Control

Measured FPS Breakdown

The recorded data for this combination of AMD Ryzen 9 9900X3D and Intel Arc B370 in Control shows a consistent pattern: frame rates decline steadily as resolution and graphics settings increase, and no tested configuration reaches the 60 FPS playable threshold. The database contains measurements at three resolutions (3840x2160, 2560x1440, and 1920x1080) across four settings tiers (Low, Medium, High, Ultra), with average FPS recorded for all twelve combinations and minimum/maximum values captured only for Medium settings.

At 3840x2160, the highest resolution tested, performance is severely limited. The Low preset produces an average of 30 FPS. Medium improves slightly to 21 FPS average, with a minimum of 18 FPS and maximum of 25 FPS. High drops to 19 FPS average, and Ultra falls to 17 FPS average. The spread between Low and Ultra at 4K is 13 FPS, which indicates that even dropping to the least demanding preset cannot rescue playability at this resolution. Every setting tier at 3840x2160 lands well below the 60 FPS threshold, and even the best case (Low at 30 FPS) represents only half the required frame rate.

Moving to 2560x1440, the situation improves but remains far from playable. Low settings deliver 45 FPS average. Medium averages 32 FPS, with a minimum of 27 FPS and maximum of 37 FPS. High produces 28 FPS average, and Ultra drops to 25 FPS average. The gap between Low and Ultra at this resolution is 20 FPS. While the Low preset at 1440p comes within 15 FPS of the playable threshold, no setting tier reaches 60 FPS. The minimum recorded value at Medium (27 FPS) shows that even momentary dips remain substantial.

At 1920x1080, the most favorable resolution in the dataset, the results are closer but still short of the target. Low settings achieve 59 FPS average, just 1 FPS below the 60 FPS threshold. Medium averages 42 FPS, with a minimum of 36 FPS and maximum of 48 FPS. High delivers 37 FPS average, and Ultra drops to 32 FPS average. The delta between Low and Ultra at 1080p is 27 FPS, the largest spread across all resolutions in the dataset. This indicates that graphics settings have a meaningful impact at 1080p, but even the most aggressive quality reduction cannot push the average past 59 FPS.

The minimum and maximum FPS data points, available only for Medium settings, show consistent behavior across resolutions. At 3840x2160 Medium, the range is 18 to 25 FPS, a 7 FPS spread. 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 ranges indicate that frame pacing becomes more variable as resolution decreases, although all values remain below the playable threshold.

Best Settings per Resolution

The database records no playable settings for any resolution, meaning no tested preset at any resolution maintains an average of 60 FPS or higher. For 3840x2160, the best available option is the Low preset at 30 FPS average, which is exactly half the required frame rate. For 2560x1440, the best option is also Low, delivering 45 FPS average, 15 FPS short of the threshold. For 1920x1080, the Low preset nearly reaches the target with 59 FPS average, but it still falls 1 FPS below the 60 FPS playable cutoff.

Since the playable threshold is defined as 60 FPS and every tested configuration falls below that mark, the verdict by resolution lists no playable settings for any of the three resolutions. The closest result is 1920x1080 Low at 59 FPS, which is functionally near playable but technically below the stated threshold. The database does not record any configuration that clears 60 FPS, so there is no "best settings" recommendation that meets the playability criterion.

This outcome is consistent across the entire tested matrix. The highest average FPS recorded in the entire dataset is 59 FPS at 1920x1080 Low. The lowest is 17 FPS at 3840x2160 Ultra. No combination of resolution and settings in the measured data achieves the 60 FPS threshold, which means the system cannot be recommended for smooth play at any of the tested configurations.

FAQ

Q: Can this PC run Control at 60 FPS at any resolution?

A: No. The database records no playable settings for any resolution. The highest average FPS measured is 59 FPS at 1920x1080 with Low settings, which is 1 FPS below the 60 FPS playable threshold. At 2560x1440 and 3840x2160, the best results are 45 FPS and 30 FPS respectively, both well below 60 FPS.

Q: What is the best performance available at 1920x1080?

A: The Low preset at 1920x1080 delivers 59 FPS average, the highest frame rate in the entire dataset. Medium produces 42 FPS average (36 FPS minimum, 48 FPS maximum), High delivers 37 FPS, and Ultra drops to 32 FPS. Even the best case falls just short of the 60 FPS threshold.

Q: How does the Ultra preset compare to Low at each resolution?

A: At 3840x2160, Ultra averages 17 FPS versus 30 FPS for Low, a 13 FPS difference. At 2560x1440, Ultra averages 25 FPS versus 45 FPS for Low, a 20 FPS difference. At 1920x1080, Ultra averages 32 FPS versus 59 FPS for Low, a 27 FPS difference. The performance gap between Low and Ultra widens as resolution decreases.

Q: What frame rates can be expected at Medium settings?

A: At 3840x2160 Medium, the average is 21 FPS with a range of 18 to 25 FPS. At 2560x1440 Medium, the average is 32 FPS with a range of 27 to 37 FPS. At 1920x1080 Medium, the average is 42 FPS with a range of 36 to 48 FPS. These are the only settings in the dataset with recorded minimum and maximum values.

Q: Is the Intel Arc B370 GPU the limiting factor in this combination?

A: The database shows the GPU ranks in the 5th percentile among all GPUs, with an average benchmark score of 1184. The CPU ranks in the 91st percentile among all CPUs, with an average benchmark score of 54762. The measured FPS results are consistently low across all resolutions, which aligns with the GPU's low percentile ranking relative to the CPU's high percentile ranking.

Q: Does the game run better at lower resolutions with this hardware?

A: Yes, lower resolutions produce higher frame rates. At 1920x1080 Low, the average is 59 FPS. At 2560x1440 Low, it drops to 45 FPS. At 3840x2160 Low, it falls to 30 FPS. However, even the lowest resolution and least demanding settings do not reach the 60 FPS playable threshold.

Similar Performance Alternatives

The nearest rivals for the AMD Ryzen 9 9900X3D are all Intel processors with similar average benchmark scores. The Intel Core Ultra 5 245KF has an average score of 55093, which is 0.6 percent lower than the Ryzen's 54762. The Intel Core Ultra 5 245K scores 54053, 1.3 percent higher than the Ryzen. The Intel Xeon 6505P scores 53701, 2 percent higher. The Intel Core i7-14700F scores 53620, 2.1 percent higher. These four CPUs sit within roughly 2 percent of the Ryzen 9 9900X3D's average benchmark score, meaning they would exhibit nearly identical CPU-bound behavior in Control. The differences are small enough that frame rates would be effectively indistinguishable in practice.

For the Intel Arc B370, the nearest rivals are significantly older graphics solutions. The ATI Mobility Radeon HD 5570 has an average score of 1186, which is 0.2 percent higher than the Arc B370's 1184. The ATI Radeon HD 5770 scores 1190, 0.5 percent higher. The AMD Radeon HD 7650M scores 1192, 0.7 percent higher. The AMD FirePro M2000 scores 1168, 1.4 percent lower. These four GPUs all sit within 1.4 percent of the Arc B370's average benchmark score, placing them in the same performance tier. The Arc B370 ranks in the 5th percentile among all GPUs, and these rivals occupy a similar low position in the overall distribution.

When considering this combo against alternatives, the CPU is a high-end part with strong benchmark scores, while the GPU is a low-end part with benchmark scores comparable to decade-old mobile and desktop graphics cards. Substituting any of the four rival CPUs would have negligible impact on game performance, since the GPU is the constraining factor in this pairing. Substituting any of the four rival GPUs would also produce nearly identical FPS results, as their benchmark scores are within 1.4 percent of the Arc B370. The measured FPS data reflects this imbalance: CPU-heavy tasks would benefit from the Ryzen's strong multi-threaded scores (47737 in Cinebench R23 multi-core, 22884 in Geekbench multi-core), but the GPU's low throughput (6.144 TFLOPS FP32, 48.00 GPixel/s pixel rate) caps overall game performance.

How This Combo Ranks

The database ranks this combination at position 3436 out of 3720 tested combos for Control. This places the AMD Ryzen 9 9900X3D and Intel Arc B370 pairing in the bottom 8 percent of all tested combinations. The rank reflects the severe GPU bottleneck in this system. The CPU alone ranks in the 91st percentile among all CPUs, while the GPU ranks in the 5th percentile among all GPUs. The combination of a top-tier CPU with a bottom-tier GPU produces a system that sits near the lower end of the overall distribution for this game.

The rank of 3436 out of 3720 means that approximately 284 tested combos perform worse than this pairing, while roughly 3435 perform better. This position is consistent with the measured FPS data, which shows no configuration reaching the 60 FPS playable threshold. The gap between the CPU's high percentile ranking and the GPU's low percentile ranking explains why this combo underperforms in a game like Control, which relies heavily on GPU throughput for rendering.

The benchmark data for the GPU reinforces this low ranking. The Arc B370's only recorded benchmark is a 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 score of 1184, which places it in the 5th percentile. Its nearest rivals are all GPUs from the early 2010s era, with scores ranging from 1168 to 1192. The GPU's specifications show 1280 shading units, 40 texture mapping units, 20 raster output units, and 10 ray tracing cores, with a boost clock of 2400 MHz. The pixel rate is 48.00 GPixel/s and the texture rate is 96.00 GTexel/s. These figures are modest by modern standards and align with the low benchmark percentile.

The Verdict

Can this PC run Control? Based on the recorded data, the answer is no at any resolution or preset, if the standard is a consistent 60 FPS. The verdict by resolution lists no playable settings for 3840x2160, 2560x1440, or 1920x1080. The playable threshold is defined as 60 FPS, and the database records no configuration that reaches that mark.

At 3840x2160, the best result is 30 FPS average on Low settings, which is exactly 30 FPS below the threshold. Medium produces 21 FPS, High produces 19 FPS, and Ultra produces 17 FPS. None of these are close to playable. At 2560x1440, the best result is 45 FPS average on Low settings, 15 FPS below the threshold. Medium produces 32 FPS, High produces 28 FPS, and Ultra produces 25 FPS. At 1920x1080, the best result is 59 FPS average on Low settings, just 1 FPS below the threshold. Medium produces 42 FPS, High produces 37 FPS, and Ultra produces 32 FPS.

The closest this system comes to playability is 1920x1080 Low at 59 FPS average. This is functionally near the target, but it does not meet the stated 60 FPS criterion. Users who tolerate frame rates slightly below 60 FPS might find this configuration acceptable, but the database's verdict is clear: no playable settings exist for this combo in Control.

The root cause is evident from the benchmark data. The Intel Arc B370 ranks in the 5th percentile among all GPUs, with an average benchmark score of 1184. Its nearest rivals are the ATI Mobility Radeon HD 5570, ATI Radeon HD 5770, AMD Radeon HD 7650M, and AMD FirePro M2000, all within 1.4 percent of its score. The CPU, in contrast, ranks in the 91st percentile with an average benchmark score of 54762, and its nearest rivals are within 2.1 percent. The GPU's low throughput is the limiting factor.

For anyone considering this combination for Control, the data indicates that the system will not deliver smooth gameplay at any tested setting. The 1920x1080 Low preset at 59 FPS is the only configuration that approaches the target, and even that falls short. At higher resolutions, the frame rates drop to levels that are clearly below playable standards. The combination of a high-end 12-core, 24-thread Zen 5 processor with a low-end integrated graphics solution produces a system that is CPU-rich but GPU-poor, and Control's rendering demands expose this imbalance.