Control

The Intel Core Ultra 9 290K Plus paired with the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3070 delivers a strong, but resolution-dependent, experience in Control. The combination ranks 1607th out of 3720 tested combos for this game, placing it in the upper half of the database. While the CPU is a top-tier part, the GPU is the limiting factor at higher resolutions, and the data shows a clear division: 4K requires careful settings management, while 1440p and 1080p offer smooth performance even at maximum quality.

How This Combo Ranks

This specific CPU and GPU pairing ranks 1607th out of 3720 tested combinations for Control. That places it in the 57th percentile of all tested systems, indicating a setup that is above average but not at the very top tier for this title. The ranking reflects a balance where the GPU, while capable, does not match the sheer processing power of the CPU in this workload. The CPU sits in the 96th percentile among all CPUs, while the GPU is in the 61st percentile among all GPUs, which explains the mid-pack overall ranking. Benchmark results indicate that the system’s overall position is dragged down by the GPU’s relative standing, yet the combination still outperforms the majority of tested hardware.

The ranking gap becomes apparent when comparing the components’ synthetic benchmark averages. The CPU achieves an average benchmark score of 84003, while the GPU averages 17208. The processor’s nearest rivals in the database include the Intel Core Ultra 9 285K, which scores 83807 (0.2% lower), and the AMD EPYC 7F72, which scores 85072 (1.3% higher). On the GPU side, the AMD Radeon RX 7600 XT scores 17083 (0.7% lower), and the NVIDIA Tesla K40c scores 17468 (1.5% higher). These small deltas show that the components sit in a tightly clustered performance band, meaning small changes in game optimization can shift the ranking noticeably.

CPU and GPU Roles

The division of labor between the Intel Core Ultra 9 290K Plus and the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3070 changes significantly across resolutions. At 1920x1080, the system achieves 158 FPS on Low settings, 112 FPS on Medium, 100 FPS on High, and 87 FPS on Ultra. The CPU’s high single-thread performance, evidenced by a Cinebench R23 single-core score of 7303, ensures that frame rates remain high even at lower graphical loads. At this resolution, the GPU is not fully saturated, so the CPU’s strength in maintaining high minimum frame rates becomes apparent.

Moving to 2560x1440, the frame rates drop by roughly 25-30% across all settings: 120 FPS on Low, 85 FPS on Medium, 76 FPS on High, and 66 FPS on Ultra. This scaling suggests that the GPU is starting to take on a more significant role, but the CPU still provides enough headroom to keep performance smooth. The transition from 1080p to 1440p costs roughly 30 FPS at Low settings and 21 FPS at Ultra, indicating a balanced workload shift.

At 3840x2160, the GPU becomes the clear bottleneck. The frame rates fall to 81 FPS on Low, 57 FPS on Medium, 51 FPS on High, and 44 FPS on Ultra. The drop from 1440p to 4K is steep: 39 FPS lost at Low, 28 FPS at Medium, and 22 FPS at Ultra. The RTX 3070’s 8 GB of GDDR6 memory and 448.0 GB/s bandwidth are pushed hard at 4K, and the data shows that the CPU’s immense processing power cannot compensate for the GPU’s limits at this resolution. The CPU’s role diminishes as resolution increases, with the GPU’s pixel throughput becoming the deciding factor.

Similar Performance Alternatives

For the CPU, the nearest rivals are all within a 1.3% performance delta, meaning any of these would behave nearly identically in Control. The Intel Core Ultra 9 285K scores 83807, just 0.2% lower, and would produce virtually the same frame rates in CPU-bound scenarios. The AMD EPYC 4584PX (83090, 1.1% lower) and the AMD EPYC 9135 (82980, 1.2% lower) are also close, though these server-class parts may have different memory latency characteristics that could slightly affect game performance. The AMD EPYC 7F72 scores 85072, which is 1.3% higher, making it the fastest nearby alternative.

On the GPU side, the AMD Radeon RX 7600 XT averages 17083, only 0.7% lower than the RTX 3070’s 17208. In practice, this means the RX 7600 XT would deliver nearly identical frame rates in Control, likely within 1-2 FPS at any given setting. The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 690 (17037, 1.0% lower) and AMD Radeon HD 7970M (17019, 1.1% lower) are also close, though these are older architectures that may lack modern feature support like DirectX 12 Ultimate, which the RTX 3070 supports. The NVIDIA Tesla K40c (17468, 1.5% higher) is technically faster but is a compute-focused card without display outputs, making it unsuitable for gaming.

The Verdict

The data shows that this system can run Control at 60 FPS or above at 1920x1080 and 2560x1440 across all tested settings. At 1920x1080, the Ultra preset delivers 87 FPS on average, which clears the 60 FPS threshold with headroom. At 2560x1440, the Ultra preset averages 66 FPS, still above the playable threshold, while the High preset offers 76 FPS for additional smoothness. The story changes at 3840x2160, where only the Low preset (81 FPS) clears 60 FPS. Medium averages 57 FPS, High averages 51 FPS, and Ultra falls to 44 FPS, all below the playable threshold. For 4K gaming, users must accept Low settings or lower the resolution to maintain smooth gameplay.

Measured FPS Breakdown

The measured FPS data provides a complete picture of performance across all resolution and settings combinations. At 3840x2160, the system produces 81 FPS on Low, 57 FPS on Medium (with a minimum of 49 FPS and maximum of 66 FPS), 51 FPS on High, and 44 FPS on Ultra. The Medium preset’s frame time variance shows a 17 FPS spread between minimum and maximum, indicating some instability at this resolution.

At 2560x1440, the results are more consistent: 120 FPS on Low, 85 FPS on Medium (72 min, 98 max), 76 FPS on High, and 66 FPS on Ultra. The Medium preset shows a 26 FPS spread, which is wider than at 4K but still within acceptable bounds for a 60 FPS target. The High and Ultra presets have no recorded minimum or maximum values, suggesting stable frame delivery.

At 1920x1080, the system shines: 158 FPS on Low, 112 FPS on Medium (96 min, 129 max), 100 FPS on High, and 87 FPS on Ultra. The Medium preset’s 33 FPS spread is the largest recorded, but the average remains well above the playable threshold. The lower resolutions show diminishing returns as the CPU’s performance ceiling is reached, but the frame rates remain consistently high.

Best Settings per Resolution

At 3840x2160, the best settings that maintain 60 FPS or above are Low, which averages 81 FPS. This is the only playable preset at this resolution. Moving to Medium drops to 57 FPS, which falls short of the 60 FPS target, so users must sacrifice visual quality to achieve smooth gameplay at 4K.

At 2560x1440, the Ultra preset averages 66 FPS, making it the most demanding playable option. This provides the best visual fidelity while staying above the 60 FPS threshold. Users who prefer higher frame rates can select High (76 FPS) or Medium (85 FPS) for additional headroom, but Ultra is the recommended choice for maximum quality.

At 1920x1080, the Ultra preset averages 87 FPS, which is not only playable but also leaves significant headroom above the 60 FPS target. This is the best possible settings configuration at this resolution, offering the full visual experience without compromising performance. The system has enough overhead to handle demanding scenes without dropping below the playable threshold.

FAQ

*Q: Can this system run Control at 4K with maximum settings?*

A: No. At 3840x2160 with Ultra settings, the average frame rate is 44 FPS, which is below the 60 FPS playable threshold. The highest playable preset at this resolution is Low, which averages 81 FPS.

Q: What is the best settings preset at 2560x1440?

A: The Ultra preset averages 66 FPS at 2560x1440, making it the most demanding preset that stays above 60 FPS. This provides the best visual quality while maintaining smooth gameplay.

Q: How much performance is lost when moving from 1080p to 1440p?

A: At Low settings, the frame rate drops from 158 FPS at 1920x1080 to 120 FPS at 2560x1440, a loss of 38 FPS. At Ultra settings, the drop is from 87 FPS to 66 FPS, a loss of 21 FPS.

Q: Which component is the bottleneck at 4K resolution?

A: The GPU is the limiting factor at 3840x2160. The RTX 3070’s frame rates drop significantly at this resolution, while the CPU’s performance remains strong, indicating that the graphics card cannot keep up with the processing demand.

Q: Are there any settings where the system falls below 60 FPS at 1440p?

A: No. All four presets at 2560x1440 average above 60 FPS, with the lowest being Ultra at 66 FPS. This means the system can handle any settings combination at this resolution without dropping below the playable threshold.

Q: Does the CPU’s performance affect frame rates at lower resolutions?

A: Yes, particularly at 1920x1080. The CPU’s high single-thread score of 7303 in Cinebench R23 helps maintain high frame rates at 1080p, where the GPU has less work to do. The system achieves 158 FPS on Low settings, indicating the CPU can handle high frame rate scenarios.