Control

The short answer is no: the AMD Ryzen 9 5950X paired with the Intel Arc B370 cannot run Control at a playable level at any tested resolution. The recorded data shows an average of 59 FPS at 1920x1080 on the Low preset, and that is the single best result in the entire measurement set, one frame short of the 60 FPS threshold the database uses to define playability. Every other combination of resolution and preset falls further behind. This outcome is entirely a graphics-side problem: the Arc B370 is an integrated GPU sitting in the 5th percentile of all GPUs in the database, while the Ryzen 9 5950X sits in the 91st percentile of all CPUs. The processor is far ahead of what this game needs; the integrated graphics are the bottleneck at every turn.

Control, an Action Adventure title released in 2019, is known for its demanding real-time lighting and physics-heavy destruction, and the measured scaling in this dataset reflects that the Arc B370's 1280 shading units, 10 ray tracing cores, and 6.144 TFLOPS of FP32 throughput simply are not enough for it at standard quality presets.

Measured FPS Breakdown

Starting at the top of the resolution stack, 3840x2160 is effectively a slideshow with this pairing. At 4K Ultra, the database records an average of 17 FPS. Dropping to High raises the average only marginally to 19 FPS, Medium lands at 21 FPS with a recorded minimum of 18 and a maximum of 25, and Low reaches just 30 FPS. Even in the most forgiving configuration, the frame rate never comes close to playable territory, and the gap between Low and Ultra at 4K is a mere 13 FPS, which shows how completely the GPU is saturated: no amount of quality reduction at this resolution rescues the experience.

At 2560x1440 the numbers improve but remain far below target. Ultra averages 25 FPS, High 28 FPS, Medium 32 FPS with a minimum of 27 and a maximum of 37, and Low 45 FPS. The Medium frame-time envelope is worth noting: even when the average sits at 32 FPS, the recorded dips go down to 27, meaning the perceived smoothness is worse than the headline figure suggests. A 45 FPS average at 1440p Low is the closest this configuration gets to a conventional gaming experience, but it is still a third short of the threshold.

1920x1080 is where the pairing performs at its relative best. Low averages 59 FPS, Medium 42 FPS with a minimum of 36 and maximum of 48, High 37 FPS, and Ultra 32 FPS. The Medium data is the only setting besides the 4K Medium entry with recorded minimum and maximum values in the dataset, and it confirms significant frame-time variance: a 36 FPS floor against a 48 FPS ceiling. The 59 FPS Low average is tantalizingly close to playable but does not cross it, and one frame below the line is still below the line in absolute terms.

The pattern across the full matrix is consistent and diagnostic. Frame rate scales strongly with resolution: at Low settings, going from 1080p to 1440p costs 14 FPS (59 down to 45), and going from 1440p to 4K costs another 15 FPS (45 down to 30). Preset changes have a smaller but real effect: at 1080p, moving from Low to Ultra costs 27 FPS. That resolution-first, settings-second scaling is the classic signature of a GPU-bound configuration, and the component breakdown in the next sections confirms it.

Best Settings per Resolution

There are none. This is the defining verdict of the dataset: the verdict records show an empty list of playable settings at 1920x1080, 2560x1440, and 3840x2160 alike, with no best-settings recommendation at any resolution. The most demanding preset that stays at or above 60 FPS does not exist for this pairing because no preset at any resolution reaches 60 FPS.

The closest candidate is 1920x1080 at Low, which averages 59 FPS, one frame under the playable threshold. If a user were to accept a slightly relaxed standard, that single configuration is the only one that approaches it. At 2560x1440 and 3840x2160, the shortfall is severe: the best results are 45 FPS at 1440p Low and 30 FPS at 4K Low, both well under the line, and both would require substantial upscaling or frame generation techniques outside the scope of these measured presets to become comfortable.

Similar Performance Alternatives

On the graphics side, the Arc B370's average benchmark score of 1184 in the database places it in the 5th percentile of all GPUs, and its nearest rivals make the performance context blunt. The ATI Mobility Radeon HD 5570 scores 1186, effectively identical at a delta of -0.2 percent. The ATI Radeon HD 5770 scores 1190 (delta of -0.5 percent), the AMD Radeon HD 7650M scores 1192 (delta of -0.7 percent), and the AMD FirePro M2000 scores 1168 (delta of 1.4 percent). In other words, this integrated Xe3-LPG graphics solution, built on Intel's 3 nm Panther Lake silicon with a 25 W TDP, benchmarks alongside graphics hardware from an entirely different performance era. Anyone whose reference point is one of those rivals should expect Control to behave almost identically: sub-60 FPS at 1080p Low and steep drop-offs beyond that.

The CPU side tells the opposite story. The Ryzen 9 5950X, a 16-core, 32-thread Zen 3 (Vermeer) processor on the AM4 socket with a 3.40 GHz base and 4.90 GHz boost clock, posts an average benchmark score of 51947 and sits in the 91st percentile of all CPUs. Its nearest rivals are modern high-performance parts: the Intel Core Ultra 5 235HX at 52073 (delta of -0.2 percent), the AMD EPYC 8124P at 52121 (delta of -0.3 percent), the Intel Core i9-13900F at 51730 (delta of 0.4 percent), and the Intel Core i7-14700 at 52301 (delta of -0.7 percent). A system built around any of these processors would deliver essentially the same Control experience as long as the same class of graphics is attached, because the GPU is the limiting factor by a wide margin.

FAQ

Q: Can the Ryzen 9 5950X + Intel Arc B370 run Control at 60 FPS?

A: No. The highest recorded average is 59 FPS at 1920x1080 on Low, one frame below the 60 FPS playable threshold. No measured configuration in the dataset reaches 60 FPS.

Q: What is the best result this pairing achieves in Control?

A: 1920x1080 at Low settings, averaging 59 FPS. The next best is 2560x1440 Low at 45 FPS, followed by 3840x2160 Low at 30 FPS.

Q: How bad is 4K performance?

A: Very. Averages range from 17 FPS at Ultra to 30 FPS at Low, with Medium recording an 18 FPS minimum and 25 FPS maximum. No 4K preset is remotely playable.

Q: Is the CPU the problem?

A: No. The Ryzen 9 5950X ranks in the 91st percentile of all CPUs with an average benchmark score of 51947, alongside parts like the Core i7-14700 and Core i9-13900F. The Intel Arc B370, in the 5th percentile of all GPUs, is the clear bottleneck.

Q: How does this combo rank against other tested pairings in Control?

A: It ranks 3436 out of 3720 tested combinations, placing it near the bottom of the database for this game.

Q: Does lowering settings help enough?

A: It helps but not enough. At 1080p, dropping from Ultra to Low recovers 27 FPS (32 to 59), yet even the lowest preset stays just under the playable line.

CPU and GPU Roles

The GPU is the component that matters at every resolution here, and the data makes that unambiguous. The Ryzen 9 5950X brings 16 cores and 32 threads, 64 MB of L3 cache, dual-channel DDR4 support with 51.2 GB/s of memory bandwidth, and a Geekbench multi-core score of 15233 to the table. Control is an Action Adventure game that does not come close to requiring that level of throughput, and the processor's percentile ranking of 91 against all CPUs confirms massive headroom. Its single-threaded credentials are equally strong for this context: a Geekbench single-core score of 2083 and a Cinebench R23 single-core score of 1614.

The scaling data proves the imbalance. Because the frame rate responds dramatically to resolution changes (59 to 45 to 30 FPS at Low across 1080p, 1440p, and 4K) and only moderately to preset changes, the render load, not the simulation load, is what limits performance. A CPU-bound configuration would show the opposite signature: flat frame rates across resolutions with settings changes having limited effect. Instead, the Arc B370's modest resources, 1280 shading units, 40 TMUs, 20 ROPs, and shared system memory, are exhausted well before the Ryzen 9 5950X breaks a sweat. Its lone database benchmark entry, a 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 score of 1184, places it in the 5th percentile of all GPUs, which is the number that explains every frame rate in this dataset.

It is also importantly the GPU uses system-shared memory with bandwidth that is system dependent, meaning real-world results can vary with the host platform's memory configuration, though no measured variant in this dataset approaches playability.

How This Combo Ranks

Out of 3720 hardware combinations tested in Control, this pairing ranks 3436th. That placement in the bottom tenth of the leaderboard is not a marginal miss; it reflects a pairing whose graphics solution is architecturally mismatched with a demanding ray-tracing-era title. The Ryzen 9 5950X is a flagship-class processor, verified by its launch MSRP of $799 and its rival set of current high-end CPUs, but the Arc B370's measured peers (the Mobility Radeon HD 5570, Radeon HD 5770, Radeon HD 7650M, and FirePro M2000) sit in an entirely different performance class.

The practical takeaway from the ranking is straightforward. A CPU this strong deserves dedicated graphics hardware to match, and any of the thousands of higher-ranked combinations in the database would extract dramatically more from Control than this one does. As measured, the data delivers a clear verdict: with the Intel Arc B370 handling rendering, Control is not a playable experience at any resolution or preset, and the exceptional processor on the other side of the pairing cannot change that.