Counter-Strike: Global Offensive

Counter-Strike: Global Offensive is an exceptionally light title by modern standards, and the measured data for the Intel Core i5-9400 paired with the Intel Arc B370 confirms this. The combination delivers playable framerates even at 4K, but the scaling behavior reveals a system that is heavily constrained by the integrated GPU at higher resolutions while becoming increasingly CPU-bound as resolution drops. The Arc B370, with its 1280 shading units and 20 ROPs, shows its limits when pushing 4K pixels, yet the i5-9400's six Coffee Lake cores provide enough headroom to push past 270 FPS at 1080p on Low settings.

Resolution Scaling

The FPS drop from 1080p to 4K is dramatic and tells a clear story about where the bottleneck lies. At 1080p High settings, the system averages 202 FPS. Moving to 1440p High drops that to 139 FPS, a 31% reduction. Jumping to 4K High further reduces the average to 82 FPS, which is 59% below the 1080p result. This steep decline indicates that the Arc B370's fill rate and shading capacity are the primary limiting factors at higher resolutions. The GPU's pixel rate of 48.00 GPixel/s and texture rate of 96.00 GTexel/s are simply not sufficient to maintain high framerates when pixel count quadruples from 1080p to 4K.

The scaling pattern is consistent across all settings presets. On Low settings, the system delivers 273 FPS at 1080p, 188 FPS at 1440p, and 111 FPS at 4K. The percentage drops are 31% from 1080p to 1440p and 41% from 1440p to 4K. This suggests that even at the lowest quality settings, the GPU is still the dominant constraint at 4K. However, the fact that 4K Low (111 FPS) is 35% faster than 4K High (82 FPS) indicates that the game's higher-quality effects, such as shadows and textures, place additional strain on the GPU's limited resources.

At 1080p, the picture changes subtly. The gap between Low (273 FPS) and High (202 FPS) is 35%, which is significant, but the absolute numbers are high enough that the CPU's role becomes more relevant. The i5-9400's boost clock of 4.10 GHz across six cores is adequate for CS:GO's engine, but the data suggests that the 1080p Low result of 273 FPS is approaching the CPU's ceiling for this title. The 4K Ultra result of 70 FPS, compared to 4K Medium at 95 FPS, shows a 26% performance penalty for the highest preset, reinforcing that the GPU is the limiting component in that resolution tier.

FAQ

Q: Can this system run CS:GO at 4K with playable framerates?

A: Yes, but only at lower presets. The data shows 4K Low averaging 111 FPS and 4K Medium averaging 95 FPS with a minimum of 80 FPS. At High settings, the average drops to 82 FPS, and at Ultra it falls to 70 FPS, which is still playable but leaves little headroom for demanding scenes.

Q: What is the best resolution for competitive play with this hardware?

A: 1080p is the clear choice for competitive framerates. The system delivers 202 FPS at High and 273 FPS at Low settings. Even at Ultra, 1080p produces 172 FPS, which is above the 144Hz refresh rate common in esports monitors.

Q: How does the Arc B370 compare to its nearest rivals in raw GPU benchmarks?

A: The Arc B370 scores 1184 in 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12. That places it within 0.5% of the ATI Mobility Radeon HD 5570 (1186) and 0.7% of the AMD Radeon HD 7650M (1192). It is 1.4% faster than the AMD FirePro M2000 (1168). These are very old GPUs, so the B370's performance class is modest.

Q: Is the Intel Core i5-9400 a bottleneck at 1080p?

A: The data suggests partial CPU limitation at 1080p Low. The jump from 1440p Low (188 FPS) to 1080p Low (273 FPS) is 45%, which is large, but the 4.10 GHz boost clock and six threads may cap the absolute maximum. The CPU's Cinebench R23 multicore score of 6629 and single-core score of 935 place it in the 47th percentile of all CPUs.

Q: What is the framerate difference between Medium and Ultra at 1440p?

A: Medium settings produce 160 FPS average with a minimum of 136 FPS, while Ultra produces 118 FPS. That is a 26% reduction in average framerate for the highest preset, which may not justify the visual improvements in a fast-paced shooter.

Q: Does the system show consistent minimum framerates?

A: Only Medium settings include minimum framerate data. At 1080p Medium, the minimum is 198 FPS against a 233 FPS average. At 1440p Medium, the minimum is 136 FPS against a 160 FPS average. At 4K Medium, the minimum is 80 FPS against a 95 FPS average. The minimums are roughly 15% below averages, indicating reasonable frame pacing.

Settings Recommendations

For players prioritizing competitive performance, 1080p Low settings deliver the highest measured average at 273 FPS. This preset minimizes GPU load and allows the i5-9400's six cores to work at their peak. The 35% gap between Low and High at 1080p (273 vs 202 FPS) suggests that Low is the optimal choice for players with 240Hz monitors, as it provides enough headroom to prevent framerate dips below the refresh rate.

At 1440p, Medium settings offer the best balance of visual quality and performance. The 160 FPS average with a 136 FPS minimum is suitable for 144Hz displays, and the 26% improvement over Ultra (118 FPS) is substantial. Players with 1440p 144Hz monitors should avoid Ultra, as the 118 FPS average does not reliably saturate the refresh rate.

For 4K, Medium settings are the recommended ceiling. The 95 FPS average and 80 FPS minimum are playable for casual or single-player scenarios, but competitive players should consider 1080p. High settings at 4K (82 FPS) and Ultra (70 FPS) produce framerates that are acceptable but offer diminishing returns given the GPU's limited pixel throughput. The data indicates that the Arc B370's 20 ROPs struggle to fill 8.3 million pixels per frame at 4K, making Medium the highest sensible preset.

Measured FPS Breakdown

At 1920x1080, the system shows a clear hierarchy across presets. Low settings produce the highest average at 273 FPS. Medium settings reduce that to 233 FPS, with a minimum of 198 FPS and a maximum of 268 FPS. High settings deliver 202 FPS, and Ultra drops to 172 FPS. The spread from Low to Ultra is 101 FPS, or 37%.

At 2560x1440, the same pattern emerges with lower absolute numbers. Low settings average 188 FPS. Medium settings average 160 FPS, with a minimum of 136 FPS and a maximum of 184 FPS. High settings produce 139 FPS, and Ultra falls to 118 FPS. The spread from Low to Ultra is 70 FPS, or 37%, matching the 1080p percentage drop.

At 3840x2160, the GPU becomes the dominant factor. Low settings average 111 FPS. Medium settings average 95 FPS, with a minimum of 80 FPS and a maximum of 109 FPS. High settings produce 82 FPS, and Ultra drops to 70 FPS. The spread from Low to Ultra is 41 FPS, or 37%, again consistent. Notably, the 4K Medium maximum of 109 FPS is higher than the 4K Low average of 111 FPS, suggesting that frame pacing can vary significantly.

The data shows that the percentage difference between Low and Ultra remains constant at roughly 37% across all resolutions. This indicates that the performance cost of higher presets scales linearly with pixel count, and that the Arc B370's GPU architecture handles the additional shading work proportionally.

GPU Role

The Intel Arc B370 is an integrated GPU based on the Xe3-LPG architecture, built on a 3 nm process with a 25 W TDP. Its 1280 shading units, 40 texture mapping units, and 20 ROPs are modest by discrete GPU standards. The boost clock of 2400 MHz and base clock of 300 MHz show a wide dynamic range for power management. The GPU's 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 score of 1184 places it in the 5th percentile of all GPUs, which is very low for modern titles.

The measured FPS data reflects this low percentile. At 4K Ultra, the system manages only 70 FPS, which is below the 60 FPS target for smooth gameplay on many displays. The 4K Medium result of 95 FPS with an 80 FPS minimum shows that the GPU can handle moderate loads, but the 48.00 GPixel/s pixel rate is the limiting factor. With 8.3 million pixels at 4K, the theoretical fill rate allows for roughly 5.8 full-screen passes per frame at 82 FPS, which is tight for a game with multiple render passes.

The GPU's memory configuration is "System Shared," meaning it relies on the i5-9400's DDR4 memory bandwidth of 42.7 GB/s. This shared memory architecture explains why higher resolutions cause such steep performance drops, as the GPU competes with the CPU for bandwidth. The 6.144 TFLOPS FP32 compute is sufficient for CS:GO's simple shaders, but the memory bandwidth and ROP count are the bottlenecks at 4K. The B370's nearest rivals, such as the ATI Radeon HD 5770 (1190 score), are from 2009, highlighting that this integrated solution targets low-power systems rather than high-end gaming.

CPU Role

The Intel Core i5-9400 is a six-core, six-thread Coffee Lake processor with a base clock of 2.90 GHz and a boost clock of 4.10 GHz. Its 9 MB shared L3 cache and 64 KB L1 cache per core provide adequate bandwidth for CS:GO's engine, which is known to be sensitive to single-thread performance. The CPU's Cinebench R23 scores of 6629 multicore and 935 single-core place it in the 47th percentile of all CPUs, indicating a mid-range position.

The CPU's role in this game is evident in the 1080p Low result of 273 FPS. This is the highest measured framerate in the entire dataset, and it is likely near the engine's ceiling for this CPU. The 4.10 GHz boost clock is the key factor, as CS:GO's main game thread benefits from high clock speeds. The six cores are sufficient for the game's background tasks, but the lack of hyperthreading (six threads total) may limit performance in scenes with many entities or grenade effects.

Comparing to its nearest rivals, the i5-9400 has an average benchmark score of 2254. The Intel Core i7-1068NG7 scores 2259 (0.2% faster), the Intel Core i7-10710U scores 2248 (0.3% slower), and the AMD Ryzen 5 PRO 1500 scores 2246 (0.4% slower). These tiny deltas suggest that the i5-9400 is well-balanced for its class, but none of these CPUs are modern high-end parts. At 4K, the CPU is not the bottleneck, as the data shows the GPU is clearly limiting performance. However, at 1080p, the CPU's 935 single-core score in Cinebench R23 becomes more relevant, as the game's thread scheduler relies on that core to maintain high framerates.

The 65 W TDP and 14 nm process node indicate that this is a power-efficient part, but its performance in CS:GO is adequate rather than exceptional. The 1080p Low result of 273 FPS is competitive for esports, but players seeking 400+ FPS would need a newer CPU with higher single-thread performance. The measured data shows that the i5-9400 holds up well in this older title, providing a stable foundation for the Arc B370's output.