Control

Control is a demanding action-adventure title that stresses both processor and graphics hardware, and the combination of the AMD Ryzen 5 9600X with the Intel Arc B390 produces a severely unbalanced experience. Benchmark results show this pairing is firmly held back by the GPU, with performance that falls into the lowest tier of tested configurations. The data indicates that the Arc B390, an integrated-class part, cannot deliver playable frame rates at common resolutions, and the Ryzen 5 9600X’s considerable processing power goes largely unused. This analysis breaks down the measured FPS across resolutions and settings, explains the GPU’s limiting role, and provides clear recommendations based solely on the recorded figures.

Resolution Scaling

The measured FPS data reveals a stark and predictable decline as resolution increases, but the magnitude of that drop points directly at the Intel Arc B390 as the bottleneck. At 1080p with Low settings, the combo averages 65 FPS. Moving to 1440p Low drops that to 50 FPS, a 23% reduction. At 4K Low, the average falls to 33 FPS, which is a 49% drop from 1080p and a 34% drop from 1440p. This scaling pattern is characteristic of a GPU that is saturated even at the lowest settings; the pixel count increase overwhelms the limited shading units (1536) and ROPs (24).

The story is similar across all settings presets. For High settings, the averages are 41 FPS at 1080p, 31 FPS at 1440p (a 24% drop), and 21 FPS at 4K (a 49% drop from 1080p). Medium settings show 46 FPS at 1080p, 35 FPS at 1440p, and 24 FPS at 4K. Ultra settings, the most demanding preset, produce 36 FPS at 1080p, 27 FPS at 1440p, and just 18 FPS at 4K. In every case, the transition from 1440p to 4K causes a more significant relative loss than the step from 1080p to 1440p, which is typical for a GPU running out of memory bandwidth or raw compute headroom.

What does this say about the limiting component? The AMD Ryzen 5 9600X, with its 6 cores and 12 threads boosting up to 5.40 GHz, is not the constraint. If the CPU were the limit, the FPS would remain relatively flat across resolutions because the processor’s workload doesn’t scale with pixel count. Instead, the FPS collapses as resolution climbs, which is the signature of a GPU-bound scenario. The Arc B390’s memory is “System Shared,” and its bandwidth is “System Dependent,” meaning it relies on the system’s DDR5 memory rather than dedicated VRAM. This architecture is inherently bandwidth-limited, and the data confirms it: even at 1080p Low, the GPU only manages 65 FPS, a figure that would be modest for a dedicated graphics card but is the ceiling here.

The implication is clear. Users cannot mitigate the GPU bottleneck by lowering resolution alone. At 1080p Low, the system is already producing sub-60 FPS averages in the most demanding moments, and at 4K, every setting preset falls below 35 FPS. The scaling curve suggests that even at a hypothetical resolution below 1080p, the gains would be marginal because the GPU’s compute capabilities (7.680 TFLOPS FP32) and texture rate (120.0 GTexel/s) are simply insufficient for Control’s rendering demands.

How This Combo Ranks

In the global ranking of tested CPU-GPU combinations for Control, this pairing sits at rank 2551 out of 2888 combos. That places it in the bottom 12% of all tested configurations, a verdict that aligns with the absolute FPS numbers. The combo outperforms only 337 other pairings, meaning the vast majority of systems deliver better frame rates in this game. This rank is not a reflection of the CPU; the Ryzen 5 9600X is a strong processor, but when paired with the Arc B390, the GPU becomes the sole determinant of game performance.

To contextualize the GPU’s standing, the Intel Arc B390 holds a percentile of 9 against all GPUs, with an average benchmark score of 1482 in 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12. Its nearest rivals in that synthetic test are the NVIDIA GeForce GT 520MX (scoring 1463, a 1.3% delta), the NVIDIA GeForce 800M (1460, 1.5% delta), and the NVIDIA GeForce GT 625 OEM (1446, 2.5% delta). These are all entry-level or legacy mobile parts, which underscores how far the Arc B390 is from mainstream desktop GPUs. In Control, this translates to the measured FPS: the combo cannot sustain 60 FPS at any resolution or setting preset.

The CPU, by contrast, sits in the 81st percentile against all CPUs, with an average benchmark score of 29713. Its nearest rivals in synthetic CPU tests are the AMD Ryzen 7 PRO 5755GE (29656, 0.2% delta), the AMD Ryzen 7 7840H (29868, -0.5% delta), and the AMD Ryzen 7 5800XT (29879, -0.6% delta). These are all competitive mid-range and upper-mid-range parts, showing that the Ryzen 5 9600X has ample compute headroom for gaming. The disparity between the CPU’s high percentile (81) and the GPU’s low percentile (9) is the core issue. The data shows a massive imbalance: a top-tier processor paired with a bottom-tier graphics solution.

The combo rank of 2551 is particularly telling when you consider that many combos with weaker CPUs but stronger GPUs would rank higher because Control is far more sensitive to GPU performance. The measured FPS at 1080p Low (65 FPS) is below what many dedicated GPUs from prior generations would achieve, and the 4K Ultra average of 18 FPS is effectively unplayable. This rank is a warning for anyone considering this pairing for Control: it will not provide a smooth experience at any setting.

GPU Role

The Intel Arc B390’s specifications explain its poor performance in Control. The GPU features 1536 shading units, 48 texture mapping units, and 24 ROPs, with 12 ray tracing cores. Its boost clock is 2500 MHz, with a base clock of 300 MHz. The pixel rate is 60.00 GPixel/s, and the texture rate is 120.0 GTexel/s. FP32 performance is 7.680 TFLOPS, with FP16 at 15.36 TFLOPS (2:1). These are modest numbers for a modern GPU, and they are further constrained by the memory architecture: the memory size, type, and bus width are all “System Shared,” with bandwidth listed as “System Dependent.” This means the GPU has no dedicated VRAM; it borrows from the system’s DDR5 memory, which introduces latency and bandwidth contention.

In Control, this lack of dedicated VRAM is a severe handicap. The game’s textures and geometry require fast, local memory access, and the shared memory architecture cannot provide it. The measured FPS reflects this: at 4K Ultra, the average is 18 FPS, with no recorded minimum or maximum, suggesting the frame time variance is high. At 4K Medium, the average is 24 FPS with a minimum of 20 and a maximum of 27, a narrow range that indicates the GPU is consistently pegged at its limit. The 1080p Medium figures (46 FPS average, 40 min, 53 max) show a slightly wider range, but still fall short of smooth gameplay.

The GPU’s TDP is 80 W, and it is an integrated graphics processor (IGP) with a slot width of IGP and no power connectors. This is not a discrete card; it is designed for portable devices and low-power systems. The bus interface is also IGP, meaning it communicates over the system bus rather than a dedicated PCIe slot. The APIs supported include DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4, so software compatibility is not the issue. The hardware is simply too weak.

The GPU’s percentile of 9 against all GPUs is a damning statistic. It means 91% of all GPUs tested perform better. The nearest rivals in synthetic benchmarks are all NVIDIA parts from a decade ago (GT 520MX, GeForce 800M, GT 625 OEM, GT 710), which are not gaming-capable by modern standards. In Control, this GPU produces 41 FPS at 1080p High, which is below the 60 FPS target most players expect. The ray tracing cores (12) are present, but with only 7.680 TFLOPS of FP32 performance, there is no headroom for the extra computational load ray tracing would require. The data suggests that even without ray tracing enabled, the GPU is overwhelmed.

Measured FPS Breakdown

The full set of measured FPS values provides a comprehensive picture of performance across all combinations of resolution and settings. At 1920x1080, the lowest resolution tested, the combo achieves its best results. With Low settings, the average FPS is 65, with no minimum or maximum recorded. Medium settings drop the average to 46 FPS, with a minimum of 40 and a maximum of 53. High settings produce an average of 41 FPS, and Ultra settings bring the average down to 36 FPS. None of these figures reach the 60 FPS threshold that is generally considered the baseline for smooth gameplay in an action-adventure title like Control.

At 2560x1440, the performance degrades further. Low settings average 50 FPS, a 23% drop from 1080p Low. Medium settings average 35 FPS (30 min, 40 max), High settings average 31 FPS, and Ultra settings average 27 FPS. The 1440p results are all below playable thresholds for a fast-paced game, with even the Low preset failing to maintain 60 FPS. The minimum FPS recorded at 1440p Medium (30 FPS) is particularly concerning, as it indicates stutter during intense scenes.

At 3840x2160, the performance becomes marginal at best. Low settings average 33 FPS, Medium averages 24 FPS (20 min, 27 max), High averages 21 FPS, and Ultra averages 18 FPS. The 4K results are uniformly unplayable, with no preset breaking the 35 FPS mark. The minimum FPS at 4K Medium (20 FPS) shows that even the most modest settings can dip to slideshow levels.

Comparing settings at the same resolution reveals the GPU’s sensitivity to graphical fidelity. At 1080p, the difference between Low (65 FPS) and Ultra (36 FPS) is 29 FPS, a 45% reduction. At 1440p, the spread is from 50 FPS (Low) to 27 FPS (Ultra), a 46% reduction. At 4K, the spread is from 33 FPS (Low) to 18 FPS (Ultra), a 45% reduction. This consistent ~45% penalty for going from Low to Ultra across all resolutions indicates that the GPU’s shader and texture throughput scales linearly with workload, but the absolute numbers are too low to absorb the cost.

The data also shows a clear pattern: the difference between Medium and High is smaller than the difference between High and Ultra. For example, at 1080p, Medium (46 FPS) to High (41 FPS) is a 5 FPS drop, while High (41 FPS) to Ultra (36 FPS) is also a 5 FPS drop. At 1440p, Medium (35 FPS) to High (31 FPS) is 4 FPS, and High (31 FPS) to Ultra (27 FPS) is 4 FPS. At 4K, Medium (24 FPS) to High (21 FPS) is 3 FPS, and High (21 FPS) to Ultra (18 FPS) is 3 FPS. This suggests that the Ultra preset includes features that are disproportionately expensive relative to their visual impact, but the GPU cannot afford even the Medium preset.

FAQ

Q: What is the best average FPS this combo can achieve in Control?

A: The highest recorded average FPS is 65, achieved at 1920x1080 with Low settings. No other resolution or settings combination reaches 60 FPS.

Q: Is this combo capable of 4K gaming in Control?

A: No. At 3840x2160, the highest average FPS is 33 with Low settings, and the lowest is 18 with Ultra settings. These figures are far below playable thresholds.

Q: How does the Intel Arc B390 compare to its nearest GPU rivals?

A: In the 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 benchmark, the Arc B390 scores 1482. Its nearest rivals are the NVIDIA GeForce GT 520MX (1463, 1.3% slower), the NVIDIA GeForce 800M (1460, 1.5% slower), and the NVIDIA GeForce GT 625 OEM (1446, 2.5% slower). All are within a 2.7% performance delta.

Q: What is the combo’s ranking among all tested CPU-GPU pairs for Control?

A: The combo ranks 2551 out of 2888 tested combinations, placing it in the bottom 12% of all configurations for this game.

Q: Does the AMD Ryzen 5 9600X bottleneck the Intel Arc B390?

A: No. The Ryzen 5 9600X is in the 81st percentile of all CPUs, with an average benchmark score of 29713. The bottleneck is the GPU, which is in the 9th percentile of all GPUs.

Q: What are the measured FPS differences between Low and Ultra settings at 1440p?

A: At 2560x1440, Low settings average 50 FPS, while Ultra settings average 27 FPS. This is a 23 FPS difference, representing a 46% reduction in performance when moving from the lowest to the highest preset.

Settings Recommendations

Based on the measured FPS data, there is no settings configuration that delivers a fully smooth 60 FPS experience in Control with this combo. However, the best playable option, in terms of balancing frame rate with visual quality, is the Low preset at 1920x1080, which yields an average of 65 FPS. This is the only measured scenario that exceeds the 60 FPS mark, and it does so by a narrow margin. For players who prioritize frame rate above all else, this is the recommended setting.

If the user cannot tolerate the visual sacrifices of Low settings, the Medium preset at 1080p is the next best option, with an average of 46 FPS and a minimum of 40 FPS. This provides a more visually detailed image while still maintaining a playable, if not perfectly smooth, frame rate. The minimum of 40 FPS suggests that there will be occasional dips, but the average is close to the 60 FPS target.

At 1440p, the Low preset (50 FPS average) is the only option that approaches playability, but it falls short of 60 FPS. The Medium (35 FPS) and High (31 FPS) presets are too slow for a game that requires quick reactions. At 4K, all presets are below 35 FPS, making the game essentially unplayable regardless of settings. The data shows that the Ultra preset is never a viable choice, as it costs roughly 45% of the Low preset’s performance at every resolution without providing a commensurate visual benefit.

In summary, the most sensible recommendation is to run Control at 1920x1080 with Low settings, accepting the reduced visual fidelity to obtain an average of 65 FPS. For those who prefer higher detail, 1080p Medium (46 FPS) is a compromise, but users should expect frame rates below 60 FPS. There is no scenario where this combo delivers a high-refresh-rate experience, and the GPU’s limitations are the primary cause. The Ryzen 5 9600X has ample headroom, but it is wasted in this pairing. Upgrading the GPU would be the only way to achieve consistently smooth performance in Control.