Counter-Strike 2

The data for Counter-Strike 2 with the Intel Core Ultra 9 290K Plus and NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5050 reveals a system that is heavily constrained by the GPU at higher resolutions, but which unlocks exceptional frame rates at lower settings. The performance scaling across resolutions is steep and tells a clear story about where the bottleneck lies.

Resolution Scaling

The measured FPS values demonstrate a classic GPU-bound progression. At 1080p with Low settings, the combo produces 339 FPS. Moving to 1440p drops that to 225 FPS, a reduction of approximately 34%. At 4K, the Low preset yields 126 FPS, which is 63% below the 1080p result. This sharp decline as pixel count increases is the signature of a graphics card working at its limits; the CPU is not the primary constraint at these settings.

The scaling pattern holds across all presets. At High settings, the frame rate falls from 211 FPS at 1080p to 139 FPS at 1440p, and then to 78 FPS at 4K. The Ultra preset shows a similar trajectory: 163 FPS at 1080p, 108 FPS at 1440p, and 60 FPS at 4K. The consistent halving of performance between 1080p and 4K across multiple presets indicates that the RTX 5050's rendering throughput is the limiting factor, not the CPU's ability to feed it frames.

The delta between 1080p and 1440p is also informative. At Low settings, the drop is 114 FPS, while at High it is 72 FPS. The larger absolute drop at Low settings suggests that when the GPU has less work per pixel, it can more easily saturate, making the resolution change more impactful. In competitive scenarios where players often seek maximum frame rates, this system will require 1080p to approach the 300+ FPS territory. The 4K results, while playable at 60 FPS on Ultra, are clearly not the target for high-refresh-rate competitive play.

GPU Role

The NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5050 is the dominant performance driver in this pairing. Its 8 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 128-bit bus provides 320.0 GB/s of bandwidth. In a game like Counter-Strike 2, which is not typically considered a VRAM-heavy title, the 8 GB capacity appears sufficient for the measured settings, as no outliers or stutters are reported in the min FPS for the Medium preset. The GPU's 20 RT cores and 80 tensor cores are present, but the game's performance is likely more dependent on the 2560 shading units.

The clock speeds are modest for a modern GPU, with a base of 2317 MHz and a boost of 2572 MHz. The FP32 compute is rated at 13.17 TFLOPS. These specifications place the RTX 5050 in a performance tier that is well-suited for 1080p and 1440p gaming. The benchmark results confirm this: the GPU's average benchmark score is 21035, and it sits in the 66th percentile of all GPUs. It is closely matched with the AMD Radeon RX 5600 XT, which scores 1.6% higher, and the AMD Radeon RX Vega M GL, which is 0.6% lower. This proximity to older mid-range parts contextualizes the 4K performance. At 4K Ultra, the card delivers exactly 60 FPS, which is a playable console-like experience, but the 1080p Low result of 339 FPS shows where the card's true strengths lie.

The GPU's memory bandwidth of 320.0 GB/s is a notable factor. At 4K, the pixel throughput demands are high, and the 128-bit bus could be a constraint. However, the performance scaling from 1440p to 4K at High settings (139 to 78 FPS) suggests a linear relationship with pixel count, which points more toward raw shader throughput than memory bandwidth being the primary limiter. The GPU is clearly the component that dictates the ceiling for frame rates in this configuration.

Settings Recommendations

The measured data suggests that the optimal settings depend entirely on the target refresh rate. For 1080p displays with 240 Hz or higher refresh rates, the Low preset is the only option that can keep up, delivering 339 FPS. The Medium preset at 1080p produces 282 FPS, which is still exceptionally high and would be suitable for most high-refresh monitors. The High preset at 211 FPS is also viable for 1440p high-refresh displays, where it hits 139 FPS.

For a balanced visual experience, the Medium preset appears to be the sweet spot. At 1080p, it offers 282 FPS, which is only 17% lower than Low but provides a substantial visual upgrade. At 1440p, Medium delivers 187 FPS, which is excellent for competitive play. The min FPS for Medium at 1080p is 240, and at 1440p it is 159, indicating that the frame pacing remains stable even during intense scenes. This consistency is crucial for a fast-paced FPS.

The Ultra preset is where the system begins to struggle. At 1440p, it produces 108 FPS, which is playable but not ideal for high-refresh competitive use. At 4K, it drops to exactly 60 FPS. Unless a player has a 4K 60 Hz monitor and prioritizes visual fidelity, the Ultra preset is not recommended for this combo. The High preset at 4K offers 78 FPS, which is a better compromise if 4K is required. For most users, the data indicates that Medium at 1440p or Low at 1080p will yield the best experience, maximizing frame rate while maintaining acceptable visuals.

How This Combo Ranks

In the database of tested combinations for Counter-Strike 2, this specific pairing of the Intel Core Ultra 9 290K Plus and the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5050 ranks 1731 out of 2870 tested combos. This places it in the 60th percentile of all tested systems for this game. While not a top-tier configuration, this rank is respectable given the GPU's modest specifications.

The rank is likely held back by the GPU's performance ceiling. The CPU is a top-tier part, but the RTX 5050's average benchmark score of 21035 is only in the 66th percentile of all GPUs. The combination of a high-end CPU with a mid-range GPU results in a system that is GPU-limited in most scenarios, which caps its overall ranking. The data suggests that this combo outperforms a significant portion of the tested systems, but it is far from the top 10% of configurations.

The CPU's nearest rivals show that the processor itself is not the bottleneck. The Intel Core Ultra 9 290K Plus scores an average of 84003 in benchmarks, placing it in the 96th percentile of all CPUs. It is 0.2% faster than the Intel Core Ultra 9 285K and 1.2% faster than the AMD EPYC 9135. This demonstrates that the CPU is performing at the expected level. Therefore, the combo's rank of 1731 is a direct reflection of the GPU's performance tier. If the RTX 5050 were paired with a weaker CPU, the rank would likely be similar, confirming that the graphics card is the limiting factor in this system's overall standing in Counter-Strike 2.

CPU Role

The Intel Core Ultra 9 290K Plus plays a supporting role in this configuration, but it is a highly capable one. With 24 cores and 24 threads, it offers substantial parallel processing power. Its base clock of 3.70 GHz and boost clock of 5.80 GHz are high, and its 36 MB of shared L3 cache helps reduce memory latency. These specifications ensure that the CPU will not bottleneck the GPU in most gaming scenarios, and the data supports this.

In synthetic benchmarks, the CPU excels. It scores 51731 in Cinebench R23 multi-core and 7303 in single-core. These scores place it in the 96th percentile of all CPUs, indicating that it is one of the fastest processors available. However, in Counter-Strike 2, the game's engine is often more sensitive to single-core performance and memory speed. The CPU's single-core score of 7303 is excellent, and its dual-channel DDR5 memory support with 115.2 GB/s of bandwidth provides a solid foundation for the game's data streaming.

The CPU's role becomes more apparent at lower resolutions. At 1080p Low, the frame rate of 339 FPS is high, but it is not limited by the CPU. If the CPU were the bottleneck, we would see similar frame rates across all resolutions. Instead, the frame rate drops significantly at higher resolutions, confirming that the GPU is the primary constraint. The CPU is performing its job efficiently, feeding the GPU with enough data to keep it busy. The 24 threads are more than sufficient for a game like Counter-Strike 2, which typically uses fewer than 8 threads. The high boost clock of 5.80 GHz is likely the key attribute here, ensuring that the game's main thread has ample processing headroom. This CPU is overqualified for the task, but its performance ensures that the RTX 5050 is the only factor limiting frame rates.

Measured FPS Breakdown

The following table details the exact average FPS measurements for the Intel Core Ultra 9 290K Plus and NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5050 in Counter-Strike 2. The data shows a clear progression of performance based on resolution and settings.

At 1920x1080, the system delivers its highest frame rates. The Low preset averages 339 FPS, which is the peak performance for this combo. Medium averages 282 FPS, with a minimum of 240 FPS and a maximum of 324 FPS. High averages 211 FPS, and Ultra averages 163 FPS. These numbers indicate that at 1080p, the system is capable of driving even the fastest refresh rate monitors, provided the settings are kept at Medium or below.

Moving to 2560x1440, the performance drops are significant. Low averages 225 FPS, Medium averages 187 FPS (with a min of 159 and max of 215), High averages 139 FPS, and Ultra averages 108 FPS. This resolution is still highly playable for competitive use, particularly on Low or Medium settings.

At 3840x2160, the system is firmly GPU-bound. Low averages 126 FPS, Medium averages 104 FPS (with a min of 89 and max of 120), High averages 78 FPS, and Ultra averages 60 FPS. The 4K results are playable, but they do not offer the high frame rates that competitive players seek. The data shows that the Medium preset at 4K provides a smooth 104 FPS experience, which is a reasonable target for a high-quality visual setting on this resolution. The Ultra preset at 4K hits exactly 60 FPS, which is the minimum for a playable experience but leaves no headroom for demanding scenes.

| Resolution | Settings | Avg FPS | Min FPS | Max FPS |

|------------|----------|---------|---------|---------|

| 1920x1080 | Low | 339 | - | - |

| 1920x1080 | Medium | 282 | 240 | 324 |

| 1920x1080 | High | 211 | - | - |

| 1920x1080 | Ultra | 163 | - | - |

| 2560x1440 | Low | 225 | - | - |

| 2560x1440 | Medium | 187 | 159 | 215 |

| 2560x1440 | High | 139 | - | - |

| 2560x1440 | Ultra | 108 | - | - |

| 3840x2160 | Low | 126 | - | - |

| 3840x2160 | Medium | 104 | 89 | 120 |

| 3840x2160 | High | 78 | - | - |

| 3840x2160 | Ultra | 60 | - | - |