Control

Control with the AMD Ryzen 5 9600X and Intel Arc B370 presents a clear case of a high-end desktop CPU paired with a low-power integrated-class GPU. The measured frame rates across all resolutions and settings are consistently low, indicating that this configuration is fundamentally GPU-limited in this title. The data shows a system where the processor's substantial multi-threading capabilities are largely held in reserve, while the graphics solution struggles to maintain playable frame rates at any setting above 1080p Low.

CPU Role — cores, clocks, and how they relate to this game's results

The AMD Ryzen 5 9600X is a 6-core, 12-thread processor based on the Zen 5 architecture, operating with a base clock of 3.90 GHz and a boost clock of 5.40 GHz. In the broader context of all tested CPUs, it sits in the 81st percentile, with an average benchmark score of 29713. This places it in a competitive position, with its nearest rivals showing minuscule performance deltas; for instance, it is 0.2% ahead of the AMD Ryzen 7 PRO 5755GE, 0.5% behind the AMD Ryzen 7 7840H, and 0.8% behind the AMD Ryzen 7 8845HS. The processor's compute potential is well-documented in its multi-threaded scores, such as a Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 17528.5 and a Geekbench multi-core score of 14438. Its single-thread performance is equally strong, with a Cinebench R23 single-core score of 2183.5.

However, these impressive specifications do not translate into high frame rates in Control with this specific GPU. The measured FPS data reveals a stark bottleneck. At 1080p Low, the system achieves an average of 59 FPS, which is the highest result in the entire dataset. This suggests that even at the lowest graphical load, the GPU is barely able to keep pace with the CPU's frame generation requests. When the resolution increases to 1440p Low, the average FPS drops to 45, and at 4K Low, it falls to 30. This pattern is typical of a GPU bottleneck, where the graphics processor's fill rate and shading capabilities are the limiting factors, not the CPU's ability to process game logic or draw calls.

The CPU's role in this pairing is to provide a stable foundation, ensuring that it is not the source of frame time inconsistencies. The data indicates it is more than capable of this task. The 12 threads and high boost clock are likely sufficient to handle Control's physics and AI systems without issue. The problem is that the Intel Arc B370, with its low performance percentile, simply cannot transform the CPU's output into high-resolution frames. The result is a system where the Ryzen 5 9600X is effectively idling in terms of gaming workload, waiting for the GPU to catch up. The benchmark results confirm that for this game, upgrading the GPU would yield a far more significant performance increase than any CPU change.

GPU Role — VRAM, clocks, and how they relate to this game's results

The Intel Arc B370 is a mobile-oriented graphics processor based on the Xe3-LPG architecture, built on a 3 nm process. Its performance profile is the primary constraint in this configuration. It sits in the 5th percentile of all GPUs, with an average benchmark score of 1184 from the 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 test. Its closest rivals, such as the ATI Mobility Radeon HD 5570 and the ATI Radeon HD 5770, have average scores of 1186 and 1190, respectively, placing the Arc B370 within 0.2% and 0.5% of those older parts. This contextualizes its performance as being in the entry-level or legacy tier of graphics hardware.

The GPU's memory configuration is "System Shared," meaning it has no dedicated VRAM and relies on the system's DDR5 memory. The memory bandwidth is described as "System Dependent," which in a dual-channel configuration is likely a significant bottleneck for a game like Control, which is known for its high-resolution textures and complex visual effects. The GPU operates at a base clock of 300 MHz and boosts to 2400 MHz, with a pixel rate of 48.00 GPixel/s and a texture rate of 96.00 GTexel/s. These specifications, while clearly defined, are insufficient for demanding 3D workloads at high resolutions.

This is directly reflected in the measured FPS data. At 1080p with Medium settings, the average frame rate is 42 FPS, with a minimum of 36 and a maximum of 48. This is the only setting where the system approaches a playable experience, but it is still below the 60 FPS target most would prefer. At 4K Ultra, the average FPS plummets to 17, which is effectively a slideshow. The data shows a clear linear relationship between graphical load and performance, with no evidence of the CPU becoming a limiting factor. The GPU's low fill rate and shared memory bandwidth are the clear culprits for the sub-60 FPS results across the board. The Arc B370 is a capable part for basic tasks, but it is not designed for the graphical demands of Control at high settings.

FAQ

Q: What is the highest average frame rate this system can achieve in Control?

A: The highest average frame rate recorded is 59 FPS, which is achieved at 1920x1080 with Low settings. This is the only configuration in the measured data that approaches a standard 60 FPS target.

Q: How does the CPU's performance compare to its nearest rivals?

A: The AMD Ryzen 5 9600X has an average benchmark score of 29713. It is 0.2% faster than the AMD Ryzen 7 PRO 5755GE, 0.5% slower than the AMD Ryzen 7 7840H, and 0.6% slower than the AMD Ryzen 7 5800XT.

Q: Is the GPU or CPU the main bottleneck in this system for Control?

A: The data strongly indicates a GPU bottleneck. The Intel Arc B370 is in the 5th percentile of all GPUs, while the CPU is in the 81st percentile. Frame rates drop significantly as resolution and settings increase, a classic sign of graphics processing limitations.

Q: What is the average frame rate at 1440p with Medium settings?

A: At 2560x1440 with Medium settings, the system achieves an average of 32 FPS, with a minimum of 27 FPS and a maximum of 37 FPS.

Q: How does the Intel Arc B370's benchmark score compare to its nearest rival?

A: The Intel Arc B370 has a 3DMark Steel Nomad score of 1184. Its closest rival, the ATI Mobility Radeon HD 5570, scores 1186, making the Arc B370 0.2% slower. It is also 0.5% slower than the ATI Radeon HD 5770.

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

A: At 1920x1080, the average frame rate drops from 59 FPS on Low settings to 32 FPS on Ultra settings, a decrease of 27 FPS.

Measured FPS Breakdown — resolution by resolution, settings by settings, exact numbers

The measured FPS data provides a comprehensive view of the system's performance across a matrix of resolutions and settings. The results are consistently low, with the system failing to reach 60 FPS in any configuration except for one. The following breakdown details the exact numbers for each measured scenario.

At 1920x1080, the lowest resolution tested, the system performs at its best. On Low settings, it achieves an average of 59 FPS. Moving to Medium settings, the average drops to 42 FPS, with a minimum of 36 FPS and a maximum of 48 FPS. High settings produce an average of 37 FPS. Ultra settings yield the lowest result at this resolution, with an average of 32 FPS. This demonstrates a 27 FPS swing from the lowest to the highest quality preset.

At 2560x1440, the performance decreases further. The Low preset averages 45 FPS. Medium settings average 32 FPS, with a minimum of 27 FPS and a maximum of 37 FPS. High settings produce an average of 28 FPS. The Ultra preset drops to an average of 25 FPS. The data shows a similar relative drop between settings, but the absolute values are lower than at 1080p.

At 3840x2160, the system's performance becomes largely unplayable. Low settings average 30 FPS. Medium settings average 21 FPS, with a minimum of 18 FPS and a maximum of 25 FPS. High settings produce an average of 19 FPS. Ultra settings are the lowest of all, with an average of 17 FPS. The frame rates at this resolution are consistently below 30 FPS, indicating a severe GPU limitation. The minimum FPS values, where available, also show that frame pacing is inconsistent, with drops to 18 FPS and 27 FPS in the Medium preset at 4K and 1440p, respectively.

Resolution Scaling — how FPS drops from 1080p to 4K and what it says about the limiting component

The scaling of frame rates from 1080p to 4K provides clear evidence of a GPU-bound system. At Low settings, the average frame rate drops from 59 FPS at 1080p to 45 FPS at 1440p, a 23.7% decrease. When scaling from 1440p to 4K, the average drops from 45 FPS to 30 FPS, a 33.3% decrease. The cumulative drop from 1080p Low to 4K Low is from 59 to 30 FPS, a reduction of 49.2%. This near-halving of performance when moving to 4K indicates that the GPU's fill rate and memory bandwidth are being saturated.

The trend is even more pronounced at higher settings. At Ultra settings, the average frame rate drops from 32 FPS at 1080p to 25 FPS at 1440p, a 21.9% decrease. From 1440p to 4K, it drops from 25 FPS to 17 FPS, a 32% decrease. The drop from 1080p Ultra to 4K Ultra is from 32 to 17 FPS, a 46.9% reduction. This consistent pattern of significant frame rate loss with increasing resolution is a definitive indicator that the graphics processor is the limiting component.

If the CPU were the bottleneck, the frame rates would be more consistent across resolutions, as the CPU's workload (game logic, physics) does not scale with pixel count. The fact that performance degrades so sharply as resolution increases shows that the Intel Arc B370 is working at its absolute limit. The system's shared memory configuration likely exacerbates this, as the GPU's need for memory bandwidth grows with resolution, competing with the CPU for the same system memory resources. The data conclusively shows that this is a GPU-limited scenario, and the CPU's high performance percentile is not a factor in these results.

Settings Recommendations — which preset gives the best experience per the measured rows

Based on the measured FPS data, the only playable experience is at 1920x1080 with Low settings, which averages 59 FPS. This is the only configuration that approaches a standard 60 FPS target. While the frame rate is not perfectly stable, it is the only setting where the game is smooth enough for action-oriented gameplay. The 1080p Medium preset, averaging 42 FPS, is borderline, but the minimum of 36 FPS suggests potential for noticeable stutter during intense scenes. It is a viable option for those who prioritize visual quality over a locked 60 FPS, but the data suggests it is not an ideal experience.

For users with a 1440p monitor, the Low preset is the only viable option, with an average of 45 FPS. This is still below 60 FPS but is more consistent than the Medium preset, which drops to an average of 32 FPS and a minimum of 27 FPS. The High and Ultra presets at 1440p are not recommended, as they produce averages below 30 FPS. At 4K, the data shows that no setting provides a playable experience. Even Low settings average only 30 FPS, with Medium, High, and Ultra all averaging below 22 FPS. The system is not suited for 4K gaming in Control.

The recommendation is to run the game at 1920x1080 with Low settings to achieve the best balance of smoothness and visual fidelity this hardware allows. If a higher resolution is required, the Low preset remains the best choice, but users should be prepared for a sub-60 FPS experience. The Ultra preset should be avoided entirely, as it provides a marginal visual improvement over High while significantly reducing frame rates. The data suggests that the game's graphical settings have a more profound impact on performance than resolution, but the GPU's limitations are so severe that even the lowest settings at high resolutions fail to deliver a smooth experience.