Control

The data for Control shows a system built around the Intel Core Ultra 9 290K Plus and the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4080 delivering a decisive performance margin across all tested resolutions. The measured frames per second (FPS) indicate that this combination is not merely capable of running the game, but does so with substantial headroom, allowing for maximum graphical settings even at 4K. The following analysis breaks down the benchmark results by resolution, examines the balance between CPU and GPU load, and provides specific recommendations based on the measured data.

Measured FPS Breakdown

The benchmark results for Control were captured at three resolutions—1920x1080, 2560x1440, and 3840x2160—each tested across four quality presets: Low, Medium, High, and Ultra. The data provides a clear picture of performance scaling.

At 1920x1080, the system operates at exceptionally high frame rates. The Low preset yields an average of 246 FPS. Moving to Medium, the average drops to 175 FPS, with a minimum of 149 FPS and a maximum of 201 FPS. The High preset produces an average of 156 FPS. The most demanding Ultra preset still delivers an average of 135 FPS. This resolution is clearly CPU-bound at the lower presets, as the frame rates exceed what the GPU can typically render, but the Ultra preset shows the GPU beginning to take on more load.

Stepping up to 2560x1440, the frame rates remain very high. The Low preset averages 186 FPS. The Medium setting delivers an average of 132 FPS, with a range between 113 FPS (minimum) and 152 FPS (maximum). High produces an average of 118 FPS. The Ultra preset maintains an average of 102 FPS. The scaling from 1080p to 1440p shows a predictable decline in average FPS across all presets, with the gap between Low and Ultra narrowing as the resolution increases, indicating a shift in bottleneck.

At 3840x2160, the performance is still robust. The Low preset averages 126 FPS. The Medium preset shows an average of 89 FPS, with a minimum of 76 FPS and a maximum of 103 FPS. High settings produce an average of 79 FPS. The Ultra preset, the most visually demanding, still achieves an average of 69 FPS. This is the only resolution where the average FPS at Ultra falls below the 100 FPS mark, but it remains comfortably above the 60 FPS playable threshold.

The data shows a consistent pattern: the delta between the Low and Ultra presets expands with resolution. At 1080p, the difference is 111 FPS (246 vs 135). At 1440p, the difference is 84 FPS (186 vs 102). At 4K, the difference shrinks to 57 FPS (126 vs 69). This compression of the FPS range at higher resolutions is a classic sign of an increasing GPU bottleneck.

CPU and GPU Roles

The benchmark data reveals a clear shift in workload distribution between the Intel Core Ultra 9 290K Plus and the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4080 as resolution and settings change.

At 1920x1080, the CPU is the primary performance limiter. The extremely high frame rates, particularly at Low (246 FPS) and Medium (175 FPS), suggest that the RTX 4080 is capable of rendering far more frames than the CPU can feed it. The scaling from Medium to High (175 to 156 FPS) is modest, and the drop from High to Ultra (156 to 135 FPS) is also relatively small, indicating that the CPU's single-thread performance is the ceiling for these settings. The Core Ultra 9 290K Plus, with its boost clock of 5.80 GHz, is a strong performer, but it still limits the system at this resolution.

Moving to 2560x1440, the balance begins to tip. The frame rates are still high, but the gap between presets widens, suggesting the GPU is starting to become more relevant. The drop from Low (186 FPS) to Medium (132 FPS) is a 29% reduction, which is more pronounced than the 19% drop seen at 1080p. This indicates that the RTX 4080 is now handling a heavier pixel load, and its performance characteristics are becoming more visible. The CPU is still likely a factor, but the GPU is no longer idle.

At 3840x2160, the GPU becomes the dominant component. The frame rates scale more predictably with the preset, and the absolute numbers are lower across the board. The difference between Low (126 FPS) and Ultra (69 FPS) is a 45% reduction, showing that the rendering workload is now squarely on the RTX 4080. The CPU's role diminishes, and the system behaves like a GPU-bound configuration. The 16 GB of GDDR6X memory and 716.8 GB/s bandwidth of the RTX 4080 are sufficient to handle the 4K textures and effects without becoming a separate bottleneck.

The scaling between 1080p and 4K reinforces this analysis. At Low settings, the frame rate drops from 246 FPS to 126 FPS (a 49% reduction), while at Ultra, it drops from 135 FPS to 69 FPS (a 49% reduction). This proportional scaling across all presets at higher resolutions further confirms that the GPU is the limiting factor at 4K, whereas the CPU is more influential at 1080p with lower graphical loads.

Best Settings per Resolution

The playable threshold for this analysis is 60 FPS. Based on the measured data, the system can run the game at maximum visual quality at every resolution tested.

At 1920x1080, the Ultra preset delivers an average of 135 FPS. This is the most demanding setting available, and it is the recommended choice. There is no need to compromise on visual fidelity, as the frame rate is more than double the playable threshold.

At 2560x1440, the Ultra preset achieves an average of 102 FPS. This is again the best setting to use. The performance is smooth and well above the 60 FPS threshold, allowing for the full range of visual effects that the Ultra preset offers.

At 3840x2160, the Ultra preset maintains an average of 69 FPS. This is the most demanding scenario, and it still clears the 60 FPS mark. The average of 69 FPS indicates that there will be occasional dips below this value, but the minimum FPS data for Medium (76 FPS) suggests that the Ultra preset is likely to stay near the playable threshold. The verdict data confirms that all settings, including Ultra, are playable at 4K.

The data shows that the system never forces a user to drop below the Ultra preset to maintain playability. The only consideration is at 4K Ultra, where the 69 FPS average provides less headroom than at lower resolutions, but it is still within the playable range.

The Verdict

The benchmark results provide a definitive answer: this PC can run Control exceptionally well at all tested resolutions and settings. The verdictByResolution data confirms that every resolution—3840x2160, 2560x1440, and 1920x1080—has all four settings (Low, Medium, High, and Ultra) marked as playable.

At 3840x2160, the best settings are Ultra, with an average FPS of 69. This clears the 60 FPS threshold, although with less margin than at lower resolutions. The experience will be smooth, but users sensitive to frame drops may notice minor stutters during intense action sequences.

At 2560x1440, the best settings are also Ultra, with an average FPS of 102. This provides a comfortable buffer above the playable threshold, ensuring a consistently fluid experience even in the most demanding scenes.

At 1920x1080, the best settings are Ultra, with an average FPS of 135. This is far above the playable threshold, making the game exceptionally smooth. This configuration is ideal for high refresh rate monitors, as the frame rate is high enough to take advantage of displays with refresh rates up to 144 Hz.

The system's performance is strong enough to recommend it for any display configuration. The RTX 4080, with its 48.74 TFLOPS of FP32 performance, and the Core Ultra 9 290K Plus, with its 24 cores and 5.80 GHz boost clock, work together to deliver a top-tier experience. The only nuance is that at 4K Ultra, the frame rate is closer to the 60 FPS threshold, so users with 4K displays should be aware that the system is being pushed to its limits, but it does not fail the playability test.

Similar Performance Alternatives

For users considering this combination, the nearest rival hardware provides context for what else would perform at a similar level. The data from the CPU and GPU benchmarks can help identify components that would produce comparable results.

For the Intel Core Ultra 9 290K Plus, the nearest rival is the Intel Core Ultra 9 285K. The 285K has an average benchmark score of 83,807, which is a 0.2% difference from the 290K Plus's score of 84,003. This is a negligible performance gap, meaning the two CPUs would behave almost identically in Control. The next closest rivals are the AMD EPYC 4584PX (83,090, 1.1% lower) and the AMD EPYC 9135 (82,980, 1.2% lower). These server-class chips are not typical desktop alternatives, but they demonstrate that the 290K Plus is at the top of the consumer heap. The AMD EPYC 7F72 has a higher average score of 85,072, which is 1.3% higher, but this is also a server part.

For the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4080, the closest rival is the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4080 SUPER. The 4080 SUPER has an average benchmark score of 54,209, which is 0.1% higher than the 4080's 54,247. This is an insignificant difference, so users could expect nearly identical frame rates in Control. The AMD Radeon Pro W5700X (54,828, 1.1% higher) and the AMD Radeon RX 6750 GRE 12 GB (55,698, 2.6% higher) also score slightly higher on average, but they are not direct consumer gaming equivalents. The AMD Radeon 8060S (55,757, 2.7% higher) is another alternative, but its performance profile may differ in gaming scenarios.

In practice, choosing a 4080 SUPER over a 4080 would result in a nearly identical experience in Control, as the 0.1% benchmark difference is within the margin of error for real-world gaming tests. Similarly, the 285K over the 290K Plus would not change the outcome, as the 0.2% difference is negligible.

FAQ

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

A: Yes. At 3840x2160 resolution with the Ultra preset, the system achieves an average of 69 FPS, which is above the 60 FPS playable threshold.

Q: What is the best resolution and setting combination for the highest frame rates?

A: The highest average frame rate is achieved at 1920x1080 with the Low preset, which delivers 246 FPS. For a balance of quality and speed, the Ultra preset at 1080p still delivers 135 FPS.

Q: How does this system perform at 1440p compared to 4K?

A: At 2560x1440 with Ultra settings, the average FPS is 102. At 3840x2160 with Ultra settings, the average FPS drops to 69. The 1440p experience offers a 33 FPS advantage over 4K.

Q: Is the CPU or GPU more important for this game at 1080p?

A: At 1920x1080, the data indicates the CPU is the primary limiter, as frame rates at Low (246 FPS) are far higher than at Ultra (135 FPS), and the CPU is unable to maintain the highest possible frame rates across all settings.

Q: What is the minimum FPS recorded for this system in Control?

A: The lowest minimum FPS recorded is 76 FPS, which occurred at 3840x2160 resolution with Medium settings. This is still above the 60 FPS playable threshold.

Q: How does the RTX 4080 compare to the RTX 4080 SUPER for this game?

A: The RTX 4080 and RTX 4080 SUPER have a negligible performance difference, with the SUPER scoring 0.1% higher on average. In practice, frame rates in Control would be nearly identical.

How This Combo Ranks

The Intel Core Ultra 9 290K Plus and NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4080 combination has a combined rank of 241 out of 3,720 tested configurations in Control. This places it in the top 6.5% of all tested systems, indicating that it is a high-end setup.

This ranking is consistent with the measured FPS data. The system achieves playable frame rates at all settings and resolutions, including the most demanding 4K Ultra preset. The rank of 241 suggests that there are 240 other combinations that perform better, likely featuring even more powerful GPUs such as the RTX 4090 or newer flagship models. However, for the vast majority of the 3,720 tested combos, this system would outperform them.

The high ranking is supported by the individual component performance. The CPU's 96th percentile ranking among all CPUs and the GPU's 86th percentile ranking among all GPUs indicate that both are top-tier parts. The combination of a top-tier CPU and a high-end GPU results in a system that is well-balanced for demanding titles like Control, with neither component being a significant bottleneck at standard gaming resolutions. The data suggests that this combo is a strong choice for users who want to play Control at the highest settings without worrying about performance issues.