Control

# Control with Intel Core i5-14600K + Intel Arc B370

This combination sits near the bottom of the tested field for Control, ranking 2657th out of 2888 total combos — placing it in the 8th percentile of all systems evaluated. The pairing of a high-end 14th-gen CPU with an integrated-class GPU creates a stark imbalance, where the processor's substantial compute headroom is largely left untapped by the graphics solution. The measured frame rates tell a consistent story: this config is playable only at the lowest settings and even then struggles to hold a smooth 60 FPS at 1080p. The data indicates a system that can run Control, but with significant compromises required across every resolution tier.

FAQ

Q: How does this combo rank compared to other tested systems in Control?

A: The combo ranks 2657th out of 2888 tested combinations, placing it in the bottom 8% of all configurations. This indicates that the vast majority of tested systems deliver higher average frame rates in this title.

Q: What is the best average FPS this combo can achieve at 1080p?

A: At 1920x1080 with Low settings, the combo reaches an average of 59 FPS. This is the only measured configuration that approaches a 60 FPS experience, with Medium and High settings dropping to 42 and 37 FPS respectively.

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

A: At 3840x2160, all tested settings produce average frame rates below 31 FPS. The best result is 30 FPS at Low settings, while Ultra drops to 17 FPS. The data shows that 4K is not a viable option for this configuration.

Q: How does the GPU compare to its nearest rivals in raw benchmark scores?

A: The Intel Arc B370 scores 1184 in 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12, which is nearly identical to the ATI Mobility Radeon HD 5570 (1186) and ATI Radeon HD 5770 (1190). The GPU's percentile rank of 5 places it among the weakest tested graphics solutions.

Q: What is the CPU's percentile ranking among all tested processors?

A: The Intel Core i5-14600K ranks in the 90th percentile across all CPUs, with an average benchmark score of 48618. Its nearest rival, the Intel Xeon Gold 5318H, scores 48698 — a difference of only -0.2%.

Q: Does the CPU bottleneck the GPU in this configuration?

A: No — the data suggests the opposite. The CPU's 90th percentile ranking vastly exceeds the GPU's 5th percentile ranking. The GPU is the limiting component, as evidenced by large frame rate drops when settings increase while the CPU remains underutilized.

CPU Role

The Intel Core i5-14600K brings substantial processing resources to this pairing: 14 cores and 20 threads, with a base clock of 3.50 GHz and a boost clock of 5.30 GHz. This Raptor Lake-R architecture chip, built on Intel's 10 nm process, features a 24 MB shared L3 cache and 2 MB L2 per core, providing ample cache bandwidth for game logic and physics calculations. The CPU's benchmark scores reinforce its high-end positioning — a Cinebench R23 multicore score of 24491 and single-core score of 2064, plus a Geekbench multicore score of 16673.

In the context of Control, the CPU's role is largely preparatory rather than performance-defining. The game's action-adventure gameplay involves physics-based combat and destructible environments, which can tax processor resources. However, the measured frame rates do not reflect CPU limitations. At 1080p Low, the combo hits 59 FPS, while at 4K Low it drops to 30 FPS — a pattern that points to GPU-bound performance scaling, not CPU constraints. The 90th percentile CPU ranking versus the GPU's 5th percentile ranking creates a massive delta; the processor is simply waiting on the graphics solution at every turn.

The CPU's 125W TDP and unlocked multiplier suggest a chip designed for demanding workloads, and its Passmark multithread score of 38682 places it among the top-tier consumer processors. Yet in this game, those capabilities go largely unused. The single-thread performance, measured at 4270 in Passmark, is more than sufficient for Control's engine, which typically relies on a handful of well-optimized threads. The real bottleneck is the GPU, as the frame rate deltas between settings tiers remain consistent regardless of resolution, indicating the CPU is never the limiting factor.

Measured FPS Breakdown

The measured data reveals a consistent pattern across all resolutions: higher settings yield progressively lower average frame rates, with the gap between Low and Ultra widening as resolution increases. At 1920x1080, the combo delivers 59 FPS on Low, 42 FPS on Medium (with a min of 36 and max of 48), 37 FPS on High, and 32 FPS on Ultra. This represents a 27 FPS spread between the lowest and highest settings at 1080p.

Moving to 2560x1440, the numbers drop noticeably: Low produces 45 FPS, Medium averages 32 FPS (min 27, max 37), High averages 28 FPS, and Ultra falls to 25 FPS. The spread between Low and Ultra at 1440p is 20 FPS, slightly narrower than at 1080p, suggesting the GPU is becoming more saturated at higher resolutions.

At 3840x2160, the performance collapses: Low averages 30 FPS, Medium averages 21 FPS (min 18, max 25), High averages 19 FPS, and Ultra bottoms out at 17 FPS. The Low-to-Ultra spread at 4K is just 13 FPS, indicating that the GPU is fully maxed out and additional settings changes yield diminishing returns. The Medium settings rows include min/max data at all resolutions, showing consistent frame pacing — at 1080p Medium, the range is 36-48 FPS, at 1440p it's 27-37 FPS, and at 4K it's 18-25 FPS.

The overall trend shows that even the best case scenario — 1080p Low at 59 FPS — barely achieves a playable frame rate. Every other configuration falls below 60 FPS, and most sit well below the 30 FPS threshold that many consider the minimum for playable action-adventure titles.

Resolution Scaling

The frame rate degradation from 1080p to 4K reveals a GPU-bound system. At Low settings, the drop from 59 FPS at 1080p to 45 FPS at 1440p to 30 FPS at 4K represents a 49% reduction from 1080p to 4K. At Medium settings, the progression is 42 → 32 → 21 FPS, a 50% drop. High settings show 37 → 28 → 19 FPS (49% drop), and Ultra shows 32 → 25 → 17 FPS (47% drop). These consistent percentage reductions across all settings indicate that the GPU is the primary constraint, as the scaling is nearly linear with pixel count.

The data implies that the Intel Arc B370's 6.144 TFLOPS FP32 performance and 96 GTexel/s texture rate are simply insufficient for Control's rendering demands at higher resolutions. The GPU's 20 ROPs and 40 TMUs are low-count for a modern title, and the system-shared memory architecture means bandwidth is dependent on the host system's memory configuration — a potential further bottleneck.

The resolution scaling pattern also suggests that the CPU is not contributing to the performance drop. If the CPU were the limiting factor, the frame rates at 1080p and 4K would be much closer together, as the processor's workload doesn't increase proportionally with resolution. Instead, the near-linear scaling with pixel count is a textbook indicator of GPU-bound rendering, confirming that the Core i5-14600K is far ahead of what this GPU can utilize.

Settings Recommendations

Based on the measured data, the only configuration that approaches a smooth experience is 1080p with Low settings, which averages 59 FPS. This should be the default recommendation for anyone using this combo, as it provides the closest to 60 FPS gameplay. The Medium preset at 1080p drops to 42 FPS, which is still playable but with noticeable frame pacing issues — the min of 36 FPS suggests occasional stutters during intense action sequences.

For users willing to accept lower frame rates, 1440p Low at 45 FPS offers a resolution upgrade with a 14 FPS penalty compared to 1080p Low. This might be preferable on a larger monitor where the higher resolution improves visual clarity, despite the frame rate trade-off. However, the 1440p Medium setting at 32 FPS (min 27) begins to feel sluggish for a fast-paced action game like Control, where precise dodging and shooting require responsive input.

At 4K, all settings are effectively unplayable, with even Low averaging only 30 FPS and dipping potentially below that during heavy scenes. The data strongly suggests avoiding 4K entirely with this configuration. The Ultra preset offers no meaningful advantage at any resolution — it provides the worst frame rates (32 FPS at 1080p) with visual gains that are unlikely to compensate for the performance loss. The recommended path is: 1080p Low for the best experience, 1440p Low if resolution is prioritized, and all other settings are not advisable.

GPU Role

The Intel Arc B370 is an integrated graphics solution based on the Xe3-LPG architecture, built on Intel's 3 nm process. Its specifications are modest: 1280 shading units, 40 TMUs, 20 ROPs, and 10 RT cores, with a base clock of 300 MHz and boost clock of 2400 MHz. The GPU's 6.144 TFLOPS FP32 throughput and 48.00 GPixel/s pixel rate place it firmly in entry-level territory, and its 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 score of 1184 confirms this — it ranks in the 5th percentile of all GPUs, with nearest rivals including the ATI Radeon HD 5770 (1190) and ATI Mobility Radeon HD 5570 (1186).

In Control, the GPU's role is entirely performance-defining. The game's benchmark results show that the Arc B370 is the bottleneck at every resolution and settings combination. The GPU's system-shared memory architecture means VRAM is not a fixed quantity but rather dependent on the host system's available memory, which can introduce variability in performance. However, the measured data shows consistent results, suggesting the shared memory allocation is sufficient for Control's needs at these settings.

The GPU's 25W TDP is remarkably low, indicating a power-efficient design, but this efficiency comes at the cost of raw performance. The 12.29 TFLOPS FP16 throughput (at 2:1 ratio) does not translate into meaningful gains in this DirectX 12 title, which relies on FP32 compute. The GPU's DirectX 12 Ultimate support (12_2) is present, but the hardware lacks the compute resources to leverage advanced features effectively. The nearest rival comparisons show the Arc B370 is essentially on par with GPUs from over a decade ago, which contextualizes its 1080p Low performance of 59 FPS in Control — a title that is not particularly demanding by modern standards, yet still pushes this GPU to its limits.