Counter-Strike: Global Offensive

Counter-Strike: Global Offensive is an older title, but the benchmark data for the Intel Core i5-14400F and NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2060 combination reveals a system that is heavily skewed toward CPU performance. The processor, a 10-core, 16-thread part from the Raptor Lake Refresh generation, operates with a base clock of 2.50 GHz and a boost clock of 4.70 GHz. Its benchmark scores are formidable for a desktop chip, with a Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 21914 and a single-core score of 3093. The CPU’s 88th percentile ranking against all other processors indicates it sits well above the median, and its nearest rivals—such as the Intel Core i7-12800H and AMD Ryzen 5 PRO 7645—show a deltaPct of 0.0% and 0.2%, respectively, meaning the i5-14400F is essentially performance-equivalent to those parts in synthetic tests.

This CPU strength is the primary driver of the frame rates seen in CS:GO. The game is notoriously CPU-bound, and the data supports this: at 1080p with Low settings, the system produces an average of 500.7 FPS. That figure is extraordinarily high and points to a scenario where the GPU is not the limiting factor at lower resolutions. The processor’s high single-thread performance, evidenced by a PassMark single-thread score of 3723, is critical here, as CS:GO’s engine relies heavily on a few strong cores. The L3 cache of 20 MB shared across the cores also helps maintain high minimum frame rates in chaotic scenes, though the data only provides average FPS figures. The core configuration of 10 cores and 16 threads is more than sufficient for this game, meaning the CPU has ample headroom even when background tasks are running.

CPU Role — cores, clocks, and how they relate to this game's results

The Intel Core i5-14400F’s role in this combination is to provide an overwhelming amount of processing power that CS:GO can exploit. With a boost clock of 4.70 GHz and a 10-core, 16-thread layout, the CPU is built for high-throughput workloads, but its single-core performance is what matters most for this game. The Cinebench R20 single-core score of 1299 and Geekbench single-core score of 2333 both indicate that each individual core is very fast, which translates directly to higher frame rates in a game that rarely uses more than a few threads. The 65W TDP suggests this is a power-efficient part that doesn’t thermally throttle in typical desktop cases, allowing it to sustain those high clocks during long gaming sessions.

The benchmark results show that the CPU is rarely the bottleneck. At 1080p Low, the system hits 500.7 FPS, which is a clear sign that the processor can feed frames faster than the GPU can render them. Even at 4K Ultra, where the GPU is under maximum stress, the average FPS remains a playable 126.7, indicating the CPU is still keeping up with the GPU’s demands. The data shows that the i5-14400F’s 20 MB of shared L3 cache is likely beneficial for CS:GO’s map geometry and entity data, reducing memory latency and improving consistency. Compared to its nearest rival, the Intel Core i7-12800H, the i5-14400F has a nearly identical average benchmark score (32508 vs. 32513, a 0.0% delta), suggesting that in CPU-bound scenarios, users would see no meaningful difference between the two.

GPU Role — VRAM, clocks, and how they relate to this game's results

The NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2060 plays a supporting role that becomes more prominent as resolution and settings increase. This GPU, based on the TU106 chip and Turing architecture, has a base clock of 1365 MHz and a boost clock of 1680 MHz. Its 6 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 192-bit bus provides a bandwidth of 336.0 GB/s, which is sufficient for CS:GO’s texture loads. The GPU’s 1920 shading units and 48 ROPs are capable of handling the game’s DirectX 9-era rendering, but its 58th percentile ranking against all GPUs shows it is a mid-range part. Its nearest rival, the AMD Radeon RX 7600S, has an average score of 15996 versus the RTX 2060’s 14111 in PassMark G3D, a deltaPct of 0.5% in the AMD’s favor.

The GPU’s role is clearly visible in the frame rate scaling. At 1080p Low, the RTX 2060 is not the limiting factor, as the CPU drives the frame rate to 500.7 FPS. However, when settings are pushed to Ultra at 1080p, the frame rate drops to 310.6 FPS, a 38% decrease, which is a direct consequence of the GPU working harder to render more complex lighting and shadows. The 6 GB VRAM is not a concern at 1080p, but at 4K Ultra, the GPU is heavily taxed, producing 126.7 FPS. The boost clock of 1680 MHz is modest by modern standards, but it’s enough to maintain playable frame rates in this older title. The GPU’s 160W TDP and dual-slot design indicate it’s a mainstream card, and the data suggests it’s well-matched to the CPU for 1440p gaming, where it delivers between 217.9 and 340.6 FPS depending on settings.

How This Combo Ranks — use comboRankInGame vs other tested combos

The combination of the Intel Core i5-14400F and NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2060 ranks 1319 out of 1605 tested combos in CS:GO. This is a surprisingly low rank for a system that produces such high absolute frame rates. The reason lies in the fact that the benchmark database includes many combinations with newer, more powerful GPUs and CPUs, such as those with RTX 40-series cards or high-end Ryzen processors. The combo’s rank of 1319 places it in the bottom 20% of all tested systems, which suggests that while the frame rates are excellent for a 1080p or 1440p monitor, the hardware is not top-tier in the grand scheme of the database. The percentile for the CPU is 88, meaning it outperforms most other processors, but the GPU’s percentile of 58 pulls the overall combo ranking down.

This disparity between CPU and GPU performance is the defining characteristic of this combo. The data implies that if the goal is to maximize CS:GO frame rates, the RTX 2060 is the component holding the system back from ranking higher. For example, a combo with the same CPU but a more powerful GPU like an RTX 3080 would likely rank in the top 500, as the GPU would no longer be the bottleneck at higher resolutions. However, for the measured data, the combo still delivers over 300 FPS at 1080p Ultra, which is far beyond the refresh rate of most monitors. The rank of 1319 is a relative measure, not an absolute one, and it highlights that this system is designed for high-refresh 1080p or 1440p gaming rather than chasing top-tier 4K performance.

Measured FPS Breakdown — resolution by resolution, settings by settings, exact numbers

The measured FPS data provides a clear picture of how the system scales across resolutions and settings. At 1920x1080, the system is CPU-bound, with the Low preset producing 500.7 FPS, Medium at 421.4 FPS, High at 368.5 FPS, and Ultra at 310.6 FPS. The gap between Low and Ultra is 190.1 FPS, showing that the GPU is beginning to matter even at 1080p. Moving to 2560x1440, the frame rates drop substantially: Low yields 340.6 FPS, Medium 290.6 FPS, High 254.7 FPS, and Ultra 217.9 FPS. The drop from 1080p Low to 1440p Low is 160.1 FPS, indicating that the GPU is now a more significant factor, as the pixel count increases by 77% but the frame rate only drops by 32%. At 3840x2160, the GPU is clearly the bottleneck: Low produces 200.5 FPS, Medium 174 FPS, High 148 FPS, and Ultra 126.7 FPS. The scaling from 1440p Low to 4K Low is a 140.1 FPS drop, which is a 41% reduction, closely matching the 2.25x increase in pixel count.

The data reveals that the system is highly playable at all tested configurations, with even the lowest frame rate (126.7 FPS at 4K Ultra) being above the 60 FPS threshold. However, the differences between presets are more pronounced at higher resolutions. At 1080p, the difference between Medium and Low is 79.3 FPS, while at 4K, the difference is only 26.5 FPS. This suggests that at 4K, the GPU is so saturated that preset changes have a smaller absolute impact on frame rates. The highest measured frame rate is 500.7 FPS at 1080p Low, and the lowest is 126.7 FPS at 4K Ultra, showing a performance envelope of 374 FPS across the entire test matrix.

FAQ

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

A: The highest measured average frame rate is 500.7 FPS at 1920x1080 with Low settings.

Q: Is the CPU or GPU the limiting factor at 1080p?

A: At 1080p, the CPU is the limiting factor, as evidenced by the high frame rates (368.5 FPS at High) that are typical of CPU-bound scenarios in CS:GO.

Q: How does the frame rate drop when moving from 1440p to 4K at Ultra settings?

A: At Ultra settings, the frame rate drops from 217.9 FPS at 2560x1440 to 126.7 FPS at 3840x2160, a 91.2 FPS decrease.

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

A: The combo ranks 1319 out of 1605 tested combinations, placing it in the lower 20% of all systems.

Q: Does the RTX 2060’s 6 GB VRAM cause any issues in CS:GO?

A: The data shows no VRAM-related issues, as the game is not VRAM-intensive; the lowest frame rate at 4K Ultra is still 126.7 FPS.

Q: How does the CPU’s performance compare to its nearest rival?

A: The Intel Core i5-14400F has an average benchmark score of 32508, which is essentially identical to the Intel Core i7-12800H’s 32513, a 0.0% deltaPct.

Settings Recommendations

For the best experience, the data suggests that 1920x1080 with High settings is the sweet spot. This configuration produces 368.5 FPS, which is more than enough for any high-refresh-rate monitor, and the visual quality is significantly better than Low or Medium. At 1080p Ultra, the frame rate drops to 310.6 FPS, which is still excellent, but the visual difference between High and Ultra in CS:GO is often negligible due to the game’s age. The data shows that at 1440p, High settings yield 254.7 FPS, which is also ideal for 144Hz monitors, but the 1080p High preset offers a higher margin.

If the user has a 240Hz monitor, 1080p Low or Medium is the better choice, as these produce 500.7 FPS and 421.4 FPS, respectively, ensuring the frame rate never drops below the monitor’s refresh rate. For 4K gaming, the data shows that Low settings are necessary to stay above 200 FPS, which is a comfortable target for most users. However, for 4K, the game is GPU-bound, so the recommendation is to stick with Medium settings at 174 FPS, as the visual improvement over Low is more noticeable at this resolution. Overall, the data indicates that 1080p High is the most balanced preset, offering high frame rates and good visual fidelity without the performance penalty of Ultra.

Resolution Scaling — how FPS drops from 1080p to 4K and what it says about the limiting component

The frame rate scaling across resolutions provides a clear diagnostic of which component is the bottleneck. From 1080p Low (500.7 FPS) to 1440p Low (340.6 FPS), the drop is 160.1 FPS, or 32%. This is a moderate drop, indicating that the CPU is still doing most of the work, but the GPU is starting to contribute. From 1440p Low to 4K Low (200.5 FPS), the drop is 140.1 FPS, or 41%, which is much steeper. This is close to the theoretical pixel count increase of 125% (from 3.7 million pixels to 8.3 million), suggesting that the GPU is now the primary limiter. At High settings, the scaling is similar: 368.5 FPS at 1080p, 254.7 FPS at 1440p, and 148 FPS at 4K. The percentage drops are 31% and 42%, respectively, again showing the GPU’s growing influence.

The data implies that the CPU can maintain high frame rates even at 4K, but the RTX 2060’s raw rendering power is insufficient to keep up with the CPU’s output at higher resolutions. At 1080p, the system is CPU-bound, as the GPU has spare capacity. At 4K, the system becomes GPU-bound, as the frame rate drops proportionally to the pixel count. The inflection point appears to be between 1440p and 4K, where the GPU’s fill rate becomes the limiting factor. The 336.0 GB/s memory bandwidth and 1920 shading units are simply not enough to fully saturate the CPU’s capabilities at 4K. This analysis suggests that for users who want to play at 4K, the RTX 2060 is the weak link, and upgrading the GPU would provide a significant frame rate boost, while upgrading the CPU would yield no tangible benefit at that resolution.