Control

The Intel Core Ultra 5 245 paired with the Intel Arc B370 presents a highly unusual combination for running Control, as the data reveals a system that is severely constrained by its graphics component. The Arc B370, which is an integrated graphics solution based on the Xe3-LPG architecture, ranks in the 5th percentile of all tested GPUs, indicating that its performance is near the bottom of the database. This single factor dominates the entire analysis, as the CPU, which ranks in the 90th percentile, is effectively held back at every resolution and preset.

Similar Performance Alternatives

Looking at the CPU’s nearest rivals, the Intel Core Ultra 5 245 produces an average benchmark score of 48995, placing it within a very tight performance band of similar processors. The AMD Ryzen 7 PRO 5755G scores 49196, which is a mere 0.4% higher, making it virtually indistinguishable in raw compute performance. Similarly, the AMD Ryzen 9 7900 scores 49228, just 0.5% above the Ultra 5 245. On the other side of the spectrum, the Intel Xeon Gold 5318H scores 48698, which is 0.6% lower, and the Intel Core i5-14600K scores 48618, representing a 0.8% deficit. In practical terms, any of these CPUs would deliver nearly identical frame rates in Control when paired with the same graphics solution, since the bottleneck lies elsewhere.

For the GPU, the situation is far more dire. The Intel Arc B370 achieves an average benchmark score of 1184, placing it in the 5th percentile. Its closest competitors are all legacy or low-power parts. The ATI Mobility Radeon HD 5570 scores 1186, which is just 0.2% higher, while the ATI Radeon HD 5770 scores 1190, a 0.5% advantage. The AMD Radeon HD 7650M scores 1192, trailing by 0.7%, and the AMD FirePro M2000 scores 1168, which is 1.4% lower. These deltas are all within a few percentage points, meaning that swapping the Arc B370 for any of these older components would yield almost identical gameplay performance in Control. The data clearly indicates that the GPU is the limiting factor, and users considering this combo should expect performance comparable to decade-old discrete graphics or modern integrated solutions.

CPU and GPU Roles

The benchmark results across resolutions and presets make it unequivocally clear that the GPU is the dominant constraint in this system. At 3840x2160, the average frame rate only ranges from 17 FPS at Ultra settings to 30 FPS at Low settings. This narrow spread, where even dropping to the lowest preset fails to double the frame rate, is characteristic of a GPU-bound scenario. The CPU’s substantial compute headroom, evidenced by its 90th percentile ranking, is simply not utilized because the Arc B370 cannot feed frames fast enough. The same pattern holds at 2560x1440, where average frame rates span from 25 FPS at Ultra to 45 FPS at Low, and at 1920x1080, where the range is 32 FPS at Ultra to 59 FPS at Low.

The scaling between resolutions further confirms the GPU bottleneck. Moving from 1920x1080 to 2560x1440 at High settings drops the average frame rate from 37 FPS to 28 FPS, a reduction of approximately 24%. Moving from 2560x1440 to 3840x2160 at High settings further reduces the average to 19 FPS, another 32% decline. This steep degradation with increasing pixel count is the hallmark of a graphics card that is overwhelmed by fill-rate and memory bandwidth demands. Notably, the Arc B370 uses system shared memory, meaning its bandwidth is dependent on the system’s DDR5 configuration, which further compounds the issue at higher resolutions where memory traffic increases. In contrast, the CPU’s role is negligible; there is no scenario in the data where the Ultra 5 245’s performance becomes a limiting factor, as even the most demanding preset at 1080p only requires a fraction of the CPU’s capabilities.

Measured FPS Breakdown

At 1920x1080, the lowest resolution tested, the game remains borderline playable only at the lowest settings. With Low settings, the average frame rate is 59 FPS, just one frame short of the 60 FPS playable threshold. However, this is the only setting that comes close. Medium settings yield an average of 42 FPS, with minimum and maximum frame rates of 36 and 48 FPS respectively, indicating noticeable frame pacing variance. High settings drop the average to 37 FPS, and Ultra settings further reduce it to 32 FPS. None of these presets provide a smooth experience, as the frame rates consistently fall below the target.

At 2560x1440, the situation worsens. Low settings produce an average of 45 FPS, which is a significant drop from the 59 FPS seen at 1080p. Medium settings average 32 FPS, with a recorded minimum of 27 FPS and maximum of 37 FPS. High settings average 28 FPS, and Ultra settings average just 25 FPS. The data shows that even the lowest preset at this resolution fails to maintain a playable frame rate, as the average is well below the 60 FPS threshold.

At 3840x2160, the highest resolution tested, the Arc B370 is clearly overwhelmed. Low settings average 30 FPS, which is the only preset to reach the 30 FPS mark, but it is still half of the target. Medium settings average 21 FPS, with minimum and maximum values of 18 and 25 FPS respectively. High settings average 19 FPS, and Ultra settings average just 17 FPS. The frame rate collapse at 4K is consistent with the GPU’s limited pixel throughput of 48 GPixel/s and texture rate of 96 GTexel/s, as derived from its 1280 shading units and 40 texture mapping units. For context, the minimum frame rates recorded at Medium settings across all resolutions (18 FPS at 4K, 27 FPS at 1440p, and 36 FPS at 1080p) show that the experience is not only slow but also prone to dips, which can make the game feel stuttery even at the lower settings.

The Verdict

Based on the recorded data, this PC cannot run Control at a playable level at any resolution or preset. The verdict by resolution is unambiguous: for 3840x2160, there are no playable settings, meaning no configuration achieves an average of 60 FPS. The same applies to 2560x1440, where all presets fall short. Even at 1920x1080, the best-case scenario is Low settings, which average 59 FPS, just missing the 60 FPS threshold. Since the playable threshold is defined as 60 FPS, and the highest average frame rate recorded across the entire test matrix is 59 FPS at 1080p Low, the system fails to meet the minimum requirement for smooth gameplay. Users would experience constant frame drops and sub-60 FPS gameplay even in the least demanding scenarios. The data suggests that this combination is fundamentally mismatched, with a high-end CPU paired with a GPU that ranks in the 5th percentile, resulting in a system that is unsuitable for this title.

How This Combo Ranks

In the database of tested combinations for Control, this specific pairing of the Intel Core Ultra 5 245 and Intel Arc B370 ranks 3436 out of 3720 total combinations. This places it in the bottom 8% of all tested systems, which is consistent with the GPU’s extremely low percentile ranking. The rank reflects the overall average frame rate across all tested settings and resolutions, and the data shows that the combo is outperformed by the vast majority of other configurations. The high-performing CPU does little to boost the ranking, as the GPU bottleneck caps the system’s potential. For comparison, any system with a GPU that ranks higher than the 5th percentile would likely achieve a better rank, even if it used a significantly weaker processor. This ranking underscores the critical imbalance of the combo, where the CPU’s 90th percentile standing is entirely negated by the GPU’s bottom-tier performance.

Best Settings per Resolution

Given the playable threshold of 60 FPS, there are no settings at any resolution that meet the requirement. The verdict by resolution confirms that no playable settings exist for 3840x2160, 2560x1440, or 1920x1080. At 1920x1080, Low settings come closest, with an average of 59 FPS, but this is still below the target. The most demanding preset that stays at or above 60 FPS does not exist, as none of the recorded presets achieve that frame rate. For users who are tolerant of lower frame rates, the best option would be 1920x1080 with Low settings, as it provides the highest average FPS (59) and is the only configuration that approaches playability. At 2560x1440, the best option is Low settings with an average of 45 FPS, while at 3840x2160, Low settings average 30 FPS. However, these are not recommendations for a playable experience, merely the best-performing configurations within the constraint of the 60 FPS target. The data clearly shows that this hardware combination is not suitable for Control, and users would need to significantly lower their expectations or upgrade the GPU to achieve a smooth experience.