Control

The Intel Core i5-12600KF paired with the Intel Arc B390 produces a highly constrained gaming experience in Control, placing the combo at rank 2551 out of 2888 tested configurations. This places the pairing in the bottom 12% of all tested combos, a position driven almost entirely by the GPU's low benchmark standing rather than the CPU's mid-pack capabilities. The measured frame rates across all resolutions and settings presets confirm that this system is best suited for 1080p Low settings if playable frame rates are the priority.

FAQ

*Q: What is the overall performance ranking of this combo in Control?*

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

Q: How does the Intel Arc B390's raw benchmark score compare to its closest rivals?

A: The GPU scores 1482 in 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12, which is 1.3% ahead of the NVIDIA GeForce GT 520MX, 1.5% ahead of the GeForce 800M, 2.5% ahead of the GT 625 OEM, and 2.7% ahead of the GT 710.

Q: What is the best average FPS achievable with this combo?

A: The highest average frame rate recorded is 65 FPS, achieved at 1920x1080 resolution with Low settings.

Q: Is there a settings preset that provides a consistently playable experience at 1440p?

A: At 2560x1440, the Low preset yields an average of 50 FPS, which is the only setting at that resolution that approaches a smooth experience; all other presets fall below 35 FPS.

Q: How much performance is lost when moving from 1080p Low to 4K Low?

A: The average frame rate drops from 65 FPS at 1080p Low to 33 FPS at 4K Low, representing a 49% reduction in performance.

Q: Does the CPU have enough headroom to support higher frame rates if the GPU were upgraded?

A: Benchmark data shows the CPU scores 23391 in Cinebench R23 multicore and 3302 in single-core, with a 79th percentile ranking among all CPUs, indicating it is not the primary bottleneck in this configuration.

How This Combo Ranks

The ranking of 2551 out of 2888 combinations paints a clear picture: this is a low-performing setup for Control. With only 337 tested combos ranking below it, the system sits in the 11.6th percentile of all tested configurations. This is a direct consequence of the GPU's standalone ranking, which places the Arc B390 in the 9th percentile among all GPUs in the database. The CPU, by contrast, ranks in the 79th percentile, creating a substantial imbalance between the two components.

The delta between the CPU's strong standing and the GPU's weak one explains the overall result. The Intel Core i5-12600KF averages a benchmark score of 27799, sitting just 0.3% below the Intel Core i9-10900K and 0.3% above the AMD Ryzen 5 8500GE. Meanwhile, the Arc B390's average score of 1482 places it in direct competition with decade-old discrete GPUs like the GT 710 and GT 625 OEM. When a top-quartile CPU is paired with a bottom-decile GPU, the combined result is dictated by the weaker component, and the data confirms this: the combo ranks near the bottom of the heap.

This ranking is not an artifact of Control being unusually demanding. The game's release date of August 2019 places it in the mid-range of modern titles, but the measured frame rates show the GPU simply cannot keep up with even modest rendering loads at higher resolutions. The combo's position at 2551 out of 2888 is consistent across all tested settings, reinforcing that the GPU is the limiting factor in every scenario.

GPU Role

The Intel Arc B390 is the dominant constraint in this pairing. Its 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 score of 1482 places it in the 9th percentile of all GPUs, a position that aligns with its nearest rivals from over a decade ago. The GPU's architecture is Xe3-LPG on a 3 nm process, with a base clock of 300 MHz that boosts to 2500 MHz. It features 1536 shading units, 48 texture mapping units, and 24 raster output units, along with 12 ray tracing cores.

The memory configuration is a critical limiting factor: the GPU uses "System Shared" memory, with bandwidth listed as "System Dependent." This means the GPU relies on the CPU's dual-channel DDR4 or DDR5 memory subsystem, which introduces latency and bandwidth constraints that a dedicated VRAM solution would not face. The measured frame rates reflect this, as even the lowest settings at 1080p only reach 65 FPS, far below what the CPU could theoretically support.

The GPU's clock behavior amplifies the problem. With a base clock of 300 MHz, the card relies heavily on boost behavior to reach its 2500 MHz ceiling, but sustained loads in a game like Control will likely cause the clocks to settle well below that peak. The 80 W TDP and "IGP" slot width confirm this is an integrated-class solution, despite the Arc branding, and the lack of dedicated memory means the system's RAM bandwidth becomes the bottleneck in memory-intensive scenes.

Measured FPS Breakdown

At 1920x1080, the combo delivers its only playable results. Low settings produce an average of 65 FPS, which is the single highest average frame rate recorded for this configuration. Medium settings drop to 46 FPS, with a minimum of 40 and a maximum of 53. High settings yield 41 FPS, and Ultra settings drop to 36 FPS. The gap between Low and Ultra at 1080p is 29 FPS, indicating a significant sensitivity to graphical fidelity.

At 2560x1440, the situation degrades considerably. Low settings average 50 FPS, which remains technically playable but represents a 23% drop from the 1080p Low result. Medium settings average 35 FPS, with a range of 30 to 40. High settings fall to 31 FPS, and Ultra settings average just 27 FPS. None of the 1440p presets other than Low achieve the 60 FPS threshold, and even Low falls short of a locked 60.

At 3840x2160, the combo is effectively unplayable across all settings. Low averages 33 FPS, Medium averages 24 FPS (with a range of 20 to 27), High averages 21 FPS, and Ultra averages 18 FPS. The spread from Low to Ultra at 4K is only 15 FPS, showing that the GPU is so saturated that reducing settings provides diminishing returns. The minimum FPS recorded at 4K Medium is 20, which would produce visible stuttering in fast-paced combat sequences.

The data shows a consistent pattern: the GPU's performance ceiling is exhausted at 1080p Low, and any increase in resolution or settings results in proportional degradation. The 65 FPS at 1080p Low is the only result that approaches a modern gaming standard, and even that falls short of high-refresh-rate displays.

CPU Role

The Intel Core i5-12600KF is a 10-core, 16-thread processor based on the Alder Lake architecture, built on Intel's 10 nm process. It has a base clock of 3.70 GHz and a boost clock of 4.90 GHz, with 20 MB of shared L3 cache. The CPU supports both DDR4 and DDR5 memory in a dual-channel configuration, which is relevant given the GPU's reliance on system memory.

Benchmark scores show the CPU is a strong performer. It achieves 23391 in Cinebench R23 multicore and 3302 in single-core, with a Geekbench multicore score of 12137 and a single-core score of 2157. The Passmark multithread score is 27575, and the CPU's average benchmark score of 27799 places it in the 79th percentile of all CPUs. Its nearest rivals include the Intel Core i9-10900K, which scores 27872 (0.3% higher), and the AMD Ryzen 7 5800X3D, which scores 27896 (0.3% higher).

The CPU's performance is far in excess of what the GPU can utilize in Control. At 1080p Low, the 65 FPS average is likely CPU-bound in certain scenes, but at any higher resolution or settings, the GPU becomes the sole bottleneck. The CPU's 16 threads are more than sufficient for Control's threading model, and the high single-core score of 3302 in Cinebench R23 ensures that even the most CPU-intensive scenes are unlikely to strain the processor.

The mismatch is stark: the CPU ranks in the top 21% of all processors, while the GPU ranks in the bottom 9%. This means the system is massively unbalanced, with the CPU idling while the GPU struggles to maintain even 30 FPS at 1440p. If the GPU were upgraded, the CPU would have ample headroom to support significantly higher frame rates, but as configured, the CPU's potential is entirely unrealized.

Settings Recommendations

The measured data points to a single viable configuration for a playable experience: 1920x1080 with Low settings. This is the only combination that achieves an average frame rate above 60 FPS, and it does so with a 65 FPS average. The Medium preset at 1080p drops to 46 FPS, which is borderline but likely to feel inconsistent in combat-heavy scenes.

For users who prioritize visual quality over frame rate, the 1080p Medium preset offers a compromise at 46 FPS, but the minimum of 40 FPS suggests occasional dips that could be noticeable. The High and Ultra presets at 1080p, at 41 and 36 FPS respectively, are not recommended for action gameplay. At 1440p, the Low preset at 50 FPS is the only option that approaches playability, but it requires a significant visual downgrade from what the CPU could otherwise support.

At 4K, no settings preset is recommended. The highest average is 33 FPS at Low, which falls below the threshold for smooth gameplay. The 18 FPS at Ultra is effectively a slideshow. For this combo, the data clearly shows that 1080p Low is the sweet spot, and any attempt to increase resolution or settings will result in an unplayable experience.

Resolution Scaling

The performance drop from 1080p to 4K is steep and consistent across all settings. At Low settings, the average FPS falls from 65 at 1080p to 50 at 1440p, then to 33 at 4K. This represents a 23% drop from 1080p to 1440p and a 34% drop from 1440p to 4K. At Medium settings, the progression is 46 to 35 to 24 FPS, showing a similar pattern of diminishing returns as resolution increases.

The scaling behavior indicates that the GPU is the limiting component at all resolutions above 1080p Low. If the CPU were the bottleneck, we would expect to see flat frame rates across resolutions, as the CPU's work would not change with resolution. Instead, the frame rates drop proportionally with the increase in pixel count, which is the classic signature of a GPU-limited system.

The transition from 1080p to 1440p costs roughly 15 FPS at Low settings, while the transition from 1440p to 4K costs an additional 17 FPS. This suggests that the GPU's memory bandwidth and shading throughput are insufficient for the pixel load at higher resolutions. The system-shared memory configuration compounds this issue, as the GPU must compete with the CPU for memory bandwidth, further reducing effective throughput at 4K where the memory demands are highest.

The data supports a clear conclusion: this combo is a 1080p Low system, and nothing more. The CPU has the headroom to push far beyond these results, but the GPU's 9th percentile standing makes it the definitive bottleneck in every measurable scenario. Users seeking higher resolutions or settings would need to replace the GPU entirely, as the current configuration has no headroom for improvement.