Counter-Strike: Global Offensive

Counter-Strike: Global Offensive, paired with the AMD Ryzen 7 9700F and Intel Arc B370, presents a dataset dominated by the graphics processor's limitations. The measured frames per second (FPS) across resolutions and settings reveal a configuration where the CPU's substantial headroom is consistently capped by the integrated GPU's throughput. The data indicates a clear hierarchy: performance scales with resolution and settings in a pattern typical of a GPU-bound scenario, but the absolute figures remain modest due to the Arc B370's position in the benchmark percentile rankings.

Resolution Scaling

The transition from 1920x1080 to 3840x2160 produces a dramatic reduction in average FPS, confirming that the rendering pipeline is the primary bottleneck. At the High preset, the average frame rate drops from 202 FPS at 1080p to 139 FPS at 1440p, and further to 82 FPS at 4K. This represents a 31% decrease from 1080p to 1440p and a further 41% decrease from 1440p to 4K. The absolute drop of 120 FPS between the lowest and highest tested resolutions at High settings is substantial, indicating that the Arc B370's shading units and texture units are saturated as pixel count increases.

The scaling pattern is not linear, which provides insight into the limiting component. From 1080p to 1440p, the frame rate drops by roughly a third, while the pixel count increases by 1.78 times. If the GPU were the sole limiter, one might expect a more proportional decrease. The fact that the drop is less severe suggests that at 1080p, the CPU is still partially contributing to frame pacing, but by 1440p, the GPU becomes the definitive constraint. The gap between Low and Ultra settings widens as resolution increases: at 1080p, the difference between Low (273 FPS) and Ultra (172 FPS) is 101 FPS; at 4K, the same comparison yields a difference of 41 FPS (111 vs 70). This compression of the settings range at higher resolutions is a classic symptom of the GPU becoming the sole bottleneck, as the cost of additional visual fidelity is masked by the sheer pixel throughput demand.

The medium preset rows provide the only min and max FPS data in the pack, offering a glimpse into frame time consistency. At 4K Medium, the average is 95 FPS with a minimum of 80 and maximum of 109, a spread of 29 FPS. At 1440p Medium, the average is 160 FPS with a range of 48 FPS (136 min, 184 max). At 1080p Medium, the average is 233 FPS with a range of 70 FPS (198 min, 268 max). The absolute spread increases at lower resolutions, but the relative variability (range divided by average) remains similar, suggesting that frame pacing is stable regardless of resolution. The data shows that pushing to 4K on this combo yields a playable but not high-refresh experience, while 1080p is where the CPU's potential can partially manifest.

Settings Recommendations

Benchmark results indicate that the optimal experience depends heavily on the target display refresh rate. For 1080p panels, the Low preset delivers 273 FPS, which is the only settings combination in the entire dataset that breaches the 270 FPS threshold. This is the only way to approach maximum refresh rates on high-speed monitors. The Medium preset at 1080p yields 233 FPS, still excellent for competitive play, while High drops to 202 FPS and Ultra falls to 172 FPS. Given that CS:GO is a competitive FPS, the data strongly favors prioritizing frame rate over visual fidelity at this resolution. The Low preset's 273 FPS is 71 FPS higher than Medium and 101 FPS higher than Ultra, a margin that directly translates to smoother input response.

At 1440p, the situation shifts. The Low preset achieves 188 FPS, which remains suitable for high-refresh gaming, while Medium hits 160 FPS. High and Ultra trail at 139 and 118 FPS, respectively. The step from Low to Medium costs 28 FPS, a 15% reduction, but the visual improvement in texture filtering and shadow quality may be worth it for some users. For a 144Hz display, Medium is the highest preset that maintains a comfortable margin above the refresh rate. Ultra at 118 FPS would still be playable on a 120Hz panel but would not fully saturate a 144Hz display.

At 4K, no preset achieves a triple-digit frame rate except Low, which hits 111 FPS. Medium yields 95 FPS, High 82 FPS, and Ultra 70 FPS. For a 60Hz display, all presets are playable, but the data suggests that Medium is the sweet spot for 4K, offering 95 FPS with the only recorded min FPS of 80, ensuring no drops below 60 FPS. High and Ultra reduce the average further, and while they provide more visual detail, the diminishing returns in FPS are significant. The recommendation from the measured rows is clear: use Low for 1080p competitive play, Medium for 1440p balanced play, and Medium for 4K if visual quality is desired, otherwise Low for the highest frame rate.

GPU Role

The Intel Arc B370 is the definitive limiting factor in this configuration. Its benchmark score of 1184 in the 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 test places it in the 5th percentile of all GPUs, a very low standing. The nearest rivals in the benchmark database are ATI Mobility Radeon HD 5570 (score 1186, delta -0.2%), ATI Radeon HD 5770 (score 1190, delta -0.5%), AMD Radeon HD 7650M (score 1192, delta -0.7%), and AMD FirePro M2000 (score 1168, delta 1.4%). This places the Arc B370 in the company of legacy and low-power mobile parts from over a decade ago, which accurately reflects its performance class in this dataset.

The GPU's specifications corroborate its integrated nature. It operates with a base clock of 300 MHz and a boost clock of 2400 MHz, with system-shared memory. The memory bandwidth is listed as "System Dependent," which means its performance is tied to the CPU's memory subsystem. The Ryzen 7 9700F supports dual-channel DDR5 with a memory bandwidth of 89.6 GB/s, but the GPU's access to this bandwidth is shared with the CPU, creating potential contention. The 1280 shading units, 40 texture mapping units, and 20 render output units are modest numbers, and the pixel rate of 48.00 GPixel/s with a texture rate of 96.00 GTexel/s are far below what a discrete solution would offer. The FP32 throughput of 6.144 TFLOPS is the raw compute ceiling, but the measured FPS shows that this theoretical peak is not sustainable in real-world rendering.

The 25 W TDP and IGP slot width classify this as a low-power integrated solution. The data shows that even at 1080p Low, the GPU is producing 273 FPS, which seems high, but this is a reflection of CS:GO's age and optimization rather than the GPU's raw power. The GPU's percentile rank of 5 means that 95% of tested GPUs are faster, and the measured FPS in this game aligns with that ranking. The GPU role is clear: it provides a baseline level of performance that is sufficient for 1080p and 1440p gaming at low-to-medium settings, but it lacks the headroom for high-refresh 4K or ultra-quality settings.

FAQ

Q: What is the highest average FPS achievable with this CPU and GPU combo?

A: The highest average FPS in the measured dataset is 273 FPS, achieved at 1920x1080 resolution with the Low preset.

Q: How does the Intel Arc B370 compare to its nearest benchmark rivals?

A: The Arc B370 scores 1184 in the 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 test. It is 0.2% slower than the ATI Mobility Radeon HD 5570 (score 1186), 0.5% slower than the ATI Radeon HD 5770 (score 1190), and 0.7% slower than the AMD Radeon HD 7650M (score 1192). It is 1.4% faster than the AMD FirePro M2000 (score 1168).

Q: Is the AMD Ryzen 7 9700F a bottleneck at 4K resolution?

A: No, the data does not indicate a CPU bottleneck at 4K. The FPS drops from 111 at Low to 70 at Ultra at 3840x2160, a pattern consistent with GPU limitations. The CPU's high multi-threaded and single-threaded scores (36470 and 4691 in PassMark tests, respectively) suggest it has ample headroom.

Q: What is the frame rate consistency at 1440p Medium settings?

A: At 2560x1440 with Medium settings, the average FPS is 160, with a minimum of 136 and a maximum of 184. This indicates a spread of 48 FPS between the minimum and maximum recorded frames.

Q: How does the combo rank among all tested combinations for this game?

A: The combo ranks 2615 out of 2848 tested combinations, placing it in the bottom 8% of all tested combos for Counter-Strike: Global Offensive.

Q: What is the average FPS difference between Low and Ultra settings at 1080p?

A: At 1920x1080, the Low preset averages 273 FPS, while the Ultra preset averages 172 FPS, a difference of 101 FPS in favor of the Low preset.

CPU Role

The AMD Ryzen 7 9700F is a high-end desktop processor that provides far more computational capability than the integrated GPU can utilize in this game. The CPU's PassMark multi-thread score is 36470, and its single-thread score is 4691, placing it in the 94th percentile of all CPUs. Its nearest rivals in the benchmark database include the AMD Ryzen 9 7940HX (avgScore 69875, delta 0.2%), Intel Core i7-14700KF (avgScore 70163, delta -0.2%), AMD Ryzen 9 7950X (avgScore 69515, delta 0.7%), and Intel Core i7-14700K (avgScore 69355, delta 0.9%). This places the 9700F in the same performance tier as flagship desktop and high-end mobile processors, underscoring that its processing power is not the limiting factor in this configuration.

The CPU features 8 cores and 16 threads based on the Zen 5 architecture (Granite Ridge codename), with a base clock of 3.80 GHz and a boost clock of 5.50 GHz. It has a 32 MB shared L3 cache and 1 MB of L2 cache per core, providing substantial on-die storage for game data. The 65 W TDP is modest for an 8-core part, but the benchmark scores show that power efficiency does not compromise throughput. In CS:GO, which is known to be CPU-sensitive at high frame rates, this processor's single-thread performance of 4691 in the PassMark single-thread test is critical for maintaining high minimum frame rates.

However, the measured FPS data shows that the CPU's potential is not fully realized. At 1080p Low, the combo achieves 273 FPS, but the CPU alone could likely push much higher if paired with a discrete GPU. The fact that the FPS drops to 172 at 1080p Ultra while the CPU has significant headroom suggests that the GPU is the wall. The CPU’s role in this combo is to provide a stable foundation, ensuring that it never becomes the bottleneck even at lower resolutions where frame rates are highest. The benchmark results for the CPU, including integer math (120788), floating point math (77955), and data compression (421988), indicate that it is more than capable of handling the game's physics and entity updates, leaving the Arc B370 as the sole constraint.

Measured FPS Breakdown

The measured FPS data provides a complete matrix of 12 combinations of resolution and settings. At 3840x2160, the Low preset averages 111 FPS, Medium averages 95 FPS (min 80, max 109), High averages 82 FPS, and Ultra averages 70 FPS. This shows a clear progression where each step up in settings costs approximately 16-20 FPS. At 2560x1440, the Low preset averages 188 FPS, Medium averages 160 FPS (min 136, max 184), High averages 139 FPS, and Ultra averages 118 FPS. The settings progression at 1440p costs between 21 and 28 FPS per step. At 1920x1080, the Low preset averages 273 FPS, Medium averages 233 FPS (min 198, max 268), High averages 202 FPS, and Ultra averages 172 FPS. The settings progression at 1080p costs between 30 and 40 FPS per step.

The data reveals a consistent pattern: the gap between Low and Medium is always larger than the gap between High and Ultra. At 4K, Low to Medium is a 16 FPS difference (111 to 95), while High to Ultra is a 12 FPS difference (82 to 70). At 1440p, Low to Medium is 28 FPS (188 to 160), while High to Ultra is 21 FPS (139 to 118). At 1080p, Low to Medium is 40 FPS (273 to 233), while High to Ultra is 30 FPS (202 to 172). This suggests that the Medium preset offers a disproportionately large jump in quality for a relatively smaller FPS cost compared to the jump from High to Ultra, which yields diminishing returns. The min FPS values recorded for Medium settings are 80 at 4K, 136 at 1440p, and 198 at 1080p, indicating that even the worst-case frame times remain smooth, with no severe stuttering observed in the measured data.

How This Combo Ranks

The combination of the AMD Ryzen 7 9700F and Intel Arc B370 ranks 2615 out of 2848 tested combinations for Counter-Strike: Global Offensive. This places the combo in the bottom 8.2% of all tested systems, a poor standing that reflects the GPU's limited capabilities despite the CPU's high performance. The rank of 2615 means that 233 tested combos are slower, but the vast majority of tested systems outperform this configuration. In a game like CS:GO, where high frame rates are paramount, this ranking indicates that the combo will struggle to compete with systems using even mid-range discrete GPUs.

The CPU's percentile rank of 94 and its benchmark score of 69996 (average) would normally place a system in the upper echelon, but the GPU's 5th percentile score of 1184 drags the overall combo ranking down. The delta percentages against the CPU's nearest rivals show that the 9700F is essentially tied with the Ryzen 9 7940HX (0.2% faster) and the Intel Core i7-14700KF (0.2% slower), meaning any of these CPUs would perform identically in this combo. The GPU's nearest rivals are all from the ATI/AMD HD 5000 and 7000 series or FirePro line, which were entry-level parts from their respective generations. This pairing of a top-tier CPU with a bottom-tier GPU creates an extreme imbalance, and the combo rank of 2615 accurately reflects the net result: the system is only suitable for low-resolution, low-settings gaming, and it cannot leverage the CPU's strengths in this title. The data suggests that for CS:GO, the GPU is the sole determinant of the experience, and the combo's ranking would improve dramatically with any discrete GPU that scores higher than the 5th percentile.