Counter-Strike 2

The Intel Core Ultra 9 290K Plus paired with the Intel Arc B370 produces a highly unusual performance profile in Counter-Strike 2. The data reveals a system that is dramatically limited by its graphics component, yet shows surprising resilience at lower settings, creating a complex picture for potential users of this combination.

FAQ

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

A: The highest average FPS recorded is 162, achieved at 1920x1080 with Low settings. This drops to 134 at Medium, 100 at High, and 78 at Ultra.

Q: How does the CPU compare to its closest rival in overall benchmark scores?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 9 290K Plus has an average benchmark score of 84003, which is 0.2% higher than the Intel Core Ultra 9 285K’s score of 83807. It also edges out the AMD EPYC 4584PX by 1.1% and the AMD EPYC 9135 by 1.2%.

Q: What is the GPU’s performance percentile compared to all other GPUs?

A: The Intel Arc B370 sits in the 5th percentile of all GPUs, indicating extremely low overall graphical performance. Its average benchmark score is 1184.

Q: Does the resolution affect the FPS drop between Low and Ultra settings?

A: Yes, the impact is severe and scaling is consistent. At 1080p, the drop from Low (162 FPS) to Ultra (78 FPS) is 84 FPS. At 1440p, it drops from 107 FPS to 52 FPS (a 55 FPS difference), and at 4K, from 60 FPS to 29 FPS (a 31 FPS difference).

Q: What is the GPU’s boost clock speed?

A: The Intel Arc B370 has a boost clock of 2400 MHz. Its base clock is 300 MHz.

Q: How many cores and threads does the CPU have?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 9 290K Plus features 24 cores and 24 threads, with a base clock of 3.70 GHz and a boost clock of 5.80 GHz.

GPU Role

The Intel Arc B370 is the defining component in this pairing, and its specifications paint a clear picture of its capabilities. With a boost clock of 2400 MHz and a base of 300 MHz, it has the potential for speed, but its architecture is fundamentally constrained. The GPU features 1280 shading units, 40 TMUs, and 20 ROPs, a configuration that is modest by modern standards. Its memory is "System Shared," meaning it relies on the CPU's DDR5 memory rather than dedicated VRAM. This is a critical detail; the memory bandwidth is listed as "System Dependent," which means performance is tied directly to the dual-channel memory bus of the CPU.

The GPU's raw compute power, measured at 6.144 TFLOPS FP32, appears insufficient for the demands of Counter-Strike 2 at high resolutions. This is confirmed by its percentile rank of 5, placing it in the bottom 5% of all GPUs. The measured FPS data supports this, showing that at 4K Ultra, the combo manages only 29 FPS. The GPU's nearest rivals in benchmark scores are older, much less capable cards like the ATI Radeon HD 5770, which scores 1190, a mere 0.5% higher. This comparison is telling; the Arc B370 is performing in the same league as hardware from a previous era.

The relationship between the GPU's clock speeds and its performance is interesting. The high boost clock of 2400 MHz suggests it can handle light loads quickly, but the low pixel rate of 48.00 GPixel/s and texture rate of 96.00 GTexel/s create a bottleneck. This means that as the resolution and settings increase, demanding more pixels and textures, the GPU quickly becomes overwhelmed. The data shows that the GPU is not just a minor limiting factor; it is the primary constraint on the entire system's gaming performance, especially when compared to the CPU's high percentile ranking of 96.

Resolution Scaling

The FPS data reveals a clear and predictable pattern of degradation as resolution increases, which is a classic sign of a GPU-bound system. The most significant finding is the change in FPS between 1080p and 4K at the same settings. At Low settings, the average FPS falls from 162 at 1080p to 107 at 1440p, and then to 60 at 4K. This represents a 63% drop in performance from 1080p to 4K. At High settings, the drop is even more severe: from 100 FPS at 1080p to 66 at 1440p, and finally to 37 at 4K, a 63% reduction as well.

This consistent ~63% drop from 1080p to 4K indicates that the GPU is the limiting factor. The CPU, with its 24 cores and high boost clock, is not being stressed by the increased graphical load; it is the Arc B370 that is failing to keep up with the rising number of pixels. The fact that the FPS at 4K Low (60 FPS) is equal to the FPS at 1080p Ultra (78 FPS) is a very close correlation, showing that the GPU's workload is the primary determinant of performance. The game is not becoming more CPU-intensive at higher resolutions; it is simply demanding more from the GPU.

The lack of min and max FPS data for most entries makes it difficult to assess frame pacing, but the available data for Medium settings shows a narrow range. At 1080p Medium, the FPS ranges from 114 to 154, and at 1440p Medium, from 76 to 102. This suggests that while the average FPS is low, the frame delivery is relatively stable, without massive spikes or drops. This is a positive sign, as it implies the experience, while limited in headroom, is at least consistent. The overall trend is clear: this combo is only viable for high-refresh-rate play at 1080p with lower settings.

Measured FPS Breakdown

The measured FPS data provides a detailed look at the system's performance across all tested configurations. At 1920x1080, the results are as follows: Low settings yield an average of 162 FPS, which is the highest score in the entire dataset. Medium settings produce 134 FPS (min 114, max 154), High settings produce 100 FPS, and Ultra settings drop to 78 FPS. This shows a clear performance hierarchy, but even at Ultra, the frame rate is playable.

Moving to 2560x1440, the performance takes a significant hit. Low settings average 107 FPS, which is still respectable. Medium settings average 89 FPS (min 76, max 102), High settings average 66 FPS, and Ultra settings fall to 52 FPS. The gap between Low and Ultra at this resolution is 55 FPS, which is substantial. The 1440p results suggest that users will need to make significant compromises in visual quality to maintain a high refresh rate.

At 3840x2160, the system struggles. Low settings are the only playable option, with an average of 60 FPS. Medium settings drop to 50 FPS (min 42, max 57), High settings fall to 37 FPS, and Ultra settings are nearly unplayable at 29 FPS. The data shows a consistent pattern: for every settings tier, the FPS roughly halves when moving from 1080p to 4K. For example, High settings go from 100 FPS to 37 FPS, a 63% reduction. This reinforces the conclusion that the GPU is the sole bottleneck, and its limitations are most apparent at higher resolutions.

How This Combo Ranks

The combination of the Intel Core Ultra 9 290K Plus and the Intel Arc B370 ranks 2642 out of 2870 tested combos in Counter-Strike 2. This places it in the bottom 8% of all tested systems, a very poor showing for a CPU that is in the top 5% of all processors. The disparity between the CPU's potential and the combo's actual performance is stark. The CPU alone ranks in the 96th percentile, but the system as a whole is dragged down by the GPU's 5th percentile ranking.

This ranking suggests a severe imbalance. The data implies that the CPU is extremely powerful, as evidenced by its benchmark scores and its position relative to rivals like the Intel Core Ultra 9 285K (0.2% difference). However, the GPU is so weak that it negates the CPU's advantages entirely. In this specific game, the combo's rank is not a reflection of the CPU's capabilities but rather a direct measure of the GPU's limitations. If the GPU were upgraded, the combo's rank would likely improve dramatically, as the CPU would no longer be held back. The current rank indicates that the system is not well-balanced for gaming, with a massive performance gap between its components.

CPU Role

The Intel Core Ultra 9 290K Plus is a high-end processor with 24 cores and 24 threads, based on the Arrow Lake Refresh architecture. Its benchmark scores are exceptional: it scores 51731 in Cinebench R23 multi-core and 7303 in single-core. It also has a high Passmark multi-thread score of 60860. These numbers place it in the 96th percentile of all CPUs, showing that it is one of the most powerful processors available.

In the context of Counter-Strike 2, the CPU's role is to provide a stable foundation for the game's logic and physics. With a boost clock of 5.80 GHz and a large 36 MB L3 cache, the CPU is more than capable of handling the game's demands. The data suggests that the CPU is never the bottleneck in this combo, as the FPS is consistently low regardless of the resolution. If the CPU were the limiting factor, we would expect to see similar FPS across different resolutions, but the FPS drops significantly as resolution increases. This is a clear sign that the CPU is waiting for the GPU to render frames.

The CPU's performance is so high that it is essentially idle in this configuration. Its scores are 1.1% higher than the AMD EPYC 4584PX and 1.2% higher than the AMD EPYC 9135, both of which are server-class processors. This indicates that the 290K Plus has more than enough headroom for any game, including Counter-Strike 2. The only issue is that this headroom is completely wasted because the GPU cannot keep up. The CPU is a top-tier component that is being held back by a bottom-tier GPU, resulting in the overall poor system performance.

Settings Recommendations

Based on the measured data, the best experience for this combo is achieved at 1920x1080 with Low settings, which yields an average of 162 FPS. This is the only configuration that approaches the high refresh rates favored by competitive players. The jump from Low to Medium at 1080p results in a 28 FPS drop (162 to 134), which is a significant loss for a modest increase in visual quality. At 1440p, Low settings are still the best option, with an average of 107 FPS, but the drop from 1080p is substantial.

For users who prioritize visual fidelity over raw frame rate, the 1080p Medium setting, at 134 FPS, is a reasonable compromise. It offers a 134 FPS average with a minimum of 114 FPS, which is still smooth. However, the High and Ultra settings at 1080p (100 and 78 FPS) show diminishing returns; they offer better visuals but at a cost that makes the system feel less responsive. At 4K, the only playable setting is Low, which provides a 60 FPS average. Any higher setting at 4K results in an average FPS below 50, which is generally considered too low for a competitive FPS.

The data suggests that the system is best used as a 1080p machine, with Low settings being the sweet spot for maximum performance. The 1440p and 4K resolutions are not viable for high-refresh-rate gaming with this GPU. The recommendation is clear: to get the most out of this combo, users should stick to 1920x1080 and accept the visual limitations of Low or Medium settings. The performance difference between settings is so large that it outweighs the graphical benefits for most players.