Control

Control is a demanding action-adventure title, and the combination of the AMD Ryzen 5 3600 with the Intel Arc B370 produces a very specific performance profile. The data shows a system that is firmly entry-level for this game, requiring careful settings management to achieve playable frame rates. The measured results are clear: this pairing is not designed for high-refresh-rate or high-resolution gaming in Control, but it can deliver a stable experience at 1080p with the right compromises.

Settings Recommendations

The measured FPS data across all resolutions and presets paints a clear picture: the Low preset is the only consistently playable option for this hardware combination. At 1920x1080, the Low preset delivers an average of 59 FPS, which is the only configuration in the entire dataset that approaches the 60 FPS target. This is the baseline experience. Moving to Medium at 1080p drops the average to 42 FPS, which is still technically playable but represents a 29% performance hit for visual improvements that this GPU may struggle to justify. The High preset at 1080p further reduces the average to 37 FPS, and Ultra bottoms out at 32 FPS.

For a smoother experience, the data strongly suggests prioritizing frame rate over visual fidelity. The jump from Low to Medium at 1080p costs 17 FPS on average, which is a significant loss. If you are sensitive to frame pacing or play fast-paced combat sequences, the Low preset is the safest choice. The game's physics and particle effects are core to its combat, and maintaining a higher frame rate will make those systems feel more responsive.

At 2560x1440, the situation becomes more challenging. The Low preset averages 45 FPS, which is the only remotely playable option at this resolution. Medium drops to 32 FPS, High to 28 FPS, and Ultra to 25 FPS. While 45 FPS is acceptable for a slower-paced exploration game, it will feel less fluid during intense firefights. The benchmark results indicate that 1440p should only be considered with the Low preset, and even then, expect noticeable dips in demanding scenes.

The 3840x2160 results are effectively unplayable. The best average is 30 FPS on Low, with Medium at 21 FPS, High at 19 FPS, and Ultra at 17 FPS. These numbers are below the threshold for a comfortable gaming experience. The recommendation is to avoid 4K entirely with this setup.

The optimal strategy based on the measured data is to use the Low preset at 1920x1080. This provides the best balance of playability and visual clarity. If you are willing to tolerate a lower frame rate for better visuals, Medium at 1080p is the secondary option, but the performance cost is substantial. The data does not support using High or Ultra presets at any resolution, as they all result in average frame rates below 40 FPS, which is a poor experience for this genre.

FAQ

Q: Can this system run Control at 60 FPS?

A: Yes, but only at 1920x1080 with the Low preset, which averages 59 FPS. No other resolution or settings combination in the measured data reaches 60 FPS.

Q: What is the best resolution for this CPU and GPU combo?

A: Based on the measured FPS, 1920x1080 is the only resolution that offers a consistently playable experience. At 1080p, the Low preset hits 59 FPS, while the next best option is 2560x1440 on Low at 45 FPS.

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

A: On the Low preset, the average frame rate drops from 59 FPS at 1080p to 45 FPS at 1440p, a decrease of 14 FPS. On the Medium preset, it drops from 42 FPS to 32 FPS, a decrease of 10 FPS.

Q: Is the Ultra preset usable at any resolution?

A: No. The highest average FPS for the Ultra preset is 32 FPS at 1920x1080. At 1440p it drops to 25 FPS, and at 4K it is only 17 FPS. These are all below the playable threshold.

Q: Does the data show a significant difference between High and Ultra settings?

A: Yes, but the differences are small in absolute terms. At 1080p, High averages 37 FPS and Ultra averages 32 FPS, a 5 FPS difference. At 1440p, the difference is 3 FPS (28 vs 25), and at 4K it is 2 FPS (19 vs 17).

Q: What is the performance ranking of this specific hardware combination?

A: The combo rank for Control is 2657 out of 2888 measured combinations. This places it in the bottom 8% of all tested systems, indicating that it is a low-performance configuration for this specific game.

GPU Role

The Intel Arc B370 is the primary performance bottleneck in this configuration. Its benchmark results are exceptionally low, with a percentile ranking of 5 against all GPUs. In the 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 test, it scores 1184, placing it in the same performance bracket as legacy parts like the ATI Mobility Radeon HD 5570 and the AMD Radeon HD 7650M. This context is crucial: the data shows the GPU is not capable of handling the graphical load of Control at higher settings.

The GPU's memory configuration is "System Shared," meaning it has no dedicated VRAM. This is a significant limitation for a game like Control, which is known for its detailed textures and complex environmental geometry. The reliance on system memory for graphics data will inherently limit texture streaming and can cause stuttering in areas with high asset density. The memory bandwidth is listed as "System Dependent," which means performance is tied to the speed of the system's DDR4 RAM.

Clock speeds are present in the data, with a base clock of 300 MHz and a boost clock of 2400 MHz. However, these numbers are less relevant than the raw compute metrics. The GPU has 1280 shading units, 40 TMUs, and 20 ROPs. This configuration produces a pixel rate of 48.00 GPixel/s and a texture rate of 96.00 GTexel/s. The FP32 performance is 6.144 TFLOPS. These numbers are low for a modern gaming GPU, and the measured FPS results confirm this.

The data indicates that the GPU's performance is insufficient for the game's demands at high resolutions. The 4K results are particularly telling, with the Ultra preset averaging 17 FPS. This is not a matter of settings tuning; the GPU simply lacks the raw throughput to render Control at 4K. Even at 1080p, the GPU struggles to maintain high frame rates on higher presets, suggesting that the visual features enabled by those presets (likely including ray tracing or advanced post-processing) are too heavy for the 1280 shading units to handle efficiently.

Measured FPS Breakdown

The dataset provides a complete matrix of average FPS across four resolutions and four settings presets. The results are as follows:

At 1920x1080, the Low preset achieves an average of 59 FPS. The Medium preset drops to 42 FPS, with a minimum of 36 and a maximum of 48. High averages 37 FPS, and Ultra averages 32 FPS. This shows a clear linear degradation as settings increase, with a 27 FPS difference between Low and Ultra.

At 2560x1440, the Low preset averages 45 FPS. Medium averages 32 FPS, with a minimum of 27 and a maximum of 37. High averages 28 FPS, and Ultra averages 25 FPS. The gap between Low and Ultra is 20 FPS, showing a similar pattern to 1080p but with a lower ceiling.

At 3840x2160, the Low preset averages 30 FPS. Medium averages 21 FPS, with a minimum of 18 and a maximum of 25. High averages 19 FPS, and Ultra averages 17 FPS. The difference between Low and Ultra is 13 FPS, but all of these values are below playable thresholds.

The data shows that the relative performance drop from Low to Ultra is consistent across resolutions. At 1080p, Ultra is 46% slower than Low. At 1440p, Ultra is 44% slower. At 4K, Ultra is 43% slower. This suggests that the settings presets scale similarly regardless of resolution, which points to a GPU-bound scenario across the board.

The minimum FPS data points for the Medium preset provide insight into frame stability. At 1080p, the minimum is 36 FPS, which is 14% lower than the average. At 1440p, the minimum is 27 FPS, a 16% drop from the average. At 4K, the minimum is 18 FPS, a 14% drop. This indicates that the frame pacing is relatively stable, without severe hitches, but the overall performance is simply too low for a smooth experience.

Resolution Scaling

The FPS scaling from 1080p to 4K demonstrates that the system is heavily GPU-limited. On the Low preset, the average FPS drops from 59 at 1080p to 45 at 1440p, a 24% reduction, and then to 30 at 4K, a further 33% reduction. This is a classic sign of a GPU that cannot handle the increasing pixel count.

On the Medium preset, the FPS drops from 42 at 1080p to 32 at 1440p (24% decrease) and then to 21 at 4K (34% decrease). This pattern is nearly identical to Low, reinforcing that the GPU's fillrate and shading capacity are the limiting factors. The CPU, an AMD Ryzen 5 3600 with 6 cores and 12 threads, is not being stressed by these resolutions; the bottleneck is entirely on the graphics side.

The fact that the percentage drop from 1080p to 1440p is so consistent (around 24%) suggests that the GPU is scaling linearly with the pixel count. This is expected for a GPU that is saturated. If the CPU were the bottleneck, we would expect to see a smaller performance difference between 1080p and 1440p, as the CPU workload would remain similar. The data does not show this; the FPS drops are directly proportional to the resolution increase.

The jump from 1440p to 4K is even steeper, with a 33-34% drop in FPS across all settings. This is because 4K has 2.25 times the pixels of 1440p, and the GPU is unable to maintain its throughput at that density. The results indicate that for this hardware, 1080p is the only resolution that provides a usable frame rate, and even then, only on the Low preset. The scaling analysis confirms that any attempt to play at higher resolutions will be met with significant performance degradation.

CPU Role

The AMD Ryzen 5 3600 is a capable mid-range processor, but its role in this pairing is secondary to the GPU's limitations. The CPU has 6 cores and 12 threads, with a base clock of 3.60 GHz and a boost clock of 4.20 GHz. In synthetic benchmarks, it scores 15045 in Cinebench R23 multicore and 2124 in single-core. This places it at the 71st percentile of all CPUs, with an average benchmark score of 17035. Its nearest rivals include the Intel Core i5-11400 and the Intel Core i7-1260P, with negligible performance deltas of -0.2% and 0.2%, respectively.

The CPU's specifications are more than sufficient for a game like Control. The 12 threads provide ample headroom for the game's physics and AI systems. The data indicates that the CPU is not the bottleneck in this system. Evidence for this comes from the FPS scaling: if the CPU were the limiting factor, we would see a smaller difference between 1080p and 4K performance. Instead, the FPS drops significantly with each resolution increase, which is a hallmark of a GPU-bound scenario.

The CPU's memory bandwidth is 51.2 GB/s, which is standard for a dual-channel DDR4 setup. This is relevant because the Intel Arc B370 uses "System Shared" memory, meaning it relies on the same DDR4 memory pool as the CPU. This shared bandwidth could become a point of contention in memory-intensive scenes, but the benchmark results do not show any unusual stuttering or frame drops that would indicate a severe bottleneck.

The Ryzen 5 3600's performance is well-documented. Its Cinebench R20 multicore score of 6318 and single-core score of 892 are solid for its generation. In the context of Control, these scores are more than adequate to feed the GPU with draw calls and game logic. The measured FPS data shows that the system's performance is consistently low across all settings, which would not be the case if the CPU were the limiting factor. A stronger CPU would not improve the frame rates in this configuration; the GPU is the definitive constraint.