Counter-Strike 2

Counter-Strike 2 is a fast-paced FPS where frame timing and responsiveness are critical, and the measured data for the Intel Core Ultra 5 225 paired with the Intel Arc B370 reveals a system that is heavily constrained by its graphics component. The CPU provides a solid foundation, but the integrated GPU's low performance ceiling dictates the overall experience, particularly at higher resolutions and settings.

CPU Role — cores, clocks, and how they relate to this game's results

The Intel Core Ultra 5 225 is a 10-core, 10-thread desktop processor based on the Arrow Lake architecture, built on a 3 nm process by TSMC. It operates with a base clock of 3.30 GHz and a boost clock of 4.90 GHz, with a 65W TDP. It supports DDR5 memory via a dual-channel bus, providing a memory bandwidth of 102.4 GB/s, and utilizes 20 MB of shared L3 cache. For a game like Counter-Strike 2, which is known to be sensitive to single-thread performance, the processor's boost clock of 4.90 GHz is a key asset. The benchmark data supports this, showing a strong single-core showing with a Cinebench R23 single-core score of 3655 and a Passmark single-thread score of 4412.

The CPU's overall standing is respectable, placing in the 85th percentile of all CPUs, with an average benchmark score of 36938. Its nearest rivals, based on average score, include the AMD Ryzen 5 5600F with a deltaPct of 0 and the AMD Ryzen 5 5500X3D with a deltaPct of -0.2, indicating performance that is nearly identical to these alternatives. This suggests that in a less GPU-bound scenario, the Core Ultra 5 225 would not be the primary bottleneck. However, in the measured FPS data for this specific combo, the CPU's theoretical headroom is not fully utilized. Even at 1080p Low settings, where CPU load is typically highest, the average FPS is 162. While this is a high frame rate, it is likely limited by the GPU rather than the CPU, as the Arc B370 is a low-power integrated solution.

The data indicates that the CPU has the capability to push higher frame rates, as evidenced by its strong single-core benchmark scores. The Passmark data compression score of 302811 and integer math score of 65345 also show a capable processor for general compute tasks. The fact that the combo ranks 2642 out of 2870 tested combos in this game points to the GPU being the limiting factor, as the CPU alone would likely rank much higher against other processors. The boost clock of 4.90 GHz is crucial for maintaining high framerates in Counter-Strike 2's engine, but the GPU simply cannot deliver the frames to match the CPU's potential.

GPU Role — VRAM, clocks, and how they relate to this game's results

The Intel Arc B370 is an integrated graphics processor (IGP) based on the Xe3-LPG architecture, specifically part of the Arc Graphics-M (Panther Lake) generation. It is built on a 3 nm process by Intel and features a very low 25W TDP. The GPU has a base clock of 300 MHz and a boost clock of 2400 MHz. Crucially, it uses system shared memory, meaning its VRAM size, type, and bus width are all "System Shared," and its bandwidth is "System Dependent." This is a fundamental limitation for gaming performance, as it must compete with the CPU for memory bandwidth. The GPU has 1280 shading units, 40 TMUs, and 20 ROPs, with 10 ray tracing cores. Its compute power is rated at 6.144 TFLOPS for FP32 and 12.29 TFLOPS for FP16.

The GPU's performance percentile is very low, sitting in the 5th percentile of all GPUs, with an average benchmark score of 1184 from the 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 test. Its nearest rivals are older, low-end discrete cards like the ATI Mobility Radeon HD 5570, with a deltaPct of -0.2, and the ATI Radeon HD 5770, with a deltaPct of -0.5. This context is essential for understanding the measured FPS. The Arc B370 is not designed for high-end gaming, and its performance in Counter-Strike 2 reflects this. The data shows that it can achieve playable frame rates only at lower resolutions and settings. The boost clock of 2400 MHz is decent, but the shared memory architecture and low shader count severely hamper its ability to render frames quickly, especially at higher resolutions like 1440p and 4K.

The GPU's role in this combo is the definitive bottleneck. While the CPU can handle the game logic and physics, the GPU struggles to keep up with the rendering demands. This is evident in the FPS drop from 1080p to 4K, which shows a clear dependency on the GPU's fill rate and memory bandwidth. The 3DMark score of 1184, compared to the CPU's 85th percentile ranking, highlights a massive imbalance in this pairing. The GPU's 5th percentile ranking means it is in the bottom 5% of all GPUs, which directly explains why the combo's overall rank in this game is so low.

FAQ

Q: What is the average FPS for this combo at 1080p with Low settings?

A: The measured average FPS at 1920x1080 with Low settings is 162.

Q: How does the Intel Core Ultra 5 225 compare to the AMD Ryzen 5 5600F?

A: The AMD Ryzen 5 5600F has an average score of 36945, which is a deltaPct of 0 compared to the Intel Core Ultra 5 225's average score of 36938, indicating they perform nearly identically in CPU benchmarks.

Q: What is the GPU's performance percentile ranking?

A: The Intel Arc B370 is in the 5th percentile of all GPUs, with an average benchmark score of 1184.

Q: What are the minimum and maximum FPS recorded at 1440p Medium settings?

A: The measured data shows a minimum FPS of 76 and a maximum FPS of 102 at 2560x1440 with Medium settings, with an average FPS of 89.

Q: Does this combo perform better at 1080p High or 1440p Low?

A: The average FPS at 1080p High is 100, while the average FPS at 1440p Low is 107. So, it performs slightly better at 1440p Low.

Q: What is the CPU's boost clock speed?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 5 225 has a boost clock of 4.90 GHz.

How This Combo Ranks

The combination of the Intel Core Ultra 5 225 and the Intel Arc B370 ranks 2642 out of 2870 tested combos in Counter-Strike 2. This places it in the bottom portion of all tested systems, which is a direct consequence of the GPU's limited capabilities. The CPU is a strong performer, ranking in the 85th percentile of all CPUs, but it is paired with a GPU that ranks in the 5th percentile. This massive performance disparity means the overall system is dragged down by the graphics solution. The data indicates that a system with this CPU but a more capable discrete GPU would rank significantly higher, as the CPU's benchmark scores are comparable to rivals that are not the bottleneck.

The combo's rank of 2642 out of 2870 suggests that it outperforms only about 228 other tested combinations. This is a clear indication that the system is not well-suited for the demands of Counter-Strike 2 at higher settings. The measured FPS data supports this, showing that the system can only achieve high frame rates at the lowest settings. The rank is a holistic view of the system's performance, and it is heavily influenced by the GPU's inability to maintain high frame rates across different resolution and settings combinations. The deltaPct between the CPU and its nearest rivals is minimal, but the GPU's deltaPct compared to its rivals is also minimal, showing that the GPU is simply in a very low performance tier.

Settings Recommendations

Based on the measured FPS data, the optimal experience for this combo is achieved at the Low settings preset. At 1920x1080 with Low settings, the system delivers an average FPS of 162, which is well above the threshold for smooth, competitive play. This is the only settings combination that provides a frame rate high enough to fully leverage a high refresh rate monitor. While the Medium preset at 1080p also provides a playable average of 134 FPS, with a minimum of 114 FPS, the Low preset offers more headroom for demanding moments in gameplay. The High preset at 1080p drops to an average of 100 FPS, which is still playable but less ideal for competitive play.

At higher resolutions, the Low preset becomes necessary for acceptable performance. At 2560x1440 with Low settings, the average FPS is 107, which is still a good experience for most players. However, at 3840x2160, even the Low preset only manages an average of 60 FPS, which is the bare minimum for a playable experience. The Medium preset at 1440p offers an average of 89 FPS, but with a minimum of 76 FPS, it is less consistent than the Low preset. The data shows that the Ultra preset is not a viable option for this combo, as it produces an average of 78 FPS at 1080p and drops to 29 FPS at 4K. For the best balance of visual quality and performance, the Low preset is the clear choice, with the Medium preset at 1080p being a secondary option for those who prefer slightly better visuals.

Measured FPS Breakdown

The measured FPS data provides a comprehensive look at the system's performance across various settings and resolutions. At 1920x1080, the system shows a clear progression from the Low preset to the Ultra preset. The average FPS is 162 on Low, 134 on Medium, 100 on High, and 78 on Ultra. The Medium preset also has a recorded minimum of 114 and a maximum of 154 FPS. This shows that at 1080p, the system can handle the game quite well on lower settings.

Moving to 2560x1440, the average FPS drops significantly. The Low preset yields an average of 107 FPS, while the Medium preset gives 89 FPS, with a minimum of 76 and a maximum of 102. The High preset falls to 66 FPS, and the Ultra preset drops to 52 FPS. At 1440p, the system is still capable of providing a playable experience on Low and Medium settings, but the higher presets become more demanding. At 3840x2160, the system struggles to maintain playable frame rates. The Low preset provides an average of 60 FPS, but the Medium preset drops to 50 FPS. The High preset averages only 37 FPS, and the Ultra preset is nearly unplayable at 29 FPS. The data shows a consistent and steep decline in performance as resolution increases, with the GPU being the clear limiting factor.

Resolution Scaling

The FPS drop from 1080p to 4K is significant and reveals the bottleneck of this system. At the Low preset, the average FPS goes from 162 at 1080p to 107 at 1440p, and then to 60 at 4K. This represents a 34% drop in FPS when moving from 1080p to 1440p, and a further 44% drop when moving from 1440p to 4K. This scaling pattern is typical of a GPU-bound scenario, where the render resolution directly impacts the GPU's workload. The CPU's performance is likely sufficient to feed the GPU at all resolutions, but the GPU's limited processing power and shared memory bandwidth become the primary constraint as the pixel count increases.

The difference between the 1080p and 4K scores at the same preset is stark. For example, at High settings, the average FPS drops from 100 at 1080p to 37 at 4K, a 63% reduction. This is a clear sign that the integrated GPU is overwhelmed by the pixel fill rate required at 4K. The system's reliance on system shared memory for the GPU further compounds this issue, as the memory bandwidth is not dedicated and can become a bottleneck on its own. The data suggests that to maintain a consistent frame rate, the user must either drastically lower the resolution or stick to the Low preset. The 1080p Low result of 162 FPS is the only configuration that truly maximizes the system's potential, while the 4K Ultra result of 29 FPS is an unplayable slideshow. The limiting component is unequivocally the GPU, as the CPU's performance metrics suggest it could handle a much more powerful graphics card.