Control

Measured FPS Breakdown

The recorded data for Control on this Intel Core Ultra 5 225 and Intel Arc B370 combination shows a system that is severely constrained by the graphics solution. At 3840x2160, the frame rates are uniformly low across all presets. The Low preset delivers an average of 30 FPS, which is the only time the system reaches 30 FPS at this resolution. Medium averages 21 FPS with a minimum of 18 FPS and a maximum of 25 FPS. High drops to 19 FPS, while Ultra falls to 17 FPS. The spread between Low and Ultra is just 13 FPS, indicating the GPU is the dominant limiting factor regardless of visual fidelity.

Moving down to 2560x1440, the results improve but remain far below the 60 FPS playability threshold. Low settings produce an average of 45 FPS, which is the best result at this resolution. Medium averages 32 FPS with a minimum of 27 FPS and a maximum of 37 FPS. High averages 28 FPS, and Ultra dips to 25 FPS. The gap between Low and Ultra here is 20 FPS, showing that the resolution drop from 4K to 1440p gives the GPU slightly more headroom to respond to settings changes.

At 1920x1080, the picture becomes clearer. Low settings deliver an average of 59 FPS, essentially at the edge of the 60 FPS target but not quite crossing it. Medium averages 42 FPS with a minimum of 36 FPS and a maximum of 48 FPS. High averages 37 FPS, and Ultra averages 32 FPS. The delta between Low and Ultra at 1080p is 27 FPS, the widest spread across any resolution, which suggests that at this lower resolution the CPU and GPU are both contributing to performance scaling. The minimum recorded values at Medium settings, 36 FPS at 1080p and 27 FPS at 1440p, indicate that even the lower presets have frame pacing issues that would be noticeable in a title like Control where combat scenes are dense with particle effects and physics interactions.

CPU and GPU Roles

The data points to a stark imbalance in this pairing. The Intel Arc B370, with its 6.144 TFLOPS FP32 throughput and 1280 shading units, is clearly the bottleneck at every resolution and preset. The CPU, a 10-core, 10-thread Arrow Lake part with a 4.90 GHz boost clock, has ample compute headroom based on its Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 25891 and single-core score of 3655. The GPU's 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 score of 1184, which places it in the 5th percentile among all tested GPUs, is the constraining factor.

Resolution scaling confirms this. When moving from 1920x1080 Low to 2560x1440 Low, the average FPS drops from 59 to 45, a 24% reduction. From 1440p Low to 2160p Low, the average falls from 45 to 30, a 33% reduction. These are classic GPU-bound scaling patterns. If the CPU were the bottleneck, the frame rate would remain more constant across resolutions because the CPU's work load does not increase proportionally with pixel count. The fact that FPS degrades sharply with each resolution step proves the GPU is saturated at even the lowest settings.

The preset scaling within each resolution reinforces this conclusion. At 1080p, moving from Low to Medium reduces average FPS by 17, while moving from Medium to High reduces it by 5, and High to Ultra reduces it by another 5. The largest drop occurs when the GPU is already strained at Medium, where the additional pixel shading and texture work push it well beyond its capability. At 4K, the presets barely matter: Low to Medium drops 9 FPS, Medium to High drops 2 FPS, and High to Ultra drops 2 FPS. The GPU is so far beyond its limits that preset changes have diminishing returns. This combination is a textbook case of a CPU that can feed frames easily, but a GPU that cannot render them in time.

Similar Performance Alternatives

Looking at the nearest rivals in the database, the Intel Arc B370 sits in a performance tier alongside very old discrete GPUs. The closest GPU competitor is the ATI Mobility Radeon HD 5570, which scores 1186 on the same Steel Nomad benchmark, a delta of -0.2% compared to the Arc B370's 1184. The ATI Radeon HD 5770 scores 1190, a -0.5% delta, and the AMD Radeon HD 7650M scores 1192, a -0.7% delta. On the other side, the AMD FirePro M2000 scores 1168, which is 1.4% slower. Any user considering this system should understand that the GPU performance envelope is essentially equivalent to those legacy parts from over a decade ago, which means frame rates in Control will be similarly constrained.

For the CPU, the Intel Core Ultra 5 225 has an average benchmark score of 36938, which places it in the 85th percentile of all CPUs. Its nearest rival is the AMD Ryzen 5 5600F with an average score of 36945, a delta of 0%. The AMD Ryzen 5 5500X3D scores 37018, a -0.2% delta, and the AMD Ryzen AI 7 PRO 450 scores 37093, a -0.4% delta. The Intel Core i9-12900T scores 37112, a -0.5% delta. These are all extremely close matches, meaning the CPU choice has virtually no impact on the final frame rates in this game. The CPU is not the limiting factor, and swapping it for any of these rivals would produce nearly identical results. The performance problem in this build is entirely the GPU, and no CPU upgrade path would change the measured FPS in Control.

The Verdict

The verdict data is unambiguous: this system cannot play Control at 60 FPS at any resolution or preset. The playable settings list is empty for every resolution, and the average FPS at the best setting is null in each case. The playable threshold is 60 FPS, and no configuration in the measured data reaches that mark.

At 3840x2160, the best achievable average is 30 FPS on Low settings. That is half the target frame rate, and even that figure is an average, so actual gameplay would see dips below 30 FPS. At 2560x1440, the best average is 45 FPS on Low, which is closer but still 15 FPS short of playable. At 1920x1080, the best average is 59 FPS on Low, which is 1 FPS below the threshold. That 59 FPS average is a near miss, but the term "average" means some frames will be lower, and the game will not maintain a consistent 60 FPS. The Medium preset at 1080p, with its 36 FPS minimum, shows that the GPU cannot hold even 40 FPS when asked for more than the lowest visual settings.

This system is best suited for games that are far less demanding than Control. For this specific title, the recorded data shows no playable configuration exists.

How This Combo Ranks

In the database's ranking of all tested CPU and GPU combinations for Control, this pairing ranks 3436 out of 3720 combos. That places it in the bottom 8% of all systems tested. The rank reflects the severe GPU limitation, as the CPU alone would rank in the 85th percentile among CPUs, but the GPU's 5th percentile standing drags the combined result down dramatically.

The ranking suggests that the vast majority of tested systems, even those with modest hardware, outperform this combination in Control. The Arc B370's integrated graphics architecture, with system shared memory and a 25 W TDP, is not designed for demanding AAA titles like this. The measured FPS at 1080p Low, 59 FPS, is barely playable, and every other configuration falls short. In a game that was released in 2019, this performance level is surprising given the CPU's modern architecture and high benchmark scores. The combination is held back entirely by the graphics side, and the rank reflects that imbalance.

Best Settings per Resolution

For 3840x2160, no preset achieves 60 FPS. The best option is Low, which averages 30 FPS. That is not playable, but it is the highest frame rate available at this resolution. If a user must run at 4K, Low is the only choice, and even then the experience will be stuttery and far below smooth.

For 2560x1440, the best option is also Low, averaging 45 FPS. This remains below the 60 FPS threshold, so it is not playable by the database's standard. The Medium preset drops to 32 FPS, which is a significant step down, so there is no reason to increase settings at this resolution given the low average.

For 1920x1080, Low settings produce 59 FPS, which is the closest any configuration comes to the 60 FPS target. It is 1 FPS short, so it does not qualify as playable, but it is the only setting worth considering. Medium drops to 42 FPS, and High and Ultra offer 37 FPS and 32 FPS respectively. The recommendation is to use Low at 1080p and accept that the game will run just below the target frame rate. No other resolution or preset combination in the measured data reaches the playable threshold, and the recorded numbers indicate that this system is not suitable for Control at any setting.