Counter-Strike 2

The AMD Ryzen 9 9900X3D paired with the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3080 produces a fascinating set of benchmark results in Counter-Strike 2. The data shows a configuration capable of extremely high frame rates, but the scaling patterns across resolutions and settings reveal a complex interplay between the CPU’s powerful Zen 5 architecture and the GPU’s Ampere-based limitations. This analysis breaks down the measured FPS, explores the implications for settings and resolution choices, and contextualizes the combo’s overall ranking.

FAQ

Q: What is the highest average frame rate recorded for this combo in Counter-Strike 2?

A: The highest average frame rate recorded is 505 FPS, achieved at 1920x1080 resolution with Low settings.

Q: How does the combo’s performance at 4K Ultra compare to its performance at 1080p Ultra?

A: At 3840x2160 (4K) with Ultra settings, the average FPS is 90. At 1920x1080 (1080p) with Ultra settings, the average FPS is 243. This represents a significant 153 FPS drop when moving to the higher resolution.

Q: What is the combo’s overall rank among all tested combinations in this game?

A: The combo ranks 1050 out of 3719 tested combinations, placing it in the top 28% of all systems tested for Counter-Strike 2.

Q: Which preset provides the largest performance gap between the Medium and Ultra settings at 1440p?

A: At 2560x1440, the Medium preset yields an average of 278 FPS, while Ultra drops to 161 FPS. This is a difference of 117 FPS, making it the largest gap between those two specific presets at that resolution.

Q: Does the data suggest the CPU is a bottleneck at lower resolutions?

A: Yes, the data strongly suggests this. At 1080p Low, the average FPS reaches 505, while at 1080p Ultra it is 243. The relatively smaller frame rate drop from 4K Low (187 FPS) to 1080p Low (505 FPS) compared to the GPU-bound 4K results indicates the CPU is the primary driver of performance at lower resolutions.

Q: What is the difference in average FPS between the Low and High presets at 4K resolution?

A: At 3840x2160, the Low preset produces an average of 187 FPS, while the High preset produces 116 FPS. This is a difference of 71 FPS, showing a substantial performance cost for the higher visual fidelity.

Settings Recommendations

The measured data provides a clear picture of how this hardware combination responds to different quality presets. For players prioritizing maximum competitive frame rates, the Low preset is the clear choice. At 1080p, this setting yields an average of 505 FPS, which drops to 334 FPS at 1440p and 187 FPS at 4K. These are all exceptionally high numbers that far exceed the refresh rate of most monitors.

However, the data suggests that the Medium preset offers a compelling balance. At 1080p, it still achieves an average of 420 FPS, which is only a 17% reduction from the Low preset. The visual improvement from Low to Medium is typically significant in modern games, and the frame rate remains high enough for competitive play. At 1440p, the Medium preset delivers 278 FPS, and at 4K it manages 155 FPS. The Medium preset also has the only min FPS data recorded in the pack, with a 132 FPS minimum at 4K, indicating a more stable experience.

The High and Ultra presets are for those seeking visual fidelity over raw speed. At 1080p, High yields 313 FPS and Ultra yields 243 FPS. These are still excellent numbers, but the drop from Medium to High is 107 FPS, and from High to Ultra is another 70 FPS. At 4K, the Ultra preset drops to 90 FPS, which is the only measured result below the 100 FPS mark. Given the data, the Medium preset appears to be the optimal choice for this combo, as it provides a substantial improvement in visual quality over Low while maintaining frame rates that are more than sufficient for any display. For players who absolutely must have the highest possible frame rates for a 360Hz or 500Hz monitor, the Low preset is the only option that can push into that territory.

Resolution Scaling

The performance scaling across resolutions reveals a classic shift in bottleneck behavior. When moving from 1080p to 1440p, the average FPS across all settings drops by an average of approximately 24%. However, the scaling is not uniform. For the Low preset, the drop is from 505 FPS to 334 FPS, a 34% decrease. For the High preset, the drop is from 313 FPS to 207 FPS, a 34% decrease as well. This consistent proportional drop at lower quality settings indicates that the CPU is still a significant contributor to performance, as the GPU is not yet fully saturated.

The scaling from 1440p to 4K tells a different story. The Low preset drops from 334 FPS to 187 FPS, a 44% decrease. The High preset drops from 207 FPS to 116 FPS, a 44% decrease. This larger percentage drop when moving to 4K signals that the GPU is becoming the primary limiting factor. The RTX 3080’s 10 GB of memory and Ampere architecture are being pushed harder, and the workload is shifting from CPU-bound to GPU-bound.

This data implies that for this combo, 1440p is the "sweet spot" where the CPU and GPU are most balanced. At 1080p, the powerful Ryzen 9 9900X3D is able to feed frames faster than the GPU can render them, particularly at higher settings. At 4K, the GPU's limitations become more apparent, and the CPU's performance headroom is less impactful. The 4K Ultra result of 90 FPS is a clear indicator that this resolution is the most demanding scenario for this specific pairing.

Measured FPS Breakdown

The complete set of measured data provides a detailed view of the system's performance envelope. At 1920x1080, the average frame rates are as follows: Low is 505 FPS, Medium is 420 FPS (with a min of 357 FPS and max of 482 FPS), High is 313 FPS, and Ultra is 243 FPS. The spread from Low to Ultra is 262 FPS, which is a massive range caused by the CPU being able to produce very high frame rates at lower settings.

At 2560x1440, the averages are: Low is 334 FPS, Medium is 278 FPS (min 236, max 319), High is 207 FPS, and Ultra is 161 FPS. The spread here is 173 FPS. The reduction in spread compared to 1080p suggests that the GPU is starting to take on a more significant portion of the workload, limiting the maximum FPS the CPU can drive.

At 3840x2160, the averages are: Low is 187 FPS, Medium is 155 FPS (min 132, max 178), High is 116 FPS, and Ultra is 90 FPS. The spread is now only 97 FPS. The compression of the performance range at 4K is a strong indicator that the GPU is the dominant bottleneck. The difference between Low and Ultra at 4K is less than the difference between Low and Medium at 1080p, showing that the GPU's rendering capacity is the limiting factor.

GPU Role

The NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3080, with its GA102 chip built on a Samsung 8 nm process, is a high-end card from the GeForce 30-series. Its boost clock of 1710 MHz and 10 GB of GDDR6X memory on a 320-bit bus provide a memory bandwidth of 760.3 GB/s. The card has 8704 shading units and 68 RT cores, with a pixel rate of 164.2 GPixel/s and a texture rate of 465.1 GTexel/s. The GPU’s average benchmark score is 23172, placing it in the 68th percentile of all GPUs.

In Counter-Strike 2, the GPU's role becomes increasingly critical as resolution and settings increase. The data shows that at 1080p Low, the GPU is not the limiting factor, as the CPU is able to push the frame rate to 505 FPS. However, as the visual load increases, the GPU's capabilities are taxed. The jump from Low to Ultra at 1080p costs 262 FPS, which is a direct result of the GPU having to render more complex scenes. At 4K, the GPU is clearly the primary performance limiter, with even the Low preset only achieving 187 FPS. The 4K Ultra result of 90 FPS highlights the GPU's struggle to maintain high frame rates at this resolution. The RTX 3080's performance is adequate for high refresh rate gaming at 1080p and 1440p, but it is the bottleneck at 4K.

CPU Role

The AMD Ryzen 9 9900X3D is a 12-core, 24-thread processor based on the Zen 5 architecture (Granite Ridge). It has a base clock of 4.40 GHz and a boost clock of 5.50 GHz, along with a substantial 128 MB of L3 cache. This CPU is a powerhouse, with an average benchmark score of 54762, placing it in the 91st percentile of all CPUs. Its nearest rivals include the Intel Core Ultra 5 245KF, which is 0.6% slower, and the Intel Core i7-14700F, which is 2.1% slower.

The CPU's influence on Counter-Strike 2 performance is most evident at lower resolutions and settings. At 1080p Low, the CPU is able to drive the frame rate to 505 FPS, a number that is far beyond what most GPUs can handle. This suggests that the CPU's single-thread performance and large cache are highly effective for the game's engine. The data shows a significant drop in FPS when moving from Low to Medium at 1080p (85 FPS), and then another large drop to High (107 FPS). This pattern indicates that the CPU is the primary driver of the super-high frame rates at the lowest settings. As resolution increases, the CPU's advantage is less impactful because the GPU becomes the limiting factor. The CPU is so powerful that it is essentially never the bottleneck in this game, except possibly at the very lowest settings and resolutions where it is feeding the GPU as fast as it can.

How This Combo Ranks

The combination of the Ryzen 9 9900X3D and the RTX 3080 achieves a rank of 1050 out of 3719 tested combos in Counter-Strike 2. This places the system in the top 28% of all configurations tested. This rank is a holistic measure that takes into account performance across all settings and resolutions.

The high ranking is likely driven by the CPU's exceptional performance, which allows for incredibly high frame rates at lower resolutions. The CPU's 91st percentile ranking and its strong benchmark scores, such as a Cinebench R23 multicore score of 47737 and a single-core score of 6739, suggest it is a top-tier part. The GPU, while ranking in the 68th percentile, is still a solid performer, but it holds the combo back from a higher overall rank, particularly in 4K scenarios.

The data suggests that this combo is exceptionally well-suited for competitive gaming at 1080p and 1440p, where its rank would likely be much higher. The 4K results, while still playable, are not as competitive. The 1050 rank is a compromise between the CPU's ability to dominate at lower resolutions and the GPU's limitations at higher ones. If this system were paired with a more powerful GPU, the rank would likely be significantly higher, as the CPU has ample headroom to drive even faster graphics cards. Conversely, pairing this GPU with a slower CPU would likely yield a lower rank, as the CPU's contribution to the high frame rates at 1080p is critical.