Counter-Strike 2

FAQ

Q: How does the Intel Core Ultra 9 290K Plus compare to its closest rival in overall CPU benchmark scores?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 9 290K Plus has an average benchmark score of 84003, which places it 0.2% ahead of the Intel Core Ultra 9 285K (83807). It also edges out the AMD EPYC 4584PX by 1.1% and the AMD EPYC 9135 by 1.2%, while trailing the AMD EPYC 7F72 by 1.3% (85072).

Q: What is the GPU's performance percentile ranking, and what does that imply about its class?

A: The Intel Arc B390 sits in the 9th percentile of all GPUs, with an average benchmark score of 1482. This places it in the entry-level segment, as its nearest rivals are the NVIDIA GeForce GT 520MX (1463), NVIDIA GeForce 800M (1460), NVIDIA GeForce GT 625 OEM (1446), and NVIDIA GeForce GT 710 (1443), all of which score within 1.3% to 2.7% of the B390.

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

A: The highest average FPS at 1920x1080 is 179, achieved with Low settings. Medium settings deliver 149 FPS, High settings yield 111 FPS, and Ultra settings drop to 86 FPS.

Q: How much does the average FPS drop from 1080p to 4K at High settings?

A: At High settings, the average FPS drops from 111 at 1920x1080 to 73 at 2560x1440, and further down to 41 at 3840x2160. This represents a 63% reduction in average FPS from 1080p to 4K.

Q: What is the CPU's multi-core performance in Cinebench R23, and how does it rank overall?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 9 290K Plus scores 51731 in Cinebench R23 multi-core and 7303 in single-core. The CPU has a percentile rank of 96 among all CPUs, indicating it is in the top 4% of processors tested.

Q: What is the GPU's memory configuration, and how does that affect its bandwidth?

A: The Intel Arc B390 uses System Shared memory, meaning its memory size, type, and bus width are all "System Shared." Its memory bandwidth is listed as "System Dependent," which means the actual bandwidth available to the GPU depends on the host system's memory configuration rather than dedicated VRAM.

How This Combo Ranks

The combination of the Intel Core Ultra 9 290K Plus and the Intel Arc B390 ranks 2535 out of 2870 tested combos in Counter-Strike 2. This places the combo in the bottom 12% of all tested combinations, which initially seems surprising given the CPU's top-tier status. However, the data reveals a clear bottleneck: the GPU is the limiting factor in this pairing.

The CPU's percentile rank of 96 means it outperforms 96% of all processors in the database. Its average benchmark score of 84003 is 0.2% higher than the Intel Core Ultra 9 285K, demonstrating that this processor is at the very top of the performance hierarchy. Meanwhile, the GPU's 9th percentile ranking places it in the bottom 9% of all graphics cards, with competitors like the GT 710 and GT 625 OEM representing its performance class.

This massive gap between CPU and GPU performance explains why the combo sits at rank 2535. The CPU is capable of far higher frame rates than the GPU can deliver, particularly in a competitive FPS like Counter-Strike 2 where frame rates are heavily dependent on both components. The measured FPS data supports this interpretation: even at 1080p Low settings, the combo only reaches 179 FPS, which is far below what the CPU alone could theoretically push in this game.

The ranking also suggests that Counter-Strike 2 is sensitive to GPU performance even at lower resolutions. Many other combos with less powerful CPUs but stronger GPUs likely achieve better in-game results, which is why this specific pairing falls so low in the rankings despite having a near-top-tier processor.

Settings Recommendations

Based on the measured FPS data, the optimal settings for this combo depend heavily on the target resolution and desired frame rate.

At 1920x1080, the Medium preset offers the best balance of visual quality and performance. The average FPS of 149 provides a smooth experience on standard 60Hz displays, while the minimum FPS of 126 ensures that frame times remain consistent. The High preset at 111 FPS is still playable but leaves less headroom for demanding scenes. Low settings at 179 FPS are ideal for competitive play where maximum frame rates are prioritized, but the visual trade-off may not be necessary given that Medium already delivers well above 144 FPS.

At 2560x1440, Medium settings again provide the best experience with an average FPS of 98 and a minimum of 84. This keeps the gameplay fluid on 60Hz monitors and is borderline acceptable for 100Hz displays. The Low preset at 118 FPS is the better choice for players with higher refresh rate monitors, offering a 20 FPS improvement over Medium. High settings at 73 FPS are playable but may feel less responsive in fast-paced encounters.

At 3840x2160, the data suggests that Low settings are the only viable option for playable frame rates. The 66 FPS average at Low is marginally acceptable, while Medium drops to 55 FPS and High falls to 41 FPS. Ultra settings at 32 FPS are not recommended for competitive play.

For most users, the Medium preset at 1080p or 1440p provides the best overall experience, balancing visual fidelity with frame rates that keep the game responsive.

Measured FPS Breakdown

The measured FPS data provides a comprehensive picture of how this combo performs across resolutions and settings.

At 1920x1080, the frame rates scale predictably with settings: Low delivers 179 FPS, Medium delivers 149 FPS (with a minimum of 126 and maximum of 171), High delivers 111 FPS, and Ultra drops to 86 FPS. The gap between Low and Medium is 30 FPS, while the gap between Medium and High is 38 FPS. The jump from High to Ultra costs 25 FPS, showing that the Ultra preset demands significantly more from the GPU.

At 2560x1440, the pattern shifts. Low produces 118 FPS, Medium produces 98 FPS (minimum 84, maximum 113), High produces 73 FPS, and Ultra produces 57 FPS. The difference between Low and Medium is 20 FPS, while High to Ultra costs 16 FPS. The scaling from 1080p to 1440p reduces frame rates by 34% at Low settings, 34% at Medium, 34% at High, and 34% at Ultra, indicating a consistent resolution penalty.

At 3840x2160, the performance drops significantly. Low settings yield 66 FPS, Medium yields 55 FPS (minimum 47, maximum 63), High yields 41 FPS, and Ultra yields 32 FPS. The reduction from 1440p to 4K is substantial: Low drops by 44%, Medium by 44%, High by 44%, and Ultra by 44%. This consistent percentage reduction across settings suggests that the GPU is the primary constraint at this resolution.

The minimum FPS data points, available for Medium settings at all three resolutions, show that frame time consistency is maintained: 126 FPS minimum at 1080p, 84 FPS minimum at 1440p, and 47 FPS minimum at 4K. These minimums are all within 15-18% of their respective averages, indicating no major frame rate spikes.

GPU Role

The Intel Arc B390 plays the limiting role in this combo. With a base clock of 300 MHz and a boost clock of 2500 MHz, the GPU has the potential for decent performance, but its memory configuration severely restricts its capabilities. The System Shared memory means the GPU has no dedicated VRAM, relying instead on system memory bandwidth that is "System Dependent."

The GPU's shading units (1536), texture mapping units (48), and render output units (24) are modest numbers that align with its 9th percentile ranking. The pixel rate of 60.00 GPixel/s and texture rate of 120.0 GTexel/s place it in the entry-level category. The FP32 performance of 7.680 TFLOPS provides the raw compute capacity, but the shared memory subsystem likely creates a bottleneck in real-world gaming workloads.

In Counter-Strike 2, the GPU's impact is visible in the performance differences between settings presets. At 1080p, moving from Low to Ultra reduces FPS from 179 to 86, a 52% decrease. This scaling indicates that the GPU's compute and fill rate capabilities are being stretched at higher quality settings. The consistent 44% FPS reduction from 1440p to 4K across all settings further confirms that the GPU is the constraining factor at higher resolutions.

The GPU's nearest rivals, the GT 520MX and GT 710, are both legacy entry-level cards. The B390's 1.3% to 2.7% performance advantage over these cards in synthetic benchmarks provides context for its gaming performance. The 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 score of 1482 indicates that the GPU can handle modern graphics APIs at a basic level, but it lacks the bandwidth and processing power for demanding titles at high resolutions.

CPU Role

The Intel Core Ultra 9 290K Plus is an exceptionally powerful processor that far exceeds the requirements of Counter-Strike 2. With 24 cores and 24 threads, the CPU has massive parallel processing capability. Its base clock of 3.70 GHz and boost clock of 5.80 GHz provide excellent single-thread performance, which is critical for gaming.

The CPU's cache hierarchy includes 192 KB of L1 cache per core, 3 MB of L2 cache per core, and 36 MB of shared L3 cache. This large cache structure helps reduce memory latency and improves performance in games that benefit from frequent data access. The 3 nm process node from TSMC and 17,800 million transistors demonstrate the advanced manufacturing technology behind this processor.

In Cinebench R23, the CPU scores 51731 in multi-core and 7303 in single-core. The PassMark single-thread score of 4823 confirms its strong single-core performance. The CPU's percentile rank of 96 places it above the vast majority of all processors, and its 0.2% advantage over the Intel Core Ultra 9 285K shows that it is at the very pinnacle of CPU performance.

In Counter-Strike 2, the CPU's role is to handle game logic, physics calculations, and frame scheduling. Given that the CPU is in the 96th percentile, it is unlikely to be the bottleneck in this combo. The data supports this: at 1080p Low settings, the combo achieves 179 FPS, but the CPU could likely drive far higher frame rates if paired with a more capable GPU. The fact that FPS drops consistently across all settings and resolutions points to the GPU as the limiting component.

The CPU's memory support for DDR5 with dual-channel configuration and 115.2 GB/s bandwidth provides ample memory bandwidth for gaming. However, the GPU's System Shared memory competes for this same bandwidth, which may create additional contention in memory-intensive scenarios.

Resolution Scaling

The FPS scaling from 1080p to 4K reveals important insights about the system's bottleneck.

At Low settings, the average FPS drops from 179 at 1080p to 118 at 1440p (34% reduction), and then to 66 at 4K (44% reduction from 1440p). At Medium settings, the progression is 149 to 98 (34%) to 55 (44%). At High settings, it's 111 to 73 (34%) to 41 (44%). At Ultra settings, it's 86 to 57 (34%) to 32 (44%).

The consistent 34% reduction from 1080p to 1440p and 44% reduction from 1440p to 4K across all settings presets is a strong indicator of a GPU-bound scenario. When a system is CPU-bound, the FPS would remain relatively flat as resolution increases, because the CPU is the limiting factor and resolution changes do not affect CPU workload. Here, the FPS scales almost exactly with the pixel count increase: 1440p has 1.78 times the pixels of 1080p, and 4K has 2.25 times the pixels of 1440p.

The FPS reductions are slightly less than the pixel count increases, which suggests there is some CPU involvement in the scaling. A purely GPU-bound system would see FPS drop in direct proportion to pixel count. The fact that FPS drops by 34% when pixel count increases by 78% (1080p to 1440p) indicates that the CPU is helping to mitigate some of the resolution penalty.

At 1080p, the gap between Low and Ultra settings is 93 FPS (179 vs 86), while at 4K, the gap is 34 FPS (66 vs 32). This narrowing gap at higher resolutions confirms that the GPU becomes the dominant constraint as resolution increases. At 1080p, the CPU has more headroom to push frame rates, but the GPU's limitations cap performance at higher quality settings.

The data implies that for this combo, 1080p is the most balanced resolution, where the CPU can partially compensate for the GPU's weaknesses. At 1440p and 4K, the GPU's System Shared memory and modest compute resources become the clear limiting factor, resulting in frame rates that are unsuitable for competitive play at higher resolutions.