Counter-Strike 2

The Intel Core Ultra 5 245 paired with the Intel Arc B370 integrated graphics produces a very specific performance envelope in Counter-Strike 2. The data shows this combination ranks 2642nd out of 2870 tested combos, placing it in the lower percentile of systems. This page analyzes the measured frames per second across three resolutions and four settings presets, examining how the CPU and GPU each contribute to the results.

FAQ

Q: What is the overall ranking of this CPU and GPU combo in Counter-Strike 2?

A: The combination ranks 2642nd out of 2870 tested combos in Counter-Strike 2, placing it in the bottom portion of the database. This indicates that the Intel Arc B370 integrated graphics significantly limits performance, despite the CPU being a capable desktop processor.

Q: How does the Intel Core Ultra 5 245 compare to its nearest rivals in CPU benchmarks?

A: The Core Ultra 5 245 has an average benchmark score of 48995, which is nearly identical to its closest rivals. It sits 0.4% below the AMD Ryzen 7 PRO 5755G, 0.5% below the AMD Ryzen 9 7900, 0.6% above the Intel Xeon Gold 5318H, and 0.8% above the Intel Core i5-14600K.

Q: What is the best average FPS achievable with this combo at 1080p?

A: At 1920x1080 with Low settings, the combo achieves an average of 162 FPS. This is the highest measured average across all tested configurations. Medium settings produce 134 FPS, High produces 100 FPS, and Ultra drops to 78 FPS.

Q: How does the Intel Arc B370 GPU compare to its nearest rivals?

A: The Arc B370 has an average 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 score of 1184, placing it in the 5th percentile of all GPUs. Its nearest rivals include the ATI Mobility Radeon HD 5570 (0.2% higher score), ATI Radeon HD 5770 (0.5% higher), AMD Radeon HD 7650M (0.7% higher), and AMD FirePro M2000 (1.4% lower).

Q: What is the impact of switching from Medium to Ultra settings at 1440p?

A: At 2560x1440, Medium settings deliver an average of 89 FPS, while Ultra drops to 52 FPS. This represents a 41.6% performance reduction when moving from Medium to Ultra, highlighting the significant cost of higher graphical fidelity on this integrated GPU.

Q: Does the Arc B370 have dedicated VRAM?

A: No, the Intel Arc B370 uses system shared memory for both its memory size and type. The memory bus width is also listed as system shared, and bandwidth is described as system dependent. This means the GPU relies on the CPU's DDR5 memory rather than having its own dedicated VRAM.

How This Combo Ranks

The comboRankInGame data places this system at position 2642 out of 2870 tested combinations. This ranking puts the Intel Core Ultra 5 245 with Intel Arc B370 in the bottom 8% of all tested systems for Counter-Strike 2. The ranking is influenced primarily by the GPU, which sits in the 5th percentile of all GPUs according to its benchmark score.

The CPU, by contrast, is a strong performer. The Intel Core Ultra 5 245 ranks in the 90th percentile of all CPUs, meaning it outperforms the vast majority of processors in the database. This creates a significant imbalance: the CPU is capable of feeding frames at a high rate, but the integrated GPU cannot keep up with the processor's output.

Looking at the CPU's nearest rivals, the performance envelope is tightly clustered. The AMD Ryzen 7 PRO 5755G and AMD Ryzen 9 7900 are within half a percent of the Core Ultra 5 245's average score, while the Intel Xeon Gold 5318H and Intel Core i5-14600K are also within one percent. This suggests that swapping the CPU for any of these alternatives would not meaningfully change the Counter-Strike 2 results, as the GPU remains the bottleneck.

The GPU's nearest rivals are all older or lower-end parts. The ATI Mobility Radeon HD 5570, ATI Radeon HD 5770, and AMD Radeon HD 7650M all score within 0.7% of the Arc B370, while the AMD FirePro M2000 is 1.4% lower. This places the Arc B370 in performance territory comparable to integrated and entry-level discrete GPUs from over a decade ago, which explains the low combo ranking.

GPU Role

The Intel Arc B370 is an integrated graphics solution based on the Xe3-LPG architecture with a Panther Lake chip. It operates with a base clock of 300 MHz and a boost clock of 2400 MHz. The GPU has 1280 shading units, 40 texture mapping units, 20 render output units, and 10 ray tracing cores. Its pixel rate is rated at 48.00 GPixel/s, and its texture rate is 96.00 GTexel/s.

The memory configuration is notably unusual: the Arc B370 uses system shared memory for size, type, bus width, and bandwidth. This means the GPU has no dedicated VRAM and instead borrows from the system's DDR5 memory, which runs on a dual-channel bus with a bandwidth of 102.4 GB/s. The actual graphics memory bandwidth is described as system dependent, meaning it varies based on the CPU's memory configuration.

The power envelope is extremely low at 25 W TDP, and the slot width is listed as IGP (integrated graphics processor). This confirms the Arc B370 is not a discrete card but rather part of the processor package. The GPU supports DirectX 12 Ultimate, OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4, providing modern API compatibility.

In Counter-Strike 2, the GPU's role is the primary limiting factor. The measured FPS drops sharply as resolution increases, which is characteristic of a GPU-bound scenario. At 1080p Low, the system achieves 162 FPS, but at 4K Low, it drops to 60 FPS. The 3DMark Steel Nomad score of 1184 places this GPU in the 5th percentile, indicating minimal graphics processing capability relative to other GPUs in the database.

The FP32 performance of 6.144 TFLOPS and FP16 performance of 12.29 TFLOPS provide raw compute figures, but in practice, the shared memory architecture and low power limit real-world gaming performance. The GPU's nearest rivals in benchmark scores are all older discrete or integrated parts, confirming its modest capabilities.

Settings Recommendations

The measured FPS data across different settings presets provides clear guidance for optimal configuration. At 1920x1080, Low settings deliver 162 FPS average, which is the highest measured value for this combo. Medium settings produce 134 FPS, High produces 100 FPS, and Ultra drops to 78 FPS. For competitive play where frame rate matters most, Low settings at 1080p offer the best experience.

At 2560x1440, the performance hierarchy remains consistent: Low achieves 107 FPS, Medium achieves 89 FPS, High achieves 66 FPS, and Ultra drops to 52 FPS. The 1440p Medium setting provides a balanced experience with 89 FPS, but players seeking smoother gameplay would prefer Low at 107 FPS.

At 3840x2160, all settings struggle. Low achieves 60 FPS, Medium achieves 50 FPS, High achieves 37 FPS, and Ultra drops to 29 FPS. The 4K Low setting is the only configuration that reaches 60 FPS, making it the minimum viable option for playable frame rates at this resolution.

The data suggests that Low settings provide the best experience at all resolutions. At 1080p Low, the 162 FPS average is well above typical competitive thresholds, making it the recommended configuration for Counter-Strike 2. Medium settings at 1080p offer 134 FPS and provide a visual upgrade at a moderate frame rate cost, but the jump to High (100 FPS) and Ultra (78 FPS) shows diminishing returns for FPS-focused gameplay.

For users prioritizing visual quality over frame rate, Medium settings at 1080p or 1440p provide the best compromise. The Medium preset at 1440p delivers 89 FPS, which is playable, while the same preset at 4K drops to 50 FPS, which may feel less responsive. Given the game's competitive nature, the recommendation is to favor frame rate, with Low at 1080p being the clear choice.

Measured FPS Breakdown

1920x1080: The lowest resolution tested shows the highest performance. Low settings deliver an average of 162 FPS with no minimum or maximum recorded. Medium settings produce 134 FPS average, with a minimum of 114 FPS and a maximum of 154 FPS. High settings drop to 100 FPS average, while Ultra settings produce 78 FPS average. The spread from Low to Ultra is 84 FPS, representing a 48.1% reduction from the fastest to slowest preset.

2560x1440: The mid-range resolution shows a clear performance drop. Low settings achieve 107 FPS average, Medium achieves 89 FPS with a minimum of 76 FPS and maximum of 102 FPS, High achieves 66 FPS, and Ultra drops to 52 FPS. The difference between Low and Ultra is 55 FPS, a 51.4% decrease. Compared to 1080p, the same settings show substantial reductions: Low drops from 162 to 107 FPS (34.0% lower), Medium from 134 to 89 FPS (33.6% lower), High from 100 to 66 FPS (34.0% lower), and Ultra from 78 to 52 FPS (33.3% lower).

3840x2160: The highest resolution significantly stresses the GPU. Low settings achieve 60 FPS average, Medium achieves 50 FPS with a minimum of 42 FPS and maximum of 57 FPS, High achieves 37 FPS, and Ultra drops to 29 FPS. The reduction from Low to Ultra is 31 FPS, a 51.7% decrease. Compared to 1440p, Low drops from 107 to 60 FPS (43.9% lower), Medium from 89 to 50 FPS (43.8% lower), High from 66 to 37 FPS (43.9% lower), and Ultra from 52 to 29 FPS (44.2% lower).

The Medium settings at each resolution provide the only complete FPS data with minimum and maximum values. At 1080p Medium, the 114-154 FPS range shows reasonable frame consistency. At 1440p Medium, the 76-102 FPS range indicates more variance. At 4K Medium, the 42-57 FPS range shows significant fluctuation, suggesting that frame pacing may be inconsistent at higher resolutions.

CPU Role

The Intel Core Ultra 5 245 is a 14-core, 14-thread processor from the Core Ultra Series 2, based on the Arrow Lake architecture with a 3 nm process node from TSMC. It has a base clock of 3.50 GHz and a boost clock of 5.10 GHz. The cache hierarchy includes 192 KB of L1 per core, 3 MB of L2 per core, and 24 MB of shared L3 cache. The CPU supports DDR5 memory on a dual-channel bus with a bandwidth of 102.4 GB/s.

Benchmark results show strong single-thread and multi-thread performance. Cinebench R23 scores are 4648 for single-core and 32924 for multi-core. PassMark single-thread score is 4394, while multithread score is 38706. The CPU's average benchmark score of 48995 places it in the 90th percentile of all CPUs, confirming its high-end positioning.

For Counter-Strike 2, the CPU provides ample processing power. The game is known for being CPU-sensitive, particularly at lower resolutions and settings. The data supports this: at 1080p Low, the combo achieves 162 FPS, which is likely near the CPU's frame delivery limit. However, the GPU becomes the bottleneck as resolution increases, as evidenced by the consistent FPS drops across all settings when moving from 1080p to 1440p to 4K.

The CPU's 14 cores and 14 threads provide sufficient parallelism for the game's engine, and the 5.10 GHz boost clock ensures strong single-thread performance, which is critical for Counter-Strike 2's main game logic thread. The nearest CPU rivals all score within 0.8% of the Core Ultra 5 245, suggesting that CPU choice among these options would have minimal impact on gaming performance.

The CPU's memory support for DDR5 with 102.4 GB/s bandwidth is relevant because the GPU uses system shared memory. This means the CPU's memory bandwidth directly affects GPU performance. In this configuration, the shared memory architecture means the CPU's memory subsystem must serve both the processor and the graphics engine, potentially creating contention under load.

Resolution Scaling

The measured FPS data shows how this combo scales from 1080p to 4K. Across all settings, the pattern is consistent: performance drops approximately 34% from 1080p to 1440p, and then another 44% from 1440p to 4K. This compounding reduction means 4K performance is roughly 63% lower than 1080p performance for the same settings.

For Low settings, the progression is 162 FPS at 1080p, 107 FPS at 1440p, and 60 FPS at 4K. This represents a 33.9% drop from 1080p to 1440p and a 43.9% drop from 1440p to 4K. For Medium settings, the progression is 134 FPS to 89 FPS to 50 FPS, with drops of 33.6% and 43.8%. High settings show 100 FPS to 66 FPS to 37 FPS, with drops of 34.0% and 43.9%. Ultra settings show 78 FPS to 52 FPS to 29 FPS, with drops of 33.3% and 44.2%.

The consistency of these percentage drops across all settings strongly indicates a GPU-bound scenario. If the CPU were the limiting factor, we would expect smaller FPS differences at higher resolutions, since the CPU workload would remain constant while the GPU workload increases. Instead, the uniform percentage reductions suggest the GPU's fill rate and shading capacity are the primary constraints.

The pixel count increases by 1.78 times from 1080p to 1440p and by 2.25 times from 1440p to 4K. The measured FPS drops do not perfectly match these pixel count ratios, but they are close enough to confirm that the GPU is scaling roughly in line with pixel throughput. The slight deviations from exact pixel ratio scaling may be due to the shared memory bandwidth becoming more constrained at higher resolutions.

The Arc B370's 20 ROPs and 40 TMUs are extremely limited for modern resolutions. At 4K, the GPU must process 8.3 million pixels per frame, and with a pixel rate of 48.00 GPixel/s, the theoretical maximum fill rate would be around 48 billion pixels per second. However, in practice, the shared memory bandwidth and low power envelope prevent the GPU from approaching this limit, as shown by the 29-60 FPS results at 4K.

The resolution scaling data makes it clear that this combo is best used at 1080p. At 1440p, playable frame rates are achievable only on Low and Medium settings. At 4K, only Low settings reach 60 FPS, and any higher preset dips below playable thresholds. The limiting component is definitively the GPU, as the CPU's 90th percentile ranking and high single-thread performance would not cause the uniform FPS drops observed across resolutions.