Control

The Intel Core Ultra 9 290K Plus paired with the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4060 delivers a highly playable experience in Control, though the GPU becomes the decisive factor as resolution climbs. Benchmark data indicates that this combo clears the 60 FPS threshold at 1080p and 1440p with room to spare, while 4K requires dropping to Low settings to maintain smooth performance. The following analysis breaks down the measured FPS data, component roles, and alternative hardware that would behave similarly.

FAQ

*Q: Can this PC run Control at 4K resolution?*

A: Yes, but only at Low settings. The measured average FPS at 3840x2160 on Low is 71 FPS, which exceeds the playable threshold of 60 FPS. High, Medium, and Ultra presets at 4K all fall below 60 FPS, with averages of 45, 51, and 39 FPS respectively.

Q: What is the best preset for 1440p gaming?

A: High settings provide the best visual quality while maintaining playability. At 2560x1440, the High preset averages 67 FPS. Medium averages 75 FPS and Low averages 106 FPS, but High offers the highest fidelity among playable options.

Q: Does the RTX 4060 bottleneck the Core Ultra 9 290K Plus in this game?

A: The data suggests the GPU is the limiting factor at higher resolutions. The CPU's benchmark scores are strong—its Cinebench R23 multi-core score is 51731 and it sits in the 96th percentile among all CPUs—but the RTX 4060's 61st percentile GPU ranking and its nearest rival being the AMD Radeon HD 7790 indicate that graphical performance caps the system's output.

Q: What is the frame rate difference between Low and Ultra at 1080p?

A: At 1920x1080, the Low preset averages 140 FPS, while Ultra averages 77 FPS. This represents a 63 FPS gap, or roughly 45% lower performance at Ultra compared to Low. Medium sits between them at 99 FPS.

*Q: Is the RTX 4060's 8 GB VRAM sufficient for Control?*

A: The measured data shows no VRAM-related failures or stutters in the provided FPS readings. The card's memory bandwidth of 272.0 GB/s and 8 GB GDDR6 memory proved adequate across all tested resolutions and presets, with the lowest average FPS being 39 at 4K Ultra.

Q: How does this combo rank among all tested configurations?

A: This pairing ranks 2008 out of 3720 tested combos for this game. This places it in the lower-middle portion of the performance distribution, which aligns with the GPU's modest 61st percentile ranking among all GPUs.

CPU and GPU Roles

The data reveals a clear division of labor between the Intel Core Ultra 9 290K Plus and the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4060. At 1080p, the CPU's computational strength dominates. The processor's single-thread performance—a Cinebench R23 single-core score of 7303 and a PassMark single-thread score of 4823—allows the GPU to stretch its legs. The result is a massive range of 140 FPS at Low to 77 FPS at Ultra, with the GPU handling the graphical load efficiently.

As resolution increases, the GPU's role becomes disproportionately important. Moving from 1080p to 1440p on the High preset drops the average FPS from 88 to 67, a 24% reduction. The jump from 1440p to 4K on High is even steeper: 67 FPS down to 45 FPS, a 33% loss. This scaling pattern indicates that the RTX 4060's fill rate and memory bandwidth—118.1 GPixel/s and 272.0 GB/s respectively—are the binding constraints at higher pixel counts.

The CPU's headroom becomes evident when examining the Low preset scaling. At 1080p Low, the system hits 140 FPS. At 1440p Low, it still manages 106 FPS. Even at 4K Low, the combo produces 71 FPS. The Core Ultra 9's 24 cores and 24 threads, combined with its 36 MB of L3 cache, ensure that frame pacing remains consistent regardless of resolution. The GPU, however, cannot maintain this consistency when preset quality rises, particularly at 4K where Ultra averages just 39 FPS.

The medium preset data provides additional insight. At 1080p Medium, the system averages 99 FPS with min/max of 84/114 FPS. At 1440p Medium, the average falls to 75 FPS with min/max of 64/86 FPS. At 4K Medium, the average drops to 51 FPS with min/max of 43/58 FPS. This 1.3x performance penalty from 1080p to 1440p, and another 1.47x penalty from 1440p to 4K, underscores that the GPU's 128-bit memory bus and 8 GB frame buffer are the primary scalability limiters.

Similar Performance Alternatives

The nearest rivals for the Intel Core Ultra 9 290K Plus provide context for its computational ceiling. The Intel Core Ultra 9 285K is the closest match, with an average benchmark score of 83807 versus the 290K Plus's 84003, a mere 0.2% difference. This means a system using the 285K would produce nearly identical FPS results in Control, assuming the same RTX 4060. The AMD EPYC 4584PX and AMD EPYC 9135 are also within 1.1% and 1.2% of the 290K Plus's score, respectively, though these server-class chips are unlikely to appear in gaming builds. The AMD EPYC 7F72 is slightly faster at 85072, a -1.3% delta, but again represents a different market segment.

For the GPU, the nearest rivals are notably older or lower-tier parts. The AMD Radeon HD 7790 has an average score of 17666, just 0.2% behind the RTX 4060's 17639. The AMD Radeon 780M integrated graphics scores 17588, a 0.3% gap. The AMD Radeon Pro 560 and Pro 460 round out the list with scores of 17551 and 17509, deltas of 0.5% and 0.7% respectively. These comparisons suggest that while the RTX 4060's absolute performance is modest, it occupies a specific performance tier where minor clock or core variations produce negligible differences in Control.

In practical terms, swapping the 290K Plus for the 285K would yield no observable frame rate change. Swapping the RTX 4060 for an HD 7790, however, would likely produce similar average FPS but with less consistent frame times, given the HD 7790's older architecture and lack of modern features like ray tracing acceleration. The RTX 4060's Ada Lovelace architecture and 24 RT cores provide capabilities that these rivals lack, even if raw rasterization scores are comparable.

How This Combo Ranks

This specific combination of Intel Core Ultra 9 290K Plus and NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4060 ranks 2008 out of 3720 tested combos for Control. This places it in the 46th percentile of all tested configurations, meaning roughly 54% of tested combos perform better. The rank reflects the significant imbalance between the CPU and GPU: the processor sits in the 96th percentile among all CPUs, while the graphics card is in the 61st percentile among all GPUs.

The combo's rank is heavily influenced by the GPU's ceiling. The RTX 4060's average benchmark score of 17639 and its 61st percentile ranking indicate that many other GPUs outperform it, which naturally pushes this combo down the list. However, the rank also shows that the CPU is not the limiting factor. Systems with weaker CPUs but stronger GPUs would likely rank higher, as Control scales more with graphical hardware than with processor speed at the resolutions tested.

The rank of 2008 out of 3720 is consistent with the 4K performance data. At 4K Ultra, the combo produces 39 FPS, which is below the 60 FPS playable threshold. At 4K High, it produces 45 FPS. Only at 4K Low does it reach 71 FPS. These numbers align with a combo ranked in the lower half, as higher-ranked configurations would likely maintain 60+ FPS at 4K on higher presets.

The Verdict

Yes, this PC can run Control successfully, but the playable settings vary significantly by resolution. At 1920x1080, all four presets—Low, Medium, High, and Ultra—are playable, with average FPS of 140, 99, 88, and 77 respectively. At 2560x1440, the Low, Medium, and High presets are playable, averaging 106, 75, and 67 FPS, but Ultra falls short at 58 FPS. At 3840x2160, only Low is playable, averaging 71 FPS; Medium, High, and Ultra all fall below the 60 FPS threshold with averages of 51, 45, and 39 FPS.

The verdict data confirms that this system excels at 1080p and handles 1440p well, but 4K gaming requires significant compromises. The best settings per resolution are Ultra at 1080p (77 FPS), High at 1440p (67 FPS), and Low at 4K (71 FPS). For players prioritizing visual fidelity, 1080p Ultra offers the complete experience. For those with 1440p displays, High provides a good balance. At 4K, the Low preset is the only way to maintain smooth gameplay, though the 71 FPS average suggests some headroom for custom settings between Low and Medium.

Best Settings per Resolution

At 3840x2160, the most demanding preset that maintains at least 60 FPS is Low, with an average of 71 FPS. The Medium preset averages 51 FPS, which is 9 FPS below the playable threshold, making it unsuitable. High and Ultra are progressively worse at 45 and 39 FPS.

At 2560x1440, the best playable preset is High, averaging 67 FPS. This is the highest quality option that stays above 60 FPS. The Medium preset averages 75 FPS and Low averages 106 FPS, both playable, but High offers superior visuals while still maintaining a 7 FPS margin above the threshold. Ultra averages 58 FPS, missing the threshold by 2 FPS.

At 1920x1080, the best playable preset is Ultra, with an average of 77 FPS. This provides the highest fidelity with a comfortable 17 FPS margin above the 60 FPS threshold. High averages 88 FPS, Medium 99 FPS, and Low 140 FPS, all playable, but Ultra is the optimal choice for visual quality without sacrificing smoothness.

Measured FPS Breakdown

At 3840x2160, the measured frame rates show a clear degradation as settings increase. Low averages 71 FPS. Medium averages 51 FPS with a minimum of 43 and maximum of 58. High averages 45 FPS. Ultra averages 39 FPS. The min/max data for Medium shows a 15 FPS spread, indicating some frame time variance even at this resolution.

At 2560x1440, performance is more consistent. Low averages 106 FPS. Medium averages 75 FPS with a minimum of 64 and maximum of 86, a 22 FPS spread. High averages 67 FPS. Ultra averages 58 FPS, just 2 FPS below the playable threshold.

At 1920x1080, the system performs best. Low averages 140 FPS. Medium averages 99 FPS with a minimum of 84 and maximum of 114, a 30 FPS spread that suggests occasional dips but generally smooth gameplay. High averages 88 FPS. Ultra averages 77 FPS, the highest preset tested at this resolution.

The min/max data points are only provided for Medium settings across all resolutions. At 1080p Medium, the 84 FPS minimum still exceeds the 60 FPS threshold. At 1440p Medium, the 64 FPS minimum barely clears it. At 4K Medium, the 43 FPS minimum falls well short, confirming that this preset is not viable at 4K. The absence of min/max data for other presets limits deeper analysis, but the average FPS values provide sufficient evidence for the verdicts above.