Pro Counter-Strike 2 gamer says game runs like 'a**' on anything other than AMD's Ryzen 9800X3D — custom demo of the game runs at under 200 FPS even on on AMD's best gaming CPUs

Counter-Strike 2
(Image credit: Valve)

Counter-Strike 2 is taking fire for serious frame rate issues that are causing headaches for esports players and affecting performance on even the Best Gaming CPUs. Renowned CS esports player ropz took to X to complain about these issues, noting that the game's frame rate instability is so serious that only AMD's Ryzen 7 9800X3D runs the game well enough for tournament play.

Ropz claims he can tell the difference between playing the game on a Ryzen 7 9800X3D or an Intel-based system running CS2. Not just that, but if the game is running on an Intel system, Ropz claims the game runs poorly. Further, Ropz claims that CS2's frame rate issues specifically revolve around 20-slot DM servers or in highly stressed 5v5 sessions where frame rates can reportedly drop below 200 FPS on Intel's latest CPUs.

However, these issues aren't just a problem with Intel. A day after he made the above claims, he asked his fellow CS2 gamers to play through a demo of CS2 featuring a replay of a highly intensive 5v5 match to see what performance is like on other users' Ryzen 7 9800X3D gaming machines and other hardware.

The reports he got back are impressively poor. Multiple users boasting Ryzen 7 9800X3Ds or Ryzen 9 9950X3Ds reported frame rates below 200FPS. For one user (Arklyn) sporting a 9800X3D and an RTX 4070, frame rates start at 600FPS but drop all the way down to 170 FPS during intensive scenes. Another user (badhan) reported an FPS dip all the way down to 163 FPS in the same replay, despite also running a 9800X3D and an even more powerful RTX 5080 graphics card.

If you are wondering if graphics settings are causing the issues, at least one X poster recorded a frame rate drop as low as 135FPS, featuring a 7800X3D and running the game on "almost all" settings on low with a resolution of 1280x960.

Ropz's demo is likely a worst-case scenario that won't always happen in your games, even in tournament matches. So you shouldn't worry about frame rates going that low if you're a more casual CS2 player.

Regardless, it shows CS2's performance issues firsthand and how erratic the game's frame rate dips can be. For those unfamiliar with CS2's regular performance, the best gaming chips on the market, liuke the 9800X3D, are capable of allegedly playing the game (albeit in less intensive scenes) at 600+ FPS, depending on graphics settings and the graphics card used. Less-capable chips, such as AMD's non-X3D chips and Intel's Core i5 and i7 Raptor Lake chips, are known for running the game in the 300-400 FPS range (again, depending on graphics settings and the GPU used).

Hopefully, Valve will get to the bottom of this. The game has technically been receiving patches with performance optimizations since its release, but highly intensive 5v5 and apparently 20-slot deathmatch sessions appear to be the Achilles heel of CS2's continuing frame rate fluctuation issues.

Aaron Klotz
Contributing Writer

Aaron Klotz is a contributing writer for Tom’s Hardware, covering news related to computer hardware such as CPUs, and graphics cards.

  • -Fran-
    This is a funny one.

    Most of the people testing seem to be using nVidia GPUs, which are known to have a CPU implementation for scheduling, so at super high FPS, they hit a cap way earlier than AMD GPUs, to the point where the 9070XT is better than the 5090, which is hilarious.

    This has been known for years, so I'm surprised the "esport pros" are still using nVidia. And the comment on the tournaments... Well, if Intel sponsors, then hardly anyone will use AMD CPUs in the rigs. Also, there's a lot of bias in the gaming industry still favouring the Intel+nVidia combination.

    Perhaps it is time things change.

    EDIT: kNCYKBqA7m4View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kNCYKBqA7m4
    EDIT2: pbdPNxe7O_IView: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pbdPNxe7O_I

    Regards.
    Reply
  • Xenophage
    This reminds me of when you had to have at least a Pentium 75 to get above 20fps in Quake. Complaining about sub-200 fps to me is hilarious.
    Reply
  • Amdlova
    It's a issue I don't have... Every game I have played in the last 35 years I have locked the frame rate at 60 fps...
    I got some high refresh rate monitors but always pushing the boundaries of a quiet pc and idle power to another level. from 144hz to 100hz droop almost 30w on power compsumation... and for What? nicer mouse pointer on the screen. Last game I have played without sync is the quake 3 on a crt monitor with 300 fps+ on the screen. Today kids if see it will droop dead =)
    Reply
  • Makaveli
    Where can I find his demo so I can test it on my own system?

    *update*
    Found it

    https://www.hltv.org/matches/2384381/tyloo-vs-vitality-esports-world-cup-2025
    Reply
  • richardnpaul
    @-Fran- Not only that but Nvidia also have problems below 1080p on top of that so the person testing at 960 is expected to have problems on top of the CPU overhead issue as Steve from HWUB repeated again on his recent MLiD appearance. So now we need some 9070xt with 9800X3D testing with the match to show the difference/issue.
    Reply
  • ezst036
    Xenophage said:
    This reminds me of when you had to have at least a Pentium 75 to get above 20fps in Quake. Complaining about sub-200 fps to me is hilarious.
    Those were fun days. Just wait until a decade from now when they are whining that they don't consistently stay above 1000 frames per second - with ray tracing enabled even!

    First-world problems for sure.
    Reply
  • jkflipflop98
    lol what? My main gaming rig has a 12900K in it and I get over 250fps in 4K
    Reply
  • Makaveli
    jkflipflop98 said:
    lol what? My main gaming rig has a 12900K in it and I get over 250fps in 4K
    I highly doubt anyone is playing competitive cs at the pro level at 4k.

    And the more I read into this they are complaining about 0.1% lows not averages.

    So going from 500+ fps then the 0.1% dropping to like 150 fps
    Reply
  • Exploding PSU
    Amdlova said:
    It's a issue I don't have... Every game I have played in the last 35 years I have locked the frame rate at 60 fps...
    I got some high refresh rate monitors but always pushing the boundaries of a quiet pc and idle power to another level. from 144hz to 100hz droop almost 30w on power compsumation... and for What? nicer mouse pointer on the screen. Last game I have played without sync is the quake 3 on a crt monitor with 300 fps+ on the screen. Today kids if see it will droop dead =)

    I'm oh the same boat with you in regards of having a high refresh rate monitors yet locking it at 60Hz, just in a slightly different way.

    I got my very first HRR monitor around 2021, a 165 Hz AOC with VA panel. I was excited to try it after using nothing but 60Hz monitors for my entire life, imagine the possibilities. So, I did, I played my favourite games (mostly racing games, Mirror's Edge, and casual stuff like Skyrim, and a bit of Destiny) in glorious 165 Hz...

    What did I get? Headaches, motion sickness, and worse, seizures (triggered reliably while playing Destiny).
    It was horrible! I thought it had something to do with the monitor settings, but trying every single setting available (even buying one of those "colour calibration profiles") didn't work.
    And no, it's not the stuttering or the lagging, my PC could run every game locked at 160 FPS (or at least 120 FPS, there was no stuttering or tearing, or anything).. Trying different graphics settings didn't work, or at least didn't work reliably.
    Locking the refresh rate to 60Hz and all the headcahes went away! I thought it might be the VA panel or some kind of an X factor, but I wouldn't risk it just so I could play my games a bit smoother.

    Later on I got my hands on an ASUS TUF monitor, 165 Hz, but it was IPS this time. I expected it would be different because it was an IPS instead of a VA. What do you know, playing in high refresh rate and the headaches returned with a vengeance, like it was so bad I felt the urge to scoop my eyes with a spoon. So, it wasn't the panel, or the brand, or the settings.... it was simply me being "incompatible" with anything high refresh rate for some reason. I returned that ASUS monitor, and I kept the AOC. I still use it almost daily, but again, in 60 Hz.

    I like to call myself "being bottlenecked by my eyes, not my specs"

    Look at the bright side though. The fact that I can't stand high refresh rate stuff or extremely high quality graphics means I'm in no rush to upgrade my system. I'm sure my current specs can still play most games out there in 60 FPS medium no problem. My eyes being allergic to high graphics actually saves me money in the long run!
    Reply
  • thestryker
    CS2 has some massive frame time issues compared to every other esports type title. Proportionally speaking the lows are much worse than every other one I've seen benchmarked. What's the point of 800 fps if the lows are still in the 100-200s.
    Reply