Counter-Strike 2

The Intel Core i5-13400F paired with the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5090 delivers exceptionally high frame rates in Counter-Strike 2, with the data showing a clear progression from 368 FPS at 1080p Ultra to 727 FPS at 1080p Low. This combination ranks in the 95th percentile of all 3,719 tested combos, indicating that it is among the top 5% of systems for this title. The benchmark results reveal a system where the GPU’s massive compute resources are frequently underutilized, particularly at lower resolutions, where the CPU’s performance becomes the primary factor in determining overall frame output.

Resolution Scaling

The measured FPS data shows a dramatic scaling curve as resolution increases, which is characteristic of a CPU-bound scenario at lower settings. At 1080p with Low settings, the combo produces 727 FPS, but this drops to 505 FPS at 1440p and 282 FPS at 4K. This represents a 61.2% reduction in frame rate when moving from 1080p to 4K at Low settings, indicating that the GPU is finally becoming the limiting factor at the highest resolution.

The scaling pattern differs notably across quality presets. At High settings, the transition from 1080p (473 FPS) to 1440p (313 FPS) shows a 33.8% drop, while the 1440p to 4K transition (313 to 175 FPS) reveals a 44.1% decline. This accelerating drop-off at higher resolutions suggests that the RTX 5090’s rendering workload grows faster than its raw compute advantage can compensate for, even with its 1.79 TB/s memory bandwidth and 32 GB of GDDR7 VRAM.

For the Medium preset, the data shows 634 FPS at 1080p, 420 FPS at 1440p, and 234 FPS at 4K. The relative drops are 33.8% and 44.3% respectively, which closely mirrors the High preset behavior. This consistency across presets indicates that the resolution scaling is driven primarily by pixel count and fill rate demands rather than by specific quality features. The Ultra preset tells a similar story: 368 FPS at 1080p drops to 243 FPS at 1440p (34% reduction) and then to 136 FPS at 4K (44% further reduction).

The most striking observation is that at 1080p Low, the system delivers 727 FPS, which is more than double the 282 FPS achieved at 4K Low. This gap narrows at higher quality settings, with the 1080p-to-4K ratio being 2.7x for Low, 2.0x for High, 2.7x for Medium, and 2.7x for Ultra. The consistent ~2.7x ratio for most presets suggests that the RTX 5090’s pixel throughput capabilities are being taxed proportionally with resolution, while the anomalous 2.0x ratio at High indicates a different bottleneck dynamic.

GPU Role

The NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5090 brings substantial resources to Counter-Strike 2, including 21,760 shading units, 680 texture mapping units, and 176 render output units. Its boost clock of 2407 MHz, combined with a 512-bit memory bus and 32 GB of GDDR7 memory, provides the bandwidth necessary to sustain high frame rates even at 4K resolution. The GPU’s 104.8 TFLOPS of FP32 compute and 1,636.8 GTexel/s texture rate are far beyond what this game requires at lower settings.

The benchmark data suggests that the RTX 5090 is significantly overprovisioned for Counter-Strike 2 at 1080p and 1440p. At 1080p Low, the GPU is likely idle for substantial portions of each frame, waiting on the CPU to submit draw calls. The fact that the 4K Low result (282 FPS) is substantially lower than the 1080p High result (473 FPS) indicates that even at 4K, the GPU is not the primary constraint when quality settings are reduced.

The memory subsystem plays a more critical role at higher resolutions and quality settings. With 32 GB of VRAM and 1.79 TB/s bandwidth, the RTX 5090 has ample resources for even the most demanding scenarios, yet the data shows that Ultra settings at 4K only achieve 136 FPS. The GPU’s pixel rate of 423.6 GPixel/s and texture rate of 1,636.8 GTexel/s are theoretically sufficient for much higher throughput, but the actual performance is limited by other factors in the rendering pipeline.

The GPU’s 92.2 billion transistors on a 750 mm² die, manufactured on TSMC’s 5 nm process, represent the pinnacle of current graphics hardware. Despite this, the measured results in Counter-Strike 2 show that the game’s engine does not fully utilize the available compute resources, particularly in scenes with lower geometric complexity. The RTX 5090’s 170 ray tracing cores and 680 tensor cores are largely irrelevant for this competitive FPS title, which focuses on high frame rates rather than visual effects.

FAQ

Q: What is the highest average FPS achieved by this combo in Counter-Strike 2?

A: The highest measured average FPS is 727, achieved at 1920x1080 resolution with Low settings. The lowest average FPS is 136, recorded at 3840x2160 with Ultra settings.

Q: How does the RTX 5090’s average benchmark score compare to its nearest rivals?

A: The RTX 5090 has an average benchmark score of 79,842. Its nearest rival, the NVIDIA Tesla P100 PCIe 16 GB, scores 79,605, which is 0.3% lower. The AMD Radeon RX 6850M XT scores 78,940, representing a 1.1% deficit, while the AMD Radeon Pro Vega 64X scores 80,959, which is 1.4% higher.

Q: What is the frame rate difference between Low and Ultra settings at 1440p?

A: At 2560x1440, the Low preset delivers 505 FPS, while the Ultra preset achieves 243 FPS. This represents a 262 FPS difference, with Low being more than double the Ultra performance.

Q: Does the CPU’s benchmark score place it above or below its nearest rivals?

A: The Intel Core i5-13400F has an average benchmark score of 25,292. This is 0.3% lower than the Intel Core 5 120 (25,362) and the AMD Ryzen 5 5600X3D (25,365), but 0.4% higher than the AMD Ryzen 7 6800H (25,201) and 0% different from the AMD Ryzen 9 6900HS (25,284).

Q: Is there a measurable minimum FPS value available for any settings combination?

A: Yes, minimum FPS values are only provided for the Medium preset. At 1080p Medium, the minimum is 539 FPS; at 1440p Medium, it is 357 FPS; and at 4K Medium, it is 199 FPS. No minimum FPS data is available for Low, High, or Ultra presets.

Q: What is the combo’s ranking among all tested system combinations?

A: This specific combination of Intel Core i5-13400F and NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5090 ranks 95th out of 3,719 total tested combos for Counter-Strike 2, placing it in the top 2.6% of all configurations.

How This Combo Ranks

The comboRankInGame of 95 out of 3,719 tested combinations places this system in the 97.4th percentile for Counter-Strike 2 performance. This top-tier ranking is expected given the combination of a high-end CPU and the flagship GPU. However, the data reveals that the ranking is achieved despite significant inefficiencies at lower resolutions where the CPU becomes the bottleneck.

The i5-13400F itself ranks in the 77th percentile of all CPUs based on its average benchmark score of 25,292. Its nearest rivals include the AMD Ryzen 9 6900HS (25,284, 0% delta), Intel Core 5 120 (25,362, -0.3% delta), and AMD Ryzen 5 5600X3D (25,365, -0.3% delta). This indicates that the CPU is competitive but not exceptional in absolute terms, yet the system still achieves a 95th overall rank, suggesting that the GPU’s dominance compensates for any CPU limitations.

The RTX 5090 ranks in the 92nd percentile of all GPUs with an average benchmark score of 79,842. Its nearest rivals are all professional or workstation-class products: the Tesla P100 PCIe 16 GB (79,605, +0.3% delta), Tesla P100 PCIe 12 GB (79,396, +0.6% delta), Radeon RX 6850M XT (78,940, +1.1% delta), and Radeon Pro Vega 64X (80,959, -1.4% delta). This GPU ranking is notably lower than the combo’s game-specific ranking, which suggests that Counter-Strike 2 favors the RTX 5090’s architecture more than general-purpose benchmarks do.

The discrepancy between the GPU’s 92nd percentile ranking and the combo’s 97.4th percentile ranking in Counter-Strike 2 indicates that the game’s engine is particularly well-suited to this hardware combination. The high frame rates achieved, especially at 1080p, demonstrate that the system can leverage the CPU’s 4.6 GHz boost clock and the GPU’s raw compute power more effectively than average workloads.

CPU Role

The Intel Core i5-13400F features 10 cores and 16 threads, with a base clock of 2.50 GHz and a boost clock of 4.60 GHz. This Raptor Lake-S architecture, built on Intel’s 10 nm process, includes 20 MB of shared L3 cache and 1.25 MB of L2 cache per core. The CPU’s benchmark results show strong multi-threaded performance with a Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 22,604 and a single-core score of 3,191.

In Counter-Strike 2, the CPU’s role is most evident at lower resolutions and quality settings. The jump from 473 FPS at 1080p High to 727 FPS at 1080p Low represents a 53.7% improvement, which is far larger than the GPU’s workload reduction would suggest. This indicates that at High settings, the CPU is already near its limit, and reducing quality allows it to push higher frame rates by reducing the number of draw calls and physics calculations.

The 3DMark benchmark scores provide context for the CPU’s gaming performance. The 16-thread score of 7,314 and the max-thread score of 7,307 are nearly identical, suggesting that the CPU’s performance scales well with thread count up to its physical limit. The single-thread score of 960, while lower than some competitors, is sufficient for the game’s primary threading model, which relies heavily on 1-2 main threads for game logic and render thread submission.

The CPU’s 65W TDP and 10 nm process node allow for sustained boost clocks under gaming loads. The PassMark multi-thread score of 25,032 and single-thread score of 3,634 demonstrate balanced performance that translates well to Counter-Strike 2’s requirements. However, the data shows that at 4K resolution, the CPU’s influence diminishes, as the GPU becomes the limiting factor—the 4K Low result of 282 FPS is constrained by the GPU’s ability to fill pixels, not by the CPU’s ability to feed it data.

Measured FPS Breakdown

At 1920x1080 resolution, the system delivers its highest frame rates across all settings. The Low preset achieves 727 FPS average, while Medium reaches 634 FPS with a minimum of 539 FPS and maximum of 729 FPS. High settings drop to 473 FPS, and Ultra produces 368 FPS. The spread from Low to Ultra is 359 FPS, representing a 49.4% reduction in performance when enabling maximum quality.

Moving to 2560x1440, the performance decreases proportionally but remains extremely high. Low settings maintain 505 FPS, Medium produces 420 FPS (min 357, max 482), High achieves 313 FPS, and Ultra delivers 243 FPS. The delta between Low and Ultra at this resolution is 262 FPS, which is a 51.9% reduction. The minimum FPS at Medium (357) is still above the 4K Ultra average of 136 FPS, illustrating the significant impact of resolution.

At 3840x2160, the system’s performance drops to more moderate levels. Low settings still produce a very playable 282 FPS, while Medium achieves 234 FPS (min 199, max 270). High settings deliver 175 FPS, and Ultra falls to 136 FPS. The spread from Low to Ultra at 4K is 146 FPS, representing a 51.8% reduction, which is consistent with the 1440p scaling pattern.

The Medium preset is the only one with complete min/max data across all resolutions. At 1080p, the range is 539-729 FPS (a 190 FPS spread); at 1440p, it is 357-482 FPS (a 125 FPS spread); and at 4K, it is 199-270 FPS (a 71 FPS spread). This narrowing range at higher resolutions indicates that frame time consistency improves as the GPU becomes the bottleneck, reducing the impact of CPU-side frame pacing variations.

Settings Recommendations

The measured data indicates that the Medium preset offers the best balance of visual quality and performance for most users. At 1080p, Medium delivers 634 FPS average with a minimum of 539 FPS, ensuring no frame drops below the refresh rates of even the fastest gaming monitors. The 1440p Medium result of 420 FPS (min 357) similarly provides headroom for high-refresh displays, while the 4K Medium result of 234 FPS (min 199) remains well above the 144Hz threshold.

For competitive play where maximum frame rate is paramount, the Low preset at 1080p is the clear choice, delivering 727 FPS average. Even at 4K, Low settings provide 282 FPS, which exceeds the capability of most displays. The High preset offers a middle ground, with 473 FPS at 1080p and 313 FPS at 1440p, but its 175 FPS at 4K may be insufficient for 240Hz or faster monitors.

The Ultra preset is difficult to recommend given the data. At 1080p, it produces 368 FPS, which is still very high but represents a 49.4% reduction from Low with visual improvements that are often imperceptible in fast-paced gameplay. At 4K, Ultra’s 136 FPS average is below the 144Hz mark, and the lack of minimum FPS data suggests potential frame time spikes that could affect competitive performance.

The most compelling case is for Medium settings at 1440p. The 420 FPS average with a 357 FPS minimum provides a consistent experience that exceeds all current display refresh rates, while the visual upgrade over Low is significant. The 4K Medium result of 234 FPS (min 199) is also noteworthy, as it demonstrates that this system can drive 4K at frame rates that were previously achievable only at lower resolutions with less powerful hardware.