Control

Similar Performance Alternatives

The Intel Core i3-12100F sits in a tight cluster of comparable CPUs according to the database's aggregate benchmark scores. Its average benchmark score of 13,494 places it within 1.1% of four nearby rivals. The Intel Core 3 N355 is the closest match, scoring 13,492, a delta of 0%. The Intel Core i5-9500 trails by just 0.3% with a score of 13,452, meaning the i3-12100F and that older i5 will produce nearly identical frame pacing in CPU-bound scenarios. The Intel Core 5 120UL is 0.7% ahead at 13,594, while the Intel Core i7-1250U sits 1.1% behind at 13,351. For Control specifically, any of these processors would yield similar CPU-side performance, so the choice between them would not meaningfully alter the measured FPS outcomes.

The Intel Arc B390's GPU benchmark profile is far more isolated, and the comparison is stark. With a 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 score of 1,482, the Arc B390 ranks in the 9th percentile among all GPUs in the database. Its nearest rivals are all legacy NVIDIA parts: the GeForce GT 520MX scores 1,463 (1.3% behind), the GeForce 800M scores 1,460 (1.5% behind), the GeForce GT 625 OEM scores 1,446 (2.5% behind), and the GeForce GT 710 scores 1,443 (2.7% behind). These deltas are small, but they place the Arc B390 at the very bottom of the GPU performance spectrum. In practical terms, this GPU will behave like those older entry-level parts: capable of rendering the game, but with severe limitations at higher resolutions and settings. The data indicates the Arc B390's performance envelope is closer to a decade-old mobile GPU than to any modern desktop part.

CPU and GPU Roles

The measured FPS data for Control reveals a clear pattern: the GPU is the overwhelming bottleneck across all resolutions and settings. The Intel Core i3-12100F, despite being a modest 4-core/8-thread part with a 3.30 GHz base and 4.30 GHz boost clock, has ample headroom for this title. The Arc B390, however, constrains performance at every step.

At 3840x2160, moving from Low to High settings drops average FPS from 33 to 21, a 36% reduction. The jump from Medium (24 FPS) to Ultra (18 FPS) represents another 25% loss. These are GPU-driven scaling penalties; the CPU has no trouble feeding the GPU at these frame rates. At 2560x1440, the same pattern holds: Low produces 50 FPS, High drops to 31 FPS, Medium sits at 35 FPS, and Ultra falls to 27 FPS. The resolution scaling between 1440p and 4K at identical settings is also telling. At High settings, 1440p yields 31 FPS while 4K yields 21 FPS, a 32% penalty purely from pixel count. At Low, the penalty is 34% (50 to 33 FPS). This scaling is characteristic of a GPU that runs out of shading throughput and memory bandwidth long before the CPU becomes relevant.

At 1920x1080, the GPU still dominates. Low settings produce 65 FPS, which clears the 60 FPS playable threshold. High settings drop to 41 FPS, Medium to 46 FPS, and Ultra to 36 FPS. The CPU's 3DMark scores, including 4,051 for 16 threads and 893 for single-thread, suggest it can handle the game's logic and draw calls without issue. The i3-12100F's PassMark single-thread score of 3,444 and Geekbench single-core score of 1,932 are respectable for a budget part. In Control, the recorded data shows no scenario where the CPU would be the limiting factor; the GPU's 7.680 TFLOPS FP32 throughput and 60.00 GPixel/s pixel rate are simply insufficient for higher loads.

Measured FPS Breakdown

At 3840x2160, the recorded measurements show a narrow band of performance. Low settings achieve an average of 33 FPS with no min or max values recorded. Medium settings produce an average of 24 FPS, with a minimum of 20 FPS and a maximum of 27 FPS. High settings average 21 FPS, and Ultra settings average 18 FPS. None of these approach the 60 FPS threshold, and even the best case (Low, 33 FPS) falls far short. The 20 FPS minimum at Medium indicates that the game can dip into single-digit territory during heavy combat or particle effects, making 4K entirely unplayable.

At 2560x1440, the situation improves but remains below playable standards. Low settings average 50 FPS, which is close to the threshold but still 10 FPS short. Medium settings average 35 FPS, with a recorded minimum of 30 FPS and maximum of 40 FPS. High settings average 31 FPS, and Ultra settings average 27 FPS. The gap between Low and Medium is 15 FPS, a 30% drop, which suggests that even modest increases in shadow quality, texture detail, or post-processing overwhelm the GPU. The 30 FPS minimum at Medium is a marginal experience at best.

At 1920x1080, the only playable configuration emerges. Low settings achieve an average of 65 FPS, clearing the 60 FPS threshold by 5 FPS. This is the sole settings level that works. Medium settings average 46 FPS, with a minimum of 40 FPS and maximum of 53 FPS, which is below the threshold. High settings average 41 FPS, and Ultra settings average 36 FPS. The delta between Low and Medium is 19 FPS, a 29% penalty, while the jump from Medium to High costs another 5 FPS, and High to Ultra costs 5 more. The data suggests that the Arc B390's 24 ROPs and 48 TMUs are the limiting factors; raising texture filtering and pixel shading loads quickly saturates the GPU.

The Verdict

Can this PC run Control? The answer depends entirely on resolution and settings. At 3840x2160, the verdict is unequivocal: no playable settings exist. The best average FPS across all four presets is 33 FPS at Low, and Ultra drops to 18 FPS. The database's verdictByResolution confirms an empty playable settings list for 4K. At 2560x1440, the same verdict applies: no settings clear the 60 FPS threshold. Low averages 50 FPS, and every other preset sits below 40 FPS. The 1440p playable settings list is also empty.

At 1920x1080, the story changes. The database records one playable setting: Low, with an average of 65 FPS. This clears the 60 FPS threshold by a modest margin. However, the margin is thin: 65 FPS leaves little headroom for demanding scenes, and the absence of min/max data for Low settings means the worst-case frame rate is unknown. Medium, High, and Ultra all fall below 60 FPS, with averages of 46, 41, and 36 FPS respectively. The verdict is that this combo can run Control, but only at 1080p with the lowest preset, and even then, the experience is borderline. The GPU's 9th percentile ranking among all GPUs and its proximity to the GeForce GT 710 (2.7% delta) reinforce this conclusion.

How This Combo Ranks

The Intel Core i3-12100F and Intel Arc B390 combination ranks 3,311 out of 3,720 tested combos in the database for Control. This places it in the bottom 11% of all configurations. The percentile ranking is consistent with the GPU's individual performance: the Arc B390 sits in the 9th percentile among all GPUs, while the CPU is in the 68th percentile among all CPUs. The combo rank is dragged down almost entirely by the GPU. If the same CPU were paired with a more capable GPU, the rank would improve substantially. Conversely, the GPU would still rank poorly regardless of the CPU attached to it.

The rank of 3,311 means that 409 other combos performed worse in this game. That places this system above only the most underpowered hardware, likely including the Arc B390's nearest GPU rivals (GT 520MX, GeForce 800M, GT 625 OEM, GT 710). For a game released in 2019, this is a poor showing. The combo's measured FPS data aligns with the rank: only one preset (1080p Low) achieves playable frame rates, and the overall experience is characterized by low averages and significant settings sensitivity.

FAQ

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

A: No. The best 4K result is 33 FPS at Low settings, with High at 21 FPS and Ultra at 18 FPS. No 4K preset clears the 60 FPS threshold.

Q: What is the only playable settings combination?

A: At 1920x1080 with Low settings, the average FPS is 65, which just passes the 60 FPS requirement. All other presets at all resolutions fall short.

Q: How does the Arc B390 compare to its nearest GPU rivals?

A: The Arc B390 scores 1,482 in 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12. It is 1.3% ahead of the GeForce GT 520MX (1,463), 1.5% ahead of the GeForce 800M (1,460), 2.5% ahead of the GeForce GT 625 OEM (1,446), and 2.7% ahead of the GeForce GT 710 (1,443).

Q: Is the CPU or GPU the limiting factor in this game?

A: The GPU. The i3-12100F's CPU benchmark scores (e.g., 11,860 in Cinebench R23 multicore, 1,674 in single-core) are more than sufficient for Control. The FPS scaling between resolutions and settings follows GPU load patterns, not CPU load patterns.

Q: What FPS does the combo achieve at 1440p Medium settings?

A: The average FPS is 35, with a minimum of 30 and maximum of 40. This is below the 60 FPS playable threshold.

Q: How does this combo rank among all tested configurations in Control?

A: It ranks 3,311 out of 3,720 total combos, placing it in the bottom 11% of all tested hardware pairings for this game.

Best Settings per Resolution

At 3840x2160, no preset achieves 60 FPS. The database records no best settings and no playable settings for this resolution. The highest average FPS is 33 at Low, which falls 27 FPS short of the threshold.

At 2560x1440, the same verdict applies: no playable settings. Low averages 50 FPS, which is 10 FPS below the threshold. No best settings are recorded.

At 1920x1080, the best and only playable setting is Low, with an average FPS of 65. This clears the 60 FPS threshold by 5 FPS. Medium falls to 46 FPS, High to 41 FPS, and Ultra to 36 FPS, all below the threshold. For users who must play at higher presets, Medium at 1080p offers the closest experience to playable with a 40 FPS minimum, but it does not meet the 60 FPS standard. The recommended configuration is 1080p with Low settings.