Control

CPU and GPU Roles

The recorded benchmark data for Control with the AMD Ryzen 5 7500X3D and Intel Arc B390 shows a system that is overwhelmingly constrained by the graphics processor. The CPU, a 6-core, 12-thread Raphael part with a 96 MB shared L3 cache and a 4.50 GHz boost clock, posts a PassMark single-thread score of 3494 and a multithread score of 25047. Those numbers place it in the 89th percentile of all CPUs, indicating strong processing headroom. The GPU, however, sits in the 9th percentile of all GPUs with an average 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 score of 1482. That enormous gap between CPU capability and GPU throughput defines the system's behavior in this game.

At 1920x1080, the lowest resolution tested, the GPU is still the limiting factor. The average frame rate moves from 65 FPS at Low settings down to 36 FPS at Ultra, a drop of 29 FPS or roughly 45% when pushing the preset from Low to Ultra. If the CPU were the bottleneck, that scaling would be far less pronounced. The CPU's physics score of 2779 and floating point math score of 43594 are more than sufficient for a 2019 action-adventure title; the data indicates the renderer is waiting on the Arc B390's 7.680 TFLOPS of FP32 throughput, not the processor.

Scaling to 2560x1440, the average FPS at Low settings falls from 50 to 35 at Medium, then to 31 at High and 27 at Ultra. The drop from Low to Ultra is 23 FPS, a 46% reduction, nearly identical to the percentage drop seen at 1080p. This consistency across resolutions points to a GPU-bound scenario where the shading and rasterization workload dominates. The Arc B390's 48 texture mapping units and 24 raster output units, paired with a 60.00 GPixel/s pixel rate, simply cannot sustain high preset loads at this resolution.

At 3840x2160, the picture becomes more extreme. Low settings yield 33 FPS average, Medium drops to 24 FPS, High to 21 FPS, and Ultra to 18 FPS. The delta between Low and Ultra here is 15 FPS, a 45% reduction, again mirroring the pattern at lower resolutions. Notably, the frame rate at 4K Low (33 FPS) is only slightly higher than 1440p High (31 FPS), which suggests that the GPU's memory bandwidth, marked as system dependent, is also a contributing constraint. The CPU's DDR5 dual-channel memory bus provides 83.2 GB/s, but the GPU shares that system memory, and at higher resolutions the memory traffic increases, further straining the integrated graphics solution.

The role split is clear: the Ryzen 5 7500X3D is never the deciding factor in any of the 12 measured configurations. The CPU's nearest rivals, such as the Intel Core Ultra X9 388H with an average score of 44466 (0.2% higher) and the Intel Core i5-14600 with 44889 (0.7% higher), all sit within a narrow band of performance. None of those CPUs would change the outcome here. The Intel Arc B390, on the other hand, sits in a class of its own at the bottom of the GPU percentile ranking, with nearest rivals like the NVIDIA GeForce GT 520MX (1463, 1.3% behind) and the GT 710 (1443, 2.7% behind). Those are legacy parts from over a decade ago, and the data confirms this combo behaves like a system with a very low-end GPU.

Best Settings per Resolution

The playable threshold in this database is 60 FPS. At 3840x2160, no preset reaches that mark. The highest average FPS recorded at 4K is 33 FPS on Low settings, which falls far short of the threshold. Medium, High, and Ultra all sit below 25 FPS. Therefore, the database records no playable settings at this resolution, and the best settings field is null.

At 2560x1440, the situation is similar. Low settings produce 50 FPS average, which is 10 FPS below the 60 FPS threshold. Medium averages 35 FPS, High averages 31 FPS, and Ultra averages 27 FPS. None of these configurations clear 60 FPS, so the verdict for 1440p also lists no playable settings and a null best settings value.

At 1920x1080, the system finally finds a playable configuration. Low settings deliver an average of 65 FPS, which clears the 60 FPS threshold by 5 FPS. This is the only preset at 1080p that meets the bar. Medium settings average 46 FPS, High averages 41 FPS, and Ultra averages 36 FPS, all below the threshold. The database therefore lists Low as the best settings at 1080p, with an average FPS of 65. If the user wants to play Control on this system, they must run the game at 1080p with Low presets; any higher settings or resolution will result in average frame rates below 60 FPS.

Measured FPS Breakdown

The measured FPS data covers three resolutions and four settings presets, for a total of 12 configurations. At 1920x1080, the Low preset records an average of 65 FPS with no min or max values logged. Medium settings at 1080p produce an average of 46 FPS, with a minimum of 40 FPS and a maximum of 53 FPS. High settings average 41 FPS, and Ultra settings average 36 FPS. The spread from Low to Ultra at 1080p is 29 FPS, showing that the preset choice has a significant impact on the integrated GPU's workload.

At 2560x1440, Low settings average 50 FPS. Medium settings average 35 FPS, with a minimum of 30 and a maximum of 40. High settings average 31 FPS, and Ultra settings average 27 FPS. The drop from 1080p Low to 1440p Low is 15 FPS, a 23% reduction, which is a larger relative loss than the drop from 1440p Low to 4K Low (from 50 to 33, a 34% reduction). This nonlinear scaling suggests that the GPU's fill-rate limits begin to bind more severely as the pixel count grows.

At 3840x2160, the numbers fall further. Low settings average 33 FPS. Medium settings average 24 FPS, with a minimum of 20 and a maximum of 27. High settings average 21 FPS, and Ultra settings average 18 FPS. The minimum FPS values at Medium quality, 20 FPS at 4K and 30 FPS at 1440p, indicate that frame pacing becomes inconsistent under load. The maximum values, 27 FPS at 4K and 40 FPS at 1440p, show that even the peaks are well below playable thresholds.

The min and max data is only recorded for the Medium preset across all three resolutions. At 1080p Medium, the range is 40 to 53 FPS, a 13 FPS spread. At 1440p Medium, the range is 30 to 40 FPS, a 10 FPS spread. At 4K Medium, the range is 20 to 27 FPS, a 7 FPS spread. The narrowing range at higher resolutions suggests that the GPU is more consistently saturated as resolution increases, leaving less headroom for variance. The average FPS at each resolution and preset tells a consistent story: this GPU is not built for high-fidelity rendering in Control.

The Verdict

Can this PC run Control? The database's verdict is unambiguous. At 3840x2160, the system cannot run the game at any playable setting. The best average FPS recorded is 33 at Low, which is 27 FPS below the 60 FPS threshold. At 2560x1440, the outcome is the same: no playable settings. Low averages 50 FPS, just 10 FPS short of the mark, and every other preset falls further behind.

At 1920x1080, the system clears the bar on one configuration only. Low settings deliver an average of 65 FPS, which is 5 FPS above the threshold. This is the single playable setup in the entire measured dataset. Medium, High, and Ultra at 1080p all fail to reach 60 FPS, with averages of 46, 41, and 36 FPS respectively.

The practical interpretation is that this combination, an AMD Ryzen 5 7500X3D paired with an Intel Arc B390, is only suitable for running Control at 1080p with the lowest graphical preset. The CPU is more than capable; its benchmark scores place it in the top 11% of all CPUs. The GPU, however, is the limiting factor, and its 9th percentile ranking among all GPUs means that demanding games like Control will only run at reduced resolutions and settings. The recorded data shows a system that is heavily imbalanced, with a high-end processor paired with a low-end integrated graphics solution.

Similar Performance Alternatives

Looking at the nearest rivals for both components provides context for what other hardware would behave similarly. On the CPU side, the Ryzen 5 7500X3D's average benchmark score of 44573 is closely matched by several parts. The Intel Core Ultra X9 388H scores 44466, a 0.2% delta. The Intel Core i9-13950HX scores 44342, a 0.5% delta. The AMD Ryzen AI Max 385 scores 44309, a 0.6% delta. The Intel Core i5-14600 scores 44889, which is 0.7% higher. All four of these CPUs would deliver essentially identical CPU-bound performance in Control, meaning that none of them would change the frame rates recorded here. The game would still be GPU-bound in every measured configuration.

On the GPU side, the Arc B390's average score of 1482 places it near a set of very old NVIDIA parts. The NVIDIA GeForce GT 520MX scores 1463, a 1.3% delta. The NVIDIA GeForce 800M scores 1460, a 1.5% delta. The NVIDIA GeForce GT 625 OEM scores 1446, a 2.5% delta. The NVIDIA GeForce GT 710 scores 1443, a 2.7% delta. These GPUs are all within a few percentage points of the Arc B390 in synthetic benchmarks, and they would produce nearly identical frame rates in Control. That means a system with any of these GPUs and a comparable CPU would also only run the game at 1080p Low, with average FPS in the mid-60s at best.

The practical takeaway is that the Arc B390 is not a discrete-class GPU in terms of performance. Its nearest rivals are integrated and entry-level parts from the early 2010s. A user upgrading from a GT 710 to an Arc B390 would see no meaningful improvement in Control, and the Ryzen 5 7500X3D's processing power would go largely unused in this title.

How This Combo Ranks

In the database of tested combinations for Control, this pairing ranks 3311 out of 3720 combos. That places it in the bottom 11% of all tested systems, which is consistent with the GPU's low percentile ranking. The rank reflects the overall gameplay experience, which is limited to 1080p Low at 65 FPS average.

The rank of 3311 means that 409 other tested combinations performed worse than this system, and 3310 performed better. Given that the CPU is a high-end part, the low rank is almost entirely attributable to the GPU. The Arc B390's 7.680 TFLOPS of FP32 compute and 60.00 GPixel/s pixel rate are not competitive for a game like Control, which was released in 2019 and has since been used as a benchmark for ray tracing and high-fidelity effects.

For context, the combo rank sits far below any system with a mid-range discrete GPU. The data indicates that this is a machine for basic productivity and light gaming, not for action-adventure titles at high settings. The 1080p Low configuration at 65 FPS is playable, but it is the ceiling of what this hardware can achieve. Users seeking higher resolutions or better visual quality in Control would need a different GPU, as the CPU is not the constraint. The recorded data makes this imbalance clear: a top-tier processor paired with a bottom-tier GPU yields a bottom-tier gaming result.