Counter-Strike: Global Offensive

The AMD Ryzen 5 7400F paired with the Intel Arc B390 delivers a playable but decidedly entry-level experience in Counter-Strike: Global Offensive, with performance that scales predictably with resolution and settings. The data shows a system that can push high frame rates at 1080p but falls short of the extremes expected from competitive-grade hardware, ranking in the 12th percentile of tested combinations.

Resolution Scaling

The frame rate drop from 1080p to 4K is steep and reveals a GPU-bound scenario at higher resolutions. At High settings, the average frame rate falls from 223 FPS at 1920x1080 to 154 FPS at 2560x1440, a reduction of 69 FPS (31%). Moving to 3840x2160, the average drops further to 91 FPS, which is 59% lower than the 1080p result. This scaling pattern indicates that the Intel Arc B390 is the primary limiting component as pixel count increases.

The gap between Low and Ultra settings widens dramatically at higher resolutions. At 1080p, the spread between Low (303 FPS) and Ultra (190 FPS) is 113 FPS. At 1440p, that spread narrows to 77 FPS (208 FPS Low versus 131 FPS Ultra). At 4K, the spread is 46 FPS (123 FPS Low versus 77 FPS Ultra). This convergence at 4K is a classic sign of the GPU reaching its throughput ceiling; the settings overhead becomes proportionally smaller when the pixel shading workload dominates.

The Medium settings data, which includes minimum and maximum frame rates, provides insight into frame time consistency. At 4K Medium, the average is 105 FPS with a minimum of 89 FPS and a maximum of 120 FPS. At 1440p Medium, the average is 177 FPS with a minimum of 151 FPS and a maximum of 204 FPS. At 1080p Medium, the average is 258 FPS with a minimum of 219 FPS and a maximum of 296 FPS. The minimum frame rates stay within 82-85% of the average across all three resolutions, suggesting no catastrophic frame time spikes, but the absolute minimums at 4K (89 FPS) are below the 144Hz threshold that competitive players often target.

For players prioritizing frame rate over visual fidelity, the Low setting at 1080p delivers 303 FPS, which is sufficient for high-refresh-rate monitors. However, the data indicates that chasing Ultra settings at 4K (77 FPS) sacrifices more than half the performance of Low at 1080p. The scaling curve is smooth, with no anomalous jumps, confirming that the bottleneck shifts from the CPU at low resolutions to the GPU at high resolutions.

GPU Role

The Intel Arc B390 is an integrated graphics processor based on the Xe3-LPG architecture, manufactured on Intel's 3 nm process. Its boost clock of 2500 MHz and base clock of 300 MHz define a wide dynamic range, but the hardware resources are limited: 1536 shading units, 48 texture mapping units, and 24 raster output units. The GPU's memory is system shared, meaning its bandwidth is dependent on the host system's memory configuration, which in this case is the Ryzen 5 7400F's dual-channel DDR5 at 83.2 GB/s.

The GPU's benchmark standing is modest. Its 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 score of 1482 places it in the 9th percentile of all GPUs, with nearest rivals including the NVIDIA GeForce GT 520MX (1463, 1.3% slower) and the NVIDIA GeForce 800M (1460, 1.5% slower). This context explains the measured FPS results: the Arc B390 is not a discrete gaming part but an integrated solution competing with decade-old entry-level discrete GPUs.

In CS:GO, the GPU's role becomes dominant at 4K. The difference between Low (123 FPS) and Ultra (77 FPS) at 4K is 46 FPS, a 37% performance penalty for the highest settings. At 1080p, the same settings comparison shows a 113 FPS penalty (303 FPS Low versus 190 FPS Ultra), which is a 37% reduction as well. This proportional penalty across resolutions suggests the GPU's shading rate scales consistently, but the absolute numbers reveal that even at Low settings, 4K performance (123 FPS) barely exceeds the 1080p Ultra result (190 FPS) by a margin of 67 FPS.

The pixel rate of 60.00 GPixel/s and texture rate of 120.0 GTexel/s are the theoretical ceilings that explain the 4K bottleneck. At 3840x2160, the GPU must fill over 8.3 million pixels per frame; at 77 FPS that is roughly 640 million pixels per second, which approaches the pixel rate limit. The FP32 throughput of 7.680 TFLOPS is sufficient for the game's light shader work, but the memory bandwidth dependency of the system-shared design likely caps performance in high-resolution scenarios.

CPU Role

The AMD Ryzen 5 7400F is a 6-core, 12-thread Zen 4 processor with a base clock of 3.70 GHz and a boost clock of 4.70 GHz. It is built on TSMC's 5 nm process with 6,570 million transistors on a 71 mm² die. The CPU's cache hierarchy includes 64 KB L1 per core, 1 MB L2 per core, and 32 MB shared L3. Its multi-threaded performance is strong, as evidenced by a Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 21765 and a single-core score of 3072.

The CPU's benchmark standing is far superior to the GPU's. Its average benchmark score of 32750 places it in the 83rd percentile of all CPUs, with nearest rivals including the Intel Core i5-14600T (32707, 0.1% slower) and the Intel Core Ultra 7 155H (32697, 0.2% slower). This percentile gap between the CPU (83rd) and GPU (9th) is the defining characteristic of this combo: the processor is capable of feeding far more frames than the integrated graphics can render.

In CS:GO, which is traditionally CPU-bound at low resolutions and high frame rates, the Ryzen 5 7400F proves to be more than sufficient. The 1080p Low result of 303 FPS is a clear indicator that the CPU can sustain high draw call rates and physics updates. The single-thread performance, measured by PassMark single-thread score of 3689 and Cinebench R23 single-core score of 3072, is critical for this game's engine, which relies heavily on a primary thread for game logic.

The CPU's 12 threads provide headroom for background tasks and streaming, but the data shows no evidence of CPU limitation in this combo. At 4K Ultra (77 FPS), the CPU is almost certainly idle waiting on the GPU. Even at 1080p Low (303 FPS), the frame rate is below what the CPU could theoretically deliver, given its 83rd percentile standing. The bottleneck is unambiguous: the Arc B390 is the constraining component at every resolution and settings combination tested.

FAQ

Q: Is this combo capable of 144Hz gaming in CS:GO?

A: At 1080p Low settings, the average frame rate is 303 FPS, which exceeds 144Hz. At 1080p High, the average drops to 223 FPS, still above 144Hz. However, at 1440p High, the average is 154 FPS, barely above 144Hz. At 4K High, the average is 91 FPS, which is below 144Hz.

Q: How does the Intel Arc B390 compare to its nearest GPU rivals?

A: The Arc B390's 3DMark Steel Nomad score of 1482 is 1.3% higher than the NVIDIA GeForce GT 520MX (1463) and 1.5% higher than the NVIDIA GeForce 800M (1460). It is 2.5% ahead of the GT 625 OEM (1446) and 2.7% ahead of the GT 710 (1443).

Q: What is the frame rate difference between Low and Ultra settings at 1440p?

A: At 2560x1440, Low settings produce an average of 208 FPS, while Ultra produces 131 FPS. The difference is 77 FPS, representing a 37% performance reduction for Ultra settings.

Q: Does the Ryzen 5 7400F bottleneck the Arc B390 in this game?

A: No. The CPU's 83rd percentile standing and high single-thread scores (Cinebench R23 single-core of 3072) indicate it can handle the game's CPU demands. The GPU, in the 9th percentile, is the limiting factor at all tested resolutions.

Q: What are the minimum frame rates at Medium settings?

A: At 1080p Medium, the minimum is 219 FPS with an average of 258 FPS. At 1440p Medium, the minimum is 151 FPS with an average of 177 FPS. At 4K Medium, the minimum is 89 FPS with an average of 105 FPS.

Q: How does the CPU's multi-threaded performance compare to its rivals?

A: The Ryzen 5 7400F's average benchmark score of 32750 is 0.1% higher than the Intel Core i5-14600T (32707) and 0.2% higher than the Intel Core Ultra 7 155H (32697). It is 0.2% lower than the AMD Ryzen 7 PRO 6850H (32812) and 0.3% higher than the AMD Ryzen AI 7 PRO 360 (32662).

How This Combo Ranks

The combination of the AMD Ryzen 5 7400F and Intel Arc B390 ranks 2510 out of 2848 tested combos in CS:GO. This places it in the bottom 12% of all configurations, which is consistent with the GPU's 9th percentile standing. The CPU's 83rd percentile ranking does little to boost the combo's position because the game's frame rate is fundamentally limited by the GPU in this pairing.

The rank of 2510 means that 338 tested combos performed worse. This is not a competitive configuration for CS:GO in the context of the benchmark database. The data suggests that any combo with a discrete GPU, even an older entry-level one, would likely rank higher. The Arc B390's integrated nature, with system-shared memory, places it at a significant disadvantage compared to dedicated graphics solutions.

For context, the GPU's nearest rivals (GT 520MX, GeForce 800M) are also low-performing parts, but their presence in the database indicates that the Arc B390 is grouped with legacy mobile and OEM graphics. The combo rank reflects this: it is a functional but not desirable setup for a game that benefits greatly from high frame rates. Players using this combo would need to accept lower resolutions and settings to achieve playable performance, which the measured FPS data confirms.

Measured FPS Breakdown

The following table presents the exact measured average frame rates for each resolution and settings combination:

| Resolution | Settings | Average FPS | Minimum FPS | Maximum FPS |

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

| 3840x2160 | High | 91 | — | — |

| 3840x2160 | Low | 123 | — | — |

| 3840x2160 | Medium | 105 | 89 | 120 |

| 3840x2160 | Ultra | 77 | — | — |

| 2560x1440 | High | 154 | — | — |

| 2560x1440 | Low | 208 | — | — |

| 2560x1440 | Medium | 177 | 151 | 204 |

| 2560x1440 | Ultra | 131 | — | — |

| 1920x1080 | High | 223 | — | — |

| 1920x1080 | Low | 303 | — | — |

| 1920x1080 | Medium | 258 | 219 | 296 |

| 1920x1080 | Ultra | 190 | — | — |

At 1080p, the data shows a clear hierarchy: Low (303 FPS) > Medium (258 FPS) > High (223 FPS) > Ultra (190 FPS). The step from Low to Medium is 45 FPS, Medium to High is 35 FPS, and High to Ultra is 33 FPS. This suggests diminishing returns in performance cost as settings increase, with Ultra costing 37% of the Low performance.

At 1440p, the same hierarchy holds: Low (208 FPS) > Medium (177 FPS) > High (154 FPS) > Ultra (131 FPS). The absolute differences are smaller (31 FPS from Low to Medium, 23 FPS from Medium to High, 23 FPS from High to Ultra), reflecting the GPU's increased workload.

At 4K, the hierarchy is preserved but compressed: Low (123 FPS) > Medium (105 FPS) > High (91 FPS) > Ultra (77 FPS). The differences are 18 FPS, 14 FPS, and 14 FPS respectively. The minimum frame rates at Medium settings — 89 FPS at 4K, 151 FPS at 1440p, and 219 FPS at 1080p — are the only recorded minimums in the data, and they show that even the worst-case frame times remain within 15% of the average. This consistency is a positive sign for gameplay smoothness, though the absolute values at 4K are underwhelming.