Counter-Strike: Global Offensive

Counter-Strike: Global Offensive is an esports title where frame rate consistency and input responsiveness often matter more than absolute visual fidelity, and the measured data for this combination of the Intel Core i7-14700KF and the Intel Arc B370 reveals a system that is heavily skewed toward CPU performance. The i7-14700KF is a 20-core, 28-thread processor from the Raptor Lake refresh, with a base clock of 3.40 GHz and a boost clock of 5.60 GHz, placing it in the 94th percentile of all CPUs. In contrast, the Arc B370 is an integrated graphics solution based on the Xe3-LPG architecture with a 25 W TDP, landing in only the 5th percentile of all GPUs. This massive disparity in relative performance tiers is the defining characteristic of the benchmark results, indicating that the integrated GPU is the primary bottleneck in almost every scenario, regardless of resolution.

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

The Intel Core i7-14700KF is a desktop-class powerhouse, and its specifications suggest it is far more capable than what this game demands at the tested settings. With 20 cores and 28 threads, it offers substantial multi-threading headroom, which is reflected in its strong synthetic benchmarks. In Cinebench R23, the CPU scores 44,167 points in the multi-core test and 6,235 in single-core, while in Geekbench it achieves 21,462 and 2,578 for multi-core and single-core respectively. The high boost clock of 5.60 GHz is crucial for a game like CS:GO, which is traditionally sensitive to single-thread performance; the single-core Cinebench R15 score of 628 and Passmark single-thread score of 4,480 indicate that the processor has the raw speed to feed frames quickly.

The data shows that the CPU is not the limiting factor in this configuration. When comparing the i7-14700KF to its nearest rivals, it scores an average benchmark of 70,163, which is 0.2% ahead of the AMD Ryzen 7 9700F, 0.4% ahead of the AMD Ryzen 9 7940HX, and 0.9% ahead of the AMD Ryzen 9 7950X. It is 1% behind the Intel Core Ultra 7 265K, but these differences are negligible in gaming scenarios. The CPU’s 33 MB of shared L3 cache and 2 MB per-core L2 cache help maintain high hit rates for game data, but with the Arc B370 handling rendering, the CPU’s extensive resources are often left waiting for the GPU to catch up. The 125 W TDP and 10 nm process node are specifications of the processor itself, but in this integrated graphics context, the CPU’s role is to prepare frames that the GPU then struggles to render at higher settings.

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

The Intel Arc B370 is the clear bottleneck. This integrated GPU operates with a base clock of 300 MHz and a boost clock of 2400 MHz, and it uses system-shared memory for both VRAM and bandwidth, making its performance dependent on the system’s RAM. With 1,280 shading units, 40 TMUs, and 20 ROPs, it has modest compute resources, and its FP32 performance is rated at 6.144 TFLOPS. The GPU’s benchmark score in 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 is only 1,184, which places it in the 5th percentile of all GPUs, and it benchmarks nearly identically to older discrete cards like the ATI Mobility Radeon HD 5570 (1,186, -0.2% delta) and ATI Radeon HD 5770 (1,190, -0.5% delta). This puts its raw rendering power on par with hardware from over a decade ago.

In CS:GO, the GPU’s limitations become apparent as settings increase. The Arc B370 supports DirectX 12 Ultimate, OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4, but its 3 nm process node and low 25 W TDP mean it is designed for efficiency, not high-end gaming. The data indicates that while the GPU can push high frame rates at low settings, it quickly becomes overwhelmed when texture quality and effects are elevated. The shared memory architecture means that memory bandwidth is "System Dependent," which can cause stuttering or reduced performance if the system RAM is not fast enough, though the measured FPS numbers suggest the configuration handles this adequately. The GPU’s pixel rate of 48.00 GPixel/s and texture rate of 96.00 GTexel/s are fixed limits that cap how many pixels and texels can be processed per second, directly influencing the FPS drops seen at higher resolutions.

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

The resolution scaling pattern in the measured data is a textbook example of a GPU-bound system. At 1080p with Low settings, the system achieves an average of 273 FPS, which is excellent for competitive play. Moving to 1440p Low drops this to 188 FPS, a 31% reduction, and at 4K Low it falls to 111 FPS, a further 41% reduction from 1440p. This steep decline as pixel count increases shows that the Arc B370 is being pushed to its limits; the CPU could easily maintain higher frame rates if the GPU could keep up. The 1080p Low result of 273 FPS is likely close to the CPU’s maximum frame delivery capability, but the GPU cannot sustain that performance at higher resolutions.

Looking at the High settings, the pattern is similar but with lower absolute numbers. At 1080p High, the average is 202 FPS, dropping to 139 FPS at 1440p (a 31% drop) and 82 FPS at 4K (a 41% drop from 1440p). The consistent percentage drops across different settings indicate that the GPU’s fill rate and memory bandwidth are the limiting factors, not the CPU. If the system were CPU-bound, we would expect the FPS to remain relatively flat across resolutions until the CPU reached its limit, but the data shows a linear decline that correlates directly with the increase in pixel count. This confirms that the i7-14700KF is far ahead of the Arc B370, and the GPU is the component that needs upgrading for higher-resolution gaming.

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

The complete set of measured FPS data provides a clear picture of performance across all combinations. At 1920x1080, the system ranges from 273 FPS on Low to 172 FPS on Ultra. The Medium preset averages 233 FPS with a minimum of 198 FPS and a maximum of 268 FPS, while the High preset averages 202 FPS. These numbers show that at 1080p, even the Ultra preset is playable, but the frame rates are highly variable, suggesting that the GPU is working hard.

At 2560x1440, the performance drops significantly. Low settings average 188 FPS, Medium averages 160 FPS (with min/max of 136/184), High averages 139 FPS, and Ultra averages 118 FPS. The gap between Low and Ultra at 1440p is 70 FPS, which is a larger absolute difference than at 1080p (101 FPS between Low and Ultra). This widening gap indicates that the GPU’s shader and ROP limitations are more pronounced at higher resolutions.

At 3840x2160, the system struggles to maintain high frame rates. Low settings average 111 FPS, Medium averages 95 FPS (with min/max of 80/109), High averages 82 FPS, and Ultra averages 70 FPS. At 4K, even the Low preset does not reach the 144 Hz threshold that competitive players often target, and the Ultra preset’s 70 FPS average is below the refresh rate of most modern monitors. The Medium preset at 4K shows a minimum FPS of 80, which means there will be noticeable frame drops during intense firefights. Overall, the data shows that 1080p is the only resolution where the system can consistently deliver high frame rates across all settings, and 4K is only suitable for less demanding presets.

FAQ

Q: Can this system run Counter-Strike: Global Offensive at 144 Hz on a 1080p monitor?

A: Yes, at 1080p the system averages 273 FPS on Low, 233 FPS on Medium, and 202 FPS on High settings. Even the Ultra preset averages 172 FPS, which is above 144 Hz, so a 144 Hz monitor can be fully utilized at this resolution with all settings.

Q: Is the Intel Core i7-14700KF or the Intel Arc B370 the bottleneck in this configuration?

A: The data shows the Arc B370 is the bottleneck. The CPU ranks in the 94th percentile of all CPUs, while the GPU ranks in the 5th percentile. The FPS drops significantly as resolution increases from 1080p to 4K, which is characteristic of a GPU-limited system, while the CPU’s high single-core performance is more than sufficient for CS:GO.

Q: What is the difference in performance between the Low and Ultra presets at 1440p?

A: At 2560x1440, the Low preset averages 188 FPS, while the Ultra preset averages 118 FPS. This is a difference of 70 FPS, or a 37% reduction in average frame rate when moving from Low to Ultra settings.

Q: How does the Arc B370 compare to its nearest rival GPUs in synthetic benchmarks?

A: The Arc B370 scores 1,184 in 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12. It is 0.2% slower than the ATI Mobility Radeon HD 5570 (1,186), 0.5% slower than the ATI Radeon HD 5770 (1,190), and 0.7% slower than the AMD Radeon HD 7650M (1,192). It is 1.4% faster than the AMD FirePro M2000 (1,168).

Q: Are the frame rates stable, or are there significant drops during gameplay?

A: The Medium preset is the only settings level with recorded minimum FPS data. At 1080p Medium, the minimum is 198 FPS and the maximum is 268 FPS. At 1440p Medium, the minimum is 136 FPS and the maximum is 184 FPS. At 4K Medium, the minimum is 80 FPS and the maximum is 109 FPS. This shows that while average frame rates are decent, there can be substantial variation, especially at higher resolutions.

Q: What is the overall ranking of this CPU and GPU combination for CS:GO?

A: This specific combination ranks 2,615 out of 2,848 tested combos for this game, placing it in the bottom 8% of all configurations. This low ranking is primarily due to the weak integrated GPU, which holds back the otherwise powerful CPU.

Settings Recommendations

Based on the measured FPS data, the best experience depends on the user’s display and priorities. For competitive play on a 1080p monitor, the Medium preset is the sweet spot. It delivers an average of 233 FPS with a minimum of 198 FPS, ensuring that frame times stay consistent and that the system rarely drops below 144 Hz. The Low preset offers higher average FPS (273) but the visual quality is degraded, and the High preset (202 FPS) still provides a competitive edge but with slightly lower headroom. The Ultra preset at 1080p averages 172 FPS, which is still playable, but the minimum FPS is not recorded, and the increased graphical load may cause more frequent dips.

For 1440p users, the Low preset is the only reliable option for high refresh rate gaming, averaging 188 FPS. The Medium preset at 1440p averages 160 FPS with a minimum of 136 FPS, which is acceptable for 144 Hz monitors but may show occasional dips below the refresh rate. The High and Ultra presets at 1440p (139 FPS and 118 FPS respectively) are better suited for 60 Hz displays or slower-paced gameplay, as they prioritize visual fidelity over frame rate consistency.

At 4K, the system is not well-suited for competitive play. The Low preset averages 111 FPS, which is below the 144 Hz target, and the Medium preset averages 95 FPS with a minimum of 80 FPS. For a 60 Hz 4K monitor, the High preset (82 FPS) is acceptable, but the Ultra preset (70 FPS) should be avoided if smoothness is a priority. The data suggests that this configuration is best used at 1080p with Medium or High settings for the optimal balance of performance and visuals, as the CPU has ample headroom but the GPU limits higher-resolution performance.