Counter-Strike: Global Offensive

# How This Combo Ranks

The AMD Ryzen 7 3700X paired with the Intel Arc B570 achieves a combo rank of 2271 out of 2848 tested combinations in Counter-Strike: Global Offensive. This places the pairing in the bottom 20% of all tested combos, which is a notable underperformance for a system with an 8-core/16-thread CPU and a discrete 10GB GPU.

To contextualize this ranking, consider that the CPU alone sits in the 84th percentile among all processors, while the GPU sits in the 65th percentile among all graphics cards. Despite both components ranking above the median individually, their combined performance in this specific title lands them near the bottom quartile. This suggests that either the game's engine is not leveraging the hardware's strengths, or there is a significant bottleneck that limits the system's output.

The data reveals a stark contrast between the component's theoretical capabilities and their real-world performance in CS:GO. The Ryzen 7 3700X has a Passmark multithread score of 22,458, and the Arc B570 has a Passmark G3D score of 14,195, yet the combo still ranks 2271st. This disconnect implies that CS:GO's frame rate is heavily dependent on factors beyond raw compute performance, likely related to the game's single-threaded nature and driver-level efficiency.

Comparing to other tested combos, the system sits in the 79.7th percentile of underperformance, meaning roughly 80% of all tested pairs deliver higher average frame rates in this game. This is particularly striking for an FPS title where high refresh rates are crucial, as the hardware should theoretically support much higher output than the ranking suggests.

GPU Role

The Intel Arc B570 is built on the Xe2-HPG architecture, codenamed Battlemage, manufactured on a 5nm process at TSMC. The GPU features 2,304 shading units, 144 texture mapping units, and 80 raster output pipelines, with 18 ray tracing cores. Its base and boost clocks are both locked at 2500 MHz, with memory running at 2375 MHz (19 Gbps effective) across a 160-bit bus.

The memory configuration consists of 10GB of GDDR6 with a total bandwidth of 380.0 GB/s. This is a substantial amount of VRAM for a game released in 2012, and the bandwidth is more than sufficient for CS:GO's modest texture requirements. The pixel rate is 200.0 GPixel/s and the texture rate is 360.0 GTexel/s, both of which are far above what a game from the early 2010s would demand.

The GPU's raw compute output is rated at 11.52 TFLOPS for FP32 operations, which is impressive on paper. However, the measured FPS in CS:GO suggests that the Arc B570 is not being fully utilized. In the game's benchmark data, the GPU's Passmark DirectX 11 score is 118, and its DirectX 9 score is 164 — the latter being more relevant since CS:GO historically runs on a DirectX 9-based engine.

The data shows that the Arc B570's performance in this title is not limited by memory capacity or bandwidth. At 4K Ultra settings, the system produces 119 FPS average, and at 4K Low settings it jumps to 189 FPS. This scaling pattern indicates that the GPU is capable of handling the workload but is being constrained by other factors. The GPU's percentile ranking of 65th among all GPUs suggests it is a mid-tier performer overall, but in CS:GO specifically, the frame rates achieved are lower than what its specifications would suggest, implying the game's engine may not be optimized for Intel's Arc architecture.

FAQ

Q: What is the highest average frame rate this combo achieves in CS:GO?

A: The maximum measured average FPS is 465, achieved at 1920x1080 resolution with Low settings. This is the only configuration that breaks the 400 FPS barrier in the dataset.

Q: How much does the GPU's VRAM affect performance in this game?

A: The Arc B570 has 10GB of GDDR6 memory, but the data shows that VRAM capacity is not a limiting factor. At 4K Ultra settings, the system still manages 119 FPS average, indicating that memory is not saturated even at the highest resolution and settings.

Q: Is there a significant difference between Medium and High settings?

A: Yes, the gap is substantial. At 1080p, Medium settings produce 396 FPS average while High settings produce 343 FPS — a difference of 53 FPS. At 1440p, the gap is 37 FPS (273 vs 236), and at 4K it narrows to 22 FPS (161 vs 139).

Q: Which preset provides the smoothest minimum frame rate?

A: The only configurations with recorded minimum FPS are Medium settings. At 1080p Medium, the minimum is 337 FPS; at 1440p Medium, it drops to 232 FPS; at 4K Medium, it falls to 137 FPS. These are the only data points with min FPS values, making Medium the only settable option with known frame time consistency.

Q: How does the CPU's single-thread performance impact results?

A: The Ryzen 7 3700X has a Cinebench R15 single-core score of 204 and a Passmark single-thread score of 2,656. Given that CS:GO is known to favor single-thread performance, these scores are modest by modern standards, and the data suggests they contribute to the combo's low rank of 2271 out of 2848.

Q: What is the frame rate drop when moving from 1080p to 4K at the same settings?

A: At High settings, the average FPS drops from 343 at 1080p to 236 at 1440p, and then to 139 at 4K — a total reduction of 204 FPS or 59.5%. At Low settings, the drop is from 465 to 320 to 189, representing a 276 FPS reduction or 59.4%.

Measured FPS Breakdown

The measured data provides a comprehensive picture of performance across three resolutions and four settings levels. The system was tested at 1920x1080, 2560x1440, and 3840x2160, with Low, Medium, High, and Ultra presets.

At 1080p, the results are as follows: Low settings yield an average of 465 FPS, Medium produces 396 FPS with a minimum of 337 and maximum of 456, High achieves 343 FPS, and Ultra delivers 293 FPS. The spread from Low to Ultra is 172 FPS, which is a 37% reduction in performance when moving from the lowest to highest settings.

Moving to 1440p, the frame rates scale down proportionally. Low settings average 320 FPS, Medium averages 273 FPS with a minimum of 232 and maximum of 314, High averages 236 FPS, and Ultra averages 201 FPS. The total drop from 1080p to 1440p at Low settings is 145 FPS (31.2%), while at Ultra it is 92 FPS (31.4%).

At 4K, the performance further diminishes. Low settings produce 189 FPS average, Medium produces 161 FPS with a minimum of 137 and maximum of 185, High produces 139 FPS, and Ultra produces 119 FPS. Notably, the gap between Low and Ultra at 4K is only 70 FPS, compared to 172 FPS at 1080p, indicating that resolution scaling compresses the settings differential.

The Medium preset is the only one with recorded minimum and maximum FPS values across all resolutions, providing insight into frame pacing. At 1080p, the range is 337 to 456, a spread of 119 FPS. At 1440p, the range narrows to 232 to 314, a spread of 82 FPS. At 4K, the range tightens further to 137 to 185, a spread of 48 FPS.

Resolution Scaling

The data reveals a consistent pattern of frame rate reduction as resolution increases. Moving from 1080p to 1440p, the average FPS drops by approximately 31% across all settings. Moving from 1440p to 4K, the drop is more pronounced, averaging about 41% across settings.

Specifically, at Low settings, the FPS progression is 465 → 320 → 189, representing a 31.2% drop from 1080p to 1440p and a 40.9% drop from 1440p to 4K. At Medium settings, the progression is 396 → 273 → 161, with drops of 31.1% and 41.0% respectively. At High settings, the progression is 343 → 236 → 139, with drops of 31.2% and 41.1%. At Ultra settings, the progression is 293 → 201 → 119, with drops of 31.4% and 40.8%.

This scaling pattern is remarkably uniform across all settings levels, with the 1080p-to-1440p drop consistently around 31% and the 1440p-to-4K drop consistently around 41%. This uniformity suggests that the limiting factor is resolution-dependent rather than settings-dependent, pointing toward the GPU as the primary bottleneck at higher resolutions.

However, the absolute frame rates at 1080p are extraordinarily high, reaching 465 FPS at Low settings. This indicates that at 1080p, the system has ample headroom, and the CPU may become the limiting factor. The fact that the FPS drops by roughly the same percentage at all settings levels suggests that neither the CPU nor GPU is exclusively responsible — rather, it appears to be a balanced workload shift as pixel count increases.

CPU Role

The AMD Ryzen 7 3700X is an 8-core, 16-thread processor based on the Zen 2 architecture, codenamed Matisse. It operates with a base clock of 3.60 GHz and a boost clock of 4.40 GHz, with a 65W TDP. The CPU features 64KB of L1 cache per core, 512KB of L2 cache per core, and 32MB of shared L3 cache.

In terms of raw multi-threaded performance, the 3700X scores 2,092 in Cinebench R15 multicore and 8,899 in Geekbench multicore. Its Passmark multithread score is 22,458, which places it in the 84th percentile of all CPUs. However, its single-thread scores are less impressive: 204 in Cinebench R15 single-core, 1,593 in Geekbench single-core, and 2,656 in Passmark single-thread.

For a game like CS:GO, which historically relies heavily on single-thread performance, these numbers are critical. The data shows that the combo ranks only 2271st out of 2848 tested, which strongly suggests the CPU's single-thread capability is a limiting factor. The Ryzen 7 3700X was released in 2019, and while it remains competitive in multi-threaded workloads, its per-core performance is dated compared to newer architectures.

The CPU's memory bandwidth is 51.2 GB/s over a dual-channel DDR4 interface, which is adequate but not exceptional. The processor supports PCIe Gen 4 with 24 lanes, which is more than sufficient for the Arc B570's PCIe 4.0 x8 interface. The 3,800 million transistors on a 74 mm² die indicate a mature 7nm process, but the architecture's single-thread efficiency is where it falls short for this specific title.

Settings Recommendations

Based on the measured FPS data, the optimal settings depend on the user's resolution and refresh rate priorities. For competitive play at 1080p, Low settings deliver the highest average FPS at 465, which is well above any current high-refresh-rate monitor's capabilities. Medium settings at 1080p still provide 396 FPS average with a minimum of 337 FPS, offering a balance between visual quality and frame rate that exceeds even 360Hz displays.

At 1440p, Low settings produce 320 FPS average, which is suitable for 240Hz monitors, while Medium settings yield 273 FPS with a minimum of 232 FPS — still sufficient for high refresh rates. High settings at 1440p drop to 236 FPS, which is adequate for 144Hz displays but falls short of 240Hz thresholds. Ultra settings at 1440p produce 201 FPS, which is marginal for 240Hz but acceptable for 144Hz.

For 4K gaming, the situation changes dramatically. Low settings achieve 189 FPS average, which is below 240Hz but suitable for 144Hz displays. Medium settings drop to 161 FPS with a minimum of 137 FPS, which is still above 120Hz. High settings produce 139 FPS, and Ultra settings fall to 119 FPS — both are sufficient for 120Hz displays but not for higher refresh rates.

The data suggests that Medium settings offer the best balance of performance and visual quality, as it is the only preset with recorded minimum FPS values across all resolutions, indicating better frame pacing consistency. At 1080p Medium, the system maintains a minimum of 337 FPS; at 1440p Medium, it stays above 232 FPS; and at 4K Medium, it never drops below 137 FPS. For users prioritizing maximum frame rates over visual fidelity, Low settings at 1080p or 1440p are the recommended choice, as they provide the highest headroom for competitive play.