Counter-Strike 2

The AMD Ryzen 9 9900X paired with the Intel Arc B390 is a combination defined by extremes: a top-tier 12-core processor from AMD’s Zen 5 lineup driving an integrated-class GPU that sits near the bottom of the discrete graphics hierarchy. In Counter-Strike 2, this pairing produces a bottleneck so severe that the CPU’s considerable multithreaded power is largely irrelevant to the final frame rates. The data shows a combo that can deliver playable performance at lower settings and resolutions, but which struggles to maintain competitive frame rates at 4K or with high visual fidelity. This analysis breaks down the measured results across three resolutions and four quality presets, placing the combination’s rank in context and offering practical settings guidance based solely on the benchmark rows.

How This Combo Ranks

The combination of the AMD Ryzen 9 9900X and the Intel Arc B390 lands at rank 2535 out of 2870 tested combos in Counter-Strike 2. That places it in the bottom 12% of all pairings, a poor showing for a system built around a CPU that itself ranks in the 92nd percentile among all processors. The discrepancy is stark: the Ryzen 9 9900X is a high-end desktop part with 12 cores and 24 threads, capable of a 5.60 GHz boost clock, yet the Arc B390’s integrated-graphics nature caps the entire system’s gaming potential. The combo’s rank is driven almost entirely by the GPU, which sits in the 9th percentile among all GPUs, with an average benchmark score of just 1482.

To understand the CPU’s isolated strength, the benchmark data shows the Ryzen 9 9900X scoring 32172 in Cinebench R23 multicore and 2253 in single-core, figures that place it just 0.2% above the AMD EPYC 7313 in average benchmark score and only 1.1% behind the Intel Core i9-14900. These are server- and workstation-class numbers, but they translate poorly to Counter-Strike 2 when the rendering load falls on a GPU whose nearest rivals include the NVIDIA GeForce GT 520MX and GT 710. The GPU’s 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 score of 1482 is a mere 1.3% higher than the GT 520MX’s 1463, illustrating the performance tier this system is actually operating in.

In practical terms, the combo’s rank of 2535 means the vast majority of other tested systems deliver higher frame rates, whether through more balanced pairings or simply stronger GPUs. The deltaPct values for the CPU’s nearest rivals show that the Ryzen 9 9900X is effectively matched by the AMD EPYC 9015 (0.1% lower) and EPYC 7313 (0.2% higher), but these rival comparisons only reinforce that the processor is not the limiting factor here. The bottleneck is unambiguous: a CPU that can handle massive multithreaded workloads is paired with a GPU that scores in the single-digit percentiles, and the rank reflects that mismatch. For Counter-Strike 2, this combo is positioned for low-resolution, low-settings play, not for competitive high-refresh scenarios.

GPU Role

The Intel Arc B390 is the decisive component in this combo’s performance, and its specifications explain why. It is an integrated graphics processor (IGP) based on the Xe3-LPG architecture, built on Intel’s 3 nm process. Its base clock is 300 MHz, boosting to 2500 MHz, and it has 1536 shading units, 48 texture mapping units, and 24 raster output units. The memory configuration is entirely system-shared, meaning the GPU borrows from the main DDR5 memory pool rather than having dedicated VRAM; bandwidth is listed as system dependent, and the bus width is likewise system shared. This is a fundamental constraint for a game like Counter-Strike 2, which benefits from fast, dedicated memory access.

The GPU’s compute figures are modest: 7.680 TFLOPS of FP32 performance and a pixel rate of 60.00 GPixel/s. In the context of the measured FPS, these numbers translate to a ceiling that the Ryzen 9 9900X could easily exceed if given a discrete graphics card. The Arc B390’s 3DMark Steel Nomad score of 1482 places it just 1.5% above the NVIDIA GeForce 800M and 2.5% above the GT 625 OEM, confirming its position at the very bottom of the performance ladder. With a TDP of only 80 W and no power connectors (it is an IGP), the GPU is not designed for sustained high-load gaming, yet the measured data shows it can produce playable frame rates at lower settings.

The relationship between the GPU’s clocks and the game’s results is direct: at 1080p Low, the combo manages 179 FPS, but at 4K Ultra, it drops to 32 FPS. This scaling pattern is typical of a GPU that runs out of shading and memory bandwidth long before the CPU’s 5.60 GHz boost clock becomes relevant. The Arc B390’s 12 ray-tracing cores and support for DirectX 12 Ultimate are irrelevant to Counter-Strike 2’s rasterized workload, but its Vulkan 1.4 support may help in API-overhead-sensitive scenarios. Ultimately, the GPU’s role is the limiting one: every measured FPS figure is a direct reflection of what this IGP can push, not what the CPU could theoretically deliver.

Settings Recommendations

Given the measured FPS rows, the optimal settings for this combo depend heavily on the target resolution. At 1920x1080, the Low preset delivers an average of 179 FPS, which is the highest figure recorded across all tests. This is the only setting that approaches the kind of frame rates competitive Counter-Strike 2 players would want, though even 179 FPS is below the 240+ FPS common in professional play. The Medium preset at 1080p yields 149 FPS with a minimum of 126 FPS and a maximum of 171 FPS, which remains smooth and playable while offering better visual quality than Low. High at 1080p drops to 111 FPS, and Ultra falls to 86 FPS, both still technically playable but with diminishing returns.

At 2560x1440, the Low preset produces 118 FPS average, which is a significant drop from 1080p but still usable for casual play. Medium at 1440p averages 98 FPS with a minimum of 84 FPS and a maximum of 113 FPS, which is a reasonable sweet spot for visual fidelity versus frame rate. High at 1440p drops to 73 FPS, and Ultra to 57 FPS, the latter of which may feel stuttery in a fast-paced shooter. For 4K resolution, the picture is worse: Low averages 66 FPS, Medium 55 FPS, High 41 FPS, and Ultra just 32 FPS. None of these 4K figures are ideal for a competitive FPS, but Low at 4K is the only setting that stays above 60 FPS.

The best experience per the measured rows is the 1080p Medium preset. It balances a 149 FPS average, a 126 FPS minimum, and a 171 FPS maximum, which provides a consistently smooth frame rate while improving over Low’s minimal visuals. Players prioritizing maximum frame rate should use 1080p Low, which offers the highest average of any configuration. For 1440p users, Medium is again the recommendation, as its 84 FPS minimum ensures no prolonged dips below playability. At 4K, Low is the only viable choice, and even then, the 66 FPS average is borderline. The data suggests avoiding Ultra at any resolution, as it yields the lowest frame rates across the board.

Measured FPS Breakdown

The benchmark results provide a complete matrix of average FPS across four settings and three resolutions, with minimum and maximum values recorded only for Medium presets. At 1920x1080, the Low preset achieves 179 FPS, the highest score in the entire dataset. Medium at 1080p averages 149 FPS, with a minimum of 126 FPS and a maximum of 171 FPS, indicating a relatively stable frame time distribution. High at 1080p drops to 111 FPS, and Ultra falls to 86 FPS, a 93 FPS difference between Low and Ultra at the same resolution. This spread shows that visual settings have a massive impact on this GPU, far more than the CPU would cause.

At 2560x1440, the Low preset averages 118 FPS, which is 34% lower than the 1080p Low result. Medium at 1440p averages 98 FPS, with minimum and maximum values of 84 FPS and 113 FPS respectively, showing a tighter range than the 1080p Medium. High at 1440p produces 73 FPS, and Ultra drops to 57 FPS. The gap between Low and Ultra at 1440p is 61 FPS, smaller than at 1080p but still significant. At 3840x2160, the Low preset averages 66 FPS, Medium averages 55 FPS with a minimum of 47 FPS and a maximum of 63 FPS, High averages 41 FPS, and Ultra averages 32 FPS. The 4K Low result is the only 4K configuration above 60 FPS, and even then, it is marginal.

The Medium preset’s min/max data offers insight into frame pacing. At 1080p, the range from 126 to 171 FPS around a 149 average suggests occasional dips but generally consistent performance. At 1440p, the 84 to 113 FPS range around a 98 average is narrower, indicating more stable frame times relative to the average. At 4K, the 47 to 63 FPS range around a 55 average shows a wider relative spread, which could cause perceptible stutter. These figures confirm that the GPU is the limiting factor: the CPU’s 12 cores and 24 threads are never the bottleneck, as evidenced by the consistent FPS drops when resolution increases, which is classic GPU-bound behavior.

Resolution Scaling

The FPS drop from 1080p to 4K is severe and reveals the limiting component. At Low settings, the average FPS falls from 179 at 1080p to 118 at 1440p (a 34% reduction) and then to 66 at 4K (a 63% reduction from 1080p). At Medium, the progression is 149 to 98 to 55, a 63% total drop from 1080p to 4K. At High, the numbers are 111, 73, and 41, a 63% drop. At Ultra, the figures are 86, 57, and 32, a 63% drop as well. The consistency of this ~63% decline from 1080p to 4K across all settings is a hallmark of a GPU-bound scenario, where the rendering resolution directly scales the workload on the shading units and memory system.

If the CPU were the limiting factor, the FPS would remain relatively flat as resolution increases, because the CPU’s workload (game logic, draw calls) is largely resolution-independent. Instead, the data shows a linear relationship between pixel count and frame rate, which is exactly what happens when the GPU’s 1536 shading units and system-shared memory are overwhelmed. The Ryzen 9 9900X, with its 5.60 GHz boost clock and 64 MB of L3 cache, can easily feed the Arc B390 with draw calls; the GPU simply cannot render frames fast enough at higher resolutions.

The 4K results are particularly telling. At Ultra, the combo averages 32 FPS, which is below the 60 FPS threshold typically considered smooth. At High, 41 FPS is better but still not competitive. Only the Low preset at 4K reaches 66 FPS, and even that is far below the 179 FPS achievable at 1080p Low. The resolution scaling data suggests that any player using this combo at 1440p or above is inherently limited by the GPU, and that the CPU’s performance headroom—as evidenced by its Cinebench R23 multicore score of 32172—is entirely wasted. For the best experience, users should target 1080p, where the GPU can push frame rates high enough to make the CPU’s speed somewhat relevant.

FAQ

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

A: Based on the measured data, 1920x1080 with the Medium preset offers the best balance, averaging 149 FPS with a minimum of 126 FPS and a maximum of 171 FPS. For the absolute highest frame rate, 1080p Low averages 179 FPS.

Q: How does this combo rank compared to other tested systems?

A: The combo ranks 2535 out of 2870 tested combos in Counter-Strike 2, placing it in the bottom 12% of all pairings. This rank is primarily due to the Intel Arc B390’s low GPU percentile of 9.

Q: Is the AMD Ryzen 9 9900X the bottleneck in this system?

A: No. The CPU scores in the 92nd percentile among all processors, with a Cinebench R23 multicore score of 32172. The consistent FPS drops from 1080p to 4K indicate the GPU is the limiting component, not the CPU.

Q: Can this combo achieve 60 FPS at 4K?

A: Only at Low settings, where the average FPS is 66. At Medium, the average drops to 55 FPS, at High to 41 FPS, and at Ultra to 32 FPS. The 4K Medium preset has a minimum of 47 FPS, which is below 60.

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

A: The Arc B390 has an average benchmark score of 1482, which is 1.3% higher than the NVIDIA GeForce GT 520MX (1463), 1.5% higher than the GeForce 800M (1460), and 2.5% higher than the GT 625 OEM (1446). This places it in the 9th percentile among all GPUs.

Q: What are the CPU’s nearest rivals, and how do they compare?

A: The Ryzen 9 9900X’s average benchmark score is 57498. The AMD EPYC 9015 scores 57555 (0.1% higher), the AMD EPYC 7313 scores 57399 (0.2% lower), the Intel Core i9-14900 scores 58115 (1.1% higher), and the Intel Xeon Platinum 8260M scores 58323 (1.4% higher). All are statistically similar, reinforcing that the CPU is not the issue.