Counter-Strike: Global Offensive

Counter-Strike: Global Offensive (CS:GO), released in 2012, remains a demanding benchmark for high-refresh-rate setups, and the pairing of the Intel Core i5-14600KF with the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4080 produces a dataset that clearly delineates where system bottlenecks emerge. The measured frames per second (FPS) across three resolutions and four settings presets reveal a title that is exceptionally forgiving on the GPU but heavily reliant on raw CPU throughput. The data shows that this combination scores in the 241st position out of 3719 tested combos, placing it in the top 7% of configurations, which underscores its capability for competitive play. This analysis interprets the measured rows to explain how resolution, CPU architecture, and GPU resources interact in this specific title.

Resolution Scaling

The FPS drop from 1080p to 4K is the single most telling metric in this dataset, exposing a shift in workload that determines which component is the limiting factor. At 1920x1080 with Low settings, the system produces an average of 1141 FPS, which represents a CPU-bound scenario where the RTX 4080 is largely idle, waiting for the processor to feed it frames. Scaling up to 1440p reduces that average to 785 FPS, a drop of 356 FPS, while 4K at Low settings yields 464 FPS. The progression from 1080p to 4K at Low settings shows a 59% reduction in average FPS, indicating that even at the lowest graphical preset, the pixel throughput demand eventually overwhelms the CPU's frame generation rate.

The scaling behavior changes dramatically when moving to higher quality presets. At High settings, the average FPS goes from 841 at 1080p to 578 at 1440p, and finally to 342 at 4K. The percentage drop from 1080p to 4K at High settings is 59%, which is nearly identical to the Low preset scaling. This consistency suggests that CS:GO's engine does not impose a significantly heavier per-pixel cost as resolution increases; instead, the frame rate is primarily governed by the CPU's ability to process game logic and draw calls. However, the absolute numbers tell a different story about the bottleneck. At 4K High, the 342 FPS average is still remarkably high, proving that the RTX 4080 is never truly stressed in this title, as its 16 GB of VRAM and 716.8 GB/s bandwidth are far more than required for a game of this era.

Examining the Medium preset, which provides both average and minimum FPS data, reveals a clearer picture of scaling efficiency. At 1080p Medium, the average is 971 FPS with a minimum of 825 FPS, while at 1440p Medium, the average falls to 668 FPS with a minimum of 568 FPS. At 4K Medium, the average drops to 395 FPS with a minimum of 335 FPS. The gap between average and minimum FPS widens as resolution increases, going from a 146 FPS delta at 1080p to a 60 FPS delta at 4K in absolute terms, but the relative consistency improves. This indicates that while the CPU remains the primary limiter at 1080p, the GPU begins to introduce more frame-time variance at 4K, although the overall experience remains exceptionally smooth.

The Ultra preset shows the most significant scaling penalty, with averages of 717 FPS at 1080p, 494 FPS at 1440p, and 292 FPS at 4K. The drop from 1080p to 4K is 425 FPS, or 59%, which aligns with the other presets. The data strongly suggests that the limiting component at 1080p and 1440p is the CPU, as the FPS figures exceed what most displays can even refresh, while at 4K, the GPU starts to assert its influence, yet still delivers over 292 FPS at the highest quality setting. This resolution scaling analysis concludes that CS:GO with this hardware is overwhelmingly CPU-bound until the pixel count reaches 4K, where the RTX 4080 finally has enough work to approach a more balanced load.

CPU Role

The Intel Core i5-14600KF is the dominant force in this benchmark configuration, and its specifications directly explain the extraordinary frame rates observed. This processor features 14 cores and 20 threads, with a base clock of 3.50 GHz and a boost clock of 5.30 GHz, built on the Raptor Lake architecture using a 10 nm process. The high boost clock is critical for CS:GO, as the game's engine relies heavily on single-thread performance for rendering scenes and processing player actions. The benchmark data supports this, with the CPU achieving a single-core score of 4594 in Cinebench R23 and a single-thread score of 4273 in Passmark, placing it in the 90th percentile against all CPUs.

The multi-core performance is equally impressive, with a Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 32544, yet CS:GO does not necessarily scale with all 20 threads. The game's engine is known for favoring fewer, faster cores, and the 5.30 GHz boost clock ensures that the primary threads are processed with minimal latency. The data shows that at 1080p Low, the system achieves 1141 FPS, a figure that is only possible when the CPU can generate frames faster than the GPU can rasterize them. The i5-14600KF's nearest rivals, including the AMD Ryzen 9 7900 with a delta of 0.3% and the Intel Core Ultra 5 245 with a delta of 0.8%, all sit within a narrow band, confirming that this processor is at the top of its class for this workload.

The L3 cache size of 24 MB shared across the cores is another factor that contributes to the high FPS. CS:GO's maps and entity data can fit within this cache, reducing the need for slower memory accesses. The processor supports both DDR4 and DDR5 memory, and while the specific memory configuration is not listed in the measured data, the dual-channel memory bus provides sufficient bandwidth for the CPU to feed the GPU. The benchmark results indicate that the CPU is never the bottleneck at 4K, as the FPS drops are consistent with GPU load increases, but at 1080p, the CPU's frame generation capability is the sole limiter, capping performance at 1141 FPS on Low settings.

The processor's 125 W TDP and active production status suggest it is a mainstream enthusiast part, and its benchmark percentile of 90% against all CPUs means it outperforms the vast majority of desktop processors. When compared to its nearest rivals, the delta percentages are minimal, with the AMD Ryzen 9 7900 scoring a 0.3% delta and the AMD Ryzen AI Max+ 388 scoring a -0.8% delta, indicating that the i5-14600KF is essentially tied with the best alternatives for this game. The data shows that for CS:GO, the CPU's clock speed is more important than core count, and the 5.30 GHz boost clock is the primary reason for the high average FPS figures across all settings and resolutions.

Settings Recommendations

The measured FPS rows provide a clear hierarchy of performance across the four settings presets, allowing for an evidence-based recommendation on the optimal balance of visual quality and frame rate. The Low preset at 1080p achieves an average of 1141 FPS, which is far beyond the refresh rate of any consumer monitor, making it the best choice for pure competitive play where maximum frame rate is prioritized. However, the jump to Medium at 1080p only reduces the average to 971 FPS, a drop of 170 FPS, while providing better visual fidelity. Given that 971 FPS still exceeds the capabilities of 360 Hz monitors, the Medium preset is arguably the best experience for 1080p users who want a smoother visual presentation without sacrificing competitive responsiveness.

For 1440p users, the High preset delivers an average of 578 FPS, which is sufficient for 360 Hz displays, while the Ultra preset drops to 494 FPS, still exceeding 240 Hz refresh rates. The Medium preset at 1440p offers 668 FPS, but the visual difference between Medium and High is often more noticeable in CS:GO's textures and shadows. The data suggests that High at 1440p is the sweet spot, providing a 578 FPS average that is 84 FPS higher than Ultra, while maintaining better graphical detail than Medium. The minimum FPS data is only provided for Medium, showing 568 FPS at 1440p, which indicates consistent frame delivery without significant hitches.

At 4K, the recommendations shift due to the GPU becoming more involved. The Ultra preset at 4K yields an average of 292 FPS, which is still exceptionally high, but the drop from High at 342 FPS is notable. The High preset at 4K offers the best balance, with 342 FPS average, which is 50 FPS higher than Ultra and only 122 FPS lower than the Medium preset's 464 FPS. The Medium preset at 4K, with its minimum FPS of 335, provides a more consistent experience than the High or Ultra presets, but the visual quality degradation may be unacceptable for some players. For most users, the High preset at 4K is the recommended setting, as it delivers 342 FPS average, which is more than enough for any current display, while maximizing graphical fidelity without the performance penalty of Ultra.

The data indicates that the Ultra preset is rarely justified, as it consistently underperforms High by 124 FPS at 1080p, 84 FPS at 1440p, and 50 FPS at 4K. The marginal visual improvements from Ultra are not worth the frame rate loss in a competitive shooter where higher FPS translates to lower input latency. The Medium preset provides the best minimum FPS data, with 825 FPS at 1080p, 568 FPS at 1440p, and 335 FPS at 4K, making it the most stable option for players who prioritize frame consistency over peak averages. Ultimately, the High preset emerges as the optimal choice across all resolutions, offering a balance of visual quality and performance that leverages the hardware's capabilities without pushing into diminishing returns.

FAQ

Q: What is the maximum average FPS achievable with this hardware at 1080p?

A: The highest average FPS recorded is 1141 at 1920x1080 with Low settings. This figure represents the absolute ceiling of the CPU's frame generation capability, as the RTX 4080 is not the limiting factor at this resolution.

Q: How does the CPU compare to its nearest rival in terms of benchmark scores?

A: The Intel Core i5-14600KF has an average benchmark score of 49394, which is 0.3% higher than the AMD Ryzen 9 7900's score of 49228. It also outperforms the Intel Core Ultra 5 245 by 0.8%, while being 0.8% slower than the AMD Ryzen AI Max+ 388.

Q: Is the RTX 4080 a bottleneck in CS:GO at 4K?

A: At 4K with Ultra settings, the average FPS drops to 292, which is the lowest recorded figure, indicating the GPU is finally under load. However, this is still a very high frame rate, suggesting the GPU is not a severe bottleneck but does influence performance more at 4K than at lower resolutions.

Q: What is the frame rate difference between Low and Ultra settings at 1440p?

A: At 2560x1440, Low settings produce an average of 785 FPS, while Ultra settings produce 494 FPS. This represents a 291 FPS difference, or a 37% reduction in average frame rate when moving to the highest quality preset.

Q: Does the game favor the CPU's single-core or multi-core performance?

A: The data shows the CPU achieves a single-core score of 4594 in Cinebench R23 and a multi-core score of 32544. Given the high FPS at 1080p, the game heavily favors single-core performance, as the 5.30 GHz boost clock is the key driver of frame rates exceeding 1000 FPS.

Q: What is the best preset for consistent frame delivery at 4K?

A: The Medium preset at 4K provides the only minimum FPS data, with a minimum of 335 FPS and an average of 395 FPS. This suggests it offers the most consistent frame delivery at 4K, although High settings at 342 FPS average are also viable.

GPU Role

The NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4080 plays a secondary but essential role in this configuration, as CS:GO is not a graphically demanding title by modern standards. The GPU is built on the Ada Lovelace architecture with a 5 nm process, featuring 9728 shading units, 304 TMUs, and 112 ROPs. Its 16 GB of GDDR6X memory on a 256-bit bus provides 716.8 GB/s of bandwidth, which is far more than CS:GO requires, even at 4K. The benchmark data shows that the GPU's performance is only challenged at the highest resolution and settings, where the 292 FPS average at 4K Ultra indicates that the rasterization workload is finally significant.

The RTX 4080's clock speeds, with a base of 2205 MHz and a boost of 2505 MHz, contribute to its ability to render frames quickly. However, the measured FPS at 1080p Low of 1141 FPS is limited by the CPU, not the GPU, as the RTX 4080's 48.74 TFLOPS of FP32 performance is more than capable of handling the simple geometry and textures of CS:GO. The GPU's Passmark G3D score of 34457 and its 86th percentile ranking against all GPUs confirm its high-end status, but in this specific game, it is rarely the bottleneck. The nearest rival, the RTX 4080 SUPER, has a delta of 0.1%, indicating that the standard RTX 4080 is essentially identical in performance for this workload.

The GPU's memory capacity of 16 GB is excessive for CS:GO, which was released in 2012 and does not feature high-resolution textures or complex shaders. The 716.8 GB/s memory bandwidth is also underutilized, as the game's data footprint is small and does not require large data transfers. The VRAM and bandwidth only become relevant at 4K with Ultra settings, where the GPU must process more pixels and apply more effects, but even then, the 16 GB capacity is never close to being exhausted. The data suggests that the GPU's role is to ensure that frame rates remain high even at 4K, rather than to be a limiting factor, and it succeeds in this, as the lowest average FPS recorded is still 292, which is far above the 240 Hz refresh rate of many high-end monitors.

The GPU's 320 W TDP and triple-slot design indicate it is a power-hungry component, but its performance in CS:GO does not reflect this, as it is largely idle at 1080p and 1440p. The 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 score of 6567 and Geekbench Vulkan score of 263779 show that the GPU is capable of far more demanding tasks, but in this game, it operates well below its potential. The benchmark results indicate that the RTX 4080 is a future-proof component for CS:GO, as it can handle any settings combination at any resolution with frame rates that exceed display capabilities, ensuring that players will never experience a GPU-related performance bottleneck in this title.

Measured FPS Breakdown

The complete dataset of measured FPS provides a granular view of performance across all resolution and settings combinations. At 1920x1080, the Low preset achieves an average of 1141 FPS, the highest recorded value, while the Medium preset produces 971 FPS with a minimum of 825 and a maximum of 1117. The High preset at 1080p yields 841 FPS, and the Ultra preset drops to 717 FPS. This represents a spread of 424 FPS between the lowest and highest quality settings at 1080p, with the Medium preset offering the only min/max data, indicating a consistent frame delivery with a 292 FPS range between minimum and maximum.

Moving to 2560x1440, the Low preset averages 785 FPS, while Medium produces 668 FPS with a minimum of 568 and a maximum of 768. The High preset at 1440p averages 578 FPS, and Ultra averages 494 FPS. The spread between Low and Ultra at 1440p is 291 FPS, which is smaller than at 1080p, showing that resolution scaling reduces the impact of settings changes. The Medium preset's minimum FPS of 568 is higher than the Ultra preset's average of 494, highlighting that even the lowest-quality settings provide better performance than the highest at the same resolution.

At 3840x2160, the Low preset averages 464 FPS, Medium averages 395 FPS with a minimum of 335 and maximum of 454, High averages 342 FPS, and Ultra averages 292 FPS. The spread between Low and Ultra at 4K is 172 FPS, which is the smallest of all resolutions, indicating that the GPU becomes a more significant factor at this resolution. The Medium preset's minimum FPS of 335 is still higher than the Ultra preset's average of 292, which is a notable observation. Across all resolutions, the Medium preset consistently provides the only minimum FPS data, suggesting it offers the most stable frame delivery, while the Low preset always delivers the highest average FPS. The data confirms that the RTX 4080 and i5-14600KF combination excels in CS:GO, with every measured configuration exceeding 290 FPS average, making this an ideal setup for high-refresh-rate competitive play.