Counter-Strike 2

Counter-Strike 2, a title from 2023-09-26, is notoriously sensitive to both CPU and GPU performance. The pairing of the Intel Core i5-9400 with the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 represents a common, older-generation build. The data shows this combo ranks 1587 out of 1632 tested combinations, placing it in the bottom 3% of all systems. This is a clear indicator that while the system is functional, it operates at the extreme lower end of the performance spectrum for this competitive FPS. The following analysis breaks down the measured data to understand exactly where this configuration excels and where it falls short.

FAQ

Q: What is the best resolution to play at with this combo?

A: According to the measured FPS, 1920x1080 is the only viable resolution for competitive play. At 1080p, even the Ultra preset achieves 75.3 FPS, while 2560x1440 drops to 51.9 FPS on Ultra, and 3840x2160 falls to 24.4 FPS on Ultra.

Q: How does the CPU compare to its nearest rivals in synthetic benchmarks?

A: The Intel Core i5-9400 has an average benchmark score of 2305. This is nearly identical to its closest rivals, with the Intel Core i3-10305 scoring 2300 (a 0.2% difference) and the Intel Xeon E-2134 scoring 2295 (a 0.4% difference). The data shows it is slightly behind the Intel Core i7-8809G, which scores 2319, a -0.6% delta.

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

A: The jump from Low to Ultra settings at 1920x1080 results in a significant performance hit. The system achieves 153.9 FPS on Low but drops to 75.3 FPS on Ultra, a reduction of 78.6 FPS. This highlights the GPU's limited headroom for higher graphical fidelity.

Q: Is the GPU's performance consistent with its benchmark percentile?

A: Yes, the GTX 1650 sits in the 43rd percentile of all GPUs, indicating it is below average. Its performance in game is consistent with this, as it struggles to maintain high frame rates at higher resolutions, while its closest rivals, like the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3050 A Mobile, score 8746, a -0.4% difference.

Q: Does the CPU bottleneck the GPU at 4K resolution?

A: No, the data suggests the opposite. At 3840x2160, the frame rate is heavily limited by the GPU. The difference between Low (57.6 FPS) and High (35.9 FPS) settings is substantial, showing the GPU is the primary constraint at this resolution, not the CPU.

Q: What is the highest average FPS recorded for this combo?

A: The highest measured average FPS is 153.9, which occurs at 1920x1080 with the Low preset. This is the only setting that pushes the frame rate above the 150 FPS mark, making it the best option for high-refresh-rate monitors.

CPU Role

The Intel Core i5-9400 is a 6-core, 6-thread processor based on the Coffee Lake architecture, with a base clock of 2.90 GHz and a boost clock of 4.10 GHz. It has a 9 MB shared L3 cache and supports DDR4 memory. In synthetic benchmarks, it scores 7969 in Cinebench R23 multi-core and 1125 in single-core. Its average benchmark score of 2305 places it in the 50th percentile of all CPUs, showing it is a middling performer in the current landscape.

In the context of Counter-Strike 2, the CPU's role is to handle game logic, physics, and draw calls. The data suggests that the i5-9400 is sufficient to feed the GTX 1650 at lower resolutions. At 1920x1080 with Low settings, the system hits 153.9 FPS, indicating the CPU is capable of high frame rates. However, the performance gap between the CPU and GPU narrows as resolution increases. At 4K, the frame rate drops dramatically regardless of the CPU's capabilities, which shows the GPU becomes the limiting factor.

The CPU's performance relative to its rivals is negligible. It is virtually tied with the Intel Core i3-10305 and the Intel Core i3-1125G4, both with an average score around 2300. It is also only 0.4% ahead of the Intel Xeon E-2134. This means that swapping between these CPUs would yield no meaningful difference in this game. The 6-core/6-thread configuration is a baseline for modern gaming, and this data confirms it does not introduce a severe bottleneck at 1080p, but it also does not provide any extra headroom for background tasks.

GPU Role

The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 is a Turing-architecture GPU built on a 12 nm process. It features 896 shading units, 56 TMUs, and 32 ROPs, with a base clock of 1485 MHz and a boost clock of 1665 MHz. The 4 GB of GDDR5 memory on a 128-bit bus provides a bandwidth of 128.1 GB/s. Its FP32 performance is 2.984 TFLOPS. The GPU's average benchmark score is 8713, which places it in the 43rd percentile of all GPUs, indicating it is a below-average performer.

The GTX 1650's role in Counter-Strike 2 is to render the image, and it is here that the system's weaknesses lie. The measured FPS data shows a clear pattern: the GPU struggles as resolution and settings increase. At 1080p, it can manage 129.6 FPS on Medium, but this falls to 94 FPS on High and 75.3 FPS on Ultra. The 4 GB VRAM is likely a contributing factor to the significant performance drop at higher settings and resolutions, as the game's assets exceed the available memory.

The GPU's performance is closely matched with its nearest rivals, such as the NVIDIA Quadro P2200, which scores 8671 (a 0.5% difference). However, this does not change the fact that it is a low-tier card. The data indicates that the GTX 1650 is the primary bottleneck for this system in Counter-Strike 2, especially at 1440p and 4K. The frame rates at 4K are particularly telling, with the card unable to maintain a playable 60 FPS even on the Low preset, achieving only 57.6 FPS.

How This Combo Ranks

This specific combination of the Intel Core i5-9400 and NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 ranks 1587 out of 1632 tested combinations in Counter-Strike 2. This places it in the bottom 3% of all systems tested, which is a very poor result. The data suggests that this is a legacy build that is now significantly outclassed by even mid-range modern hardware.

The rank is a composite of the CPU's and GPU's individual weaknesses. While the CPU is a 50th percentile part, the GPU's 43rd percentile ranking drags the overall system down. The data shows that this combo is not suitable for high-fidelity or high-resolution gaming in this title. It can handle competitive play only at the lowest settings and at 1080p, and even then, it cannot consistently hit the high refresh rates favored by competitive players.

The proximity of the CPU and GPU to their respective rivals in synthetic benchmarks does not translate to a better in-game rank. The overall system rank is what matters, and it is clear that this pairing is near the bottom of the pile. For a game like Counter-Strike 2, where high and consistent frame rates are paramount, this rank indicates a subpar experience that will require significant compromises to be playable.

Measured FPS Breakdown

The measured FPS data provides a detailed look at the system's performance across three resolutions and four settings presets. At 1920x1080, the system performs best:

• Low: 153.9 FPS
• Medium: 129.6 FPS
• High: 94 FPS
• Ultra: 75.3 FPS

Moving to 2560x1440, the performance drops significantly:

• Low: 101.7 FPS
• Medium: 83.3 FPS
• High: 64 FPS
• Ultra: 51.9 FPS

At 3840x2160, the system is severely strained:

• Low: 57.6 FPS
• Medium: 45.9 FPS
• High: 35.9 FPS
• Ultra: 24.4 FPS

The data shows a consistent pattern: each increase in resolution or settings tier results in a substantial FPS loss. The transition from 1080p Low to 4K Low results in a 96.3 FPS drop, highlighting the GPU's lack of power. The difference between the Low and Ultra presets at any given resolution is also stark, showing the high cost of graphical features.

Settings Recommendations

Based on the measured rows, the optimal settings for this combo depend on the user's priority. For players with a 144Hz monitor, the 1920x1080 Low preset is the only option that comes close to maximizing the display's potential, delivering 153.9 FPS. This setting sacrifices visual fidelity for competitive performance, which is often the goal in Counter-Strike 2.

For users with a standard 60Hz monitor, the 1920x1080 Medium preset is the best balance, providing 129.6 FPS. This is well above the 60 FPS threshold and offers a better visual experience than Low without the significant performance penalty of High or Ultra. The High preset at 1080p, with 94 FPS, is also viable for 60Hz displays and provides a more detailed image.

It is not advisable to play at 2560x1440 or 3840x2160 with this hardware. The 1440p Medium setting achieves 83.3 FPS, which is acceptable for 60Hz, but the system is clearly struggling. The 4K resolutions should be avoided entirely, as even the Low preset cannot maintain a stable 60 FPS. The data indicates that 1080p is the only resolution where this combo can provide a consistently smooth experience.

Resolution Scaling

The FPS scaling from 1080p to 4K reveals the nature of the system's bottleneck. At Low settings, the frame rate drops from 153.9 FPS at 1080p to 101.7 FPS at 1440p, a 34% reduction. It then falls to 57.6 FPS at 4K, a further 43% reduction from 1440p. This scaling pattern is characteristic of a GPU-limited scenario, where the rendering workload increases exponentially with pixel count.

At Ultra settings, the drop is even more pronounced. The system goes from 75.3 FPS at 1080p to 51.9 FPS at 1440p, a 31% decrease, and then to 24.4 FPS at 4K, a 53% decrease from 1440p. This steeper decline at higher settings indicates that the GPU's memory bandwidth and processing power are overwhelmed. The CPU is not the limiting factor here, as its performance would not degrade with resolution.

The data clearly shows that the GTX 1650 is the limiting component. The GPU's 128.1 GB/s bandwidth and 4 GB of VRAM are insufficient for the demands of 4K rendering in this title. The system's performance is heavily dependent on resolution, and the only way to achieve high frame rates is to drastically reduce both resolution and graphical settings. The scaling behavior confirms that this is a GPU-bound system, and any upgrade path should prioritize the graphics card.