Control

FAQ

Q: What is the overall benchmark standing of the AMD Ryzen 7 9700X + Intel Arc B370 combination in Control?

A: This combination ranks 3436 out of 3720 tested combos in the database for Control, placing it in the lower percentile of systems tested for this title.

Q: What is the Intel Arc B370's performance percentile relative to all GPUs?

A: The Intel Arc B370 sits in the 5th percentile of all GPUs tested, with an average benchmark score of 1184 in the 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 test.

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

A: The Intel Arc B370's nearest rivals are the ATI Mobility Radeon HD 5570 (0.2% faster), ATI Radeon HD 5770 (0.5% faster), AMD Radeon HD 7650M (0.7% faster), and AMD FirePro M2000 (1.4% slower).

Q: What is the best average FPS this combo achieves in Control at 1920x1080?

A: At 1920x1080 with Low settings, the combo achieves an average of 59 FPS, which is the highest recorded average across all tested resolutions and settings.

Q: Does this system reach 60 FPS at any resolution in Control?

A: No, according to the measured data, no resolution and settings combination reaches the 60 FPS playable threshold. The closest result is 59 FPS at 1920x1080 with Low settings.

Q: What is the AMD Ryzen 7 9700X's CPU percentile ranking?

A: The AMD Ryzen 7 9700X sits in the 86th percentile of all CPUs tested, with an average benchmark score of 37943 across all tested workloads.

Similar Performance Alternatives

CPU Alternatives: The AMD Ryzen 7 9700X's nearest CPU rivals in the database are the Intel Core i9-14901E (0.1% higher average score), AMD Ryzen AI 9 HX 370 (0.1% higher), Intel Core 5 211E (0.3% higher), and AMD Ryzen AI Embedded P132 (0.4% higher). All four of these processors deliver essentially the same multi-threaded and single-threaded compute performance as the Ryzen 7 9700X, meaning that swapping to any of them would produce nearly identical CPU-bound frame rates in Control. The Ryzen 7 9700X itself carries 8 cores and 16 threads, with a base clock of 3.80 GHz and a boost clock of 5.50 GHz, features that place it firmly in the top tier of desktop processors for gaming workloads.

GPU Alternatives: The Intel Arc B370's nearest GPU rivals are all older AMD/ATI parts: the ATI Mobility Radeon HD 5570 (0.2% faster), ATI Radeon HD 5770 (0.5% faster), AMD Radeon HD 7650M (0.7% faster), and AMD FirePro M2000 (1.4% slower). These deltas are all within roughly 1.5%, meaning that any of these GPUs would deliver nearly indistinguishable frame rates in Control at the same settings. The Arc B370's 5th percentile ranking indicates that this is an extremely low-performance graphics solution, comparable to integrated graphics from over a decade ago rather than modern discrete GPUs. The Arc B370 does support DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4, but its raw throughput is severely limited.

Combined Behavior: Because the GPU is so far below the CPU in relative performance, pairing the Ryzen 7 9700X with any of these rival GPUs would yield essentially identical gameplay experiences. The CPU's 86th percentile ranking versus the GPU's 5th percentile ranking means the system is overwhelmingly GPU-bound in Control at all tested settings and resolutions.

CPU and GPU Roles

The recorded data shows a clear pattern of GPU-bound performance at every resolution and settings combination tested. At 3840x2160, the average FPS ranges from 17 (Ultra) to 30 (Low), a span of 13 FPS. At 2560x1440, the range is 25 (Ultra) to 45 (Low), a span of 20 FPS. At 1920x1080, the range is 32 (Ultra) to 59 (Low), a span of 27 FPS. The fact that lower resolutions produce wider spreads between settings indicates that the GPU is the limiting factor: as resolution drops, the GPU has more headroom to respond to settings changes, but it still never reaches the 60 FPS threshold.

The CPU's role is minimal in this configuration. The Ryzen 7 9700X, with its 8 cores and 16 threads, is far more capable than what Control demands at these frame rates. Even at the lowest resolution and settings (1920x1080 Low, 59 FPS average), the CPU is likely idle waiting for the GPU to finish rendering. The scaling between resolutions tells the same story: moving from 1920x1080 to 2560x1440 at Low settings drops the average from 59 to 45 FPS (a 23.7% decrease), and moving from 2560x1440 to 3840x2160 at Low settings drops the average from 45 to 30 FPS (a 33.3% decrease). These steep drops are characteristic of a GPU that is saturated at every resolution.

The settings scaling further confirms the GPU bottleneck. At 1920x1080, moving from Low to Medium decreases the average from 59 to 42 FPS (a 28.8% drop), from Medium to High from 42 to 37 FPS (an 11.9% drop), and from High to Ultra from 37 to 32 FPS (a 13.5% drop). At 3840x2160, the same progression yields 30 (Low), 21 (Medium), 19 (High), and 17 (Ultra) FPS. The diminishing returns at higher settings are typical of a GPU that runs out of shading and rasterization throughput well before the CPU becomes a factor.

The Verdict

The data clearly indicates that this PC cannot run Control at a playable frame rate. The playable threshold is 60 FPS, and the verdictByResolution entries are empty for all three resolutions: 3840x2160, 2560x1440, and 1920x1080. None of the tested settings combinations at any resolution reach 60 FPS average.

The closest the system comes is 1920x1080 with Low settings, where it averages 59 FPS. This is 1 FPS short of the playable threshold, which means even at the lowest visual quality and the lowest resolution tested, the system misses the mark. At 2560x1440, the best average is 45 FPS at Low settings, and at 3840x2160, the best average is 30 FPS at Low settings. These are all substantially below the 60 FPS target.

The 3436th rank out of 3720 tested combos reinforces this conclusion: the vast majority of other CPU+GPU combinations tested in the database deliver better performance in Control. The Intel Arc B370's 5th percentile GPU ranking is the decisive factor, as no amount of CPU headroom can compensate for the GPU's limited throughput.

Measured FPS Breakdown

3840x2160 (4K):

• Low: average 30 FPS (min/max not recorded)
• Medium: average 21 FPS, minimum 18 FPS, maximum 25 FPS
• High: average 19 FPS (min/max not recorded)
• Ultra: average 17 FPS (min/max not recorded)

2560x1440 (1440p):

• Low: average 45 FPS (min/max not recorded)
• Medium: average 32 FPS, minimum 27 FPS, maximum 37 FPS
• High: average 28 FPS (min/max not recorded)
• Ultra: average 25 FPS (min/max not recorded)

1920x1080 (1080p):

• Low: average 59 FPS (min/max not recorded)
• Medium: average 42 FPS, minimum 36 FPS, maximum 48 FPS
• High: average 37 FPS (min/max not recorded)
• Ultra: average 32 FPS (min/max not recorded)

The Medium settings entries across all three resolutions show the most complete data, with recorded minimum and maximum FPS values. At 3840x2160 Medium, the minimum of 18 FPS and maximum of 25 FPS bracket the 21 FPS average tightly, indicating relatively consistent frame pacing. At 2560x1440 Medium, the 27-37 FPS range around the 32 FPS average shows similar consistency. At 1920x1080 Medium, the 36-48 FPS range around the 42 FPS average is the widest of the three, suggesting more variance at the lowest resolution where the GPU is less uniformly saturated.

Best Settings per Resolution

3840x2160: No settings combination reaches 60 FPS. The best available option is Low settings, which delivers 30 FPS average. This is exactly half the playable threshold and would feel noticeably stuttery in fast-paced combat sequences.

2560x1440: No settings combination reaches 60 FPS. The best available option is Low settings, which delivers 45 FPS average. While this is smoother than the 4K result, it still falls 15 FPS short of the playable threshold.

1920x1080: No settings combination reaches 60 FPS. The best available option is Low settings, which delivers 59 FPS average. This is 1 FPS shy of the 60 FPS threshold, meaning that even at the lowest resolution and lowest visual quality, the system cannot maintain a playable frame rate.

The pattern is consistent: Low settings is always the best performer, and every resolution falls short of the 60 FPS target. The 59 FPS result at 1080p Low is tantalizingly close, but it is not enough to qualify as playable according to the database's threshold.

How This Combo Ranks

The AMD Ryzen 7 9700X + Intel Arc B370 combination ranks 3436 out of 3720 tested combos in Control, placing it in the bottom 7.6% of all systems tested. This is a very poor result, driven almost entirely by the GPU's limitations rather than the CPU's capabilities.

To contextualize this ranking: the CPU alone sits in the 86th percentile of all processors, while the GPU sits in the 5th percentile of all graphics cards. The enormous gap between these two percentiles means the system's performance is constrained by the weakest component, and that weakest component is far below the level required for modern gaming at 60 FPS.

The nearest GPU rivals, which are all over a decade old, would perform nearly identically in Control. This means the Arc B370's 5th percentile ranking is not an outlier or a measurement error; it genuinely represents a GPU that is competitive with integrated graphics from the early 2010s. The Ryzen 7 9700X's high CPU ranking does nothing to boost the gaming experience because Control's GPU demands far exceed what the Arc B370 can deliver.

In practical terms, the 3436th rank means that roughly 92.4% of all tested CPU+GPU combinations deliver better performance in Control than this one. The only systems that rank lower are those with even weaker GPUs. For a game released in 2019, this combination falls far short of what would be considered an acceptable gaming experience, and the data offers no settings combination that bridges the gap to the 60 FPS playable threshold.