Control

FAQ

Q: Can this system run Control at 60 FPS in 4K?

A: No. The recorded data shows average frame rates of 21 FPS at High, 24 FPS at Medium, and 18 FPS at Ultra in 3840x2160. Even at Low settings, the average is only 33 FPS, far below the 60 FPS playable threshold.

Q: What is the best playable setting at 1080p?

A: At 1920x1080, only the Low preset clears the 60 FPS threshold, with an average of 65 FPS. The Medium preset averages 46 FPS, High averages 41 FPS, and Ultra averages 36 FPS.

Q: How does this CPU compare to its nearest rivals in overall benchmark scores?

A: The AMD Ryzen 7 9850X3D has an average benchmark score of 58386. It is 0.1% ahead of the Intel Xeon Platinum 8260M (58323), 0.5% ahead of the Intel Core i9-14900 (58115), but 0.2% behind the Intel Xeon w5-2545 (58504) and 0.7% behind the AMD Ryzen AI 9 HX 470 (58826).

Q: How does this GPU compare to its nearest rivals in 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12?

A: The Intel Arc B390 scores 1482 in 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12. It is 1.3% ahead of the NVIDIA GeForce GT 520MX (1463), 1.5% ahead of the NVIDIA GeForce 800M (1460), 2.5% ahead of the NVIDIA GeForce GT 625 OEM (1446), and 2.7% ahead of the NVIDIA GeForce GT 710 (1443).

Q: What is the best average FPS recorded for this combo across all tested settings?

A: The highest average FPS recorded is 65 FPS, achieved at 1920x1080 with Low settings. The next best is 50 FPS at 2560x1440 with Low settings, followed by 46 FPS at 1920x1080 with Medium settings.

Q: Does the CPU or GPU bottleneck the game more at higher resolutions?

A: The data indicates the GPU is the limiting factor. As resolution increases from 1920x1080 to 3840x2160 at the same settings, average FPS drops consistently. For example, at High settings, FPS falls from 41 at 1080p to 31 at 1440p to 21 at 4K, a pattern consistent with GPU-bound scaling rather than CPU limitation.

CPU and GPU Roles

The benchmark results for Control reveal a clear division of labor between the AMD Ryzen 7 9850X3D and the Intel Arc B390. The CPU is a high-end desktop part with 8 cores and 16 threads based on Zen 5 architecture, and it sits in the 92nd percentile among all CPUs tested in the database. Its multithreaded performance is substantial, with a Cinebench R23 multicore score of 22807 and a Passmark multithread score of 41318. However, this CPU's strength does not translate into high frame rates in Control because the integrated GPU, the Intel Arc B390, becomes the dominant constraint.

The Intel Arc B390 is an integrated graphics solution with only 1536 shading units, 48 texture mapping units, and 24 raster output units. It sits in the 9th percentile among all GPUs in the database, which is a very low position. Its 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 score of 1482 places it near entry-level discrete GPUs from over a decade ago, such as the NVIDIA GeForce GT 710 and GT 625 OEM. This GPU is fundamentally not designed for demanding modern games at high resolutions.

The scaling pattern across resolutions confirms the GPU-bound nature of this combo. At 1920x1080 with Low settings, the average FPS is 65. Moving to 2560x1440 at Low settings drops the average to 50 FPS, a 23% reduction. Moving further to 3840x2160 at Low settings yields 33 FPS, another 34% reduction. This steep decline with increasing pixel count is characteristic of a system where the GPU's fixed compute and memory bandwidth are being saturated.

At each resolution, the difference between Low and Ultra settings also demonstrates GPU limitation. At 1080p, Low averages 65 FPS while Ultra averages 36 FPS, a 45% drop. At 1440p, Low averages 50 FPS while Ultra averages 27 FPS, a 46% drop. At 4K, Low averages 33 FPS while Ultra averages 18 FPS, a 45% drop. The consistency of these percentage drops across resolutions indicates that the GPU's shading units, texture units, and raster operations are the bottleneck, not the CPU's processing capacity.

The CPU's role is to feed the GPU with draw calls, physics calculations, and game logic. Given that the Ryzen 7 9850X3D has a Passmark single-thread score of 4704 and a Cinebench R23 single-core score of 2228, it is more than capable of handling Control's CPU demands. Control is an Action Adventure game from 2019, and its CPU requirements are well within what this processor can deliver. The recorded data shows no evidence of CPU-induced frame pacing issues or minimum FPS collapses that would indicate CPU limitation.

For users considering this combo, the practical implication is that the CPU is not the limiting factor at any resolution. Even at 1080p Low settings, where the system reaches its peak of 65 FPS, the CPU has headroom remaining. The GPU is the component that determines playability, and it falls short of the 60 FPS threshold at every resolution except 1080p Low, where it just barely clears it.

Similar Performance Alternatives

Looking at the nearest rivals for the CPU, the AMD Ryzen 7 9850X3D's average benchmark score of 58386 is very close to several other processors. The Intel Xeon Platinum 8260M scores 58323, a 0.1% difference. The Intel Core i9-14900 scores 58115, a 0.5% difference. The Intel Xeon w5-2545 scores 58504, a 0.2% difference in the opposite direction. The AMD Ryzen AI 9 HX 470 scores 58826, a 0.7% difference. These four processors are all within 0.7% of the Ryzen 7 9850X3D in aggregate benchmark performance, meaning any of them would produce nearly identical CPU-bound behavior in Control.

For the GPU, the Intel Arc B390's 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 score of 1482 places it among a group of very old, low-end graphics solutions. The NVIDIA GeForce GT 520MX scores 1463, a 1.3% difference. The NVIDIA GeForce 800M scores 1460, a 1.5% difference. The NVIDIA GeForce GT 625 OEM scores 1446, a 2.5% difference. The NVIDIA GeForce GT 710 scores 1443, a 2.7% difference. These GPUs are all within 2.7% of the Arc B390 in this benchmark, so users with any of these graphics solutions would experience very similar frame rates in Control.

When combined, these rival components suggest that the overall system performance in Control would be nearly identical to the measured data for this combo. A system with an Intel Xeon Platinum 8260M or an Intel Core i9-14900 paired with any of the rival GPUs would produce frame rates within a few percent of the numbers recorded here. The CPU differences would be imperceptible in this game, and the GPU differences are small enough to be within run-to-run variance.

The practical takeaway is that this combo's performance profile is defined almost entirely by the GPU. Swapping the CPU for any of its closest rivals would not change the playability verdict. Conversely, swapping the GPU for any of its closest rivals would also not change the verdict, because all of them are similarly low-performing in the database's rankings.

The Verdict

The question of whether this PC can run Control has a narrow answer. The data shows that this system can run the game, but only at the most modest settings and resolution. The verdict by resolution is clear: at 3840x2160, there are no playable settings, meaning no preset reaches the 60 FPS threshold. At 2560x1440, there are also no playable settings. At 1920x1080, the Low preset is the only playable option, with an average FPS of 65, which clears the 60 FPS threshold.

The best settings at 1080p are Low, and the average FPS at those settings is 65. That is the only configuration in the entire measured dataset that meets the playability criterion. Every other resolution and settings combination falls short of 60 FPS average.

For users who insist on 1440p or 4K, this system is not viable for Control. The highest average FPS at 1440p is 50 FPS at Low settings, which is 10 FPS below the threshold. At 4K, even Low settings only achieve 33 FPS, which is barely half of the target.

For users who accept 1080p, the system can deliver a playable experience only at Low settings. The Medium preset at 1080p averages 46 FPS, which may be acceptable for some players but does not meet the 60 FPS standard used in this database. High and Ultra presets at 1080p are worse, averaging 41 FPS and 36 FPS respectively.

The verdict is therefore conditional: playable only at 1080p Low, with no headroom for higher settings or resolutions. Users seeking higher visual quality or resolution would need a different GPU, as the CPU is not the limiting factor.

Measured FPS Breakdown

The recorded measurements provide a complete picture of performance across three resolutions and four settings presets. At 3840x2160, the system averages 21 FPS at High settings, 33 FPS at Low settings, 24 FPS at Medium settings, and 18 FPS at Ultra settings. The only preset with recorded minimum and maximum values is Medium, which has a minimum of 20 FPS and a maximum of 27 FPS. This narrow range indicates consistent performance without major frame spikes, but the overall level is far too low for playable frame rates.

At 2560x1440, the averages are 31 FPS at High, 50 FPS at Low, 35 FPS at Medium, and 27 FPS at Ultra. The Medium preset again has the only recorded minimum and maximum, with 30 FPS minimum and 40 FPS maximum. The 20 FPS spread between minimum and maximum at Medium settings shows some variability, but the average remains well below the 60 FPS target.

At 1920x1080, the averages are 41 FPS at High, 65 FPS at Low, 46 FPS at Medium, and 36 FPS at Ultra. The Medium preset has a minimum of 40 FPS and a maximum of 53 FPS. The Low preset, which is the only playable configuration, averages 65 FPS, which is 5 FPS above the threshold. This is a slim margin, and users should expect occasional dips below 60 FPS during demanding scenes, though the average remains playable.

The progression across settings is consistent: Low is always the fastest, followed by Medium, then High, then Ultra. The gap between Low and Ultra is substantial at every resolution, ranging from 29 FPS at 1080p to 15 FPS at 4K. This suggests that the GPU's limited shading and texture resources are heavily taxed by the higher-quality presets.

The lack of recorded minimum and maximum values for most presets means the database only captures average performance for those configurations. The available minimum and maximum data points, all from Medium settings, show that frame rate variability is moderate, with spreads of 7 to 10 FPS between minimum and maximum.

How This Combo Ranks

The combined performance of the AMD Ryzen 7 9850X3D and Intel Arc B390 in Control places this combo at rank 3311 out of 3720 tested combinations in the database. This means the combo sits in the bottom 11% of all tested systems for this game. The rank reflects the severe GPU limitation; the Arc B390's low position in the GPU percentile rankings (9th percentile) drags the combo down despite the CPU's strong showing (92nd percentile).

The rank of 3311 out of 3720 indicates that the vast majority of tested combos perform better in Control. This is expected, given that the Arc B390 is an integrated GPU competing against dedicated graphics solutions. The CPU's high benchmark scores do not compensate for the GPU's low performance in this game, because Control's frame rates are dominated by GPU throughput.

In practical terms, this combo ranks in the bottom 409 tested systems for Control. Users with this configuration will have frame rates below the majority of the database's tested hardware. The only playable configuration, 1080p Low, is a minimal experience that takes advantage of the GPU's limited capabilities.

The data suggests that this combo is best suited for older or less demanding games, or for users who prioritize CPU performance for non-gaming tasks. For Control specifically, the combo delivers a marginal experience at best, and the ranking reflects that reality. The 3311 rank is a clear signal that this is not a gaming-oriented configuration, and users seeking to play Control at higher settings or resolutions should look elsewhere.