Control

The Intel Core Ultra 9 290K Plus and Intel Arc B390 combination delivers a very narrow range of usable performance in Control. The data shows a system that is heavily constrained by the graphics processor, with the CPU’s substantial capabilities largely irrelevant to the final frame rates. Across all tested resolutions and presets, the results place this combo firmly at the lower end of the database’s rankings for this title.

Measured FPS Breakdown

At 3840x2160, the recorded data shows the system struggling to maintain playable frame rates under any settings. The Low preset produces an average of 33 FPS, which is the highest result at this resolution. Moving to Medium drops the average to 24 FPS, with recorded lows of 20 FPS and highs of 27 FPS. The High preset averages 21 FPS, while the Ultra preset bottoms out at an average of 18 FPS. None of these figures approach the 60 FPS playable threshold.

At 2560x1440, the situation improves slightly, but the overall pattern remains the same. The Low preset yields an average of 50 FPS. The Medium preset averages 35 FPS, with a minimum of 30 FPS and a maximum of 40 FPS. High settings produce an average of 31 FPS, and Ultra drops to 27 FPS. The step from Low to Medium represents a 30% reduction in average frame rate, showing just how quickly the graphics hardware saturates when settings are increased.

At 1920x1080, the system finally reaches the playable threshold, but only on the lowest settings. The Low preset averages 65 FPS, which is the only configuration in the entire dataset that clears 60 FPS. The Medium preset averages 46 FPS, with a minimum of 40 FPS and a maximum of 53 FPS. High settings average 41 FPS, and Ultra averages 36 FPS. The gap between Low and Medium at this resolution is 19 FPS, a 29% drop, which reinforces that even at 1080p, the graphics solution has very little headroom.

The scaling across resolutions for the Low preset shows a clear progression: 65 FPS at 1080p, 50 FPS at 1440p, and 33 FPS at 4K. That represents a 23% decline moving from 1080p to 1440p, and a further 34% decline moving from 1440p to 4K. This steep falloff is characteristic of a GPU operating far beyond its comfortable range at higher pixel counts.

CPU and GPU Roles

The division of labor in this combination is exceptionally one-sided. The Intel Core Ultra 9 290K Plus is a 24-core, 24-thread processor with a boost clock of 5.80 GHz and a 36 MB shared L3 cache. Its benchmark profile is strong, sitting at the 96th percentile among all CPUs in the database, with an average benchmark score of 84003. This places it only 0.2% ahead of the Intel Core Ultra 9 285K, which scores 83807.

The Intel Arc B390, by contrast, is an integrated graphics solution with 1536 shading units, 48 TMUs, and 24 ROPs. Its 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 score is 1482, which puts it at just the 9th percentile among all GPUs. The performance gap between the CPU and GPU in this pairing is extreme: the processor is near the top of the database, while the graphics solution is near the bottom. The frame rates in Control are entirely dictated by the GPU. The CPU’s compute power has no bearing on the results, as evidenced by the fact that even at 1080p Low, where the CPU would theoretically have the most influence, the system only manages 65 FPS.

The scaling between presets at each resolution confirms this. At 1080p, raising the preset from Low to Medium costs 19 FPS, and from Medium to High costs another 5 FPS. At 1440p, the same transitions cost 15 FPS and 4 FPS respectively. At 4K, Low to Medium costs 9 FPS, and Medium to High costs 3 FPS. This pattern shows that the GPU is the limiting factor at every resolution, and the CPU has no measurable effect on the outcome.

How This Combo Ranks

The database records this combination as ranking 3311 out of 3720 tested combos for Control. That places it in the bottom 11% of all systems in the database for this game. The ranking reflects the reality of the measurements: the system is only capable of crossing the 60 FPS threshold at 1080p with the Low preset, and delivers sub-60 FPS results in every other configuration.

The CPU’s individual standing does little to help the overall rank. At the 96th percentile among CPUs, the processor is far above average, but the GPU’s 9th percentile standing drags the combined result down. The rank of 3311 out of 3720 is a direct consequence of this imbalance. A system with a top-tier CPU and a bottom-tier GPU cannot overcome the graphics bottleneck in a frame rate sensitive title like Control.

Similar Performance Alternatives

The nearest rivals for the Intel Core Ultra 9 290K Plus confirm that the CPU is performing in line with other high-end processors. The Intel Core Ultra 9 285K is 0.2% slower in average benchmark score, with a score of 83807 versus 84003. The AMD EPYC 4584PX is 1.1% slower at 83090, and the AMD EPYC 9135 is 1.2% slower at 82980. The AMD EPYC 7F72 is 1.3% faster at 85072. None of these CPUs would change the outcome in Control, since the graphics solution is the bottleneck.

The GPU’s nearest rivals paint a very different picture. The Intel Arc B390 scores 1482 in 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12. The NVIDIA GeForce GT 520MX scores 1463, which is 1.3% slower. The NVIDIA GeForce 800M scores 1460, 1.5% slower. The NVIDIA GeForce GT 625 OEM scores 1446, 2.5% slower, and the NVIDIA GeForce GT 710 scores 1443, 2.7% slower. These are all low-end graphics parts, and the Arc B390 sits just ahead of them. In practical terms, swapping the Arc B390 for any of these rivals would produce nearly identical frame rates in Control, with differences of only a few percent. The data suggests that the GPU is the defining component for this game, and the CPU choice has essentially no impact on the measured results.

Best Settings per Resolution

At 3840x2160, no preset reaches the 60 FPS playable threshold. The best result is the Low preset at 33 FPS average. The database lists no playable settings for this resolution. The verdict is clear: 4K is not viable for this game with this hardware.

At 2560x1440, the situation is the same. No preset clears 60 FPS. The Low preset averages 50 FPS, which is the best available result, but it still falls short of the playable threshold. The database records no playable settings for 1440p.

At 1920x1080, the Low preset is the only playable option, averaging 65 FPS. This is the single configuration in the entire dataset that meets the 60 FPS threshold. The Medium preset at 46 FPS, High at 41 FPS, and Ultra at 36 FPS are all below the threshold. The best settings recommendation for 1080p is therefore the Low preset, which delivers 65 FPS average.

The Verdict

Can this PC run Control? The answer depends entirely on the target resolution. The database’s verdict by resolution is unambiguous. At 3840x2160, there are no playable settings, meaning no configuration reaches 60 FPS. The best case is 33 FPS on Low. At 2560x1440, the same applies: no playable settings, with a best case of 50 FPS on Low. At 1920x1080, the system is playable, but only on the Low preset, which delivers 65 FPS average.

The practical takeaway is that this combination is only suited for 1080p gaming in Control, and only at the lowest graphical settings. The 19 FPS gap between Low and Medium at 1080p shows that even a modest increase in visual quality pushes the system below the playable threshold. The GPU is the limiting factor at every step, and no amount of CPU headroom can compensate for it. For anyone considering this pairing, the data shows a system that is viable for 1080p Low settings in this title, and little else. The 65 FPS at 1080p Low is the only configuration that offers a smooth experience, and even that result is close to the 60 FPS minimum threshold.