Counter-Strike: Global Offensive

Counter-Strike: Global Offensive is an old game by modern standards, but it remains a benchmark staple because of how sensitive it is to hardware changes. The data for this combo—Intel Core Ultra 9 290K Plus paired with the integrated Intel Arc B370 graphics—tells a clear story about what happens when a flagship-class CPU is matched with entry-level graphics. The measured frames per second (FPS) reveal that this system is entirely GPU-bound in almost every scenario, with the CPU's massive headroom going largely unused. This is a configuration that will deliver playable, and sometimes very fast, frame rates, but it will never stretch its legs in this title.

Resolution Scaling

The FPS drop from 1080p to 4K is steep and consistent, which is the signature of a system limited by its graphics processor rather than its processor. At 1080p with Low settings, the combo produces an average of 273 FPS. Moving to 1440p drops that to 188 FPS, a loss of 85 FPS. At 4K, it falls further to 111 FPS. The pattern holds across all settings presets. For High settings, the progression is 202 FPS at 1080p, 139 FPS at 1440p, and 82 FPS at 4K. For Medium, it is 233, 160, and 95 FPS respectively. Even at Ultra, the scaling is consistent: 172 FPS at 1080p, 118 FPS at 1440p, and 70 FPS at 4K.

What this scaling indicates is that the compute units are the bottleneck. As resolution increases, the number of pixels the GPU must shade and rasterize grows exponentially, and the Arc B370's 20 ROPs and 6.144 TFLOPS of FP32 performance are simply not enough to keep pace with the CPU's ability to feed it draw calls. The percentage drop from 1080p to 4K is roughly the same regardless of settings, which is a typical sign of a pure pixel-throughput limit. If the CPU were the limiting factor, we would expect to see the FPS gap between resolutions narrow significantly at lower settings, where the GPU has less work to do. That is not the case here.

The data also shows that the gap between Low and Ultra settings narrows as resolution increases. At 1080p, the difference between Low (273 FPS) and Ultra (172 FPS) is 101 FPS. At 1440p, that difference shrinks to 70 FPS (188 vs. 118). At 4K, it shrinks further to 41 FPS (111 vs. 70). This is another clear indicator of the GPU being the limiting component. At higher resolutions, the GPU is so saturated with pixel work that the additional shading complexity from higher settings has a relatively smaller impact on the final frame rate. The absolute floor is set by the GPU's fillrate, and the ceiling is also set by it.

How This Combo Ranks

In the grand scheme of tested combinations, this pairing does not fare well. The combo ranks 2615 out of 2848 tested combinations for Counter-Strike: Global Offensive. This places it in the bottom 8% of all tested systems. That is a surprisingly low position for a CPU that sits in the 96th percentile of all CPUs tested, but it makes sense when you consider the GPU's position. The Intel Arc B370 ranks in the 5th percentile of all GPUs, meaning it is slower than 95% of the graphics processors in the database. This is a pairing of extremes: a top-tier CPU with a bottom-tier GPU.

The rank is a direct consequence of the GPU's performance, not the CPU's. In a game like CS:GO, which is known for being CPU-bound on many systems, this combo still manages to be held back by the integrated graphics. The benchmark results indicate that the system's overall score is dragged down by the GPU's inability to output frames quickly enough. The CPU's high benchmark scores—like a Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 51731 and a single-core score of 7303—are irrelevant to the final FPS in this title because the GPU is the one doing the heavy lifting for frame output.

Compared to other combos in the database, this one is a clear outlier. The CPU's nearest rivals, such as the Intel Core Ultra 9 285K, which scores 0.2% higher in CPU benchmarks, would likely produce similar FPS when paired with the same GPU. However, the ranking is about the entire system, and the GPU drags this combo down to the bottom quartile. For a builder looking at this data, the takeaway is that the CPU is not the reason for this poor rank; the GPU is. Swapping the Arc B370 for even a modest discrete card would change this ranking dramatically.

GPU Role

The Intel Arc B370 is an integrated graphics processor, part of the Arc Xe-LPG family, and its specifications are modest. It operates with a base clock of 300 MHz and a boost clock of 2400 MHz. It has 1280 shading units, 40 texture mapping units, and 20 raster output units. Its memory is system shared, meaning it uses the same DDR5 memory as the CPU, and its bandwidth is system dependent. This is a critical detail because it means the GPU's performance is tied to the system's memory configuration, not a dedicated VRAM pool. The 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 score for this GPU is 1184, which places it in the 5th percentile of all GPUs, and its nearest rivals are legacy cards like the ATI Radeon HD 5770 and the ATI Mobility Radeon HD 5570.

The GPU's role in CS:GO is to render the game's relatively simple geometry and effects. The data shows that it can handle the game, but it is clearly not a high-performance part. The FP32 performance of 6.144 TFLOPS is enough for playable frame rates, but the system shared memory architecture means that memory bandwidth is a potential bottleneck. The measured FPS at 4K Ultra of 70 FPS, and 82 FPS at 4K High, shows that the GPU is working hard to output those frames. The fact that the GPU is an IGP with a 25 W TDP also indicates that it is thermally and power-limited, which caps its sustained performance.

The boost clock of 2400 MHz is relatively high for an integrated part, but the sheer lack of execution units compared to a discrete GPU is the limiting factor. With only 20 ROPs, the pixel fillrate is 48.00 GPixel/s, and the texture rate is 96.00 GTexel/s. These figures are low, and they directly correlate with the FPS drops seen at higher resolutions. At 1080p, the GPU has enough throughput to push over 200 FPS on High settings, but at 4K, the fillrate requirements outstrip its capabilities. The data suggests that the GPU is the sole determinant of the frame rate in this combo, and its performance is best described as entry-level.

Measured FPS Breakdown

The measured FPS data provides a complete picture of this combo's performance across three resolutions and four settings presets. At 1920x1080, the system is capable of high refresh rate gaming. With Low settings, it averages 273 FPS. Medium settings reduce this to 233 FPS, with a minimum of 198 FPS and a maximum of 268 FPS. High settings produce 202 FPS, and Ultra settings produce 172 FPS. These numbers are all well above the 144 Hz threshold, and even the minimum FPS on Medium is above 144 FPS. This means that for competitive play at 1080p, this combo is more than sufficient, provided the player is willing to use lower settings to maximize frame rate.

Moving to 2560x1440, the performance drops to a level that is still acceptable for most gamers, but it starts to show the GPU's limits. Low settings yield an average of 188 FPS. Medium settings give 160 FPS, with a minimum of 136 FPS and a maximum of 184 FPS. High settings drop to 139 FPS, and Ultra settings are down to 118 FPS. At 1440p, the system is still capable of driving a 144 Hz monitor on Low or Medium settings, but High and Ultra settings will require a 120 Hz or lower refresh rate to avoid screen tearing without V-Sync.

At 3840x2160, the system struggles to maintain high frame rates. Low settings produce an average of 111 FPS, which is still playable. Medium settings yield 95 FPS, with a minimum of 80 FPS and a maximum of 109 FPS. High settings drop to 82 FPS, and Ultra settings are down to 70 FPS. At 4K, the system is best suited for a 60 Hz monitor, and even then, Ultra settings will push the FPS close to the refresh rate limit, which can cause frame pacing issues. The data clearly shows that 4K is the resolution where the GPU becomes the absolute bottleneck, and the FPS numbers are consistent with the GPU's low fillrate. The minimum FPS of 80 at 4K Medium is particularly telling, as it indicates that the frame time variance is high, which can lead to stuttering in fast-paced gameplay.

CPU Role

The Intel Core Ultra 9 290K Plus is a monster of a processor, but in CS:GO, its role is minimal. It has 24 cores and 24 threads, with a base clock of 3.70 GHz and a boost clock of 5.80 GHz. Its benchmark scores are exceptional, including a Passmark multi-thread score of 60860 and a single-thread score of 4823. In synthetic tests, it outperforms its nearest rivals, the Intel Core Ultra 9 285K (0.2% faster) and the AMD EPYC 4584PX (1.1% slower). However, CS:GO does not need 24 cores. It is a game that relies heavily on single-core performance and a high clock speed.

The data shows that the CPU is not the limiting factor in this combo. At 1080p Low, the system hits 273 FPS, which is likely close to the game engine's limit or the GPU's limit, not the CPU's. The CPU's single-core performance, evidenced by a Cinebench R23 single-core score of 7303, is more than enough to handle the game's game logic and render thread. The fact that the FPS drops so significantly when moving from 1080p to 4K confirms that the CPU is not the bottleneck. If the CPU were the bottleneck, the FPS would remain relatively flat across resolutions.

The CPU's massive L3 cache of 36 MB shared, and its 3 MB L2 cache per core, would help in a CPU-bound scenario, but that scenario does not exist here. The benchmark results indicate that the CPU is essentially idle waiting for the GPU to finish rendering frames. For a builder, this means that the CPU is overkill for this game, but it also means that the system has a huge upgrade path. If a discrete GPU were added later, the CPU would be able to support it without becoming a bottleneck. The CPU's performance percentile of 96 versus the GPU's 5 percentile is a stark illustration of the imbalance in this combo.

Settings Recommendations

Based on the measured rows, the best experience for this combo depends heavily on the target resolution and refresh rate. For a 1080p gamer with a 144 Hz or 240 Hz monitor, the Low preset is the clear choice, delivering 273 FPS. This ensures the frame rate stays above the monitor's refresh rate, minimizing input lag and maximizing responsiveness. Medium settings are also viable at 233 FPS, but the jump to High (202 FPS) and Ultra (172 FPS) is not worth the visual gain when the frame rate is still well above 144 FPS. For competitive play, Low is recommended to maximize FPS and reduce visual clutter.

For 1440p gaming, the data suggests that Medium settings offer the best balance. The average of 160 FPS is high enough for a 144 Hz monitor, and the minimum of 136 FPS means it rarely drops below the refresh rate threshold. Low settings at 188 FPS are also excellent, but Medium provides better visual fidelity while still maintaining a high average FPS. High and Ultra settings, at 139 FPS and 118 FPS respectively, are acceptable for a 120 Hz monitor, but they are not ideal for a 144 Hz display. The frame rate on High is close to the 144 Hz limit, but it will not consistently hold it.

At 4K, the system is best used with a 60 Hz monitor. The Low preset at 111 FPS is the smoothest, but it leaves performance on the table. Medium settings at 95 FPS are the recommended balance, as the minimum of 80 FPS is still above 60 FPS, providing a consistent experience with better visuals. High settings at 82 FPS are also playable, but the average is close to the 60 Hz refresh rate, and any scene complexity could cause the FPS to dip below 60, resulting in stutter. Ultra settings at 70 FPS are not recommended, as the low average FPS and potential for drops below 60 FPS will detract from the experience. The data clearly shows that for the best experience, players should prioritize frame rate over visual quality, especially at higher resolutions.