Control

Measured FPS Breakdown

The recorded data for Control with this Intel Core i5-12600KF and Intel Arc B370 combination shows a system that is heavily constrained by the graphics processor. At 3840x2160, the average frame rates are 19 FPS on High, 30 FPS on Low, 21 FPS on Medium, and 17 FPS on Ultra. The Medium preset at 4K does have min and max values recorded, at 18 FPS and 25 FPS respectively, which indicates even the frame pacing is consistently below playability thresholds.

Dropping to 2560x1440 improves averages noticeably, though none of the presets reach a comfortable level. The Low preset averages 45 FPS, High averages 28 FPS, Medium averages 32 FPS, and Ultra averages 25 FPS. The Medium preset at 1440p records a minimum of 27 FPS and a maximum of 37 FPS, showing a narrow performance band that stays well under the 60 FPS target.

At 1920x1080, the situation improves further. Low settings produce an average of 59 FPS, which is just one frame short of the 60 FPS playable threshold. High settings average 37 FPS, Medium averages 42 FPS with a recorded range of 36 to 48 FPS, and Ultra averages 32 FPS. The only preset that approaches the playable threshold is Low at 1080p, and even that average of 59 FPS is technically below the 60 FPS mark.

The pattern across all resolutions is consistent: each step down in settings yields a substantial FPS gain, and each step down in resolution yields a substantial FPS gain. From Ultra at 4K (17 FPS) to Low at 1080p (59 FPS), the total improvement is 42 FPS, which demonstrates how sensitive this combination is to both resolution and graphics preset.

CPU and GPU Roles

The Intel Arc B370 is the dominant bottleneck in this pairing. The CPU, an Intel Core i5-12600KF, is a 10-core, 16-thread Alder Lake processor with a boost clock of 4.90 GHz, and its benchmark scores place it in the 79th percentile among all CPUs. The GPU, by contrast, sits in the 5th percentile among all GPUs based on its recorded benchmark score of 1184 in 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12. This enormous gap in relative standing explains why frame rates collapse as resolution and preset demands increase.

The scaling data supports this interpretation. Moving from 1080p Low to 1080p Ultra, the average FPS drops from 59 to 32, a reduction of 27 FPS. If the CPU were the limiting factor, resolution changes would have a smaller effect, since higher resolutions shift the workload toward the GPU. Instead, the recorded data shows that every resolution increase produces a large FPS penalty, which is the signature of GPU-bound performance. The 4K High result of 19 FPS versus the 1080p High result of 37 FPS represents an 18 FPS loss from resolution alone, with settings held constant.

Preset scaling also points to GPU limits. At 1440p, moving from Low to Ultra drops the average from 45 FPS to 25 FPS, a 20 FPS penalty. At 1080p, the same preset change drops from 59 FPS to 32 FPS, a 27 FPS penalty. The GPU's compute resources, 1280 shading units and a 6.144 TFLOPS FP32 rating, are simply not sufficient for Control's rendering demands at higher quality levels. The CPU has ample headroom, as its Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 23391 and single-core score of 3302 demonstrate, but that headroom is irrelevant when the GPU is saturated.

The one area where the CPU could matter is at 1080p Low, where the average of 59 FPS is close to the threshold. At that setting, the GPU workload is at its lightest, so CPU overhead becomes a larger share of total frame time. Still, the data does not indicate CPU limitation, since the frame rate reaches 59 FPS without exceeding it.

Similar Performance Alternatives

For the CPU, the nearest rivals in the database are all within a fraction of a percent of the i5-12600KF's average benchmark score of 27799. The Intel Core i9-10900K scores 27872, which is 0.3% higher. The AMD Ryzen 5 8500GE scores 27712, 0.3% lower. The AMD Ryzen 7 6800U scores 27887, 0.3% higher. The AMD Ryzen 7 5800X3D scores 27896, 0.3% higher. Any of these processors would produce essentially identical CPU-side behavior in Control, meaning the frame rates recorded here would not change if the CPU were swapped for one of these alternatives.

For the GPU, the nearest rivals are dramatically lower in performance class, which highlights how weak the Arc B370 is relative to the CPU. The ATI Mobility Radeon HD 5570 scores 1186, 0.2% higher than the B370's 1184. The ATI Radeon HD 5770 scores 1190, 0.5% higher. The AMD Radeon HD 7650M scores 1192, 0.7% higher. The AMD FirePro M2000 scores 1168, 1.4% lower. These are all legacy or low-power parts, and their proximity to the B370 in benchmark scores means a system with any of them would produce frame rates very close to what is recorded for Control.

In practical terms, a user looking at the CPU alternatives would see no meaningful difference in game performance. A user looking at the GPU alternatives would see that the Arc B370 behaves like hardware from a much older era of GPU design, which is consistent with the frame rates observed in this game.

The Verdict

This PC cannot run Control at a playable level at any resolution or preset, based on the recorded data. The playable threshold is 60 FPS, and every measured average falls below that mark. At 3840x2160, no settings combination reaches even 30 FPS, with the best result being 30 FPS on Low. At 2560x1440, the best result is 45 FPS on Low, still 15 FPS short of the threshold. At 1920x1080, the best result is 59 FPS on Low, one frame below the threshold.

The verdict by resolution is clear: no playable settings exist at 3840x2160, no playable settings exist at 2560x1440, and no playable settings exist at 1920x1080. The closest the system comes to playability is 1080p Low with an average of 59 FPS, but that is still below the 60 FPS threshold. Users who strictly require 60 FPS will need different hardware.

How This Combo Ranks

Among all tested combinations in the database for Control, this CPU and GPU pairing ranks 3436 out of 3720. That places it in the bottom 8% of tested configurations for this game. The combination is heavily dragged down by the GPU, which ranks in the 5th percentile among all GPUs. The CPU's 79th percentile standing does little to help, because the game's frame rates are dictated by the graphics processor.

The rank of 3436 out of 3720 means roughly 284 tested combinations performed worse than this one, and 3435 performed better or equal. Given that the GPU is one of the weakest in the database, the ranking is not surprising. The fact that it is not even lower is due to the CPU, which prevents frame rates from collapsing further in CPU-light scenes.

FAQ

Q: Can this system reach 60 FPS in Control at 1080p?

A: No. The highest recorded average at 1920x1080 is 59 FPS on Low settings, which is 1 FPS below the 60 FPS playable threshold. All other presets at 1080p are lower, ranging from 32 FPS on Ultra to 42 FPS on Medium.

Q: What is the best 4K result for this combination?

A: The best 4K result is 30 FPS on Low settings at 3840x2160. The High preset averages 19 FPS, Medium averages 21 FPS, and Ultra averages 17 FPS.

Q: How does the Intel Arc B370 compare to nearby GPUs in the database?

A: The Arc B370 scores 1184 in 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12. Its nearest rivals include the ATI Mobility Radeon HD 5570 at 1186, the ATI Radeon HD 5770 at 1190, the AMD Radeon HD 7650M at 1192, and the AMD FirePro M2000 at 1168, all within 1.4% of the B370's score.

Q: Is the CPU performance matter at higher resolutions in Control?

A: The data indicates it does not matter much, because frame rates drop substantially with every resolution increase. The GPU is the bottleneck primarily determines the results, and the CPU's headroom is not visible in the measured FPS scaling.

Q: What percentage of tested GPUs does the Arc B370 outperform?

A: The GPU ranks in the 5th percentile among all GPUs in the database, meaning 95% of tested GPUs score higher than the B370.

Q: Which CPU rival is closest to the i5-12600KF?

A: The AMD Ryzen 7 5800X3D scores 27896, just 0.3% higher than the i5-12600KF's average score of 27799. The other rivals are similarly close, with all within 0.3% to 0.7% and one within 0.3% lower.

Best Settings per Resolution

At 3840x2160, no preset reaches 60 FPS, so there is no recommended setting. The best recorded average is 30 FPS on Low, but that is far below the threshold. At 2560x1440, no preset reaches 60 FPS either. The best average is 45 FPS on Low, still 15 FPS short. At 1920x1080, the best result is 59 FPS on Low, which is the only setting that comes close to the playable threshold, but it does not clear 60 FPS.

Since no preset at any resolution reaches the 60 FPS threshold, there is no configuration that qualifies as playable under the database's criteria. Users who accept lower frame rates might choose 1080p Low for the highest performance, but strictly speaking, the system does not meet the playable standard at any resolution.