• Welcome to TechPowerUp Forums, Guest! Please check out our forum guidelines for info related to our community.

Counter-Strike 2 Performance Benchmark

W1zzard

Administrator
Staff member
Joined
May 14, 2004
Messages
28,671 (3.74/day)
Processor Ryzen 7 5700X
Memory 48 GB
Video Card(s) RTX 4080
Storage 2x HDD RAID 1, 3x M.2 NVMe
Display(s) 30" 2560x1600 + 19" 1280x1024
Software Windows 10 64-bit
Counter-Strike 2 is available now, with improved graphics powered by Valve's Source 2 engine. All the maps have received overhauls, which gives them a much more realistic look, without breaking the classic CS Experience. In our performance review, we're taking a closer look at image quality, VRAM usage, and performance on a wide selection of modern graphics cards.

Show full review
 
Great performance and great visuals, oh Valve, you treat us too well, or the other devs treat is poorly, whatever the case may be, I am glad valve decided to do the porting effort to source 2 to the best of their abilities, the game looks gorgeous and I'd say runs better, frametimes are definitely more consistent now across the board. Couple that with the large scalability that the settings offer, and this is a slam dunk of a release (specially with the numerous technical improvements that make the game feel a lot better to shoot). Good job Valve!

And thank you W1zzard for such a high quality performance analysis!
 
Last edited:
Thanks W1zzard - we should post this on r/globaloffensive

If you don't know what that is - thats our main csgo and now cs2 sub. I'm sure lots will appreciate it.
 
Nice :)
if some have the time. i have a wish to se cpu performence to en cs2. just to se how amd x3d cpu's contra non x3d performence diffrend, in csgo the x3d didden do anything for performence
 
RDNA 3 really takes shots to the hips here.
The 6700 xt beating the much more powerful 7700 xt more and more as resolution increases is very telling, as is the XTX below a 3090 Ti.

AMD, new drivers plz!
 
I've been enjoying it. But I'm not a major CS player so don't have an extensive history of CS GO usage to compare it.

The frame rates are so high its pretty much playable on everything which is good.
 
Thanks W1zzard - we should post this on r/globaloffensive

If you don't know what that is - thats our main csgo and now cs2 sub. I'm sure lots will appreciate it.
I always appreciate readers sharing our content on Reddit :) Due to self-promotion rules we don't submit our own content (unless subreddit mods specifically ask for it, like on /r/mousereview)
 
To me, these tests are completely out of focus.
CS is a competitive FPS, even on this new engine the visuals are basically meaningless. People aren't gonna spend 500€ on a graphic card for CS.

You should have tested multiple CPUs, it's and always be a cpu bound game, with a low/mid range card at 720 or 1080p.
Compared to CS GO, CS2 benefits from V-cache. That would have been an informative bit.
 
Last edited:
Thanks for the review, as always.

This is one title where CPUs and lower settings matter more than max settings so I take the numbers on the review for guidance mostly. Interesting to see 7800xt so behind of 6800xt, and right along with rx6800. Looks like number of compute units are the bottleneck this time around, rather than clocks.

Apparently VRAM requirements on low is aligned with minimum system requirements, I've seen 1gb cards running alright at 1080p native with minimal hickups. So even 2gbs should be plenty (along the line of hd7850/750ti) if you still rocking a older rig. 4090s VRAM usage on low isn't really useful infor this time around.

I always kept CS GO installed on pc, even after leaving competetive arena, so I'm sure CS2 will replace that. Negative reviews on steam aren't unexpected. Valve will surely bring those back up with future patches and updates though.
 
awesome benchmarks, too bad that now I'm too old for competitive CS :/, highest rank for me was Legendary Eagle Master (could be higher without the rampant cheaters)
 
Not sure why Valve doesn't recommend maximum settings with a RTX 4090. Generally the "recommended settings" algorithm isn't really optimal and it's better if you just experiment yourself. Besides the standard profiles, there's a good number of additional settings and the Internet is full of config tweaks for CS:GO, most of which can be used 1:1 in Counter-Strike 2.
It's because many people that play this game will be playing it on low because they're #competitive. Doesn't matter if the input latency is unperceivable between 300 & 600 FPS or that the monitor can only display 480 frames(for the few that actually own 480hz monitors). People that play tens of thousands of hours of game like CS:GO/CS2 are... unique.
 
Generally people overreacted with the req this game has. However one of the reasons it uses a "dated engine" is exactly this, to keep req in check (imagine this using CP2077 engine, lmao). People are already crying over its reqs anyway, people that simply play with toasters or old PCs and still want to hit high FPS.

That being said, the gameplay is good, i did #1 in my first "premier" match with 29 kills, carried the team, the spray is a bit different but no issue for people that can adapt a bit. So the negative reviews are clearly overreactions mostly from negative people that can't or do not want to adapt. Is the game prime time ready? Not quite, but maybe it is, I'm not sure on this one. I regularly follow the CSGO scene and tournaments (I don't play much myself, I watch rather a lot), i would say it's not quite as perfect as CSGO is, but it's getting there. Eventually the game has to be used on competitive and tournaments and this will also happen soonish with first big event IEM Sidney around the corner, so it must be good enough I guess.

Anyway, as always, don't listen to negative people or people that can't formulate a balanced opinion.
 
Great game and great perf. On my 2070 SUPER I'm maxed out in every way. I'm 44 and I have to say I feel so out of it compared to my first times at 19 and my past as a semi pro. I have little to no patience, reflexes are absent, no skill whatsoever. What a shame lol
 
8xMSAA at 4K is totally unrealistic and doesn't provide any really useful info other than a metric. Maybe 8x at 1080p, 4x at 1440 and 2x at 2160p could've been a little more probable/ useful?
 
Great review. As many here, I'd also like to see a CPU scaling review.

Also, is it just me that prefers the High preset graphics looking at the screenshots rather than Very High? I dunno, on Very High the shadows look TOO HARD for their own good.
 
I've been enjoying it. But I'm not a major CS player so don't have an extensive history of CS GO usage to compare it.

The frame rates are so high its pretty much playable on everything which is good.
I was back in the source days and still prefer source.

as for frames ya one of the reasons I like the source engine…..not mind blowing graphics but the graphics to performance ratio is. Nice that a potato can run it decently. I wish more games used it.
 
It's pretty insane this game is consuming 7GB of VRAM at 4K the way it looks.
 
It's pretty insane this game is consuming 7GB of VRAM at 4K the way it looks.
Positively or negatively? Most of the consumption delta from 1440p to 2160p is possibly from MSAA alone, if I interpret it right that W1zz did the tests with it at 8X MSAA.
 
Positively or negatively? Most of the consumption delta from 1440p to 2160p is possibly from MSAA alone, if I interpret it right that W1zz did the tests with it at 8X MSAA.
Even considering MSAA it's ridiculous.

And by the way what's MSAA doing in a game in 2023 ?
 
GPU usage even %100 all of the time many of GPU's. I'm getting 75 FPS average in 1650 with high settings 4x MSAA. And GPU usage is between %70-90.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top