Counter-Strike 2

Counter-Strike 2 is a game where frame rate is king, and the combination of the Intel Core i5-11400F and the Intel Arc B370 produces a peculiar set of results. The data shows a system that is heavily constrained by its graphics solution, yet the CPU provides enough headroom to yield playable, if not spectacular, performance at lower resolutions. This analysis breaks down the measured FPS across resolutions and settings, interprets the scaling behavior, and contextualizes the hardware’s role in this specific title.

Resolution Scaling

The performance trajectory from 1080p to 4K in Counter-Strike 2 reveals a classic case of GPU-bound scaling, but with an unusual twist for a modern title. At 1920x1080 with Low settings, the combo achieves 162 FPS. Moving to 2560x1440 Low drops that to 107 FPS, a reduction of 55 FPS. At 3840x2160 Low, the average falls further to 60 FPS, exactly half of the 1080p figure. This linear drop-off indicates that the Intel Arc B370 is the limiting factor, with the i5-11400F having ample capacity to feed frames at the lower resolution.

The scaling pattern intensifies with higher graphical presets. At 1080p High, the average is 100 FPS, but at 1440p High it falls to 66 FPS, and at 4K High it plummets to 37 FPS. The delta between 1080p and 4K at High settings is 63 FPS, a 63% reduction. This steep decline suggests that the GPU’s fill rate and shading resources are overwhelmed as pixel count increases, which is expected given the Arc B370’s specifications. The data implies that the i5-11400F is not the bottleneck at any resolution; the consistent FPS drops correlate directly with the increased rendering load on the GPU.

Interestingly, the scaling between Medium and Ultra settings at each resolution shows the GPU’s limits more starkly. At 1080p, the jump from Medium (134 FPS) to Ultra (78 FPS) costs 56 FPS. At 1440p, the same preset change drops from 89 FPS to 52 FPS, a 37 FPS loss. At 4K, Medium yields 50 FPS while Ultra produces 29 FPS, a 21 FPS difference. The narrowing absolute gap at higher resolutions indicates that the GPU is already saturated; the relative performance hit from Ultra settings becomes less severe because the baseline is already low. This is a hallmark of a GPU that is far below the CPU’s capability in this game.

FAQ

Q: What is the best resolution to play Counter-Strike 2 with this hardware?

A: Based on the measured data, 1920x1080 is the only resolution where the frame rate consistently exceeds 100 FPS. At Low settings, it averages 162 FPS, and even at High settings, it maintains 100 FPS. This makes 1080p the only viable option for competitive play where high refresh rates are crucial.

Q: Is the Intel Core i5-11400F holding back the Intel Arc B370 in this game?

A: No. The evidence points to the GPU being the sole bottleneck. At 1080p Low, the system hits 162 FPS, but the CPU’s benchmark scores (e.g., 14340 in Cinebench R23 multicore) suggest it can handle more. The FPS drops proportionally with resolution increases, which is a GPU limitation, not a CPU one.

Q: Can this system run Counter-Strike 2 at 4K?

A: It can run the game, but not at a playable level for most users. At 4K Low, the average FPS is 60, which is borderline. At 4K Medium, it drops to 50 FPS, and at 4K Ultra, it falls to 29 FPS. The data suggests that 4K is only feasible on Low settings, and even then, the experience is marginal.

Q: How does the Arc B370 compare to its nearest rivals in terms of raw GPU score?

A: The Arc B370’s 3DMark Steel Nomad score is 1184. This places it within 1.4% of the AMD FirePro M2000 (1168) and 0.5% below the ATI Radeon HD 5770 (1190). It essentially trades blows with decade-old hardware in synthetic benchmarks, which correlates with its low in-game performance.

Q: What is the difference between Low and Ultra settings at 1080p?

A: The difference is substantial. Low settings produce an average of 162 FPS, while Ultra settings produce 78 FPS. That is a 84 FPS difference, meaning Ultra settings cut performance by more than half. Players seeking maximum frame rates should stick to Low or Medium.

Q: Does the CPU’s 6-core/12-thread configuration matter for this game?

A: The data suggests it is sufficient. With a boost clock of 4.40 GHz and 12 MB of L3 cache, the i5-11400F provides enough single-thread performance for Counter-Strike 2. The FPS drops observed are entirely attributable to the GPU, not a lack of CPU resources.

GPU Role

The Intel Arc B370 is the decisive factor in this pairing, and its specifications explain the measured FPS numbers. The GPU is an integrated graphics solution (IGP) with a 25 W TDP, built on Intel’s 3 nm process. It has 1280 shading units, 40 TMUs, and 20 ROPs, with a boost clock of 2400 MHz. These specs yield a pixel rate of 48.00 GPixel/s and a texture rate of 96.00 GTexel/s, figures that are modest by modern discrete GPU standards.

The most critical limitation is memory. The Arc B370 uses "System Shared" memory, meaning its bandwidth is "System Dependent." This is a stark contrast to dedicated VRAM, and it likely contributes to the steep performance drops at higher resolutions where memory bandwidth demands increase. The data shows a 50% FPS loss from 1080p Low (162 FPS) to 4K Low (60 FPS), which is consistent with a GPU that cannot efficiently access data at higher pixel counts.

In terms of compute, the GPU delivers 6.144 TFLOPS of FP32 performance. This is the theoretical peak, but the measured results show it struggling. For example, at 4K Ultra, the system averages only 29 FPS. The GPU’s percentile ranking is 5th, indicating it performs worse than 95% of all GPUs in the database. Its nearest rivals in the 3DMark Steel Nomad benchmark are legacy parts like the ATI Radeon HD 5770, which underscores its low absolute performance.

The Arc B370’s role in Counter-Strike 2 is clearly the bottleneck. The CPU could likely push higher frame rates, but the GPU’s rendering capacity caps the output at every resolution and setting. The 25 W TDP suggests this is a power-efficient part, but efficiency does not translate to high frame rates in a competitive FPS. The data indicates that users must heavily compromise on settings to achieve acceptable performance, particularly at 1440p and above.

Measured FPS Breakdown

The measured FPS data provides a complete picture of what to expect. At 1920x1080, the combo delivers its best results. Low settings average 162 FPS, which is ideal for high-refresh-rate monitors. Medium settings drop to 134 FPS, with a minimum of 114 FPS and a maximum of 154 FPS, showing consistent frame times. High settings average 100 FPS, still playable, but Ultra settings fall to 78 FPS, which may feel less smooth in fast-paced scenarios.

Moving to 2560x1440, the performance takes a significant hit. Low settings average 107 FPS, which is respectable but a 55 FPS drop from 1080p. Medium settings average 89 FPS, with a minimum of 76 FPS and a maximum of 102 FPS. High settings yield 66 FPS, and Ultra settings drop to 52 FPS. At this resolution, the system is only suitable for Low or Medium settings if a stable 60+ FPS is required.

At 3840x2160, the results are largely unplayable for competitive play. Low settings average 60 FPS, which is the bare minimum. Medium settings average 50 FPS, with a minimum of 42 FPS and a maximum of 57 FPS. High settings drop to 37 FPS, and Ultra settings bottom out at 29 FPS. The data clearly shows that 4K is not a viable resolution for this hardware in Counter-Strike 2, even on the lowest settings.

The frame time data for Medium settings across resolutions shows the GPU’s struggle. At 1080p, the min FPS is 114 and max is 154, a 40 FPS variance. At 1440p, the variance is 26 FPS (76 to 102). At 4K, the variance narrows to 15 FPS (42 to 57). This tightening of the frame time range at higher resolutions suggests the GPU is consistently saturated, leaving little headroom for fluctuations, which can result in a less responsive feel despite the lower variance.

How This Combo Ranks

In the grand scheme of tested hardware combos for Counter-Strike 2, this pairing does not fare well. The comboRankInGame is 2642 out of 2870 combos. This places it in the bottom 8% of all tested systems, a poor showing that aligns with the GPU’s low percentile ranking. The i5-11400F is a competent CPU, but the Arc B370 drags the overall performance down significantly.

The rank is a direct consequence of the GPU’s limitations. While the CPU’s benchmark scores (e.g., 16908 in Passmark multithread) are respectable, the combo’s in-game performance is dictated by the graphics card. The data shows that the Arc B370’s 3DMark Steel Nomad score of 1184 is barely above that of the ATI Mobility Radeon HD 5570 (1186), a mobile GPU from a bygone era. This performance class is simply not suited for a modern competitive FPS.

For context, the combo’s rank of 2642 out of 2870 means that the vast majority of other CPU-GPU pairings deliver higher frame rates in this game. This is not a surprise given the GPU’s specs, but it underscores the mismatch between the CPU’s potential and the GPU’s actual output. Users with this setup will be limited to 1080p gaming with reduced settings to get near the 144 FPS mark that competitive players often target.

CPU Role

The Intel Core i5-11400F plays a supporting role in this pairing, and its specifications show it is more than capable for Counter-Strike 2. This is a 6-core, 12-thread processor based on the Rocket Lake architecture, manufactured on Intel’s 14 nm process. It has a base clock of 2.60 GHz and a boost clock of 4.40 GHz, with 12 MB of shared L3 cache. The CPU supports DDR4 memory in a dual-channel configuration, with a theoretical bandwidth of 51.2 GB/s.

Benchmark results indicate strong single-thread and multi-thread performance. In Cinebench R23, it scores 2024 points in single-core and 14340 points in multi-core. In Geekbench, it scores 1777 in single-core and 7737 in multi-core. These numbers suggest that the CPU is well-equipped to handle the game’s physics and game logic, which are typically single-thread intensive. The 3DMark single-thread score of 868 further confirms this capability.

The CPU’s 71st percentile ranking among all CPUs indicates it is above average, but its nearest rivals show how close the field is. It is 0.3% faster than the AMD EPYC 7H12 and 0.6% faster than the Intel Core Ultra 7 164U, yet 0.4% slower than the Intel Core i5-12450H. This tight grouping shows that the i5-11400F is not a standout, but it is far from a bottleneck.

In Counter-Strike 2, the CPU’s role is to maintain high frame times and prevent dips. The measured FPS at 1080p Low (162 FPS) demonstrates that the CPU can feed the GPU adequately. However, the fact that FPS drops so drastically with resolution increases confirms that the CPU is never the limiting factor. The data suggests that if paired with a more powerful GPU, the i5-11400F could deliver significantly higher frame rates, as its processing power is being underutilized by the Arc B370.