Control

FAQ

Q: Can this system run Control at 1080p?

A: Yes, but only at the Low preset. The measured average frame rate at 1920x1080 with Low settings is 65 FPS, which clears the 60 FPS playable threshold. Higher presets at 1080p fall short: High averages 41 FPS, Medium averages 46 FPS, and Ultra averages 36 FPS.

Q: What is the best playable setting at 1440p?

A: None. At 2560x1440, all recorded presets fail to reach 60 FPS. The closest is Low at 50 FPS average, followed by Medium at 35 FPS, High at 31 FPS, and Ultra at 27 FPS. The verdict data lists no playable settings for this resolution.

Q: Is 4K playable with this hardware?

A: No. At 3840x2160, every preset falls well below 60 FPS. Low averages 33 FPS, Medium averages 24 FPS, High averages 21 FPS, and Ultra averages 18 FPS. The verdictByResolution field records no playable settings at 4K.

Q: How much performance drops from 1080p Low to 4K Low?

A: At Low settings, the average frame rate falls from 65 FPS at 1920x1080 to 33 FPS at 3840x2160, a reduction of roughly half. The data shows a similar pattern across all presets, indicating the GPU becomes the dominant constraint as resolution climbs.

Q: What are the nearest GPU rivals to the Intel Arc B390?

A: The database lists four nearby GPUs by average benchmark score: NVIDIA GeForce GT 520MX (1.3% ahead), NVIDIA GeForce 800M (1.5% ahead), NVIDIA GeForce GT 625 OEM (2.5% ahead), and NVIDIA GeForce GT 710 (2.7% ahead). All are within a few percentage points of the Arc B390's 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 score of 1482.

Q: What CPU rivals does the Intel Core Ultra 5 225 have?

A: The nearest CPUs by average benchmark score are AMD Ryzen 5 5600F (0% delta), AMD Ryzen 5 5500X3D (0.2% behind), AMD Ryzen AI 7 PRO 450 (0.4% behind), and Intel Core i9-12900T (0.5% behind). These deltas are tiny, meaning the Ultra 5 225 performs nearly identically to those chips in aggregate.

Similar Performance Alternatives

The Intel Core Ultra 5 225 sits in a tight performance cluster. Its average benchmark score of 36938 is essentially tied with the AMD Ryzen 5 5600F at 36945, a 0% delta. The AMD Ryzen 5 5500X3D trails by just 0.2%, the AMD Ryzen AI 7 PRO 450 by 0.4%, and the Intel Core i9-12900T by 0.5%. For CPU-bound scenarios in Control, swapping to any of these chips would yield nearly indistinguishable frame rates, assuming the same GPU and memory configuration. The Ultra 5 225 also carries a high single-thread score of 4412 in Passmark, which supports its position at the 85th percentile of all CPUs.

On the GPU side, the Intel Arc B390 is an integrated graphics part based on the Xe3-LPG architecture, with a 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 score of 1482. Its nearest rivals are all older NVIDIA discrete or mobile parts: the GT 520MX at 1463 (1.3% ahead), GeForce 800M at 1460 (1.5% ahead), GT 625 OEM at 1446 (2.5% ahead), and GT 710 at 1443 (2.7% ahead). These are extremely low-end GPUs, and the deltas are small. In practice, any of these would deliver similar Control performance: playable only at 1080p Low, and not playable at higher resolutions or presets. The Arc B390's 9th percentile ranking among all GPUs places it far below any discrete gaming graphics card in the database.

Because the CPU is far more capable than the GPU, alternative systems with the same CPU but a stronger discrete GPU would shift the bottleneck entirely. Conversely, pairing the Arc B390 with a much weaker CPU would barely change the measured FPS at higher resolutions, since the GPU saturates first. The recorded data shows that at 4K, even Low settings only reach 33 FPS, which is a GPU-side limit, not a CPU-side one.

Measured FPS Breakdown

The database includes measured average frame rates for Control across three resolutions and four presets each. Minimum and maximum values are only recorded for Medium settings.

At 1920x1080, the Low preset delivers an average of 65 FPS, which is the only setting that clears the 60 FPS threshold. Medium averages 46 FPS with a minimum of 40 and a maximum of 53. High averages 41 FPS. Ultra averages 36 FPS. The gap between Low and Ultra is 29 FPS, a substantial 45% drop from Low to Ultra.

At 2560x1440, Low averages 50 FPS. Medium averages 35 FPS with a minimum of 30 and a maximum of 40. High averages 31 FPS. Ultra averages 27 FPS. No preset reaches 60 FPS. The step from 1080p Low to 1440p Low costs 15 FPS, while the step from 1080p Medium to 1440p Medium costs 11 FPS.

At 3840x2160, Low averages 33 FPS. Medium averages 24 FPS with a minimum of 20 and a maximum of 27. High averages 21 FPS. Ultra averages 18 FPS. The 4K Ultra result is less than one-third of the 1080p Low average, showing how severely the integrated GPU scales down under pixel load.

Across all resolutions, the Medium preset consistently shows the widest recorded range: at 1080p it spans 40 to 53 FPS, at 1440p it spans 30 to 40 FPS, and at 4K it spans 20 to 27 FPS. The data indicates that frame pacing at Medium is more variable than at other presets, though the database only provides min/max for Medium.

The Verdict

This PC can run Control, but only under a very narrow configuration. The verdictByResolution data is unambiguous: at 3840x2160 and 2560x1440, there are no playable settings, meaning no recorded preset reaches an average of 60 FPS. At 1920x1080, the only playable setting is Low, with a best average of 65 FPS.

For users who prioritize smoothness over visual fidelity, 1080p Low is the sole viable path. The 65 FPS average provides a small cushion above the 60 FPS threshold, but the minimum frame rate is not recorded for Low, so there is no guarantee against occasional dips. The Medium preset at 1080p averages 46 FPS with a minimum of 40 FPS, which may be acceptable for players who tolerate sub-60 frame rates, but it does not meet the playable threshold as defined by the database.

At 1440p, even Low fails to hit 60 FPS, averaging 50 FPS. At 4K, all presets are deeply below the threshold. The conclusion is that this system is a 1080p-only machine for Control, and only at the lowest settings. Any attempt to raise resolution or preset quality will result in sub-60 FPS averages, with Ultra at 4K dropping to 18 FPS.

CPU and GPU Roles

The data reveals a clear division of labor between the Intel Core Ultra 5 225 and the Intel Arc B390. The CPU is a strong desktop part, ranking in the 85th percentile of all CPUs with a multi-core Cinebench R23 score of 25891 and a single-core score of 3655. The GPU, by contrast, ranks in the 9th percentile of all GPUs with a single 3DMark Steel Nomad score of 1482. This mismatch means the GPU is the limiting factor in almost every scenario.

Evidence comes from the scaling between resolutions. At Low settings, the average FPS drops from 65 at 1080p to 50 at 1440p, then to 33 at 4K. That is a 49% reduction from 1080p to 4K. At Ultra settings, the drop is from 36 at 1080p to 27 at 1440p, then to 18 at 4K, a 50% reduction. If the CPU were the bottleneck, the frame rate would remain relatively flat across resolutions, as the same CPU work is required regardless of pixel count. Instead, the linear decline with resolution indicates the GPU's fill rate and shading throughput are exhausted.

The preset scaling further confirms the GPU bottleneck. At 1080p, moving from Low to Ultra costs 29 FPS (from 65 to 36). At 1440p, the same preset shift costs 23 FPS (from 50 to 27). At 4K, it costs 15 FPS (from 33 to 18). The absolute cost shrinks at higher resolutions because the GPU is already near its limit even at Low. In other words, the GPU's headroom is largest at 1080p Low, where it can still push 65 FPS, and almost nonexistent at 4K Ultra, where it manages only 18 FPS.

The CPU's role is therefore secondary. Even if the Ultra 5 225 were replaced with a much slower chip, the measured FPS at 1440p and 4K would likely remain similar, because the Arc B390 cannot feed frames fast enough. At 1080p Low, the CPU may have some influence, but the recorded 65 FPS average is still well below what this CPU alone could deliver in a less GPU-bound title.

How This Combo Ranks

In the database's ranking of tested CPU and GPU combinations for Control, this pairing sits at rank 3311 out of 3720 combos. That places it in the bottom 11% of all tested systems, meaning roughly 89% of recorded configurations achieve higher average frame rates.

The low rank is consistent with the GPU's 9th percentile standing. The Arc B390's nearest GPU rivals, such as the GT 710 and GT 520MX, are also near the bottom of the performance hierarchy, and none of them would be expected to drive Control at high settings. The CPU's high percentile (85th) does little to lift the combo rank, because game performance in this title is dominated by the graphics subsystem.

The rank of 3311 also reflects the fact that most tested combos in the database include discrete gaming GPUs, which vastly outperform the integrated Arc B390. For context, the CPU alone scores in the top 15% of all CPUs, but the combo rank is dragged down by the GPU. This is a textbook case of a strong processor paired with a weak graphics solution, resulting in a system that can only handle Control at its most modest settings.

Users considering this combo for Control should expect a 1080p Low experience only. The recorded data shows no path to higher quality settings at any resolution that maintains 60 FPS. If the goal is smoother or better-looking gameplay, the database suggests upgrading the GPU first, as the CPU already sits near the performance level of several Ryzen 5 and Core i9 rivals.