Counter-Strike 2

Counter-Strike 2 is a competitive FPS that demands high and consistent frame rates, and the combination of the Intel Core i3-12100F and AMD Radeon RX 6750 XT delivers a dataset that clearly illustrates the balance between CPU and GPU workloads. The measured results reveal a system that is heavily capable at lower resolutions, while showing predictable scaling behavior as graphical loads increase. This analysis breaks down the benchmark data to characterize the distinct roles of the processor and graphics card, how they interact across resolutions, and where the optimal settings lie.

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

The Intel Core i3-12100F is a 4-core, 8-thread processor based on the Alder Lake architecture, with a base clock of 3.30 GHz and a boost clock of 4.30 GHz. This configuration provides a strong foundation for gaming, particularly in a title like Counter-Strike 2 which relies on high single-thread performance for its core game logic and physics calculations. The CPU's benchmark scores reflect this strength, with a 3dmark single-thread score of 893 and a passmark single-thread score of 3444. Its multi-threaded capability is more modest, as seen in the cinebench r23 multicore score of 11912, but for a fast-paced esports title, the single-core performance is often the deciding factor.

The data from the measured frames per second (FPS) shows the i3-12100F is not a bottleneck at lower resolutions. At 1920x1080 with Low settings, the system produces an average FPS of 402.1, which is an exceptional figure that points to the CPU's ability to feed the GPU with enough data to maintain very high frame rates. Even at High settings at 1080p, the average FPS remains elevated at 249.3. This suggests that the CPU's 4.30 GHz boost clock is sufficient to keep pace with the GPU's output in most scenarios. However, the CPU's overall percentile ranking of 72 against all CPUs, and its closeness to rivals like the Intel Core i7-7700K (which has a deltaPct of 1.8), indicates it is a mid-range performer that can handle high refresh rate gaming without being a primary constraint.

The processor's cache hierarchy, with 80 KB of L1 per core and 12 MB of shared L3 cache, is adequate for the game's data access patterns. The benchmark scores, such as the passmark integer math score of 40978, further underscore its capability in handling the logical operations that games like Counter-Strike 2 require. While the CPU does not have an integrated GPU, it is paired with a dedicated graphics card here, and the data shows that the i3-12100F's performance is more than adequate for driving the high frame rates seen in the 1080p and 1440p datasets. In essence, the CPU role is to provide a solid, high-frequency foundation that allows the GPU to shine, and the numbers confirm it does this effectively up to and including the 2560x1440 resolution.

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

The AMD Radeon RX 6750 XT is a substantial graphics card built on the RDNA 2.0 architecture, featuring 12 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 192-bit bus with a bandwidth of 432.0 GB/s. Its boost clock is rated at 2600 MHz, with a game clock of 2495 MHz. This hardware configuration provides ample resources for rendering at high resolutions and detail levels. The GPU's benchmark data shows a percentile ranking of 79 against all GPUs, with an average benchmark score of 35327. Its nearest rivals include the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3080, which has a deltaPct of -1.3, meaning the RX 6750 XT is slightly behind that card in general benchmarks, but the margin is very small.

In the context of Counter-Strike 2, the GPU's role becomes more prominent as resolution and settings increase. The 12 GB of VRAM is a significant asset, ensuring that texture data for Ultra settings does not exceed memory capacity at 4K, as evidenced by the card still producing playable frame rates. With 2560 shading units and 64 ROPs, the card has the raw throughput to handle the game's rendering pipeline. The measured FPS data shows the GPU's workload scaling: at 1080p Low settings, the system hits 402.1 FPS, but as we move to 4K Ultra, the average drops to 73.6 FPS. This indicates that at lower resolutions, the system is likely CPU-bound, but at higher resolutions and settings, the GPU becomes the limiting factor.

The GPU's performance in the passmark g3d test, scoring 20700, aligns with its strong gaming capabilities. The card's ability to maintain an average of 148.2 FPS at 4K Low settings is particularly notable, showing that even at high pixel counts, it can deliver smooth gameplay if graphical details are reduced. The RX 6750 XT's role is to provide the graphical horsepower, and the data shows it does so effectively, with the performance gap between Low and Ultra settings widening as resolution increases, which is a classic sign of a GPU that is being pushed harder by more demanding shaders and effects.

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

The measured FPS data across the three resolutions provides a clear picture of where the system's bottleneck lies. At 1920x1080, the average frame rates are exceptionally high across all settings, with Low at 402.1 FPS, Medium at 338 FPS, High at 249.3 FPS, and Ultra at 194.4 FPS. Moving to 2560x1440, we see a noticeable drop: Low averages 266.5 FPS, Medium 219.4 FPS, High 167.7 FPS, and Ultra 129.7 FPS. Finally, at 3840x2160, the averages fall further to 148.2 FPS for Low, 122.7 FPS for Medium, 94.9 FPS for High, and 73.6 FPS for Ultra.

The scaling from 1080p to 4K shows a substantial performance reduction. For example, at High settings, the FPS drops from 249.3 at 1080p to 167.7 at 1440p, a 32.7% decrease, and then to 94.9 at 4K, a 43.4% decrease from 1440p. This pattern is consistent with a system where the GPU becomes the primary limiting factor as resolution increases. At 1080p, the frame rates are so high that the CPU's capabilities are likely the ceiling, but as the pixel count quadruples from 1080p to 4K, the GPU's fill rate and memory bandwidth are taxed much more heavily. The fact that the 4K Low average of 148.2 FPS is higher than the 1440p Ultra average of 129.7 FPS further illustrates that the GPU's load is the main driver of performance changes, as reducing settings at a higher resolution can yield better results than increasing them at a lower one.

The data suggests that at 1080p, the Intel Core i3-12100F is sufficient to drive the RX 6750 XT to its limits, but the GPU's performance headroom is not fully utilized. At 1440p, the balance shifts, and at 4K, the GPU is clearly the dominant factor. The large FPS jumps from Ultra to Low at each resolution—for instance, from 73.6 to 148.2 at 4K—indicate that the game is highly sensitive to GPU load, and the scaling is smooth, without any anomalies that would suggest a CPU bottleneck at higher resolutions. This is a typical profile for a balanced mid-range to high-end system.

How This Combo Ranks — use comboRankInGame vs other tested combos

In the database of tested combinations, this specific pairing of the Intel Core i3-12100F and AMD Radeon RX 6750 XT holds a rank of 815 out of 1632 total combinations for Counter-Strike 2. This places the combo in the upper-middle tier of all tested systems, indicating that while it is not a top-tier setup, it performs better than the majority of other configurations. The ranking is a composite measure that considers the combined CPU and GPU performance in the context of this specific game. Given that the CPU's percentile rank is 72 and the GPU's is 79, the combo ranking of 815 out of 1632 (roughly the 50th percentile) suggests that the pairing is well-matched, but the CPU's mid-range standing prevents the combo from climbing higher.

The rank implies that many other combinations, likely those with higher-end CPUs, can achieve better overall performance in Counter-Strike 2, particularly at lower resolutions where CPU speed matters most. However, the data shows that this combo is far from a low performer. The average FPS figures, especially at 1080p and 1440p, are well above the 144 Hz refresh rate that many competitive players target. The fact that the combo ranks in the middle of the pack, despite the GPU being in the 79th percentile, highlights the importance of the CPU in this game. The benchmark results indicate that for players using this combo, the experience will be smooth and responsive, but there is clear headroom for improvement by pairing the GPU with a stronger processor. This ranking serves as a useful reference point, showing that the system is a competent contender but not a leader in the overall performance hierarchy.

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

The measured FPS data provides a detailed look at the system's performance across all tested configurations. For 1920x1080, the average FPS values are as follows: Low settings produce 402.1 FPS, Medium settings produce 338 FPS, High settings produce 249.3 FPS, and Ultra settings produce 194.4 FPS. The drop from Low to Ultra is 207.7 FPS, which is a 51.6% reduction in performance, showing that graphical fidelity comes at a significant cost at this resolution.

At 2560x1440, the average FPS values are: Low at 266.5 FPS, Medium at 219.4 FPS, High at 167.7 FPS, and Ultra at 129.7 FPS. The difference between Low and Ultra here is 136.8 FPS, a 51.3% reduction, which is proportionally similar to 1080p. This consistency suggests that the GPU is handling the increased pixel count uniformly across settings. At 3840x2160, the average FPS values are: Low at 148.2 FPS, Medium at 122.7 FPS, High at 94.9 FPS, and Ultra at 73.6 FPS. The performance drop from Low to Ultra is 74.6 FPS, a 50.3% reduction. This shows that even at 4K, the relative scaling between settings remains consistent.

Looking at the data across resolutions for a fixed setting, the scaling is also telling. For High settings, the FPS drops from 249.3 at 1080p to 167.7 at 1440p, and then to 94.9 at 4K. For Low settings, it drops from 402.1 at 1080p to 266.5 at 1440p, and then to 148.2 at 4K. The absolute FPS at 4K Low (148.2) is still higher than the 1080p Ultra (194.4) is lower, but both are well above the 60 FPS threshold. The data shows that for competitive play, even at 4K, the system can maintain high frame rates on Low settings, while Ultra settings at 4K are the most demanding, producing the lowest average of 73.6 FPS. This breakdown gives a complete picture of the performance envelope.

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

Based on the measured FPS data, the optimal settings depend on the user's resolution and performance goals. For players using a 1920x1080 monitor with a high refresh rate (240 Hz or above), the Low preset is the best choice, as it delivers an average of 402.1 FPS, ensuring that the system can fully utilize such a display. The Medium preset at 338 FPS is also a strong option if a slight visual upgrade is desired while still maintaining extremely high frame rates. The High preset, at 249.3 FPS, is still suitable for 240 Hz displays, but the Ultra preset at 194.4 FPS may be better for 144 Hz monitors, offering higher visual quality without sacrificing smoothness.

At 2560x1440, the Low preset provides 266.5 FPS, which is ideal for 240 Hz monitors, while Medium at 219.4 FPS is excellent for 144 Hz or 165 Hz displays. The High preset at 167.7 FPS is also appropriate for 144 Hz panels, and the Ultra preset at 129.7 FPS is a good fit for 60 Hz to 120 Hz displays, offering a significant visual boost. For 3840x2160, the Low preset at 148.2 FPS is the only option that comfortably supports 144 Hz refresh rates. The Medium preset at 122.7 FPS is suitable for 120 Hz displays, while High at 94.9 FPS and Ultra at 73.6 FPS are best for 60 Hz monitors, where the higher detail settings can be enjoyed without dropping below the standard refresh rate.

The data suggests that for the most competitive experience, prioritizing frame rate is key, and the Low or Medium presets provide the best results. For a more balanced experience, the High preset at 1440p offers a good compromise between visual fidelity and performance, with an average of 167.7 FPS. The Ultra preset is generally not recommended for high refresh rate gaming, as it significantly reduces the frame rate, but it is viable for 60 Hz displays. The measured rows show that this combo is versatile, capable of handling both esports-level frame rates and higher-fidelity visuals, depending on the user's preference for performance over appearance.