Counter-Strike 2

The Intel Core i3-12100F is a 4-core, 8-thread desktop processor based on the Alder Lake architecture, built on Intel's 10 nm process. It has a base clock of 3.30 GHz and a boost clock of 4.30 GHz, with a 58W TDP. The processor accesses a 12 MB shared L3 cache, with 80 KB of L1 and 1.25 MB of L2 cache per core. In synthetic benchmarks, this CPU’s single-thread performance is represented by a 3dmark_single_thread score of 893 and a Cinebench R23 single-core score of 1674. Its multi-threaded capability is shown by a Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 11860 and a Geekbench multi-core score of 7252. The processor sits at the 68th percentile of all CPUs in the database, with an average benchmark score of 13494. Its closest rivals in average score are the Intel Core 3 N355 with a score of 13492 (0% delta), the Intel Core i5-9500 with 13452 (0.3% delta), and the Intel Core 5 120UL with 13594 (-0.7% delta). For Counter-Strike 2, the CPU’s modest core count is paired with a high boost clock. The data indicates that this processor can drive exceptionally high frame rates, especially at lower resolutions where the GPU is less burdened. The 4.30 GHz boost clock is crucial for the game’s primary thread workload, allowing the system to reach average frame rates above 600 FPS at 1080p Low settings. However, the 4-core/8-thread configuration may become a limiting factor when the GPU is less stressed, as the game’s engine must still process game logic and entity updates on these cores.

GPU Role

The NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4080 utilizes the AD103 chip on TSMC's 5 nm process, featuring 45,900 million transistors and a die size of 379 mm². It operates with a base clock of 2205 MHz and a boost clock of 2505 MHz. The graphics card is equipped with 16 GB of GDDR6X memory on a 256-bit bus, delivering a bandwidth of 716.8 GB/s. Its memory clock is rated at 1400 MHz, translating to 22.4 Gbps effective. The GPU has 9728 shading units, 304 texture mapping units, and 112 ROPs, with a pixel rate of 280.6 GPixel/s and a texture rate of 761.5 GTexel/s. The FP32 performance is 48.74 TFLOPS. In the database, the RTX 4080 holds the 86th percentile among all GPUs, with an average benchmark score of 54247. Its nearest rivals include the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4080 SUPER with an average score of 54209 (0.1% delta), and the AMD Radeon Pro W5700X with 54828 (-1.1% delta). In Counter-Strike 2, the GPU’s enormous memory bandwidth and high shading throughput are more than sufficient to handle the game’s relatively light graphics load. The data shows that the GPU is not the primary constraint at most settings, as frame rates remain very high. The 16 GB VRAM is ample for the game, and the 2505 MHz boost clock ensures that the card can push high fill rates when needed. The limiting factor in this combination at 1080p and 1440p is clearly the CPU, as the GPU has the capacity to render frames far faster than the processor can feed it.

How This Combo Ranks

This specific pairing of the Intel Core i3-12100F and NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4080 is ranked 237th out of 3719 tested combinations in Counter-Strike 2. This places the combo in the top 6.4% of all systems tested, which is a strong result for a processor that is positioned in the lower mid-range segment. The ranking reflects that while the CPU is not top-tier, the GPU’s raw power compensates in most scenarios, pushing the overall system score high. The data suggests that this combo outperforms the vast majority of systems, including many with more balanced CPU-GPU pairings. However, the ranking also implies that there is untapped potential. The vast gap between the CPU’s 68th percentile ranking and the GPU’s 86th percentile ranking indicates a significant bottleneck. The combo’s rank of 237 is likely suppressed by the CPU’s inability to fully utilize the RTX 4080’s capabilities, particularly in scenarios that are less GPU-intensive. If the CPU were upgraded, the combo’s rank would likely improve substantially, as the GPU has been shown to be capable of much higher frame rates in less CPU-limited titles.

Measured FPS Breakdown

The measured frame rates show a clear pattern of CPU limitation at lower resolutions. At 1920x1080, the average frame rates are exceptionally high. With Low settings, the system achieves 674 FPS on average. Medium settings yield 560 FPS, with a minimum of 476 and a maximum of 644 FPS. High settings produce 418 FPS, and Ultra settings drop to 325 FPS. Moving to 2560x1440, the frame rates remain very high but show the GPU beginning to take on more work. Low settings average 446 FPS. Medium settings average 371 FPS, with a minimum of 315 and a maximum of 426 FPS. High settings produce 277 FPS, and Ultra settings yield 215 FPS. At 3840x2160, the GPU becomes the more significant factor, and frame rates are still excellent. Low settings average 249 FPS. Medium settings average 207 FPS, with a minimum of 176 and a maximum of 238 FPS. High settings produce 155 FPS, and Ultra settings drop to 120 FPS. The data shows that at 1080p, the frame rate is nearly double what it is at 4K, indicating that the CPU is the primary bottleneck at the lower resolution. The gap between Low and Ultra settings at 1080p is 349 FPS, while at 4K it is 129 FPS, further showing that the GPU has more headroom at lower settings but is constrained by the CPU.

Resolution Scaling

The resolution scaling from 1080p to 4K reveals the bottleneck dynamics of this system. At 1080p Low, the average FPS is 674. This drops to 446 FPS at 1440p Low, a reduction of 33.8%. At 4K Low, the average FPS is 249, which is a 63.1% reduction from the 1440p figure and an 81.4% reduction from 1080p. This steep decline indicates that the system is heavily CPU-bound at 1080p, as the GPU is not the limiting factor. The CPU’s fixed performance ceiling prevents the frame rate from scaling linearly with the GPU’s workload. For Medium settings, the pattern is similar: 560 FPS at 1080p, 371 FPS at 1440p (a 33.8% drop), and 207 FPS at 4K (a 44.2% drop from 1440p). The drop from 1080p to 4K for Medium settings is 63.0%. At High settings, the FPS goes from 418 at 1080p to 277 at 1440p (a 33.7% drop) and then to 155 at 4K (a 44.0% drop from 1440p). The total drop from 1080p to 4K is 62.9%. At Ultra settings, the frame rate is 325 at 1080p, 215 at 1440p (a 33.8% drop), and 120 at 4K (a 44.2% drop from 1440p). The consistency of the percentage drops between 1080p and 1440p (all around 33.8%) across all settings strongly suggests that the CPU is the limiting component at these resolutions. The GPU has enough headroom to render the frames, but the CPU cannot issue draw calls fast enough. At 4K, the drop from 1440p is consistently around 44%, which indicates that the GPU is starting to become more involved, but the CPU is still a significant constraint, as the frame rates are still high enough that a purely GPU-bound system would show a larger drop.

FAQ

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

A: The highest measured average frame rate is 674 FPS, achieved at 1920x1080 resolution with Low settings.

Q: How does the CPU’s single-thread performance compare to its multi-thread performance in the context of this game?

A: The CPU’s single-thread performance is strong, with a 3dmark_single_thread score of 893 and a Cinebench R23 single-core score of 1674. Its multi-thread score is 11860 in Cinebench R23. The data indicates the game relies heavily on the single-thread performance, as the frame rates at 1080p are so high that they suggest a single-thread bottleneck.

Q: What is the performance difference between the RTX 4080 and its closest rival, the RTX 4080 SUPER?

A: The RTX 4080 has an average benchmark score of 54247, while the RTX 4080 SUPER has an average score of 54209. This represents a 0.1% delta, meaning the RTX 4080 is effectively tied with the SUPER model in overall benchmark scores.

Q: At which resolution does the CPU become the clear bottleneck?

A: The data shows that the CPU is the clear bottleneck at 1920x1080 and 2560x1440. The percentage drop in frame rates from 1080p to 1440p is consistently around 33.8% across all settings, which is a smaller drop than would be expected if the GPU were the limiting factor. At 4K, the GPU becomes more involved, but the CPU is still a constraint.

Q: Is the frame rate at 4K Ultra settings playable?

A: Yes, the average frame rate at 3840x2160 with Ultra settings is 120 FPS. This is a playable frame rate for a competitive FPS, though lower than the 325 FPS achieved at 1080p Ultra.

Q: How does the combo’s rank in this game compare to the individual component rankings?

A: The combo is ranked 237th out of 3719 systems, which is in the top 6.4%. The CPU is in the 68th percentile of all CPUs, while the GPU is in the 86th percentile of all GPUs. The combo’s rank is higher than the CPU’s percentile but lower than the GPU’s percentile, reflecting the CPU bottleneck.

Settings Recommendations

Based on the measured FPS data, the optimal settings depend on the display resolution and the user’s target frame rate. For 1920x1080, even Ultra settings provide an average of 325 FPS, which is far above the refresh rate of most monitors. The data shows that High settings yield 418 FPS, while Medium provides 560 FPS. For competitive play where maximum frame rate is prioritized, Low settings at 674 FPS would be the best choice. However, the difference between Low and Ultra at 1080p is 349 FPS, and the visual fidelity gain from Ultra may be worth the trade-off for some users. At 2560x1440, the frame rates are still very high. Low settings provide 446 FPS, Medium provides 371 FPS, High provides 277 FPS, and Ultra provides 215 FPS. For a 144Hz monitor, High or Ultra settings would be more than sufficient, providing a smooth experience with better visuals. Medium settings would be a balanced choice for a 240Hz monitor. For 3840x2160, the GPU is more heavily taxed. Low settings provide 249 FPS, Medium provides 207 FPS, High provides 155 FPS, and Ultra provides 120 FPS. For a 4K 144Hz display, Medium settings would be the best option, as they provide a frame rate above 144 FPS with a minimum of 176 FPS. High settings at 155 FPS would also be viable for a 144Hz display, but the minimum FPS data is not available for that setting. Ultra settings at 120 FPS would be suitable for a 120Hz display. The data indicates that the system is so powerful that the “best experience” is largely determined by the display’s refresh rate. For users with high-refresh 1080p or 1440p monitors, the settings can be maxed out without compromising frame rates. For 4K users, Medium to High settings provide the best balance of visual quality and high frame rates, ensuring the system stays above the 144 FPS threshold where possible.