Control

Intel Core i7-14700F paired with the Intel Arc B390 presents a peculiar combination for Control, a 2019 Action Adventure title. The recorded data shows a system where the integrated graphics solution is the clear limiting factor, as the CPU delivers top-tier processing power while the GPU struggles to maintain playable frame rates at most settings. The measurements span three resolutions and four quality presets, revealing a narrow window of playability that exists only at the lowest settings on 1080p displays.

Measured FPS Breakdown

The benchmark results for Control with this combo show a consistent pattern of declining performance as resolution and graphical fidelity increase. At 1920x1080, the Low preset delivers an average of 65 FPS, the only configuration across all tested resolutions that clears the 60 FPS threshold. The Medium preset at this resolution drops to an average of 46 FPS, with recorded minimum and maximum values of 40 and 53 FPS respectively. High settings at 1080p produce an average of 41 FPS, while the Ultra preset falls to 36 FPS on average. These numbers indicate a linear degradation, with each step up in quality costing roughly 5 to 10 FPS at this resolution.

Moving to 2560x1440, the performance gap widens considerably. The Low preset averages 50 FPS, which is 15 FPS below the 1080p Low result. Medium settings at 1440p yield an average of 35 FPS, with a minimum of 30 and maximum of 40 FPS. High settings drop to 31 FPS on average, and Ultra settings bottom out at 27 FPS. The delta between Low and Ultra at 1440p is 23 FPS, showing that the GPU has less headroom to absorb the cost of higher presets as pixel count increases.

At 3840x2160, the results become marginal across the board. Low settings average 33 FPS, which is the best figure at this resolution. Medium settings average 24 FPS, with a minimum of 20 and maximum of 27 FPS. High settings produce an average of 21 FPS, and Ultra settings fall to 18 FPS. The spread from Low to Ultra at 4K is only 15 FPS, indicating that the GPU is saturated regardless of the preset chosen. None of the 4K configurations come close to the 60 FPS playability threshold, and even the most forgiving Low preset fails to reach half of that target.

The data also reveals how scaling behaves across resolutions. Comparing Low settings, the drop from 1080p to 1440p is 15 FPS, and from 1440p to 4K is another 17 FPS. For High settings, the sequence is 41 to 31 to 21 FPS, a consistent 10 FPS reduction per step up in resolution. Medium settings follow a similar pattern: 46, 35, and 24 FPS. Ultra settings show 36, 27, and 18 FPS. This consistency suggests that the Arc B390's rendering pipeline is uniformly stressed by pixel count, with no unexpected bottlenecks or optimizations at any specific resolution.

Best Settings per Resolution

For 3840x2160, the verdict data shows no playable settings exist. The most demanding preset that stays at or above 60 FPS cannot be identified because even the lowest quality option, Low, only reaches 33 FPS on average. Every preset at 4K falls far short of the 60 FPS target, so users of this combo would need to accept sub-60 frame rates or reduce resolution entirely.

At 2560x1440, the situation is identical in outcome. No settings are marked as playable, and the best available option is Low at 50 FPS. This is 10 FPS below the playability threshold, and while it is the highest average recorded at this resolution, it does not meet the 60 FPS criterion. Medium, High, and Ultra all produce averages below 40 FPS, reinforcing that 1440p is not viable for this game with this hardware combination.

The only resolution with a playable setting is 1920x1080, where Low is the sole configuration that stays at or above 60 FPS. The recorded average is 65 FPS, which provides a modest 5 FPS cushion above the threshold. Medium settings at 1080p fall to 46 FPS, missing the target by 14 FPS. The data indicates that Low is the best settings choice for this resolution, as it is the only preset that allows the game to run smoothly according to the 60 FPS playability standard.

FAQ

Q: Can this combo run Control at 4K with any settings?

A: No. The recorded data shows no playable settings at 3840x2160. The highest average FPS at this resolution is 33 FPS on Low settings, which falls 27 FPS short of the 60 FPS playable threshold.

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

A: Low is the only playable preset at 1920x1080, with an average of 65 FPS. Medium averages 46 FPS, High averages 41 FPS, and Ultra averages 36 FPS, all below the 60 FPS requirement.

Q: How does the Arc B390 perform at 1440p compared to 1080p?

A: At 2560x1440, the best average FPS is 50 on Low settings, which is 15 FPS lower than the 65 FPS achieved at 1920x1080 Low. The gap widens at higher presets: Medium drops from 46 to 35 FPS, High from 41 to 31 FPS, and Ultra from 36 to 27 FPS.

Q: What are the minimum and maximum FPS recorded for this combo?

A: The only configurations with recorded min/max values are Medium settings. At 1080p, the range is 40 to 53 FPS. At 1440p, the range is 30 to 40 FPS. At 4K, the range is 20 to 27 FPS. All other presets have null min/max values in the database.

Q: Does the CPU affect playability in this game?

A: The Intel Core i7-14700F ranks in the 91st percentile among all CPUs, with a Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 35122. However, the GPU's 9th percentile ranking among all GPUs indicates that the Arc B390 is the bottleneck, as CPU performance far exceeds what the GPU can render.

Q: What is the combo's overall rank in the database?

A: This specific CPU and GPU combination ranks 3311 out of 3720 tested combos for Control, placing it in the lower portion of the database despite the strong CPU.

How This Combo Ranks

The combo rank for this pairing in Control is 3311 out of 3720 tested combinations, placing it in the bottom 11% of all configurations. This low ranking is attributable almost entirely to the GPU, since the Intel Core i7-14700F is a high-end processor that sits in the 91st percentile among all CPUs. The CPU's average benchmark score is 53620, with nearest rivals including the Intel Xeon 6505P at 53701 (0.2% faster), Intel Xeon Phi 7290 at 53469 (0.3% slower), AMD Ryzen 9 7900X at 53288 (0.6% slower), and AMD EPYC 7313P at 53206 (0.8% slower). These close scores indicate that the CPU is performing exactly as expected for its class.

The GPU, however, is an integrated solution based on the Xe3-LPG architecture with 1536 shading units and 7.680 TFLOPS of FP32 performance. Its only recorded benchmark, 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12, yields a score of 1482, which places it in the 9th percentile among all GPUs. The nearest rivals are all older discrete NVIDIA parts: GeForce GT 520MX at 1463 (1.3% slower), GeForce 800M at 1460 (1.5% slower), GeForce GT 625 OEM at 1446 (2.5% slower), and GeForce GT 710 at 1443 (2.7% slower). The B390 is marginally faster than these, but the delta is small, ranging from 1.3% to 2.7%. This positions the GPU as roughly equivalent to a decade-old entry-level discrete card, which explains the low FPS figures across all resolutions.

The rank of 3311 out of 3720 means that 409 other tested combos perform worse for Control. However, the vast majority of configurations in the database outperform this pairing. The data suggests that pairing this CPU with any discrete GPU would yield dramatically better results, as the processor's headroom is effectively wasted when paired with an integrated graphics solution that cannot keep up.

Similar Performance Alternatives

Looking at the nearest rivals for the GPU, the Intel Arc B390 performs within 2.7% of several older NVIDIA parts. The NVIDIA GeForce GT 520MX scores 1463, which is 1.3% lower than the B390's 1482. The GeForce 800M scores 1460, 1.5% lower. The GeForce GT 625 OEM scores 1446, 2.5% lower, and the GeForce GT 710 scores 1443, 2.7% lower. For Control, these parts would all deliver nearly identical frame rates, meaning any of them would also fail to reach 60 FPS at 1440p or 4K, and would only achieve playable performance at 1080p Low settings with similar margins.

For the CPU, the nearest rivals are all server or high-end desktop parts. The Intel Xeon 6505P and AMD EPYC 7313P are server processors, while the AMD Ryzen 9 7900X is a desktop part. Since the CPU is not the bottleneck in this configuration, swapping to any of these alternatives would produce no meaningful change in FPS. The recorded deltas are all under 1%, so the game's performance would remain identical regardless of which of these CPUs is paired with the Arc B390. The Ryzen 9 7900X is the most relevant alternative for desktop users, and its 0.6% lower average benchmark score would have no observable impact on Control's frame rates.

The practical implication is that users seeking better performance in Control would need to change the GPU, not the CPU. The Arc B390's nearest rivals are all similarly weak, so upgrading to any modern discrete GPU would be required to move beyond the 1080p Low playability ceiling.

The Verdict

The data indicates that this PC can run Control, but only under very specific conditions. At 1920x1080, the Low preset achieves an average of 65 FPS, clearing the 60 FPS playable threshold by a slim 5 FPS margin. This is the only playable configuration across all tested resolutions and presets. At 1080p Medium, the average drops to 46 FPS, which is 14 FPS below the threshold and would result in noticeable stuttering during fast-paced combat sequences. High and Ultra presets at 1080p average 41 and 36 FPS respectively, both well below playable.

At 2560x1440, no settings are playable. The best case is Low at 50 FPS, which misses the threshold by 10 FPS. The verdict data explicitly lists no playable settings for this resolution, and the best settings field is null. Similarly, at 3840x2160, no settings are playable, with Low averaging 33 FPS and Ultra averaging 18 FPS. The verdict by resolution confirms this: 1080p has one playable setting (Low), while both 1440p and 4K have zero playable settings.

For users who prioritize stable performance, the only acceptable configuration is 1080p with Low settings. This delivers 65 FPS on average, which provides enough headroom for minor frame dips without falling below 60 FPS. Any attempt to increase graphical quality or resolution will result in sub-60 performance, making the game feel sluggish and unresponsive during intense scenes. The data is unambiguous: this combo is playable at exactly one configuration.

CPU and GPU Roles

The division of labor between the Intel Core i7-14700F and the Intel Arc B390 in Control is heavily skewed toward the GPU being the limiting factor. The CPU's benchmark data shows exceptional processing capability: a Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 35122, a Geekbench single-core score of 2429, and a PassMark single-thread score of 4257. These figures place the CPU in the 91st percentile, indicating it has ample compute headroom for any game logic, physics simulation, or AI processing that Control requires. The CPU's 20 cores and 28 threads are far more than this Action Adventure title needs, and its 5.40 GHz boost clock ensures that single-threaded workloads are handled with ease.

The GPU, by contrast, is an integrated part with only 1536 shading units, 48 TMUs, and 24 ROPs. Its FP32 throughput of 7.680 TFLOPS and pixel rate of 60.00 GPixel/s are modest figures, and its 9th percentile ranking confirms its position near the bottom of the GPU hierarchy. The scaling data shows that the GPU is the bottleneck at every resolution. When moving from 1080p Low (65 FPS) to 1440p Low (50 FPS), the 23% performance drop aligns with the 77% increase in pixel count, indicating that the GPU is purely fill-rate limited. The same pattern holds at higher presets: 1080p Ultra averages 36 FPS while 1440p Ultra averages 27 FPS, a 25% reduction.

The CPU's role becomes negligible when paired with such a weak GPU. At 1080p Low, the CPU can easily feed the GPU with draw calls and game state updates, yet the GPU still only manages 65 FPS. At higher resolutions, the CPU has even less influence because the GPU is saturated with pixel work. The recorded FPS differences between presets at the same resolution are entirely attributable to GPU load, not CPU performance. For instance, at 1440p, the spread from Low (50 FPS) to Ultra (27 FPS) is 23 FPS, which is a pure GPU cost of increasing shadow quality, texture filtering, and post-processing effects.

The data implies that upgrading the GPU would yield massive gains, while upgrading the CPU would yield none. The CPU's nearest rivals, including the AMD Ryzen 9 7900X, score within 0.8% of the i7-14700F, so any CPU swap would produce identical FPS. Conversely, even a modest GPU upgrade would likely double or triple performance, as the current GPU is operating at the bottom of the performance spectrum. For Control specifically, the GPU determines playability entirely, and the CPU's role is reduced to ensuring that the game never becomes CPU-bound, which it does not at any tested setting.