Control

The Intel Core Ultra 5 235 paired with the Intel Arc B370 presents a peculiar case for Control, a game from 2019. The recorded data shows a combination that struggles under the weight of higher resolutions, yet manages a narrow pass at 1080p with the lowest settings. The measurements indicate a system where the integrated-class GPU becomes the primary constraint, and the outcome hinges on accepting significant visual compromises.

Measured FPS Breakdown

The benchmark results for Control with this hardware configuration reveal a steep performance cliff as resolution increases. At 3840x2160, the data shows an average of 19 FPS on High settings, 21 FPS on Medium (with a minimum of 18 and maximum of 25), 30 FPS on Low, and 17 FPS on Ultra. None of these figures approach the 60 FPS playable threshold, and the gap between Low and Ultra is a mere 13 FPS, indicating the GPU is saturated even at the lowest preset.

Dropping to 2560x1440 improves the situation but does not solve it. The recorded averages are 28 FPS on High, 45 FPS on Low, 32 FPS on Medium (with a minimum of 27 and maximum of 37), and 25 FPS on Ultra. The jump from Low to High is a 17 FPS loss, which shows a clear scaling pattern, but even the best case at Low remains 15 FPS short of the 60 FPS target. The Medium preset here, with its recorded minimum of 27 FPS, suggests noticeable hitches during intense scenes.

At 1920x1080, the closest to a playable experience emerges. The data lists an average of 37 FPS on High, 59 FPS on Low, 42 FPS on Medium (with a minimum of 36 and maximum of 48), and 32 FPS on Ultra. The Low preset nearly reaches the 60 FPS mark, sitting just 1 FPS below it. This is the only configuration across all resolutions and settings where the system approaches playability, and it does so only by sacrificing nearly all graphical fidelity. The spread from Ultra to Low is 27 FPS, which highlights how sensitive this game is to preset changes on this hardware.

Best Settings per Resolution

For each resolution, the most demanding preset that maintains an average at or above 60 FPS must be identified. The data shows no such preset exists for any resolution. At 3840x2160, the highest average recorded is 30 FPS on Low, which fails the threshold. At 2560x1440, the highest average is 45 FPS on Low, again below 60 FPS. Even at 1920x1080, where the best result appears, the Low preset averages 59 FPS, which is strictly below the playable threshold of 60 FPS.

The verdict is unambiguous: this combination cannot achieve a stable 60 FPS average at any resolution and preset combination recorded in the database. The closest attempt, 1080p Low at 59 FPS, falls just short of the mark. For users seeking 60 FPS, the only option would be to explore settings outside the measured presets, such as custom configurations below Low, but the recorded data does not include any such results.

FAQ

Q: Can this system run Control at 4K resolution?

A: No. The highest average FPS at 3840x2160 is 30 FPS on Low settings, which is far below the 60 FPS playable threshold. Ultra settings at this resolution yield only 17 FPS.

Q: What is the best average FPS recorded for this combo?

A: The best average is 59 FPS, achieved at 1920x1080 with Low settings. This is exactly 1 FPS below the 60 FPS threshold used to define playability.

Q: How does the Medium preset compare to High at 1440p?

A: At 2560x1440, Medium averages 32 FPS, while High averages 28 FPS. The difference is 4 FPS, with Medium also showing a minimum of 27 FPS and a maximum of 37 FPS.

Q: Is there any resolution where Ultra settings are playable?

A: No. Ultra settings produce averages of 17 FPS at 4K, 25 FPS at 1440p, and 32 FPS at 1080p. None of these reach the 60 FPS threshold.

Q: Does lowering settings from High to Low double the frame rate at 1080p?

A: No, but it is close. At 1920x1080, High averages 37 FPS, and Low averages 59 FPS. That is a 59% improvement, not a doubling, but it represents the largest jump between consecutive presets in the dataset.

Q: What is the minimum FPS recorded across all tests?

A: The lowest minimum FPS recorded is 18 FPS, observed at 3840x2160 with Medium settings. The 1440p Medium test also shows a low minimum of 27 FPS.

The Verdict

The question of whether this PC can run Control requires a strict answer based on the recorded data. The playable threshold is defined as 60 FPS, and the verdictByResolution field shows no playable settings at any resolution. The 3840x2160 results are uniformly poor, with the best average being 30 FPS at Low. The 2560x1440 results are marginally better, with a 45 FPS average at Low, but still far from playable. Even at 1920x1080, the strongest outcome is 59 FPS at Low, which is 1 FPS short of the threshold.

The data indicates that this system cannot run Control at a consistent 60 FPS, regardless of resolution or preset. The closest scenario, 1080p Low, is effectively a borderline case: it averages 59 FPS, meaning it may feel nearly smooth in some scenes but will dip below the target during demanding moments. For any resolution above 1080p, the experience degrades rapidly, with averages in the 17 to 45 FPS range depending on settings. Users would need to accept either a resolution drop or a significant graphical downgrade, and even then, the 60 FPS goal remains out of reach.

Similar Performance Alternatives

The nearest rivals for the Intel Core Ultra 5 235 provide context for the CPU's role in this pairing. The AMD Ryzen AI 9 HX 375 has an average benchmark score of 46030, which is 0.1% lower than the Intel chip's 46062. The Intel Core i9-13900HX scores 46098, a delta of -0.1%, meaning it is effectively identical in average performance. The AMD EPYC 4364P scores 45970 (0.2% lower), and the AMD EPYC 7303 scores 45960 (0.2% lower). These results suggest that swapping the CPU for any of these alternatives would not materially change the frame rates in Control, as the performance difference is less than 1% in all cases.

For the GPU, the Intel Arc B370 sits at the 5th percentile of all GPUs, with an average benchmark score of 1184 from the 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 test. Its nearest rivals are similarly low-performing parts: the ATI Mobility Radeon HD 5570 scores 1186 (0.2% higher), the ATI Radeon HD 5770 scores 1190 (0.5% higher), and the AMD Radeon HD 7650M scores 1192 (0.7% higher). The AMD FirePro M2000 is 1.4% slower with a score of 1168. These comparisons indicate that the Arc B370 is firmly in entry-level territory, and any of these alternatives would deliver nearly identical performance in Control, meaning the game would remain unplayable at 60 FPS across all resolutions.

How This Combo Ranks

Within the database of tested combinations for Control, this pairing of the Intel Core Ultra 5 235 and Intel Arc B370 ranks 3436 out of 3720 total combos. This places it in the bottom 8% of all tested systems, a position consistent with the measured FPS results. The low rank is driven almost entirely by the GPU, which sits at the 5th percentile of all GPUs, while the CPU performs far better at the 89th percentile of all CPUs. The combination of a strong processor and a very weak graphics solution creates a bottleneck that limits the system to the low frame rates observed in the data.

The rank suggests that most other hardware combinations tested in this game deliver higher frame rates. The fact that there are 284 combos ranked below this one indicates that some systems perform even worse, but the overwhelming majority of alternatives would offer a better experience. The data does not specify which other combos are nearby in rank, but the percentile figures for the components make it clear that the GPU is the limiting factor. Upgrading the graphics solution would be the only path to a playable experience, as the CPU has ample headroom.

CPU and GPU Roles

The recorded measurements allow for a clear analysis of which component drives performance in Control. The Intel Core Ultra 5 235 has an average benchmark score of 46062 and sits at the 89th percentile of all CPUs, indicating strong computational capability. The Intel Arc B370, by contrast, has an average score of 1184 and sits at the 5th percentile of all GPUs. This disparity suggests that the GPU is the primary constraint in every test.

Examining the scaling across resolutions supports this conclusion. At 3840x2160, the average FPS ranges from 17 on Ultra to 30 on Low, a difference of 13 FPS. At 2560x1440, the range is 25 to 45 FPS, a 20 FPS spread. At 1920x1080, the range is 32 to 59 FPS, a 27 FPS spread. The increasing gap between presets as resolution drops indicates that the GPU has more headroom at lower resolutions, but even at 1080p, it is still unable to reach 60 FPS on any preset. If the CPU were the bottleneck, the frame rates would show less variation with preset changes and would scale more uniformly across resolutions.

The CPU's role becomes apparent when considering the resolution scaling. At 4K, the average FPS on Low is 30, while at 1440p it is 45, and at 1080p it is 59. This progression shows that the GPU is the limiting factor, as reducing the pixel count directly translates to higher frame rates. The CPU, with its 14 cores and 14 threads, has sufficient headroom to feed the GPU at all tested settings. The data does not show a scenario where the CPU limits performance, as even the lowest frame rates at 4K are not indicative of a processor bottleneck. Instead, the Arc B370's low shading unit count of 1280 and its system-shared memory configuration are the clear constraints. The game's demands at higher resolutions overwhelm the GPU, and only at 1080p Low does it approach the 60 FPS target.