Counter-Strike: Global Offensive

The Intel Core i5-12400F paired with the Intel Arc B390 produces a highly capable Counter-Strike: Global Offensive setup, with benchmark results showing this combination ranks 2510th out of 2848 tested combos in this game. This places the pairing in the lower-middle tier of all tested configurations, yet the measured frame rates tell a more nuanced story: at 1920x1080, the combo delivers 303 FPS on Low settings, which is far above the threshold for competitive play. The data indicates a system that is more than adequate for esports-level performance despite its modest overall ranking, with the CPU providing strong single-threaded throughput while the GPU handles the game’s relatively light rendering demands.

How This Combo Ranks

The comboRankInGame of 2510 out of 2848 total combos places this Intel pairing at roughly the 88th percentile of tested systems, meaning about 12% of configurations perform better in Counter-Strike: Global Offensive. This ranking might seem low given the frame rates observed, but it reflects the fact that many competing setups use much more powerful discrete graphics cards, whereas the Arc B390 is an integrated GPU with system-shared memory. In the context of all tested combos, the i5-12400F’s CPU performance is a bright spot: its avgBenchmarkScore of 19039 places it in the 73rd percentile among all CPUs, and its nearest rivals include the AMD Ryzen 5 7535HS (avgScore 19047, deltaPct 0), the Intel Core 3 201E (avgScore 19056, deltaPct -0.1), the Intel Core i5-1335U (avgScore 18982, deltaPct 0.3), and the AMD EPYC 7773X (avgScore 18979, deltaPct 0.3). These rivals are all within 0.3% of the i5-12400F’s average score, indicating that the CPU is essentially tied with these processors in overall benchmark performance.

The GPU, however, pulls the combo down in the rankings. The Intel Arc B390 has an avgBenchmarkScore of 1482, which places it in the 9th percentile among all GPUs. Its nearest rivals are the NVIDIA GeForce GT 520MX (avgScore 1463, deltaPct 1.3), the NVIDIA GeForce 800M (avgScore 1460, deltaPct 1.5), the NVIDIA GeForce GT 625 OEM (avgScore 1446, deltaPct 2.5), and the NVIDIA GeForce GT 710 (avgScore 1443, deltaPct 2.7). This means the Arc B390 outperforms these older NVIDIA parts by 1.3% to 2.7% in the 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 benchmark, but it is still a very low-performing GPU by modern standards. The combination of a mid-range CPU (73rd percentile) with a bottom-tier GPU (9th percentile) explains the overall rank of 2510th, as the GPU becomes the limiting factor in most games, including Counter-Strike: Global Offensive, where frame rates are still respectable due to the game’s optimization and the CPU’s strength.

GPU Role

The Intel Arc B390 is an integrated graphics processor based on the Xe3-LPG architecture, built on Intel’s 3 nm process node. It features 1536 shading units, 48 texture mapping units, and 24 raster operation pipelines, along with 12 ray tracing cores. The GPU operates at a base clock of 300 MHz and a boost clock of 2500 MHz, with a pixel rate of 60.00 GPixel/s and a texture rate of 120.0 GTexel/s. Its FP32 performance is rated at 7.680 TFLOPS, with FP16 at 15.36 TFLOPS (2:1). The memory configuration is entirely system-shared, meaning the GPU uses the same DDR4 or DDR5 memory as the CPU, with bandwidth that is system-dependent. This architecture is reflected in the measured FPS data: the GPU’s performance scales with resolution and settings, but it never becomes a massive bottleneck in Counter-Strike: Global Offensive because the game is not particularly demanding on graphics hardware.

In the measured FPS results, the Arc B390’s role is evident in the scaling between settings. At 1920x1080, the GPU delivers 303 FPS on Low settings, 258 FPS on Medium, 223 FPS on High, and 190 FPS on Ultra. The drop from Low to Ultra is 113 FPS, which is a 37% reduction. At 2560x1440, the figures are 208 FPS (Low), 177 FPS (Medium), 154 FPS (High), and 131 FPS (Ultra). At 3840x2160, the GPU produces 123 FPS (Low), 105 FPS (Medium), 91 FPS (High), and 77 FPS (Ultra). This scaling pattern shows that the GPU’s limited memory bandwidth and compute resources become more stressed at higher resolutions, but even at 4K Ultra, the combo maintains 77 FPS, which is playable for most users. The system-shared memory means that performance can vary depending on the CPU’s memory configuration, but the data indicates the Arc B390 is sufficient for this esports title at all tested settings.

FAQ

Q: How does the Intel Core i5-12400F compare to its nearest CPU rivals in overall benchmark scores?

A: The i5-12400F has an avgBenchmarkScore of 19039, which is essentially tied with the AMD Ryzen 5 7535HS (19047, deltaPct 0), the Intel Core 3 201E (19056, deltaPct -0.1), the Intel Core i5-1335U (18982, deltaPct 0.3), and the AMD EPYC 7773X (18979, deltaPct 0.3). All four rivals are within 0.3% of the i5-12400F’s score, indicating near-identical overall performance.

Q: What is the best frame rate achieved by this combo in Counter-Strike: Global Offensive?

A: The highest average FPS recorded is 303 FPS, achieved at 1920x1080 resolution with Low settings. The second-best is 258 FPS at 1920x1080 with Medium settings, followed by 223 FPS at 1920x1080 with High settings.

Q: How does the Arc B390’s GPU benchmark score compare to its nearest rivals?

A: The Arc B390 has an avgBenchmarkScore of 1482 in the 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 test. This is 1.3% higher than the NVIDIA GeForce GT 520MX (1463), 1.5% higher than the NVIDIA GeForce 800M (1460), 2.5% higher than the NVIDIA GeForce GT 625 OEM (1446), and 2.7% higher than the NVIDIA GeForce GT 710 (1443).

Q: Does the combo maintain playable frame rates at 4K resolution?

A: Yes. At 3840x2160, the combo delivers 123 FPS on Low settings, 105 FPS on Medium, 91 FPS on High, and 77 FPS on Ultra. Even the lowest of these, 77 FPS at Ultra, is above the 60 FPS threshold commonly considered acceptable for smooth gameplay.

Q: What is the CPU’s single-threaded performance, and why does it matter for this game?

A: The i5-12400F scores 909 in the 3dmark_single_thread test, 244 in cinebench_r15_singlecore, 985 in cinebench_r20_singlecore, 1680 in cinebench_r23_singlecore, 1964 in geekbench_singlecore, and 3481 in passmark_single_thread. These scores indicate strong single-threaded performance, which is critical for Counter-Strike: Global Offensive, a game that relies heavily on CPU single-core speed for high frame rates.

Q: What is the combo’s rank among all tested combinations in this game?

A: The combo ranks 2510th out of 2848 tested combos in Counter-Strike: Global Offensive. This places it in the lower-middle tier, primarily due to the GPU’s low benchmark percentile, despite the CPU’s above-average performance.

Measured FPS Breakdown

The measured FPS data for this combo covers three resolutions and four settings presets, providing a comprehensive picture of performance. Starting with 1920x1080, the most common esports resolution, the combo achieves its highest frame rates. On Low settings, the average FPS is 303, which is exceptionally high and suitable for competitive play with high-refresh-rate monitors. Medium settings produce 258 FPS on average, with a minimum of 219 FPS and a maximum of 296 FPS. High settings yield 223 FPS, while Ultra settings drop to 190 FPS. The gap between Low and Ultra at 1080p is 113 FPS, representing a 37% reduction in performance, which is a modest penalty for the visual quality increase.

At 2560x1440, the frame rates remain high but show a more pronounced impact from the GPU’s limitations. Low settings average 208 FPS, Medium settings average 177 FPS (minimum 151, maximum 204), High settings average 154 FPS, and Ultra settings average 131 FPS. The difference between Low and Ultra at this resolution is 77 FPS, or 37%, which is identical to the percentage drop at 1080p. This suggests that the GPU’s scaling is consistent across these two resolutions, with the absolute numbers being about 31-34% lower at 1440p compared to 1080p for each settings preset. For example, 1440p Low (208 FPS) is 68.6% of 1080p Low (303 FPS), and 1440p Ultra (131 FPS) is 68.9% of 1080p Ultra (190 FPS).

At 3840x2160, the performance drops further, but the combo remains playable. Low settings average 123 FPS, Medium settings average 105 FPS (minimum 89, maximum 120), High settings average 91 FPS, and Ultra settings average 77 FPS. The reduction from 1080p to 4K is substantial: 4K Low is 40.6% of 1080p Low, 4K Medium is 40.7% of 1080p Medium, 4K High is 40.8% of 1080p High, and 4K Ultra is 40.5% of 1080p Ultra. This consistent ~40% scaling across all settings indicates that the GPU is the primary bottleneck at higher resolutions, as expected for an integrated solution with system-shared memory. The minimum FPS values are only provided for Medium settings at each resolution, with 219 FPS at 1080p, 151 FPS at 1440p, and 89 FPS at 4K, suggesting that Medium settings have the most stable frame pacing among the presets.

The data also shows that the gap between High and Ultra is smaller than the gap between Low and Medium. At 1080p, Low to Medium is a 45 FPS increase (303 to 258), while High to Ultra is a 33 FPS decrease (223 to 190). This pattern holds at 1440p (31 FPS between Low and Medium vs. 23 FPS between High and Ultra) and 4K (18 FPS between Low and Medium vs. 14 FPS between High and Ultra). This suggests that the visual quality gains from Medium to High and High to Ultra come at a relatively lower performance cost than the jump from Low to Medium, which is useful for settings recommendations.

CPU Role

The Intel Core i5-12400F is a 6-core, 12-thread processor based on the Alder Lake architecture, manufactured on Intel’s 10 nm process. It has a base clock of 2.50 GHz and a boost clock of 4.40 GHz, with a TDP of 65 W. The CPU supports DDR4 and DDR5 memory in a dual-channel configuration, and it features 80 KB of L1 cache per core, 1.25 MB of L2 cache per core, and 18 MB of shared L3 cache. Its benchmark scores are notably strong for single-threaded workloads: it scores 909 in 3dmark_single_thread, 244 in cinebench_r15_singlecore, 985 in cinebench_r20_singlecore, 1680 in cinebench_r23_singlecore, 1964 in geekbench_singlecore, and 3481 in passmark_single_thread. These results indicate that the CPU can drive high frame rates in Counter-Strike: Global Offensive, which is known to be sensitive to single-core performance.

In multi-threaded benchmarks, the i5-12400F also performs well, with scores of 5895 in 3dmark_16_threads, 5912 in 3dmark_max_threads, 1759 in cinebench_r15_multicore, 6980 in cinebench_r20_multicore, 12380 in cinebench_r23_multicore, 9472 in geekbench_multicore, and 19433 in passmark_multithread. The passmark data shows solid performance in specific workloads: 233327 in data compression, 11679 in data encryption, 15834 in extended instructions, 46759 in floating point math, 59995 in integer math, 1202 in physics, and 22975 in random string sorting. These scores are all consistent with a capable mid-range desktop CPU, and the percentileVsAllCpus of 73 confirms that it outperforms 73% of all CPUs in the database.

For Counter-Strike: Global Offensive, the CPU’s role is critical because the game’s engine often becomes CPU-bound at lower resolutions and settings. The measured FPS at 1920x1080 Low (303 FPS) and 1440p Low (208 FPS) suggests that the CPU is able to feed the GPU with enough frames to reach these high numbers, even though the GPU is relatively weak. The fact that 1080p Low achieves 303 FPS indicates that the i5-12400F’s single-threaded performance is sufficient to push beyond 300 FPS, which is a target for many competitive players. At 4K, however, the GPU becomes the limiting factor, as the CPU’s performance is less relevant when the GPU is struggling to render at higher resolutions. The data shows that the CPU’s boost clock of 4.40 GHz and its 6 cores with 12 threads provide ample headroom for this game, even when background tasks are present. The architecture’s 10 nm process and 18 MB of L3 cache also contribute to low latency, which is beneficial for frame pacing in a fast-paced FPS.

Settings Recommendations

Based on the measured FPS data, the optimal settings preset depends on the user’s resolution and performance priorities. For competitive play at 1920x1080, Low settings provide the highest average FPS at 303, which is ideal for players with 240 Hz or 360 Hz monitors. Medium settings at 258 FPS are also excellent, offering a balance between visual quality and performance, with a minimum FPS of 219 ensuring that frame drops are rare. High settings at 223 FPS are still above 200 FPS, making them suitable for 144 Hz displays, while Ultra settings at 190 FPS are the least competitive option at this resolution but still smooth for most users.

At 2560x1440, Low settings deliver 208 FPS, which is above 200 FPS and suitable for high-refresh-rate gaming. Medium settings at 177 FPS (minimum 151) are a strong choice for 144 Hz monitors, as the average exceeds the refresh rate and the minimum stays above 150. High settings at 154 FPS are also viable for 144 Hz displays, while Ultra at 131 FPS is better suited for 120 Hz monitors. For users prioritizing visual quality over maximum frame rates, High settings at 1440p provide a good compromise, with only a 26 FPS penalty compared to Medium.

At 3840x2160, the combo’s performance is more limited. Low settings at 123 FPS are the best option for 120 Hz displays, while Medium at 105 FPS (minimum 89) is suitable for 100 Hz or 90 Hz monitors. High settings at 91 FPS and Ultra at 77 FPS are playable for 60 Hz displays, but they do not offer the high refresh rates that competitive players typically seek. For 4K users, Low or Medium settings are recommended to maintain frame rates above 100 FPS, as the visual difference between Low and Medium in Counter-Strike: Global Offensive is often less impactful than the performance gain.

Overall, the data suggests that Medium settings provide the most balanced experience across all resolutions, as it is the only preset with recorded minimum FPS values (219 at 1080p, 151 at 1440p, 89 at 4K), indicating more stable frame pacing. For pure performance, Low settings at 1920x1080 with 303 FPS is the clear winner, while for visual fidelity, Ultra at any resolution is viable but with diminishing returns as resolution increases. The combo is best suited for 1080p and 1440p gaming, where it can deliver frame rates that satisfy even the most demanding esports players, while 4K is better left to more powerful discrete GPUs.