Control

Measured FPS Breakdown

The recorded data for Control on this AMD Ryzen 5 5600 with Intel Arc B370 combination shows a steep performance curve across resolutions and presets. At 3840x2160, the highest resolution tested, the average frame rates are consistently below playable thresholds. Ultra settings produce an average of 17 FPS, High averages 19 FPS, and Medium averages 21 FPS with a minimum of 18 FPS and a maximum of 25 FPS. Low settings improve the average to 30 FPS, but this still falls far short of the 60 FPS target.

Dropping to 2560x1440 brings a noticeable improvement, though the pattern remains similar. Ultra averages 25 FPS, High averages 28 FPS, and Medium averages 32 FPS with a recorded range of 27 to 37 FPS. Low settings deliver 45 FPS on average, which is the closest this combination gets to playable territory at this resolution, but it still misses the 60 FPS mark by a wide margin.

At 1920x1080, the performance picture becomes more nuanced. Ultra settings average 32 FPS, High settings average 37 FPS, and Medium settings average 42 FPS with a minimum of 36 FPS and a maximum of 48 FPS. Low settings produce an average of 59 FPS, which is remarkably close to the 60 FPS playable threshold, but the data shows it does not quite reach it. None of the tested presets at any resolution achieve or exceed 60 FPS on average.

The scaling between presets is consistent across all resolutions. Moving from Low to Medium costs roughly 9 to 13 FPS depending on resolution, while High to Ultra costs another 5 to 8 FPS. The gap between Medium and High is smaller, typically 3 to 4 FPS. This suggests the game's rendering load scales predictably with quality settings, but the underlying hardware ceiling prevents any preset from breaking into smooth territory.

How This Combo Ranks

Within the database's tested combinations for Control, this pairing sits at rank 3436 out of 3720 total combinations. That places it in the bottom 8 percent of all tested systems, indicating that the AMD Ryzen 5 5600 and Intel Arc B370 combination is among the weaker performers for this specific title. The rank reflects the measured FPS data across all resolutions and presets, not just the best-case scenario.

The CPU itself benchmarks in the 74th percentile against all processors, with an average benchmark score of 20468. Its nearest rivals include the Intel Core Ultra 7 258V at 20454 (0.1 percent behind), the AMD Ryzen 5 8500G at 20425 (0.2 percent behind), the AMD EPYC 9454P at 20422 (0.2 percent behind), and the AMD EPYC 7713 at 20363 (0.5 percent behind). This shows the Ryzen 5 5600 is a competent processor in general compute tasks, competitive with much newer and more expensive parts.

The GPU tells a very different story. The Intel Arc B370 scores in the 5th percentile against all GPUs, with an average benchmark score of 1184 from the 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 test. Its nearest rivals are the ATI Mobility Radeon HD 5570 at 1186 (0.2 percent behind), the ATI Radeon HD 5770 at 1190 (0.5 percent behind), the AMD Radeon HD 7650M at 1192 (0.7 percent behind), and the AMD FirePro M2000 at 1168 (1.4 percent ahead). This places the Arc B370 in company with integrated and legacy discrete GPUs from over a decade ago, which explains the poor game performance despite the modern architecture.

The combination rank of 3436 out of 3720 reflects this imbalance. The CPU is capable, but the GPU severely limits the system's ability to render Control at acceptable frame rates. The data indicates that this pairing is not competitive for modern gaming workloads at the tested settings.

CPU and GPU Roles

The benchmark data reveals a clear division of labor between the CPU and GPU in this system. The AMD Ryzen 5 5600, with its six cores and twelve threads based on Zen 3 architecture, provides more than enough compute headroom for Control. The CPU's benchmark scores, including a Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 18309 and a single-core score of 2584, indicate strong processing power. However, the Intel Arc B370's 6.144 TFLOPS FP32 performance and 1280 shading units cannot keep pace with the game's rendering demands.

Looking at the resolution scaling, the FPS drops by roughly 30 to 40 percent when moving from 1920x1080 to 2560x1440, and another 30 to 40 percent from 2560x1440 to 3840x2160. This pattern is consistent across all presets. For example, Low settings go from 59 FPS at 1080p to 45 FPS at 1440p to 30 FPS at 4K. This steep scaling indicates that the GPU is the primary bottleneck, as resolution increases place proportionally more load on the rendering pipeline rather than the CPU.

The preset scaling within a single resolution also points to GPU-bound behavior. At 1920x1080, the difference between Low and Ultra is 27 FPS (59 versus 32), which is a 46 percent drop. At 3840x2160, the same preset range spans from 30 to 17 FPS, a 43 percent drop. If the CPU were the limiting factor, we would expect the preset scaling to flatten out at higher resolutions as the CPU becomes saturated. Instead, the consistent proportional drops suggest the GPU is saturated at every resolution, with the CPU having spare capacity throughout.

The system memory bandwidth of 51.2 GB/s on the CPU side is paired with the GPU's system-shared memory, which is system dependent. This architecture means the GPU relies on the same memory subsystem as the CPU, potentially creating additional contention. However, the recorded FPS data does not show any anomalies that would indicate memory-related stuttering; the frame times appear consistent within each preset and resolution combination.

FAQ

Q: What is the best average FPS this combination achieves in Control?

A: The highest recorded average FPS is 59 at 1920x1080 with Low settings. This is just 1 FPS short of the 60 FPS playable threshold.

Q: Is this system capable of running Control at 2560x1440?

A: No. At 2560x1440, the best average FPS is 45 with Low settings. Medium settings average 32 FPS, High averages 28 FPS, and Ultra averages 25 FPS. None reach the 60 FPS target.

Q: How does the Intel Arc B370 compare to its closest GPU rivals?

A: The Arc B370 scores 1184 in 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12. This is 0.2 percent below the ATI Mobility Radeon HD 5570 (1186), 0.5 percent below the ATI Radeon HD 5770 (1190), 0.7 percent below the AMD Radeon HD 7650M (1192), and 1.4 percent above the AMD FirePro M2000 (1168).

Q: Does the CPU hold back performance in this game?

A: No. The CPU benchmarks in the 74th percentile overall and outperforms its nearest rivals by up to 0.5 percent. The FPS scaling between resolutions and presets indicates the GPU is the limiting factor, not the Ryzen 5 5600.

Q: What is the best preset at 3840x2160?

A: Low settings provide the highest average FPS at 30. Medium averages 21 FPS, High averages 19 FPS, and Ultra averages 17 FPS. None are playable.

Q: How close does this system get to 60 FPS at 1920x1080?

A: At Low settings, the average FPS is 59, which is 1 FPS below the 60 FPS target. Medium averages 42 FPS, High averages 37 FPS, and Ultra averages 32 FPS.

Best Settings per Resolution

For each resolution, the most demanding preset that stays at or above 60 FPS on average would be the target. The data shows that no preset at any resolution achieves this threshold. At 3840x2160, the best average FPS is 30 on Low settings, which is 30 FPS below the target. At 2560x1440, the best average FPS is 45 on Low settings, which is 15 FPS below the target. At 1920x1080, the best average FPS is 59 on Low settings, which is 1 FPS below the target.

Since the playable threshold is defined as 60 FPS, and no tested configuration reaches it, there is no recommended preset that meets the criteria. The verdict data confirms this: for 3840x2160, 2560x1440, and 1920x1080, the playable settings list is empty, with no best settings or average FPS at best recorded.

The closest approach is 1920x1080 Low at 59 FPS, but this still falls short. Users seeking higher quality presets would see progressively worse frame rates, with Medium at 42 FPS, High at 37 FPS, and Ultra at 32 FPS. At lower resolutions, the situation does not improve because 1920x1080 is the lowest resolution tested in this dataset.

The Verdict

The recorded data indicates that this system cannot play Control at a stable 60 FPS at any resolution or preset combination tested. The verdict by resolution is clear: 3840x2160 has no playable settings, 2560x1440 has no playable settings, and 1920x1080 has no playable settings. The playable threshold of 60 FPS is not met anywhere.

At 1920x1080, Low settings produce 59 FPS average, which is tantalizingly close but still below the mark. This means the game would feel nearly smooth in many scenes, but the average falls short of the defined threshold. Medium, High, and Ultra settings at this resolution produce 42, 37, and 32 FPS respectively, which are all clearly below playable levels.

At 2560x1440, even Low settings only achieve 45 FPS average, which is 15 FPS below the threshold. The higher presets are progressively worse, with Ultra at 25 FPS. At 3840x2160, the situation is worse still, with Low at 30 FPS and Ultra at 17 FPS.

The combination rank of 3436 out of 3720 places this system near the bottom of all tested configurations for Control. The CPU is not the issue, as its 74th percentile ranking shows ample processing power. The Intel Arc B370, with its 5th percentile GPU ranking and nearest rivals being legacy parts from the HD 5000 and HD 7000 series, is the clear bottleneck. The 6.144 TFLOPS FP32 throughput and 20 ROPs are insufficient for this game's rendering requirements at modern resolutions and settings.

In practical terms, this system is not suitable for playing Control at the tested settings. The game would require substantial reductions in resolution or the use of external scaling solutions to approach playable frame rates, but even then, the 59 FPS ceiling at 1080p Low suggests that achieving a consistent 60 FPS would be marginal at best. The data supports a clear conclusion: this hardware combination does not meet the playable threshold for Control.