Counter-Strike 2

The pairing of the Intel Core i3-12100F with the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5090 in Counter-Strike 2 produces a dataset that is less about raw graphical capability and more about the dynamics of bottlenecking at different settings. The measured frames per second across resolutions reveal a system where the GPU’s immense power is often restrained by the CPU’s four physical cores. The data shows a clear pattern: as resolution drops, the frame rate climbs dramatically, but the rate of that climb varies significantly with the preset chosen, indicating where the system’s limits lie.

Resolution Scaling

The frame rate scaling from 4K down to 1080p is steep, but the shape of that curve differs by preset. At High settings, the average frame rate moves from 178.8 FPS at 3840x2160 to 320.1 FPS at 2560x1440, a jump of 141.3 FPS. Dropping further to 1920x1080 yields 480.3 FPS, which is 301.5 FPS higher than the 4K result. This is a substantial increase, but the progression is not linear; the jump from 1440p to 1080p (160.2 FPS) is larger than the jump from 4K to 1440p (141.3 FPS), suggesting that the CPU is beginning to assert more influence at the lower resolution.

The Low preset tells a different story. At 4K, the system produces 288.4 FPS. At 1440p, that figure rises to 511.9 FPS, and at 1080p, it reaches 686.4 FPS. The scaling from 4K to 1440p is a 223.5 FPS improvement, which is substantial. However, the scaling from 1440p to 1080p is only 174.5 FPS. This reduced scaling at the lowest resolution is a strong indicator that the CPU is becoming the primary limiting factor, as the GPU has ample headroom to render more frames but the processor cannot feed it data fast enough. The 1080p Low result of 686.4 FPS is the highest figure in the entire dataset, yet the gap between it and the 1440p Low result is proportionally smaller than the gap between 1440p and 4K Low, reinforcing the CPU ceiling.

At Ultra settings, the pattern shifts again. The 4K average is 138.4 FPS, which climbs to 243.8 FPS at 1440p and 374.7 FPS at 1080p. Here, the scaling is more consistent, with gains of 105.4 FPS and 130.9 FPS respectively. The fact that the 1080p Ultra result is still well below the 1080p Low result (374.7 vs 686.4) shows that the GPU is still doing significant work at Ultra, even at lower resolutions. The data suggests that at 4K, the GPU is the bottleneck across all presets, while at 1080p, the CPU becomes the bottleneck at Low and Medium settings, where the GPU is underutilized.

CPU Role

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. Its 12 MB of shared L3 cache is a relevant factor for a game like Counter-Strike 2, which is known for being sensitive to memory latency and single-thread performance. The benchmark data for this CPU shows a single-thread score of 893 in 3DMark and 1681 in Cinebench R23, which are respectable figures, but the multi-threaded scores reveal its physical core limitation. For instance, the 3DMark 4-thread score is 2859, while the 8-thread score is 4026, indicating that the extra threads provide a modest but not transformative gain.

In the context of this game, the CPU’s role is most evident in the 1080p Low and Medium results. The 1080p Low average of 686.4 FPS is likely near the maximum this processor can deliver in Counter-Strike 2, regardless of the GPU. The fact that the 1080p Medium result is 643.1 FPS, only 43.3 FPS lower than Low, while the 4K Medium result is 236.3 FPS, suggests that the CPU is the constraint at 1080p. The processor’s performance ceiling appears to be in the 600-700 FPS range for this game, as the 1440p Low result of 511.9 FPS is also quite high, but the 1080p results do not scale as aggressively as the resolution change would suggest. The data indicates that while the i3-12100F has strong single-core performance, its 4-core limit prevents it from fully exploiting the RTX 5090 at lower resolutions.

GPU Role

The NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5090 is a flagship GPU with 32 GB of GDDR7 memory on a 512-bit bus, providing a bandwidth of 1.79 TB/s. Its boost clock is 2407 MHz, and it features 21760 shading units. The GPU’s benchmark scores are exceptional, with a Passmark G3D score of 39650 and a 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 score of 14411. This is a card designed for extreme resolutions and ray tracing, but in Counter-Strike 2, its role is more nuanced.

The GPU’s influence is most apparent at 4K and at Ultra settings. At 4K Ultra, the average frame rate is 138.4 FPS, which is the lowest result in the dataset. This is not a failure of the GPU, but rather a reflection of the demanding nature of the Ultra preset at 4K. The GPU is being fully utilized, and the frame rate is a direct result of its rendering capabilities. At 4K High, the result improves to 178.8 FPS, and at 4K Medium, it reaches 236.3 FPS. The jump from Ultra to Medium at 4K is 97.9 FPS, showing how much headroom the GPU has when the preset is lowered.

The 32 GB of VRAM is ample for this game, and the data does not suggest any memory-related limitations. The GPU’s clock speeds and memory bandwidth are more than sufficient for the game’s requirements. The key observation is that the RTX 5090 is never the limiting factor at 1080p or 1440p in this test. The 1440p High result of 320.1 FPS and the 1080p High result of 480.3 FPS are strong, but the GPU could likely produce higher numbers if the CPU were not holding it back. The data shows that the GPU’s performance is only fully expressed at 4K, where the resolution demands more from the rendering pipeline.

How This Combo Ranks

Within the benchmark database, this specific combination of the Intel Core i3-12100F and the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5090 achieves a rank of 19 out of 1632 tested combos for Counter-Strike 2. This is a very high ranking, placing it in the top 1.2% of all tested systems. This high rank is primarily driven by the GPU’s raw power, which is sufficient to push high frame rates even in a CPU-bound scenario.

The ranking is notable because the CPU itself is not a high-end part. The i3-12100F’s average benchmark score of 13516 places it at the 72nd percentile of all CPUs, and its nearest rivals include the AMD Ryzen Threadripper PRO 3975WX (with a delta of -0.1%) and the Intel Core i7-7700K (with a delta of 1.8%). This suggests that the CPU is a mid-range part that punches above its weight in this specific game. The combination’s rank of 19 indicates that in Counter-Strike 2, the GPU is so dominant that even a modest CPU can achieve top-tier results. The data implies that for this game, the GPU is the primary driver of the combo’s ranking, and the CPU’s contribution is secondary, but not negligible.

Measured FPS Breakdown

The full dataset provides a clear picture of performance across all tested configurations. At 3840x2160, the results are: Low at 288.4 FPS, Medium at 236.3 FPS, High at 178.8 FPS, and Ultra at 138.4 FPS. These numbers show a steady decline as the preset increases, with a 150.0 FPS difference between Low and Ultra. At 2560x1440, the results are: Low at 511.9 FPS, Medium at 424.7 FPS, High at 320.1 FPS, and Ultra at 243.8 FPS. The gap between Low and Ultra here is 268.1 FPS, which is wider than at 4K, showing that the GPU has more headroom at this resolution.

At 1920x1080, the results are: Low at 686.4 FPS, Medium at 643.1 FPS, High at 480.3 FPS, and Ultra at 374.7 FPS. The difference between Low and Medium is only 43.3 FPS, which is the smallest gap between any two presets in the dataset. This is a strong signal that the CPU is the bottleneck at these settings. Conversely, the difference between Medium and High is 162.8 FPS, and between High and Ultra is 105.6 FPS, indicating that the GPU becomes more involved as the preset increases. The 1080p Low result of 686.4 FPS is the highest in the dataset, but the 1080p Ultra result of 374.7 FPS is still higher than the 4K Ultra result of 138.4 FPS, showing the benefit of lower resolution even with a high preset.

Settings Recommendations

Based on the measured rows, the optimal experience depends on the target resolution and refresh rate. For a 4K display, the High preset offers a solid balance, with an average of 178.8 FPS. The Ultra preset at 4K drops to 138.4 FPS, which is still playable but may not be ideal for competitive play. The Medium preset at 4K provides a significant boost to 236.3 FPS, which is a better choice for high-refresh-rate 4K monitors. The Low preset at 4K yields 288.4 FPS, which is the highest 4K result, but the visual quality trade-off may be too severe for some users.

For 1440p, the High preset at 320.1 FPS is an excellent choice, providing high visual fidelity with a frame rate that exceeds most high-refresh-rate monitors. The Medium preset at 424.7 FPS is even better for competitive play, and the Low preset at 511.9 FPS is suitable for those seeking maximum performance. The Ultra preset at 1440p produces 243.8 FPS, which is still very high, but the data shows that the Medium preset offers a 180.9 FPS advantage over Ultra with a moderate visual reduction.

For 1080p, the situation is more complex. The Low preset at 686.4 FPS and the Medium preset at 643.1 FPS are both extremely high, but the difference between them is minimal, suggesting that the CPU is the limiting factor. The Medium preset is the better choice here, as it provides a small visual upgrade for a small frame rate cost. The High preset at 480.3 FPS is a more balanced option, offering higher visual quality while still maintaining a very high frame rate. The Ultra preset at 374.7 FPS is the most demanding, but it is still well above the refresh rate of most monitors. The data suggests that for 1080p, the Medium preset provides the best experience, as it is close to the CPU’s limit while offering better visuals than Low. For 1440p, the Medium preset is the sweet spot, and for 4K, the Medium preset offers the best frame rate without sacrificing too much detail.