Counter-Strike: Global Offensive

Counter-Strike: Global Offensive presents a peculiar case for the Intel Core i5-12600KF paired with the Intel Arc B390. The measured data shows a combination that is clearly CPU-bound at lower resolutions, yet the GPU’s fundamental limits become the primary bottleneck as resolution climbs. This analysis examines the measured FPS rows, the component specifications, and the combo’s standing among 2,848 tested configurations to understand where this pairing excels and where it falls short.

Resolution Scaling

The measured FPS data reveals a dramatic and consistent decline as resolution increases from 1920x1080 to 3840x2160. At the High preset, average FPS drops from 223 at 1080p to 154 at 1440p, and finally to 91 at 4K. This represents a 59% reduction from 1080p to 4K, which is a substantial scaling penalty. The pattern is similar across all settings presets, indicating that the resolution scaling behavior is consistent regardless of graphical fidelity.

The Low preset shows the most telling story. At 1920x1080, the combo achieves 303 average FPS, which is remarkably high and suggests that the CPU is doing the heavy lifting at this resolution. However, at 2560x1440, this drops to 208 FPS, and at 3840x2160, it falls to 123 FPS. The 4K result is less than half of the 1080p figure, which strongly implies that the Arc B390’s rendering capabilities are the limiting factor at higher resolutions, even with minimal graphical settings. The fact that Low settings at 4K (123 FPS) is still lower than Ultra settings at 1080p (190 FPS) underscores this point further.

The Medium preset provides the only complete min/max data in the measured rows. At 1080p, the average is 258 FPS with a minimum of 219 and maximum of 296. At 1440p, the average drops to 177 FPS with min/max of 151/204. At 4K, the average is 105 FPS with min/max of 89/120. The gap between minimum and maximum FPS widens proportionally as resolution increases, which suggests that frame time variance grows with the increased GPU workload. This is a typical sign of a component that is nearing its saturation point.

The Ultra preset exhibits the steepest relative drop. At 1080p, it manages 190 FPS average, but this falls to 131 FPS at 1440p and 77 FPS at 4K. The 4K Ultra result is the lowest measured FPS in the entire dataset, and it represents a 59% reduction from the 1080p Ultra figure. This indicates that the combination of maximum settings and 4K resolution pushes the Arc B390 well beyond its comfortable operating range.

The scaling behavior between 1440p and 4K is particularly notable. For every preset, the FPS drop from 1440p to 4K is larger than the drop from 1080p to 1440p. For example, at High settings, the drop from 1080p to 1440p is 69 FPS, while the drop from 1440p to 4K is 63 FPS. At Low settings, those drops are 95 FPS and 85 FPS respectively. This suggests that the GPU’s fill rate and pixel throughput become progressively more strained as the pixel count increases, which is consistent with the Arc B390’s relatively modest specifications.

GPU Role

The Intel Arc B390 is the clear performance limiter at higher resolutions. Its specifications include 1,536 shading units, 48 texture mapping units, and 24 render output units. The pixel rate is 60.00 GPixel/s, and the texture rate is 120.0 GTexel/s. These figures are modest by modern standards, and the GPU’s percentile ranking of 9 among all GPUs confirms its entry-level positioning. Its nearest rivals include the NVIDIA GeForce GT 520MX (1.3% faster), NVIDIA GeForce 800M (1.5% faster), NVIDIA GeForce GT 625 OEM (2.5% faster), and NVIDIA GeForce GT 710 (2.7% faster). This places the Arc B390 in the company of very old, low-end discrete GPUs, which is telling for its expected performance in a game like CS:GO.

The GPU’s memory configuration is entirely system-shared, with no dedicated VRAM. The memory type, bus width, and bandwidth are all listed as "System Shared" or "System Dependent." This means the GPU relies on the CPU’s memory controller and the system’s RAM, which can introduce latency and bandwidth bottlenecks, especially at higher resolutions where texture and framebuffer demands increase. The boost clock of 2500 MHz is respectable, but the base clock of 300 MHz suggests significant power-saving behavior that might not scale well under sustained load.

The measured FPS data corroborates the GPU’s limitations. At 4K Ultra, the combo produces only 77 FPS average, which is the lowest result across all measurements. Even at 4K Low, the average is 123 FPS, which is still below the 1080p Ultra result of 190 FPS. This indicates that the GPU’s raw throughput, not the game’s settings complexity, is the primary constraint at 4K. The FP32 performance of 7.680 TFLOPS and FP16 of 15.36 TFLOPS (2:1) are the theoretical ceilings, but the actual game performance is far below what these figures might suggest, likely due to the memory sharing and the GPU’s architecture limitations.

The DirectX support of 12 Ultimate (12_2) and Vulkan 1.4 are modern API features, but CS:GO is an older title that may not fully utilize these advanced capabilities. The OpenGL 4.6 support is relevant because CS:GO historically has used OpenGL rendering, and the Arc B390’s OpenGL performance is likely a factor in the measured results. The GPU’s TDP of 80 W and its IGP slot width indicate that this is an integrated-class part, despite being marketed as a discrete GPU, which further explains its performance ceiling.

CPU Role

The Intel Core i5-12600KF is a much more capable component than the GPU it is paired with. It features 10 cores and 16 threads, with a base clock of 3.70 GHz and a boost clock of 4.90 GHz. This is an Alder Lake-S architecture processor built on a 10 nm process, with an L3 cache of 20 MB shared. The CPU’s benchmarks are strong across the board: Cinebench R23 multicore score of 23,391, single-core of 3,302; Geekbench multicore of 12,137 and single-core of 2,157. The 3DMark 16-thread score of 7,956 and single-thread score of 1,016 indicate solid multithreaded and single-threaded performance.

The CPU’s percentile ranking of 79 among all CPUs places it well above average, and its nearest rivals include the Intel Core i9-10900K (0.3% slower), AMD Ryzen 5 8500GE (0.3% faster), AMD Ryzen 7 6800U (0.3% slower), and AMD Ryzen 7 5800X3D (0.3% slower). The 5800X3D is notable for its gaming reputation, and the i5-12600KF is essentially tied with it in average benchmark score, which suggests strong gaming potential. The passmark single-thread score of 3,925 and multithread score of 27,575 further confirm the CPU’s capability.

In CS:GO, the CPU’s role is evident at 1080p. At Low settings, the combo achieves 303 FPS average, which is the highest measured result. This high frame rate indicates that the CPU is able to feed the GPU with enough draw calls and game logic updates to maintain such a high output. The fact that the 1080p Low result (303 FPS) is so much higher than the 1080p Ultra result (190 FPS) suggests that at Low settings, the GPU is less burdened, allowing the CPU’s potential to shine through. At 1080p High, the 223 FPS average is still CPU-limited territory, as the GPU has more work to do but is not yet saturated.

The CPU’s boost clock of 4.90 GHz is critical for CS:GO, which is a title that heavily relies on single-core performance for its game logic and physics. The single-core Cinebench R23 score of 3,302 and Geekbench single-core of 2,157 are strong, and they translate to the high FPS observed at 1080p. The L3 cache of 20 MB is also beneficial for this game, as CS:GO’s maps and entity data can reside in cache more often, reducing memory access latency.

However, the CPU’s performance is wasted at higher resolutions because the GPU cannot keep up. At 4K, even the Low preset (123 FPS) is far below what the CPU could theoretically support, as evidenced by the 303 FPS at 1080p Low. This indicates that the GPU is the bottleneck at 1440p and 4K, and the CPU is essentially idle waiting for the GPU to complete its rendering tasks. The data suggests that a more powerful GPU would unlock significantly higher FPS at 1440p and 4K, given the CPU’s headroom.

FAQ

Q: Why does the 1080p Low preset achieve 303 FPS but the 4K Low preset only 123 FPS?

A: The Arc B390’s rendering throughput is the limiting factor at 4K. The GPU’s pixel rate of 60.00 GPixel/s and limited ROPs (24) struggle to fill the 8.3 million pixels of 3840x2160, even at Low settings. The CPU can support higher frame rates, as seen at 1080p, but the GPU cannot maintain that pace at 4K.

Q: Is the Intel Core i5-12600KF or the Intel Arc B390 the bottleneck in this combo?

A: At 1080p, the CPU is often the limiter, as shown by the 303 FPS Low result. At 1440p and 4K, the GPU is clearly the bottleneck, as evidenced by the steep FPS drops across all presets when resolution increases. The CPU’s benchmark scores (e.g., Cinebench R23 multicore of 23,391) are far above the GPU’s percentile rank of 9.

Q: How does this combo compare to other tested configurations in CS:GO?

A: The combo ranks 2,510 out of 2,848 tested combos in this game, placing it in the lower 12% of all configurations. This ranking reflects the GPU’s weak performance relative to other graphics cards, despite the CPU’s above-average standing.

Q: What does the Medium preset’s min/max FPS data tell us?

A: At 1080p Medium, the FPS ranges from 219 to 296 with an average of 258. At 4K Medium, the range is 89 to 120 with an average of 105. The wider relative gap at 4K indicates increased frame time variance, which is a sign of GPU saturation and inconsistent rendering times.

Q: Can the CPU’s high single-thread performance help in CS:GO at any resolution?

A: Yes, at 1080p, the CPU’s single-thread performance (Geekbench single-core of 2,157) contributes to the high FPS observed at Low (303) and High (223) settings. However, at 1440p and 4K, the GPU’s limitations dominate, and the CPU’s advantage is masked.

Q: Why is the 4K Ultra result (77 FPS) so much lower than the 1080p Ultra result (190 FPS)?

A: The 4K Ultra preset demands the maximum pixel throughput and texture fill from the GPU. The Arc B390’s 24 ROPs and 120.0 GTexel/s texture rate are insufficient for this workload, causing a 59% drop in FPS compared to 1080p Ultra.

How This Combo Ranks

The combo’s rank of 2,510 out of 2,848 tested configurations places it in the bottom 12% of all measured setups for CS:GO. This is a poor standing, and it is almost entirely attributable to the Intel Arc B390’s weak performance. The GPU’s percentile of 9 among all GPUs is the primary driver of this low rank, as the CPU’s percentile of 79 is actually quite respectable.

The GPU’s nearest rivals—the GT 520MX, GeForce 800M, GT 625 OEM, and GT 710—are all extremely old and low-end parts, and the Arc B390 is only 1.3% to 2.7% faster than them in average benchmark score. This means that in CS:GO, the combo is likely to perform similarly to a system with a decade-old entry-level GPU, which is a poor result for a modern processor.

The rank also suggests that most other tested combos, even those with older or lower-end CPUs, have better GPU hardware that allows them to achieve higher FPS in CS:GO. The CPU’s strength is not enough to overcome the GPU’s deficit, especially at 1440p and 4K where the GPU is the limiter. At 1080p, the combo might fare better relative to others, but the overall rank reflects the average performance across all measured scenarios.

Given that the combo ranks 2,510 out of 2,848, the data indicates that users would need to significantly upgrade the GPU to improve this standing. The CPU is not the issue; its benchmark scores are competitive with the Ryzen 7 5800X3D, which is a well-regarded gaming CPU. The GPU is the weak link, and its system-shared memory and low ROP count are likely the culprits.

Measured FPS Breakdown

At 1920x1080, the measured FPS values are as follows:

• Low: 303 average FPS
• Medium: 258 average FPS, with a minimum of 219 and maximum of 296
• High: 223 average FPS
• Ultra: 190 average FPS

These results show a clear progression from Low to Ultra, with the Ultra preset being 37% slower than Low. The Medium preset’s min/max range (219-296) is narrow, indicating consistent frame times at this resolution.

At 2560x1440, the measured FPS values are:

• Low: 208 average FPS
• Medium: 177 average FPS, with a minimum of 151 and maximum of 204
• High: 154 average FPS
• Ultra: 131 average FPS

The drop from 1080p to 1440p is significant across all presets. The Low preset loses 95 FPS (31% reduction), Medium loses 81 FPS (31% reduction), High loses 69 FPS (31% reduction), and Ultra loses 59 FPS (31% reduction). The consistency of this 31% reduction suggests a uniform scaling factor related to the pixel count increase.

At 3840x2160, the measured FPS values are:

• Low: 123 average FPS
• Medium: 105 average FPS, with a minimum of 89 and maximum of 120
• High: 91 average FPS
• Ultra: 77 average FPS

The 4K results are the lowest in the dataset. The Low preset at 4K (123 FPS) is lower than the Ultra preset at 1080p (190 FPS), which highlights the GPU’s severe resolution scaling penalty. The Medium preset’s min/max range (89-120) shows a wider variance relative to its average, suggesting unstable frame delivery under load.

The overall pattern is that each resolution step (1080p to 1440p, 1440p to 4K) results in roughly a 30-40% FPS reduction for each preset. The Low preset at 4K still achieves 123 FPS, which is playable, but the Ultra preset at 4K drops to 77 FPS, which is below the 100 FPS threshold that many CS:GO players would consider acceptable for competitive play.

Settings Recommendations

Based on the measured FPS data, the optimal settings for this combo depend on the target resolution. At 1920x1080, all presets are playable, with even Ultra achieving 190 FPS average. The Low preset at 303 FPS is the highest, but the Medium preset at 258 FPS offers a good balance between visual quality and performance. For players with high refresh rate monitors (144Hz or 240Hz), the Low or Medium presets at 1080p would be the best choices to maximize frame rates.

At 2560x1440, the Low preset (208 FPS) is the only option that comfortably exceeds 200 FPS, while Medium (177 FPS) and High (154 FPS) are still above 144 FPS. The Ultra preset at 131 FPS is borderline for 144Hz displays. For the best experience at 1440p, the Low preset provides the smoothest gameplay, but Medium offers a reasonable compromise with a 177 FPS average and tight min/max range (151-204).

At 3840x2160, the situation is more constrained. The Low preset (123 FPS) is the only one that maintains a triple-digit average, while Medium (105 FPS), High (91 FPS), and Ultra (77 FPS) all fall below 110 FPS. For 60Hz displays, all presets are technically playable, but for smoother gameplay, the Low preset is recommended. The Medium preset’s min/max range (89-120) indicates that it can dip below 90 FPS, which might cause noticeable stutters.

The data suggests that the best overall experience is at 1920x1080 with the Medium preset, which delivers 258 FPS average with good frame consistency. This combination offers high frame rates that exceed most monitor refresh rates while still providing decent visual quality. If visual fidelity is a priority, the High preset at 1080p (223 FPS) is also excellent. For competitive play, the Low preset at 1080p (303 FPS) cannot be beaten, as it maximizes frame rate and minimizes input latency. The Ultra preset at any resolution is not recommended due to the significant FPS drops, especially at 1440p and 4K where it falls below 144 FPS and 100 FPS respectively.