Control

Control is a demanding action-adventure title that stresses both processor and graphics hardware, and the pairing of an AMD Ryzen 7 9700X with an Intel Arc B390 produces a peculiar set of results. The data shows a system that is heavily imbalanced, where a top-tier CPU is paired with a GPU whose standalone benchmark performance places it in the bottom percentile of all tested graphics cards. This analysis examines the measured frames per second (FPS) across resolutions and settings to understand where the bottleneck truly lies and what the experience is like.

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

The AMD Ryzen 7 9700X is a modern 8-core, 16-thread processor based on the Zen 5 architecture, built on a 4 nm process. It has a base clock of 3.80 GHz and a boost clock of 5.50 GHz, which allows it to handle both lightly-threaded and heavily-threaded workloads with ease. The processor’s 32 MB of shared L3 cache and dual-channel DDR5 memory support provide a robust foundation for feeding data to the rest of the system. In synthetic benchmarks, the 9700X demonstrates significant strength, scoring 20,485 in Cinebench R23 multi-core and 2,211 in single-core, alongside a Geekbench multi-core score of 17,906 and a single-core score of 3,023. Its Passmark multithread score of 37,161 and single-thread score of 4,654 further confirm its high processing capability.

Given this CPU’s performance, it is unlikely to be the limiting factor in Control at any of the tested settings. The 9700X’s percentile ranking of 86 against all CPUs indicates it outperforms the vast majority of processors. Its nearest rivals in average benchmark score include the Intel Core i9-14901E and the AMD Ryzen AI 9 HX 370, both of which are within 0.1% of the 9700X’s average score of 37,943. This places the 9700X in a performance tier where it can comfortably handle the simulation and physics calculations that games like Control require. The data suggests that at 1080p, even with the GPU being a severe bottleneck, the CPU is more than capable of maximizing the frame output possible.

The processor’s 8 cores and 16 threads are fully sufficient for modern game engines, which typically scale well up to 16 threads. The high boost clock of 5.50 GHz is particularly beneficial for the single-threaded performance that often dominates game logic and draw-call submission. While we do not have specific per-core utilization data for Control, the combination of high multi-threaded (3dmark_16_threads score of 9,824) and single-threaded (3dmark_single_thread score of 1,280) scores suggests that the CPU will not present a bottleneck in this title. The measured FPS differences between the Low and Ultra settings will clarify this further, as a CPU-bound scenario would show less performance variation across graphics presets.

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

The Intel Arc B390 presents a stark contrast to the CPU. It is an integrated graphics processor (IGP) based on the Xe3-LPG architecture, built on a 3 nm process. Its memory configuration is "System Shared," meaning it relies on the system's DDR5 memory rather than dedicated VRAM, with bandwidth that is "System Dependent." The GPU has 1,536 shading units, 48 texture mapping units (TMUs), and 24 raster operation units (ROPs), with 12 ray tracing cores. Its boost clock is 2,500 MHz from a 300 MHz base, and its FP32 performance is rated at 7.680 TFLOPS. However, its benchmark results are poor; it scores only 1,482 in 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12, placing it in the 9th percentile of all GPUs.

This percentile ranking is telling. The Arc B390’s nearest rivals in this benchmark are the NVIDIA GeForce GT 520MX, GeForce 800M, GT 625 OEM, and GT 710, with the B390 leading them by only 1.3% to 2.7%. These are historical, entry-level parts, which paints a clear picture of the B390's performance class. In Control, the GPU is the primary limiting factor across all tested resolutions. The measured FPS data confirms this, as the frame rates are consistently low, even at 1080p with Low settings. The lack of dedicated VRAM means that textures and frame buffers must be allocated in system memory, which can lead to performance degradation, though the "System Dependent" bandwidth makes it hard to quantify the exact impact.

The GPU's specifications, such as its 60.00 GPixel/s pixel rate and 120.0 GTexel/s texture rate, are modest compared to discrete solutions. With a TDP of only 80 W and the "IGP" slot width, it is designed for power efficiency rather than high-end gaming. The 12 ray tracing cores are present, but their performance is likely insufficient for Control's ray-traced effects at playable frame rates. The data shows that the Arc B390 is a significant bottleneck, capping the system's performance in a way that no amount of CPU headroom can overcome. This is a case where the integrated graphics solution is severely outmatched by the game's requirements.

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

The measured FPS scaling across resolutions provides a clear picture of the GPU bottleneck. At Low settings, the average FPS drops from 65 at 1920x1080 to 50 at 2560x1440, and then to 33 at 3840x2160. This represents a 23% drop from 1080p to 1440p, and a further 34% drop from 1440p to 4K. This scaling is typical for a GPU-bound scenario, where the increase in pixel count directly impacts the fill rate and shading workload. The CPU, with its high core count and clocks, is not being stressed by the higher resolutions; it is simply waiting for the GPU to finish rendering each frame.

At High settings, the pattern continues. The average FPS falls from 41 at 1080p to 31 at 1440p (a 24% drop), and then to 21 at 4K (a 32% drop from 1440p). The relative consistency of these percentage drops across all settings suggests that the rendering pipeline is uniformly limited by the GPU's processing power. If the CPU were the bottleneck, we would expect the FPS to remain relatively flat across resolutions, as the CPU workload is independent of resolution. Instead, we see a steady decline, which is a hallmark of a GPU that is saturated.

The difference between Low and Ultra settings at each resolution also highlights the GPU's limitations. At 1080p, the FPS drops from 65 on Low to 36 on Ultra, a 45% reduction. At 1440p, it drops from 50 to 27 (46% reduction), and at 4K from 33 to 18 (45% reduction). This consistent reduction across resolutions indicates that the GPU is struggling to handle the increased shading and texture work at higher presets, regardless of the resolution. The data strongly implies that the Intel Arc B390 is the definitive limiting component, and the CPU's performance is largely irrelevant to the final frame rate in this configuration.

How This Combo Ranks — use comboRankInGame vs other tested combos

In the database of tested combinations for Control, this pairing of the AMD Ryzen 7 9700X and Intel Arc B390 ranks at 2551 out of 2,888 combos. This places it in the bottom 12% of all tested systems, which is a poor result for a system with such a powerful CPU. The high rank number indicates that the vast majority of other CPU and GPU combinations deliver higher average frame rates in this game. This ranking is almost entirely due to the GPU's low performance, as the CPU is in the 86th percentile of all processors.

The ranking suggests that the CPU's potential is completely wasted in this configuration. The 9700X, which rivals the Intel Core i9-14901E and AMD Ryzen AI 9 HX 370 in average benchmark scores, is paired with a GPU that competes with the NVIDIA GeForce GT 710. This mismatch results in a system that performs far below what the CPU alone would suggest. The combo rank of 2551 is a direct consequence of the GPU's 9th percentile standing, which drags the entire system down. For context, any combo featuring a discrete GPU from the last decade would likely rank higher.

The data indicates that this combination is not well-suited for Control. The game's engine and graphics demands are too high for the Arc B390, and the CPU's power cannot compensate for the GPU's deficiencies. While the CPU ensures that there is no processor-induced stuttering, the overall frame rates are too low to provide a smooth experience. This ranking is a clear indicator that the GPU is the wrong choice for this game, and that users would see a massive improvement from a more capable graphics solution, even if it meant pairing it with a less powerful CPU.

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

The measured FPS data provides a granular look at the system's performance. At 1920x1080, the average FPS is 65 on Low settings, 46 on Medium (with a min of 40 and max of 53), 41 on High, and 36 on Ultra. These numbers show that even at the minimum resolution and settings, the system only achieves a playable frame rate. The jump from Low to Medium is a 19 FPS drop (29%), and from Medium to High is a 5 FPS drop (11%). The drop from High to Ultra is another 5 FPS (12%). This pattern shows that the GPU is heavily taxed by the Medium preset, which is likely where the rendering work increases significantly.

Moving to 2560x1440, the average FPS drops to 50 on Low, 35 on Medium (min 30, max 40), 31 on High, and 27 on Ultra. The performance at this resolution is marginal, with only Low settings approaching a smooth 60 FPS, but still falling short. The drop from Low to Medium is 15 FPS (30%), and from Medium to High is 4 FPS (11%). The gap between High and Ultra narrows to 4 FPS (13%). The data shows that at 1440p, the system is struggling to maintain 30 FPS on Medium and above, which is generally considered the minimum for a playable experience in a fast-paced action game.

At 3840x2160, the performance is largely unplayable. The average FPS is 33 on Low, 24 on Medium (min 20, max 27), 21 on High, and 18 on Ultra. The drop from Low to Medium is 9 FPS (27%), and from Medium to High is 3 FPS (13%). The difference between High and Ultra is 3 FPS (14%). None of these frame rates are suitable for a game like Control, which requires precise timing and smooth camera movement. The sub-30 FPS averages on all settings except Low indicate that the GPU is overwhelmed by the 4K resolution, and the integrated nature of the Arc B390 makes it unsuitable for this resolution. The data consistently shows a GPU-bound system, with each increase in resolution and settings taking a proportional toll on frame rate.

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

Based on the measured FPS data, the only settings that provide a remotely playable experience at 1080p are Low, which achieves an average of 65 FPS. This is the only configuration that comes close to a smooth 60 FPS experience. The Medium preset, at 46 FPS, is playable but may exhibit noticeable frame pacing issues in action-heavy scenes. High and Ultra presets, at 41 and 36 FPS respectively, are on the edge of playability and will likely feel sluggish during combat. For the best experience, the Low preset at 1080p is the only viable option.

At 1440p, the Low preset offers an average of 50 FPS, which is playable but not ideal. Medium and High presets fall to 35 and 31 FPS, which are below the threshold for a smooth experience. Ultra at 27 FPS is not recommended. The data suggests that if a user must play at 1440p, they should stick to the Low preset to avoid frequent dips into the 20s. However, even this is a compromise, as the frame rate is not stable. For 4K, no preset is recommended, as the highest average FPS is 33 on Low, which is too low for a game that requires responsiveness.

The data indicates that the system cannot handle the game's demands at higher settings. The best experience is achieved by prioritizing frame rate over visual fidelity. Since the GPU is the bottleneck, lowering settings has a direct and significant impact on FPS, as seen by the 45% increase in FPS from Ultra to Low at 1080p. The recommendation is to use the Low preset at 1080p for a playable experience, and to avoid 1440p and 4K unless the user is willing to accept frame rates below 30 FPS. There is no setting combination that unlocks the CPU's potential, so users should focus on maximizing FPS through graphics settings.

FAQ

Q: What is the best resolution for this combo in Control?

A: The data shows that 1920x1080 is the only resolution with a playable frame rate, achieving an average of 65 FPS on Low settings. At 2560x1440 and 3840x2160, the average FPS on Low drops to 50 and 33 respectively, which is below the preferred threshold for smooth gameplay.

Q: Is the AMD Ryzen 7 9700X or the Intel Arc B390 the bottleneck in this game?

A: The measured FPS scaling indicates the Intel Arc B390 is the definitive bottleneck. The frame rate drops consistently as resolution and settings increase, which is characteristic of a GPU-bound workload. The CPU, with its high benchmark scores, is not the limiting factor.

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 1,482, placing it in the 9th percentile of all GPUs. Its nearest rivals are the NVIDIA GeForce GT 520MX, GeForce 800M, GT 625 OEM, and GT 710, with the B390 leading by only 1.3% to 2.7% in average score.

Q: Can this system run Control at Ultra settings at any resolution?

A: No. The highest average FPS at Ultra settings is 36 at 1080p, which is below the typically desired 60 FPS. At 1440p and 4K, Ultra settings yield averages of 27 and 18 FPS respectively, which are largely unplayable.

Q: What is the system's overall rank among tested combos for Control?

A: This combination ranks 2551 out of 2,888 tested combos for Control. This places it in the bottom 12% of all tested systems, reflecting the GPU's low performance relative to other components.

Q: What is the difference in FPS between Low and High settings at 1080p?

A: At 1920x1080, the average FPS on Low settings is 65, while on High settings it is 41. This is a 24 FPS difference, representing a 37% performance drop, which shows a significant impact from the GPU's shading and texture workload.