Counter-Strike: Global Offensive

The combination of the Intel Core i7-13700K and the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5070 in Counter-Strike: Global Offensive produces exceptional frame rates that far exceed the requirements of high-refresh-rate monitors. The data shows this pairing delivers triple-digit averages at every tested resolution and settings preset, positioning it as a top-tier setup for competitive play. With a combo rank of 774 out of 3719 tested combinations, this system sits comfortably in the top percentile of all configurations, indicating that users can expect a highly responsive and fluid experience in this classic FPS title.

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

The Intel Core i7-13700K is built on the Raptor Lake architecture using Intel's 10 nm process, featuring 16 cores and 24 threads. This processor operates with a base clock of 3.40 GHz and can boost up to 5.40 GHz, which provides substantial single-thread performance that is critical for Counter-Strike: Global Offensive. The game's engine relies heavily on CPU performance for game logic, player positioning, and netcode, making the high boost clock particularly relevant. The processor's L3 cache of 30 MB shared across all cores helps keep frequently accessed game data close at hand, reducing latency in fast-paced scenarios.

Benchmark results for the i7-13700K demonstrate its multi-threaded prowess, with a Cinebench R23 multicore score of 30745 and a single-core score of 2116. The Geekbench results show a multicore score of 19429 and a single-core score of 2529, confirming strong per-core performance. In the context of CS:GO, which historically favors fewer, faster cores, the single-thread capability is what drives high minimum frame rates and consistent frame pacing. The Passmark single-thread score of 4333 further underscores this strength, and the processor's 89th percentile ranking among all CPUs indicates it outperforms the vast majority of alternatives.

When compared to its nearest rivals, the i7-13700K holds its ground admirably. Against the AMD Ryzen 9 5900, the Intel chip scores 46971 on average, a delta of -0.2% relative to the AMD competitor's 46971, meaning performance is virtually identical. Similarly, the AMD Ryzen AI 9 HX PRO 375 scores 47022, placing the Intel part just 0.3% behind. On the other side, the i7-13700K leads the AMD Ryzen 9 7845HX by 0.5% and the Intel Xeon w3-2535 by 0.5%. These negligible deltas indicate that, for this game, the CPU is not a bottleneck, and the measured FPS results are more dependent on the GPU and settings.

The 125 W TDP and support for DDR4 and DDR5 memory give builders flexibility, but the key takeaway from the data is that this CPU provides ample headroom. The 3DMark scores reinforce this: 12412 with max threads and 1136 single-thread. For CS:GO specifically, the 16 cores and 24 threads are more than sufficient, meaning the processor never becomes the limiting factor at any resolution tested. The integrated UHD Graphics 770 is present but irrelevant when a discrete GPU is installed, as the data reflects discrete GPU performance.

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

The NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5070, based on the Blackwell 2.0 architecture and built on TSMC's 5 nm process, is the primary driver of frame rates in this configuration. It features 12 GB of GDDR7 memory on a 192-bit bus, delivering a bandwidth of 672.0 GB/s. The GPU operates at a base clock of 2325 MHz with a boost clock of 2512 MHz, and its memory runs at 1750 MHz or 28 Gbps effective. This memory bandwidth is ample for CS:GO, which is not a VRAM-intensive title, but the sheer compute power of the GPU ensures high fill rates.

With 6144 shading units, 192 texture mapping units, and 80 render output units, the RTX 5070 has the raw horsepower to push massive FPS numbers. Its pixel rate of 201.0 GPixel/s and texture rate of 482.3 GTexel/s are more than sufficient to handle the game's relatively simple geometry at high speeds. The GPU's FP32 performance of 30.87 TFLOPS is overkill for this title, allowing it to brute-force high settings without breaking a sweat. The 82nd percentile ranking among all GPUs, with an average benchmark score of 40377, confirms it is a high-end part.

In benchmark comparisons, the RTX 5070's nearest rivals show interesting deltas. The AMD Radeon Pro 580 scores 40318, which is 0.1% lower, while the AMD Radeon Pro WX 7100 scores 40063, a 0.8% deficit. The RTX 5070 trails the AMD Radeon Pro 5300 by 1.2% (40870 vs 40377) and leads the NVIDIA RTX A500 Mobile by 2.0% (39568 vs 40377). These rival comparisons are from synthetic benchmarks and do not directly translate to CS:GO performance, but they place the GPU in a consistent performance band. The 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 score of 5077 and Geekbench Vulkan score of 178923 indicate strong DX12 and Vulkan support, though CS:GO primarily uses DirectX 9 in its legacy mode.

The 12 GB VRAM capacity is more than adequate for CS:GO, and the 672.0 GB/s bandwidth ensures no memory-related stutters. The GPU's 250 W TDP and suggested 600 W PSU requirement are standard for this performance class. For a game like CS:GO where frame rate is king, the RTX 5070's ability to maintain high averages across all settings is the dominant factor, as seen in the measured FPS data. The boost clock of 2512 MHz, combined with the memory speed, ensures that the GPU can feed the CPU with frames faster than most displays can show them.

FAQ — 4-6 Q&A pairs answerable from FACT PACK data

Q: What is the average FPS at 1920x1080 with Low settings?

A: At 1920x1080 with Low settings, the measured average FPS is 952. This is the highest frame rate recorded across all tested configurations, making it ideal for competitive players seeking maximum responsiveness on 144Hz or 240Hz monitors.

Q: How does the GPU compare to the AMD Radeon Pro 580 in average benchmark score?

A: The RTX 5070 has an average benchmark score of 40377, while the AMD Radeon Pro 580 scores 40318. This results in a delta of 0.1%, meaning the RTX 5070 is effectively tied with the Radeon Pro 580 in synthetic tests, though in-game CS:GO performance may differ due to driver optimizations.

Q: What is the minimum FPS recorded at 2560x1440 with Medium settings?

A: At 2560x1440 with Medium settings, the minimum FPS is 474, with an average of 558 and a maximum of 642. This data shows that even the lowest frame rate remains well above 60 FPS, ensuring smooth gameplay without drops.

Q: Is the CPU or GPU more likely to bottleneck at 3840x2160 Ultra settings?

A: At 3840x2160 with Ultra settings, the average FPS drops to 243. Given that the CPU's performance is nearly identical to its rivals and the GPU is running at its highest load, the data indicates the GPU is the limiting factor at this resolution and settings combination, though frame rates remain very high.

Q: What is the combo's rank among all tested CPU-GPU combinations?

A: The Intel Core i7-13700K and NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5070 combination ranks 774 out of 3719 tested combos, placing it in the top 21% of all configurations tested for CS:GO.

Q: How much faster is the 1920x1080 Low preset compared to the 3840x2160 Ultra preset?

A: The 1920x1080 Low preset averages 952 FPS, while the 3840x2160 Ultra preset averages 243 FPS. This represents a 709 FPS difference, or approximately 3.9 times higher performance at the lower resolution and settings, highlighting the significant impact of resolution and quality settings on frame rate.

How This Combo Ranks — use comboRankInGame vs other tested combos

The combo of the Intel Core i7-13700K and the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5070 achieves a rank of 774 out of 3719 tested combinations in CS:GO. This places the pairing in the top 20.8% of all configurations, a strong showing given the age of the game and the wide variety of hardware tested. The rank of 774 indicates that while many high-end systems can achieve similar or better results, this specific combination is well above the median, offering excellent performance for users who prioritize high frame rates.

Breaking down the rank, the CPU's 89th percentile and GPU's 82nd percentile rankings suggest that the CPU is relatively stronger than the GPU, but for CS:GO, the GPU's raw power is sufficient to drive the frame rates seen in the measured data. The delta between the CPU and its nearest rival, the AMD Ryzen 9 7845HX, is just 0.5%, meaning that swapping to a similar-tier CPU would not meaningfully change the combo's rank. Conversely, the GPU's nearest rival, the AMD Radeon Pro 5300, is 1.2% faster in synthetic benchmarks, but this does not translate to higher in-game FPS due to game-specific optimizations.

The rank also reflects the diminishing returns of higher-end hardware for this title. With an average FPS of 285 at 4K High settings, the combo is already delivering well beyond what most displays can show. The data shows that the performance gap between this combo and lower-ranked ones is primarily at lower resolutions, where the CPU's single-thread performance and the GPU's high fill rate combine to produce extreme frame rates. At 1080p Low, the 952 FPS average reflects the combo's ability to minimize bottlenecks, a factor that contributes to its top-quintile ranking.

For users considering upgrades, the rank suggests that moving to a higher-tier GPU would yield marginal gains in CS:GO, as the game is not graphically demanding. The bottleneck at 4K Ultra, where FPS drops to 243, is the only scenario where a more powerful GPU could improve results, but even then, the gains would be modest relative to the cost. The combo's rank is therefore a reflection of balanced performance, where neither component severely limits the other in most scenarios.

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

The measured FPS data provides a comprehensive picture of how the combo performs across three resolutions and four settings presets. At 1920x1080, the results are staggering. With Low settings, the average FPS is 952, which is the highest recorded value. Medium settings see a drop to 811 average FPS, with a minimum of 689 and a maximum of 932. High settings reduce the average to 702 FPS, while Ultra settings yield a still-impressive 599 FPS average. These numbers indicate that at 1080p, the combo is almost entirely CPU-bound, as the GPU has ample headroom to render frames at maximum speed.

Moving to 2560x1440, the performance remains exceptionally high but shows the expected scaling. Low settings produce a 655 FPS average, while Medium settings average 558 FPS with a minimum of 474 and a maximum of 642. High settings reduce the average to 483 FPS, and Ultra settings bring it down to 412 FPS. The minimum FPS at Medium settings, 474, is still far above any competitive threshold, ensuring a smooth experience even in chaotic moments. The increase in resolution from 1080p to 1440p results in a roughly 30% reduction in frame rates across all settings, which is consistent with the increased pixel count.

At 4K resolution (3840x2160), the frame rates remain high but show a more pronounced GPU dependency. Low settings average 387 FPS, while Medium settings average 330 FPS with a minimum of 280 and a maximum of 379. High settings produce a 285 FPS average, and Ultra settings drop to 243 FPS. Even the lowest recorded average, 243 FPS at 4K Ultra, is well above the refresh rate of most gaming monitors, making this combo viable for 4K gaming with high settings. The data shows that the scaling from 1440p to 4K is more aggressive, with roughly a 40% reduction in performance, reflecting the increased GPU load.

Across all resolutions, the difference between Low and Ultra settings is significant. At 1080p, the gap between Low (952 FPS) and Ultra (599 FPS) is 353 FPS, or 37% lower performance at Ultra. At 1440p, the gap is 243 FPS (655 vs 412), and at 4K, the gap is 144 FPS (387 vs 243). This consistency suggests that the settings presets scale predictably, allowing users to fine-tune performance based on their display's refresh rate. The Medium settings rows, which include min and max FPS data, show tight frame pacing, with the min FPS at 4K Medium at 280, which is 85% of the average, indicating minimal stuttering.

Settings Recommendations — which preset gives the best experience per the measured rows

Based on the measured FPS data, the optimal settings preset depends on the user's display resolution and refresh rate. For 1920x1080 users with standard 144Hz or 240Hz monitors, the Low preset at 952 FPS provides the highest possible frame rate, ensuring that the display is always saturated with frames. However, the High preset at 702 FPS is a more balanced choice, offering better visual quality while still exceeding the refresh rate of even 360Hz monitors. The Ultra preset at 599 FPS also remains above most refresh rates, so users can prioritize visuals without sacrificing smoothness.

For 2560x1440 users, the High preset at 483 FPS is recommended for most competitive players, as it provides a healthy balance between image quality and performance. The Medium preset at 558 FPS is a viable alternative for those who want an extra margin of safety, with a minimum FPS of 474 ensuring no drops below 144Hz. The Ultra preset at 412 FPS still exceeds 240Hz, so users with high-refresh-rate 1440p monitors can confidently enable maximum settings. The Low preset at 655 FPS is overkill for any current display and may introduce unnecessary visual degradation.

For 3840x2160 users, the data suggests that High settings at 285 FPS offer the best experience, as this preset maintains high visual fidelity while keeping the frame rate well above 144Hz. The Medium preset at 330 FPS is also excellent, with a minimum FPS of 280, which is 87% of the average, indicating stable frame delivery. The Ultra preset at 243 FPS is acceptable for users with 240Hz 4K displays, but the visual gains over High are minimal in a fast-paced game like CS:GO. The Low preset at 387 FPS offers the highest frame rates but sacrifices too much visual quality for a marginal competitive advantage at 4K.

In general, the High preset appears to be the sweet spot across all resolutions, offering a consistent 60% of the maximum frame rate while providing substantial visual improvements over Low. The data shows that the difference between High and Ultra is relatively small in terms of FPS (e.g., 285 vs 243 at 4K), but the visual impact may be noticeable. For users with variable refresh rate monitors, enabling G-Sync or FreeSync and capping the frame rate slightly below the display's maximum can eliminate screen tearing, and the High preset provides enough headroom for this. The Medium preset is the best choice for users who prioritize minimum frame rates, as its min FPS values are consistently the highest percentage of the average.