Control

The Intel Core i5-14600KF paired with the Intel Arc B390 integrated GPU produces a highly constrained gaming experience in Control, with benchmark results showing the combination ranks 2551st out of 2888 tested combos. The data indicates that the Arc B390, an integrated graphics solution, is the primary bottleneck across all tested configurations, while the 14-core CPU remains largely underutilized.

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

The Intel Core i5-14600KF is a 14-core, 20-thread processor based on the Raptor Lake architecture, built on a 10 nm process. It operates with a base clock of 3.50 GHz and a boost clock of 5.30 GHz, with a TDP of 125 W. The CPU features a substantial cache hierarchy: 80 KB of L1 per core, 2 MB of L2 per core, and 24 MB of shared L3 cache. In synthetic benchmarks, this processor demonstrates strong multi-threaded performance, scoring 32,544 in Cinebench R23 multicore and 13,668 in Cinebench R20 multicore. Its single-thread performance is equally solid, with a Cinebench R23 single-core score of 4,594 and a Geekbench single-core score of 2,445.

In the context of Control, the CPU’s capabilities are far ahead of what the system can actually deliver in-game. The measured FPS data shows that even at 1080p Low settings, where the CPU would normally be the limiting factor, the average frame rate is only 65 FPS. This is a modest result for a processor that ranks in the 90th percentile among all CPUs. The CPU’s average benchmark score of 49,394 places it just 0.3% ahead of the AMD Ryzen 9 7900 and 0.8% ahead of the Intel Core Ultra 5 245, according to the nearest rivals data. However, these CPU-centric strengths do not translate into high frame rates because the game’s performance is dictated by the graphics solution, not the processor.

The core count and clock speeds matter for this game in a specific way: they ensure that the CPU never becomes a bottleneck, even when the GPU is struggling. With 14 cores and 20 threads, the i5-14600KF can handle Control’s background tasks, physics calculations, and AI routines without breaking a sweat. The high boost clock of 5.30 GHz helps maintain consistent frame pacing in scenes with heavy CPU load, but the data shows that the frame rates are uniformly low across all resolutions, indicating that the CPU’s headroom is irrelevant when the integrated GPU is so weak. The processor’s 24 MB of L3 cache and dual-channel memory support (DDR4/DDR5) provide adequate bandwidth for the game’s data streams, yet the measured FPS figures remain constrained by the Arc B390.

FAQ — 4-6 Q&A pairs answerable from FACT PACK data

*Q: What is the best performance this combo achieves in Control?*

A: The highest average FPS recorded is 65 at 1920x1080 with Low settings. This is the only configuration that approaches playable frame rates, as all other settings and resolutions yield lower averages.

Q: How does the combo rank among all tested combinations?

A: The combo ranks 2551st out of 2888 tested combos, placing it in the bottom 12% of all systems tested in Control. This low ranking reflects the integrated GPU’s limitations rather than the CPU’s capabilities.

Q: Is the CPU or GPU the limiting factor in this game?

A: The GPU is clearly the limiting factor. At 1080p Low, the average FPS is 65, but at 1440p Low it drops to 50, and at 4K Low it falls to 33. This scaling pattern indicates that the integrated GPU saturates quickly as resolution increases, while the CPU has ample headroom.

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

A: At 1920x1080, Low settings produce an average of 65 FPS, while Ultra settings drop to 36 FPS. This represents a 29 FPS reduction, or approximately 45% lower performance, showing that the integrated GPU struggles with higher graphical fidelity.

Q: How does the Intel Arc B390 compare to its nearest rivals in synthetic benchmarks?

A: In the 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 test, the Arc B390 scores 1,482, which is 1.3% higher than the NVIDIA GeForce GT 520MX and 2.7% higher than the NVIDIA GeForce GT 710. This places it in the 9th percentile among all GPUs, indicating very low relative performance.

Q: Are there any settings where the combo maintains a minimum FPS above 30?

A: The only configuration with a recorded minimum FPS above 30 is 1080p Medium, where the minimum is 40 FPS with an average of 46 FPS. At 1440p Medium, the minimum drops to 30 FPS, and at 4K Medium, it falls to 20 FPS.

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

The resolution scaling data in the measured FPS reveals a classic pattern of GPU-bound performance. At 1080p Low, the average FPS is 65. Moving to 1440p Low, the average drops to 50 FPS, a reduction of 15 FPS or approximately 23%. At 4K Low, the average falls further to 33 FPS, which is a 32 FPS drop from 1080p, representing a 49% decrease. This steep decline as resolution increases demonstrates that the integrated GPU is overwhelmed by the pixel count, with the frame rate nearly halving from 1080p to 4K.

The same trend appears at higher settings. At Medium settings, the average FPS goes from 46 at 1080p, to 35 at 1440p (a 24% drop), and down to 24 at 4K (a 48% drop from 1080p). At High settings, the averages are 41 FPS at 1080p, 31 FPS at 1440p, and 21 FPS at 4K, showing a consistent reduction of roughly 10 FPS per resolution step. Ultra settings follow suit: 36 FPS at 1080p, 27 FPS at 1440p, and 18 FPS at 4K.

These numbers indicate that the Arc B390’s rendering capabilities are the sole bottleneck. If the CPU were limiting, the frame rates would remain relatively flat across resolutions, since the processor’s workload does not scale with pixel count. Instead, the measured data shows a linear degradation with resolution, which is the signature of a GPU that lacks the shading units, texture units, and memory bandwidth to sustain high fill rates. The CPU’s 14 cores and 20 threads are more than sufficient for Control at any resolution, but the GPU’s 1,536 shading units and 48 TMUs cannot keep up with the demands of higher resolutions, particularly at 4K where even Low settings only achieve 33 FPS.

How This Combo Ranks — use comboRankInGame vs other tested combos

The combo of the Intel Core i5-14600KF and Intel Arc B390 ranks 2551st out of 2888 tested combos in Control. This ranking places the system in the bottom 11.7% of all configurations tested, which is a poor result for a CPU that is otherwise high-performing. The juxtaposition is stark: the CPU alone ranks in the 90th percentile among all CPUs, while the GPU ranks in the 9th percentile among all GPUs. The combo ranking is dragged down entirely by the integrated graphics solution.

Looking at the nearest rivals for the GPU provides context for this low ranking. The Arc B390 scores 1,482 in 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12, which is just 1.3% higher than the NVIDIA GeForce GT 520MX and 2.5% higher than the NVIDIA GeForce GT 625 OEM. These are entry-level discrete GPUs from over a decade ago, and the Arc B390 barely outperforms them, despite being a much newer product. The GPU’s percentile of 9 indicates that 91% of all GPUs tested perform better, which explains why the combo falls so far down the rankings.

The CPU’s nearest rivals, which include the AMD Ryzen 9 7900 and Intel Core Ultra 5 245, all have average benchmark scores within 0.8% of the i5-14600KF. This shows that the CPU is competitive with high-end processors, but in Control, this competitive edge is nullified. The combo ranking of 2551 suggests that many systems with weaker CPUs but discrete GPUs outperform this configuration. The data demonstrates that pairing a top-tier CPU with an entry-level integrated GPU is a severely unbalanced setup for gaming, and the ranking reflects that imbalance accurately.

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

The Intel Arc B390 is an integrated GPU based on the Xe3-LPG architecture, built on a 3 nm process. It operates with a base clock of 300 MHz and a boost clock of 2500 MHz, with a TDP of 80 W. The GPU has 1,536 shading units, 48 texture mapping units, and 24 raster output units, along with 12 ray tracing cores. Its theoretical performance is rated at 7.680 TFLOPS for FP32 and 15.36 TFLOPS for FP16. However, the memory configuration is the most critical limitation: the GPU uses System Shared memory, meaning it has no dedicated VRAM, and its bandwidth is listed as "System Dependent." This reliance on shared system memory, which is allocated from the CPU’s DDR4/DDR5 pool, severely hampers performance in a memory-intensive game like Control.

The GPU’s synthetic benchmark score of 1,482 in 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 places it in the 9th percentile among all GPUs. Its nearest rivals include the NVIDIA GeForce GT 520MX, which scores 1,463 (1.3% lower), and the NVIDIA GeForce GT 710, which scores 1,443 (2.7% lower). These are extremely low-end parts, and the Arc B390’s performance is comparable to them. In Control, this translates to average frame rates that never exceed 65 FPS, even at the lowest settings and resolution.

The GPU’s role in the measured results is clear: it is the constraining component. The boost clock of 2500 MHz is respectable, but the limited number of shading units (1,536) and the shared memory architecture cannot handle the game’s graphical demands. The pixel rate of 60.00 GPixel/s and texture rate of 120.0 GTexel/s are theoretical maxima that are never approached in practice, as evidenced by the low FPS figures. The 12 ray tracing cores are present, but Control’s ray tracing effects would be impossible to run at playable frame rates given the overall performance level. The GPU’s 80 W TDP is low, but this is irrelevant to performance; the bottleneck is the processing power and memory bandwidth, not power draw.

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

The measured FPS data provides a comprehensive view of the combo’s performance across three resolutions and four settings presets. At 1920x1080, the results are as follows: Low settings produce an average of 65 FPS; Medium settings average 46 FPS with a minimum of 40 and maximum of 53; High settings average 41 FPS; and Ultra settings average 36 FPS. This represents a clear progression where each step up in settings costs roughly 5-10 FPS, with the gap from Low to Ultra being 29 FPS.

At 2560x1440, the performance drops noticeably. Low settings average 50 FPS; Medium settings average 35 FPS with a minimum of 30 and maximum of 40; High settings average 31 FPS; and Ultra settings average 27 FPS. The reduction from 1080p to 1440p is consistent across settings: 15 FPS for Low, 11 FPS for Medium, 10 FPS for High, and 9 FPS for Ultra. This shows that the GPU’s fill rate limits are being hit at 1440p, as the frame rates cluster in the 27-50 range.

At 3840x2160, the performance becomes largely unplayable. Low settings average 33 FPS; Medium settings average 24 FPS with a minimum of 20 and maximum of 27; High settings average 21 FPS; and Ultra settings average 18 FPS. The drop from 1440p to 4K is severe: 17 FPS for Low, 11 FPS for Medium, 10 FPS for High, and 9 FPS for Ultra. At 4K, even Low settings struggle to maintain 30 FPS, and Ultra settings dip to an average of 18 FPS, which is below the threshold for smooth gameplay.

The minimum FPS data, where available, reinforces the GPU bottleneck. At 1080p Medium, the minimum is 40 FPS, which is acceptable. At 1440p Medium, the minimum drops to 30 FPS, which is borderline. At 4K Medium, the minimum falls to 20 FPS, indicating stuttering and frame pacing issues. The lack of min/max data for other settings means only the averages can be used for analysis, but the available data consistently shows that higher resolutions and settings lead to dramatic performance degradation.

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

Based on the measured FPS data, the only settings preset that provides a consistently playable experience is Low at 1920x1080, which yields an average of 65 FPS. This is the sole configuration where the frame rate is comfortably above 60 FPS, making it the recommended choice for any gameplay session. At 1080p Medium, the average drops to 46 FPS with a minimum of 40, which is still playable but may exhibit occasional dips in demanding scenes. The 1080p High preset averages 41 FPS, and 1080p Ultra averages 36 FPS, both of which are below the ideal threshold for smooth action in a game like Control.

At 1440p, the situation worsens. The Low preset averages 50 FPS, which is marginally playable but not ideal. The Medium preset averages 35 FPS with a minimum of 30, which is on the edge of playability. The High and Ultra presets at 1440p average 31 and 27 FPS, respectively, and these are not recommended for any serious gameplay. At 4K, none of the presets are playable, as even Low averages only 33 FPS, and Ultra drops to 18 FPS.

The data suggests that the best experience is achieved by prioritizing resolution over settings. At 1080p Low, the combo delivers 65 FPS, which is 30% higher than 1080p Medium’s 46 FPS and 80% higher than 4K Low’s 33 FPS. If a player wants to experience Control with higher graphical fidelity, 1080p Medium at 46 FPS is the best compromise, as it provides a balance between visual quality and frame rate. However, the min FPS of 40 at this setting ensures that the game remains responsive. For players with 1440p monitors, the Low preset at 50 FPS is the only viable option, but the frame rate is inconsistent with the game’s action-oriented nature. In summary, the measured rows clearly indicate that 1080p Low is the optimal configuration, with 1080p Medium as a secondary choice for those willing to sacrifice some smoothness for better visuals.