Control

Measured FPS Breakdown

The recorded data for this combination of AMD Ryzen 5 7500X3D and Intel Arc B370 in Control shows a clear performance profile that is heavily constrained by the graphics solution. The measured FPS values are consistent across the three resolutions tested, with each showing a predictable decline as settings quality increases.

At 3840x2160, the highest resolution in the dataset, the results are uniformly low. The Low preset produces an average of 30 FPS, which is the best result at this resolution. Medium settings drop the average to 21 FPS, with a recorded minimum of 18 FPS and maximum of 25 FPS. High settings yield a 19 FPS average, while Ultra falls to 17 FPS. None of these figures approach the 60 FPS playable threshold, and the spread between Low and Ultra is a narrow 13 FPS, indicating that the bottleneck is not settings-dependent but rather a hard performance ceiling.

Moving to 2560x1440, the pattern continues but with slightly better averages. Low settings produce 45 FPS, which is the highest average at this resolution. Medium follows at 32 FPS with a minimum of 27 FPS and maximum of 37 FPS. High settings record a 28 FPS average, and Ultra drops to 25 FPS. The gap between Low and Ultra here is 20 FPS, suggesting that the graphics unit has a bit more headroom at this resolution, but still nowhere near enough to reach smooth gameplay.

At 1920x1080, the data shows the best results of any resolution, but still short of the target. The Low preset averages 59 FPS, which is within one frame of the 60 FPS threshold. Medium averages 42 FPS with a minimum of 36 FPS and maximum of 48 FPS. High settings produce 37 FPS, and Ultra falls to 32 FPS. The minimum and maximum values for Medium at this resolution indicate some frame time variability, but the overall trend is consistent: each settings tier costs roughly 5 to 7 FPS.

The min and max FPS values are only recorded for Medium settings at each resolution. At 3840x2160 Medium, the spread is 18 to 25 FPS, a 7 FPS range. At 2560x1440 Medium, the range is 27 to 37 FPS, a 10 FPS spread. At 1920x1080 Medium, the range is 36 to 48 FPS, a 12 FPS spread. These numbers suggest that frame pacing becomes more erratic as resolution increases, which is consistent with a GPU that is operating near its limits.

Best Settings per Resolution

For each resolution, the most demanding preset that stays at or above 60 FPS is the question, and the data provides a clear answer: none of them do. The verdictByResolution field lists playableSettings as empty arrays for all three resolutions, meaning no preset achieves the 60 FPS threshold.

At 3840x2160, the Low preset comes closest with a 30 FPS average, but that is exactly half the target. Medium, High, and Ultra all fall below 21 FPS, making the entire resolution tier unplayable by the standard metric.

At 2560x1440, Low reaches 45 FPS, which is the highest average across any setting at any resolution. But 45 FPS is still 15 FPS short of the threshold, so no preset qualifies. Medium, High, and Ultra all stay in the 25 to 32 FPS range.

At 1920x1080, Low averages 59 FPS, which is the single closest result to 60 FPS in the entire dataset. However, the playable threshold is defined as at or above 60 FPS, and 59 FPS does not meet that bar. Medium, High, and Ultra all remain below 42 FPS.

The recorded data indicates that this combination cannot maintain 60 FPS at any resolution or preset in Control. The best possible outcome is 1080p Low at 59 FPS average, which is borderline but still technically below the threshold.

FAQ

Q: Can this PC run Control at 4K resolution?

A: No. The best result at 3840x2160 is the Low preset with a 30 FPS average. Medium produces 21 FPS, High produces 19 FPS, and Ultra produces 17 FPS. None of these approach the 60 FPS playable threshold.

Q: What is the highest playable setting at 1440p?

A: There is no playable setting at 2560x1440. The Low preset averages 45 FPS, Medium averages 32 FPS, High averages 28 FPS, and Ultra averages 25 FPS. All fall below 60 FPS.

Q: Is 1080p playable with this hardware?

A: Only at Low settings, and even then it is borderline. The Low preset at 1920x1080 averages 59 FPS, which is just 1 FPS below the 60 FPS threshold. Medium drops to 42 FPS, High to 37 FPS, and Ultra to 32 FPS.

Q: How does the GPU compare to its nearest rivals?

A: The Intel Arc B370 has an average benchmark score of 1184. Its closest competitor, the ATI Mobility Radeon HD 5570, scores 1186, which is 0.2% higher. The ATI Radeon HD 5770 scores 1190, 0.5% higher, and the AMD Radeon HD 7650M scores 1192, 0.7% higher. The AMD FirePro M2000 scores 1168, which is 1.4% lower. This places the Arc B370 in a very low performance tier.

Q: What is the CPU's relative performance compared to other processors?

A: The AMD Ryzen 5 7500X3D has an average benchmark score of 44573 and ranks in the 89th percentile among all CPUs. Its nearest rival, the Intel Core Ultra X9 388H, scores 44466, which is 0.2% lower. The Intel Core i9-13950HX scores 44342, 0.5% lower. The AMD Ryzen AI Max 385 scores 44309, 0.6% lower. Only the Intel Core i5-14600 scores higher at 44889, which is 0.7% above.

Q: Does the CPU or GPU limit performance in this game?

A: The data strongly indicates the GPU is the limiting factor. The CPU ranks in the 89th percentile among all processors, while the GPU ranks in the 5th percentile among all graphics cards. The measured FPS values are uniformly low across all resolutions and settings, which is characteristic of a GPU bottleneck rather than a CPU limitation.

Similar Performance Alternatives

The nearest rivals for the CPU and GPU provide context for what other hardware would behave similarly in this game.

For the CPU, the AMD Ryzen 5 7500X3D sits in a tight cluster of processors with nearly identical average scores. The Intel Core Ultra X9 388H is essentially a match at 0.2% lower performance. The Intel Core i9-13950HX is 0.5% lower, and the AMD Ryzen AI Max 385 is 0.6% lower. The Intel Core i5-14600 is the only rival that scores higher, at 0.7% above. In practice, any of these CPUs would deliver virtually identical frame rates in Control, since the game is not CPU-bound at the measured settings. The 7500X3D's 6 cores and 12 threads, with a base clock of 4.00 GHz and boost clock of 4.50 GHz, are far more than this game requires.

For the GPU, the situation is more critical. The Intel Arc B370 scores 1184 in the 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 test, which places it in the 5th percentile of all GPUs. Its nearest rivals are all legacy or low-end parts. The ATI Mobility Radeon HD 5570 is within 0.2% of the Arc B370's score, meaning it would produce nearly identical FPS in Control. The ATI Radeon HD 5770 is 0.5% higher, and the AMD Radeon HD 7650M is 0.7% higher. The AMD FirePro M2000 is 1.4% lower. Any of these GPUs would struggle in the same way: sub-60 FPS at all resolutions and settings, with the best case being around 59 FPS at 1080p Low.

The practical takeaway is that swapping the CPU for any of its nearest rivals would change nothing in this game. Swapping the GPU for any of its nearest rivals would also change nothing meaningful, since they all sit within a 2% performance band. The system is firmly anchored at the bottom of the GPU performance scale, and no nearby alternative offers a path to higher frame rates.

The Verdict

This PC cannot run Control at the 60 FPS playable threshold at any resolution or preset. The verdictByResolution data confirms this: all three resolutions list empty playableSettings arrays, meaning no combination of resolution and quality setting reaches 60 FPS.

At 3840x2160, the best average is 30 FPS on Low, which is half the target. The other presets are worse: Medium at 21 FPS, High at 19 FPS, and Ultra at 17 FPS. This resolution is not viable for playable frame rates.

At 2560x1440, the best average is 45 FPS on Low. Medium is 32 FPS, High is 28 FPS, and Ultra is 25 FPS. While 45 FPS is more tolerable than 30 FPS, it still falls 15 FPS short of the threshold, and no preset qualifies.

At 1920x1080, the best average is 59 FPS on Low. This is the closest result in the entire dataset, but it is still 1 FPS below the 60 FPS threshold. Medium is 42 FPS, High is 37 FPS, and Ultra is 32 FPS. The 59 FPS average on Low is technically not playable by the defined standard, though it would likely feel nearly smooth in practice.

The data shows a system that is overwhelmingly GPU-limited. The CPU is a high-end part with an 89th percentile ranking, but the GPU is a 5th percentile part with only 1280 shading units and a boost clock of 2400 MHz. The result is a consistent inability to reach 60 FPS, regardless of resolution or settings.

How This Combo Ranks

In the database's ranking of tested CPU and GPU combinations for Control, this pairing sits at rank 3436 out of 3720 total combos. That places it in the bottom 8% of all tested systems. The rank reflects the measured FPS data, which shows no playable settings at any resolution.

The low rank is driven entirely by the GPU. The Intel Arc B370's 5th percentile standing among all GPUs means it is outperformed by the vast majority of graphics cards in the database. Its nearest rivals are all older, lower-end parts, confirming that this is a very weak graphics solution. The CPU, by contrast, is a strong performer, but in a game like Control, the GPU determines the outcome.

For context, the combo rank of 3436 out of 3720 means that only 284 tested combinations perform worse. This is not a subtle distinction: the system is firmly in the lowest performance tier. The data does not show any hidden potential or settings trick that could close the gap. The 59 FPS average at 1080p Low is the ceiling, and it is 1 FPS short of playable.

The recorded measurements make the verdict unambiguous. This is a combination that should not be expected to run Control at acceptable frame rates. Users with this hardware would need to lower expectations to 1080p Low, accept sub-60 FPS performance, or consider a different GPU entirely. The CPU is not the problem, but the GPU is a fundamental limiter.