Counter-Strike 2

# Counter-Strike 2 with Intel Core i5-13400F + AMD Radeon RX 7900 XT

This combination of the Intel Core i5-13400F and AMD Radeon RX 7900 XT delivers exceptionally high frame rates in Counter-Strike 2, placing this pairing at rank 725 out of 3719 tested combinations. The data reveals a system that is dramatically overqualified for competitive play at standard resolutions, with performance headroom that shifts the bottleneck dynamics depending on the resolution and settings selected.

How This Combo Ranks

The combo rank of 725 out of 3719 tested combinations places this system firmly in the top 20% of all tested pairings for Counter-Strike 2. This is a strong showing, but the rank itself undersells the practical experience—the measured frame rates show this system is operating in a performance tier where the game is essentially never the limiting factor at common competitive settings.

Looking at the CPU's overall benchmark percentile, the Core i5-13400F sits at the 77th percentile against all CPUs, with an average benchmark score of 25292. Its nearest rivals in the broader benchmark database include the AMD Ryzen 9 6900HS at a nearly identical 25284 average score (0% delta), the Intel Core 5 120 at 25362 (-0.3%), and the AMD Ryzen 5 5600X3D at 25365 (-0.3%). The AMD Ryzen 7 6800H trails slightly at 25201 (0.4% delta). This clustering shows the CPU is performing right at the expected level for its class—no anomalies, no exceptional uplift, but solidly competitive.

The GPU's overall percentile paints a more complex picture. The Radeon RX 7900 XT sits at only the 55th percentile against all GPUs, with an average benchmark score of 13745. Its nearest rivals include the AMD Radeon 660M at 13812 (-0.5%), the NVIDIA RTX A2000 Mobile at 13821 (-0.5%), and the AMD Radeon RX 570X at 13871 (-0.9%). Interestingly, the AMD Radeon RX 9070 XT trails at 13543 (1.5% delta). This relatively modest percentile for such a high-end card suggests the average benchmark score is heavily weighted toward non-gaming workloads where the GPU's architecture may not shine as brightly.

In the context of Counter-Strike 2 specifically, the measured FPS data shows this combo dramatically outperforms what the raw percentiles might suggest. The game's engine clearly responds well to both the CPU's strong single-thread performance and the GPU's raw throughput, resulting in frame rates that exceed what most competitive players would ever need.

CPU Role

The Intel Core i5-13400F brings a 10-core, 16-thread configuration based on Raptor Lake architecture, fabricated on Intel's 10 nm process. With a base clock of 2.50 GHz and a boost clock of 4.60 GHz, the processor delivers strong single-thread performance that is critical for Counter-Strike 2's engine. The cache hierarchy includes 80 KB of L1 per core, 1.25 MB of L2 per core, and 20 MB of shared L3 cache.

The benchmark data confirms the CPU's capabilities. In Cinebench R23, the processor scores 22604 in multi-core and 3191 in single-core. The single-thread score of 3191 is particularly relevant for Counter-Strike 2, which historically relies heavily on single-thread performance for game logic and physics. In 3DMark tests, the CPU scores 960 in single-thread, 1880 in 2-thread, 3459 in 4-thread, 5591 in 8-thread, and 7314 in 16-thread tests. The scaling from 8-thread to 16-thread (from 5591 to 7314) shows only a 30.8% improvement, indicating diminishing returns as more threads are utilized—a pattern consistent with a game that doesn't fully saturate all 16 threads.

The PassMark results further illuminate the CPU's character. Single-thread performance scores 3634, while multi-thread scores 25032. The floating-point math score of 60539 versus integer math of 79942 suggests the CPU handles integer-heavy workloads well, which aligns with game physics calculations. The data compression score of 311364 and encryption score of 16608 are less relevant to gaming but show general-purpose strength.

For Counter-Strike 2, the measured FPS data suggests the CPU is rarely the primary bottleneck at higher resolutions. At 1080p with Low settings, the system hits 568 FPS average—a figure that suggests both CPU and GPU are working near their limits. The CPU's 10 cores and 16 threads provide ample headroom for the game's background tasks, streaming, and communications software that competitive players typically run simultaneously.

FAQ

Q: Is this combo capable of running Counter-Strike 2 at 240+ FPS at 1080p?

A: Yes, the measured data shows this system achieves 274 FPS average at 1080p Ultra, 352 FPS at 1080p High, 472 FPS at 1080p Medium, and 568 FPS at 1080p Low. Every settings preset at 1080p exceeds 240 FPS.

Q: How does the system perform at 4K resolution?

A: At 3840x2160, the system maintains playable frame rates across all settings: 101 FPS average at Ultra, 130 FPS at High, 175 FPS at Medium, and 210 FPS at Low. The Ultra setting dips below the 144 Hz threshold that many competitive players prefer.

Q: What is the best settings preset for competitive play at 1440p?

A: At 2560x1440, the High preset delivers 233 FPS average, which exceeds 144 Hz and approaches 240 Hz territory. The Medium preset provides 312 FPS average with a minimum of 265 FPS, making it the best choice for players with 240 Hz monitors who want a safety margin above the refresh rate.

Q: How does the CPU compare to its nearest rivals in raw performance?

A: The Core i5-13400F scores 25292 in average benchmark score, which is essentially identical to the AMD Ryzen 9 6900HS at 25284 (0% delta). It trails the Intel Core 5 120 by 0.3% and the AMD Ryzen 5 5600X3D by 0.3%, while leading the AMD Ryzen 7 6800H by 0.4%.

Q: Does the GPU's benchmark percentile reflect its gaming performance?

A: The Radeon RX 7900 XT sits at the 55th percentile among all GPUs with an average score of 13745, but its measured performance in Counter-Strike 2 is far stronger than this percentile suggests. The game's engine responds well to the GPU's architecture, delivering over 500 FPS at 1080p Low settings.

Q: What frame rate can players expect with V-Sync disabled at 1080p High?

A: The measured data shows 352 FPS average at 1920x1080 with High settings. This provides substantial headroom above any current consumer monitor refresh rate, meaning players would never see frame rate dips below their display's capability.

Measured FPS Breakdown

The measured FPS data provides a comprehensive picture of performance across three resolutions and four settings presets. At 1920x1080, the system delivers 568 FPS average on Low, 472 FPS on Medium (with a minimum of 401 FPS and maximum of 543 FPS), 352 FPS on High, and 274 FPS on Ultra. The progression from Low to Ultra shows a performance cost of 294 FPS, or 51.8% of the Low preset's frame rate, for the visual quality uplift that Ultra provides.

Moving to 2560x1440, the frame rates remain exceptionally high: 376 FPS average on Low, 312 FPS on Medium (minimum 265 FPS, maximum 359 FPS), 233 FPS on High, and 181 FPS on Ultra. The transition from 1080p to 1440p costs roughly 33.8% of the frame rate at Low settings (from 568 to 376 FPS), which is a relatively modest penalty given the 77.8% increase in pixel count.

At 3840x2160, the system still delivers competitive frame rates: 210 FPS average on Low, 175 FPS on Medium (minimum 148 FPS, maximum 201 FPS), 130 FPS on High, and 101 FPS on Ultra. The 4K resolution imposes a significant penalty, but the system remains playable even at the most demanding preset. The Ultra preset at 4K drops to 101 FPS average, which is below the 144 Hz threshold but still above 100 FPS.

The Medium preset is the only one with complete min/max data across all resolutions. At 1080p, the minimum of 401 FPS and maximum of 543 FPS show a range of 142 FPS, indicating the frame pacing is consistent with only occasional dips. At 1440p, the range narrows to 94 FPS (265 to 359), and at 4K, the range tightens further to 53 FPS (148 to 201). This pattern suggests the frame time variance decreases as resolution increases, likely because the GPU becomes more consistently utilized.

Resolution Scaling

The measured data reveals distinct scaling patterns that illuminate the system's bottleneck dynamics. From 1080p to 1440p, the average FPS across all settings drops by approximately 33-35%. From 1440p to 4K, the drop is more severe, ranging from 44-46% depending on the settings preset.

At Low settings, the system delivers 568 FPS at 1080p, 376 FPS at 1440p, and 210 FPS at 4K. The percentage drops are 33.8% from 1080p to 1440p, and 44.1% from 1440p to 4K. This scaling suggests that at Low settings, the system is partially CPU-limited at 1080p—the GPU has so much headroom that reducing resolution doesn't proportionally increase frame rates. The 33.8% drop from 1080p to 1440p is less than the pixel count increase of 77.8%, indicating the CPU is holding back performance at 1080p.

At Medium settings, the frame rates drop from 472 FPS at 1080p to 312 FPS at 1440p (33.9% decrease), then to 175 FPS at 4K (43.9% decrease from 1440p). The similar scaling at Low and Medium suggests the GPU is not yet fully saturated at these settings, and the CPU remains a co-limiting factor.

At High settings, the system achieves 352 FPS at 1080p, 233 FPS at 1440p (33.8% decrease), and 130 FPS at 4K (44.2% decrease from 1440p). The scaling pattern is remarkably consistent across presets, which indicates the bottleneck is shifting gradually from CPU to GPU as resolution increases, but the transition point is not abrupt.

At Ultra settings, the system delivers 274 FPS at 1080p, 181 FPS at 1440p (33.9% decrease), and 101 FPS at 4K (44.2% decrease from 1440p). The Ultra preset shows the same scaling ratios, suggesting that even at maximum settings, the GPU is not the sole limiting factor until 4K resolution.

The consistent scaling pattern across all settings is notable. In a purely GPU-limited scenario, the FPS drop from 1080p to 1440p would be closer to the pixel count ratio (77.8% more pixels), resulting in roughly a 43.8% FPS decrease. Instead, the system shows a consistent 33.8-33.9% decrease, indicating that at 1080p and 1440p, the CPU is still contributing to performance limitations. Only at 4K does the scaling approach what would be expected from a GPU-bound workload.

Settings Recommendations

For competitive play at 1080p, the data suggests that even the Ultra preset provides 274 FPS average, which exceeds the refresh rate of all current gaming monitors. However, the Low preset at 568 FPS offers a 107.3% performance advantage over Ultra, which could be beneficial for players seeking absolute minimum input latency. The Medium preset at 472 FPS provides a balanced compromise, with the minimum of 401 FPS still far above any display refresh rate.

At 1440p, the High preset delivers 233 FPS average, which is just below the 240 Hz threshold many competitive players target. The Medium preset at 312 FPS provides a comfortable margin above 240 Hz, with a minimum of 265 FPS that never dips below this threshold. For players with 240 Hz monitors at 1440p, the Medium preset is the recommended choice. Players with 144 Hz monitors can confidently use the Ultra preset at 181 FPS, which provides a 25.7% margin above the refresh rate.

At 4K, the system's performance becomes more constrained. The Low preset at 210 FPS is the only option that comfortably exceeds 144 Hz. The Medium preset at 175 FPS still works for 144 Hz displays, with the minimum of 148 FPS providing a slim 2.8% margin above the 144 Hz threshold. The High preset at 130 FPS is suitable for 120 Hz displays, while the Ultra preset at 101 FPS is best reserved for 100 Hz or lower refresh rate displays.

The data indicates that the Medium preset offers the most consistent frame pacing, as it's the only preset with complete min/max data showing the narrowest relative variance. At 1080p, the Medium preset has a min-to-max range of 142 FPS (30.1% of average), while at 1440p the range is 94 FPS (30.1% of average), and at 4K it's 53 FPS (30.3% of average). This consistency makes Medium the most predictable preset for competitive play.

GPU Role

The AMD Radeon RX 7900 XT is built on the RDNA 3.0 architecture with the Navi 31 chip, fabricated on TSMC's 5 nm process with 57,700 million transistors on a 529 mm² die. The GPU operates with a base clock of 1387 MHz, a game clock of 2025 MHz, and a boost clock of 2394 MHz. Memory runs at 2500 MHz with 20 Gbps effective speed across a 320-bit bus, delivering 800.0 GB/s of bandwidth.

The GPU's 20 GB of GDDR6 memory is substantial, though Counter-Strike 2 rarely requires such capacity. The 5376 shading units, 336 texture mapping units, and 192 raster output units provide the raw throughput needed for high frame rates. The pixel rate of 459.6 GPixel/s and texture rate of 804.4 GTexel/s indicate the GPU can handle the fill rate demands of high-resolution rendering.

In PassMark benchmarks, the GPU scores 29009 in G3D and 16828 in GPU compute. The DirectX 12 score of 110 and DirectX 11 score of 340 are modest, but these synthetic tests don't fully capture the GPU's gaming performance. The Geekbench Vulkan score of 71068 is strong, suggesting good API-level performance that aligns with Counter-Strike 2's rendering requirements.

The GPU's role in this combo becomes clearer when examining the resolution scaling data. At 1080p, the system achieves 568 FPS on Low settings, but the consistent 33.8% FPS drop from 1080p to 1440p across all settings presets indicates the GPU isn't fully utilized at lower resolutions. At 4K, the scaling pattern changes, with the GPU becoming the primary bottleneck. The 44.1-44.2% FPS drop from 1440p to 4K across all settings confirms that at 4K, the GPU's capabilities are the limiting factor.

The GPU's 300 W TDP and dual-slot design with 2x 8-pin power connectors suggest it's a high-power component, but the measured performance justifies this. The 800.0 GB/s memory bandwidth ensures that at 4K resolution, the GPU can feed its 5376 shading units without memory bandwidth constraints. The boost clock of 2394 MHz provides the computational throughput needed for the high frame rates observed at 1080p and 1440p.

The combination of the CPU's strong single-thread performance and the GPU's massive compute resources creates a system where the bottleneck shifts smoothly across resolutions. At 1080p, the CPU is the primary constraint; at 4K, the GPU takes over. The measured data shows this transition is gradual, with both components contributing to performance at 1440p. This balanced scaling makes the combo versatile for players who adjust resolution or settings based on their display's capabilities.