Counter-Strike 2

The AMD Ryzen 7 3700X paired with the Intel Arc B390 produces a highly unusual performance profile in Counter-Strike 2, one that is strictly bounded by the graphics solution. While the CPU is a capable desktop part, the Arc B390 is an integrated GPU that ranks in the 9th percentile of all GPUs, and this pairing demonstrates that the graphics component dictates the playable experience across all resolutions. The measured data shows a clear hierarchy where lower settings are mandatory for a competitive frame rate, and the gap between the CPU's potential and the GPU's delivery is the defining characteristic of this configuration.

Settings Recommendations

The measured FPS data makes the optimal settings path unambiguous. At 1920x1080, the Low preset delivers an average of 179 FPS, which is the highest frame rate recorded for this combo. This is the only configuration that approaches the high refresh rates favored in competitive shooters. The Medium preset at the same resolution drops to an average of 149 FPS, which is a 30 FPS reduction, while High and Ultra fall to 111 FPS and 86 FPS respectively. For players prioritizing smoothness and responsiveness, the Low preset is the definitive choice at 1080p.

Moving to 2560x1440, the Low preset still provides a playable average of 118 FPS, but the margin for error shrinks. The Medium preset at this resolution yields an average of 98 FPS, with a minimum of 84 FPS, which can introduce noticeable hitches in fast-paced firefights. High and Ultra at 1440p drop to 73 FPS and 57 FPS, respectively, making them less suitable for competitive play. At 3840x2160, the situation becomes critical; even the Low preset only manages an average of 66 FPS, and the Ultra preset falls to a stutter-prone 32 FPS.

The data indicates that the best experience, defined as the highest average FPS, is achieved with the Low preset at 1920x1080. This setting combination is the only one that consistently allows the system to fully utilize the CPU's headroom. The Medium preset offers a visual upgrade but costs 30 FPS at 1080p, a significant trade-off in a game where frame time consistency is paramount. Given that the Ultra preset at 1080p (86 FPS) is considerably slower than Low at 1440p (118 FPS), the recommendation is to prioritize resolution and settings downward to maintain a high frame rate. The performance ceiling is low, so the Low preset is not just a suggestion; it is a necessity for a fluid experience.

CPU Role

The AMD Ryzen 7 3700X is a Zen 2 architecture processor with 8 cores and 16 threads, running at a base clock of 3.60 GHz and a boost clock of 4.40 GHz. Its benchmark results show a robust multi-threaded capacity, with a Cinebench R15 multi-core score of 2092 and a Geekbench multi-core score of 8899. The single-thread performance, critical for Counter-Strike 2's engine, is reflected in a Geekbench single-core score of 1593 and a Passmark single-thread score of 2656. The CPU has an average benchmark score of 34260, placing it in the 84th percentile of all CPUs, and it sits near the AMD Ryzen AI 7 350 and Intel Core i5-13450HX in overall performance, showing a deltaPct of only 0.1% and -0.2% respectively.

Despite this strong CPU showing, its role in this specific game config is constrained. The data shows that while the CPU is capable of high frame rates, the GPU is not. For example, at 1080p Low, the system achieves 179 FPS, but this is likely far below the CPU's maximum frame generation capability. The CPU's 32 MB of L3 cache and dual-channel DDR4 memory support provide a solid foundation for game logic, but the bottleneck is clearly elsewhere. The high single-core score of 1593 in Geekbench suggests the processor can handle the game's simulation and physics, but the measured FPS at higher resolutions—dropping from 179 to 66 FPS at 4K Low—shows that the CPU's potential is unrealized as the GPU becomes overwhelmed.

The processor's 65 W TDP and 7 nm process node make it an efficient unit, but efficiency is irrelevant when the graphics pipeline cannot keep up. The data confirms that the CPU is not the limiting factor in any of the measured scenarios. The frame rate drops from 1080p to 1440p and 4K are steep, indicating that the graphics workload is the primary driver of performance changes. In essence, the Ryzen 7 3700X is a high-performance part that is effectively waiting for the GPU to catch up, and its 84th percentile ranking suggests it would perform far better with a discrete graphics card.

GPU Role

The Intel Arc B390 is the definitive bottleneck in this configuration. It is an integrated GPU based on the Xe3-LPG architecture, built on a 3 nm process, and it shares system memory, which means its performance is heavily dependent on the rest of the system. Its benchmark presence is minimal, with only a 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 score of 1482, placing it in the 9th percentile of all GPUs. This puts it in the company of legacy parts like the NVIDIA GeForce GT 520MX and the GeForce GT 710, with deltaPct values of 1.3% and 2.7% respectively, indicating it is barely faster than these very old cards.

The GPU's specifications are modest, with 1536 shading units, 48 TMUs, and 24 ROPs. Its boost clock is 2500 MHz, and it has a TDP of 80 W. The memory bandwidth is listed as "System Dependent," which is a key weakness, as it shares bandwidth with the CPU. The FP32 performance is 7.680 TFLOPS, which is low for modern gaming. The measured FPS data directly reflects this limited capability. At 1080p Low, the system hits 179 FPS, but this is the peak; at 1080p Ultra, performance plummets to 86 FPS. This 93 FPS drop from Low to Ultra at the same resolution shows that the GPU's shading and fill-rate limits are quickly saturated by higher graphical demands.

The scaling from 1080p to 4K is brutal. At Low settings, the FPS drops from 179 to 66, a 63% reduction. At Ultra settings, it drops from 86 to 32, a 63% reduction as well. This consistent drop pattern indicates a purely GPU-bound scenario, where the pixel throughput requirements of higher resolutions exceed the Arc B390's 60.00 GPixel/s pixel rate. The GPU's 24 ROPs are simply insufficient to handle 4K resolutions at any playable frame rate. The data suggests that this GPU is only suitable for low-resolution, low-detail competitive play, and even then, it barely manages to provide a smooth experience.

FAQ

Q: What is the best resolution and settings combination for this system in Counter-Strike 2?

A: The data indicates that 1920x1080 with Low settings is the optimal configuration, producing an average FPS of 179. This is the only setting that yields a frame rate high enough for the fast-paced, competitive nature of Counter-Strike 2.

Q: Is the AMD Ryzen 7 3700X or the Intel Arc B390 the limiting factor?

A: The benchmark results clearly show that the GPU is the limiting factor. The CPU is in the 84th percentile with an average score of 34260, while the GPU is in the 9th percentile with a score of 1482. The FPS drops from 179 at 1080p Low to 41 at 4K High, demonstrating that the GPU cannot keep up with the CPU's capabilities.

Q: How does the performance at 1080p Medium compare to 1440p Low?

A: At 1080p Medium, the system achieves an average of 149 FPS. At 1440p Low, the average is 118 FPS. While the 1440p Low setting offers a higher resolution, the 1080p Medium setting provides a higher frame rate and a more stable experience, with a minimum FPS of 126 compared to no minimum data for 1440p Low.

Q: Can this setup handle 4K gaming in Counter-Strike 2?

A: The data suggests it cannot provide a competitive experience at 4K. The highest 4K average FPS is 66 at Low settings, but the Ultra preset drops to 32 FPS. These frame rates are too low for the game's required quick reactions and smooth aim.

Q: How does the performance at 4K compare to the performance at 1080p on the same settings?

A: The performance drop is significant. At Low settings, the average FPS falls from 179 at 1080p to 66 at 4K. At Ultra settings, it falls from 86 to 32. This represents a consistent performance reduction of roughly 63% when moving from 1080p to 4K, which is indicative of a GPU-bound bottleneck.

Q: What is the frame time consistency like at 1440p Medium?

A: The 1440p Medium preset is the only one with complete data, showing an average FPS of 98, a minimum of 84, and a maximum of 113. This spread of 29 FPS indicates some inconsistency, but the minimum of 84 FPS is still high enough to avoid severe stuttering in most situations.

Resolution Scaling

The measured FPS data provides a clear picture of how resolution scaling affects this system. The performance drop from 1080p to 4K is steep and consistent across all settings, confirming a GPU-bound scenario. At Low settings, the average FPS drops from 179 at 1920x1080 to 118 at 2560x1440, and then to 66 at 3840x2160. This represents a 34% drop from 1080p to 1440p, and a further 44% drop from 1440p to 4K. The total drop from 1080p to 4K is 63%, which is a massive reduction in frame rate.

At Ultra settings, the trend is similar but at a lower absolute level. The average FPS drops from 86 at 1080p to 57 at 1440p, and then to 32 at 4K. This is a 33% drop from 1080p to 1440p, and a 44% drop from 1440p to 4K, again a 63% total reduction. The consistency of this relative drop across different settings is a strong indicator that the GPU's pixel processing capability is the limiting factor. The number of pixels at 4K is four times that of 1080p, and the Arc B390's ROPs and memory bandwidth (System Dependent) cannot handle the increased load.

The scaling also shows that the CPU is not a factor in these drops. If the CPU were the bottleneck, the FPS would remain relatively flat as resolution increases, since the CPU workload is largely resolution-independent. Instead, the FPS halves at 4K, which is a classic symptom of a graphics card hitting its fill-rate limit. The 1080p to 1440p drop is less severe, but still significant, suggesting that even at 1440p, the GPU is already struggling. The data suggests that this system is only truly playable at 1080p, and even then, only at lower settings. Higher resolutions are simply not viable for a game that demands high and consistent frame rates.

Measured FPS Breakdown

The complete set of measured FPS values is as follows:

At 1920x1080:

• Low: Average FPS of 179.
• Medium: Average FPS of 149, with a minimum of 126 and a maximum of 171.
• High: Average FPS of 111.
• Ultra: Average FPS of 86.

At 2560x1440:

• Low: Average FPS of 118.
• Medium: Average FPS of 98, with a minimum of 84 and a maximum of 113.
• High: Average FPS of 73.
• Ultra: Average FPS of 57.

At 3840x2160:

• Low: Average FPS of 66.
• Medium: Average FPS of 55, with a minimum of 47 and a maximum of 63.
• High: Average FPS of 41.
• Ultra: Average FPS of 32.

The 1080p Low and Medium settings are the only ones that provide an average FPS above 144, which is a common target for high-refresh-rate monitors. The Medium preset at 1080p shows a minimum of 126 FPS, which is still quite high, but the 30 FPS penalty compared to Low is notable. The 1440p results are playable but not ideal, with Low at 118 FPS and Medium at 98 FPS. The 4K results are uniformly poor, with all settings falling below the 66 FPS average of the Low preset, and the Ultra preset failing to reach 60 FPS. The data for the Medium presets at all resolutions shows the widest variance, with the 4K Medium having a minimum of 47 FPS and a maximum of 63 FPS, demonstrating frame pacing issues at higher resolutions. This breakdown confirms that the system's performance is severely constrained by the integrated GPU, and users should stick to 1080p with Low or Medium settings for the best balance of visuals and performance.