Counter-Strike 2

This combination of the Intel Core i5-12400F and NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4080 SUPER ranks 103rd out of 1632 tested combos in Counter-Strike 2, placing it in the top 6.3% of all systems measured. That rank is driven by an extraordinary ceiling: this pairing delivers frame rates that exceed the refresh rates of virtually all mainstream displays, even at 4K Ultra settings. The data indicates a system built for competitive play where raw FPS headroom is the primary metric, though the CPU component is clearly the limiting factor at lower resolutions.

How This Combo Ranks

The 103rd position out of 1632 combos is a strong result, but it is not a top-tier placement. The ranking reflects the CPU's position in the broader market. The Core i5-12400F holds a 77th percentile ranking among all CPUs, with an average benchmark score of 19221. Its nearest rivals in synthetic tests are the Intel Core i7-8700K (scoring 19210, a 0.1% difference), the Intel Core i5-1335U (19167, 0.3% ahead), and the AMD Ryzen 5 7533HS (19364, behind by 0.7%). The data shows the i5-12400F sits in a dense cluster of mid-range processors, offering performance nearly identical to an older flagship like the i7-8700K.

The GPU, however, is a different story. The RTX 4080 SUPER ranks in the 88th percentile among all GPUs, with an average score of 53610. Its nearest rival, the AMD Radeon RX 6900 XT, scores 53489, a mere 0.2% difference, while the Radeon Pro W6600M trails by 0.4% (53414). The NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5070 Ti is further behind at 52086, a 2.9% deficit. This places the 4080 SUPER at the upper edge of high-end performance, but notably not at the absolute top, as it is outperformed by more recent flagship models.

The combination of a mid-range CPU and a high-end GPU explains the rank. The system is capable of producing extremely high frame rates, but the CPU's processing limits prevent it from reaching the top 50 or top 10 positions, which are likely occupied by combos pairing similar GPUs with faster processors like the Core i9 series or Ryzen 9 parts.

GPU Role

The RTX 4080 SUPER is the dominant component in this pairing. It features 16 GB of GDDR6X memory on a 256-bit bus, delivering 736.3 GB/s of bandwidth. The memory clock is listed as 1438 MHz with 23 Gbps effective data rate. The GPU's base clock is 2295 MHz, boosting to 2550 MHz, and it is built on the 5 nm process with 45,900 million transistors on a 379 mm² die. Its compute capabilities are substantial, with 10240 shading units, 320 TMUs, and 112 ROPs, enabling 52.22 TFLOPS of FP32 performance.

In Counter-Strike 2, the GPU's role is to push high resolutions and settings. At 4K Ultra, the system still averages 120.7 FPS, which is a playable frame rate for most users. However, the GPU is not fully taxed at lower settings. At 1080p Low, the average FPS jumps to 672.3, a figure that is far beyond what any CPU can realistically feed in a physics-based shooter. The GPU's 16 GB VRAM is ample for any texture quality setting this game can throw at it, and the data shows no evidence of VRAM-related stuttering or frame drops, as even the 4K Ultra preset maintains smooth averages.

The GPU's performance relative to its rivals is critical context. It is only 0.2% faster than the RX 6900 XT in average benchmark scores, which suggests that in GPU-bound scenarios, the two cards would trade blows. Yet in Counter-Strike 2, the 4080 SUPER's advantage may be more pronounced due to its higher memory bandwidth and more modern architecture, which handles the game's particle effects and shadow rendering efficiently.

CPU Role

The Intel Core i5-12400F is a 6-core, 12-thread processor based on Alder Lake architecture, with a base clock of 2.50 GHz and a boost clock of 4.40 GHz. It has 18 MB of shared L3 cache and supports both DDR4 and DDR5 memory. Its synthetic benchmark scores are telling: a single-thread score of 909 in 3DMark and 2332 in Cinebench R23, with a multi-core score of 16518 in Cinebench R23. The processor's 77th percentile rank and average score of 19221 place it in the upper-mid tier of desktop CPUs.

In Counter-Strike 2, the CPU's role is to maintain frame pacing and handle game logic. The data shows that at 1080p Low, the system hits 672.3 FPS, but this is likely a CPU-limited scenario where the i5-12400F is the bottleneck. The evidence for this is the scaling from 1080p to 4K. At 4K Low, the FPS drops to 247.4, a reduction of 63% from 1080p Low. If the CPU were the sole bottleneck, we would expect similar FPS across resolutions at the same settings, since the CPU work is independent of resolution. The fact that FPS drops so dramatically indicates that the GPU is taking over as the limiting factor at higher resolutions.

The CPU's single-thread performance is its strongest asset for this game. Counter-Strike 2 is known to be sensitive to single-core speed, and the i5-12400F delivers a 3DMark single-thread score of 909, which is competitive with much newer processors. However, its multi-thread performance, while adequate, is not exceptional. The 0.1% difference from the i7-8700K in average score suggests that the 12th-gen architecture does not provide a substantial generational leap over an older 8th-gen part in this game's workload. This is why the combo ranks 103rd rather than higher; the CPU cannot fully exploit the GPU's power at lower resolutions.

Measured FPS Breakdown

The measured FPS data shows a clear hierarchy across resolutions and settings. At 1080p, the system delivers exceptional performance: 672.3 FPS on Low, 558.5 FPS on Medium, 414.1 FPS on High, and 322.5 FPS on Ultra. These are all far above the 240Hz refresh rate of high-end gaming monitors, meaning the system will never feel visually stuttery at this resolution.

At 1440p, the frame rates remain extremely high. Low settings produce 445.6 FPS, Medium yields 371.1 FPS, High gives 277.1 FPS, and Ultra drops to 212.5 FPS. Even the Ultra preset at 1440p is still above 200 FPS, which is sufficient for most competitive players. The scaling from 1080p to 1440p is roughly a 34% drop in FPS across all settings, which is expected as pixel count increases by 78%.

At 4K (3840x2160), the system begins to show its limits. Low settings average 247.4 FPS, Medium drops to 205.7 FPS, High falls to 152.1 FPS, and Ultra bottoms out at 120.7 FPS. The 4K Ultra result is still playable and smooth, but it does not offer the same headroom as lower resolutions. The data shows that the GPU is the primary driver of performance at 4K, as the FPS scales linearly with the graphics workload.

FAQ

Q: Is this combo capable of running Counter-Strike 2 at 240 FPS on a 1440p monitor?

A: Yes. At 1440p, the system averages 277.1 FPS on High and 371.1 FPS on Medium, both well above 240 FPS. Even on Ultra, it maintains 212.5 FPS, which is close to but not exceeding the 240Hz target.

Q: What is the best settings preset for competitive play at 1080p?

A: The Low preset at 1080p delivers 672.3 FPS, which is the highest measured result. This setting minimizes visual effects and maximizes frame rate, making it the optimal choice for competitive play where reaction time is critical.

Q: How does this combo compare to a system with a newer GPU?

A: The RTX 4080 SUPER is only 2.9% faster in average benchmark scores than the RTX 5070 Ti, and 0.2% faster than the RX 6900 XT. In Counter-Strike 2, the performance difference would be minimal, and the CPU would likely be the limiting factor at 1080p.

Q: Is the CPU or GPU the bottleneck at 4K?

A: At 4K, the GPU is the bottleneck. This is evidenced by the fact that 4K Low (247.4 FPS) is roughly 63% slower than 1080p Low (672.3 FPS), a drop that can only be attributed to the GPU's rendering workload, not the CPU.

Q: Can this system handle 4K Ultra with a high refresh rate monitor?

A: The system averages 120.7 FPS at 4K Ultra, which is suitable for a 120Hz or 144Hz monitor. It will not sustain 240 FPS at this setting, but it remains playable.

Q: What is the CPU's single-thread performance relative to its rivals?

A: The i5-12400F scores 909 in 3DMark single-thread. Its nearest rivals are the i7-8700K, i5-1335U, and Ryzen 5 7533HS, all within 1.3% of its average score. This indicates that the CPU's single-thread performance is competitive with, but not superior to, these parts.

Settings Recommendations

The data suggests that the optimal settings preset depends on the target refresh rate. For players with 360Hz or 500Hz monitors, the Low preset at 1080p (672.3 FPS) or 1440p (445.6 FPS) is the only way to approach those limits. For 240Hz monitors, the Medium preset at 1080p (558.5 FPS) or High at 1440p (277.1 FPS) provides a good balance between visual fidelity and frame rate.

For 144Hz monitors, the High preset at 1440p (277.1 FPS) offers a comfortable margin, while the Ultra preset at 1440p (212.5 FPS) still exceeds the refresh rate. At 4K, the High preset (152.1 FPS) is recommended for a 144Hz display, as the Ultra preset (120.7 FPS) falls below that threshold. The Medium preset at 4K (205.7 FPS) is ideal for 120Hz displays. The Low preset is generally unnecessary at 4K, as the GPU is already the bottleneck, and the visual quality loss is not justified by the marginal FPS increase from 205.7 to 247.4.

Resolution Scaling

The FPS scaling from 1080p to 4K reveals the system's bottleneck characteristics. At Low settings, the average FPS drops from 672.3 (1080p) to 445.6 (1440p) to 247.4 (4K). This represents a 63% reduction from 1080p to 4K. The scaling is not linear with pixel count; 4K has 4x the pixels of 1080p, but the FPS only drops by 63%. This indicates that the CPU is partially limiting performance at 1080p, as the frame rate cannot scale up infinitely even when the GPU is underutilized.

At Ultra settings, the FPS drops from 322.5 (1080p) to 212.5 (1440p) to 120.7 (4K), a 63% reduction as well. The consistency of the percentage drop across settings suggests that the bottleneck shifts from CPU at 1080p to GPU at 4K in a predictable manner. The GPU's role becomes dominant at 1440p and above, as the frame rates are more closely tied to its rendering throughput. For a player using a 1080p monitor with a 360Hz refresh rate, the CPU is the limiting factor, as the GPU could theoretically render more frames than the processor can feed. For a 4K user, the GPU is the clear bottleneck, and upgrading to a faster CPU would yield no benefit at this resolution.