Counter-Strike: Global Offensive

Counter-Strike: Global Offensive with the AMD Ryzen 5 7400F and Intel Arc B370 produces a deeply GPU-limited experience across most settings, with CPU headroom remaining ample throughout the tested range. The measured FPS data shows that this combination is best suited for high-refresh-rate 1080p play at Medium or High presets, while 4K performance falls below the competitive threshold. The Arc B370, a 25 W integrated-class part, is the clear bottleneck at every resolution, and the Ryzen 5 7400F’s strong single-threaded scores ensure it is rarely the limiting factor.

Resolution Scaling

The FPS drop from 1080p to 4K reveals a textbook case of GPU-bound scaling. At Low settings, the average frame rate falls from 273 FPS at 1920x1080 to 188 FPS at 2560x1440, a 31% reduction, and then to 111 FPS at 3840x2160, a 59% drop from the 1080p baseline. This steep decline indicates that the Intel Arc B370’s rendering throughput, not the CPU, governs performance as pixel count rises. The GPU’s 1280 shading units and 20 ROPs are simply overwhelmed by the 4x pixel increase from 1080p to 4K.

High settings show a similar pattern, though with lower absolute numbers. At 1920x1080, the average is 202 FPS; at 2560x1440, it drops to 139 FPS (31% lower); and at 3840x2160, it falls to 82 FPS (59% lower than 1080p). The consistency of these percentage drops across Low and High presets strongly suggests that resolution scaling is independent of the graphics preset, which is characteristic of a GPU that is fully saturated. The frame time cost per pixel is nearly constant, meaning there is no hidden CPU stall appearing at higher resolutions.

Ultra settings amplify the GPU limitation further. The 1080p Ultra average is 172 FPS, which drops to 118 FPS at 1440p (31% lower) and 70 FPS at 4K (59% lower). Interestingly, the relative scaling remains almost identical across all four presets, implying that the Arc B370’s fill rate and shader work scale linearly with resolution, without any memory bandwidth cliff. The GPU uses System Shared memory, so bandwidth is dependent on the system configuration, but the measured data does not show any anomalous drop at 4K that would indicate a memory bottleneck beyond the expected pixel-count penalty.

The limiting component is unambiguous: the Intel Arc B370. The Ryzen 5 7400F, with a boost clock of 4.70 GHz and a single-thread PassMark score of 3689, is capable of far higher frame rates in CS:GO, as evidenced by the 273 FPS at 1080p Low. That number is still far below what the CPU could theoretically deliver, but the GPU cannot push beyond it. At 4K Ultra, the 70 FPS average is less than half of the 1080p Low result, confirming that the GPU’s pixel throughput is the hard ceiling. For a competitive shooter like CS:GO, where high frame rates matter, this combination is best kept at 1080p or 1440p with modest settings; 4K is only viable at Low (111 FPS) or Medium (95 FPS), and even those numbers are below what most esports players would consider smooth.

Settings Recommendations

The measured data points to Medium as the optimal preset for this hardware pairing, offering the best balance between visual fidelity and frame rate headroom. At 1920x1080, Medium produces an average of 233 FPS with a minimum of 198 FPS and a maximum of 268 FPS. This is 31 FPS faster than High (202 FPS) and only 40 FPS slower than Low (273 FPS), but with noticeably better image quality than Low. The minimum of 198 FPS at Medium means the frame rate never dips below the 144 Hz refresh rate threshold, which is critical for consistent competitive play.

At 2560x1440, Medium remains the strongest choice. The average of 160 FPS with a minimum of 136 FPS is still playable on a 144 Hz monitor, though the minimum dips below the refresh rate. High at 1440p averages 139 FPS, which is 21 FPS slower than Medium, while Ultra drops to 118 FPS. Low at 1440p reaches 188 FPS, but the visual compromise is substantial for a game where player visibility matters. For 1440p users, Medium is the clear recommendation; it maintains an average above 144 FPS and only occasionally falls below it.

At 3840x2160, no preset provides a truly competitive experience. Low averages 111 FPS, Medium averages 95 FPS, High averages 82 FPS, and Ultra averages 70 FPS. For a game like CS:GO, where reaction time is paramount, anything below 120 FPS is a disadvantage. If 4K is mandatory, Low is the only acceptable option, and even then the 111 FPS average is marginal. The data suggests that this combination is not suitable for 4K competitive play; the GPU simply lacks the throughput. Medium at 1080p or 1440p is the sweet spot, delivering frame rates that comfortably exceed 144 Hz at 1080p and approach it at 1440p, while keeping visual settings reasonable.

Ultra settings are the worst value in the measured set. At 1080p, Ultra (172 FPS) is 61 FPS slower than Medium (233 FPS) and 30 FPS slower than High (202 FPS). The visual difference between High and Ultra in CS:GO is minimal, but the performance cost is steep. At 1440p, Ultra (118 FPS) falls below the 144 Hz mark, and at 4K, it hits 70 FPS, which is barely playable. The recommendation is to avoid Ultra entirely with this hardware; the GPU cannot sustain high frame rates at that preset, and the CPU’s potential is wasted.

FAQ

Q: What is the best resolution for this CPU/GPU combo in CS:GO?

A: The data shows 1920x1080 is the best choice. At Medium settings, the average FPS is 233 with a minimum of 198, which keeps frame times consistent for competitive play. At 2560x1440, the average drops to 160 FPS with a minimum of 136, which is still usable but less consistent. At 3840x2160, even Low settings only average 111 FPS.

Q: How much faster is Low compared to Ultra at each resolution?

A: At 1080p, Low (273 FPS) is 101 FPS faster than Ultra (172 FPS). At 1440p, Low (188 FPS) is 70 FPS faster than Ultra (118 FPS). At 4K, Low (111 FPS) is 41 FPS faster than Ultra (70 FPS). The relative gap narrows as resolution increases, but Low is always significantly faster.

Q: Is the Intel Arc B370 the bottleneck in this system?

A: Yes. The GPU has a 3DMark Steel Nomad score of 1184, placing it in the 5th percentile of all GPUs, and it is an integrated part (IGP) with a 25 W TDP. The FPS scaling from 1080p to 4K shows a 59% drop across all presets, which is consistent with a GPU-limited scenario. The Ryzen 5 7400F, by contrast, sits in the 83rd percentile of CPUs.

Q: Can this combo run CS:GO at 144 Hz?

A: At 1080p, yes. Medium (233 FPS average) and High (202 FPS average) both exceed 144 Hz, and Low (273 FPS) does as well. At 1440p, only Low (188 FPS) and Medium (160 FPS) average above 144 Hz, but Medium’s minimum of 136 FPS means it occasionally drops below. At 4K, no preset averages above 144 Hz.

Q: How does the Ryzen 5 7400F compare to its nearest rivals?

A: The Ryzen 5 7400F has an average benchmark score of 32750, which is 0.1% higher than the Intel Core i5-14600T (32707), 0.2% higher than the Intel Core Ultra 7 155H (32697), and 0.3% higher than the AMD Ryzen AI 7 PRO 360 (32662). It is 0.2% lower than the AMD Ryzen 7 PRO 6850H (32812). These differences are within noise, meaning the CPU is competitive with its peers.

Q: What is the minimum FPS at Medium settings?

A: The measured data includes minimum FPS only for Medium settings. At 1080p, the minimum is 198 FPS. At 1440p, the minimum is 136 FPS. At 4K, the minimum is 80 FPS. These are the only minimum values provided in the data set.

Measured FPS Breakdown

The measured FPS data covers three resolutions and four settings, producing twelve distinct data points. At 1920x1080, Low settings yield an average of 273 FPS, the highest of any configuration. Medium at 1080p averages 233 FPS, with a minimum of 198 FPS and a maximum of 268 FPS. High averages 202 FPS, and Ultra averages 172 FPS. The spread from Low to Ultra at 1080p is 101 FPS, indicating that settings have a substantial impact at this resolution.

At 2560x1440, the averages are 188 FPS for Low, 160 FPS for Medium (minimum 136, maximum 184), 139 FPS for High, and 118 FPS for Ultra. The drop from 1080p to 1440p is consistent across all settings: Low falls by 85 FPS, Medium by 73 FPS, High by 63 FPS, and Ultra by 54 FPS. The absolute difference between Low and Ultra at 1440p is 70 FPS, narrower than at 1080p due to the GPU becoming more saturated.

At 3840x2160, the averages are 111 FPS for Low, 95 FPS for Medium (minimum 80, maximum 109), 82 FPS for High, and 70 FPS for Ultra. The scaling from 1440p to 4K shows a further 41% reduction on average, with Low falling from 188 to 111 FPS, Medium from 160 to 95 FPS, High from 139 to 82 FPS, and Ultra from 118 to 70 FPS. The minimum at 4K Medium is 80 FPS, which is below the 90 FPS threshold many players consider playable.

The data reveals that the gap between Low and Ultra shrinks as resolution increases. At 1080p, Low is 59% faster than Ultra; at 1440p, it is 59% faster; at 4K, it is 59% faster. This consistency suggests the GPU’s performance scales linearly with both resolution and settings, with no unexpected cliffs. The lack of minimum FPS data for Low, High, and Ultra means the Medium minimums (198 at 1080p, 136 at 1440p, 80 at 4K) are the only frame-time consistency metrics available, and they show that 1080p Medium is the only configuration that never drops below 144 FPS.

For competitive play, the 1080p Medium and High presets are the only ones that provide both high averages and consistent frame delivery. The 1440p Medium configuration is borderline, with a minimum of 136 FPS that will cause occasional stutter on a 144 Hz display. The 4K results are uniformly below competitive standards, with even Low averaging only 111 FPS. The overall ranking of this combo in the game is 2615 out of 2848 combinations, placing it in the bottom 8% of tested systems, which aligns with the GPU’s low percentile ranking.

GPU Role

The Intel Arc B370 is the defining component in this system, and its specifications explain the measured performance. It is an integrated GPU (IGP) with a 25 W TDP, built on Intel’s 3 nm process with the Xe3-LPG architecture. It has 1280 shading units, 40 texture mapping units, and 20 ROPs, along with 10 ray tracing cores. Its base clock is 300 MHz, boosting to 2400 MHz. The pixel rate is 48.00 GPixel/s, and the texture rate is 96.00 GTexel/s, with FP32 performance of 6.144 TFLOPS.

The GPU’s memory configuration is System Shared, meaning it uses the system’s DDR5 memory rather than dedicated VRAM. The bus width is also System Shared, and bandwidth is system dependent, so the memory performance is tied to the Ryzen 5 7400F’s dual-channel DDR5 support, which provides 83.2 GB/s. This shared memory setup is typical for integrated graphics and explains why the GPU’s performance is limited by both compute and memory bandwidth. The 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 score is 1184, which places it in the 5th percentile of all GPUs. Its nearest rivals are the ATI Mobility Radeon HD 5570 (1186, 0.2% higher), ATI Radeon HD 5770 (1190, 0.5% higher), AMD Radeon HD 7650M (1192, 0.7% higher), and AMD FirePro M2000 (1168, 1.4% lower). This places the Arc B370 in the performance class of decade-old discrete GPUs, which is consistent with its integrated nature.

The measured FPS data confirms that the GPU is the bottleneck at every resolution. At 1080p Low, the 273 FPS average is likely near the GPU’s maximum draw call throughput, but the CPU could push higher if the GPU allowed. The fact that the FPS drops by 59% from 1080p to 4K across all settings indicates pure pixel-bound scaling, not a CPU limitation. The GPU’s 20 ROPs are particularly weak for high-resolution rendering, as they handle the final pixel output. At 4K, the 8.3 million pixels per frame overwhelm the ROPs, resulting in the 70-111 FPS range. The boost clock of 2400 MHz is respectable for an integrated part, but the low shading unit count (1280) and ROP count (20) limit its throughput. The FP32 performance of 6.144 TFLOPS is sufficient for esports titles at lower resolutions, but not for 4K.

The GPU’s integrated nature also means it shares power and thermal limits with the CPU in some systems, but the 25 W TDP is modest. The data shows that the Arc B370 cannot maintain playable frame rates at 4K Ultra (70 FPS), and even at 1080p Ultra (172 FPS), it falls short of the highest refresh rates. For CS:GO, which is not graphically demanding by modern standards, the GPU still becomes the limiting factor above 1080p Medium. The 3DMark score of 1184 and the 5th percentile ranking are the clearest indicators that this is not a gaming GPU by any measure, and the measured FPS data reinforces that conclusion.

CPU Role

The AMD Ryzen 5 7400F is a 6-core, 12-thread processor based on Zen 4 architecture, codenamed Raphael, manufactured on TSMC’s 5 nm process. It has a base clock of 3.70 GHz and a boost clock of 4.70 GHz, with a TDP of 65 W. The cache configuration includes 64 KB of L1 per core, 1 MB of L2 per core, and 32 MB of shared L3 cache. It supports DDR5 memory in a dual-channel configuration with 83.2 GB/s bandwidth, and it is unlocked for overclocking. The CPU’s benchmark scores are strong: Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 21765 and single-core of 3072, PassMark single-thread of 3689, and a multi-thread score of 25645. Its average benchmark score is 32750, which places it in the 83rd percentile of all CPUs.

The nearest rivals in the data set are all within 0.3% of the Ryzen 5 7400F’s average score. The Intel Core i5-14600T scores 32707 (0.1% lower), the Intel Core Ultra 7 155H scores 32697 (0.2% lower), the AMD Ryzen 7 PRO 6850H scores 32812 (0.2% higher), and the AMD Ryzen AI 7 PRO 360 scores 32662 (0.3% lower). This indicates that the 7400F is a mid-to-high-tier CPU, well above the GPU’s performance class. The single-thread performance is particularly relevant for CS:GO, which is a CPU-light game that relies heavily on one or two cores. The PassMark single-thread score of 3689 and Cinebench R23 single-core score of 3072 are strong, suggesting the CPU could drive frame rates well above 300 FPS in optimal conditions.

However, the measured FPS data shows that the CPU is never the bottleneck in this combination. The highest measured average is 273 FPS at 1080p Low, which is likely below the CPU’s maximum capability. The CPU’s 6 cores and 12 threads are more than sufficient for CS:GO, which rarely uses more than a few threads. The L3 cache of 32 MB is ample for the game’s map data, and the 83.2 GB/s memory bandwidth is not a limiting factor at the frame rates observed. The CPU’s 83rd percentile ranking, versus the GPU’s 5th percentile, creates a massive imbalance: the CPU is capable of far more than the GPU can deliver.

The combo rank in game is 2615 out of 2848, which reflects the GPU’s dominance in limiting overall performance. If the CPU were the bottleneck, we would expect to see flat FPS across different resolutions at the same settings, but the data shows a consistent 59% drop from 1080p to 4K, which is a GPU characteristic. The CPU’s boost clock of 4.70 GHz and Zen 4 architecture are well suited for low-latency esports titles, but the Arc B370 prevents the system from realizing that potential. The CPU’s role in this system is to provide a stable platform with no frame-time hitches, which it does—the measured minimums at Medium settings (198 FPS at 1080p) are close to the averages, indicating consistent frame delivery. The CPU is not the weak link; the GPU is. For users who upgrade the GPU later, the Ryzen 5 7400F would likely support much higher frame rates, but with the Arc B370, the CPU’s headroom is untapped.