Counter-Strike: Global Offensive

This analysis examines the performance of the Intel Core Ultra 9 290K Plus paired with the Intel Arc B570 in Counter-Strike: Global Offensive. The data is derived from measured FPS results across multiple resolutions and settings, providing a clear picture of where this combination excels and where its limitations lie.

Resolution Scaling

The performance trajectory from 1080p to 4K reveals a clear shift in system bottleneck. At 1920x1080, the average frame rates are exceptionally high, ranging from 293 FPS on Ultra to 465 FPS on Low. This indicates that at this resolution, the Intel Core Ultra 9 290K Plus is doing the heavy lifting, as the Arc B570 is able to produce frames well beyond what most displays can even show. The jump from Low to Ultra at 1080p costs 172 FPS, a significant drop that shows the GPU is starting to feel the pressure of higher settings, but the absolute numbers remain far above competitive thresholds.

Moving to 2560x1440, the frame rates remain very strong but the scaling pattern changes. The Low preset delivers 320 FPS, while Ultra drops to 201 FPS. Comparing 1080p to 1440p at the same settings, the average FPS drops by 31% at High, 31% at Low, 31% at Medium, and 31% at Ultra. This consistent percentage drop across all settings suggests that the system is scaling predictably with pixel count, and the load is being distributed between CPU and GPU more evenly than at 1080p.

At 3840x2160, the Arc B570 becomes the primary limiting factor. The average FPS falls to 189 on Low and 119 on Ultra. The difference between Low and Ultra at 4K is 70 FPS, which is a larger absolute gap than at lower resolutions, but the percentage difference is similar. The more telling metric is the drop from 1440p to 4K: at High settings, the FPS falls from 236 to 139, a 41% reduction. This steep decline at 4K confirms that the GPU is now the bottleneck, as the CPU’s massive headroom at lower resolutions cannot compensate for the raw pixel throughput required at 4K.

The data indicates that this combo is best suited for 1080p and 1440p gaming, where the CPU can push the GPU to its limits. At 4K, the system is still playable, but the frame rates drop below the high-refresh territory that CS:GO players typically target. For users with 1080p or 1440p high-refresh monitors, this pairing will deliver an extremely responsive experience. At 4K, users will need to dial back settings to maintain competitive frame rates.

CPU Role

The Intel Core Ultra 9 290K Plus is a 24-core, 24-thread processor based on the Arrow Lake Refresh architecture. It features a base clock of 3.70 GHz and a boost clock of 5.80 GHz. The processor has a large L3 cache of 36 MB shared across all cores, which is advantageous for gaming workloads that benefit from fast access to frequently used data. The CPU’s benchmark scores are impressive, with a Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 51731 and a single-core score of 7303, placing it in the 96th percentile of all CPUs.

In CS:GO, which is known for being heavily CPU-bound at lower resolutions, this processor demonstrates its strength. At 1080p Low, the system achieves 465 FPS, which confirms the CPU’s ability to feed the GPU with enough data to maintain such high frame rates. The single-core performance is critical for this game, and the 7303 score in Cinebench R23 indicates that the processor can handle the game’s primary thread with ease. The boost clock of 5.80 GHz is particularly relevant, as it ensures that the game’s main thread has access to the highest possible clock speed when needed.

The CPU’s nearest rivals in the benchmark database include the Intel Core Ultra 9 285K, which has an average score 0.2% higher, and the AMD EPYC 4584PX, which is 1.1% higher. The difference between the 290K Plus and the 285K is negligible, meaning that users upgrading from the previous generation would see no meaningful improvement in CPU-bound scenarios. The EPYC processors listed are server-class parts, so their presence in the rival list is more of a benchmarking artifact than a practical comparison for gaming.

The CPU’s 24 threads are more than sufficient for CS:GO, which typically uses only a handful of cores. This means that the processor has significant headroom for background tasks, streaming, or other applications running simultaneously. The memory bandwidth of 115.2 GB/s and dual-channel DDR5 support ensure that the CPU can feed data to the GPU without creating a bottleneck. Overall, the CPU role is to provide an unshakeable foundation that allows the GPU to operate at its full potential, which it does exceptionally well at 1080p and 1440p.

FAQ

Q: What is the best resolution for this CPU and GPU combo?

A: The data shows the strongest performance at 1920x1080, where average FPS ranges from 293 on Ultra to 465 on Low. At 2560x1440, the system still delivers 201 to 320 FPS, which is excellent for high-refresh monitors. At 3840x2160, frame rates drop to 119 to 189 FPS, which is playable but not ideal for competitive play.

Q: How does the Intel Core Ultra 9 290K Plus compare to its closest rival?

A: The 290K Plus has an average benchmark score of 84003, which is 0.2% lower than the Intel Core Ultra 9 285K’s 83807 score. The difference is negligible, indicating that the two processors perform nearly identically in most tasks.

Q: Is the Intel Arc B570 a good match for this CPU?

A: The pairing is well-balanced for 1080p and 1440p gaming. At 1080p, the CPU is the primary driver, with the GPU keeping up. At 1440p, the load is more evenly distributed. At 4K, the GPU becomes the limiting factor, which is expected given its 65th percentile ranking among all GPUs.

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

A: At 2560x1440, the Low preset delivers 320 FPS, while the Ultra preset delivers 201 FPS. This is a 119 FPS difference, representing a 37% reduction in average frame rate when moving from the lowest to the highest settings.

Q: How does the system perform at 4K with Medium settings?

A: At 3840x2160 with Medium settings, the average FPS is 161, with a minimum of 137 and a maximum of 185. This is a playable frame rate, but it falls short of the high-refresh experience available at lower resolutions.

Q: Does this CPU have enough cores for CS:GO and background tasks?

A: The 24 cores and 24 threads provide substantial headroom. CS:GO only uses a few threads, so the remaining cores can handle streaming, web browsing, or other applications without impacting game performance.

Measured FPS Breakdown

At 1920x1080, the system delivers its highest frame rates. The Low preset produces an average of 465 FPS, which is the highest recorded in the dataset. Medium settings average 396 FPS, with a minimum of 337 and a maximum of 456. High settings average 343 FPS, and Ultra settings average 293 FPS. The spread between Low and Ultra at 1080p is 172 FPS, showing that while the GPU is capable of high frame rates, the settings have a meaningful impact on the final output.

At 2560x1440, the frame rates remain strong but show a more pronounced GPU influence. Low settings average 320 FPS, Medium averages 273 FPS with a minimum of 232 and a maximum of 314, High averages 236 FPS, and Ultra averages 201 FPS. The gap between Low and Ultra is 119 FPS, which is a 37% reduction. This is a steeper percentage drop than at 1080p, indicating that the GPU is becoming more of a factor in performance.

At 3840x2160, the GPU is clearly the limiting component. Low settings average 189 FPS, Medium averages 161 FPS with a minimum of 137 and a maximum of 185, High averages 139 FPS, and Ultra averages 119 FPS. The difference between Low and Ultra at 4K is 70 FPS, which is the smallest absolute gap across all resolutions. This suggests that even at the lowest settings, the GPU is struggling to maintain the frame rates that the CPU could theoretically support.

The progression across resolutions shows a consistent pattern: at 1080p, the CPU is the main driver; at 1440p, the load is balanced; and at 4K, the GPU is the bottleneck. For users with a 1080p 240Hz or 360Hz monitor, this combo will saturate the display in most settings. For 1440p 165Hz or 240Hz monitors, the system will keep up with ease. For 4K, users will need to accept lower settings or a lower refresh rate.

How This Combo Ranks

The Intel Core Ultra 9 290K Plus and Intel Arc B570 combination ranks 2271 out of 2848 tested combos in Counter-Strike: Global Offensive. This places it in the 20th percentile of all tested systems, meaning that 80% of other combos perform better in this specific game. This ranking is surprising given the high frame rates measured, but it reflects the fact that many other systems are configured with more powerful GPUs that push the frame rates even higher, particularly at 4K.

The ranking is likely dragged down by the GPU’s performance relative to other options. The Arc B570 has an average benchmark score of 20556 and sits in the 65th percentile of all GPUs. Its nearest rivals include the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3070 Mobile, which is 0.1% higher, and the Intel Arc A750, which is 0.1% lower. The GPU’s performance is solid, but it is not in the top tier of graphics cards, which means that systems with higher-end GPUs will naturally achieve higher frame rates in CS:GO.

The CPU’s high percentile ranking of 96% does not fully compensate for the GPU’s mid-tier positioning. In a game like CS:GO where frame rates are heavily dependent on the GPU at higher resolutions, the combo’s rank is more reflective of the GPU’s capabilities than the CPU’s. At 1080p, this combo would likely rank much higher, but the overall ranking across all tested scenarios includes 4K, where the GPU struggles.

For users building a system specifically for CS:GO, this combo is a competent choice, but it is not the top performer in the database. The data shows that the CPU is a powerful partner, but the GPU limits the system’s overall standing. Users who prioritize maximum frame rates in CS:GO would benefit from a more powerful GPU, even if it means pairing it with a less capable CPU.

Settings Recommendations

Based on the measured FPS data, the optimal settings depend on the user’s display and performance goals. For 1920x1080 users with a 240Hz or 360Hz monitor, the High preset is the best choice. It delivers 343 FPS, which is well above the refresh rate of most high-end monitors, while providing better visual quality than Low or Medium. The Ultra preset at 293 FPS is also viable for 240Hz displays, but the visual improvement over High is marginal in CS:GO, while the frame rate cost is significant.

For 2560x1440 users with a 165Hz or 240Hz monitor, the High preset is again the sweet spot. It averages 236 FPS, which is above 165Hz and close to 240Hz. The Medium preset at 273 FPS is also a good option for 240Hz displays, offering a higher frame rate with a modest reduction in visual quality. The Low preset at 320 FPS is unnecessary for most monitors, as it exceeds the refresh rate of even the fastest displays.

For 3840x2160 users, the situation is more nuanced. The Low preset at 189 FPS is the only setting that approaches high-refresh territory, but it may not be suitable for 144Hz monitors. The Medium preset at 161 FPS is a reasonable compromise for 144Hz displays, providing a playable frame rate with better visuals. The High and Ultra presets at 139 and 119 FPS, respectively, are best suited for 60Hz or 120Hz displays, as they do not offer the smoothness required for competitive play.

The data suggests that the High preset offers the best balance of visual quality and performance across all resolutions. It consistently delivers frame rates that are significantly higher than the Low preset, while maintaining a playable experience even at 4K. For users who prioritize maximum frame rates above all else, the Low preset at 1080p or 1440p is the way to go, as it yields the highest FPS in the dataset. However, for most users, High settings at 1080p or 1440p will provide the best overall experience.