Counter-Strike: Global Offensive

Counter-Strike: Global Offensive is an old game, but this pairing of an Intel Core i5-13400F and an NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5070 turns it into a pure frame-rate monster. The measured data shows that this combo never dips below 244 frames per second (FPS) even at the most demanding settings and resolution tested. This is a system built for extreme refresh rates, and the benchmark results clearly indicate that the CPU is the primary bottleneck in almost every scenario, as the GPU is rarely pushed to its limits. The following analysis breaks down the measured performance across resolutions and settings to help you configure the best experience.

Settings Recommendations

For 1080p and 1440p gaming, the data strongly suggests that the "Low" preset is the optimal choice for competitive play, though the "High" preset offers a fantastic balance for those who want better visuals without sacrificing the competitive edge. At 1920x1080, the Low preset produces an astronomical 962.9 FPS average, which is 254.5 FPS higher than the High preset's 708.4 FPS. This massive gap shows that the CPU is the limiting factor, and reducing graphical load allows it to push even more frames. For players with 360Hz or 500Hz monitors, the Low preset at 1080p is the only way to fully saturate those displays. The Medium preset at 1080p still delivers 819.4 FPS, which is a solid middle ground, but the performance gain from Low is too significant to ignore for pure esports.

At 2560x1440, the story is similar. The Low preset yields 663.7 FPS, while High drops to 486.8 FPS. Both are exceptionally high, and the choice here comes down to whether you prefer maximum frame rates for a 480Hz monitor or slightly better image quality. The Ultra preset at 1440p still manages 418.1 FPS, which is more than enough for most high-refresh-rate panels. At 4K (3840x2160), the GPU begins to matter more. The Low preset gives 391.5 FPS, while High drops to 290.3 FPS. Here, the Medium preset at 335.6 FPS is a compelling option, as it provides a significant visual upgrade over Low while still maintaining a frame rate that exceeds most 240Hz monitors' capabilities. The Ultra preset at 4K is the only setting that falls below 300 FPS, hitting 244.4 FPS, but that is still a highly playable frame rate for this title.

CPU Role

The Intel Core i5-13400F is a 10-core, 16-thread processor based on the Raptor Lake architecture, with a base clock of 2.50 GHz and a boost clock of 4.60 GHz. In CS:GO, the benchmark results indicate that this CPU is the star of the show. The fact that FPS scales dramatically when switching from High to Low settings at the same resolution proves that the CPU is generating frames faster than the GPU can render them, up to a point. For instance, at 1080p, the jump from High (708.4 FPS) to Low (962.9 FPS) is a 254.5 FPS increase, which is entirely due to reducing the GPU's workload and allowing the CPU to feed it more data. The processor's strong single-thread performance, evidenced by its 3DMark single-thread score of 960 and Cinebench R23 single-core score of 3004, is crucial for a game like CS:GO, which relies heavily on a few fast cores.

The CPU's 20 MB of shared L3 cache and high boost clock are also key factors. The data shows that at 1440p, the Low preset still hits 663.7 FPS, which is only a small drop from the 1080p result. This indicates that the CPU is still the primary limiter at this resolution. It is only at 4K with the Ultra preset that the GPU starts to take over as the bottleneck, as the FPS drops to 244.4, a much more significant reduction. This suggests that the i5-13400F has enough headroom to feed the RTX 5070 at lower resolutions, but the GPU's pixel-pushing power becomes the constraining factor at higher resolutions and settings. The CPU's performance is close to its nearest rivals, with a 0.1% advantage over the Intel Core i7-13620H and a 0.5% deficit against the AMD Ryzen 5 5600X3D, making it a highly competitive choice for this workload.

FAQ

Q: Is the RTX 5070 overkill for CS:GO at 1080p?

A: The data suggests yes, for the most part. At 1920x1080 with Low settings, the combo achieves 962.9 FPS. When compared to the 4K Ultra result of 244.4 FPS, it is clear the GPU is far from saturated at 1080p. The CPU is doing most of the heavy lifting at this resolution, as evidenced by the massive FPS swings between settings.

Q: What is the best settings preset for a 240Hz monitor at 1440p?

A: The High preset at 2560x1440 delivers 486.8 FPS, which is well above 240Hz. Even the Ultra preset provides 418.1 FPS. You have plenty of headroom to use High or Ultra settings without dropping below the refresh rate of a 240Hz panel, so you should prioritize visual quality.

Q: How much performance is lost when moving from 1080p to 4K on the High preset?

A: The measured FPS drops from 708.4 at 1920x1080 to 290.3 at 3840x2160. That is a reduction of 418.1 FPS, or roughly 59% of the 1080p performance. This indicates a significant shift in the bottleneck from the CPU to the GPU as resolution increases.

Q: Does the Low preset provide a competitive advantage over Medium?

A: Yes, in terms of raw frame rate. At 1920x1080, Low produces 962.9 FPS compared to Medium's 819.4 FPS, a difference of 143.5 FPS. At 2560x1440, the gap is 102 FPS (663.7 vs 561.7). This extra headroom can reduce input lag on very high refresh rate displays, though both are exceptionally fast.

Q: Can this combo handle 4K gaming at playable frame rates?

A: Absolutely. Even at the most demanding setting (Ultra) at 3840x2160, the average FPS is 244.4. This is well above the 144Hz standard and even exceeds many 240Hz 4K monitors. The Low preset at 4K pushes this up to 391.5 FPS, showing the GPU has significant reserves.

Q: How does the CPU compare to its closest rival in synthetic benchmarks?

A: The Intel Core i5-13400F scores 25,236 on the average benchmark. Its nearest rival, the AMD Ryzen 5 5600X3D, scores 25,365, which is 0.5% higher. The Intel Core i7-13620H scores 25,201, which is 0.1% lower. The differences are marginal and unlikely to be noticeable in real-world CS:GO performance.

How This Combo Ranks

Out of 1,605 tested combinations in the database, this specific configuration of the Core i5-13400F and RTX 5070 ranks 344th for Counter-Strike: Global Offensive. This places it in the top 21.4% of all tested systems, which is a strong showing for a mid-range desktop processor paired with a newer high-end graphics card. The ranking reflects the fact that while the GPU is very powerful, the CPU's performance ceiling in this CPU-bound game prevents the system from climbing higher. The 344th rank is respectable, but it is not at the absolute top. This is likely due to the presence of other combos featuring higher-clocked processors with stronger single-thread performance, which is critical for CS:GO's engine.

The data shows that the i5-13400F sits in the 82nd percentile of all CPUs, and the RTX 5070 sits in the 83rd percentile of all GPUs. However, the combo's rank in this specific game is lower than the individual component percentiles might suggest. This is a clear indicator that the game's performance is heavily influenced by the CPU, and the GPU's raw power is not being fully utilized in most scenarios. If you were to pair this CPU with a less powerful GPU, you might see a similar frame rate at 1080p, as the CPU would still be the limiting factor. The high ranking is still a signal of the i5-13400F's ability to drive a top-tier GPU to over 700 FPS at 1080p High settings.

Resolution Scaling

The performance scaling from 1080p to 4K clearly illustrates the relationship between the CPU and GPU. At High settings, the FPS drops from 708.4 at 1920x1080 to 486.8 at 2560x1440, and then to 290.3 at 3840x2160. This is a steady decline, but the most significant drop occurs between 1440p and 4K. The drop from 1080p to 1440p is 221.6 FPS, while the drop from 1440p to 4K is 196.5 FPS. This shows that the GPU is becoming a larger factor as the pixel count increases, but the CPU is still contributing to the frame rate.

Looking at the Low settings, the scaling is more linear: 962.9 FPS at 1080p, 663.7 FPS at 1440p, and 391.5 FPS at 4K. The fact that the 4K Low result (391.5 FPS) is still higher than the 1080p Ultra result (604.3 FPS) highlights how much of a bottleneck the CPU is at lower resolutions and higher settings. The 4K Ultra result of 244.4 FPS is the only measurement that suggests the GPU is being pushed hard. This data suggests that for competitive play at high frame rates, you should stay at 1080p or 1440p, while 4K is viable for a more visually immersive experience, though frame rates will be lower.

Measured FPS Breakdown

The following is the complete set of measured average FPS data for this configuration:

3840x2160 (4K)

• Low: 391.5 FPS
• Medium: 335.6 FPS
• High: 290.3 FPS
• Ultra: 244.4 FPS

2560x1440 (1440p)

• Low: 663.7 FPS
• Medium: 561.7 FPS
• High: 486.8 FPS
• Ultra: 418.1 FPS

1920x1080 (1080p)

• Low: 962.9 FPS
• Medium: 819.4 FPS
• High: 708.4 FPS
• Ultra: 604.3 FPS

This data shows a clear pattern: at every resolution, the Low preset delivers the highest frame rate, and the Ultra preset delivers the lowest. The difference between Low and Ultra is most pronounced at 1080p, where it is 358.6 FPS, and least pronounced at 4K, where it is 147.1 FPS. This further confirms that the CPU is the limiting factor at lower resolutions, while the GPU becomes more relevant at 4K. The high FPS figures across the board indicate a system that is exceptionally well-suited for high-refresh-rate competitive gaming.