Counter-Strike: Global Offensive

The Intel Core Ultra 5 245 paired with the Intel Arc B390 integrated graphics produces a combination that ranks at 2510 out of 2848 tested combos in Counter-Strike: Global Offensive, placing it in the bottom 12% of all systems. This is a CPU-dominant pairing where the processor's strong single-thread performance is completely overshadowed by the integrated GPU's limited rendering capabilities. The measured frame rates, however, reveal that this combo is surprisingly playable at lower settings, with the 1080p Low preset achieving an average of 303 FPS. The data indicates a system that is severely GPU-bound at higher settings, but capable of delivering competitive esports-level performance when configured appropriately.

How This Combo Ranks

The combo rank of 2510 out of 2848 places this configuration in the lower tier of all tested CPU-GPU pairings for CS:GO. This low standing is directly attributable to the GPU component, which sits at the 9th percentile among all GPUs based on its 3DMark Steel Nomad score of 1482. The CPU, conversely, performs at the 90th percentile among all processors, with an average benchmark score of 48995. This massive disparity between the two components defines the system's overall ranking—the processor is capable of far more, but the graphics solution holds the entire combo back.

Benchmark results for the CPU show a multi-threaded Cinebench R23 score of 32924 and a single-core score of 4648, indicating strong processing power that would typically support high-frame-rate gaming. However, the GPU's nearest rivals in terms of 3DMark scores are legacy parts like the NVIDIA GeForce GT 520MX (1.3% faster), the NVIDIA GeForce 800M (1.5% faster), and the NVIDIA GeForce GT 625 OEM (2.5% faster). These comparisons highlight just how far behind modern discrete graphics this integrated solution is. The delta percentages are tight, but all rivals are faster, meaning the Arc B390 sits at the very bottom of the GPU performance hierarchy.

In CS:GO specifically, the measured data shows the combo can still achieve playable frame rates, but the rank reflects consistency across all tested games and settings. The combo's position at 2510 out of 2848 means roughly 88% of tested pairings outperform it, yet the actual gameplay experience in CS:GO is more nuanced than the raw rank suggests. The high refresh-rate potential at 1080p Low indicates that for this particular title, the rank underestimates practical usability under the right conditions.

GPU Role

The Intel Arc B390 is an integrated graphics processor using the Xe3-LPG architecture on Intel's 3nm process, with a base clock of 300 MHz and a boost clock of 2500 MHz. Its memory configuration is entirely system-shared, meaning it uses the same DDR5 memory as the CPU rather than dedicated VRAM. The memory bandwidth is described as "System Dependent," which means performance scales with the capacity and speed of the installed system memory. This architecture explains why the GPU's 3DMark score of 1482 is so low—it lacks the dedicated bandwidth and latency advantages of discrete graphics memory.

The GPU features 1536 shading units, 48 texture mapping units, and 24 raster operation units, along with 12 ray tracing cores. Its pixel rate is 60.00 GPixel/s and texture rate is 120.0 GTexel/s, with FP32 performance of 7.680 TFLOPS. For a CS:GO workload, these specifications are modest, but the game's older Source engine is not particularly demanding on modern hardware. The GPU's 80W TDP is shared with the CPU package, and since it has no power connectors, it relies entirely on the motherboard's power delivery.

In the context of CS:GO results, the GPU's role becomes clear when examining FPS scaling across resolutions. At 1080p Low, the combo produces 303 FPS, but at 4K Low, it drops to 123 FPS—a 59.4% reduction. This scaling pattern indicates that the GPU is the limiting factor as resolution increases, because the CPU has ample headroom. The Arc B390's 3DMark score of 1482 places it in the 9th percentile of all GPUs, and its nearest rival, the GT 520MX, is a 2011-era discrete GPU. This integrated solution simply cannot sustain high frame rates at higher resolutions or settings.

The GPU's DirectX 12 Ultimate support and Vulkan 1.4 compatibility are modern, but CS:GO runs on DirectX 9-like paths where raw pixel throughput matters more than feature support. The measured FPS at 4K Ultra (77 FPS) versus 1080p Ultra (190 FPS) shows a 59.5% drop, nearly identical to the Low setting drop, confirming that the GPU's pixel processing capability is the consistent bottleneck. The system-shared memory also means there is no dedicated VRAM pool, which further limits high-resolution performance.

Settings Recommendations

The measured data provides a clear hierarchy of performance across settings presets, and the optimal choice depends heavily on the target resolution. For 1080p, the Low preset delivers 303 FPS, which is the highest measured average for this combo. This is the recommended preset for competitive play, as it maximizes frame rate and minimizes input latency, which is critical for CS:GO. The Medium preset at 1080p yields 258 FPS, still well above the 200 FPS threshold for high-refresh-rate monitors, but the 45 FPS drop from Low to Medium may not be worth the marginal visual improvement.

At 1440p, the Low preset produces 208 FPS, which remains competitive, while Medium drops to 177 FPS. For users with 144Hz monitors, both presets are viable, but Low provides a more comfortable margin above the refresh rate. The High preset at 1440p (154 FPS) is still playable but starts to approach the edge of what is comfortable for fast-paced shooters. At 4K, only the Low preset (123 FPS) exceeds the 120 FPS mark, while Medium (105 FPS) and High (91 FPS) fall below it, suggesting that 4K gaming is only viable at Low settings.

The Ultra preset is consistently the worst performer across all resolutions: 190 FPS at 1080p, 131 FPS at 1440p, and 77 FPS at 4K. Given that Ultra typically adds visual effects that are distracting in a competitive FPS, the data suggests avoiding this preset entirely. The best experience per the measured rows is achieved at 1080p Low, which offers the highest FPS and the largest buffer above typical monitor refresh rates. For those prioritizing visual quality over raw performance, 1080p Medium at 258 FPS provides a balanced compromise without sacrificing playability.

The measured FPS spread between Low and Ultra at 1080p is 113 FPS (303 vs 190), representing a 37.3% performance penalty for choosing Ultra. This is a significant cost with minimal competitive benefit. Based on the data, the recommended configuration is 1080p Low for competitive integrity, or 1080p Medium if visual fidelity is preferred, as both maintain frame rates well above 240 FPS.

Measured FPS Breakdown

At 1920x1080, the measured average FPS varies significantly by settings preset. The Low preset achieves 303 FPS, which is the highest score in the entire dataset. Medium follows at 258 FPS, with a minimum of 219 FPS and a maximum of 296 FPS, indicating some frame-time variance but overall consistency. High produces 223 FPS, and Ultra drops to 190 FPS. The spread from Low to Ultra is 113 FPS, showing that settings have a substantial impact on performance at this resolution.

Moving to 2560x1440, the Low preset delivers 208 FPS, which is a 31.4% drop from the 1080p Low score. Medium at 1440p achieves 177 FPS (151 min, 204 max), High reaches 154 FPS, and Ultra falls to 131 FPS. The resolution increase from 1080p to 1440p costs roughly 30-35% of performance across all settings, indicating that the GPU is struggling with the additional pixel count. At 1440p, even the Low preset barely exceeds 200 FPS, which is still adequate for most high-refresh-rate monitors.

At 3840x2160, the Low preset produces 123 FPS, which is a 59.4% reduction from 1080p Low. Medium achieves 105 FPS (89 min, 120 max), High drops to 91 FPS, and Ultra bottoms out at 77 FPS. The 4K results show that this combo is not suited for 4K gaming at any setting, as even the lowest preset barely maintains 120 FPS, and the Medium preset's minimum of 89 FPS would cause noticeable stuttering in a competitive shooter. The Ultra preset's 77 FPS is below the 100 FPS threshold that many players consider minimum for CS:GO.

The data shows a consistent pattern: Low settings always provide the highest FPS, followed by Medium, High, and Ultra in descending order. The gap between Low and Ultra widens as resolution increases, from 113 FPS at 1080p to 46 FPS at 4K. This narrowing gap at higher resolutions indicates that the GPU becomes the overwhelming bottleneck, reducing the relative impact of settings presets. The Medium preset's min-max ranges (219-296 at 1080p, 151-204 at 1440p, 89-120 at 4K) show that frame times are relatively stable, with no severe stuttering indicated.

Resolution Scaling

The FPS drop from 1080p to 4K is steep and consistent across all settings, revealing a GPU-bound scenario. At Low settings, the combo delivers 303 FPS at 1080p, 208 FPS at 1440p, and 123 FPS at 4K. The percentage drop from 1080p to 1440p is 31.4%, and from 1440p to 4K is 40.9%. In total, 4K performance is only 40.6% of 1080p performance, which is a substantial reduction that points directly at the GPU's limited pixel throughput.

At Medium settings, the scaling is similar: 258 FPS at 1080p, 177 FPS at 1440p, and 105 FPS at 4K. The drop from 1080p to 1440p is 31.4%, and from 1440p to 4K is 40.7%. The consistency of these percentage drops across different settings strongly suggests that the limiting component is the GPU, as a CPU bottleneck would show less variation with resolution changes. The CPU's strong single-thread score of 4648 in Cinebench R23 indicates it has ample headroom to feed the GPU, but the GPU cannot keep up as pixel count increases.

The 4K Low result of 123 FPS versus 1080p Low of 303 FPS represents a 180 FPS difference, which is a massive performance gap. This scaling behavior is typical of integrated graphics, which lack the memory bandwidth and compute resources of discrete solutions. The system-shared memory architecture means that as resolution increases, the GPU must access more data from system memory, competing with the CPU for bandwidth. This contention is evident in the disproportionate FPS losses at higher resolutions.

The data indicates that this combo is optimal at 1080p, where the CPU can push high frame rates and the GPU can keep up with the lower pixel count. At 1440p, performance remains acceptable for casual play, but the FPS buffer above 144Hz is thin. At 4K, the system is clearly GPU-limited, and the measured 77-123 FPS range is below the threshold for competitive CS:GO. For users with high-refresh-rate monitors, 1080p is the only resolution that fully utilizes the display's capabilities.

FAQ

Q: What is the best resolution for this combo in CS:GO?

A: The measured data shows 1080p is the optimal resolution, with the Low preset achieving 303 FPS and Medium reaching 258 FPS. At 1440p, even the Low preset drops to 208 FPS, and at 4K, the Low preset only manages 123 FPS.

Q: Does this combo perform better at Low or Ultra settings?

A: Low settings are significantly faster across all resolutions. At 1080p, Low produces 303 FPS versus 190 FPS at Ultra, a 113 FPS difference. At 4K, Low achieves 123 FPS while Ultra drops to 77 FPS.

Q: Is the CPU or GPU the bottleneck in this system?

A: The GPU is the clear bottleneck. The CPU's Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 32924 and single-core score of 4648 place it at the 90th percentile, while the GPU's 3DMark score of 1482 is at the 9th percentile. The FPS scaling from 1080p to 4K shows consistent 30-40% drops per resolution step, indicating GPU limitation.

Q: Can this combo run CS:GO at 200+ FPS?

A: Yes, at 1080p. The Low preset achieves 303 FPS, Medium reaches 258 FPS, and High produces 223 FPS. At 1440p, only the Low preset exceeds 200 FPS at 208 FPS.

Q: How does this GPU compare to its nearest rivals?

A: The Intel Arc B390's 3DMark Steel Nomad score of 1482 is 1.3% lower than the NVIDIA GeForce GT 520MX, 1.5% lower than the GeForce 800M, and 2.5% lower than the GeForce GT 625 OEM. All nearest rivals are slightly faster.

Q: What 4K performance can I expect?

A: The measured 4K results are 123 FPS at Low, 105 FPS at Medium (with a minimum of 89 FPS), 91 FPS at High, and 77 FPS at Ultra. None of these are ideal for competitive play, as even the best case barely maintains 120 FPS.