to maintain 100+ FPS, while Medium provides a playable 90 FPS average with acceptable minimums.

The only preset with complete min/max data is Medium across all resolutions, which may indicate that this is the most stable configuration. At 1080p Medium, the range from 208 to 281 FPS shows a 73 FPS spread, while at 1440p Medium, the range narrows to 49 FPS (137-186), and at 4K Medium, it narrows further to 27 FPS (77-104). This tightening of frame delivery at higher resolutions suggests that the GPU becomes more consistent when it is more heavily loaded, which is counterintuitive but reflects the reduced impact of CPU-side frame time spikes.

FAQ

Q: What is the best resolution for this combo in Counter-Strike 2?

A: The data shows 1920x1080 as the strongest resolution, with Low settings achieving 294 FPS and Medium achieving 244 FPS. At 2560x1440, Medium still reaches 162 FPS, but Ultra drops to 94 FPS. At 3840x2160, only Low exceeds 100 FPS at 109 FPS, making 1080p the clear choice for competitive play.

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

A: The 294 FPS at 1080p Low suggests the CPU is likely the limiting factor at this resolution and preset. The Ryzen 5 8400F's single-thread score of 3685 in PassMark supports this, as Counter-Strike 2 relies heavily on single-thread performance. Moving to 1440p Low drops FPS to 194, indicating the GPU begins to take over as resolution increases.

Q: How does the RTX 2060 compare to its nearest rivals in overall benchmarks?

A: The RTX 2060's average benchmark score of 15290 is essentially tied with the GTX 580 (15283, 0% delta), Radeon 680M (15270, 0.1% delta), and RTX 3050 OEM (15199, 0.6% delta), with the RX 7600 just 0.8% ahead. These margins are within 1%, making game-specific performance the deciding factor.

Q: Is 6 GB of VRAM sufficient for Counter-Strike 2 at 4K?

A: The measured data shows 4K Ultra at 52 FPS and 4K Medium at 90 FPS, suggesting the 6 GB VRAM is not limiting at these settings. The 336.0 GB/s memory bandwidth appears adequate, but the GPU's pixel rate of 80.64 GPixel/s is more likely the constraint at 4K, given the consistent FPS drops across all presets.

Q: What settings should I use for a 144 Hz 1440p monitor?

A: Medium settings at 2560x1440 provide 162 FPS average with a 137 FPS minimum, which is close to 144 Hz but may dip below on occasion. High settings at 121 FPS average would not fully utilize a 144 Hz panel. Low settings at 194 FPS would provide the most headroom but with reduced visual quality.

Q: How does the Ryzen 5 8400F rank against similar CPUs?

A: The CPU sits at the 77th percentile with an average score of 25005. Its nearest rival, the Ryzen 5 7500F, scores 24964 (0.2% ahead), while the i7-11850H is 0.3% behind and the i7-13620H is 0.4% behind. The EPYC 9474F is 0.4% ahead, showing this is a tightly grouped performance tier.