Counter-Strike 2

Counter-Strike 2 is a competitive FPS that scales heavily with raw CPU performance, and the pairing of the Intel Core Ultra 9 290K Plus with the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2060 creates an interesting bottleneck dynamic. The data reveals that while the CPU is a top-tier part, the GPU becomes the primary constraint at higher resolutions and settings, limiting the system's ability to fully exploit the processor's high frame-rate headroom. This analysis breaks down the measured performance across resolutions and settings, using the provided benchmark rows.

Resolution Scaling

The frame rate drop from 1080p to 4K is the single most telling metric in this dataset. At High settings, the average frame rate falls from 182 FPS at 1920x1080 to 121 FPS at 2560x1440, and finally to 67 FPS at 3840x2160. This represents a 63% reduction in performance from 1080p to 4K, which is a severe scaling penalty that points directly at the GPU as the limiting factor. The RTX 2060, with its 6 GB of GDDR6 memory and 336.0 GB/s bandwidth, is being saturated by the increasing pixel count, while the Core Ultra 9 290K Plus has ample headroom to feed frames.

The scaling pattern becomes even more pronounced when examining the Low preset. At 1920x1080 Low, the system achieves 294 FPS, dropping to 194 FPS at 2560x1440 and 109 FPS at 3840x2160. The 4K score is less than half of the 1080p score, demonstrating that even at the lowest graphical load, the GPU cannot keep pace with the CPU's capability. In contrast, the CPU's benchmark scores—such as a Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 51731 and a Passmark single-thread score of 4823—indicate it is not the bottleneck; the data suggests the RTX 2060 is hitting its architectural limits.

The difference in scaling between settings is also informative. At 4K, moving from Low (109 FPS) to Ultra (52 FPS) yields a 52% performance loss, whereas at 1080p, the same setting change goes from 294 FPS to 142 FPS, a 52% loss as well. This consistent relative drop across resolutions indicates that the GPU's compute and memory throughput are the dominant factors, and the CPU's 24 cores and 24 threads are not being fully utilized in this title. The frame times at Medium settings—which include min and max FPS data—show a similar trend: at 4K Medium, the range is 77 to 104 FPS, while at 1080p Medium it spans 208 to 281 FPS, reinforcing that the GPU's rendering pipeline is the bottleneck.

How This Combo Ranks

The combo occupies the 2253rd position out of 2870 tested combinations in Counter-Strike 2, placing it in the lower-middle quartile of all hardware pairings. This rank is surprising given the CPU's strength—the Intel Core Ultra 9 290K Plus holds a 96th percentile ranking among all CPUs in the database—but it underscores how the GPU drags down the overall system performance in this specific game. The RTX 2060, while functional, sits in the 58th percentile for GPUs, and its average benchmark score of 15290 is nearly identical to that of the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 580 (15283), which is a 0% delta.

Comparing the CPU to its nearest rivals, the Core Ultra 9 290K Plus is virtually tied with the Intel Core Ultra 9 285K, showing a 0.2% higher average score (84003 versus 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%. These margins are negligible in real-world gaming, meaning the CPU's performance tier is consistent with other high-end parts. However, the combo rank of 2253 suggests that most other systems tested with this game are either using faster GPUs or more balanced pairings, and the RTX 2060's age—it was released in 2019 and is now end-of-life—limits the system to mid-range results.

The gap between the CPU's potential and the combo's actual ranking is stark. The Core Ultra 9 290K Plus has a Passmark multithread score of 60860 and a data encryption score of 52563, which are elite-level numbers, but the RTX 2060's Passmark G3D score of 14111 is modest. In a CPU-bound title like Counter-Strike 2, one might expect a higher rank, but the measured FPS data shows that the GPU is the limiting factor at all settings above Low, and even at Low, the 4K performance drops below 110 FPS. This indicates that the combo rank reflects a system that is held back by its graphics card.

GPU Role

The NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2060 is a Turing-architecture part built on a 12 nm process, featuring 1920 shading units, 120 TMUs, and 48 ROPs. Its clock speeds are modest by modern standards, with a base clock of 1365 MHz and a boost clock of 1680 MHz, and it operates on a 192-bit memory bus with 6 GB of GDDR6 memory rated at 14 Gbps effective, yielding a bandwidth of 336.0 GB/s. These specifications result in a FP32 performance of 6.451 TFLOPS, which is the raw compute power available for rendering.

In Counter-Strike 2, the GPU's role is critical because the game's engine, while CPU-light relative to other titles, still requires substantial pixel throughput at high resolutions. The measured FPS data shows that the RTX 2060's 6 GB VRAM is sufficient for the game's textures, but the bandwidth and compute limits become apparent as resolution increases. At 4K Ultra, the average FPS drops to 52, which is unplayable for competitive play, and even at 4K High, the 67 FPS average is below the 144 Hz threshold that most esports players target. The GPU's Passmark DirectX 12 score of 53 and DirectX 11 score of 110 are low relative to modern parts, confirming its age.

The GPU's nearest rivals in the benchmark database include the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3050 OEM, which scores 15199 (0.6% lower), and the AMD Radeon RX 7600, which scores 15171 (0.8% lower). This clustering shows that the RTX 2060 performs at a level comparable to entry-level modern GPUs, but it lacks the newer features and higher memory bandwidth of those parts. The RTX 2060's 30 RT cores and 240 tensor cores are present, but they have limited impact in a non-ray-traced title like Counter-Strike 2, where the focus is on raw rasterization performance.

Measured FPS Breakdown

The dataset provides exact average FPS figures for three resolutions and four settings, with additional min and max data for Medium settings. At 1920x1080, the system delivers high frame rates: 294 FPS on Low, 244 FPS on Medium (with a range of 208 to 281 FPS), 182 FPS on High, and 142 FPS on Ultra. These numbers indicate that at 1080p, the system is capable of driving high-refresh-rate monitors, especially on Low or Medium settings where competitive players typically operate.

Moving to 2560x1440, the performance drops but remains playable: 194 FPS on Low, 162 FPS on Medium (ranging from 137 to 186 FPS), 121 FPS on High, and 94 FPS on Ultra. The drop from 1080p to 1440p is significant—around 34% on Low settings—but the system still exceeds 90 FPS at the highest preset, which is acceptable for casual play. At 4K, the limitations become severe: 109 FPS on Low, 90 FPS on Medium (ranging from 77 to 104 FPS), 67 FPS on High, and 52 FPS on Ultra. These figures show that 4K gaming is only viable on Low settings, and even then, the frame rate is below what most competitive players would consider smooth.

The Medium settings data provides the most granular look at frame time consistency. At 1080p Medium, the min FPS of 208 and max FPS of 281 show a tight range, indicating stable performance. At 1440p Medium, the range widens to 137-186 FPS, and at 4K Medium, it extends to 77-104 FPS. This widening range suggests that the GPU is struggling to maintain consistent frame times as resolution increases, likely due to memory bandwidth saturation. The absence of min/max data for Low, High, and Ultra settings means the averages are the only guide, but the pattern is clear: the system is best suited for 1080p or 1440p gaming with medium-to-high settings.

FAQ

Q: What is the best resolution for this combo to maintain high frame rates?

A: The data shows that 1920x1080 is the optimal resolution, with average FPS ranging from 142 on Ultra to 294 on Low. At 2560x1440, the system still exceeds 90 FPS on all settings, but at 3840x2160, only the Low preset (109 FPS) and Medium preset (90 FPS) exceed 60 FPS, making 4K unsuitable for high-refresh gaming.

Q: How does the CPU compare to its nearest rivals in the benchmark database?

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 (83807), 1.1% higher than the AMD EPYC 4584PX (83090), and 1.2% higher than the AMD EPYC 9135 (82980). It trails the AMD EPYC 7F72 (85072) by 1.3%.

Q: Is the GPU the bottleneck in this system?

A: Yes, the data indicates the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2060 is the limiting component. The GPU's average benchmark score of 15290 places it near the GTX 580 (15283, 0% delta), while the CPU's 96th percentile ranking among all CPUs suggests it has far more headroom than the GPU can utilize, especially at higher resolutions.

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

A: At 1920x1080, the Low preset achieves 294 FPS average, while the Ultra preset achieves 142 FPS average. This represents a 52% reduction in performance when moving from Low to Ultra, highlighting the significant impact of graphical settings on frame rate.

Q: Does the system meet the requirements for competitive play at 4K?

A: No. At 3840x2160, the highest average FPS is 109 on Low settings, which drops to 52 FPS on Ultra. For competitive play, frame rates above 144 Hz are typically desired, and the system only approaches that range at 1080p Low (294 FPS) or 1440p Low (194 FPS).

Q: How does the RTX 2060's memory configuration affect performance?

A: The GPU has 6 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 192-bit bus, providing 336.0 GB/s of bandwidth. This configuration appears to be a limiting factor at 4K, where the frame rate drops by over 60% compared to 1080p, suggesting the memory bandwidth is saturated at higher resolutions.

Settings Recommendations

For competitive play, where frame rate is paramount, the data strongly favors the Low preset at 1920x1080. This configuration delivers 294 FPS, which is the highest score in the entire dataset and well above the 240 Hz refresh rate common in high-end monitors. The Low preset also yields 194 FPS at 2560x1440, making it a viable option for players who prefer higher resolution without sacrificing too much speed. The 4K Low setting (109 FPS) is the only 4K option that approaches playability, but it still falls short of 144 Hz.

For players who prioritize visual quality over raw frame rate, the Medium preset at 1920x1080 offers a balanced experience. The average FPS of 244 is still very high, and the min FPS of 208 ensures that frame drops are rare, as evidenced by the narrow 208-281 FPS range. At 2560x1440, Medium produces 162 FPS average, which is adequate for 144 Hz monitors, but the min FPS of 137 suggests occasional dips that could be noticeable in fast-paced action. The 4K Medium setting (90 FPS) is borderline playable, but the 77 FPS minimum might cause stutter in intense firefights.

The High and Ultra presets are difficult to recommend for this combo. At 1080p High, the 182 FPS average is decent, but the Ultra preset's 142 FPS is below the 144 Hz threshold. At 1440p, High (121 FPS) and Ultra (94 FPS) both fall short of high-refresh requirements, and at 4K, the 67 FPS High and 52 FPS Ultra averages are unplayable for any serious gaming. Given the GPU's limitations, the optimal experience is either 1080p Low for maximum frame rate or 1080p Medium for a balance of speed and fidelity, with 1440p Low as the alternative for higher resolution without major FPS loss.