Control

How This Combo Ranks

The Intel Core Ultra 7 265 paired with the Intel Arc B390 ranks 3311 out of 3720 tested combinations in Control. That places this rig in the bottom 11% of all recorded combos, a position driven almost entirely by the graphics side of the pairing. The CPU is a strong performer, sitting in the 93rd percentile among all tested processors, but the Arc B390 lands in the 9th percentile among GPUs. When a component sits that low in the distribution, the overall combo ranking follows.

The recorded data shows a system that cannot sustain 60 FPS at any resolution above 1080p. At 1920x1080 with Low settings, the combo manages an average of 65 FPS, which clears the playable threshold. Every other preset at every resolution falls short. The gap between the CPU's capability and the GPU's output is substantial, meaning this is a configuration where the graphics adapter is the binding constraint in every scenario tested.

Benchmark results indicate that the Arc B390 behaves like hardware from a much older era. Its nearest rivals in the database include the NVIDIA GeForce GT 520MX and the GeForce 800M, with delta percentages of 1.3% and 1.5% respectively. The Arc B390 does outperform those parts, but only marginally. The GT 625 OEM trails by 2.5% and the GT 710 trails by 2.7%. These are not modern gaming GPUs by any measure, and the performance class is reflected across every resolution in Control.

CPU and GPU Roles

The division of labor in this pairing is lopsided. The Core Ultra 7 265 brings 20 cores and 20 threads with a boost clock of 5.30 GHz, and its Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 42216 places it well above what Control needs from a processor. The Arc B390, by contrast, produces 7.680 TFLOPS of FP32 compute with 1536 shading units, and its single 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 score of 1482 confirms its low-end positioning.

Looking at scaling between resolutions, the GPU's influence becomes clear. At 3840x2160, the average FPS ranges from 18 on Ultra to 33 on Low. At 2560x1440, the range is 27 on Ultra to 50 on Low. At 1920x1080, the range is 36 on Ultra to 65 on Low. The pattern is consistent: as resolution drops, frame rates rise, which points to the GPU being the primary limiter. A CPU-bound scenario would show smaller gains when lowering resolution. Here, dropping from 4K to 1080p at Low settings nearly doubles the frame rate, from 33 FPS to 65 FPS.

Preset scaling reinforces this interpretation. At 1920x1080, moving from Low to Medium costs 19 FPS (65 down to 46), and moving from Medium to High costs another 5 FPS (46 down to 41). The jump from High to Ultra costs another 5 FPS (41 down to 36). The GPU's limited pixel throughput and texture rate, 60.00 GPixel/s and 120.0 GTexel/s respectively, are the relevant constraints here. The CPU's role is secondary, and at no tested resolution does the Core Ultra 7 265 appear to be the bottleneck.

FAQ

Q: Can this system run Control at 60 FPS in any configuration?

A: Yes, but only at 1920x1080 with Low settings. The recorded average FPS at that preset is 65. No other resolution or preset combination reaches 60 FPS.

Q: What is the best preset available at 1440p?

A: None of the tested presets at 2560x1440 reach 60 FPS. The highest average recorded is 50 FPS at Low settings. Medium averages 35 FPS, High averages 31 FPS, and Ultra averages 27 FPS.

Q: How does the Arc B390 compare to its closest rivals in the database?

A: The Arc B390 outperforms the NVIDIA GeForce GT 520MX by 1.3%, the GeForce 800M by 1.5%, the GT 625 OEM by 2.5%, and the GT 710 by 2.7%. These are all within a narrow performance band.

Q: Is the CPU or GPU the limiting factor in this game?

A: The GPU is the limiting factor. The Core Ultra 7 265 ranks in the 93rd percentile among CPUs, while the Arc B390 ranks in the 9th percentile among GPUs. Frame rates scale strongly with resolution and preset changes, which indicates GPU-bound behavior.

Q: What frame rates can be expected at 4K?

A: The best result at 3840x2160 is 33 FPS on Low settings. Medium averages 24 FPS, High averages 21 FPS, and Ultra averages 18 FPS. None of these approach the 60 FPS playable threshold.

Q: Does the Core Ultra 7 265 meet the processor demands of Control?

A: Based on the data, yes. The CPU's multi-core and single-core scores are strong, and the measured frame rates shift consistently with GPU-related settings and resolution changes. The processor is not the constraint in this pairing.

Similar Performance Alternatives

For the GPU side, the nearest rivals in the database are all NVIDIA parts from older generations. The GeForce GT 520MX is the closest match, with an average score 1.3% below the Arc B390. The GeForce 800M sits 1.5% lower, the GT 625 OEM sits 2.5% lower, and the GT 710 sits 2.7% lower. In practical terms, any of these would produce nearly identical frame rates in Control. The differences are small enough that preset selection and resolution would matter more than which of these four GPUs is installed.

For the CPU side, the nearest rivals are a mix of AMD EPYC server processors and a slightly different Intel variant. The AMD EPYC 9124 scores 0.7% higher than the Core Ultra 7 265, which places it as the closest competitor above. The Intel Core Ultra 7 265F is 0.3% lower, making it nearly identical in performance. The AMD EPYC 4464P sits 0.3% below the 265, and the AMD EPYC 7343 sits 0.7% below. None of these differences would produce a measurable change in Control's frame rates, since the CPU is not the limiting component in this configuration.

The practical takeaway from the nearest rival data is that swapping the CPU for any of these alternatives would not change the gaming experience. Swapping the GPU for any of its nearest rivals would also not change the experience, because they all perform within a 2.7% band. The system's playability profile is fixed by the GPU class, not by the specific part chosen within that class.

Best Settings per Resolution

At 1920x1080, the only preset that clears 60 FPS is Low, with an average of 65 FPS. This is the single playable configuration in the entire dataset. Medium at 1080p averages 46 FPS, High averages 41 FPS, and Ultra averages 36 FPS, all below the threshold.

At 2560x1440, no preset reaches 60 FPS. Low is the closest at 50 FPS, followed by Medium at 35 FPS, High at 31 FPS, and Ultra at 27 FPS. Even the least demanding settings leave a 10 FPS gap to the playable threshold.

At 3840x2160, the results are further from playable. Low averages 33 FPS, Medium averages 24 FPS, High averages 21 FPS, and Ultra averages 18 FPS. The 4K resolution is not viable for this game with this hardware.

For users who prioritize frame rate over visual fidelity, 1080p Low is the only option that delivers a smooth experience. For users who accept lower frame rates, 1440p Low at 50 FPS is the next best option, though it falls short of the 60 FPS standard.

The Verdict

This PC can run Control, but only under a narrow set of conditions. The verdict data shows a single playable configuration: 1920x1080 with Low settings, producing an average of 65 FPS. That clears the 60 FPS threshold by a modest margin.

At 2560x1440, the system has no playable settings. The best result is 50 FPS at Low, which is below the threshold. At 3840x2160, the situation is worse, with the best result being 33 FPS at Low. The verdict by resolution lists no playable settings for either 1440p or 4K.

The Core Ultra 7 265 is not the reason this system struggles. Its 93rd percentile ranking among CPUs means it has ample headroom for this title. The Arc B390, with its 9th percentile GPU ranking and performance comparable to decade-old NVIDIA parts, is the component that determines the outcome. The measured frame rates across all resolutions and presets reflect a GPU that simply does not have the throughput for Control at higher settings.

For a builder considering this combination, the data suggests one path to a playable experience: 1080p, Low preset, and acceptance that visual quality will be minimal. Any attempt to raise the preset or resolution will drop the frame rate below the 60 FPS standard. The system is functional for this game, but the margin for adjustment is essentially zero.