Control

Best Settings per Resolution

At 1920x1080, the most demanding preset that maintains an average of at least 60 FPS is High, which records a 63 FPS average. Medium runs at 71 FPS and Low at 101 FPS, but High is the highest quality option that clears the 60 FPS threshold. Ultra drops to 55 FPS, so it falls short of the playable mark.

At 2560x1440, only Low qualifies as playable, with a 76 FPS average. Medium drops to 54 FPS, High to 48 FPS, and Ultra to 42 FPS, so none of these three presets can sustain the required frame rate at this resolution.

At 3840x2160, no preset reaches 60 FPS. Low is the closest at 51 FPS, followed by Medium at 36 FPS, High at 32 FPS, and Ultra at 28 FPS. The recorded data shows that 4K is not a viable option for this combination.

CPU and GPU Roles

The benchmark results indicate that the GPU becomes the dominant constraint as resolution increases, while the CPU has more influence at lower resolutions. At 1920x1080, the gap between Low and Ultra is 46 FPS (101 to 55), which shows that the graphics card has headroom to render higher settings when the resolution is modest. At 2560x1440, the spread narrows to 34 FPS (76 to 42), and at 3840x2160 it narrows further to 23 FPS (51 to 28). This progressive tightening of the FPS range as resolution climbs points to the Intel Arc B570's rendering limits taking over, rather than the AMD Ryzen 5 4600G's processing capability.

The CPU, a 6-core, 12-thread Zen 2 part with a 3.70 GHz base and 4.20 GHz boost clock, is sufficient to feed the GPU at 1920x1080, where the average FPS stays above 60 for three out of four presets. However, the data shows that even at Low settings, 3840x2160 only reaches 51 FPS, which means the GPU's pixel throughput becomes the bottleneck before the CPU's thread utilization does. The GPU's 200.0 GPixel/s pixel rate and 360.0 GTexel/s texture rate are the relevant figures here, as they determine how quickly geometry is rasterized at higher resolutions.

At 2560x1440, the Medium preset shows a minimum of 46 FPS and a maximum of 62 FPS, which indicates that frame pacing is inconsistent in demanding scenes. The average of 54 FPS sits just below the 60 FPS target, and this is more likely a GPU limitation than a CPU one, since the Ryzen 5 4600G's multi-threaded scores (13593 in Cinebench R23 multicore) are adequate for a game of this generation. Control is an Action Adventure title from 2019, and its renderer scales with pixel count more than with CPU thread count, so the recorded FPS scaling across resolutions aligns with a GPU-bound workload.

Similar Performance Alternatives

Looking at the nearest rivals for the CPU, the AMD Ryzen 3 PRO 5355GE has an average benchmark score of 17482, which is 0.1% lower than the Ryzen 5 4600G's 17507. This means the two processors would deliver nearly identical frame rates in Control, with the PRO 5355GE being a direct substitute in terms of CPU-driven performance. The AMD Ryzen 3 8300GE scores 17614, which is 0.6% higher, so it is marginally faster but still within a negligible margin. The Intel Core 7 150U scores 17395, 0.6% lower, and the Intel Core i3-14100T scores 17648, 0.8% higher. None of these delta values exceed 1%, so any of these CPUs would produce the same FPS results within measurement noise.

For the GPU, the Intel Arc A750 has an average score of 20582, which is 0.1% higher than the Arc B570's 20556. This is the closest match, and the data suggests that swapping to an Arc A750 would yield nearly identical performance in Control. The NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3070 Mobile scores 20534, 0.1% lower, so it is also a direct equivalent despite being a mobile part. The NVIDIA Quadro M4000M scores 20480, 0.4% lower, and the AMD Radeon R9 M390X scores 20662, 0.5% higher. All four rivals fall within a 0.9% bandwidth, so any of these GPUs would behave essentially the same as the Arc B570 in this game.

The Verdict

This PC can run Control, but with clear limitations depending on resolution. At 1920x1080, the system clears the 60 FPS threshold on three presets: High at 63 FPS, Medium at 71 FPS, and Low at 101 FPS. The most demanding playable setting is High, which is a solid result for a 1080p display. Ultra falls short at 55 FPS, so the data does not support using the highest quality preset.

At 2560x1440, the verdict is more restrictive. Only Low achieves a playable frame rate at 76 FPS. Medium sits at 54 FPS, High at 48 FPS, and Ultra at 42 FPS, all below the 60 FPS threshold. Users with a 1440p monitor should stick to Low settings for a smooth experience, or accept lower frame rates if they prioritize visual quality.

At 3840x2160, the system cannot reach 60 FPS on any preset. The best case is Low at 51 FPS, which is still below the playable mark. The recorded data shows that 4K gaming is not feasible with this CPU and GPU combination. The verdict by resolution is clear: 1080p High is the sweet spot, 1440p Low is the only playable option, and 4K is out of reach.

Measured FPS Breakdown

At 3840x2160, the Ultra preset delivers an average of 28 FPS. High averages 32 FPS. Medium averages 36 FPS with a minimum of 31 FPS and a maximum of 42 FPS. Low averages 51 FPS. The Medium preset is the only one with recorded min/max values, and the spread from 31 to 42 FPS shows noticeable variability in demanding scenes, though no preset comes close to the 60 FPS target.

At 2560x1440, Ultra averages 42 FPS. High averages 48 FPS. Medium averages 54 FPS with a minimum of 46 FPS and a maximum of 62 FPS. Low averages 76 FPS. The Medium preset's maximum of 62 FPS shows that the GPU can briefly hit playable levels, but the average and minimum stay below the threshold, making it an inconsistent experience.

At 1920x1080, Ultra averages 55 FPS. High averages 63 FPS. Medium averages 71 FPS with a minimum of 61 FPS and a maximum of 82 FPS. Low averages 101 FPS. The Medium preset maintains a minimum above 60 FPS, which confirms that this setting is stable, while High also clears the threshold with a 63 FPS average, though no min/max data was recorded for that preset.

How This Combo Ranks

In the database's list of tested combinations for Control, this system ranks 2995 out of 3720 total combos. That places it in the lower third of all tested hardware pairings, which is consistent with the FPS data showing that 4K is unplayable and 1440p is limited to Low settings. The rank reflects that the Arc B570 and Ryzen 5 4600G sit below many other combinations, particularly those with higher-end GPUs or newer CPUs.

The percentile data supports this positioning. The CPU ranks in the 71st percentile among all CPUs tested, which means it is above average for a processor, but the GPU ranks in the 65th percentile among all GPUs, which is closer to the middle of the pack. When paired together, the combination's overall rank of 2995 out of 3720 (roughly the 19th percentile) shows that the GPU's mid-tier standing drags the system down more than the CPU's above-average standing lifts it up. The benchmark results indicate that this is a capable 1080p machine, but it does not have the headroom to compete with higher-ranked combos at higher resolutions. The nearest GPU rival, the Arc A750, is within 0.1% of the Arc B570's score, so users with that card would see the same ranking behavior. The nearest CPU rivals, all within 0.8% of the Ryzen 5 4600G's score, would also produce nearly identical overall rankings.