Control

Best Settings per Resolution

At 3840x2160, no preset reaches the 60 FPS playable threshold. The highest recorded average is 33 FPS on Low settings, with Medium producing 24 FPS, High 21 FPS, and Ultra 18 FPS. The most demanding preset that stays at or above 60 FPS does not exist at this resolution; the data shows all four settings fall far short of playability.

At 2560x1440, the situation improves but still misses the target. Low settings deliver 50 FPS, Medium 35 FPS, High 31 FPS, and Ultra 27 FPS. None of these clear 60 FPS, meaning the best settings per resolution for 1440p are effectively unavailable; the closest option is Low at 50 FPS, which remains 10 FPS below the playable threshold.

At 1920x1080, the Low preset is the only configuration that reaches 60 FPS, averaging 65 FPS. Medium follows at 46 FPS, High at 41 FPS, and Ultra at 36 FPS. The most demanding preset that stays at or above 60 FPS is therefore Low, with a recorded average of 65 FPS. This is the sole playable setting across all resolutions and presets in the database.

CPU and GPU Roles

The recorded FPS data reveals a GPU-bound scenario across all resolutions. The Intel Arc B390, with its 7.680 TFLOPS FP32 throughput and 24 ROPs, is the limiting factor throughout. The AMD Ryzen 5 7500F, scoring 22,799 in Cinebench R23 multi-core and 3,218 in single-core, offers far more compute headroom than the game demands at these settings.

Resolution scaling confirms the GPU bottleneck. Moving from 1920x1080 to 2560x1440 at Low settings drops average FPS from 65 to 50, a 23% reduction. From 2560x1440 to 3840x2160 at Low, average FPS falls from 50 to 33, another 34% reduction. This consistent degradation with pixel count indicates that rendering resolution, not CPU throughput, drives performance.

Preset scaling reinforces the same conclusion. At 1920x1080, raising from Low to Medium reduces average FPS from 65 to 46, a 29% drop. Low to High goes from 65 to 41, a 37% drop, and Low to Ultra goes from 65 to 36, a 45% drop. At 2560x1440, the same pattern holds: Low to Medium drops from 50 to 35, Low to High from 50 to 31, and Low to Ultra from 50 to 27. At 3840x2160, Low to Medium falls from 33 to 24, Low to High from 33 to 21, and Low to Ultra from 33 to 18.

The CPU's role is minimal because even the lowest preset at 1080p only demands 65 FPS, which the Ryzen 5 7500F can easily feed. The 3DMark 16-thread score of 6,376 and PassMark multi-thread score of 26,825 show a processor capable of far heavier workloads. Across all resolutions, the bottleneck remains the GPU's 1,482 3DMark Steel Nomad score, which places it in the 9th percentile of all GPUs.

How This Combo Ranks

The AMD Ryzen 5 7500F and Intel Arc B390 combination ranks 3,311th out of 3,720 tested combos in Control. This places it in the bottom 11% of all system configurations in the database. The ranking reflects the GPU's severe performance limitation rather than the CPU's capability.

The CPU itself sits at the 77th percentile among all processors, with an average benchmark score of 24,964. This is a strong mid-range showing. The GPU, however, sits at the 9th percentile with an average benchmark score of 1,482, which is exceptionally low. The combination of a high-percentile CPU with a low-percentile GPU produces a system that is heavily imbalanced for gaming workloads.

In practical terms, this combo ranks below the vast majority of tested configurations because the GPU cannot translate the CPU's computational strength into frame rate. The recorded FPS data shows that even at 1080p Low, the system only achieves 65 FPS, which is barely above the 60 FPS threshold. At any higher preset or resolution, performance falls below playable levels. The ranking accurately captures this limitation.

Similar Performance Alternatives

For the CPU, the nearest rivals in the database are all within a narrow performance band. The Intel Core i7-11850H scores 24,935, which is 0.1% below the Ryzen 5 7500F's 24,964 average. The AMD Ryzen 5 8400F scores 25,005, which is 0.2% above. The Intel Core i7-13620H scores 24,911, 0.2% below. The Intel Core 5 210H scores 24,872, 0.4% below. Any of these processors would behave nearly identically in this system, as the GPU bottleneck dominates all performance outcomes.

For the GPU, the nearest rivals are dramatically weaker in absolute terms. The NVIDIA GeForce GT 520MX scores 1,463, which is 1.3% below the Arc B390's 1,482. The NVIDIA GeForce 800M scores 1,460, 1.5% below. The NVIDIA GeForce GT 625 OEM scores 1,446, 2.5% below. The NVIDIA GeForce GT 710 scores 1,443, 2.7% below. These delta values are small in percentage terms, but the absolute scores are all in the same low-performance tier.

A system pairing the Ryzen 5 7500F with any of these rival GPUs would produce FPS numbers within a few frames of the recorded data. The GT 520MX and GT 710 are particularly close, with delta values under 3%. Conversely, pairing the Arc B390 with any of the rival CPUs listed above would yield nearly identical results, since the GPU remains the limiting factor at every resolution and preset.

FAQ

Q: Can this system run Control at 1920x1080 with playable performance?

A: Yes, but only on Low settings. The database records an average of 65 FPS at 1080p Low, which clears the 60 FPS playable threshold. Medium settings drop to 46 FPS, High to 41 FPS, and Ultra to 36 FPS, all below the threshold.

Q: What is the best preset at 2560x1440?

A: No preset at 1440p reaches 60 FPS. Low settings average 50 FPS, Medium 35 FPS, High 31 FPS, and Ultra 27 FPS. The verdict database lists no playable settings for this resolution.

Q: Is the CPU or GPU responsible for the low frame rates?

A: The GPU is the limiting factor. The Intel Arc B390 ranks at the 9th percentile among all GPUs with a 3DMark Steel Nomad score of 1,482. The AMD Ryzen 5 7500F ranks at the 77th percentile among CPUs. Scaling from 1080p to 4K at Low settings reduces average FPS from 65 to 33, which indicates a GPU-bound workload.

Q: How does this combo rank among all tested systems for Control?

A: It ranks 3,311th out of 3,720 tested combos, placing it in the bottom 11% of configurations in the database.

Q: What graphics cards perform similarly to the Intel Arc B390?

A: The nearest rivals are the NVIDIA GeForce GT 520MX (1.3% lower score), NVIDIA GeForce 800M (1.5% lower), NVIDIA GeForce GT 625 OEM (2.5% lower), and NVIDIA GeForce GT 710 (2.7% lower). All of these GPUs would produce similar FPS in Control.

Q: What are the minimum and maximum FPS at 1080p Medium?

A: At 1920x1080 with Medium settings, the recorded minimum is 40 FPS and the maximum is 53 FPS, with an average of 46 FPS.

The Verdict

This PC can run Control, but only under a narrow set of conditions. The database verdict lists 1920x1080 Low as the sole playable configuration, with an average of 65 FPS at the playable threshold of 60 FPS. At 2560x1440, no settings achieve playable performance; the best recorded average is 50 FPS on Low. At 3840x2160, the situation is worse, with the highest average at 33 FPS on Low.

For users targeting 1080p gaming, the system delivers a playable experience only at the lowest preset. Medium settings at 1080p fall to 46 FPS, which is below the 60 FPS threshold. High and Ultra settings are not viable at any resolution. The GPU's 9th percentile ranking accurately predicts this outcome, as its 1,482 Steel Nomad score is insufficient for demanding rendering workloads.

The Ryzen 5 7500F is not the constraint here. Its 77th percentile ranking and strong multi-thread scores indicate it could support far higher frame rates with a more capable GPU. However, with the Arc B390, the system is limited to 1080p Low for Control. At higher resolutions, the system cannot maintain playable performance under any settings.

Measured FPS Breakdown

3840x2160

• Low: 33 FPS average, no min/max recorded
• Medium: 24 FPS average, 20 FPS minimum, 27 FPS maximum
• High: 21 FPS average, no min/max recorded
• Ultra: 18 FPS average, no min/max recorded

2560x1440

• Low: 50 FPS average, no min/max recorded
• Medium: 35 FPS average, 30 FPS minimum, 40 FPS maximum
• High: 31 FPS average, no min/max recorded
• Ultra: 27 FPS average, no min/max recorded

1920x1080

• Low: 65 FPS average, no min/max recorded
• Medium: 46 FPS average, 40 FPS minimum, 53 FPS maximum
• High: 41 FPS average, no min/max recorded
• Ultra: 36 FPS average, no min/max recorded

The data shows a consistent pattern across all resolutions: Low settings provide the highest frame rates, and each step up in preset reduces performance by roughly 20-30%. The gap between Low and Ultra at 1080p is 29 FPS, at 1440p it is 23 FPS, and at 4K it is 15 FPS. The min/max data, available only for Medium settings, shows a spread of 7 FPS at 1080p, 10 FPS at 1440p, and 7 FPS at 4K, indicating relatively stable frame pacing despite the low overall performance.