Control

The Intel Core Ultra 9 290K Plus and Intel Arc B570 combination delivers a playable experience in Control only at specific resolutions and settings. The data shows a system where the CPU is vastly overqualified for the task, leaving the Arc B570 as the decisive factor in frame rates. At 1080p, the combo achieves smooth gameplay on High settings, while 1440p requires dropping to Low for a consistent 60 FPS. At 4K, no settings preset reaches the 60 FPS playability threshold, making it unsuitable for that resolution.

Similar Performance Alternatives

The CPU and GPU in this combo each have near-neighbor alternatives that would behave similarly in Control. The Intel Core Ultra 9 290K Plus sits in the 96th percentile of all CPUs, with an average benchmark score of 84,003. Its closest rival, the Intel Core Ultra 9 285K, scores 83,807, a difference of just 0.2%. This effectively means the 285K would deliver nearly identical performance in game. Other nearby processors include the AMD EPYC 4584PX (avg score 83,090, 1.1% slower) and the AMD EPYC 9135 (avg score 82,980, 1.2% slower). The AMD EPYC 7F72 scores 85,072, which is 1.3% higher than the 290K Plus. For gaming, any of these would provide the same headroom; they are all far beyond what Control requires.

On the GPU side, the Intel Arc B570 has an average benchmark score of 20,556 and sits in the 65th percentile of all GPUs. Its nearest rival is the Intel Arc A750, with an average score of 20,582, a delta of just -0.1%. This means the Arc A750 is virtually indistinguishable from the B570 in terms of raw performance, and would produce almost the same frame rates. The NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3070 Mobile scores 20,534 (0.1% slower), and the AMD Radeon R9 M390X scores 20,662 (0.5% faster). The NVIDIA Quadro M4000M scores 20,480 (0.4% slower). For Control, swapping the B570 for any of these would not meaningfully change the playability verdicts. The performance is tightly clustered, with all rivals within 0.5% of each other.

CPU and GPU Roles

The benchmark data for Control clearly indicates that the GPU is the limiting factor in this combination. The Intel Core Ultra 9 290K Plus, with 24 cores and 24 threads, a boost clock of 5.80 GHz, and a 96th percentile ranking, provides far more processing power than the game can utilize. The CPU's multi-threaded scores are enormous (Cinebench R23 multi-core at 51,731), but these do not translate into frame rate advantages when the GPU cannot keep up.

The evidence lies in the scaling across resolutions. At 1080p High, the average FPS is 63. Moving to 1440p High, the average drops to 48 FPS, a decrease of roughly 24%. At 4K High, the average falls to 32 FPS, a further drop of 33%. This steep decline with increasing resolution is a classic sign of GPU-bound performance. If the CPU were the bottleneck, frame rates would remain relatively flat across resolutions. The GPU's bandwidth of 380.0 GB/s and 10 GB of VRAM are simply insufficient to maintain high frame rates at higher pixel counts.

At lower settings, the CPU's role becomes slightly more apparent. At 1080p Low, the combo hits 101 FPS, suggesting that the CPU can push well beyond 100 FPS when the GPU load is light. However, the gap between Low and Ultra settings at the same resolution also shows GPU dominance. At 1080p, Ultra averages 55 FPS, while Low averages 101 FPS, a 46 FPS difference. This is almost entirely due to the GPU's pixel and texture processing capabilities (200.0 GPixel/s and 360.0 GTexel/s). The CPU is never the primary constraint; it is the Arc B570 that determines whether the game is playable.

Best Settings per Resolution

The data provides a clear picture of what this combo can achieve at each resolution. The playable threshold is 60 FPS.

• 3840x2160 (4K): No settings preset reaches 60 FPS. The highest average is 51 FPS at Low settings, which is below the threshold. The other presets are worse: Medium averages 36 FPS, High averages 32 FPS, and Ultra averages 28 FPS. There is no "best" setting because none are playable.

• 2560x1440 (2K): Only Low settings are playable, with an average FPS of 76. This is the best settings preset that stays at or above 60 FPS. Medium averages 54 FPS, which is below the threshold, so it is not recommended. High averages 48 FPS and Ultra averages 42 FPS, both unplayable.

• 1920x1080 (1080p): The best playable preset is High, with an average FPS of 63. This is the most demanding preset that stays at or above 60 FPS. Medium also clears the threshold with an average of 71 FPS, and Low averages 101 FPS. Ultra averages 55 FPS, which is below 60 FPS and thus not playable.

The data suggests that 1080p High is the sweet spot for this system, offering a balance of visual quality and performance. At 1440p, the user must sacrifice visual fidelity to Low settings to maintain smooth gameplay.

The Verdict

This PC can run Control, but with significant caveats depending on the resolution. The verdict by resolution is clear.

• 3840x2160 (4K): Not playable. There are no playable settings presets. The best average FPS is 51 at Low, which falls short of the 60 FPS threshold. Users with a 4K display would need to lower the resolution to gain playable frame rates.

• 2560x1440 (2K): Playable only at Low settings. The average FPS at Low is 76, which clears the 60 FPS threshold. However, any higher preset (Medium, High, Ultra) fails to reach 60 FPS, with averages of 54, 48, and 42 respectively. This makes 1440p a low-fidelity experience.

• 1920x1080 (1080p): Playable at High, Medium, and Low settings. The best playable preset is High, with an average FPS of 63. This allows the game to run smoothly with good visual quality. Ultra settings are not playable, averaging 55 FPS.

In summary, the system is viable for 1080p gaming with High presets. For 1440p, the user must accept Low settings. The 4K resolution is out of reach for this combination.

Measured FPS Breakdown

The measured FPS data provides a detailed look at performance across all tested configurations. Note that the data includes average FPS for all presets, with minimum and maximum FPS only reported for Medium settings at each resolution.

3840x2160 (4K):

• Low: 51 FPS average.
• Medium: 36 FPS average, with a minimum of 31 FPS and a maximum of 42 FPS.
• High: 32 FPS average.
• Ultra: 28 FPS average.

2560x1440 (2K):

• Low: 76 FPS average.
• Medium: 54 FPS average, with a minimum of 46 FPS and a maximum of 62 FPS.
• High: 48 FPS average.
• Ultra: 42 FPS average.

1920x1080 (1080p):

• Low: 101 FPS average.
• Medium: 71 FPS average, with a minimum of 61 FPS and a maximum of 82 FPS.
• High: 63 FPS average.
• Ultra: 55 FPS average.

The Medium settings data shows significant frame time variance. At 1080p, the minimum of 61 FPS is just above the 60 FPS threshold, but the max of 82 FPS indicates a wide range. At 1440p, the minimum of 46 FPS shows that the frame rate can dip below playable levels, even though the average is 54 FPS. At 4K, the minimum of 31 FPS makes the game feel stuttery. The absence of min/max data for other presets suggests those were not tracked, but the averages are sufficient to determine playability.

How This Combo Ranks

In the database of tested hardware combinations for Control, this specific pairing of the Intel Core Ultra 9 290K Plus and Intel Arc B570 ranks 2,995 out of 3,720 tested combos. This places it in the bottom 20% of all systems tested for this game. While the CPU is in the top 4% of all processors, the GPU's 65th percentile ranking drags the overall combo down significantly.

The ranking reflects the GPU bottleneck. Many systems with less powerful CPUs but stronger GPUs would rank higher in Control. The Arc B570's performance, which is comparable to the Arc A750 and RTX 3070 Mobile, is simply not sufficient for high refresh rate gaming at higher resolutions. The combo's rank indicates that while it is a functional setup for 1080p, it is far from optimal for a demanding title like Control at maximum settings. Users seeking higher frame rates at 1440p or 4K would need to consider a more powerful GPU, as the CPU is not the limiting factor.