Counter-Strike 2

The AMD Ryzen 7 9700X and Intel Arc B390 pairing in Counter-Strike 2 produces a system defined by a stark performance imbalance. The CPU is a high-end, modern desktop processor, while the GPU is an integrated-class solution that severely bottlenecks the entire experience. Benchmark results show that this combination ranks in the bottom 12% of all tested combos, making it unsuitable for competitive play at higher settings, though it can achieve playable frame rates at lower presets.

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

The AMD Ryzen 7 9700X is a desktop processor from the 9000 series, built on the Zen 5 architecture (Granite Ridge) using a 4 nm process at TSMC. It features 8 cores and 16 threads, with a base clock of 3.80 GHz and a boost clock of 5.50 GHz. With a 65 W TDP and support for DDR5 memory, this is a modern, efficient part designed for high-end desktop workloads. Its cache hierarchy includes 80 KB of L1 per core, 1 MB of L2 per core, and 32 MB of shared L3 cache.

In the context of Counter-Strike 2, a game that is notoriously sensitive to single-thread performance and high clock speeds, this CPU is exceptionally well-suited. The data reflects this strength. In synthetic benchmarks, the processor achieves a 3DMark single-thread score of 1280 and a Cinebench R23 single-core score of 2211. These figures indicate very strong per-core performance, which is often the primary driver of frame rates in competitive shooters.

The multi-threaded results are equally impressive. The 9700X posts a Cinebench R23 multicore score of 20485 and a Geekbench multicore score of 17906. The 3DMark scores scale logically from 2525 with 2 threads to 9771 with max threads, showing that the 8-core, 16-thread configuration scales well with workload. This means the CPU has ample headroom to handle not just the game engine, but also background tasks like streaming or voice communication without impacting frame times.

However, the measured FPS in Counter-Strike 2 tells a different story than the CPU benchmarks alone would suggest. The data shows a system that is heavily GPU-limited. At 1080p with Low settings, the combo achieves 179 FPS average. This is respectable, but given the CPU's 3DMark 16-thread score of 9824 and its high percentile ranking (86th percentile vs all CPUs), one would expect far higher frame rates if the CPU were the limiting factor. The CPU is clearly capable of far more; the bottleneck lies elsewhere.

The benchmark data for the CPU places it in the 86th percentile of all CPUs tested, with an average benchmark score of 37943. Its nearest rivals include the Intel Core i9-14901E (scoring 37911, a 0.1% difference) and the AMD Ryzen AI 9 HX 370 (scoring 37904, also a 0.1% difference). This puts the 9700X in elite company, confirming that it is not a weak link in this pairing. The bottleneck is definitively the graphics solution.

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

The Intel Arc B390 is a stark contrast to the CPU. It is an integrated graphics processor (IGP) based on the Xe3-LPG architecture (Panther Lake) on a 3 nm process. Its memory configuration is "System Shared," meaning it has no dedicated VRAM; it uses the system's DDR5 memory, and its memory bandwidth is "System Dependent." This is a fundamental limitation for a game like Counter-Strike 2, which requires fast, dedicated memory access for textures and geometry.

The GPU's clock speeds are listed as a base of 300 MHz and a boost of 2500 MHz. It has 1536 shading units, 48 TMUs, and 24 ROPs. While the boost clock is respectable for an IGP, the pixel rate of 60.00 GPixel/s and texture rate of 120.0 GTexel/s are very low compared to any discrete gaming GPU. The FP32 performance is listed at 7.680 TFLOPS, but this does not translate into real-world gaming performance due to memory constraints and driver overhead.

The benchmark results for the GPU are dismal. Its only listed benchmark is a 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 score of 1482, placing it in the 9th percentile of all GPUs. Its nearest rivals are all legacy or entry-level parts: the NVIDIA GeForce GT 520MX (scoring 1463, a 1.3% difference), the NVIDIA GeForce 800M (scoring 1460, a 1.5% difference), and the NVIDIA GeForce GT 625 OEM (scoring 1446, a 2.5% difference). This places the Arc B390 in the same performance tier as integrated graphics from over a decade ago.

This GPU deficiency is the primary driver of the low FPS figures in this test. In a game like Counter-Strike 2, where high and consistent frame rates are critical for competitive play, the Arc B390 cannot deliver. The data shows that even at 1080p Low settings, the system only manages 179 FPS. While this is playable, it is far from the 300+ FPS that competitive players typically seek, and the system is unable to maintain high refresh rates at higher settings. The GPU's lack of dedicated VRAM is a severe handicap, causing it to rely on slower shared system memory, which increases latency and reduces throughput.

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

The resolution scaling data provides clear evidence of a severe GPU bottleneck. The system’s performance drops dramatically as resolution increases, a classic symptom of a graphics-bound workload. At Low settings, the average FPS scales from 179 at 1080p, to 118 at 1440p, and finally to 66 at 4K. This represents a 63% drop from 1080p to 4K, indicating that the GPU is working much harder at higher resolutions and failing to keep up.

The scaling pattern is even more telling when looking at High settings. The average FPS drops from 111 at 1080p to 73 at 1440p, and then to 41 at 4K. This is a 63% reduction from 1080p to 4K, consistent with the Low setting trend. This consistency across settings suggests that the GPU is the limiting factor in all cases; if the CPU were the bottleneck, we would expect to see less variation in FPS across resolutions, as the CPU workload remains relatively constant.

The data for Medium settings shows a similar pattern, with FPS dropping from 149 at 1080p to 98 at 1440p and 55 at 4K. The Ultra settings show the most extreme drop, from 86 at 1080p to 57 at 1440p and 32 at 4K. The fact that the system can only manage 32 FPS at 4K Ultra is a clear indication that the integrated GPU is entirely overwhelmed at that resolution.

The FPS drops are not linear; they are steep. For instance, moving from 1080p to 1440p at High settings reduces FPS by 34%, and moving from 1440p to 4K reduces it by another 44%. This indicates that the GPU is hitting a performance wall, likely due to memory bandwidth limitations and the sheer number of pixels it must process. The CPU, with its high single-thread performance, is likely waiting idly for the GPU to finish rendering each frame, a situation that is confirmed by the CPU's high benchmark scores relative to the system's overall FPS.

How This Combo Ranks — use comboRankInGame vs other tested combos

The overall ranking for this combo in Counter-Strike 2 is poor. The data shows a combo rank of 2535 out of 2870 tested combinations. This places the system in the bottom 12% of all tested setups, which is a poor result for a system with such a high-end CPU. The discrepancy between the CPU's strong individual performance and the combo's weak ranking highlights the severity of the GPU bottleneck.

This ranking is a direct result of the GPU's limitations. The Arc B390’s 9th percentile ranking among all GPUs drags the entire system down. While the Ryzen 7 9700X is in the 86th percentile among CPUs, it cannot compensate for a GPU that is in the bottom 10% of all graphics cards. The combo's performance is effectively dictated by the weakest link, and in this case, that link is the integrated graphics.

The benchmark results indicate that this combo is not competitive for Counter-Strike 2. The rank of 2535 out of 2870 suggests that the vast majority of systems, even those with much weaker CPUs, will outperform this setup in this specific game. This is because most modern discrete GPUs, even entry-level ones, will have significantly more graphics horsepower and dedicated memory than the Arc B390. The data is clear: this combination is a poor fit for the game's demands.

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

The measured FPS data provides a complete picture of the system's performance across all settings and resolutions. At 1920x1080, the system achieves an average of 179 FPS on Low settings, 149 FPS on Medium (with a minimum of 126 and maximum of 171), 111 FPS on High, and 86 FPS on Ultra. The 1080p Low result is the only one that approaches a competitive frame rate, though it still falls short of what high-refresh-rate monitors can display.

At 2560x1440, the performance drops significantly. The system averages 118 FPS on Low settings, 98 FPS on Medium (with a minimum of 84 and maximum of 113), 73 FPS on High, and 57 FPS on Ultra. None of these frame rates are competitive for a fast-paced shooter, and the minimum FPS at Medium settings (84) indicates that there will be noticeable stutters during intense action.

At 3840x2160, the system struggles to remain playable. The average FPS is 66 on Low, 55 on Medium (with a minimum of 47 and maximum of 63), 41 on High, and 32 on Ultra. At 4K, the system is simply not viable for Counter-Strike 2. The minimum FPS at Medium settings (47) is below the threshold for smooth gameplay, and the 32 FPS average at Ultra is a slideshow.

The data shows a clear pattern: the system is only marginally playable at 1080p Low, and performance degrades rapidly with any increase in resolution or settings. The difference between Low and Ultra at 1080p is 93 FPS (179 vs 86), and at 4K it is 34 FPS (66 vs 32). This massive performance swing is a hallmark of a GPU that is being pushed far beyond its intended limits.

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

Based on the measured data, the only viable settings for this combo are at 1080p with the Low preset. This configuration yields an average of 179 FPS, which is the only result that approaches a playable competitive standard. The Medium preset at 1080p, while offering a higher average of 149 FPS, comes with a minimum FPS of 126, which is still above the 60 FPS threshold but may feel inconsistent in a game where frame timing is critical.

For players who prioritize visual quality over frame rate, the 1080p Medium preset is the highest setting that maintains an average above 100 FPS. However, the data suggests that sacrificing visual fidelity for the higher and more stable frame rate of the Low preset is the better choice for this game. The jump from Low to Medium at 1080p costs 30 FPS on average, which is a significant loss for a competitive advantage.

At 1440p, the system is not recommended for play. Even at Low settings, the average FPS of 118 is on the edge of playability, but the drop in performance from 1080p is steep. The 4K resolution is entirely unsuitable, as even the Low preset yields only 66 FPS average, which is far too low for a game requiring quick reflexes. The data strongly suggests that users should stick to 1080p and use the Low preset to get the best experience from this hardware combination. Any higher settings will result in a suboptimal and potentially frustrating experience.