Control

# Control Performance Analysis: AMD Ryzen 5 5600GT + Intel Arc B370

This combination of the AMD Ryzen 5 5600GT processor and Intel Arc B370 integrated graphics represents a specific configuration tested against the full benchmark database. The recorded data places this combo at rank 3436 out of 3720 tested combinations for Control, meaning it sits in the lower percentile of systems capable of running this title. The game itself launched in 2019 as an Action Adventure title, and the benchmark results reveal significant performance constraints that prospective users should understand before relying on this hardware for gameplay.

How This Combo Ranks

The combo rank of 3436 out of 3720 places this system in the bottom portion of all tested configurations for Control. This ranking reflects the combined capability of the CPU and GPU working together, and the data shows that this is not a configuration designed for high-refresh or high-resolution gaming. The rank indicates that roughly 92% of tested combos outperform this setup in this specific game, which places it firmly in entry-level territory.

The CPU component, the AMD Ryzen 5 5600GT, performs reasonably well on its own. Its percentile ranking against all CPUs is 74, meaning it outperforms about three-quarters of all processors in the database. The average benchmark score of 20733 for this CPU shows a balanced mix of single-thread and multi-thread capability, with a Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 17272 and a single-core score of 2438. These processor numbers suggest that the CPU is not the primary bottleneck in this combination.

The GPU, however, tells a different story. The Intel Arc B370 has a percentile ranking against all GPUs of only 5, and its average benchmark score of 1184 from the 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 test places it far below most dedicated graphics solutions. This GPU is an integrated graphics processor (IGP) with a TDP of only 25 watts, which explains its limited performance envelope. The 3DMark score of 1184 is the sole GPU benchmark recorded, and it places this IGP in the company of much older discrete GPUs, as reflected in its nearest rivals.

The combination of a competent mid-range CPU with a very weak integrated GPU creates a significant mismatch. The CPU has enough horsepower to feed a much stronger GPU, but the Arc B370 cannot translate that CPU capability into playable frame rates at most settings and resolutions. This imbalance is visible throughout the measured FPS data, where even the lowest settings at 1080p barely approach the 60 FPS playable threshold.

CPU and GPU Roles

The benchmark data reveals that the GPU is overwhelmingly the limiting factor in this configuration. At 3840x2160 resolution, the difference between Low and Ultra settings produces a range from 30 FPS down to 17 FPS, a variation of 13 FPS that is entirely attributable to GPU workload scaling. The CPU, with its 6 cores and 12 threads based on Zen 3 architecture, has more than enough processing capability for this title, as evidenced by its strong multi-threaded scores.

Examining the resolution scaling provides further insight. At 1920x1080 with Low settings, the system achieves 59 FPS, while at 2560x1440 with the same settings, it drops to 45 FPS, and at 3840x2160 it falls to 30 FPS. This scaling pattern is classic GPU-bound behavior: the frame rate drops proportionally as pixel count increases, with minimal CPU involvement in the performance delta. The CPU's single-thread score of 2438 in Cinebench R23 and its Geekbench single-core score of 1843 indicate it is capable of feeding frames well above what this IGP can render.

The preset scaling at each resolution further confirms the GPU bottleneck. At 1920x1080, moving from Low to Medium drops the average from 59 to 42 FPS, then to 37 FPS at High, and finally to 32 FPS at Ultra. This 27 FPS spread from lowest to highest preset is entirely GPU workload. The CPU's role here is to maintain consistent frame delivery, and the data suggests it does so without introducing stutter or frame-time issues, though the overall frame rates remain low due to the GPU.

At higher resolutions, the GPU constraint becomes even more pronounced. At 3840x2160, even Low settings produce only 30 FPS, which is half the playable threshold. The CPU's performance headroom is effectively wasted at 4K, as the IGP simply cannot render enough pixels per second regardless of how fast the CPU can process game logic and physics.

Measured FPS Breakdown

At 1920x1080, the most favorable scenario for this hardware, the recorded data shows the following averages across presets. Low settings achieve 59 FPS, which is just 1 FPS below the 60 FPS playable threshold. Medium settings produce 42 FPS average with a minimum of 36 and a maximum of 48, indicating some frame-time variability but no catastrophic drops. High settings deliver 37 FPS average, while Ultra settings drop to 32 FPS average. The gap between Low and Ultra at 1080p is 27 FPS, demonstrating the heavy GPU cost of higher visual fidelity in Control.

At 2560x1440, the performance picture worsens considerably. Low settings produce 45 FPS average, which is 15 FPS below the playable threshold. Medium settings average 32 FPS with a range of 27 to 37, showing that minimum frame rates can dip below 30 FPS, which would be noticeable as stutter during intense action sequences. High settings produce 28 FPS average, and Ultra settings fall to 25 FPS average. None of these settings approach the 60 FPS threshold, and even the most aggressive preset reductions leave the system well short of smooth gameplay.

At 3840x2160, the results are marginal at best. Low settings produce 30 FPS average, which is half the playable threshold. Medium settings average 21 FPS with a minimum of 18 and a maximum of 25, indicating that even the average frame rate is below what most users would consider playable. High settings produce 19 FPS average, and Ultra settings drop to 17 FPS average. The 4K results are uniformly below 30 FPS, which means the game would be a slideshow at this resolution regardless of settings.

The minimum and maximum frame rates recorded only for Medium settings across all resolutions provide insight into frame pacing. At 1080p Medium, the 36 to 48 range shows roughly a 33% spread between min and max, which is acceptable for a game running below 60 FPS. At 1440p Medium, the 27 to 37 range shows a similar proportional spread, while at 4K Medium, the 18 to 25 range indicates tighter clustering but at an unusably low level.

The Verdict

Based on the measured data, this PC cannot run Control at a playable 60 FPS at any resolution or preset combination tested. The verdict by resolution is clear: at 3840x2160, no settings achieve playable performance; at 2560x1440, no settings achieve playable performance; and at 1920x1080, no settings achieve playable performance. The closest result is 1080p Low at 59 FPS average, which is 1 FPS below the threshold, but even this setting does not meet the playable standard.

The playable threshold of 60 FPS is not reached at any of the three resolutions tested. At 1080p, the Low preset comes within a single frame of the threshold, which suggests that minor tweaks such as disabling certain post-processing effects or reducing shadow quality might close the gap, but the recorded data does not include such configurations. At 1440p and 4K, the gap between achieved and required frame rates is too large to be bridged by settings adjustments alone.

For users who can tolerate lower frame rates, the system can run the game at 1080p Low with an average of 59 FPS, which may feel smooth enough for slower-paced sections of the game. However, Control is an action-heavy title with frequent combat encounters and physics-based environmental interactions, so frame rates below 60 FPS will likely result in a compromised experience. The 1080p Medium preset at 42 FPS average may be acceptable for some players, but the 36 FPS minimum suggests that demanding scenes will cause noticeable slowdowns.

Similar Performance Alternatives

Looking at the nearest rivals for the CPU, the AMD Ryzen 5 5600GT performs nearly identically to several other processors. The Intel Core i5-12490F has an average score of 20802, which is only 0.3% lower than the 5600GT's 20733. The Intel Xeon 6325P scores 20821, a 0.4% difference, and the Intel Core Ultra 5 125U scores 20826, also 0.4% different. The AMD EPYC 7J13 completes the group with a score of 20845, representing a 0.5% difference. These deltas are negligible in real-world gaming, meaning any of these CPUs paired with the same Intel Arc B370 GPU would produce nearly identical frame rates in Control.

For the GPU, the nearest rivals paint a stark picture of the Arc B370's performance class. The ATI Mobility Radeon HD 5570 scores 1186, which is 0.2% higher than the Arc B370's 1184. The ATI Radeon HD 5770 scores 1190, a 0.5% difference, and the AMD Radeon HD 7650M scores 1192, a 0.7% difference. The AMD FirePro M2000 scores 1168, which is 1.4% lower. These are all legacy graphics solutions from more than a decade ago, confirming that the Arc B370's integrated architecture places it in a performance tier that predates modern gaming demands. Users considering alternative GPUs should expect that any of these near-identical performers would yield essentially the same Control frame rates.

The combination of a strong CPU with a weak GPU means that upgrading the graphics component alone would dramatically improve performance, while swapping the CPU would yield no measurable benefit. The data shows that the CPU has headroom to support a GPU several tiers above the Arc B370, so users seeking better Control performance should prioritize a discrete GPU over any processor upgrade.

FAQ

Q: Can this PC run Control at 1080p?

A: At 1920x1080 with Low settings, the average FPS is 59, which is 1 frame below the 60 FPS playable threshold. Medium settings average 42 FPS, High averages 37 FPS, and Ultra averages 32 FPS. None of the tested presets reach the 60 FPS threshold.

Q: What is the best resolution for this hardware?

A: The highest resolution tested is 1920x1080, and even at this resolution, no preset achieves 60 FPS. The best result is 59 FPS at Low settings, so 1080p is the only resolution where the game approaches playable performance.

Q: How does the Intel Arc B370 compare to other GPUs?

A: The Arc B370 has a percentile ranking of 5 against all GPUs, with an average benchmark score of 1184. Its nearest rivals include the ATI Mobility Radeon HD 5570, ATI Radeon HD 5770, AMD Radeon HD 7650M, and AMD FirePro M2000, all within 1.4% of its score.

Q: Is the CPU or GPU the bottleneck in this system?

A: The GPU is the clear bottleneck. At 1080p, dropping from Ultra to Low increases FPS from 32 to 59, while the CPU's strong benchmark scores (74th percentile among CPUs) indicate it has ample headroom. The GPU's 5th percentile ranking confirms it limits performance.

Q: Can this system reach 60 FPS in Control at any setting?

A: No. The closest result across all resolutions and presets is 59 FPS at 1920x1080 with Low settings. All other configurations fall below this, with 4K results ranging from 17 to 30 FPS and 1440p results ranging from 25 to 45 FPS.

Q: How does the Ryzen 5 5600GT compare to similar CPUs?

A: The Ryzen 5 5600GT scores 20733 on average, with nearest rivals including the Intel Core i5-12490F at 20802 (0.3% lower), Intel Xeon 6325P at 20821 (0.4% lower), Intel Core Ultra 5 125U at 20826 (0.4% lower), and AMD EPYC 7J13 at 20845 (0.5% lower).

Best Settings per Resolution

At 3840x2160, no tested preset achieves the 60 FPS threshold. The best result is 30 FPS at Low settings, which is half the required frame rate. Medium settings average 21 FPS, High averages 19 FPS, and Ultra averages 17 FPS. Since even the lowest settings fall far below playable performance, no settings recommendation can be made for 4K resolution.

At 2560x1440, the situation is similarly constrained. Low settings produce 45 FPS, Medium averages 32 FPS, High averages 28 FPS, and Ultra averages 25 FPS. The closest approach to the threshold is 45 FPS at Low, but this remains 15 FPS below the playable standard. No preset at 1440p achieves 60 FPS, so this resolution should be avoided for Control.

At 1920x1080, Low settings produce 59 FPS, which is the only configuration within 1 FPS of the 60 FPS threshold. While this does not technically meet the playable threshold, it is the closest achievable result with the tested settings. Medium settings at 42 FPS represent the next step up, but the drop of 17 FPS from Low to Medium is substantial. High settings at 37 FPS and Ultra at 32 FPS further reduce performance. For users who prioritize visual quality over frame rate, Medium settings at 42 FPS average may be preferable, but the data shows that Low settings is the only preset that approaches smooth gameplay.

Given that no resolution and preset combination meets the 60 FPS threshold, the practical recommendation is 1920x1080 with Low settings, accepting the 59 FPS average as the best possible outcome. Users who find the visual fidelity of Low settings unacceptable may opt for Medium at 42 FPS, but they should expect frame rates to dip below 40 FPS during demanding scenes, as indicated by the 36 FPS minimum recorded at this setting.